Co-Redeemer?

[artnalex]

We know of the Spirit from the Spirit coming down at His baptism, and of course the Father because Christ prayed to the Father, and the implication of the verse is that all of this is One in Christ.

No that is not necessarily the implication. That is YOUR implication, because you were already lead to believe it. It is not obvious unless you have some prior acceptance of the Trinity. Nothing you have provided makes the Trinity known and obvious. It only points to a God, but not necessarily three persons in one being, or several Gods.

 

[Shane Roach]

No that is not necessarily the implication. That is YOUR implication, because you were already lead to believe it. It is not obvious unless you have some prior acceptance of the Trinity. Nothing you have provided makes the Trinity known and obvious. It only points to a God, but not necessarily three persons in one being, or several Gods.

I have answered this every way I can concieve of. I have had prior knowledge of the Catholic understanding regarding Mary as well. Why then is it not just as easy to put two and two together?

All I can tell you is the teaching on the Trinity seems very very clear to me, despite all of the various claims that it is not clear being made.

There appears to be nothing as clear as this regarding Catholic Mariology.

I have no idea why several keep attributing all this to me, as if I had anything to do with either teachings on the Trinity or teachings on Mary. I have asked several times for people to please stop doing that. I don't HAVE a predisposition here. If I am bothering people, as I have said repeatedly, I will go away. I have been told I am ok to ask things, and as long as everyone is happy I will ask. But I am not responsible for this debate. It existed way before my time. Ok please?

 

[Skripper]

If one had to have prior knowledge of the Trinity to work this verse out, I don't think the doctrine of the Trinity would ever have been worked out at all.

While you are perfectly free to believe this if you choose, you would be incorrect in this belief. Because the historical facts and truth simply do not line up with and do not agree with this belief/understanding since prior knowledge, understanding and belief in the Trinity existed well before (centuries before, actually) there existed a canonized New Testament Bible. It would also not be unreasonable to infer that prior knowledge and belief in the Trinity not only existed prior to the canonization of the NT, but indeed prior to the first line of NT Scripture ever being written at all, since any biblical scholar worth his salt acknowledges as historical fact that no NT Scripture even began to be written until decades after Christ's ascension.

Shane, I don't know how you might imagine that Trinitarian doctrine actually got "worked out" but I can assure you, it wasn't by some guys sitting around with Bible on knee, deducing it from Scripture alone. Because the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out at the (Catholic) Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., well before there was a final version of the NT Bible. Then, later (much later) other (also Catholic) Councils put together and actually canonized what we now have as the NT Bible . . . and they also brought to the table prior knowledge and belief in the doctrine of the Trinity when doing that. So, like I said, you're perfectly free to believe whatever you want. But the historical facts simply don't line up with the beliefs you are embracing.

Also, it's unlikely that this discussion is going to be very productive. Because by your own admission you do not, as yet, possess adequate knowledge, (and are therefore not equipped), to engage in this type of discussion. By your own admission, you are unfamiliar with historical Christianity. The simple truth is you just don't know the historical facts or the historical realities behind either Mariology, or the Trinity, or even the very Bible which you attempt to use to argue against Catholic teaching. So you cling to and argue from personal opinion instead, omitting historical events and reality in favor of basing your argument's solely on your personal interpretations and, to an extent, not recognizing your own preconceptions, prior beliefs, and inherent, pre-existing biases that you bring to the discussion. It's almost pointless, therefore, to have a discussion like this. It's a little like trying to have a book discussion when one of the participants is unfamiliar with the book. And it's exactly like trying to have a discussion on historical events where one of the participants isn't familiar with the events that took place. You would do yourself, (as well as all those you have these sorts of discussions with), a great service if you were to spend some time in historical study before attempting to engage in these types of discussions.

The thing is, it is clear that Christ and the Father are separate because Christ prays to the Father.

While this is true, it would be just as true if the Godhead consisted of two Persons . . . or two hundred. The truth is, and this is contrary to your assertions here, that it is impossible to deduce, from Scripture alone, the formulated teachings on the Trinity, which all (mainline) Christians accept. It's just a fact, whether you acknowledge it or not, that one must bring not only prior knowledge of the Trinity to Scripture to see it in there, but also prior belief in it as well. If you doubt this, I suggest you speak to a Muslim, a Jew or even a Mormon, a Unitarian, a Oneness Pentecostal, or a JW. The last four all profess to be Christians, yet all reject the Trinity, going by their interpretations of the Bible combined with the prior knowledge and prior beliefs they bring to Scripture.

