Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
chevyontheriver,
re: "To be 'firstborn' does not mean that there has to be a 'secondborn'. Could be an only child. The 'firstborn' argument against Mary having other children SHOULD be seen as deficient. Strangely it comes up again and again by people who think it has validity."


Can you provide any actual examples where the term "first born" was used when it absolutely couldn't have been implying that there had been a subsequent birth?
I, for one was firstborn for several years before my brother came along. A cousin in law was a firstborn and never had any siblings. The word 'firstborn' simply does not require any siblings to follow. To be a firstborn does not require a secondborn just as to be a secondborn does not require a thirdborn.

Now I suppose you are requiring a Biblical proof or you will not be pleased at all. I am not aware of any Biblical usage that provides an absolute counter-example to your preferred understanding. Instead, I would like to get you to see that 'firstborn' is a concept that really has to do with the child who opens the womb, and really nothing with other children who might or might not follow.

I will be stealing from Raymond De Souza's article 'Mary’s Perpetual Virginity . . . Was The Firstborn Son Followed By A Second-Born Son?'

Note that in Luke 2 that Jesus was presented in the temple when he was 40 days old according to the Law. He was presented as the firstborn. Oddly, Mary and Joseph did not wait until a secondborn came along to make the term 'firstborn' meaningful. The term 'firstborn' was meaningful before any secondborn could even have been conceived. To be firstborn is a legal title, having nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of other children.

Romans 8:29 refers to Jesus as the firstborn among many brethren, which is all of us conformed to the image of the Son, who are we his followers. He is also the firstborn of all creation.

Colossians 1:15-21
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

This sort of 'firstborn' is way beyond a word that means there is a secondborn or a thirdborn. It is a primacy, first place in everything.

De Sousa provides a quote by way of conclusion: “Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the Gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the firstborn whether or not there is any question of the second.”
Who wrote this? Again, no Early Father, no medieval Pope, no contemporary lay apologist — but John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian religion (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Sermon on Matthew, 1:22-25, published in 1562).
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
truefiction1,
re: "...just before Jesus died he gave his mother his beloved disciple John to be her son in His stead. (John 19:26-27)"



I don't see where John 19:26-27 mentions anyone named John
The Gospel names 'the Beloved Disciple' without actually naming who that is. Tradition identifies John as the Beloved Disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.

The Gospel of John is famous for double or even triple meanings. Think of 'born again' and 'born from above'. What happened at the cross as Jesus was dying appears to be a literal handing over the responsibility Jesus had as the firstborn for his mother to John. Odd, because that job should have been automatically handed over to Jesus' brothers if he had any. But the double meaning part is that we can put ourselves in the place of the Beloved Disciple, and it appears that we are intended to do so by the internal design of the Gospel of John. In this way, we are all entrusted to make a home for Mary in a metaphorical way. You might not like that idea, which then pushes you back to accepting that Jesus entrusted His mother to the care of John, which the Tradition accepts pretty unanimously anyhow.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What does God say?
Ephesians 5:
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

There is no sin in a husband and wife loving each other and engaging in acts of love which were given to man and woman from the beginning. I disagree with the condemnation of marital sex as something dirty or sinful. The Bible makes no such claim.

How can that be true (the idea of their theology unbibical), when obviously some of the curse words people say, like the m word, are so foul and obscene? To me they arent anything but sins.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
How can that be true (the idea of their theology unbibical), when obviously some of the curse words people say, like the m word, are so foul and obscene? To me they arent anything but sins.
The m word?????
 
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Mary "was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:35). The same wording was used for the Shekinah that overshadowed The Ark of The Covenant.

(1) And Mary "conceived of the Holy Spirit".
Does the Holy Spirit do One-night-stands?
Does The Holy Spirit do divorce?
IMPOSSIBLE! Mary is The Bride of The Holy Spirit (Joseph is her protector)

(2)In this moment of conception Mary became The Ark of The New & Eternal Covenant.
Now think about this.........
What 3 objects were in The Ark of The Old Covenant?
(a)The Word of God on the stone tablets;
(b)Manna
&(c) Aaron's priestly Rod.
These three inanimate objects made the Ark was so holy that Uzzah was struck dead for touching it.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, and with Mary's consent, Mary gave living flesh to these three things in one person....Jesus, who is (a)The Word (b) The bread of Life & (c) The High Priest
So Mary is plainly The Living Ark of The New Covenant containing and giving her flesh to, The Living Word and The Living Bread of Heaven (Jesus) & The High priest.

