2 questions for non-catholics, that were always on my mind as a former non-catholic...

[meltzerboy]

Matthew–

Thanks for your reply. I do think I understand the Theotokos concept, both in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I’ve found it very interesting—my predominate area of Biblical interest has leaned toward the Old Testament and Jewish studies, so the idea of attempting a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is intriguing.

However, I’m still left wondering why God would exempt Mary from the daily struggle with sin which even saints such as Paul faced—if He could exempt her so easily, why not all of us who truly desire it?

I mean, I have at times wished being less selfish —for example–came more easily to me, but over my years as I’ve matured somewhat as a Christian, I’ve come to appreciate the growth process itself, and have patience, and trust God takes delight in my efforts to choose Him…so I don’t mean to sound whiny, if I do. But, gee, I wouldn’t have minded being born free from sin. Sorry again if that sounds whiny–that’s not how I mean it, but I can’t think of a way to express myself better at the moment.

If your learning in this area includes Jewish studies, as you state, you’re probably aware that Judaism (99% of it: it’s NEVER 100% if we’re talking about Jewish teaching) does not believe we are born in original sin. It believes we are all born free of sin. However, the majority of Jews also believe we acquire an “evil inclination,” which accompanies our innate “good inclination.” This evil inclination is not in itself sinful. On the contrary, it is necessary for our earthly survival. However, when engaged in excessively or inappropriately, it becomes sinful. For example, hunger is part of our evil inclination, which demands selfish satisfaction. This is normal and necessary for us to live. Nonetheless, hunger can become gluttony, which is sinful. Further, the evil inclination is necessary for us to learn to control. This “taming” of our evil tendencies by means of concentrated effort is no easy task and may require many attempts. But, according to Judaism, the effort involved helps us become closer to G-d. If we were simply given only good tendencies, we would have no inner conflict or struggle, would ultimately learn nothing, and never grow in our devotion and love of G-d. So, if your faith believes in original sin, be happy you were not born otherwise, and don’t complain about being tempted by sin: it is G-d’s means of teaching us to draw closer to Him.

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard…

I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning here. The word used in Luke 1:28 is charitoo
G5487 which means

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable

1. to peruse with grace, compass with favour

1. to honour with blessings

Protestant scholars (not me) - insist that in Luke 1:28, kecharitomene is the phrase used…Check it out for yourself and if I am wrong I will concede…

It is used twice in Eph.1
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein [he hath made]G5487 us [accepted]G5487 in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

You will notice in Eph.1:6 it is used to indicate those who “have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” in verse 7. So, it can be deduced that it is being used the same way in Luke 1:28

Regarding the word charitoo, I actually started a thread on the topic:

In the following link we have the King James Bible with Strong’s Dictionary. I have a question regarding the Greek word charitoo; see Strong’s 5487:

sacrednamebible.com/kjvst…K548.htm#S5487

Every time (with the exception of Luke 1:28) - the Greek word charitoo is translated into English, we see the word grace as can be verified by going to the aforementioned link and clicking on every verse that contains Strong’s 5487.

Why is charitoo, in Strong’s #5487 translated as grace 27 out of 28 times, to the exclusion of Luke 1:28, where charitoo is instead, translated as “Hail thou that art highly favoured?”

Why the exception with Luke 1:28?

 

[joe370]

Hey Joe,
Just out of curiousity, when you were Lutheran, how much did you know about Luther’s mariology? How much do your Lutheran relatives know about it?

Jon

Absolutely zilch…Only that catholics worshiped Jesus’ mother. Of course I didn’t buy it…My niece does though…I’ve got to head back to work brother; talk to you a little later…

 

[JonNC]

=JamestheOlder;8447630]Sorry I’m back so far through the thread, Joe. My answers would be these:

1. Those who question Mary’s state of grace throughout her life could not know for certain she is with Jesus. In their minds, they have no “Biblical” proof. We Catholics have dogmatic teaching that she was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. The differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Christian thought is the answer to Question 2, below.
2. Not necessarily. Non-Catholic Christians approach faith in a different manner than Catholics. As a usual rule, their theology and practices and, yes, even belief can change, because it always must be based on someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible. They have no basis for faith in tradition, even the traditions of the original “reformers”.

In #1, it is one of the reasons I believe in her perpetual state of grace.
In #2, as Joe and I have often discussed, Lutherans are bound to the Lutheran confessions, and not personal interpretation. At least in terms of doctrine, personal interpretation should not play into our faith.