The Spirit descends on Jesus when John the Baptist baptises Him, yet Christ still prays to the Father. This later gets summed up nicely in Colosians. I don't understand how this compares to the discussion about Mary. Perhaps a different example?

Supplying additional scriptural verses would also be almost pointless, since you would simply either interpret them differently, based upon your own pre-existing beliefs, or ignore them entirely and instead turn to other scriptural verses which, in your own opinion and based on your own personal interpretations and pre-existing beliefs would seem, to you, to reinforce your own position. It is also arguing from a position that both Catholics and the Bible itself reject . . . the underlying belief in/position that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and sole source of Christian truth. This belief and underlying assumption is itself not only contrary to historical Christianity, it is contrary to what the Bible itself teaches. The Bible is not a catechism book, Shane. And it does not claim for itself to be either the sole rule of faith or the sole source of Christian truth. In fact, it actually says quite the opposite about itself with regards to this.

But back to the passage you allude to above. Again, one cannot derive the doctrine of the Trinity from this, or any other verse or combination of verses, without both prior knowledge and prior belief in the Trinity. To deny this is, simply put, intellectual dishonesty. The reason this ties into Marian belief is because, with certain doctrines that are not explicit in Scripture but implicit, it is similar in the respect that we will see in Scripture what we already know, through prior knowledge and belief. The only question then becomes, is our prior knowledge and belief correct or incorrect, since it determines how we read and interpret Scripture.

I don't believe the jump from not believing the Majesterium is nfallible in its authority to depending more on the fundamentals of the Bible is necessarily a decision made by ego.

It's part of it, in most cases, when one refuses to look at or rely on any historical realities and instead prefers to rely solely on one's own self, one's own personal interpretations, without acknowledging where, or even how, one came to know and believe whatever prior knowledge and belief one brings to Scripture.

Also, there are numerous passages in the New Testament about not following false teachings, and how to tell one from the other.

Yet the Bible also tells us which authority/teaching to follow. And it is not the self, nor is it one's own personal biblical interpretations. Read, and absorb, the whole Bible, including those portions that don't agree with your position.

I think at the time of the Protestant revolution, there were some pretty obvious problems with Catholicism. Not to say protestantism branched off in perfection. Luther had his own problems it seems, from what I have read. What it seems to have brought to the fore, though, is that the institution of the Catholic church simply is not capable of defying the declarations in the NT that the spirit of Anti-Christ would come and make inroads, as "reefs in your love feasts," and so on.

While there's no doubt there were some abuses in the Church at the time of the Protestant Revolution, abuses don't equate with false dogmas or the Catholic Church defying declarations in the NT, nor suggest that the spirit of the Anti-Christ is at the helm of the Catholic Church . . . sorry. And I sort of resent the implication.

I do not single out Catholicism, I want to be very, very, very clear about that. I think all denominations have their struggles in this arena. I don't attribute all of protestantism, however, to egotism.

Well, I didn't mean to attribute "all of Protestantism to egotism" (since much if not most of it can be attributed to an honest seeking of Christian truth), but rather that, as it has evolved, it has become more and more reliant and dependent on the self, on the individual, as the final authority, based on one's own, personal opinions and personal interpretations. And in a theological system that is so dependent on the self, on the "individual," it is inevitable that personal pride and ego not only will play a role, but that that role will increase, over time, just as it has. Until we get exactly what we have now . . . a theological belief system where, basically, each person is his/her own "pope" and "magisterium." It's the nature of the system itself. So who is right and who is wrong? Which denominations have it right and which have it wrong? Do you have it right? And, therefore, any denomination, insofar as they teach something you agree with (according to your biblical interpretation, despite the fact you don't know historical Christianity), also have it right, but they are wrong insofar as they teach something you believe is wrong or disagree with? You don't think that sort of thinking and reasoning is, at least partially, linked to ego? C’mon, now.

I was aaah, hoping for something perhaps of a favorite of yours or something? *grins* Thanks for your time!

