Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[boughtwithaprice]

Usage: The Greek word "ἕως" (heós) is primarily used as a conjunction or preposition to denote a point in time or space. It is often translated as "until" or "till" when referring to time, and "as far as" or "up to" when referring to space. In the New Testament, it frequently marks the end of a period or the extent of an action or event.

11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. (Matthew 10:11)

Implied is that you will no longer be staying at their house after you leave.

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:29-30)

Implied and stated that he would separate the weeds from the wheat after the harvest.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

Implied is that they will see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

These are all the same word as in Matthew 1:35. In each case, there is an implied or stated change after the "until." If Matthew wanted to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, he could have simply said, "Joseph kept her a virgin." He added "until" because his action of keeping her a virgin was "until" she gave birth. Otherwise, there would have been no need to add "until." Grammatically, the Greek word does not require an action after, but the context is what tells us and I think (my opinion) the context of Matthew 1:35 is that they did not have relations until after Jesus was born but did later once married. If you want to argue that I can't prove that, then admit that you can't prove they didn't.

View attachment 357081

View attachment 357082

This source says the action (keeping her a virgin) terminates after the condition is met (Mary giving birth).

I agree you can't prove from that verse alone that Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus, but neither can you disprove it. The Catholic insistence that she remained a virgin for life comes from an extra-biblical belief that we have no record of being taught before the 4th century. If you want to believe that and believe all the references to His brothers and siblings are cousins, then be my guest. I think the most natural and plausible reading is that she did. My salvation does not depend on whether or not Mary had other children. To Catholics, it is taken as an insult to suggest Mary had other children and was not a perpetual virgin. Some Catholics have even gone so far as to argue she felt no pain in childbirth and her hymen was never broken when birthing Jesus. Yes, God could have miraculously enabled Jesus to be born without breaking Mary's hymen, but I see no reason to believe that, and I don't see the reason some argue for it. So what if her hymen was broken? That would not prove she had sex. It can break for other reasons, like birthing a child (and they believe she got pregnant by the Holy Spirit), so why argue for an unbroken hymen? It seems like another attempt to argue Mary was a virgin in everyway possible when Scripture does not demand that.

Scripture does not demand that she lost her virginity either. To argue your point is as foolish as you claim the Catholics of being. It amounts to pot kettle black reasoning

The only way to resolve it is with extra biblical reasoning, as you say. What has the Church taught and when did she teach it?

If you decline to study history, then you are leaning to your own understanding, a position that the Bible does specifically tell you not to do

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Scripture does not demand that she lost her virginity either. To argue your point is as foolish as you claim the Catholics of being. It amounts to pot kettle black reasoning

The only way to resolve it is with extra biblical reasoning, as you say. What has the Church taught and when did she teach it?

If you decline to study history, then you are leaning to your own understanding, a position that the Bible does specifically tell you not to do

I do study history and seek many other scholars teachings and not just my own. The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, prior to the 4th century, is virtually unknown. That's what history tells me.

 

[Valletta]

Usage: The Greek word "ἕως" (heós) is primarily used as a conjunction or preposition to denote a point in time or space. It is often translated as "until" or "till" when referring to time, and "as far as" or "up to" when referring to space. In the New Testament, it frequently marks the end of a period or the extent of an action or event.

11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. (Matthew 10:11)

Implied is that you will no longer be staying at their house after you leave.

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:29-30)

Implied and stated that he would separate the weeds from the wheat after the harvest.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

Implied is that they will see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

These are all the same word as in Matthew 1:35. In each case, there is an implied or stated change after the "until." If Matthew wanted to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, he could have simply said, "Joseph kept her a virgin." He added "until" because his action of keeping her a virgin was "until" she gave birth. Otherwise, there would have been no need to add "until." Grammatically, the Greek word does not require an action after, but the context is what tells us and I think (my opinion) the context of Matthew 1:35 is that they did not have relations until after Jesus was born but did later once married. If you want to argue that I can't prove that, then admit that you can't prove they didn't.