Now, if you were Joseph, what would you do? Seriously?

The trouble is that, despite Mary's prophecy, in Luke "That henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Protestants drifted from this (Not Luther or Calvin incidentally).
They just don't really think about Mary & Typology (Look it up in google or you-tube).
If The Old Ark was holy & venerated The New Ark of Christ is much holier & much more to be venerated.
I see everywhere on the internet Protestants wondering why/how "The Ark" is in Heaven with God in Revelations???.....It's Mary.! It's so obvious!
That's what the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the Assumption is about.

Sceptical?
Just read Revelations without the added chapter divisions. What does the verse immediately before the sign of the queen appearing in heaven say?......."Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm."

Take the scales of hatred of Mary (or Catholicism) from your eyes.
Because of the Astronomical configuration just arising, many Protestants are on the internet talking about Rev 12......as though that chaptering was in the original. Nobody reads the introductory verse 11:19 about God's Ark, sees a queen in heaven, and comes up with Mary! And they say they love scripture!
Mary/Ark/Davidic-King's MOTHER was HIS QUEEN.
Oh and The Mother-Queen of The Davidic Kings was "Gebirah" Intercessor with her Son-king for the people. And he refused her nothing. Then look at Cana.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I'm gonna slam-dunk this whole debate.
ready?


Sorry, but your slam dunk went off the back of the rim!


Why you may ask? Because for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. (2 Thess. 2:15; Luke 10:16; Rom 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:25;) It is a mistake on your part to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.


Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.




When the RCC places "church tradition" on equal footing with the scriptures, there is no longer ANY solid basis on which to debate.



Catholic Tradition stands with Scripture in forming the one single deposit of the Faith. For Catholics, Sacred Tradition is not in opposition to Scripture: they compliment and confirm one another. Vatican II’s Dei Verbum speaks of “a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture”: “both of them… [flow] from the same divine wellspring.”

It says that “Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity.” The Church, “led by the light of the Spirit of truth, …may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.” (Dei Verbum, 9) This statement reveals another key aspect of Catholic Tradition: it is linked to the active work of the Holy Spirit.

With that being said, your missed "slam dunk" was rebounded, taken the length of the court, and was drilled as a three pointer...... nothing but net!! :)
 
Upvote 0

Sine Nomine

Scientist and Christian
Jun 13, 2012
197
84
Albany, NY
✟18,989.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Mary "was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:35). The same wording was used for the Shekinah that overshadowed The Ark of The Covenant.

(1) And Mary "conceived of the Holy Spirit".
Does the Holy Spirit do One-night-stands?
Does The Holy Spirit do divorce?
IMPOSSIBLE! Mary is The Bride of The Holy Spirit (Joseph is her protector)

(2)In this moment of conception Mary became The Ark of The New & Eternal Covenant.
Now think about this.........
What 3 objects were in The Ark of The Old Covenant?
(a)The Word of God on the stone tablets;
(b)Manna
&(c) Aaron's priestly Rod.
These three inanimate objects made the Ark was so holy that Uzzah was struck dead for touching it.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, and with Mary's consent, Mary gave living flesh to these three things in one person....Jesus, who is (a)The Word (b) The bread of Life & (c) The High Priest
So Mary is plainly The Living Ark of The New Covenant containing and giving her flesh to, The Living Word and The Living Bread of Heaven (Jesus) & The High priest.

Now, if you were Joseph, what would you do? Seriously?

The trouble is that, despite Mary's prophecy, in Luke "That henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Protestants drifted from this (Not Luther or Calvin incidentally).
They just don't really think about Mary & Typology (Look it up in google or you-tube).
If The Old Ark was holy & venerated The New Ark of Christ is much holier & much more to be venerated.
I see everywhere on the internet Protestants wondering why/how "The Ark" is in Heaven with God in Revelations???.....It's Mary.! It's so obvious!
That's what the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the Assumption is about.

Sceptical?
Just read Revelations without the added chapter divisions. What does the verse immediately before the sign of the queen appearing in heaven say?......."Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm."

Take the scales of hatred of Mary (or Catholicism) from your eyes.

It seems to me that most of the disagreement arises when trying to assert a particular view as fact. This exercise requires a factual basis to argue from in support of the view. Scripture can be used to supply such facts. Catholics will argue that Holy Tradition is factual, but Protestants will disagree as they believe the authors of all traditions to be fallible--not that there isn't much truth to be gained.

