My faith: Josiah (CaliforniaJosiah)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Continues above....

Norman Nagel comments on the Lutheran view of consubstantiation for us in his essay titled “Consubstantiation” in the book Hermann Sasse: A Man for Our Times?:
Nothing then could be more un-Lutheran and un-catholic than to speak of consubstantiation, which, at the very least, would come under the same assessment as transubstantiation, “an unnecessary philosophical theory … a wrong attempt to explain the miracle of the Real Presence.” [John R. Stephenson, Hermann Sasse: A Man for Our Times? (Saint Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 1998), Kindle edition, location 5457.]

Sasse elegantly summarizes the Lutheran position on pages 82-83:
This miracle can be stated only as an article of faith, as Luther does at the beginning of the Article quoted:

Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians. [Smalcald Articles III VI 1]

Nothing else is Lutheran doctrine: The consecrated bread is the body; the consecrated wine is the blood of Christ. How that is possible, no person on earth can say. What we know is that Christ himself gave this explanation by saying: ‘This is my body… This is my blood of the new covenant’. On the basis of these words of Christ, Luther believes in the Real Presence without trying to build up a theory comparable to the theories of impanation, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or whatever else the subtle minds of philosophers and theologians may have devised in order to answer the question: How could the Real Presence be possible?
In the end, Lutherans trust the words of Christ, going no further than the text allows, nor trying to explain the unexplainable. Our reason is captive to the Word of God:
In ordaining and instituting the Holy Supper He spoke these words about the bread, which He blessed and gave: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you,” and about the cup, or wine: “This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
45 We are certainly duty-bound not to interpret and explain these words in a different way. For these are the words of the eternal, true, and almighty Son of God, our Lord, Creator, and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. We cannot interpret them as allegorical, figurative, turns of phrases, in a way that seems agreeable to our reason. With simple faith and due obedience we receive the words as they read, in their proper and plain sense. We do not allow ourselves to be diverted ‹from Christ’s express words› by any objections or human contradictions spun from human reason, however appealing they may appear to reason. [Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII, 44-45. McCain, 570.] [emphasis mine]




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Bible and "full of grace"

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

1."And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).

2."And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let's find out.

1.The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - "having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."
2.The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
3.American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
4.English Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
5.Today's English Version - '"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
6.King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
7.New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
8.New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.
9.New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!
10.Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'
11.New Revised Standard Version - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
12.The New Century Version - The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”
13.New Living Translation - Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!'”
14.The Cambridge Paragraph Bible - And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, 'thou that art 'highly favoured, 'the Lord is with thee: 'blessed art thou among women.
15.The Holman Christian Standard Bible - "And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you."
16.International Standard Version - '"The angel'' came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.
•5923 χαριτόω (charito&#333: vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
•5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.2

Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary."

Matt Slick Mary, full of grace, and Luke 1:28 | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Luther and Calvin on Election/Predestination:

Calvinist Predestination vs. Lutheran Predestination

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is Mary the Mother of God? Is that a fitting, accurate title for Mary?

FIRST, we need to determine if Jesus has a divine nature and if Scripture calls Jesus specifically "GOD" and if Jesus seems to permit (even welcome) that: See

Matthew 1:23,
John 20:28,
First Timothy 3:16,
Titus 2:13,
2 Peter 1:1.

Also, John 8:24 & 58. To see what even unbelievers said of Him, John 10:30-33.


SECOND, is Mary His mother?

See Luke 2:1-7.



So....

1. It is appropriate and biblically exampled to call Jesus "GOD"
2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3. Thus, Mary is the mother of God (here referring to the Incarnate Son Jesus)


What, IMO, is inappropriate is to call Mary the Mother of the Trinity.


Now, frankly, the TITLE (it's not a teaching, it's a TITLE) seems confusing - and thus should not be in general use. Rather like a joke that has to be explained - best to just forget the joke. But, I don't reject the Title per se, only it's common usage. Better, IMO, is "Mary - the mother of Jesus who is God Incarnate."




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lutheran Rosary:




There is NO "set" way to use a Rosary in Lutheranism....

Here's just ONE example: How to Pray the Lutheran Rosary: 12 Steps (with Pictures)
Similar but includes the mysteries: http://www.xrysostom.com/pdf/lutheranrosary.pdf

Several forms use Luther's Small Catechism. Here's a modern example: Lutheran Rosary |


ANGLICAN ROSARY:

Here's a link: How to say the Anglican rosary​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are no "bad Catholics."

There are folks CLAIMING something that is not true (and they likely know it).

One is either Catholic or not. A Catholic just swallows whole whatever the RC Denomination itself exclusively says (officially, AT LEAST) because the RC Denomination does. And parrots that. True or false, right or wrong. If they do that, they are Catholic. If they don't, they aren't (although they may falsely CLAIM otherwise). See CCC 87.


As our Catholic Deacon so stressed, in the pews we find 3 groups of people:

CATHOLICS. They acknowledge and accept that the [Roman Catholic] Church is (in official matters) the Voice of God - infallible, authoritative. When IT speaks (exclusively, singularly, institutionally, officially) God Himself therefore speaks. They do NOT ask "is it true?" They ask, "Do I accept?" He admitted these are very rare, even among the religious.

CAFETERIA "Catholics" These are not Catholics at all, although they likely embrace much if not nearly all the teachings of the specific, singular [Roman Catholic] church. But they accept them because THEY have concluded these things are good or right, NOT because the Church says so. Thus, by definition, they are not Catholic. They TEND to accept things - until they conclude such is weak or wrong. They regard the [Roman Catholic] Church as potentially errant (in matters of formal doctrine), they look to some authority other than the [Roman Catholic] Church, they appoint self as the arbiter. He stated that most in the pews fall into this group.

