Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

[bbbbbbb]

Let's just say I've studied Reformed doctrine, Evangelical doctrine, Lutheran doctrine, Anglican doctrine, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Church of Christ, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, and the list could go on and on.... and all of their Biblical reasoning.

The differences are not minor, espcially in matters of salvation and all claim their beliefs are based on Scripture.

That is the glory of sola-Scriptura.

So, which Protestant denomination denies salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[narnia59]

So, which Protestant denomination denies salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?

I don’t know of any Christian group that denies salvation through faith in Christ. What is meant by "faith," that’s another story.

Some who embrace sola-Scriptura profess salvation by “faith alone” although not all do.

Those who profess salvation by “faith alone,” are in disagreement about what is a “work” and what is part of a “saving faith.” Some for example view Baptism as a “work" and say it's not necessary, some view it as work God does in us so it doesn’t count as a “work” at all. Some view repentance as a “work,” and say it’s not necessary; others say it’s not a work but part of a “saving faith” and is necessary. Some view the action of making a free will decision to accept Christ as a “work” because they believe faith is given by God to only the “elect” and the grace to accept the gift is irresistible. Others believe we have free will to reject the gift. Some believe that if you don’t manifest visible spiritual gifts you are not saved.

And on the topic of whether or not you can lose your salvation, which is not something “minor” in the scheme of things, it appears that those who embrace sola-Scriptura are about evenly divided.

 

[Major1]

I have done extensive Bible work on this and other subjects, to include Biblical authority. Based upon that study, I will indeed accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, especially over that of a random internet poster.




I really am not following what your point is here. I am simply pointing out that it is apparent that pain was to be part of childbirth even before the fall and after the fall was to be increased. So why would you contend that if Mary had pain during childbirth that means she was not Immaculately conceived?





“You may be interested in knowing that in NO WAY is the mother of Christ Biblically symbolized as a woman in a wilderness.”

No, she simply had to flee into the wilderness after she gave birth when Herod is trying to kill her son.

I do not have any disagreement with the idea that the image can represent Israel. I’m not sure where you have the idea that a Biblical image represents only “one” thing. Christ comes forth from Israel. He most specifically comes forth from the person of Mary. The appearance of the Ark of the Covenant in this scene (which had been lost for hundreds of years) points specifically to Mary and I’m sure if you’ve taken the time to do the BIBLE work on that subject, you will recognize that the Ark is an archetype of Mary.






You do not agree that metaphorical birth pangs are found in Scripture? You do not agree that this is not a literal depiction of the birth of Christ? You do not agree that it would make sense that in a non-literal depiction of the birth of Christ, something like birth pain would be non-literal? Maybe some more specifics would be helpful.



So I assume you would reject anything that was added to Scripture after the Torah when this command was issued by God to not “add” anything additional.

Your response is classic Roman Catholic. I actually did not expect anything other than that.

As such, within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries but unfortunity they have no basis in Bible truth.

For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the Apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more.

You are welcome to follow your traditions as I have no need to argue with you.

 

[narnia59]

Your response is classic Roman Catholic. I actually did not expect anything other than that.

Nor did I from you. Every individual thinking they've received some special gift to interpret Scripture infallibly for us all.

 

[Major1]

Let's just say I've studied Reformed doctrine, Evangelical doctrine, Lutheran doctrine, Anglican doctrine, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Church of Christ, Methodists, Calvinists, Arminians, and the list could go on and on.... and all of their Biblical reasoning.

The differences are not minor, espcially in matters of salvation and all claim their beliefs are based on Scripture.

That is the glory of sola-Scriptura.

It is amazing to me that you have done so much study and yet still accept the non-Biblical traditions and dogmas of the RCC.

I agree.....the differences are not minor.

Someone has to be wrong as both theologies can not be correct.

For me....I will accept the doctrines which are found in the Bible and not those that come from men who decide on traditions.

 

[Major1]

Nor did I from you. Every individual thinking they've received some special gift to interpret Scripture infallibly for us all.

I never said that I received any special information to interpret Scriptures.

YOU are the one who said you have done all the studies in all those other theologies.

I just read the Bible and believe what it says without anyone telling me what it says.
Done it that way now for about 50 years.

 

[Major1]

I don’t know of any Christian group that denies salvation through faith in Christ. What is meant by "faith," that’s another story.