However, it seems to me that some of Holy Tradition is based, not in the plain reading of scripture, but rather in the anagogical. As such, it is useful, but not factual in the way required for debate. Anagogical meaning also seems to change with time, place, and culture. E.g. Who today sees the jars of wine at Cana that Jesus made as tokens of the major biblical progressive narrative of salvation as Alfric (circa 990) did?

I personally find the concept of Mary as
the new Eve to Jesus's new Adam satisfying and in this respect have little difficulty with the view of her as the lady (Cwen/quene/queen) of heaven.I have no problem with the analogy of Mary as the new Ark. All seem of spiritual use in some measure. But, I don't see how these types equate to physical facts.

I believe that "perpetual virginity" was developed conceptually along with the immaculate conception to help promote the view of Mary as untouched by original sin in much the way Protestants see Jesus as being free of original sin. This was helpful for the anagogical view of Mary as the new Eve. Mary as a special, blessed, but otherwise normal human girl is almost certainly factual from what we know of Scripture and human experience. But this view also has anagogical value (for Protestants who have forgotten that they too read Scripture this way sometimes)-we see Mary as a type for us, sinful humans, loved and chosen by God to partake and bear the likeness and reality of his Son. This view is dissonant with Mary as exalted, chaste, virtually sinless, and perpetually virgin.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too hasty to condemn the perspectives that our fellow believers find edifying in our desire to establish the "facts".
 
Upvote 0

Sine Nomine

Scientist and Christian
Jun 13, 2012
197
84
Albany, NY
✟18,989.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but your slam dunk went off the back of the rim!


Why you may ask? Because for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. (2 Thess. 2:15; Luke 10:16; Rom 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:25;) It is a mistake on your part to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.


Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.








Catholic Tradition stands with Scripture in forming the one single deposit of the Faith. For Catholics, Sacred Tradition is not in opposition to Scripture: they compliment and confirm one another. Vatican II’s Dei Verbum speaks of “a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture”: “both of them… [flow] from the same divine wellspring.”

It says that “Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity.” The Church, “led by the light of the Spirit of truth, …may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.” (Dei Verbum, 9) This statement reveals another key aspect of Catholic Tradition: it is linked to the active work of the Holy Spirit.

With that being said, your missed "slam dunk" was rebounded, taken the length of the court, and was drilled as a three pointer...... nothing but net!! :)

While there was no "canonized" NT for about 400 years, the written books were definitely present in abundance and well used. There are no books in the canonized NT that were foreign to the church of the late first/early second century. The goal of canonizing/codifying the NT was to establish which writings were authoritative and which ones were not.

There's no point in arguing with Protestants that Tradition has the same authority as Scripture. The Protestant perspective is that Scripture is infallible, but Man's understanding is not. As the Church Fathers and even Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers are human, they are fallible (even if frequently or even mostly right)--thus Scripture alone is the guiding principle. The problem of Sola plain (literal) meaning is a much bigger problem.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

celticpiping

Active Member
Aug 15, 2016
25
12
55
Maine
Visit site
✟9,083.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Sorry, but your slam dunk went off the back of the rim!"

hmm
do I need to take a walk through church history and remind you of the numerous, and ofgten ungodly RCC dogmas that have since been either rescinded, or have been called into question/validity by subsequent popes/seniour leadership within the RCC herself?
And I never said his teachings were limited to writing.
We read in scripture that the world itself could not contain all of it..

I find it interesting that a dogma as earth-shaking and important as an 'unbroken line of earthly, papal church authority' wasn't even on Paul's list of things to bring up to be taught and put into practice , in clear, no uncertain terms..unlike preaching Christ, and Him crucified..or the state of man, or our being in-grafted into the faith line of the Jews, or....
The important things were not kept hidden, in the end: we are told plainly, the message of the gospel, and what is needed for salvation, etc. The point being, if there were this miraculous, and Christ-instituted line of earthly apostles/popes, it seems it might have been bandied about by the boys...

I've spent a considerable amount of time debating a friend over these things, and at the end of it, I come away concluding that the RCC has done a decent job of preparing their folk to defend the church's positions: and yet they are just that...positions/dogmas that were not spoken by Jesus or his motley band of followers.
Moreover, even the most basic terminology differs greatly in how we each talk about the Kingdom of God: My RCC friend speaks of 'the church this, the church that', as if 'the church' itself is what we as Christians follow, and place our faith in.
I do find it all extremely interesting, yet I am also saddened that there seems to me, to be a sort of usurping, if you will, of the great authority, majesty, and singleness of Lordship that is only to be found in Jesus Christ, and Him alone.
I don't take away from the importance of the church, as she is the bride of Christ as described in the pages of scripture..one day to be as she is supposed to be, clean and spotless.

