An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does your last comment mean “Church” is a democracy?
No; only that the Scriptures were revealed to the people of the Church and not just to the hierarchy.
Would a Christian be free to dismiss books of the Bible as not Scripture and still be a Christian? Or could a Christian add books to Scripture and still be a Christian? I do believe the canon of Scripture is a core doctrine.
Knowledge of the extent of the canon is not a requirement for salvation. The Orthodox believe several other deuterocanonical books to be Scripture, whereas Rome does not. Either Rome has subtracted from the canon, or the Orthodox have added to it. Are either damned because of this?
Yet you’ve stated the canon of Scripture is not clearly, explicitly taught in the Bible (ie, there is no mention of what books belong in the Bible).
Correct; which is why we wouldn’t state that knowledge of the canon is necessary for salvation.
Doctrine is required to be believed. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity is a required to be believed to be a Christian.
Yes; the Trinity is a dogma. All dogma is doctrine, not all doctrine is dogma. This is evidenced by the quote you posted in your response.
 
40.png
PerryJ:
I understand Sola. You can not support it and now you dodge the question. You have not been able to prove any of your points. Take as much time as you like and put together a proof of Sola Scriptura and post. Of course start with the Biblical support that it exist. Next prove the scripture you should be using from scripture.
Not interested, Perry; SS has been beaten to death on the forums and will continue to be.
I’ve participated in the beatings in the past, have made my points and my position clear, and am at this time SSd out.
40.png
PerryJ:
Not quite good enough on the Trinity. I did as you asked and put down the support for the IC. You do it for the Trinity. Referring to a bunch of verses that allude to the Trinity does not cut it. Make a post that shows that the Trinity is clearly stated in the Bible. You won’t because you can’t and you know it.
I’ve given you ample links that provide the clear biblical basis for the Trinity; if that’s not good enough for you, so be it.
40.png
PerryJ:
Your picking and choosing which Church doctrine you like based upon personal beliefs.
And you’ve picked the Church whose doctrines you most dislike, and whose doctrines most conflict with your personal beliefs? :whistle:
 
Not interested, Perry; SS has been beaten to death on the forums and will continue to be.
I’ve participated in the beatings in the past, have made my points and my position clear, and am at this time SSd out.

I’ve given you ample links that provide the clear biblical basis for the Trinity; if that’s not good enough for you, so be it.

And you’ve picked the Church whose doctrines you most dislike, and whose doctrines most conflict with your personal beliefs? :whistle:
If your a calvinist did I really pick anything? I am just destined for my end aren’t I?
 
It’s all about you; isn’t it, Perry?
It is the reverse. It isn’t about anything. Everything is predetermined and one does not have a choice. The event is not an event because it is decided prior to the event. Every particle of being was designed for the event to occur; therefore, their is no event there is only process. The process that will conclude as God defined. In essence the end has occurred because God’s thought is his action. They are not seperate. I am not a person I do not have events. I am a process to an end. One could take it to the next level that I am a chemical process. This breaks the thought that to think is to exist. I do not think as I am a chemical process; therefore, I do not exist as a intellectual being. I am a chemical process designed for a known end.
 
Who else could it be about?

I am going to start a thread on double predestination. I would love your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I think that would be great!

I am not sure anyone would be able to prove their point; however, it would be enlightening. We definetly have a few that believe in double predestination.
 
The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous.

Now I know, I know, it will be defended according to all manner of apologetic attempts to justify this kind of theology in light of Scripture, or tradition, or magisterial decrees. But I would ask your consideration in order to better understand why we feel this must be utterly rejected. From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The Glories of Mary:

Mary not only assists her beloved servants at death and encourages them, but she herself accompanies them to the tribunal seat of God. (p. 103)
With reason does an ancient writer call her “the only hope of sinners,” for by her help alone can we hope for the remission of sins. (p. 83)
He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. (p. 94)
But now, if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him. “And so,” continues the same saint, "no one can be found more fit for this office than Mary, who seizes the sword of divine justice with her own hands to prevent it from falling upon and punishing the sinner. (p. 124)
St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that “when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, then we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour,” and the reason he gives for it is, “that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness.” Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son. (p. 136-137)
And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.” (p. 169)
[St. Peter Damian] addresses her in these words: “All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.”(p. 180)
“At the command of Mary all obey - even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence, meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands…Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only so by grace. (p. 181-182)
“Be comforted then, O you who fear,” will I say with St. Thomas of Villanova: “Breathe freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and judge, is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God; most wise, for she knows all the means of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one.” (p. 198)
[Prayer of St. Ephraim:] O Immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection…we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. (p. 273)
The holy Church herself attributes to the merits of Mary’s faith the destruction of all heresies: “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.” (p. 566)
This thread should prove helpful 😉
 
Yes because it’s the truth. What’s in the Bible is true not because it’s in the Bible, but because it’s true, that’s why it’s in the Bible. The same with Church teaching, it’s not true because the Church says so, it’s true that’s why the Church says so.
Yes, and saints like Alphonsus Liguori and Louis De Montfort certainly get it right. People complain about their language, but I do not think their prose is problematic. It is our limited understanding of what they wrote that is the real problem. Our prejudices and myopia are the problems.

There seem to be not a few Catholics who have problems with Mary and Church teaching about her.
 
40.png
PerryJ:
It is the reverse. It isn’t about anything. Everything is predetermined and one does not have a choice. The event is not an event because it is decided prior to the event. Every particle of being was designed for the event to occur; therefore, their is no event there is only process. The process that will conclude as God defined. In essence the end has occurred because God’s thought is his action. They are not seperate. I am not a person I do not have events. I am a process to an end. One could take it to the next level that I am a chemical process. This breaks the thought that to think is to exist. I do not think as I am a chemical process; therefore, I do not exist as a intellectual being. I am a chemical process designed for a known end.
That’s nothing more than a sophisticated appeal to emotion.

Here’s the teaching of Scripture succinctly stated: God is sovereign in all things, and you are responsible for the choices you make (Lk 22:22; cf Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28). 🤷
 
It appears that you are giving your personal opinion. I have given you the translation in Greek that shows the use of the terms is different. I believe my post include three references.

My post shows that Mary was given a special grace as defined by the language of the Bible.

If you wish to construe this difference as negative that is for you.
No, I’m afraid Sandusky has you here. Using your logic, if the IC is true, then OSAS must be true as well.

Belonging to the Orthodox, I know better on both.😛
 
No, I’m afraid Sandusky has you here. Using your logic, if the IC is true, then OSAS must be true as well.

Belonging to the Orthodox, I know better on both.😛
Not at all. This another example of the Eastern Orthodox not understanding Catholic theology and of them not understanding logic.
The IC does not make the Blessed Virgin incapable of sin. It just means that she was created without a fallen nature, just as Adam and even were created without a fallen nature. Now, just as Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose sin or grace, Mary had the same freedom. However, as the New Eve Mary chose not to sin. You really need to learn what Catholic Theology is before you misrepresent it. Its down right dishonest and I see the Eastern Orthodox do it all the time.
 
That’s nothing more than a sophisticated appeal to emotion.

Here’s the teaching of Scripture succinctly stated: God is sovereign in all things, and you are responsible for the choices you make (Lk 22:22; cf Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28). 🤷
Again you have it reversed. Calvinism is regenerated stoicism. It was created out of the fear of Calvin and his lack of adequate confession. Calvinism is based upon fear and as such he rejects emotion by creating the concept of the elect and the reprobate.

“you are responsbile for the choices you make” is in direct contrast to double predestination. It could apply to single predestination or free will.

How is one responsbile for an action that was designed to occur? Again I would claim it is not an action at all. It is a means to an end. It is a function or process of the universe. This is not emotion this is your theology. It is emotion to reject the statement. Yet a true calvinist should not hold to emotion as all was deemed by God as he controls all actions. All actions of God are for an ultimate end that God designed. “Evil” does not exist as “good” does not exist as they are part of the process to the end God has deemed right. Emotion should not exist as evil and good are reduced to a process for a known end.
 
