Mary Was Just A Woman

[Guest LadyC]

ok, if you don't care to read the debate, at least read the bible. 2 kings 22:13 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us." (the passage is referring to the torah, the biblical books of law.)

no, it doesn't say go inquire of the RCC traditional teachings and doctrines what is written in the book, it says go and ask GOD. and scripture is God's word to us. how it must anger God to know that so many of His children don't think His word is final. do you ever wonder what He thinks of this? proverbs 30 tells us: 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

pay careful attention to verse six... do not add to His words. or to clarify that in simpler terms, if you're sayings something that ain't written in the Bible, God will prove you a liar.

really, i wish you'd do a thorough examination of the debate between the protestant and catholic that i linked to above. the catholic arguments fall apart under scrutiny.

[Old Timer]

Mat 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[Assisi]

Assisi

How is the believer in Sola Scriptura to TEST "by Scripture" the very traditions upon which the apostolicity and canonicity of the books of Scripture are based? I am referring to the New Testament here. How are the traditions behind the canonicity of the Gospels to be tested?

Let

[Smalcald]

Some of the post in this thread are full of compassion, love and grace.  Others are full of hatred, pride, and prejudice.  Which ones do you think are of God and which are not.  By their fruit you can tell. 

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kansas Dad, I presume that you are talking about folks like me. I want you to know that I love Catholics very much. My whole family on my father's side is Catholic...I dare say that I love my "daddy". I believe that there is a balance in Scripture. After two or three admonitions, Paul says in Titus 3:10, that we are to reject one as an heretic. I am not saying that in hate, but rather in love. We can't go on and on and on about vain strivings like "is Mary sinless" and nonsense like that if the Word doesn't teach it. The more we argue with them, the more we become like them. I am learning that through debating with Unitarians, etc. Convincing words, quotes, and the like, will never bring one to a saving thirst and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Only a sincere faith, increased and led by the Holy Ghost, can do that. Jesus said that if somebody seeks then they will find. I believe Him. I fully contend that if a Catholic wants to know Christ as He truly is, then he/she will forsake family, houses, lands, or church, if need be, and come to know Him. It is a promise by my Lord and I take Him at His Word. It is not that I don't love my brethren of the flesh, it is my desire that they might be saved...as Paul longed for Israel to be saved. But there came a time when Paul had to say that he would no longer preach to the Jews but unto the Gentiles. Why? Because they rejected the Gospel. They heard it once, twice...ten times...to no avail. Catholics will be Catholics. Sincere seekers will be finders.

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still...and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."-Revelation 22:11,17

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But are you saying that a Catholic, who holds an incorrect idea about Mary, cannot also have a sincere faith in Christ? I think indeed we probably all hold to different degrees, incorrect theology.

I disagree with my Messianic Jewish Brothers and Sisters here about the eating of Pork, but they are saved as myself through faith in Christ, yet one of us is wrong.

I think on the Mary issue it will become a salvation issue if Mary ever assumes a role in the Trinity or as a God or Goddess, which would of course be blaspheme and I think be a leaving of the true faith. But that is not what the Catholic Church holds as I understand it. It would also go directly against the Creeds.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Smalcald

[Guest shiloh357]

I disagree with my Messianic Jewish Brothers and Sisters here about the eating of Pork

Really??? You think that eating pork is a sin?

[Smalcald]

No, I don

[Guest LadyC]

assisi, instead of quoting from whatever text you're quoting from, please quote from scripture. all that stuff you just posted is unbiblical, and therefore has no validity.

proverbs 30 tells us: 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

if it can't be found in scripture, it's garbage... unless you think that the Word of God is full of lies?

[apothanein kerdos]

Your knowledge of church history is sad.

Pray tell, when the apologists defended their faith...what did they appeal to. Scripture or tradition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is the believer in Sola Scriptura to TEST "by Scripture" the very traditions upon which the apostolicity and canonicity of the books of Scripture are based? I am referring to the New Testament here. How are the traditions behind the canonicity of the Gospels to be tested?

The only way is by Tradition.

Traditions behind the apostolicity and canonicity of the NT must be accepted by implicit faith in the reliability of the Church which completed the task of "testing" for all Christians today. You have no ability to test these "by Scripture" therefore the above principle as practiced by Protestants is inconsistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You avoided the question. Why did the Apologist and early church fathers appeal solely to scripture when making their defense? Why did they not appeal to tradition? I am not nullifying tradition. I'm simply placing scripture above tradition and saying that the early church fathers, as well as myself, believe that all tradition must rest upon scripture.

Now, answer the question

[Pax]

PAX

I have to laugh when you say that the Catholic Church doesn't understand Christian unity. Which Denomination do you belong to out of the 38,000 Protestant denominations out there.

Pax

[Assisi]

Your knowledge of church history is sad.

Pray tell, when the apologists defended their faith...what did they appeal to. Scripture or tradition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is the believer in Sola Scriptura to TEST "by Scripture" the very traditions upon which the apostolicity and canonicity of the books of Scripture are based? I am referring to the New Testament here. How are the traditions behind the canonicity of the Gospels to be tested?

The only way is by Tradition.

Traditions behind the apostolicity and canonicity of the NT must be accepted by implicit faith in the reliability of the Church which completed the task of "testing" for all Christians today. You have no ability to test these "by Scripture" therefore the above principle as practiced by Protestants is inconsistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You avoided the question. Why did the Apologist and early church fathers appeal solely to scripture when making their defense? Why did they not appeal to tradition? I am not nullifying tradition. I'm simply placing scripture above tradition and saying that the early church fathers, as well as myself, believe that all tradition must rest upon scripture.

Now, answer the question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Catholic Church and the early Fathers admit a material sufficiency of the Bible but it maintains that Tradition, Church and Scripture are inseparable. and that the one cannot understand the meaning of the Sacred Scripture without Tradition and Church! That is why the early Fathers can admit a sufficiency of the Bible and the existence of unwritten traditions at the same time.

Vincent of Lerins make this point. in his Commonitories

Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, becuase of the great distortions caused by various erros, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning"

Comm 2

Athanasius discourse on the Arian heritics interpretation of Christ writes:

'Had they dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an ANCHOR for the faith, they would not have of the faith have made shipwreck of the faith'

Orat iii, 58

Without the tradition of the Churchas evidence by the ecclesiastical sense of faith the interpretation of Scripture and one's faith can become shipwrecked.

Some presant day examples.

Mormonism

Jehovah's Witness Seventh Day Adventism

One International Church of Christ

Onenss Pentecostals

Christian science

Christadelphianismri ect.