Protestants HIDING in the RCC. Similar to above, but the above tend to do this without malice and often unconsciencely. In some ways, they work in the opposite direction: Cafeteria Catholic tend to accept until shown lacking whereas Protestants Hiding tend to not accept until shown to be of merit. This third group - rapidly growing - may actually accept MORE teachings than Cafeteria Catholics but they've accepted them because they've ruled them as true - in a deliberate way that they know defies the authority and rule of the [Roman Catholic] Church. They treat the RCC as just another denomination - the one they choose because they agree most with it. They'll leave if they change their minds on that. Our Deacon called this group, "the greatest threat to Catholicism since Gnosticism" and note that it is by far the fastest growing group in Catholicism. He complained too that much of Catholic education these days actually "feeds" this dangerous heresy. He complained too that often RCIA classes aimed at Protestant converts tends to feed this.

Here is Catholicism. The exclusive, singular, individual, particular, RC Denomination speaks - and we jump. NOT because it's true or sound or right but because the RC Denomination is the AUTHORITY, the Vicar of God, the Mouth of God. I recall a Catholic teacher speaking on some Catholic distinctive doctrine (I don't recall which) and I raised the issue of truth (I EVENTUALLY learned this is.... troubling to Catholics). The response I got was stern and very, very, very Catholic: "Josiah. If Jesus HIMSELF stood before you and told you something, would you ask Him if that was true? Of course not! So, how in the world can you even THINK to ask that of something the [Roman Catholic] Church tells you is true?" Ah. That teacher was Catholic. They are precious few of them.

When I realized I was not a Catholic, I finally conclude that it was a matter of honestly, integrity, character to not lie or knowingly deceive. I stopped labeling myself Catholic. And stopped regularly worshipping there. To me, it was a matter of honesty.... truth..... integrity.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Justification.... Sanctification....

There are TWO DIFFERENT issue here: Justification and Sanctification (narrow sense, both).

Let me AGAIN use this analogy:

FIRST: On January 23, 1988, I was born. I was GIVEN life - the miracle, the wonderful, mysterious GIFT of life (we might agree that actually happened about 9 months earlier, but let's proceed). At that point, I became alive. I became a human being - with all that means, biologically and spiritually, all that means in terms of God and me. GIFT. G.I.F.T. This purely, solely, only, exclusively by mercy since prior to that, I did NOTHING. I thought nothing. I willed nothing. I sought nothing. I desired nothing. NO good works. GIFT. G.I.F.T. Mercy. M.E.R.C.Y. On January 23, 1988 - I was removed from my mother (C-Section) - unbreathing, unconscience - I had NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Gift. Mercy. No merits. No works. No will. Nothing in or from me. GIFT. MERCY. Someone ELSE is to be credited. Entirely. Wholly. Completely. MONERGISTIC. Life is mine - by grace, by mercy, from God, as a GIFT. I am a human being, with all that means - by grace, by mercy, from God, as a GIFT.

In the same way, God saved me (what Protestants mean here is justification - narrow sense, as has been explained to you over and over and over and over, for years). God GAVE me spiritual life, God caused me to be born AGAIN, now not only with physical life but with spiritual life, now I am not only the child of my parents but a child of God. This CHANGES my relationship to God, as a result solely, only, exclusively because of God's mercy, grace, favor; solely, only, exclusively because of what CHRIST has done as THE Savior; solely, only, exclusively because God GAVE me the GIFT of faith in Christ as my Savior: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. You know, the worst heresy ever, what Luther was excommunicated for, the view the RCC decided to split Christianity over. We believe this is MONERGISTIC, because CHRIST is the Savior - not me, not you, not the Pope, not Mary, not the RC Denomination. I'm NOT the Savior - in whole or in part - because the job is taken and He didn't blow it. What makes me a CHRISTIAN is that God's merciful, gracious GIFT of faith means I'm looking to CHRIST as THE Savior, not in the mirror as all my Catholic teachers taught me to do, many Catholic sermons taught me to do, as Catholics here at CARM keep telling us we must do.

This, of course, we are told CONSTANTLY by Catholics is heresy, the antithesis of what the Bible says, condemned by every Christian who lived before 1517. As one of my Catholic teachers told me, "the greatest heresy ever."


SECOND: Almost immediately after being born (well, maybe some months later, lol), my parents, my society and yes God called me to GROW. To mature. To become more loving, more caring, more righteous, more ethical. THIS is a process (unlike my conception). THIS is synergistic (unlike conception). GROWING to be more God like. GROWING in the directions that my parents, my society, my God call me: "Thou shalt be HOLY just as the Lord God is holy." "Thou shalt be PERFECT just as your Father in Heaven is perfect." "LOVE in exactly the same way as Christ loved us on the Cross." High callings! I'm not "there" yet. I'm still GROWING (well, I'd LIKE to say always growing..... sometimes I'm not, sometimes I even retreat). And I do so in large part because of God's EMPOWERING, not due to some innate homo sapien ability. Yes..... in a few cases, the Bible also calls this "grace" but the CONTEXT tells us this is different, here it means "strength" or "empowering". It is still ours by mercy (we don't DESIRE anything from Him), but here it means strength. This growing up, this discipleship, this CHRISTIAN-walk is something a CHRISTIAN does, not something that makes one a Christian; it is the RESULT of justification not the cause. My being nice to my neighbor is not what causes me to have physical life, having physical life enables me to be nice to my neighbor. What I do as a growing, maturing, developing man is not what makes me a homo sapien nor worthy of being given life.

