M
Michael_Francis
Guest
As per the Forum Rules, and since a source link has been provided, the multi-post c&p has been pruned down.
MF
- Status
MF
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Your welcome.Thanks
I may have said it poorly, but this is the point I was trying to make in post 62. Simply that as your theology develops some things become binding that once were not.
In the same way, that is how the Church doctrinated the Trinity. Why did it take to so 325 yrs for the Church to come up with the term āTrinityā to describe Godās divine being?
At the time, Arianism was being preached and the many Christian Churches were taught false doctrine. So in the Council of Nicea 325, the Council condemned Arianism.
The Council of Nicea condemn Arianism and formuled and doctrinated the Nicene Creed as well as the Trinity.
More information;
Wikipedia Website:
Theophilus of Antioch used the term to describeās God, His Word, and His Wisdow in 180 A.D, Tertullian in the year 200 AD used it to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Finally the Church in 325 officially declared it.
The earliest record we have other than the Bible is the writings of St. Ireneaus in 155 A.D about Mary said the following;
He wrote,
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, āBe it done unto me according to your wordā (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
As we discussed the IM of Mary, it was not official declared until June 12, 1854, much like the Trinity was held belief by early Christians as early as 180 AD, and the Church didnāt officially declare doctrinal until 325 A.D.
You might ask? Why didnāt they defined it earlier? Considering the Arianism heresy was more important than Marian doctrine, Jesus was the top priority for the Church. So Trinity had to be defined because God is the center of the Churchās teachings.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
correction IM I meant to type IC for Immaculate Conceptionā¦ My apologiesā¦
M
MrS
Guest
yesā¦ the Gospel message was quite "different: in the first century than it is today.
St. Paul, for example, would preach to the Jews about what they knewā¦ that their scriptures tell of the coming of the Messiah, about how He would suffer greatlyā¦ about how He would dieā¦ and about how He would rise again.
They understood these things and agreed with St Paul
then he would move to the story of Christ and how he fulfilled all these prophecies.
It was a very clever approach and it was effective.
Today, the Gospel message is about the saving grace and Jesus Christ.
Neither message conflicts.
However, all that St Paul preached was revealed to him and his contribution to Sacred Scripture are authentic because the Church he belongs to say so.
Our separated brethern have been crippled in their efforts to share the Gospel message because:
[1] they are reduced to using only their interpretations (some right, some very wrong) without any authority.
It is their message that has changed from what the true Church has taught for 2000 years.
[2] They lack the ability to truly blend the OT with the NT, (example: the message of the Eucharist, fortold in the OT, and made real in the NT)
James White has no credibility to teach in areas where he already has rejected so much of the Gospel message.
.
M
MrS
Guest
In response to a query on infallibility, your response was on immaculate conceptionā¦
This is exactly what Mr White doesā¦ but he does so often, and will throw out lots of off topic beliefs. I can only imagine those in the audience of his persuasion nodding their heads:yup: :yup: :yup: and perhaps thinkingā¦ āYep, so there, take that, and that, and that, and thatā¦ā
Perhaps you see now why he has no credibilityā¦ canāt control the train. so he derails it.
.
M
MrS
Guest
You are understandably confusedā¦ because you may not understand infallibility.
When a doctrine is declared (infallibly) it is recognized at the Truth.
If we can agree that there is no ānewā Truthā¦ step one.
If we can agree that Truth does not start or endā¦ step two.
Thus when a doctrine is declaredā¦ it is Truth revealed, and explained for all men in all ages, for all time.
Ex: there is but one Godā¦ a Truth that has always been and will always be.
Ex: the trinityā¦ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existedā¦ even before they/Him were declared doctrine.
Ex: Immaculate Conceptionā¦ even though Mary was only born 2000 years ago, the Truth of her immaculate Conception was part of Godās plan foreverā¦ and necessary for us to knwo as Doctrine 150 years ago.
As for the OP, I believe that Dr, I mean Mr White has often shown the same resistence to authority of the Catholic Church, and his bias is a result of his resistence ā¦
.
R
Reformed1
Guest
You need to go back and re-read the whole thread. Back in post 62(?) I made the comment that the RCC adds to what is required of believers.In response to a query on infallibility, your response was on immaculate conceptionā¦
This is exactly what Mr White doesā¦ but he does so often, and will throw out lots of off topic beliefs. I can only imagine those in the audience of his persuasion nodding their heads:yup: :yup: :yup: and perhaps thinkingā¦ āYep, so there, take that, and that, and that, and thatā¦ā
Perhaps you see now why he has no credibilityā¦ canāt control the train. so he derails it.
.
For example, the Christians of the 2nd century were not bound by your church to believe in the IC while you most certainly are bound, under the pain of mortal sin, to accept the churchs teaching on the IC.
Where am I wrong?