Some who embrace sola-Scriptura profess salvation by “faith alone” although not all do.

Those who profess salvation by “faith alone,” are in disagreement about what is a “work” and what is part of a “saving faith.” Some for example view Baptism as a “work" and say it's not necessary, some view it as work God does in us so it doesn’t count as a “work” at all. Some view repentance as a “work,” and say it’s not necessary; others say it’s not a work but part of a “saving faith” and is necessary. Some view the action of making a free will decision to accept Christ as a “work” because they believe faith is given by God to only the “elect” and the grace to accept the gift is irresistible. Others believe we have free will to reject the gift. Some believe that if you don’t manifest visible spiritual gifts you are not saved.

And on the topic of whether or not you can lose your salvation, which is not something “minor” in the scheme of things, it appears that those who embrace sola-Scriptura are about evenly divided.

What about the Mormons?

What about the Catholics?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace, and water baptism but in order to stay saved you must do various things. If you do something considered to be a “mortal sin” and die, you will go to hell, so to escape hell you must confess your sin to a priest and seek forgiveness and do penance.

 

[narnia59]

What about the Mormons?

What about the Catholics?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace, and water baptism but in order to stay saved you must do various things. If you do something considered to be a “mortal sin” and die, you will go to hell, so to escape hell you must confess your sin to a priest and seek forgiveness and do penance.

The Mormons have a non-Trinitarian theology which by definition of this forum makes them not Christian.

Catholics believe we are saved by grace through faith. We do not however, believe as some, that Biblical faith is one that does not require repentance or obedience to Christ. As Hebrews 5:9 tells us, Christ is the source of salvation for all who "obey him." So Baptism is not optional for those who have the opportunity to receive it, because Christ commanded it and obedience is not optional. Sanctification is not optional and is something we must strive for (Hebrews 12:14). And the only way any of it is possible is because of God's grace. God's grace enables us to believe (not compels us, as a Calvinist would teach). And God's grace enables us to indeed strive for the holiness without which we will not see the Lord. It's all grace in the Catholic view of things.

Multiple Christian denominations that are sola-Scriptura also teach that it's possible to fall from grace and lose your salvation, not just Catholics. Those include Lutherans, General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Amish, Mennonites, Methodists, and the Assembly of God.

And the concept of mortal sin was not made up by Catholics (1 John 5:16).

 

[narnia59]

I never said that I received any special information to interpret Scriptures.

YOU are the one who said you have done all the studies in all those other theologies.

I just read the Bible and believe what it says without anyone telling me what it says.
Done it that way now for about 50 years.

You and countless thousands of others have done it that way, do not agree, but nonetheless feel like you have the authority to teach. That authority was given to the Church.

 

[narnia59]

It is amazing to me that you have done so much study and yet still accept the non-Biblical traditions and dogmas of the RCC.

I agree.....the differences are not minor.

Someone has to be wrong as both theologies can not be correct.

For me....I will accept the doctrines which are found in the Bible and not those that come from men who decide on traditions.

I assume you believe in the Trinity? You know that the Jehovah Witnesses say that is a dogma that is non-Biblical and made up by the Catholic Church don't you? Their reasoning is exactly the same as yours about other dogmas the Church has professed.

If you've never read the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman it might be worth your time. He explains how the complaints of Protestants that Catholics "made up" some doctrines, yet accept others like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union are problematic because they all follow the same path of development.

And it's not "both" theologies. It's dozens of them. Most of them from people who claim their theology is the correct one based on Scripture alone.

 

[narnia59]

Your response is classic Roman Catholic. I actually did not expect anything other than that.

As such, within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries but unfortunity they have no basis in Bible truth.

For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the Apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more.

You are welcome to follow your traditions as I have no need to argue with you.

And the dogma of the Trinity some say the Church made up in the 4th century, don't forget that one.

And you are welcome to follow your traditions as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What about the Mormons?

What about the Catholics?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you are saved by grace, and water baptism but in order to stay saved you must do various things. If you do something considered to be a “mortal sin” and die, you will go to hell, so to escape hell you must confess your sin to a priest and seek forgiveness and do penance.

That is why I limited my post to only Protestant denominations. Mormons would like to align themselves with any and every Christian body, but, like the JW's are beyond the pale of Protestantism. Likewise, as you have pointed out, the Roman Catholics as well as the Eastern Orthodox do not proclaim a gospel of saving grace through Jesus Christ apart from works.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Mormons have a non-Trinitarian theology which by definition of this forum makes them not Christian.