It is NOT a case of SELF somehow taping into the "gas" God gives in order to slowly "save" self in a SYNERGISTIC process - almost never complete in one lifetime and so (as in Hinduism) more time is supplied to finish the job, salvation being a JOINT EFFORT: Jesus doing what He can (perhaps) but it's insuffient, inadequate, He fails as a Savior - so we come to the rescue to help save Him from being a failure by supplying what He could not: Jesus does what He could (but it's inadequate, a failure) so WE help Him but adding the really important part, the part that actually results in our salvation (albeit we won't get the job done before we die - thus the RCC now gives us Purgatory). In the view of Protestants, AT THE VERY LEAST, modern Catholicism is confusing DIFFERENT ISSUES: man and God, law and gospel, sancatification and justification - leading to the Christless, Crossless, Bloodless, merciless religion we hear as constant din from them; nearly indistingishable from Judaism and Islam, all boasting of SELF. Yes, I know, as YOU like to point out (you seem to be among the 10% or so of Catholics who believe this, a bit to your credit), we get HELP. A point Jews and Muslims ALWAYS point out, always stress - but only a few Catholics do, and then usually only if pressured into it. But God HELPING us gain life is not the same as God GIVING us life. What I see is actually not a blending or confusing or entangling different issues, but the actual ABANDONMENT - entirely - of grace, mercy, Christ, the Cross, the
Blood, in spite of such talk. The Gospel has simply been .... abandoned. What is left is just the growing part, the walk part, the maturing part. Christ AS SAVIOR has been lost (the key point of CHRISTianity!), all that is left is the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu point of getting closer to heaven each day by what WE do - with the HELP of God.


You and I have had this discussion MANY times before. Other Protestants have with you, too. Always to no avail. This has been going on for YEARS at CARM, every other interdenominational website known to me, in Christianity for centuries. Always to no avail. Catholics just parrot whatever their denomination currently says - and it seems VERY, VERY confused, very much focused on itself. You CANNOT agree with me and remain a Catholic because Catholicism excommunicated Luther over this, declares Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide to be the worse heresy over. It likes Islam, the Pope kissed the Koran (which agrees with Catholicism on this point of we save ourselves - with divine help) but Protestants on this point are the worse heretics ever.

As I noted to you before, it is MY OPINION that IN SPITE OF the mess the RCC now teaches, the Gospel has not been killed. Because of the reading of Scripture..... because of the gospel proclaimed in the liturgy and often in hymns, because the ancient festivals continue..... Catholics STILL have some concept (however buried) of Christ as SAVIOR. IF..... oh what a big and difficult word that is...... IF you can help the Catholic untangle the MESS they've been taught, you can find they are actually Christians after all. I believe this to be the case; I believe Catholics generally ARE heaven-bound in spite of their denomination. Sad. Because the one issue a church should be MOST clear on, the MOST distinctively CHRISTian - that's the very doctrine Catholicism is weakest on, so blurry, so confused, so entangled, so NON-distinctively Christian.


Well, MANY (including me) have had this discussion with Catholics (including YOU) to no avail. For centuries. As a Catholic, all you can do is condemn me as the worse heretic ever, shout Trent's condemnations at me. I DO understand that.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Matt. 16:18: epi tautē tē petra oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian = "on this rock I will build my church"

Matt. 7:24: hostis ōkodomēsen autou tēn oikian epi tēn petran = "who built his house on the rock"

A few facts concerning the link between these two verses (and their respective context):

1. Apart from the parallel text in Luke 6:48, these are the only verses in the NT that collocate the verb οἰκοδομέω ("construct a building") with the noun πέτρα ("rock").
2. In both verses the act of constructing a building on a rock is used as a figure of speech.
3. The surrounding context implies impending dangers (floods, "the gates of Hades").
4. The context of both verses also shows that the building residing on the rock will remain safe.
5. From the context of Matt. 7:24 it is clear that the house that was constructed by the wise man will remain safe by virtue of having been built on the rock (which provides a solid foundation, as opposed to sand).
6. Since the same basic figure of speech is used in both verses, it is by no means far-fetched (it is even natural) to interpret Matt. 16:18 in the same way: the church will remain safe by virtue of having been built on the rock. This rules out Peter as a possible candidate for being "this rock".
7. In Matt. 7:24 the "rock" corresponds to Jesus' words (to "build" on the rock is to obey His words). In Matt. 16:18 we find that Peter is being blessed for having made a confession of faith.

All things considered I think there is a strong case for taking "this rock" to refer to the Gospel, as well as the core of the Gospel, which is Christ (and Him crucified).


- This is from Johan from CARM

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

TWO Natures of Christ....


Here is my (very accountable, potentially wrong) understanding.....


1. Jesus is BOTH God/divine and man/human. BOTH. 100%. It's not either/or but both/and. True, his human nature is without sin but that in no sense makes it less human (it makes it more human - the humanity of Adam and Eve before the fall). 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5-6.


2. These two natures are INSEPARABLE and UNITED - like two sides of the same coin. We may be only seeing one side at at given time; only one side might be active in some thing, but both sides are always present because they are inseparable. Two sides of the SAME coin. These are not merged into a new, third reality - but both remain, and both remain united. Where one "side" of the reality is, ergo so "is" the other.