I realize this is all rather pointless, but sometimes it's good to get it down by hand, to help solidify one's beliefs.

peace,
R
 
Upvote 0

celticpiping

Active Member
Aug 15, 2016
25
12
55
Maine
Visit site
✟9,083.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
oh, and while we're speaking about requirements for a state of salvation.. I'm curious which of these you do not subscribe to?

• An individual must believe that the popes are infallible when teaching ex cathedra.
• One must believe that the Bishops of Rome have been given authority by Christ to rule the Church universal.
• One must be submitted to the Bishop of Rome in all areas of faith, morals, discipline and government of the Church.
• The Roman Catholic Church alone has the right to interpret Scripture and its interpretations are infallible.
• One must accept the Apocrypha as Scripture and as part of the Canon.
• There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
• One must believe that the Roman Catholic sacraments are necessary for salvation and that there specific number is seven.
• An individual must repudiate the teaching that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the basis for justification.
• One must embrace the teaching that justification is not by faith alone but by human works cooperating with grace and by participation in the sacraments.
• One must believe that human works cooperating with grace merit eternal life.
• One must accept the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation as it is the instrumental means of regeneration even for infants.
• One must believe that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.
• One must believe that in the eucharist the bread and wine is transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration (Transubstantiation).
• It is necessary to believe that confession of sins to a Roman Catholic priest and receiving his absolution and performing acts of penance is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins after baptism.
• One must embrace the teachings of the immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary.
• One must accept the Roman Catholic teaching on Purgatory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
do I need to take a walk through church history and remind you of the numerous, and ofgten ungodly RCC dogmas that have since been either rescinded, or have been called into question/validity by subsequent popes/seniour leadership within the RCC herself?
And I never said his teachings were limited to writing.
We read in scripture that the world itself could not contain all of it..

I find it interesting that a dogma as earth-shaking and important as an 'unbroken line of earthly, papal church authority' wasn't even on Paul's list of things to bring up to be taught and put into practice , in clear, no uncertain terms..unlike preaching Christ, and Him crucified..or the state of man, or our being in-grafted into the faith line of the Jews, or....

The reason you do not understand this is because you do not understand covenant, covenant authority, and covenant principles. In a covenant relationship, there is always what is called "covenant headship" or authority. Furthermore, we see in the Scriptures that this headship is passed down from age to age.

Covenant headship is the covenant principle known as "hierarchy."

The passing down of that authority is the principle known as "succession."

We see both of these in Moses, where God invested His authority in Moses as the head of the covenant people, and then that headship was passed down to Joshua. The Roman Church may have abused this principle, but the principle itself is quite sound and biblical.


The important things were not kept hidden, in the end: we are told plainly, the message of the gospel, and what is needed for salvation, etc. The point being, if there were this miraculous, and Christ-instituted line of earthly apostles/popes, it seems it might have been bandied about by the boys...

You need to read more Church History. Covenant headship and succession were the principles by which the entire hierarchical system of rulership are based, and you can find it going all the way back to where St. Paul talks about ordaining bishops in the Church.

I've spent a considerable amount of time debating a friend over these things, and at the end of it, I come away concluding that the RCC has done a decent job of preparing their folk to defend the church's positions: and yet they are just that...positions/dogmas that were not spoken by Jesus or his motley band of followers.

Not everything is spoken of in direct terms. You show yourself to be one of those Fundamentalist types to takes a "literalist" position in understanding the Bible. In other words, understanding parables, typology, shadows, etc., is not as important as finding the words where Jesus said "I am establishing a line of bishops and that lineage will be succeeded forever until I return."

Moreover, even the most basic terminology differs greatly in how we each talk about the Kingdom of God: My RCC friend speaks of 'the church this, the church that', as if 'the church' itself is what we as Christians follow, and place our faith in.

I do find it all extremely interesting, yet I am also saddened that there seems to me, to be a sort of usurping, if you will, of the great authority, majesty, and singleness of Lordship that is only to be found in Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

That usurping has been done by Protestantism by devaluing and ignoring the authority which Christ established upon the world in the form of the successors of the Apostles. In short, it was not the Protestant Reformation, but rather the Protestant Rebellion.