I've read too many. I don't want to overwhelm you. That's why I suggested you do an online search yourself, from both Catholic and Protestant sources (even though the original sources/documents are all Catholic, since there were no “Protestants,” per se, in the early Church). But if I were "forced" to recommend something, I would suggest reading The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens. It is a fairly nice compilation and cross-section and sampling of many early Christian writings (though, obviously, not exhaustive). I would also suggest reading, in their entirety and from the primary sources, some of the writings from some of the early Christians that Jurgens provides sample of. Happy reading.

 

[D'Ann]

Wow... Dave... excellent post. thank you... how do you think... so early in the morning? LOL

D'Ann

 

[Skripper]

Wow... Dave... excellent post. thank you... how do you think... so early in the morning? LOL

D'Ann

 

[WarriorAngel]

i HAVE NO PROBLEM GOING TO MY MOTHER THRU THE ADOPTION OF JESUS OF ALL PPL...AND ASKING HER TO PLEASE GO TO HER SON AND REQUEST FAVORS ON MY BEHALF.

bESIDES...SEEN THE MIRACLES.

Ok..ignore the caps...LOL

Anyway...I will continue asking thru the Saints. Since it says 'primary' mediator and not 'solo' mediator..in Greek. {Which means we can ask the Saints and Mary to request favors to the primary Mediator..Jesus.}

For even those who do not believe in Mary's 'special' relationship to Christ...they still will turn to another sinner and ask for prayers.
ALL who are on earth are sinners...how is it we trust their merit of faith and prayer...but not the closest person to Jesus Himself?

When we die...might Jesus say to us.."Welcome...my Mother has told Me so much about you."

IF someone does not wish to ask her for favors from her Son, that is their option...but we dont need an exact quote from scripture to realise a bond a mother and child has.

Especially one so 'full of grace' {Filled with the Lord}
And one so humble to the Father's will.

Her life and role are obvious in scripture...
Being the Handmaid to the Lord...she is in fact the initial believer of the Christ..and by her humbleness to the Father in allowing His will be done...we have Jesus. Basically...if it were not for her ...Jesus would not have come to earth.

Why is that so impossible to understand?

She found FAVOR with God.
What is favor?...it means the root word of FAVORITE.

Simeon turned to her and said...
Luke 2, 34
And Simeon Blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and the rise of many in Isreal, and for a sign that shall be contradicted. AND THY OWN SOUL a SWORD SHALL PIERCE, that the thoughts OF MANY HEARTS WILL BE REVEALED."

I can then point out scripture and understand that the Apostles knew she would KNOW hearts...
Only God knows hearts..but because of her role as the Mother of Christ, she has been given a grace that mere humans cannot understand.

What favor is that from God? A mighty favor..and one worth noting.

The fact she knows hearts...pierces her own heart. For the many who turn away from her Beloved Son.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Shane, you continue to point to the Bible and ask "where does it say..." Do you not understand that this is only a partial truth to God's word?

Remember, prior to 393 A.D., there was no Bible. Thus, the only direction of truth in which the Church had prior to this time was Sacred Tradition. It was Tradition that helped the Catholic Church discern which books to include and exclude from the New Testament.

Below is something I wrote a while back regarding this topic. Perhaps it will help explain a few things;
.
.
.
.
10. Where did the Bible come from?
After a few hundred years following the death of Christ, the Catholic Church saw the need to put together a unified compilation of documents to set as a standard written authority. At the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., the Church met under the authority of Pope Damasus I and gathered all writings she had discerned to be “God breathed”, while discarding all other heretical documents. It was at this council that the Church--through the knowledge of what the Apostles taught and the grace of the Holy Spirit--finally decided on the twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament. This list (canon) was reaffirmed at subsequent councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.). Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition then became the centerpiece of authority for the Catholic Church (together, both make up our Deposit of Faith), as both were officially acknowledged as divinely inspired and infallible, meaning; they cannot be added to, subtracted from, or changed in any way. And as such, the Catholic Church has sought to preserve Scripture and Tradition in their entirety throughout history.




11. “Bible Alone” vs. “Bible and Tradition
For thousands of years, the Catholic Church has held the Bible and Tradition as her final authority of God, as both work in conjunction with and expound upon one another. It wasn’t until the reformation in the 16th century when the reformers did away with Tradition altogether, mistakenly calling it the “traditions of man”. It is for this reason that Protestants today generally view the Bible alone as their final authority; a belief also known as; “Sola Scriptura”, or; from Scripture alone. This doctrine was created during the reformation, and is interesting enough, an unbiblical concept. Nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture is the sole authority of God’s word.