View attachment 357081

View attachment 357082

This source says the action (keeping her a virgin) terminates after the condition is met (Mary giving birth).

I agree you can't prove from that verse alone that Mary lost her virginity after the birth of Jesus, but neither can you disprove it. The Catholic insistence that she remained a virgin for life comes from an extra-biblical belief that we have no record of being taught before the 4th century. If you want to believe that and believe all the references to His brothers and siblings are cousins, then be my guest. I think the most natural and plausible reading is that she did. My salvation does not depend on whether or not Mary had other children. To Catholics, it is taken as an insult to suggest Mary had other children and was not a perpetual virgin. Some Catholics have even gone so far as to argue she felt no pain in childbirth and her hymen was never broken when birthing Jesus. Yes, God could have miraculously enabled Jesus to be born without breaking Mary's hymen, but I see no reason to believe that, and I don't see the reason some argue for it. So what if her hymen was broken? That would not prove she had sex. It can break for other reasons, like birthing a child (and they believe she got pregnant by the Holy Spirit), so why argue for an unbroken hymen? It seems like another attempt to argue Mary was a virgin in everyway possible when Scripture does not demand that.

I have made it clear that that Catholic Church reveres the entire Word of God, and some Catholic doctrine, such as the teaching of the Holy Trinity being one God and Three Persons, is not explicitly in the Bible. We are not Bible-only. That being said, from the Catholic perspective a deep understanding of the Bible means one understands Mary's perpetual virginity. Your conjecture about Mary is extra-Biblical, but you have every right to believe what you wish to believe. Understand that personal interpretation is manmade and thus subject to error.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I do study history and seek many other scholars teachings and not just my own. The belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, prior to the 4th century, is virtually unknown. That's what history tells me.

Where we disagree is on who the church is. You believe the church is the Catholic church. I believe the church is the body of Christ on earth which spans many different denominations and non-denominational churches. I seek the collective reasoning of all. I have read what Catholic scholars say and I have read what other scholars have said.

Catholic scholars are raised in the Catholic church and are required to respect and hold to the historical teachings of the church. They are not free to make fresh insights and conclude things that might be at odds with Catholic teaching no matter how persuaded they might be. To do so would risk excommunication. I am not bound by such limitations. I would compare my education to any Catholic priest. I don't feel bound to hold to traditional Catholic interpretations. While the Catholic church claims its traditions go back to the Apostles, I disagree. That claim means nothing to me. I don't believe the Catholic church has sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. There are many learned scholars outside the Catholic church who have studied the Scriptures, the Greek and the Hebrew and I trust their judgment as worthy of my consideration. So I don't look to the Catholic church to tell me how to interpret Scripture.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I have made it clear that that Catholic Church reveres the entire Word of God, and some Catholic doctrine, such as the teaching of the Holy Trinity being one God and Three Persons, is not explicitly in the Bible. We are not Bible-only. That being said, from the Catholic perspective a deep understanding of the Bible means one understands Mary's perpetual virginity. Your conjecture about Mary is extra-Biblical, but you have every right to believe what you wish to believe. Understand that personal interpretation is manmade and thus subject to error.

Every Catholic pope, cardinal, bishop, and priest is also making a personal interpretation and thus subject to error.

The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible and is not uniquely Catholic doctrine.

 

[Valletta]

Every Catholic pope, cardinal, bishop, and priest is also making a personal interpretation and thus subject to error.

The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible and is not uniquely Catholic doctrine.

Catholics are free to interpret outside of Catholic doctrine and such personal interpretations are indeed subject to error. As to the Trinity, it's not explicitly taught in the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It's not explicitly taught in the Bible.

Sure it is. The OT teaches there is only one God. In the NT, God the Father is called God. Jesus is called God. The Holy Spirit is called God. Genesis has the Godhead saying "Let us create man in our image." One God, three persons. It's there if you look.

