Ask about Catholicism/Christianity

[coleraine]

Thanks coleraine, another questions for you:

I always read that Catholics call Virgin Mary “Mother of God”, and I really find that hard to accept, considering that there are also the Christian protestants whom reject that.

My questions are:

• When did the Catholic Church start calling Virgin Mary “Mother of God”, which year?
• Isn’t that confusing, because non Christians could consider she is Mother of God The Most High.
• Why not calling her “Mother of Lord Jesus” instead?

Jesus is god, God is Jesus. The trinity is one. She may as well be called “Mary mother of the Trinity.” She is called Mary mother of God because that is the way it has always been done. I do not have an exact date, but the early church fathers (some as early as 200 a.d.) had a clear Catholic faith. When it comes down to this certain question, you must ask your self whom you want to believe. Catholics, which have a 2000 year history. Or Protestants who have a mere 500 years.

 

[coleraine]

Hi Coleraine,

It appears you answered my questions with your speculative personal opinions. I liked your thread because you wanted to answer our questions according to the Holy Scriptures and the Catechism. It appears you did not give a response according to the Bible nor the Catholic Catechism. Personal opinions have nothing to do with spiritual truth, especially since truth has to be revealed to fallen mankind by God Himself. I posted my questions again if you want to try again. Here are the sources that you stated that you would use to answer our questions.

http://www.christcenteredmall.com/teachings/armor/sword.jpg

bible.com/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

there are many verses in the bible about prevailing until the end. then you have john20:23. which you did not make reference to even though you put it in a quote box. why dont you respond to my answer directly and stop worming around?

 

[Reformed]

Jesus is god, God is Jesus. The trinity is one. She may as well be called “Mary mother of the Trinity.” She is called Mary mother of God because that is the way it has always been done. I do not have an exact date, but the early church fathers (some as early as 200 a.d.) had a clear Catholic faith. When it comes down to this certain question, you must ask your self whom you want to believe. Catholics, which have a 2000 year history. Or Protestants who have a mere 500 years.

I liked your OP because you invited us to ask questions. You also stated or implied that you were going to give us answers according to the Bible and/or the Cathechism. All I have read so far are you personal opinions and views without the sources that you stated.

Let’s say you were debating with a Mormon Christian. You are saying Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. You also mentioned the Trinity. Well, how can you show Mormon Christians that Jesus is God or that God is Triune? The Mormon will appeal to apostolic succession and LDS traditon to refute the Catholic tradition. However, you both embrace the Scriptures as truth.

 

[coleraine]

Salaam/peace

discuss about Islam will be off topic here. This thread is for answering Christianity. Non Muslims are welcome to submit questions in Ask about Islam thread without bashing

You have been asked to defend your faith. And regardless of the thread you should respond to it. You asked me why “christians hate muslims” like your people were so innocent. i am getting very tired of your worming around. answer the question. unless you cant of course…what with the submission and all…

 

[coleraine]

I liked your OP because you invited us to ask questions. You also stated or implied that you were going to give us answers according to the Bible and/or the Cathechism. All I have read so far are you personal opinions and views without the sources that you stated.

Let’s say you were debating with a Mormon Christian. You are saying Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. You also mentioned the Trinity. Well, how can you show Mormon Christians that Jesus is God or that God is Triune? The Mormon will appeal to apostolic succession and LDS traditon to refute the Catholic tradition. However, you both embrace the Scriptures as truth.

i see what you mean. im not so good at debating mormons. its just like debating muslims if you ask me. i just answered a question that cannot be answered by solid written proof. i told him what i knew. i think we can all agree that we have pretty much taken care of muslim woman. she got cornered and she didnt like it. she escaped. i guess muslims cant question their faith.

 

[Reformed]

i see what you mean. im not so good at debating mormons. its just like debating muslims if you ask me. i just answered a question that cannot be answered by solid written proof. i told him what i knew. i think we can all agree that we have pretty much taken care of muslim woman. she got cornered and she didnt like it. she escaped. i guess muslims cant question their faith.

