Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[fhansen]

Stating God is stuck in linear time is 8 fact the staple of open theism. Open theism reduces God to an exalted man trapped inside linear time, with no foreknowledge or plan. I've debated enough of them to know.

OK-I see what you're getting at. But I'm not sure if that was exactly his claim about evangelicals or not. Maybe the real point is that "linear time" is just plain much easier for any of us to conceive of than eternity.

 

[topcare]

That is not open theism, any more than predestination in general or Molinism, for that matter, is open theism.

I have no idea if this was to me or not since this person is on ignore. I was relating how hard it is for evangelicals have a very hard time understanding that God can apply His redemption to His Mother because some can not fathom God being outside time. I have said nothing wrong in my explanation. I do not like that someone accusing me falsely if that is the case

 

[topcare]

OK-I see what you're getting at. But I'm not sure if that was exactly his claim about evangelicals or not. Maybe the real point is that "linear time" is just plain much easier for any of us to conceive of than eternity.

Exactly

 

[fhansen]

I have no idea if this was to me or not since this person is on ignore. I was relating how hard it is for evangelicals have a very hard time understanding that God can apply His redemption to His Mother because some can not fathom God being outside time. I have said nothing wrong in my explanation

I'll play mediator. It was asserted that you're accusing evangelicals of open theism, a no-no here.

 

[topcare]

I'll play mediator. It was asserted that you're accusing evangelicals of open theism, a no-no here.

I don't even know what that is. I was trying to say what your saying, some evangelicals can be down right mean it seems if he was accusing me without trying to find out what I meant

 

[Root of Jesse]

No one is, because it didn't happen, and there is no evidence it did.

No evidence it didn't, either...

 

[Rick Otto]

Not my Church, I'm not Catholic...

What church is yours?

 

[SpyderByte]

No evidence it didn't, either...

You cannot make a positive assertion and then claim "Well there's no evidence it didn't happen so it must be true!" That's illogical and not an argument for your position. A positive assertion requires positive evidence, or it is simply an assertion. I could say could say "the center of the earth is full of gum balls!" To which you would rightly reply "there is no evidence for that", now if I come back and say "there's no evidence against it either", have I proven my assertion?

 

[SpyderByte]

OK-I see what you're getting at. But I'm not sure if that was exactly his claim about evangelicals or not. Maybe the real point is that "linear time" is just plain much easier for any of us to conceive of than eternity.

No doubt, and I totally agree that there is no way for us to fathom eternity, but outside of open theism, your aren't likely to find a denomination that believes God is stuck in linear time. God is in the past, present, future, all at once, and everything is working exactly to His design. Does that mean He doesn't interact with His creation? Of course not! He just isn't stuck with us as He does. My point with top care is that he throws out baseless assertions with no proof in an effort to flame and goad Protestants without a shred of evidence, and then puts people on ignore when they call him out for it.

 

[SpyderByte]

I have no idea if this was to me or not since this person is on ignore. I was relating how hard it is for evangelicals have a very hard time understanding that God can apply His redemption to His Mother because some can not fathom God being outside time. I have said nothing wrong in my explanation. I do not like that someone accusing me falsely if that is the case

There is zero logical argumentation here. That God is outside of time, none but open theists would argue, but His being outside of time has nothing to do with whether or not Mary was sinless or not. The timing is nothing as He could've made her sinless at the moment of conception and His being in or out of time would hold no bearing.

 

[BobRyan]

Some irrefutable facts.

1. No NT author speaks of Mary as "the Mother of God" or the "Queen of Heaven"

2. When we DO find someone in the NT saying to JESUS "Blessed be Mary your Mother" -- Jesus' response is "ON THE CONTRARY..."

3. Both Stephen and Mary are said in the Bible to be "full of grace" -- nobody dreams up immaculate conception stories for Stephen - and Protestants have no more reason for such dreaming about Mary as about Stephen.

4. Mary confesses Christ as Lord and Savior. yep -- she needed one for "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" which includes Mary when she and Jesus' brothers come to drag him off - saying he has gone mad, during the time of his ministry.

I am confident that holy scripture does not
speak of saint Stephen the deacon and martyr as "kecharitomene".

"Full of Grace" in Greek is --- > [FONT=&quot]plaras karitos, not [/FONT]"kecharitomene"


it is said of Christ and of Stephen -- never of Mary.

1. [FONT=&quot]"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).[/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).[/FONT]

Did you mean to say "Hey Bob - the Bible does not say that Mary was full of grace. That is only said of Christ and of Stephen" -- If that is what you meant to say -- well then I stand corrected.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SpyderByte]

Let's put the Mary as immaculately conceived thing to bed shall we?

This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle[bless and do not curse]kecaritwmenh. Does the term carry an entire doctrine, unknown in the rest of the New Testament, unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church, in itself? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke?

First, let’s look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word[bless and do not curse]caritow. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of[bless and do not curse]caritow[bless and do not curse]at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of[bless and do not curse]caritow“sinlessness.” The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of[bless and do not curse]caritow[bless and do not curse]is at Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (NIV). If the bare term[bless and do not curse]caritow[bless and do not curse]means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.

However, if we look at Mr. Keating’s presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word[bless and do not curse]caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle,[bless and do not curse]kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.” First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something *is* (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…&rdquo, 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…&rdquo, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…&rdquo emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a “perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively” (to borrow from Mr. Keating’s presentation). The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.p...-basis-for-the-immaculate-conception-vintage/

 

[BobRyan]

That Carm website includes this note -

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek--not Latin--but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation--not the Greek original.

So then when resorting to Greek instead of Latin they are stuck with arguments built entirely of 'extreme inference' poured into a single participle to extract a phrase not in the text at all.



in Christ,


Bob
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not my Church, I'm not Catholic. I am a Liturgical Christian who follows verifiable orthodox Christianity not evangelical protestantism

So, which canon of the Bible do you prefer?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think it's a dogma that's been added to the Bible. In fact, no dogmas in the Bible at all. We have examples of dogma in the Bible, but not dogmas.

It's a different thing to say that a dogma is anti-Biblical, or against Scripture, or something.

The sayings of Christ are what we use to build most dogmas.

Someone in the old thread says that there's Catholic dogma that's not Biblical. I'm waiting to see some of those...

MoreCoffee was contending that the ToC is a dogma which has been added to the Bible. I find it curious that you appear to contradict him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

They're all Biblically based. Your opinion is that they're not. Different matter.

So is the unalterable fact that John the Baptist possessed seven heads, but that does not make them necessarily true, does it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

When it comes to my faith, it's never my view.

I find it interesting that your personal views do not coincide with your personal faith.

 

[topcare]

So, which canon of the Bible do you prefer?

I use Catholic and Orthodox and my Church uses the the full NKJV not the chopped up 66 book version

 

[bbbbbbb]

No evidence it didn't, either...

But we have solid physical evidence of the seven heads of John the Baptist. So, does that make it more believable than something without any evidence?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I use Catholic and Orthodox and my Church uses the the full NKJV not the chopped up 66 book version

Thanks. Have you considered other canons as possibilities?