Catholics believe we are saved by grace through faith. We do not however, believe as some, that Biblical faith is one that does not require repentance or obedience to Christ. As Hebrews 5:9 tells us, Christ is the source of salvation for all who "obey him." So Baptism is not optional for those who have the opportunity to receive it, because Christ commanded it and obedience is not optional. Sanctification is not optional and is something we must strive for (Hebrews 12:14). And the only way any of it is possible is because of God's grace. God's grace enables us to believe (not compels us, as a Calvinist would teach). And God's grace enables us to indeed strive for the holiness without which we will not see the Lord. It's all grace in the Catholic view of things.

Multiple Christian denominations that are sola-Scriptura also teach that it's possible to fall from grace and lose your salvation, not just Catholics. Those include Lutherans, General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Amish, Mennonites, Methodists, and the Assembly of God.

And the concept of mortal sin was not made up by Catholics (1 John 5:16).

Catholics do, indeed, profess to be saved by grace through faith, but this "salvation" is entirely conditional upon one's works, not merely while on earth, but after physical death, the torment of Purgatory where the remaining sins must be purged by an infinitely loving God.

 

[narnia59]

Catholics do, indeed, profess to be saved by grace through faith, but this "salvation" is entirely conditional upon one's works, not merely while on earth, but after physical death, the torment of Purgatory where the remaining sins must be purged by an infinitely loving God.

What Catholics recognize is that sanctification is neither optional nor is it a by-product of salvation. Being transformed into the image of Christ is the heart of what it means to be saved. Our salvation is not complete, nor are we ready for a life in heaven until we have been perfected in charity. This is why Scripture refers to those in heaven as the "spirits of just men made perfect" (Hebrews 12:23).

And this holiness is something we must strive for (Hebrews 12:14). It is a process that requires our participation for is a true yielding of our will and allowing the Holy Spirit to change us. We recognize that our ability to yield our will is itself enabled by God's grace for we are not capable of doing this without divine assistance.

Regarding a "loving God" -- loving Fathers discipline. Scripture is quite clear about this.

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons?— “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.( Hebrews 12:5-11)

For those who have not been perfected in charity at the time of death, Purgatory is simply the continuation of our loving Father's disipline to complete the work He's begun so that we may share his holiness. Torment? Well, Scripture does say that for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, so if you want to refer to God treating us as sons and not illegitimate children as "torment" certainly your choice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What Catholics recognize is that sanctification is neither optional nor is it a by-product of salvation. Being transformed into the image of Christ is the heart of what it means to be saved. Our salvation is not complete, nor are we ready for a life in heaven until we have been perfected in charity. This is why Scripture refers to those in heaven as the "spirits of just men made perfect" (Hebrews 12:23).

And this holiness is something we must strive for (Hebrews 12:14). It is a process that requires our participation for is a true yielding of our will and allowing the Holy Spirit to change us. We recognize that our ability to yield our will is itself enabled by God's grace for we are not capable of doing this without divine assistance.

Regarding a "loving God" -- loving Fathers discipline. Scripture is quite clear about this.

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons?— “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.( Hebrews 12:5-11)

For those who have not been perfected in charity at the time of death, Purgatory is simply the continuation of our loving Father's disipline to complete the work He's begun so that we may share his holiness. Torment? Well, Scripture does say that for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, so if you want to refer to God treating us as sons and not illegitimate children as "torment" certainly your choice.

Purgatory is, indeed, a curious concept. In traditional Catholicism the only difference between it and hell was the duration, the former being eternal and the latter of some unknown quantity of time. Today, however, Purgatory is widely marketed in the Catholic Church as being a relatively pleasant experience, akin to taking a refreshing shower before entering the gates of heaven. It seems peculiar to me that individuals would actively seek indulgences to reduce one's sentence in Purgatory, yet many Catholics have spent enormous fortunes and exerted massive effort for that very end.

 

[narnia59]

Purgatory is, indeed, a curious concept. In traditional Catholicism the only difference between it and hell was the duration, the former being eternal and the latter of some unknown quantity of time. Today, however, Purgatory is widely marketed in the Catholic Church as being a relatively pleasant experience, akin to taking a refreshing shower before entering the gates of heaven. It seems peculiar to me that individuals would actively seek indulgences to reduce one's sentence in Purgatory, yet many Catholics have spent enormous fortunes and exerted massive effort for that very end.