Men put words to it like "Trinity" and "persons" but the truth of it was already there in the Scriptures. The Bible teaches it.

 

[David Lamb]

That is your interpretation. The scripture does not say, “…and then Joseph knew his wife and brought forth a son named ….”
That text is not there, so all you have is your feeling and belief that it should be there.
If you are honest, you will see this

We are subject to God. God is not subject to us.
God built His Church, we did not. We look at history and see what our forefathers believed regarding this text

The thought that Mary had other children was taught nowhere in all of Christendom until the modern era. Not even Luther and Calvin believed as much

By your reasoning, God built His Church, and it was mistaken until you were born to set it straight 1900 years later

Is that your position?

If you say that it is not, then let’s see some evidence, because at this time, your argument is not made in scripture. It is in your mind as to what you believe scripture says

Our goal should be to wholeheartedly obey Christ and His Church, not make stuff up as we go along

"Till she had brought forth her firstborn Son," and taking her as his wife strongly suggests that he did know her after Jesus has been born.

My position is certainly not that God built His Church, and it was mistaken until I were born to set it straight 1900 years later. There have been many Christians and Christian churches down the centuries who haven't believed that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. You say that you want some evidence from Scripture that Mary didn't remain a virgin. Well to say that she did, you have to assume that all references to brothers and sisters of Jesus actually refer either to cousins or to children from a supposed former marriage of Joseph. You also have to assume that the Greek word heos, translated as "till" or "until", actually means "even after."

I would make a slight alteration to your sentence about our goal: "Our goal should be to wholeheartedly obey Christ and God's Word, not make stuff up as we go along."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where we disagree is on who the church is. You believe the church is the Catholic church. I believe the church is the body of Christ on earth which spans many different denominations and non-denominational churches. I seek the collective reasoning of all. I have read what Catholic scholars say and I have read what other scholars have said.

Catholic scholars are raised in the Catholic church and are required to respect and hold to the historical teachings of the church. They are not free to make fresh insights and conclude things that might be at odds with Catholic teaching no matter how persuaded they might be. To do so would risk excommunication. I am not bound by such limitations. I would compare my education to any Catholic priest. I don't feel bound to hold to traditional Catholic interpretations. While the Catholic church claims its traditions go back to the Apostles, I disagree. That claim means nothing to me. I don't believe the Catholic church has sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. There are many learned scholars outside the Catholic church who have studied the Scriptures, the Greek and the Hebrew and I trust their judgment as worthy of my consideration. So I don't look to the Catholic church to tell me how to interpret Scripture.

I understand what you are saying. I once believed as you did. I grew up Catholic and felt betrayed by the Church. I was the first class to be raised in the Novus Ordo. Catechesis was so poor that it was disgusting

We were inundated with Marxism and evolution and it looked like the Bible was abandoned. We were too busy making collages and figuring how the Bible and evolution were true that we were not even taught what the Church taught
We were not taught about self denial required to follow Christ and it looked like the most popular were rewarded and the instructors were meely mouthed beta males

It was easy to abandon the Church and become Protestant. It seemed right, but there was always something missing. Once again it was the popular that were celebrated, no self denial, no strong desire for theology just an overwhelming pressure to stay smiling to attract new members.
There was no consistency even across the whole theological spectrum. There was so much free thinking that inconsistency and disagreement became the norm. Logic gave way to feelings, theological truth was looked upon as harsh and we had to be nice to be seeker friendly.

Calvinist theology became too sarcastic and Armenian theology became too flesh dependent

I did not want to be part of the Catholic Church. It was when I studied Thomas Aquinas and the other saints that I found theological consistency.
I still thought I knew more and would not consent to all Catholic teaching.

I can’t explain it exactly but when I read John of the Cross, and when Jesus asks us to deny ourselves in order to follow Him, not just say we deny ourselves but actually practice self mortification it showed the extreme contrast from those that said just take Jesus as savior and all your sins are forgiven past present and future

Now is the day of salvation, today is the day of God’s mercy, repent and believe the Gospel. I let go of myself and submitted to Catholic authority and the sin that had so easily beset me was gone and was replaced with burning love for God.
It was the grace of God, because Satan does not cast out Satan.