I don't take away from the importance of the church, as she is the bride of Christ as described in the pages of scripture..one day to be as she is supposed to be, clean and spotless.

If you are not a member of the Church, then your words here are pretty much fluff and air.

I realize this is all rather pointless, but sometimes it's good to get it down by hand, to help solidify one's beliefs.

FYI -

The five principles of a covenant, from the Scriptures, by Ray Sutton, Protestant writer (once in a while even a blind pig finds an acorn)

1. Transcendence - The greater offers covenant to the lesser.

2. Hierarchy -- Who's in charge here?

3. Ethics -- What are the rules of this relationship?

4. Oaths/Sanctions -- Vows to keep the covenant with consequences for violations

5. Succession -- The covenant continues from generation to generation.
 
Upvote 0

celticpiping

Active Member
Aug 15, 2016
25
12
55
Maine
Visit site
✟9,083.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"..by devaluing and ignoring the authority.."
absolutely astounding how an entire religion was founded on 1 verse about a rock...

Christ is all in all.
Christ is the head of His church: now, and always

"If you are not a member of the Church, then your words here are pretty much fluff and air."
I attend a church
, yes

I've heard covenant theology from a 'reformed' fellow, and it sounded just as much of a rech as this does, in trying to establish some new doctrine..

ochone!
 
Upvote 0

wilts43

Newbie
May 22, 2011
236
79
✟21,547.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Protestant perspective is that Scripture is infallible, but Man's understanding is not.
So then it is logically inescapable that The Protestant has NO infallible truth!

This is VERY far from Luther & Calvin who asserted their personal interpretations as infallible. But of course they still thought they were reforming THE Church , not creating a free-for-all.
But they had sown theseed with their "sola scriptura"....... which results in today's American plethora of Protestantism, loosely presiding over "Me, Jesus & my Bible". And everyone is their own pope.
This is a gazillion miles from The Church in Acts, or The Church as "Israel-fulfilled"!
And it has no Apostolic connection to the "mustard-seed-Church (Jesus founded on Peter) that becomes the largest of plants"
There is no "city on a hill," no "Being one that the world will know"

On the contrary scripture does not purport to be a manual on how to run a thing called "The Church". But that is how the Protestant innovators always see it: They despise the Catholic oak-tree; they want to go create a facsimilie-acorn.....rejecting the acorn Christ planted!
Acts shows The Apostles exerting authority, insisting on unity, creating successors....."and just getting on with it". As leaders of The post-messianic-Israel their assumptions were Jewish including that Jews has Torah (Word) & Mishna/Talmud (Tradition). These things, were only explained as challenges arose.
The protestant dilema is that they pick up a compilation made originally by the Catholic Church, they invent "sola scriptura" (which isn't in scripture!) but it just cannot work......Because without infallible interpretation (As well as infallible compilation of The canon) you have no truth.
But Jesus promised "to lead His Church into all truth" (including dogmas about His Mother).
Sola Scriptura is contradicted by scripture, but it serves as a ring-fence to those who refuse to be subject to authority. But it is a ring-fence into a corner of unresolvable debate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

celticpiping

Active Member
Aug 15, 2016
25
12
55
Maine
Visit site
✟9,083.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"...a compilation made originally by the Catholic Church.."

sorry that's just not correct.

...priestly confession, Mary’s sinless life and assumption into Heaven, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the Papal office, prayers to the (Catholic) saints...on and on and on...

these things are why you & I will never see eye to eye mostly..

but hey, if you tell me you believe Jesus was God's son, and you believe He was risen from the dead for payment of your sins.... we'll call it good
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sine Nomine
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
oh, and while we're speaking about requirements for a state of salvation.. I'm curious which of these you do not subscribe to?

• An individual must believe that the popes are infallible when teaching ex cathedra.

Wrong. The Church speaking in an ecumenical council is the final authority.

• One must believe that the Bishops of Rome have been given authority by Christ to rule the Church universal.

Wrong. We Orthodox will challenge you to find this idea in existence in the Early Fathers.

• One must be submitted to the Bishop of Rome in all areas of faith, morals, discipline and government of the Church.

Wrong. The office of the papacy was never seen as a dictatorship, which is what the above statement implies. For the first 1,000 years, the papacy exercised its authority as the "first among equals."