Time to move on from Islam to Christianity. So, what says the Scriptures?

 

[coleraine]

Time to move on from Islam to Christianity. So, what says the Scriptures?

You know they are their. Just to name one that says that he who shall prevail until the end will go to heaven . you know its their so why not elaborate for me? i have read it many a time but i dont quite know where it is. it all goes down to church history and authority. you cannot debate church teaching and doctrine without debunking our history. which cannot be done.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

You know they are their. Just to name one that says that he who shall prevail until the end will go to heaven . you know its their so why not elaborate for me? i have read it many a time but i dont quite know where it is. it all goes down to church history and authority. you cannot debate church teaching and doctrine without debunking our history. which cannot be done.

If you don’t feel up to citing exact scripture and catechism references to answer your questions (and that’s not a criticism per se, it’s much better to admit when you’re unsure than to pretend to be an expert when you’re not), wasn’t it unwise to start a question in which you offered to answer any and all questions about Christianity using the Bible and the Catholic Catechism?

 

[coleraine]

If you don’t feel up to citing exact scripture and catechism references to answer your questions (and that’s not a criticism per se, it’s much better to admit when you’re unsure than to pretend to be an expert when you’re not), wasn’t it unwise to start a question in which you offered to answer any and all questions about Christianity using the Bible and the Catholic Catechism?

yah i get that. give me just a second and ill get those, ,im just not sure what particular verse its in. as far as the mary mother of god thing goes, theres not much to talk about their. jesus is god, god is jesus. he had a human and divine form. mary gave birth to him. thus, she was the mother of god.

 

[coleraine]

id like to post again about salvation. to begin with, here is a verse from philipians: "so then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

from this verse we can clearly see that salvation is not a one time thing. it is something that has to be worked out over time, with obedience not just a one time prayer and then do whatever you want. im not saying of course that protestants want to do bad things after being “saved” but as far as your understanding of salvation goes, wouldn’t that be possible? what about our god given free will? what happens to that if we choose not to be obedient and to accept evil, thus accepting satan?

two more verses go as following:

philipians 3:13-14 “brothers, i for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead, i continue my pursuit toward the goal the prize of gods upward calling, in jesus christ”

2 timothy 2:11-12 “if we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him”

so…what about sola scriptura? does it not work here or something? are we not supposed to take these verses literally? thus ruling out SS? but then where does that leave you, to rule out SS?

also, i found this youtube video about mary: youtube.com/watch?v=S-1Sx3cMoP4

 

[Church_Militant]

Was it right of the pope to bless the crusades where there was rapine, pillage, plunder and mass murder?

Explain how these activities are of God and represent His will.

This same might need a response from you as to why Moslems chose to conquer an area that required a military response from the Christian nations of the West.

The same crimes that you allege against the crusaders were (and are) carried out by Moslems today, which, as Coleraine points out, confuses us.

Frankly, if you invaded my country today, I’d do my part to repel you all and insure that it never happened again.

 

[coleraine]

So guys? Whats up? Im not going to lie…you were doing relatively well compared to others who come on here. So what happened? Im waiting…

 

[Reformed]

id like to post again about salvation. to begin with, here is a verse from philipians: "so then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

from this verse we can clearly see that salvation is not a one time thing. it is something that has to be worked out over time, with obedience not just a one time prayer and then do whatever you want. im not saying of course that protestants want to do bad things after being “saved” but as far as your understanding of salvation goes, wouldn’t that be possible? what about our god given free will? what happens to that if we choose not to be obedient and to accept evil, thus accepting satan?

two more verses go as following:

philipians 3:13-14 “brothers, i for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead, i continue my pursuit toward the goal the prize of gods upward calling, in jesus christ”

2 timothy 2:11-12 “if we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him”

so…what about sola scriptura? does it not work here or something? are we not supposed to take these verses literally? thus ruling out SS? but then where does that leave you, to rule out SS?

also, i found this youtube video about mary: youtube.com/watch?v=S-1Sx3cMoP4

I’ve been telling everyone for the last several months that Roman Catholics always misrepresent Phillipians 2:12. This is a standard verse for the Roman Catholic Christian. I wonder why? Do you not want to give God all the glory for saving wretched sinners like me and you?