There are plenty of crazy Catholic people and there are Protestants that love God and pursue holiness. Catholic theology is just the most consistent in denial of self and pursuit of holiness
Nothing else comes close

I do not wish that you submit to me and I do not believe that I gain points with God for convincing people. I just want you to see God for yourself. He is so much more than what we think. His grace flows through His sacraments. We believe He said let there be light and there was light. He said This is my Body and it is. He has given completely of Himself, we just have to ask Him

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I understand what you are saying. I once believed as you did. I grew up Catholic and felt betrayed by the Church. I was the first class to be raised in the Novus Ordo. Catechesis was so poor that it was disgusting

We were inundated with Marxism and evolution and it looked like the Bible was abandoned. We were too busy making collages and figuring how the Bible and evolution were true that we were not even taught what the Church taught
We were not taught about self denial required to follow Christ and it looked like the most popular were rewarded and the instructors were meely mouthed beta males

It was easy to abandon the Church and become Protestant. It seemed right, but there was always something missing. Once again it was the popular that were celebrated, no self denial, no strong desire for theology just an overwhelming pressure to stay smiling to attract new members.
There was no consistency even across the whole theological spectrum. There was so much free thinking that inconsistency and disagreement became the norm. Logic gave way to feelings, theological truth was looked upon as harsh and we had to be nice to be seeker friendly.

Calvinist theology became too sarcastic and Armenian theology became too flesh dependent

I did not want to be part of the Catholic Church. It was when I studied Thomas Aquinas and the other saints that I found theological consistency.
I still thought I knew more and would not consent to all Catholic teaching.

I can’t explain it exactly but when I read John of the Cross, and when Jesus asks us to deny ourselves in order to follow Him, not just say we deny ourselves but actually practice self mortification it showed the extreme contrast from those that said just take Jesus as savior and all your sins are forgiven past present and future

Now is the day of salvation, today is the day of God’s mercy, repent and believe the Gospel. I let go of myself and submitted to Catholic authority and the sin that had so easily beset me was gone and was replaced with burning love for God.
It was the grace of God, because Satan does not cast out Satan.

There are plenty of crazy Catholic people and there are Protestants that love God and pursue holiness. Catholic theology is just the most consistent in denial of self and pursuit of holiness
Nothing else comes close

I do not wish that you submit to me and I do not believe that I gain points with God for convincing people. I just want you to see God for yourself. He is so much more than what we think. His grace flows through His sacraments. We believe He said let there be light and there was light. He said This is my Body and it is. He has given completely of Himself, we just have to ask Him

I respect your beliefs. I believe I have found all those things outside the Catholic Church.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I understand what you are saying. I once believed as you did. I grew up Catholic and felt betrayed by the Church. I was the first class to be raised in the Novus Ordo. Catechesis was so poor that it was disgusting

We were inundated with Marxism and evolution and it looked like the Bible was abandoned. We were too busy making collages and figuring how the Bible and evolution were true that we were not even taught what the Church taught
We were not taught about self denial required to follow Christ and it looked like the most popular were rewarded and the instructors were meely mouthed beta males

It was easy to abandon the Church and become Protestant. It seemed right, but there was always something missing. Once again it was the popular that were celebrated, no self denial, no strong desire for theology just an overwhelming pressure to stay smiling to attract new members.
There was no consistency even across the whole theological spectrum. There was so much free thinking that inconsistency and disagreement became the norm. Logic gave way to feelings, theological truth was looked upon as harsh and we had to be nice to be seeker friendly.

Calvinist theology became too sarcastic and Armenian theology became too flesh dependent

I did not want to be part of the Catholic Church. It was when I studied Thomas Aquinas and the other saints that I found theological consistency.
I still thought I knew more and would not consent to all Catholic teaching.