• The Roman Catholic Church alone has the right to interpret Scripture and its interpretations are infallible.

Wrong. And quite humorous when you consider that they mistranslated the Greek in their Douay-Rheims translation of the Scriptures.

• One must accept the Apocrypha as Scripture and as part of the Canon.

Wrong. Not a salvation issue.
• There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then I guess that all the other Catholics and all the Orthodox who ever live are screwed, eh? Wrong!!!

• One must believe that the Roman Catholic sacraments are necessary for salvation and that there specific number is seven.

The Catholic Church, that is, the united Church of East and West, has determined that there are Seven Sacraments. The Church has spoken on this issue, and Jesus said that if a man not hear the Church, let him be as a pagan and unbeliever.

As for the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, let us let the words of Christ Himself suffice for us:


Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

No Eucharist, no age-long life. Jesus was very clear about this. Why don't you believe Him? The first Christians did, and they did for 1500 years until Protestant heretics came along, thinking that they were smarter and more brilliant that 1500 years of saints and holy men.

• An individual must repudiate the teaching that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the basis for justification.

Of course, because it is a false doctrine which was never found in Christianity until Luther and Calvin cooked it up from mistranslating the Greek. Even the online Protestant dictionaries admit this.

• One must embrace the teaching that justification is not by faith alone but by human works cooperating with grace and by participation in the sacraments.

Did you ever hear of the Epistle of James? "Faith without works is DEAD!!" Not only that, but I challenge you to read the following passages of the Scriptures and see upon what issue Christ gives eternal life: Romans 2:5-10, Matthew 25:33-46, John 5:28-29, Revelation 20: 12-13. Every single passage there says that eternal life is a reward of the works we have done.

• One must believe that human works cooperating with grace merit eternal life.

Same as above.

• One must accept the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation as it is the instrumental means of regeneration even for infants.

Again, this was taught from the very beginning by the Apostles and the Early Fathers. The idea of "believer's baptism" was novel teaching that cropped up with Roger Williams and the heretical Anabaptists. More than that, it is the ritual of covenant entrance which took place of the old covenant making ritual of circumcision. (Col. 2: 11-13)

• One must believe that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh......sort of. The Orthodox view is a bit more nuanced than that. We tend to view the Eucharist as a participation in the life of Christ through the outpouring of His divine energies in the Eucharist and our partaking of those energies when He enters us. The Roman view of many things is very much wrapped up in a more juridical and punitive view of God and man. We see the Eucharist as medicine which heals our souls, not a a payment for sins.

• One must believe that in the eucharist the bread and wine is transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration (Transubstantiation).

Jesus said so, the Church taught it for 1500 years, the real question is who are you going to believe, the Apostles and those they discipled, the Early Fathers, from the very first century, or some Johnny-Come-Lately bunch of heretics who denied 1500 years of Christian teaching and faith. Don't you think that you put yourself in a dangerous place to not believe what the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus, taught as truth?

• It is necessary to believe that confession of sins to a Roman Catholic priest and receiving his absolution and performing acts of penance is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins after baptism.

John 20:23. Jesus gave to men the authority to pronounce His pardon for their sins.

• One must embrace the teachings of the immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary.

We Orthodox do not. The IC creates massive anthropological problems, and comes from Augustine's warped view of mankind and the effects of sin upon man.

• One must accept the Roman Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

No such place -- HOWEVER -- there is something quite similar in Orthodox soteriology. Romans 5: 18 states that God has, through the obedience of Christ unto death, brought salvation to all mankind. There is no going anywhere else other than into the very presence of God when you die. God wins, death loses. That's Scripture.

But there are three kinds of people who will enter into His presence.

1. The saints. They will find the fire of God's love to be immediate joy. The saints are few in number, marked by their lives of ascetic struggle, fasting, prayer, and eschewing the world. St. Padre Pio would be one of them.

2. Ordinary believers. We die with sins on our souls. As such, we need to be changed ontologically into our teleological end, which is to be like Christ and share in the divine nature. Therefore, when we come into the presence of Christ, all that is not like Him will be burned away by the fire of His passionate, divine love for us. And it will hurt. This is a state similar to the Roman idea of Purgatory.

3. The wicked. Do I have to tell you what the fire of God's love is like to them? To be in God's presence is hell for them. They neither want it nor can respond to it because they are creatures who are in love with the sin and who hate God with all their being. All pretense of goodness is stripped away and they are revealed for what they are.
 
Upvote 0