Catholics affirm Tradition (capital T) as superior to the New Testament of the Bible, because Tradition existed for some 300 years BEFORE the New Testament canon was established. So we have a Tradition, now stated as dogma, that May was born without original sin (IC), that she is ever-virgin before and after marriage to Joseph, and at the time of her death was assumed (live) into Heaven, where she reigns as “Queen of Heaven” with her Son as King. That she was tested throughout her life to sin, just as her Son was, goes without saying.

My understanding is the dogmatic declaration of the Assumption leaves open the question about whether or not she was alive or died then was assumed. Am I wrong?

One other comment. We have to be specific about the use of “Protestant”. Those Christian churches which can trace their roots to Calvin, Zwingli and Luther are properly called “Protestant”. Those, including Wesley with his “Method” who trace theirs to Anglicanism are not really “Protestant”…they are separated from the Roman Church as are many of the Eastern Churches (there are substantial differences there) . I have had a few Methodist ministers advise me they are part of the creedal “catholic” church…they consider themselves separated from the CC, but are not properly called “Protestant”. Baptists, for example, reject the creeds (Nicene, Apostles’), but their link to the Protestant reformers is tenuous, at best. They would be more correctly described as “fundamentalist”, in the best sense of the word, in that they seek to believe (what for them is) only the fundamental concepts of Christianity which they can find in the New Testament.

I would essentially agree, and would also add that the term protestant comes from the protest of the Second Diet of Speyer, 1529, and not a “protest” of the Catholic Church per se.

Jon

 

[babylonsfalling]

Excuse me if I missed a post and someone has already pointed this out, but the answer seems rather obvious to me:

Martin Luther was raised Catholic and believed everything the RC taught until he became upset with a few men who were, in his opinion, playing on the fears of unsuspecting naive christians for their own personal gain. When he tried to report the offenses to the pope and it back-fired on him - that is when he left the church.

So, it wasn’t a matter of a man denying everything he believed all his life, but a matter of trying to bring the people back into truth.

The idea that Mary was a woman in need of a redeemer, born with the same sin nature as every other human being, (in their minds) was just part of discovering you have been lied to (their opinion, not my accusation) and then searching to find out what else may be amiss in the teachings they once received without question.

In-other-words, the teachings of the Catholic Church came under question and these men began to scrutinized everything they once believed to determine what was and wasn’t true as they no longer believed they could trust the RC. It didn’t happen in an instance, but over a long period of time.

Perhaps, if Luther had lived longer, he would have also taught Mary was a sinner like everyone else. IDK

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

Do you EVER do research Ginger?

 

[joe370]

Richard, you said:

My final authority is the bible, the word of God. If you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, truth will be revealed.

So, your final authority, when you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, is your interpretation of your final authority, which is the bible - correct?

So, then you being a Catholic and following those who are “incapable of being incorrect” are also “incapable of being incorrect.”

Yup, of course, only if the Catholic Church is not the church established by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

Jesus here is quite obviously talking about the resurrection.

You said that Mary was dead. Jesus said:

"…nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Even from the OT perspective, Jesus went on to say: "even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard…

Protestant scholars (not me) - insist that in Luke 1:28, kecharitomene is the phrase used…Check it out for yourself and if I am wrong I will concede…

I’m not sure who your bible scholars are, your link doesn’t work, but I took this out of the Blue Letter Bible’s Stong’s lexicon.

Quote:
I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning here. The word used in Luke 1:28 is charitoo
G5487 which means

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3. to honour with blessings

Regarding the word charitoo, I actually started a thread on the topic:

In the following link we have the King James Bible with Strong’s Dictionary. I have a question regarding the Greek word charitoo; see Strong’s 5487:

sacrednamebible.com/kjvst…K548.htm#S5487

Every time (with the exception of Luke 1:28) - the Greek word charitoo is translated into English, we see the word grace as can be verified by going to the aforementioned link and clicking on every verse that contains Strong’s 5487.

Why is charitoo, in Strong’s #5487 translated as grace 27 out of 28 times, to the exclusion of Luke 1:28, where charitoo is instead, translated as “Hail thou that art highly favoured?”

Why the exception with Luke 1:28?

I’m not sure why you think that this is a problem. Do you not think that being full of grace is highly favored?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, you said:

So, your final authority, when you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, is your interpretation of your final authority, which is the bible - correct?

I’ll stick with my statement.
My final authority is the bible, the word of God. If you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, truth will be revealed.

Yup, of course, only if the Catholic Church is not the church established by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

Are you seriously saying that you are incapable of making a mistake?