Another problematic area is one of irony; Protestants easily accept the New Testament as God’s infallible word, and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church which provided it. One question that immediately arises is; why would God give the Catholic Church the Holy Spirit to create the New Testament cannon, but not give the Catholic Church the same Holy Spirit to be able to discern and interpret what it says? It is a trap to fall into this new way of thinking that Scripture is the end-all of everything. We must always keep in mind that the Bible was created for the Church, not the other way around.

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own ‘always, to the close of the age’.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 80]

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[thereselittleflower]

"In Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily," seems to me to be a pretty explicit statement regarding the Trinity. I can't find anything nearly as comforting in the Bible about praying to saints.

Hi Shane

I am sorry I didn't get back to you sooner . . .

Let's look at this again . . .

Does the verse you quoted really say that God is 3 persons, 1 being/essence/substance?

Does the verse you quoted define the Godhead at all?

What is the Godhead? How do you know? How do you know it is 3 persons, 1 being?


There is nothing in this verse that tells you this . . . you have to make assumptions . . . .so the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT explicitly stated in scripture . . .

Yet you insist that the doctrine of The Communion of the Saints be?


This is what I am trying to show you, that you are applying a double standard to those doctrines of ours that you do not yet agree with . . holding them to the level of explicit proof from within scripture while at the same time holding to a more essential doctrine, the Trinity, for which such proof from within scripture does not exist!


How can you legitimately hold a double standard like this to our doctrines?

I don't imagine praying to saints is a sin by any stretch, but for reasons I have pointed out it seems to me something of a distraction. We are known personally by God through His Holy Spirit, of whom our bodies are descrbed as temples.

I am glad that you can see that it is not a sin . . . . I can understand why it would seem to you, looking in from the outside, that this could be a distraction . . . but things are not always as they seem

If you were to start to avail yourself of this great priviledge and gift God has given us, you would begin to see for yourself that there is no distraction at all

The next post continues a common misconception about protestants that we all discount the role of the Holy Spirit or of church tradition and authority. The question as I have said before is a question of how to determine whose traditions and whose authority to trust in any given matter.

I did this very thing by starting at the beginning with the Early Church and moving forward . . . .

That being said, the reassurance from one and all that Mary is very carefully distinguished from the Holy Spirit, Christ, or the Father and that her role is definitively subordinate to all comforts me in the overall effectiveness of the Catholic church as a Christian body. Every denomination has its little ideosyncracies, and the Catholic church has been around long enough to have way more than the rest. To be honest, though, barring something very new and surprising coming up, I don't think I will ever be fully comfortable with the teaching as a whole as I have understood it.

Sometimes comfort comes in unexpected and surprising ways . . . . sometimes, just starting to practice a doctrine such as this opens the heart to the grace needed to understand it .. . I know I have found this to be true for myself as others have as well.

I would like to see some of the things mentioned about early church history though. Perhaps a few book titles or a web link or two? I admit to a woefull ignorance on early church history and there may well be an answer there that could surprise me.

Thanks yet again for all your efforts.

Have others given you sufficient resources to help you with this?


John Paul pray for us

 

[thereselittleflower]

I have answered this every way I can concieve of. I have had prior knowledge of the Catholic understanding regarding Mary as well. Why then is it not just as easy to put two and two together?

All I can tell you is the teaching on the Trinity seems very very clear to me, despite all of the various claims that it is not clear being made.

There appears to be nothing as clear as this regarding Catholic Mariology.

I have no idea why several keep attributing all this to me, as if I had anything to do with either teachings on the Trinity or teachings on Mary. I have asked several times for people to please stop doing that. I don't HAVE a predisposition here. If I am bothering people, as I have said repeatedly, I will go away. I have been told I am ok to ask things, and as long as everyone is happy I will ask. But I am not responsible for this debate. It existed way before my time. Ok please?

Shane, all we are trying to demonstrate to you is how unreasonable it is to insist that any doctrine be explicitly stated in the bible when the doctrine of the Trinity is not.

That's all . . .

We are asking you to make a shift in perspective. . . using the Trinity as an example of a doctrine you believe in even though it is not explicitly stated in the bible is one way to help you do this.