R
Reformed1
Guest
Thanks for your post but I was only asking when was it necessary for you guys to accept the teaching. I think I worded myself poorly in post 62 and was trying to say that there are certain beliefs that you guys have that become binding after some point in time. I see no point in debating the IC on this thread so if you read my posts, you will see that I never challenged the IC.
I understand that you believe that the IC is true, so obviously if it is true to day it was true as soon as it happened.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I didnāt see any uncharitable post that you have written. You at least try to understanding why we ought to believe the IC. Itās the same way, why we believe in a Triune God.
I think I already made the comparation of these doctrines. The Church needed to defend Christian teachings and therefore had to formulize the Trinity doctrine to defend it against Arianism.
Mary doctrines came later because the Church priority is protecting God from any heretical doctrine like Arianism and Nectorianism.
R
Redbandito
Guest
I guess I just donāt understand your question. They spoke for God anytime they delivered new revelation. Read the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc. Do you believe these are infallible, or uncapable of error? I do! Why? Because I believe they were prophets. If they were prophets, the Scripture points out that they cannot prophecy error, or they are a false prophet.
M
MBS1
Guest
I have listened to many debates with Mr. White and various people - Madrid, Sungenis, etc. The one tactic, and I think tactic is the correct term, I noticed is his ability to say something that strongly implies that the Catholic Church teaches one way (which it doesnāt) but once taken to task for what he āsaidā, White denies he said it. In reality while he didnāt āsayā it, it was implied (I think it was about re-sacrificing Jesus in the mass). So, if the other debater doesnāt pick up the error of implication, a point for White. If he does, he just denies he āsaidā it, though he doesnāt deny implying it - he doesnāt answer that. Very good debating tactic, yet those Protestants or Catholics who arenāt aware can be fooled.
MBS1
MBS1
M
MBS1
Guest
Another example - I re-listened to the debate he had with Sungenis on the Mass as a Sacrifice. During the Q&A about sins White said, āMy sins are forgiven by the Jesus sacrifice on the cross, not in Purgatory or any other place.ā
Note the subtleness of this comment. I have a hard time believing that White does not know what Catholics believe about Purgatory, yet he totally misrepresents it to make a point. Yet to unknowing Protestants who feel he is never wrong, they just got the wrong impression of Catholic teaching. Sungenis never had a chance to respond to this by the way.
There is more, but I think I made my point. When listening to a debate with White - be very careful to listen to what he actually says, but also to what he implies.
MBS1
Note the subtleness of this comment. I have a hard time believing that White does not know what Catholics believe about Purgatory, yet he totally misrepresents it to make a point. Yet to unknowing Protestants who feel he is never wrong, they just got the wrong impression of Catholic teaching. Sungenis never had a chance to respond to this by the way.
There is more, but I think I made my point. When listening to a debate with White - be very careful to listen to what he actually says, but also to what he implies.
MBS1
D
deb1
Guest
I canāt remember which debate that I listened to with White-it was free- but this is what struck me also. It is as if White is not interested in the truth but more in being the one to win the debate.
.
C
catholicmarsh
Guest
You know James White is a very bright man. He is articulate, passionate, knowledgeable, and very learned. I have spoken to him on a few occasions, while I wont speak ill of the man I do believe he goes lacks charity when he debates. I really have no room to talk because I too have been known to lose my temper and get angry at people I debate with. I have to work on it as I like everyone else fight against sin. Being a jerk is certainly not out of the realm of possibility as far as I am concerned. However, it did break my heart when he broke ties with his sister when she converted to Catholicism. I suppose it is probably deeper and more complicated that this, but based on what she says he wont even talk to her now that she has converted. I couldnāt imagine the pain that it must cause her. Not to speak to your loved one because they made a choice about religion? Not to hear from them on Birthdays, Christmas, or Thanksgiving? I do pray for James White and his sister Patty Bonds. I just find it telling that a person would let something like religion get in the way of having relationships with their own blood.
Not to speak to your loved one because they made a choice about religion? Not to hear from them on Birthdays, Christmas, or Thanksgiving? I do pray for James White and his sister Patty Bonds. I just find it telling that a person would let something like religion get in the way of having relationships with their own blood.
S
sebestt
Guest
I would say to pray for Dr. James White. I find it difficult to understand if he refuses to talk to his sister based on her conversion to catholicism.
1 Corinthians 13:13
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I think it would show integrity on your part to link to a story where she says this, as opposed to attacking his character with out showing it to be trueā¦One should avoid bearing false witness on others at all cost.
F
FCEGM
Guest
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
And here we see that it has nothing to do with her conversion, rather that SHE seperated herself from the family YEARS before.
vintage.aomin.org/Luke1251.html
S
sebestt
Guest
I did not bear false witness nor did I attack him. If you read my response I said āifā. I actually recommended prayer for him.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Just wanted to be sure people didnāt run with it like it was truthā¦
Sorry I came across so crass.
- Status