3. While the Incarnation happened in time/space, this unity is beyond that. Read carefully John 1:1 ff, John 8:58, John 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Matthew 18:20, Romans 9:5. Thus, we may speak of JESUS being at Creation and JESUS being with us always - and this JESUS has two inseparable natures: God and Man, divine and human. Note: it does NOT say, "The Son was present at Creation" it says "YOU (Jesus) were, etc.


4. There is not a sharp distinction in terms of duties or fruits or attributes or properties - what applies to one seems to apply to the other and certainly to the WHOLE. See Luke 9:56 and Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim 2:5 and Hebrews 2:14 (humanity saving), with First John 1:12 and 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 and Galatians 2:20 (divinity saves), note that First John 1:14 contains both in the same verse. Note JESUS says he had us with us before the world was (John 17:5). JESUS is eternal (Hebrews 13:8), JESUS knows all things (John 21:17). Mary gives birth to GOD with us (Matthew 1:23). JESUS is everywhere (Matthew 18:20). JESUS knows all things (Colossians 2:3). JESUS is all powerful (Matthew 28:18). Miracles done by Jesus reveal HIS glory (John 1:14). Thus, it is unbiblical to insist that ONLY BY ONE NATURE can Christ be this or that.


5. God dwells in CHRIST - the flesh - "in fulness." Colossians 2:9. It's not a partial or sometime kind of thing.



SOME NOTES AND QUESTIONS......

1. Yet it seems possible for ONE nature to be involved without the others (as if looking at ONE SIDE of the coin - that side being the active side). The humanity of JEsus died on the Cross, God did not. Jesus says, "no one knows - not even the Son of man but only God" (an INTERESTING verse - because if taken literally, Jesus BOTH knew and did not know - suggesting some sense of a lack of communication?) Another case, Luke 2:52 - his humanity increases in knowledge even though his divine nature is all knowing always.

2. The impeccability of Christ is interesting..... While Catholics (borrowing from Augustine) argue such (nondogmatically) from Jesus not having a human father (sin moving via male DNA) and Mary being without Original Sin just as a back up (lol), I've heard LUtherans argue (again, nondogmatically) that this is a fruit of the communication of attributes: his human nature is without sin by virtue of being "united" with his divine.

3. This seems to be central to the Reformed rejection of the literal, real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist IN BOTH NATURES - Reformed deny this inseparability, this unity. 'Jesus is in heaven and thus CANNOT be here!"

4. Reformed see these as totally separate. Thus, when Jesus is mentioned - to them the critical question to ask is WHICH Jesus? The man Jesus? OR the God Jesus? The two theoretically could BOTH be involved but that would be just by chance.


SCRIPTURES....


John 1:1 ff [1:1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
[9] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [15] (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’&#8221 [16] For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. [17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.


John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Notice says, "I AM (I.... JESUS).... I WAS before Abraham. Not "The divine nature of me but not the human nature."


John 17:5, And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jesus says "that I - I had."


Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,.... And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
Note, God created the world through Jesus; Jesus is the "imprint" of God's nature, Jesus upholds the universe, Jesus made purifcation for sins, Jesus is the same.... NO distinction of natures, NO "The Son did this, the Flesh did that..."


Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Again, note that JESUS is among us, not "The Second Person of the Trinity." Jesus is the God/Man - both/and.


Romans 9:5. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Note: CHRIST is over all.


Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. JESUS is eternal....


John 21:17, Lord, you know everything. JESUS is all-knowing


John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” Note: NO FLESH can walk through walls and doors.... GOD of course can. JESUS (the God/Man did), indicating that what Jesus can do by one nature also involves his other nature. This seems important for the Reformed insistence that Jesus' human nature is in heaven and CANNOT thus be here for this would violate the properties of his human nature. Well..... this violated the properties of his human nature.


Matthew 1:23, They shall call his name Immanuel which means God with us. Note: JESUS' very title here means "God WITH us." Yes, GOD can be in all places at all times, no one disputes that. But Jesus says HE - JESUS - who is also HUMAN is with us. Thus, as in above, properties of one nature can "communicate" or in some way involve the other, since Nicea stressed his two natures are INSEPARABLE.


Matthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together, there I am among them. JESUS is omnipresent


Colossians 2:3 Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge


Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me


Titus 2:13, "Our great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us


John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Response to Reformed Rejection of Real Presence:

The Reform rejection of Real Presence in Communion rests on a dogmatic, foundational insistence that IT CAN'T BE. Thus, what Jesus said.... what Paul by inspiration penned.... just CANNOT be the case, and thus we need to interpret the texts so as to make what is said possible.


This, as with Zwingli, flows from their essential redefinition of the historic, ecumenical doctrine of The Two Natures of Christ.


The Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed this issue in detail. It is IMPORTANT to remember that in 451, ALL Christians (all those bishops involved) accepted Real Presence in the Eucharist - the Zwinglian and Calvinists views were virtually unheard of at that time.

This Council adopted the following credal addendum (strictly, they saw themselves as providing a "footnote" to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly known to us as the Nicene Creed):

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.



Again, remember: all those Bishops affirmed Real Presence. Obviously, they did not proclaim a view that would contradict a view they all had; obviously those bishops saw no conflict between their embrace of Real Presence and the Two Natures of Christ.

Chalcedon insisted that both natures remained inviolable, indivisibly united in one Person. We have neither confusion (which would really result in a tertium quid - a being neither truly God nor man, as in Monophysitism), nor separation (which would in reality undercut the Incarnation, essentially transforming God's presence into a divine indwelling in the man Jesus). Where one is, the other is. These TWO natures are indivisible, united.