Catholic usage of Pil 2:12

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

Philippians 2:12-13 in proper context, giving God all the glory for the entire process of salvation!

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

 

[coleraine]

I’ve been telling everyone for the last several months that Roman Catholics always misrepresent Phillipians 2:12. This is a standard verse for the Roman Catholic Christian. I wonder why? Do you not want to give God all the glory for saving wretched sinners like me and you?

Catholic usage of Pil 2:12

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

Philippians 2:12-13 in proper context, giving God the glory!

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

And what of it? I’m fine with the second usage, aren’t you church militant? God does work in us. If we choose to let him. Those who are being obedient chose god, and he was working through them because they chose to let them. So whats the big deal? And what of my other verses, do we misuse them as well? And may i ask you again…what of your SS? Your literal understanding of the bible? Are the writers of these verses speaking in riddles?

 

[Reformed]

And what of it? I’m fine with the second usage, aren’t you church militant? God does work in us. If we choose to let him. Those who are being obedient chose god, and he was working through them because they chose to let them. So whats the big deal? And what of my other verses, do we misuse them as well? And may i ask you again…what of your SS? Your literal understanding of the bible? Are the writers of these verses speaking in riddles?

Okay, so God only works through you if you let him. Do you believe you are sovereign over God? Why does the clay try to question the potter in what He can and cannot do with the clay. We are but dust. It seems Roman Catholicism teaches the sovereignity of man as compared to the complete sovereignity of God. Sounds semi-pelagism to me, but what do I know? God does whatever pleases Him, regardless of the actions of men. That is why God is the Almighty God; He does not need your permission.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— Rom 9

 

[coleraine]

Okay, so God only works through you if you let him. Do you believe you are sovereign over God? Why does the clay try to question the potter in what He can and cannot do with the clay. We are but dust. It seems Roman Catholicism teaches the sovereignity of man as compared to the complete sovereignity of God. Sounds semi-pelagism to me, but what do I know?

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— Rom 9

I would never in my life deny that god is all powerful. He could make every person on this blue marble a Christian right this very moment…but he won’t. Its not because he doesn’t have power over the clay, its because he gave the “clay” the power to do as he wishes. To openly accept god. So, while i understand your logic…what it comes down to is that god does not contradict himself. He gave us free will. We have to choose to use it as he pleases. Or we can choose Satan (don’t). Because god gave us the power to choose. And is god not a “man” (notice quotes) of his word?

 

[coleraine]

A second response to “Reformed”

Does all of this not show you how SS easily falls apart? Their are verses in the bible where god says we have free will. That is for sure. You know, something that god has officially granted us and that is accepted by all churches. Then you show me verses where it says god has power over the clay(which he does). You then try and use it to contradict my free will argument. Well, if the bible is the word of god, (it is) and it is also meant to be taken literally, “SS”, (its not always) then why are they used against each other.? may i remind you, God does not contradict himself.

 

[coleraine]

nothing? Is your imagination busted or something?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Okay, so God only works through you if you let him. Do you believe you are sovereign over God?

Not at all. There are times when God works in us without us. In other words, while sometimes we pray for God’s help, there are other times that without our willing it, God works in us to enlighten our intellect and strengthen our will. Sometimes this enlightening grace affects us in an interior way, but sometimes it remains exterior. For instance, God gave Cain a direct revelation, telling him that sin is crouching at his door and that he must master sin. Cain chose to disregard the [exterior] grace given to him by this Divine revelation. Likewise, many hearing the word of God, choose to continue in sin.