You said that Mary was dead. Jesus said:

"…nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Even from the OT perspective, Jesus went on to say: "even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised.

I cannot see anything in this post that would convince me that Mary or the patriarchs with the exception of Elijah, Moses, Enoch, and a handful that rose at Jesus ascention are not now dead and awaiting the resurrection. If you would have read all of my post Jesus brings this out.

Matt.22
29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Jesus is saying that these patriarchs will be raised FROM THE DEAD unto eternal life. Because of their faith in God.

 

[JamestheOlder]

In #1, it is one of the reasons I believe in her perpetual state of grace.
In #2, as Joe and I have often discussed, Lutherans are bound to the Lutheran confessions, and not personal interpretation. At least in terms of doctrine, personal interpretation should not play into our faith.

My understanding is the dogmatic declaration of the Assumption leaves open the question about whether or not she was alive or died then was assumed. Am I wrong?

I would essentially agree, and would also add that the term protestant comes from the protest of the Second Diet of Speyer, 1529, and not a “protest” of the Catholic Church per se.

Jon

Thank you for your correction on #2, Jon. I should have excluded Luterans from my sentence. For your belief about #1, it could be true, but I am not aware of any CC teaching of that specifically.

On the Assumption, I will go back and try to read the translated document. My experience started with a trip to Israel some many years ago, where I visited the Church of the Dormition, built (supposedly) over the place where Mary was assumed into Heaven. The tradition, mostly Eastern I believe, was that Mary went to sleep (dormition) and was assumed into heaven, body and soul. This tradition stemmed, at least partly, from the belief that Jesus would not allow decay (even the first instance of “death”) to touch His mother’s body. A very pious thought! If I can find more, I will add it.

Finally, I really think a proper way to refer to “real” Protestant churches is with a capital “P”. But. then, I am old-fashioned in other ways, as well.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for your correction on #2, Jon. I should have excluded Luterans from my sentence. For your belief about #1, it could be true, but I am not aware of any CC teaching of that specifically.

On the Assumption, I will go back and try to read the translated document. My experience started with a trip to Israel some many years ago, where I visited the Church of the Dormition, built (supposedly) over the place where Mary was assumed into Heaven. The tradition, mostly Eastern I believe, was that Mary went to sleep (dormition) and was assumed into heaven, body and soul. This tradition stemmed, at least partly, from the belief that Jesus would not allow decay (even the first instance of “death”) to touch His mother’s body. A very pious thought! If I can find more, I will add it.

Finally, I really think a proper way to refer to “real” Protestant churches is with a capital “P”. But. then, I am old-fashioned in other ways, as well.

Thanks, James.
I find Dormition to be quite pious, as well.

On protestant, I kind of view it as a common noun, not unlike “cities”, and the specific communions, Lutheran, Reformed, etc, as being proper. I guess it depends on how one views the term.

Jon

 

[JamestheOlder]

I’ll stick with my statement.
My final authority is the bible, the word of God. If you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, truth will be revealed.
Are you seriously saying that you are incapable of making a mistake?
I cannot see anything in this post that would convince me that Mary or the patriarchs with the exception of Elijah, Moses, Enoch, and a handful that rose at Jesus ascention are not now dead and awaiting the resurrection. If you would have read all of my post Jesus brings this out.

-------------snipped--------------.

Jesus is saying that these patriarchs will be raised FROM THE DEAD unto eternal life. Because of their faith in God.

Please clarify, Richard:
Do you believe there are only a few people in Heaven at present, that all others, Mary and so forth, are simply DEAD and in sort of a state of non-existence?

 

[joe370]

I’m not sure who your bible scholars are, your link doesn’t work, but I took this out of the Blue Letter Bible’s Stong’s lexicon.

Quote:
I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning here. The word used in Luke 1:28 is charitoo
G5487 which means

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Please clarify, Richard:
Do you believe there are only a few people in Heaven at present, that all others, Mary and so forth, are simply DEAD and in sort of a state of non-existence?

Jesus refers to it as sleep.
Jn.11
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

 

[joe370]

Richard Kastner;8448199]I’ll stick with my statement.
My final authority is the bible, the word of God. If you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, truth will be revealed.

Richard, after you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, do you consider your interpretation, authoritative, or do you defer to someone else or perhaps a particular church for authoritative interpretations? If you ignore my question this time I promise I won’t ask again my friend!

Are you seriously saying that you are incapable of making a mistake?