Reformed Objections:

A. The Reformed argument is that Christ CANNOT be physically present with the elements of the Supper, since He has a genuinely human body, which is subject to the restrictions of locality.


I think there are two problems here (besides forcing a literal rejection of the words Jesus said and Paul penned):


1. It is a heresy to divide the natures, which is the essence of what the Reformed do here. And it flies in the face of the Scriptures that speak of a "communication" or connection of the natures. Notice all the Scriptures that speak of JESUS (who is ALWAYS the God/Man, NEVER only God and NEVER only man), "JESUS is with us" NOT, "The Second Person of the Trinity is with us." "I (Jesus) am with YOU always even to the ends of the Earth" NOT "GOD but no man is......" The above Scriptures (and so many more) all note that what is true of Jesus' divine nature is true of his human nature - and yes, even vise versa. OBVIOUSLY, a great mystery is here (above and beyond any human concept of physics, to be sure!) but if we are to believe Jesus (and it's not wise to consider him false - or even misleading), then JESUS (always the GOD/MAN, never one OR the other) promises much and says much about himself: and it mandates what the Council of Chalcedon affirmed: JESUS is God AND Man - and these two natures cannot be separated, disjointed. It's JESUS. Who is GOD/Man. Two sides of the SAME COIN, as Augustine taught; just as you can't (or shouldn't!) eliminate one side of the coin, so we cannot (or shouldn't) eliminate one of Jesus' natures. Even thought at times MYSTERY will result (remember: We are stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, we are not commanded to revise God's teachings so as to make it make sense to US).

2. The Reformed point that the union cannot be violated is an interesting one, but misapplied here. Consider this verse, "John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them." Now, PHYSCIALLY, a man cannot walk through locked doors. Those disciples where in a room surrounded by WALLS.... with a LOCKED DOOR. Either Jesus just transported himself into the room borrowing the Transporter from Scotty (crawling through a window seems to violate the surprise of how Jesus got there) OR Jesus walked through the door or the walls (a DIVINE action that violates the physics of biological cells - if you doubt, try it!). I think it is undeniable that JESUS (remember: ALWAYS the GOD/MAN, never just man.... never just God) walked through something - something humans CANNOT do, but obviously the MAN Jesus did ("put your hands here....See that ...."). I think the reasonable view is that BY HIS DIVINE NATURE, this is doable (we all agree?) - and somehow ("Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God!!!!"), somehow, we know not how.... this ability impacted his human nature; essentially, His human nature went along for the ride. IMO, this verse does not in any way indicate that The Council of Chalcedon in 451 was wrong, only that it is possible for one nature to "communicate" (to use the ancient, ecumencial term) with the other - without violating that nature. One can "go alone for the ride." Luther spoke of a hot iron that has been sharing a furnance with fire..... the heat "communicated" with the iron, it did not in any way change the essence of the iron (it's still IRON) but it's sharing the heat. Not the best illustartion, but as is TYPICAL, illustrations almost never capture MYSTERY.


Jesus said, "This is my Body..... Blood." For 1500 years, all accepted that. Most still do. JESUS is present - as JESUS always is and only can be: as GOD/MAN, divine/human, both/and. Is there a mystery here? YES!!!!!!! (darn near ALWAYS is in theology!..... We are Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God). Just as in "I am with you always." True..... in the Upper Room, they would have seen Jesus' human nature, but isn't Jesus' entire point of that appearance to stress, "Blessed are you who have NOT seen and yet have believed?" Those who insist that JESUS cannot be present unless we SEE his flesh and bones seem to be missing the whole point. IMO, those who insist the HUMAN nature of Jesus CANNOT do what all humans can do need to explain away John 20:19 (etc., etc., etc.); their denial of the words of the Communion texts has opened wide the necessary explaining away of a chain of Scriptures.


B. The Reformed insist that Acts 3:21 makes it IMPOSSIBLE for JESUS (the inseparable God/Man) to be anywhere but in heaven. This objection, very closely related to the first, is (sadly) based on Calvin's unique mistranslation of the text. Here's the verse: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:21 KJV "whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." Acts 3:21 ESV "whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." Acts 3:21 NAB. But Calvin mistranslated the verse in his Geneva Bible of 1599, "Whome the heauen must containe vntill the time that all thinges be restored, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began." See Acts 3:21 Greek Text Analysis

Then, focusing entirely on his mistranslation, Calvin insiss, “The principle I always hold is, that in order to gain possession of Christ, he must be sought in heaven because the body in which the Redeemer appeared to the world, and which he once offered in sacrifice, must now be contained in heaven, as Peter declares.” It's a point he will make repeatedly, but sadly is based entirely on his mistranslation. Again, “The same is to be said of the words of Peter, that the heavens must contain him. Peter is not there speaking of a visible form, and yet he fixes the abode of Christ in heaven, which he says must contain him." It's a central argument for Calvin but it's simply based on his mistranslation of a verse.



Accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned OBVIOUSLY cannot be explained in terms of normal physics, anymore than "I am with you always" and similar Scriptures (indeed, as cannot be done with the Trinity and a lot of theology!). We are called to be 'STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD." We are not called to deny things simply because our puny brains can't understand how it can be true (and certainly not because we mistranslated a verse). So, what is the PHYSICS of Real Presence? For 1500 years, Christians left that as God in Scripture does: unanswered (mystery). Orthodox, Lutheran and some Anglicans and Methodist continue this. But in the 16th Century, some arose to deny the mystery and the words. The RCC went one direction with their dogmatic embrace of alchemic Transubstantiation and Aristotelian Accidents, Calvin and Zwingli in another - but both proceeded from a foundational claim that "it can't be" and the mandate that the words of Jesus and Paul be subject to their understandings of physics (however bad or wrong such may be).