I can’t explain it exactly but when I read John of the Cross, and when Jesus asks us to deny ourselves in order to follow Him, not just say we deny ourselves but actually practice self mortification it showed the extreme contrast from those that said just take Jesus as savior and all your sins are forgiven past present and future

Now is the day of salvation, today is the day of God’s mercy, repent and believe the Gospel. I let go of myself and submitted to Catholic authority and the sin that had so easily beset me was gone and was replaced with burning love for God.
It was the grace of God, because Satan does not cast out Satan.

There are plenty of crazy Catholic people and there are Protestants that love God and pursue holiness. Catholic theology is just the most consistent in denial of self and pursuit of holiness
Nothing else comes close

I do not wish that you submit to me and I do not believe that I gain points with God for convincing people. I just want you to see God for yourself. He is so much more than what we think. His grace flows through His sacraments. We believe He said let there be light and there was light. He said This is my Body and it is. He has given completely of Himself, we just have to ask Him

There are a lot of what I call "Christian Lite" churches out there. Some call them "Seeker Friendly." As church attendance has declined, many churches have morphed trying to attract more attendees. Typically it involves non-traditional church names, contemporary music, lots of programs for every age, coffee bars, and short topical series of sermons. It is not that all those things are bad but the overall goal is to create something very contemporary geared to short attention spans and nothing challenging or convicting. I have no interest in such churches. If they are more interested in growing their numbers than growing their people, their focus is wrong.

I have been to Protestant churches that are wholeheartedly committed to self-denial and growth. I believe in more than self-denial. I believe the Spirit of God works through the Word of God to transform us (Romans 12:1-2). That is why the in-depth teaching of the Word is essential in any church I attend. I only attend churches that teach verse-by-verse, book-by-book through the Bible. If there is not at least 30 minutes of in-depth teaching, I am not attending. While not wrong, I don't care for robes, candles, incense, liturgical services, etc. Some people find those things meaningful. I don't. Maybe we will have them in heaven and God will give me a new appreciation for them! I judge a church first and foremost on its doctrine. It all begins there.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There are a lot of what I call "Christian Lite" churches out there. Some call them "Seeker Friendly." As church attendance has declined, many churches have morphed trying to attract more attendees. Typically it involves non-traditional church names, contemporary music, lots of programs for every age, coffee bars, and short topical series of sermons. It is not that all those things are bad but the overall goal is to create something very contemporary geared to short attention spans and nothing challenging or convicting. I have no interest in such churches. If they are more interested in growing their numbers than growing their people, their focus is wrong.

I have been to Protestant churches that are wholeheartedly committed to self-denial and growth. I believe in more than self-denial. I believe the Spirit of God works through the Word of God to transform us (Romans 12:1-2). That is why the in-depth teaching of the Word is essential in any church I attend. I only attend churches that teach verse-by-verse, book-by-book through the Bible. If there is not at least 30 minutes of in-depth teaching, I am not attending. While not wrong, I don't care for robes, candles, incense, liturgical services, etc. Some people find those things meaningful. I don't. Maybe we will have them in heaven and God will give me a new appreciation for them! I judge a church first and foremost on its doctrine. It all begins there.

That is good judgement, and I agree that it is not for the candles and incense that I attend either
I want the in depth study of God and not superficial “window dressings” the candles and incense are there to reverence my Lord whom I seek, but they themselves are not the goal.

Regardless of where you are, you seek God only, and I admire that. If you would have someone that challenges you in your quest for God, that would be better. Superficial people are all around us, in both Catholic and Protestant Churches.
If you would have me read a book that challenged you, I would read it and discuss it with you
I would challenge you to listen to an audiobook that you may find interesting. It is by Alphonse Liguori, one of the best moral theologians of the modern era. It does not argue Catholic vs Protestant just a soul’s relationship to God

It is called Preparation for death. It is an in depth study for one who seeks God. Available on the Audible app

 

[Jan001]

As I previously explained, good works follow salvation. They are the fruit of it and evidence for it. They do not save us but if we are saved we will have good works.