John Paul pray for us

 

[marciadietrich]

I don't know how this got to be a debate on the Trinity. Christ called Himself the vine and us the branches. That's the spirit in which I understand that verse.

Hi Shane,

My point was that there are things believed based on how we interpret scripture and what authority will give us the correct interpretation of scripture. Because on a personal level you can read anything into any scripture and counter any scripture with another verse. For example in the case of Col 2: 9 the fullness of the Godhead (which that term is a trinitarian translation really, it is really more like The Deity), Ephesians 3: 16 says the exact same thing about all believers having "all the fullness of God," using the exact same greek word Strong's 4138 pleroma:

Eph 3: 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled (4137) with all the fulness (4138) of God.

All the fullness of God in those who know the love of Christ. So seems to be equating our status in a parallel fashion to that of Christ. Veneration is the lower level parallel to adoration or worship. Christ has all the fullness of God and in turn he fills us with all the fullness of God. Veneration flows from that reality. We glorify God in acknowledging others who have been made perfect in Christ (those in heaven).

If you have a series of verses which could lead one to the veneration of Mary, then by all means let's talk about those. I think we all agree about the Trinity.

I will quote the above in Ephesians as it shows our intimate union with God, along with our being attached to Christ as the branches of the vine, as our being the Bride of Christ, as our being the very Body of Christ, combined with Rev 12 and with Rev 13: 6 where it is shown it is possible to blaspheme God's dwelling and His Saints, along with the prayers o f saints being presented to God ... because it is all showing a relation of ourself to God in a way that is very intimate, worthy of interaction, of reverence and of love.

Maybe you don't see it, but that is because you have not accepted it, not because it isn't a truth. Just as nonTrinitarians will not see the Trinity explicit in Col 2:9, BECAUSE there is plenty of scripture that given personal interpretation can indicate a different viewpoint. And it isn't just Mary, this interaction is that we should reverence and seek the aid of all who are in heaven, because they have been perfected in Christ and give us hope of salvation and eternal life with God.

 

[Benedicta00]

As I have said, because I don't see any examples at all of a tradition of praying to saints rather than to God. It seems to have been established by 300A.D. or so,

I'm really not following your logic because the Trinity was not defined until that time period also. If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church solemnly proclaiming in that time period, that Jesus is God, we would all be Arian. Arius used scripture too, he found grounds biblical based to say that Jesus wasn’t God and just about half of Christianity believed him.

What does that tell you?

If it wasn’t for the Church using the keys of her authority to tell us what is true, based on the Word of the apostles; we would all be Arian and not Christian. The reason the Church did not include in the creed at that time, Marian intercession is because no one was challenging that at that time.

but the examples I have seen even of early church writers before then seem to indicate a respect for Mary without stating she was concieved herself in the same manner Christ was,

Well maybe that is because the Church never did say she was conceived "in the same manner as Christ." Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit... Mary was conceived by her parents and God step in at that exact moment persevered her from the stain of original sin.

or that she was perpetually a Virgin, or that folk would profit from praying to her rather than to the Father.

Another false premise.. You can't find it because we never believed this, ever. That we would profit praying to Mary to her rather than the father.

The Church never said you have to pray to her rather than the father. We can pray to Mary and also in addition to the father, but only if we want. So mystery solved why you can not find the early Church before 300 teaching this.


But I do believe there is some evidence before 300 AD teaching Marianology but I would have to check it out but again, so what if it is not there? The ECF are not Tradition, the teaching of Christ given to the 12 that they pass down to us is Tradition whether that be written or oral. It is the Church magisterium who says what the Word of God passed down to us is, not the ECF, they are just a witness to the magisterial teachings of the Church, that this is indeed what was taught even back then because this is the witness left by them.

With that said, you may not see evidence of Marinalogy before 300 because no one was disputing it before then. Simple enough explanation.

I don't see it is disregarding tradition at all. I am looking at different people's claims here. I certainly did not invent this conflict. It was well underway before I was born. I am in the position of having to make the choice myself whether I want to or not.

Okay, look at it like this, all the reformers supported much of the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary, (she was not their issue with the Church) so you tell me, instead of provng when it began...when in history did it stop? When in history did Mary stop being sinless or being ever virgin, or that her intercession is not a reality?

 

[Skripper]

I think Shane has left the building. Perhaps, hopefully, to spend some time in study . . .