Purgatory is a Scriptural concept that we are required to be perfected in charity before we can abide fully in the presence of God, in heaven. Simple as that. If you can find any Scriptures that support full sanctification is not necessary, or that it occurs completely in all believers before death, please provide such.

There is actually very little in official Church teaching about Purgatory. You are welcome to cite any official documents (councils, papal encylicals, universal catechisms) that support your view of what the Church teaches about Purgatory.

Whatever you think you know about Catholic teaching beyond those official sources is of no significance.

 

[narnia59]

Purgatory is, indeed, a curious concept. In traditional Catholicism the only difference between it and hell was the duration, the former being eternal and the latter of some unknown quantity of time. Today, however, Purgatory is widely marketed in the Catholic Church as being a relatively pleasant experience, akin to taking a refreshing shower before entering the gates of heaven. It seems peculiar to me that individuals would actively seek indulgences to reduce one's sentence in Purgatory, yet many Catholics have spent enormous fortunes and exerted massive effort for that very end.

For example, your claim that there is no difference between hell and Purgatory exception duration. False. The catechism says that "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned"

People tend to forget that "fire" images abound in Scripture that have nothing to do with hell but everything to do with refinement and purification and images of God.

God manifested in the burning bush (Exodus Chapter 3)
God descending on Mt. Sinai as fire (Exodus Chapter 19)
God as a pillar of fire leading the Israelites across the desert (Exodus Chapter 13)
Elijah taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings Chapter 2)
Tongues of fire at Pentecost (Acts Chapter 2)
Hebrews 12:29 says “for our God is a consuming fire”
Revelation 1:14 say of Christ that “his eyes were like a flame of fire”

And then St. Paul's description of the burning away of the wood, hay, stubble in our lives on the day of judgment:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For example, your claim that there is no difference between hell and Purgatory exception duration. False. The catechism says that "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned"

People tend to forget that "fire" images abound in Scripture that have nothing to do with hell but everything to do with refinement and purification and images of God.

God manifested in the burning bush (Exodus Chapter 3)
God descending on Mt. Sinai as fire (Exodus Chapter 19)
God as a pillar of fire leading the Israelites across the desert (Exodus Chapter 13)
Elijah taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings Chapter 2)
Tongues of fire at Pentecost (Acts Chapter 2)
Hebrews 12:29 says “for our God is a consuming fire”
Revelation 1:14 say of Christ that “his eyes were like a flame of fire”

And then St. Paul's description of the burning away of the wood, hay, stubble in our lives on the day of judgment:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Given the fact that Purgatory is an invention of the Catholic Church and no other Christian bodies believe in it, it does strike me as more than peculiar that the Catholic Church has managed to spin their "proof texts" so radically. However, with a chap in Rome who can speak infallibly I suppose all things are possible.

 

[narnia59]

Given the fact that Purgatory is an invention of the Catholic Church and no other Christian bodies believe in it, it does strike me as more than peculiar that the Catholic Church has managed to spin their "proof texts" so radically. However, with a chap in Rome who can speak infallibly I suppose all things are possible.

Yes, just like those who claim the dogma of the Trinity is an invention of the Catholic Church. I would again suggest reading Newman on the development of Christian doctine if you have not.

What has always struck me as more than peculiar is that Protestants have no trouble with the idea that God could use sinful, fallible men to write infallible Scripture. Yet the idea that God would also choose to use sinful, fallible men to guarantee that Truth is known down through the ages is to be rejected, and even mocked. But of course that acceptance would require letting go of the idea that the infallible interpreter selected was not oneself. Regardless that view is perplexing as it places an extraordinarly low value on Sacred Scripture to believe that God left it in our hands to be bandied about to support any and all opinions an individual can devise.

Nonetheless, regardless of your view that the Truth is to be found in some sort of majority opinion poll, that is not the method that Christ established. He founded a Church to be the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[Major1]

And the dogma of the Trinity some say the Church made up in the 4th century, don't forget that one.

And you are welcome to follow your traditions as well.

I would say to you that the Trinity is taught in the whole Bible from Genesis 1 to the Revelation.

It comes under the same theological teaching as the Rapture which is called....
"Implied Truth".