If our faith is not accompanied by our good works, we will not be saved.

1 Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.

If we are saved and do not do good works that God has prepared for us to do, we will be separated along with the other goats and we will not inherit eternal life. Ephesians 2:10


Lukewarm Christians:

Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Matthew 13:22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love (good works).


James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If our faith is not accompanied by our good works, we will not be saved.

1 Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers.

If we are saved and do not do good works that God has prepared for us to do, we will be separated along with the other goats and we will not inherit eternal life. Ephesians 2:10


Lukewarm Christians:

Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Matthew 13:22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love (good works).


James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Until we have faith, and are saved and redeemed, we cannot do truly good works. Our "good works" are but filthy rags before God. Only after we are saved can God do good works through us. We are saved by faith, but faith is followed by good works. Always. You cannot be saved and have no good works unless you die immediately after you are saved. Both Paul and James are saying the same thing. We are saved by faith, but saving faith always produces good works.

 

[Valletta]

. While not wrong, I don't care for robes, candles, incense, liturgical services, etc. Some people find those things meaningful. I don't. Maybe we will have them in heaven and God will give me a new appreciation for them! I judge a church first and foremost on its doctrine. It all begins there.

The candles and incense are supposed to help focus on our worship of God. Our prayers are like incense rising up to God. But the liturgy is by far most important. The original reason for the Catholic Church selecting the books of the Bible was to decide which books could be read in the liturgy. And as I've pointed out before, so much of the mass is described in Revelation.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The candles and incense are supposed to help focus on our worship of God. Our prayers are like incense rising up to God. But the liturgy is by far most important. The original reason for the Catholic Church selecting the books of the Bible was to decide which books could be read in the liturgy. And as I've pointed out before, so much of the mass is described in Revelation.

I understand their purpose. Doesn't help me but that's just me. Might aid others.

I totally disagree with your belief about the selection of the canon and reject that the books were chosen by the Catholic church.

The mass may be modeled after certain aspects of Revelation, but that matters not. We don't see such liturgies in the book of Acts.

 

[Valletta]

I understand their purpose. Doesn't help me but that's just me. Might aid others.

I totally disagree with your belief about the selection of the canon and reject that the books were chosen by the Catholic church.

The mass may be modeled after certain aspects of Revelation, but that matters not. We don't see such liturgies in the book of Acts.

Paul speaks of the liturgy in 1st Corinthians:

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper​

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[c] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Partaking of the Supper Unworthily​

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[e] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come. RSVCE

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Paul speaks of the liturgy in 1st Corinthians:

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper​

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[c] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Partaking of the Supper Unworthily​

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[e] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come. RSVCE

I don't see that as a liturgy. My church does that but no one would call us a liturgical church.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Paul speaks of the liturgy in 1st Corinthians:

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper​

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[c] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Partaking of the Supper Unworthily​

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[e] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come. RSVCE

The term "liturgy" simply means having an order to your service and certain things you repeat and traditions you hold to. All churches have some kind of order to their service. My church's service always begins with prayer, a time of worship, a time of communion, a sermon, a tiny bit more worship while the offering is taken, and then a closing prayer. The prayers are unique each week. Nothing is written down or read. There are no Scripture readings (except usually something is recited during communion), but the sermon covers a passage of Scripture that is read as well as taught.