I was referring to the CC regarding doctrinal truth. When did I (me) - ever become part of the discussion? Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously no. Regarding my interpretation of scripture, there is always a chance that I could be incorrect, which is why I do not rely on it, independent of Jesus’ church. That would be presumptuous and just darn silly. After all Jesus didn’t promise to be with me forever, guiding me into all truth until His return. When differences of opinion arise within Christendom, I defer to the what I believe to be the church established by God, as opposed to my interpretation. You seem to do the polar opposite. I don’t have that kind of confidence.

I cannot see anything in this post that would convince me that Mary or the patriarchs with the exception of Elijah, Moses, Enoch, and a handful that rose at Jesus ascention are not now dead and awaiting the resurrection. If you would have read all of my post Jesus brings this out.

According to your interpretation of scripture. If you choose to believe that Jesus’ mother is not with HIm in heaven, that’s cool…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here is the link. Regarding the word grace (charitoo) - see for yourself. Charitoo is translated as highly favored in Luke 1 and as grace in the other 27 passages. Why not use the word grace in Luke 1 as well - was my only point; nothing more. Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that the angel Gabriel addressed Mary as kecharitomene, not charitoo.

 

[joe370]

Jesus refers to it as sleep.
Jn.11
11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Sleep was another way of saying that he was dead. Richard, after his body died or slept what happened to his soul or spirit? The spirit cannot sleep aka die?

Here is a perfect example where your particular brand of Sola scriptura (opposite of JonNC’s) - does not work. Is there a chance that you could be incorrect, just as I readily admit that I could be incorrect? If so, who did God leave us with to resolve the matter when people like you and I can not see eye to eye regarding the hermeneutics of sacred scripture?

 

[joe370]

joe370;8448306:

I think the way the word is used in Eph.1:6,7 is indicative of the way it is used in Luke 1:28

Eph1
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

kecharitomene is not the phrase used there. But if that’s how you interpret it, so be it…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, after you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, do you consider your interpretation, authoritative, or do you defer to someone else or perhaps a particular church for authoritative interpretations? If you ignore my question this time I promise I won’t ask again my friend!

Honest Joe I didn’t think that I was ignoring your question. I just thought that you were trying to lead me into an answer that would be more comfortable to you than to me. Let me try this time by saying, if I believe that I have been led into the truth by the Spirit of the Living God, why would I defer to anyone else?

I was referring to the CC regarding doctrinal truth. When did I (me) - ever become part of the discussion? Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously no. Regarding my interpretation of scripture, there is always a chance that I could be incorrect, which is why I do not rely on it, independent of Jesus’ church. That would be presumptuous and just darn silly. After all Jesus didn’t promise to be with me forever, guiding me into all truth until His return. When differences of opinion arise within Christendom, I defer to the what I believe to be the church established by God, as opposed to my interpretation. You seem to do the polar opposite. I don’t have that kind of confidence.

If you are teaching according to what you say is the infallible teachings of the CC, would that not automaticly make your teaching infallible?

According to your interpretation of scripture. If you choose to believe that Jesus’ mother is not with HIm in heaven, that’s cool…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner;8448341:

kecharitomene is not the phrase used there. But if that’s how you interpret it, so be it…

According to Strong’s concodance the word charitoo G5487 is used in both Luke 1:28 and Eph.1:6

Luk 1:28 And 2532 the angel 32 came in 1525 unto 4314 her 846, and said 2036 , Hail 5463 , **[thou that art] highly favoured5487 **, the Lord 2962 [is] with 3326 thee 4675: blessed 2127 [art] thou 4771 among 1722 women 1135.

Eph 1:6 To 1519 the praise 1868 of the glory 1391 of his 846 grace 5485, wherein 1722 3739 he hath made5487 0 us 2248 accepted5487 in 1722 the beloved 25 .

 

[joe370]

Richard Kastner;8448393]Honest Joe I didn’t think that I was ignoring your question. I just thought that you were trying to lead me into an answer that would be more comfortable to you than to me. Let me try this time by saying, if I believe that I have been led into the truth by the Spirit of the Living God, why would I defer to anyone else?

Richard, I would never try to lead you into an answer that would be more comfortable for me. Who cares what I think or believe!!! All that should matter is what feels right and true to you, and I totally respect what feels right and true to you brother. We are merely 2 fellow brothers in Christ, having an enjoyable dialogue…

If you are teaching according to what you say is the infallible teachings of the CC, would that not automaticly make your teaching infallible?

Sure. I defer to the judgment of what I believe is the church established by God.