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CATHOLIC analysis of Fathers on Transubstantiation

Church Fathers and Transubstantiation

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 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. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" on these in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted or substituted, and with no pagan philosophies or rejected prescience theories imposed or dogmatiozed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name the RCC gave for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor here. It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists. While NOT the RCC dogma, it's quite common among Catholics, too.



One might summerize the 3 common views this way:

LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.




It should be noted that many would speak of 2 other views, neither common in the West. The EOC has a view somewhat between the Catholic and Lutheran views; it embraces that there is some change in the elements (not just in what is present) BUT rejects Transubstantiation because it leaves the nature and means and character of the change entirely and completely to MYSTERY and insists that this 'change' is unimportant (rather than dogma), their emphasis (like Lutherans) is entirely on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood. Calvin's view is difficult to understand, and Reformed have developed it different; it flows from his essential rejection of Chalcadon and his insistence on separating the Two Natures of Christ. But today, his view has almost entirely been forgotten; nearly all Reformed are Zwinglian on this and agree with modern Evangelicals.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Irenaeus of Lyons (140-160 A.D.) “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Clement of Alexandria (CA. 150 – 215), Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from Scripture themselves.”

Tertullian (CA. 155 – 220)
In refuting a heresy of Docetism (denying doctrine of incarnation), Tertullian writes, “But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing.” Furthermore, he writes, “If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word.”

Hippolytus (CA. 170 – 236) Against the Heresy of One Noetus
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scripture, and from no other source. . . . Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and the Father will our belief to be, let us believe . . . Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scripture, so let us discern them.”

Basil of Jerusalem (368)
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."

Then later, after Nicea, we still hear the same...


Basil the Great (368 A.D.)
"For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing. (Homily IX:1)


Gregory of Nyssa (394 A.D)
"...we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Augustine (354 – 430) On the Good of Widowhood
“What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it moves us to be wise.”


Cyril of Jerusalem (450 A.D.)
For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A LONG, LONG time ago...
In a place called Australia....
There lived an MD named Erwin.

He was a man with a PASSION. He wanted Christians of all "stripes" to come together..... and WORK toward unity. NOT a false "unity" based on relativism or minimalism or emotionalism - but on TRUTH.

He felt the internet might be a GREAT place for this broad, ecumenical, world-wide forum. He founded Christian Forums.

There were few rules, loosely enforced - because he wanted people to be HONEST, FRANK, GENUINE, REAL. But he did want people to respect truth and each other, knowing FULL WELL that challenging deeply held beliefs DOES hurt and CAN offend.

CF quickly became, by far, the largest Christian website on the internet. At one point, we'd have 50+ active people posting AT EVEN GIVEN TIME, at just one forum. The site became famous.... respected. It was the alternative to the "feel good," relativisitic, minimalistic, "Mr. Roger's Neighborhoods."

CF got SO big that Erwin could not manage it. While mods were always used, he now needed upper staff to train and supervise the mods, then to develop policies, handle appeals, write and ever-increasing and ever-more-detailed RULES. Soon..... Erwin lost all control. And eventually.... interest.

CF was now RAN - like a military ship - by an elite group of upper staffers, quickly separated out into warring groups, struggling for POWER to RULE. It was largely Protestant vs. Catholic (but especially Reform vs. Catholic). It was WAR. And it was..... ugly.

Rules upon rules were written, although that upper Staff exempted themselves from them and often ignored them in punishing and banishing people whom they identified as unwelcomed and unhelpful to their war. The internet became littered with the victims of this (some upper staffers themselves). Users began to decline, posts began to decline. Staff - once about 100 - began to decline.

Several attempts were made to salvage the site - all put in place by Erwin TRYING to recapture things. Every few months, more ADMINISTRATION and RULES were put into place - but he never dealt with the PROBLEM: the war, power struggle, the people who ran the place and perpetuated the war. Thus, while things improved for a few days, maybe weeks - ultimately, it did no good. For awhile, it was nearly impossible to keep up with the latest of the ERWIN REFORMS. But it didn't matter, none did any good.

I was the victim of one of the wars....... I was asked by an Admin to come back on Staff, and I finally (and foolishly) did. I was on staff for 21 days, as just a mod, when I was fired by the Ruling Committee - which circumvented EVERY rule and bit of protocol in existence to do so (Senior Staff have a LONG history of exemption SELF from rule, protocol, justice). NO reasons were given - until I demanded such. Then 3 were given - all false, drummed up, and none of them occuring when I was on Staff anyway or as a Staffer. I showed two of the COMPLETELY false - a point not challenged - and the third happening MONTHS earlier, and resolved. None of this mattered because Senior Staff exempts itself from the rules and protocol that it writes. BTW, the man who actually sent me the termination notice was my personal, assigned MENTOR (new staff had such). He had recently sent me an email praising me, saying how proud he was of my hard work and fairness, how much he appreciated having me on staff, and that if I ever had any difficulties, to let him know and he'd do all he could to help me. Next thing I heard from him was "You're fired."

This is just typical of what happened to CF. And I was just ONE example, a tiny one.

Eventually, Erwin gave up. He sold the site. The new owner had no passion or direction, it was a business. While times of "truce" came in the war - there was nothing changed at the site.