I have been to Protestant churches that have a prayer of confession and later a prayer of petition. Some have readings at different points in their service. Growing up Catholic, I am familiar with the Catholic liturgy. I believe this is an area of freedom. What we see depicted in the Book of Acts is that their services consisted of prayer, teaching, and communion, along with singing some Psalms and hymns. That is all we are told. It makes no mention of an order, readings, types of prayers, etc. Since those early services were often in people's homes I doubt very much they were very formal or the teacher wore vestments, had incense, etc. Liturgies soon developed and were used but the Bible does not prescribe any specific liturgy. There is freedom in how we construct our services. I think as long as the main elements (prayer, communion, worship, and teaching) are present, the rest is up to us. There is nothing wrong with a liturgical service. There is nothing wrong with candles, incense, vestments, etc. These are all allowable. I personally prefer a more simple service like my church has and no vestments, incense, candles, etc, but that is just me. I have no problem with my church changing things up from time to time. I like that each time someone prays, they pray from their heart whatever words come to them and are appropriate. I respect each church's approach, providing it's Biblical, which most are. I personally don't care for worship music that sounds like a rock concert but I like contemporary music in church as well as Psalms and hymns. I am not a big fan of music teams that prance around the stage and make a big production of it. I find that distracting but to each his own. I once went to a Christian conference in Southern California and met these kids who went to a heavy metal Christian church. Not my cup of tea but they were on fire for the Lord and I loved that. While some would debate the appropriateness of their choice of musical style during worship (which I understand), I was still glad they loved the Lord. That is one reason why there are "so many Protestant denominations." People respond to different types of services, music, and so on. There is freedom. We all hold in common the same fundamental beliefs but there are a lot of areas of freedom and so I have no problem with different churches doing things a little differently. I don't feel there is any one right or best way and everything should be the same. However, for those who want that sameness and tradition, I say amen.

 

[Valletta]

The term "liturgy" simply means having an order to your service and certain things you repeat and traditions you hold to. All churches have some kind of order to their service. My church's service always begins with prayer, a time of worship, a time of communion, a sermon, a tiny bit more worship while the offering is taken, and then a closing prayer. The prayers are unique each week. Nothing is written down or read. There are no Scripture readings (except usually something is recited during communion), but the sermon covers a passage of Scripture that is read as well as taught.

I have been to Protestant churches that have a prayer of confession and later a prayer of petition. Some have readings at different points in their service. Growing up Catholic, I am familiar with the Catholic liturgy. I believe this is an area of freedom. What we see depicted in the Book of Acts is that their services consisted of prayer, teaching, and communion, along with singing some Psalms and hymns. That is all we are told. It makes no mention of an order, readings, types of prayers, etc. Since those early services were often in people's homes I doubt very much they were very formal or the teacher wore vestments, had incense, etc. Liturgies soon developed and were used but the Bible does not prescribe any specific liturgy. There is freedom in how we construct our services. I think as long as the main elements (prayer, communion, worship, and teaching) are present, the rest is up to us. There is nothing wrong with a liturgical service. There is nothing wrong with candles, incense, vestments, etc. These are all allowable. I personally prefer a more simple service like my church has and no vestments, incense, candles, etc, but that is just me. I have no problem with my church changing things up from time to time. I like that each time someone prays, they pray from their heart whatever words come to them and are appropriate. I respect each church's approach, providing it's Biblical, which most are. I personally don't care for worship music that sounds like a rock concert but I like contemporary music in church as well as Psalms and hymns. I am not a big fan of music teams that prance around the stage and make a big production of it. I find that distracting but to each his own. I once went to a Christian conference in Southern California and met these kids who went to a heavy metal Christian church. Not my cup of tea but they were on fire for the Lord and I loved that. While some would debate the appropriateness of their choice of musical style during worship (which I understand), I was still glad they loved the Lord. That is one reason why there are "so many Protestant denominations." People respond to different types of services, music, and so on. There is freedom. We all hold in common the same fundamental beliefs but there are a lot of areas of freedom and so I have no problem with different churches doing things a little differently. I don't feel there is any one right or best way and everything should be the same. However, for those who want that sameness and tradition, I say amen.

I can understand the Protestant attitude to break away from the liturgy of the Catholic Church. Order has been and remains important for the Catholic Church. For the Last Supper, the first mass, Jesus very much followed the Jewish liturgy. In Saint Clement's letter to the Corinthians from the first century, he speaks of keeping such order for the priests:

Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.​

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 41. Continuation of the Same Subject.​

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org