No, I’m afraid Sandusky has you here. Using your logic, if the IC is true, then OSAS must be true as well.

Belonging to the Orthodox, I know better on both.😛
I don’t agree; however, I am being “emotional” about double predestination right now. Is this an oxymoron if double predestination exist?
 
40.png
PerryJ:
Again you have it reversed. Calvinism is regenerated stoicism. It was created out of the fear of Calvin and his lack of adequate confession. Calvinism is based upon fear and as such he rejects emotion by creating the concept of the elect and the reprobate.

“you are responsbile for the choices you make” is in direct contrast to double predestination. It could apply to single predestination or free will.

How is one responsbile for an action that was designed to occur?

Again I would claim it is not an action at all. It is a means to an end. It is a function or process of the universe. This is not emotion this is your theology. It is emotion to reject the statement. Yet a true calvinist should not hold to emotion as all was deemed by God as he controls all actions. All actions of God are for an ultimate end that God designed. “Evil” does not exist as “good” does not exist as they are part of the process to the end God has deemed right. Emotion should not exist as evil and good are reduced to a process for a known end.
Let’s try it again:**Luke 22:22

22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

Acts 2:22-23

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Acts 4:27-28

27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.**Scripture is opposed to your “philosophy and wisdom.”

I don’t have to explain it, but only believe it.
 
Let’s try it again:Luke 22:22

22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

Acts 2:22-23

22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Acts 4:27-28

27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.Scripture is opposed to your “philosophy and wisdom.”

I don’t have to explain it, but only believe it.
Of course scripture is against my wisdom because I am showing you Double Predestination. Calvinist have wonderfully written pieces that are designed to confuse the readers into heresy. If you cut out the long over dramatic sentences back ones find heresy. The theolgy is false.

You have to believe in Christ, not double predestination.
 
Of course scripture is against my wisdom because I am showing you Double Predestination. Calvinist have wonderfully written pieces that are designed to confuse the readers into heresy. If you cut out the long over dramatic sentences back ones find heresy. The theolgy is false.

You have to believe in Christ, not double predestination.
Ah, but I believe in both, as both are taught by the Lord—the whole teaching of the Word.
 
Ah, but I believe in both, as both are taught by the Lord—the whole teaching of the Word.
A calvinist doesn’t truly believe. To believe means one has independant thought and has made a choice. A calvinist can only have humility that God chose them. They were instructed to “believe” by their essence. This belief is a function of their creation and not a choice. Free will of moral intellect is not existent. One can only be humble that they were chosen with out merit and others were chosen for damnation without the loss of merit.

A true calvinist also can not have emotion. All actions are from God. If one has emotions concerning actions it shows that one is not with God. All actions good or evil exist for God and as such their is no good or evil. Emotion shows that one is a reprobate as they do not understand that all actions are for the good of God. One can not show remorse, anger or fear as all actions are for the good of God. To shows these emotions demonstrates that one is not in line with Gods thoughts and have not been chosen to be an elect.

I will end now as we are far from the thread line.
 
40.png
PerryJ:
A calvinist doesn’t truly believe. To believe means one has independant thought and has made a choice. A calvinist can only have humility that God chose them. They were instructed to “believe” by their essence. This belief is a function of their creation and not a choice. Free will of moral intellect is not existent. One can only be humble that they were chosen with out merit and others were chosen for damnation without the loss of merit.

A true calvinist also can not have emotion. All actions are from God. If one has emotions concerning actions it shows that one is not with God. All actions good or evil exist for God and as such their is no good or evil. Emotion shows that one is a reprobate as they do not understand that all actions are for the good of God. One can not show remorse, anger or fear as all actions are for the good of God. To shows these emotions demonstrates that one is not in line with Gods thoughts and have not been chosen to be an elect.

I will end now as we are far from the thread line.
Two fallacies in one—the appeal to emotion straw man?
 
In ECF there was a thread on a Ukrainian site. The thread has either disappeared or has been pulled. On it there was a Creed which managed to put Mary into every article of the Creed.

Does anybody happend to have the text of it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top