Those upper staffers - now institutionalized - have created some calmness by making CF a tightly controlled site, RULED from the top down. It no longer has ANYTHING to do with ecumenism or unity or truth. They have made it a site based on emotionalism - and "those who complain a lot MUST not be allowed to get hurt" is the only rule that matters. It's not even relativism or minimalism, it's just emotionalism.


The "problem" has NEVER been the posters. It's never been the mods. It's upper staff and always has been. Erwin just lost the site - it got too big for him. In the void, RUSHED the power brokers, the power seekers. They've created a "job" (if you can call it that!) for themselves (very secure) but they've ruin the site in the process. The WAR is over. No one won - only truth lost. "Catholics must not get hurt" seems the overwhelming objective here. "Advertisers must not cancel" is overarching. But above all: Complainers must not feel bad. It's been remolded into a Mr. Roger's Neighborhood - but not an especially good one. I might add - even a couple of upper folks that I used to GREATLY respect (and who use to STRONGLY support me) have...... fallen into this. Really saddens me.


Through it all (!!!!!) some GOOD posters have remained. Why, I don't know. But they have FAR, FAR more patience than I do. Until a couple of years ago, I kept HOPING! Returning! This was just WAY TOO GREAT a site to see this happen to! But I concluded there is no hope.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christian Denomination Selector, a SelectSmart.com Religion selector. Ask about my top result.

Survey to show what denomination we most agree with

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The PROTESTANT view for justification (narrow) is thus: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one, inseparable, singular doctrine. The Latin translates roughly to: We are justified exclusively because of the grace/mercy of God, via the work of Christ who alone is the Savior, which we apprehend by means of faith/trust/reliance. We can speak of each aspect separately (as Scripture itself does) but must never forget it's all ONE united singular doctrine.


Let's say I posted here that I have one day hopper passes for all CF'ers to Disneyland Resort in California. My motive here is pure grace and mercy because the folks here did nothing to cause this - it's just my unmerited favor. Now, I wrote a book and raised the money to buy all these (at $150.00 a pop!) - you didn't earn the tickets. And now, you need to accept the tickets freely offered to you (but I'm empowering you to do even that). There are 3 aspects to this singular transaction: My love, my earning the tickets, you accepting and using them.

The LAST ASPECT of this is faith. Faith = to trust, rely, apply. If I get on a plane headed for Hawaii, I do so by faith - I trust my very life to this plane and its crew: trust, reliance, using it. I may or may NOT know cognatively via proof that the plane is safe, the trip will be safe, the crew is unflawed; I may NOT even know cognatively exactly how planes fly (it's a bigger mystery than most think!) but I board the plane - trusting, relying.....

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world (Sola Gratia) that He gave His only begotten Son (Solus Christus) that whosoever believes in Him (Sola Fide) will not perish but has everlasting life."

Catholics of course insists this is all great heresy, but it is the Protestant position and I think you are asking the question assuming Protestantism.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is a foundational, dogmatic insistence in some Christian communities/denominations that while the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God, that it nonetheless is MISSING a whole bunch of really super important things that Jesus taught and that we must know and believe....


The spin goes like this....


God, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures:


The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; it is His inscripturated words to the faithful. And He did so inerrantly. And thus, it is infallible. But.... the thing is....... well....... the Holy Spirit did a lousy job. Because He just forgot a whole mess of really, really, really important dogmas - essential, de fide dogmas - matters of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, matters impacting the salvation of souls. Just.... forgot! Jesus taught these (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... and thus all 12-14 Apostles taught them (we just have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates that)..... it's just that the Holy Spirit.... well...... forgot. He told us how many fish the disciples caught one day (153) but forgot a mess of super important, critical DOGMAS we gotta believe.


What to do?


Realizing the error, God could have done a re-write. But that would have been a lot of work. God just let it stand - and hoped for the best.


"Oral"

But...... while the Holy Spirit forgot, there was/were Christian(s) who remembered! And somehow (no one knows how)...... these super important DOGMAS Jesus and all the Apostles taught that the Holy Spirit forgot to include in Scripture.... well, they survived!

Eventually (maybe many, many centuries later), one denomination kinda learned about one or more of these!!!!! And eventually (maybe many, many centuries later) it itself decided to tell Christians about this!

This is sometimes called "Apostolic Tradition" (although it can NEVER, EVER be related to ANY much less all of the Apostles). It is sometimes also called "Second Testimony"

This missing stuff tends to be whatever is UNIQUE DOGMA in that specific denomination. "Jesus taught this as de fide dogma - it's just part of the forgot stuff but this denomination learned it somehow - and here it is." Oddly, these "forgotten dogmas" are never the same....


Stools

Some communities that buy into all the above (and they do so passionately and foundationally) state that because the Bible is so.... well, see above about God forgetting..... therefore we need TWO (maybe 3 - we'll get to that) EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL sources for our dogma:

1. Scripture (which is good - as far as it goes)
2. Oral Stuff (which is the forgotten stuff, equally important but usually more clear).

These are like two streams that blend into one inseparable river - one source, one revelation, one truth. All the equal teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and the Early Church (it's just that..... sadly...... we have NOTHING - absolutely nothing at all that indicates that Jesus or any of the Aposltes or anyone in the First Century and often for long after that ever even heard of any of these "oral stuff" Dogmas).

Now, some add a third stool: themselves (or the leaders self chooses from among self that are pleadged to agree with self). It just reinforces the ME part.



What do you think of all that?


Here is what I think....