There are also times when God works in us, with us. We believe that unfaithfulness is a indeed a barrier toward efficaciously receiving Divine gifts which if willingly received interiorly, cannot but help to cause a change within us. For example, manna was an undeserved gift from God that served to nourish God’s people. Yet, God could have simply poofed the manna into their bellies, right? He didn’t. For some reason, it appears that while God does not require our “deservedness” to interiorly receive his heavenly gifts, he does in fact require the faithful’s participation. If the people of God, for example, disobeyed the Lord in collecting the manna from the field in accordance to his commands, the manna turned to worms. So, while the gift of manna itself was gratuitous, the participation of the people of God in worthy receipt of it was necessary in order to efficaciously receive the gift interiorly so as to accomplish its intention, according to the will of God.

That we are called to participate faithfuly in the interior receipt of the gratuitous gifts from God does not cause man to have some sort of “power” over God. That’s as absurd as saying that the people of God wandering in the desert had “power” over God because if they disobeyed Him, therefore, they did not get fed by the manna, but instead by their human “power,” it turned to worms.

It is also incorrect to say that the “freewill” choice to act according to God’s will therefore obliged God to give them manna. On the contrary, manna was an undeserved gift of God. Their obedience to God did not feed them, the manna did. This gift of manna was given without being deserved. However, it is certain from Scripture that God demanded their participation in being fed by it. So, disobedience did indeed place a barrier in the worthy receipt of manna.

This is just the same with the NT gifts from God. We are called toward obedience of faith. Our obedience does not oblige God to give us his gratuitous heavenly gift of grace, but it is certain that disobedience keeps us from the Divine gifts that would have surely been interiorly efficacious.

In the words of Reformed theologian, CH Spurgeon:

God comes down to walk with men who obey. If they walk with him, he walks with them. The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey. Obedience is heaven in us, and it is the preface of our being in heaven. Obedient faith is the way to eternal life, nay, it is eternal life revealing itself. (C.H. Spurgeon, Obedience of Faith).

 

[coleraine]

Not at all. There are times when God works in us without us. In other words, while sometimes we pray for God’s help, there are other times that without our willing it, God works in us to enlighten our intellect and strengthen our will. Sometimes this enlightening grace affects us in an interior way, but sometimes it remains exterior. For instance, God gave Cain a direct revelation, telling him that sin is crouching at his door and that he must master sin. Cain chose to disregard the [exterior] grace given to him by this Divine revelation. Likewise, many hearing the word of God, choose to continue in sin.

There are also times when God works in us, with us. We believe that unfaithfulness is a indeed a barrier toward efficaciously receiving Divine gifts which if willingly received interiorly, cannot but help to cause a change within us. For example, manna was an undeserved gift from God that served to nourish God’s people. Yet, God could have simply poofed the manna into their bellies, right? He didn’t. For some reason, it appears that while God does not require our “deservedness” to interiorly receive his heavenly gifts, he does in fact require the faithful’s participation. If the people of God, for example, disobeyed the Lord in collecting the manna from the field in accordance to his commands, the manna turned to worms. So, while the gift of manna itself was gratuitous, the participation of the people of God in worthy receipt of it was necessary in order to efficaciously receive the gift interiorly so as to accomplish its intention, according to the will of God.

That we are called to participate faithfuly in the interior receipt of the gratuitous gifts from God does not cause man to have some sort of “power” over God. That’s as absurd as saying that the people of God wandering in the desert had “power” over God because if they disobeyed Him, therefore, they did not get fed by the manna, but instead by their human “power,” it turned to worms.

It is also incorrect to say that the “freewill” choice to act according to God’s will therefore obliged God to give them manna. On the contrary, manna was an undeserved gift of God. Their obedience to God did not feed them, the manna did. This gift of manna was given without being deserved. However, it is certain from Scripture that God demanded their participation in being fed by it. So, disobedience did indeed place a barrier in the worthy receipt of manna.

This is just the same with the NT gifts from God. We are called toward obedience of faith. Our obedience does not oblige God to give us his gratuitous heavenly gift of grace, but it is certain that disobedience keeps us from the Divine gifts that would have surely been interiorly efficacious.

In the words of Reformed theologian, CH Spurgeon:

you explained it very well! but i wouldnt expect a response anytime soon. as you probably saw above, he sort of got cold feet. even if he does come back, i think i know what he will say. and i have a plan, the ends of which would destroy SS.