1. I think there WAS a Christian "proclamation" for the 10 years or so between Easter and the first NT Book was penned and the NT began to take shape. This is called "the kerygma" Thing is: we don't know EXACTLY what "it" was for one simple reason, it was never recorded. But I find no reason to believe it included a whole bunch of super important DOGMAS that became lost (or at least with ZERO evidence - for CENTURIES).

2. I don't think the Holy Spirit forgot Dogmas. Yes, John tells us that Jesus DID some things not recorded in THAT specific singular book (the Gospel of John) but that's a whole other enchilada than insisting that THEREFORE God forgot a bunch of critical DOGMAS from the ENTIRE Bible.

3. I find no credible reason to believe that the NT is MISSING super important, critical DOGMAS taught by Jesus plus all 12-14 of the Apostles. No credible reason to believe the whole "God messed up.... God forgot" insistence.

4. I DO think that as time moved on, beyond the period of the Apostles, it is almost certain that questions and issues arose that no Apostle could be asked about (not that such would necessarily know) and that Scripture didn't address. Heaven knows, the Second, Third, Fourth Centuries were likely the most chaotic time in all of Christian history - there WERE questions and debates, and not always did those 27 books adequately address these. IMO, there were some very wise men with enormous insights and faith that often prevailed - applying Scripture. Some call these "Early Church Fathers." And I'm grateful for the Roman Emperors calling meetings in the Fourth - Seventh Centuries (we cal these the Seven ECUMENICAL Councils) that I think also did some very wise and very helpful work. But while I hold this in great esteem - I do NOT regard them as THEREFORE what JESUS and the 12-14 APOSTLES and every Christian in the First Century believed. NOT part of the "Oops, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include" stuff. And it means I place these UNDER Scripture - not EQUAL to such. Our words - however wise - are NOT ergo Jesus', it is not Jesus' job to parrot what WE eventually said - however wise we regard such.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Mary - Mother of God" Matre Dei Theotokos


John 20:28 "My Lord and my God."


Thomas was speaking to JESUS - about JESUS. Do you agree?

Thomas called JESUS specifically "GOD." You are "my Lord and my GOD" Do you agree?

It SEEMS Jesus did not repudiate Thomas for this statement (as we see people here repudiating the vast majority of Christians for the same). Do you agree?

This verse is used MANY times by CHRISTIANS of ALL sorts (including "Evangelicals") to show Jesus' divinity; we APPROVE the statement and apply it DIRECTLY and specifically to JESUS. Do you agree?

Since Jesus APPROVED of Thomas specifically calling HIM "GOD".... we Christians APPROVE of calling Jesus specificlly "GOD" it's reasonable to say it's okay to refer to Jesus specifically as GOD. Do you agree?

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Do you agree?

Jesus may be called GOD. Do you agree?

IN THIS SENSE, Jesus (GOD) was born of Mary. Do you agree?


Theologically, to deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus (GOD) is to either deny that Mary bore Jesus (which is solidly biblical) OR to deny that Jesus is God (thus Thomas should have been repudiated for his statement - by Jesus and by us - but we approve of it).

Now.... "Mary - the Mother of the Trinity" would be heresy since Jesus is not the incarnate Trinity but only the incarnate Second Person. But "Mary - Mother of the Trinity" is NEVER, EVER used (it's heresy).


I'm NOT saying it's a useful or good title (I think it's NOT, not anymore).... but THEOLOGICALLY, in my opinion, to deny it mandates that either Mary is not Jesus' mother OR that Jesus is not God - and both of those are unbiblical and heretical and dangerous. To deny the THEOLOGY here is to deny Jesus' divinity - a KEY, CRITICAL point in Christian theology OR to just be contrary to Scrpture and insist Mary did not bore Him.


SEE MY POINT?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mary - Mother of God, Matre Dei Theotokos



1. Mary bore Jesus.

Matthew 1:18, "This is how the birth of Jesus came about: His mother Mary...." . So MARY is mother of the one called Jesus.



2. This Jesus may be called God.

John 20:28, "Thomas said to him (JESUS!), 'My Lord and my God'." Note: JESUS (the one he is looking at, the one he is speaking to, the one born in Bethlehem) is..... what? What title was used?

Titus 2:13, "We wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our God and Lord - Jesus." Note: WHO is our God? Can you quote the name Scripture gives? Is it "Jesus?"



So.... Scripture states that Mary bore Jesus and this Jesus may be rightly called God (as it itself does).


Sure - if you regard Scripture as wrong, false and blaspheming, then the title that affirms the same two points is. But if Scripture is not wrong, false and blaspheming, then the title which affirms the same things is not either.


Now, obviously, EVERYTHING is capable of being misunderstood and/or misapplied. That doesn't make it ergo wrong, it just means someone misunderstood and/or misapplied it. The Trinity is often misunderstood, is it ergo wrong? I don't deny that in the past 50 years or so, a few American and Australian "Evangelicals" have been confused by this, and for such it's now necessary to explain it. But that doesn't make it wrong. BTW, the "trinity" typically has to be explained too (it is not ergo wrong).



.

 

[Tigger45]

Although as you probably already know you and I agree but I'll tell ya the first time I heard ((("MOTHER" of God))) from my over zealous sister and brother in-law taking RCIA it really took me back being an evangelical Protestant. I feel its better to start off with labeling the BVM as God bearer as it is a more accurate translation and you find you don't start out with as much resistance. Plus going over the history of why the church accentuated Jesus being God was about who Jesus is more then who Mary is.