Developing Dogmas and Doctrines

[guanophore]

Yes I understand the original sin concept.

Why would Paul say -

All have sinned and fall short if it didn’t include Mary - it means all. LOL! Someone earlier asked if that meant Jesus too? Guess they didn’t know the whole context verse.

On the contrary, Paul knew well the context of the verse. And you will too, if you look where it came from.

In that Psalm, there are two categories of people, the sinners, and the righteous. When you look with an open mind at this source, it is clear that not all are sinners. Some are righteous.

Paul is making the point that there are faithless Jews as well as faithless Gentiles.

If there were none righteous, why did Jesus say “I did not come for the righteous”?

There have always been righteous people, in the OT, and the New. We know this because nothing unclean can enter heaven, yet God took up some people, like Enoch and Elijah.

The other element to consider is that Paul is talking about two kinds of sin here. When he says “all sinned in Adam” he does not mean personal sin, but original sin.

The Church has always taught that John the Baptist was born without original sin.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Mary was also justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ. Why is this so difficult? She was the first Christian.

Funny! I had to explain to my Catholic nephews that Immaculate Conception was about Mary’s conception. They could not believe it. Only if you say it was Jesus that was immaculately conceived.

Yes, the catechesis is appalling.

You do not need it to understand Jesus' nature.

The disciples of the Apostles believed otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

Of course it is GOD that lays out tghe requirements and HE did in HIS Word.

Yes, God has indeed revealed that which we need for salvation. The Holy Scriptures lead us to Christ, in whom we have salvation, and He makes us members of His Body, the Church, which shepherds us into the fullness of Truth.

It seems that, contrary to Scripture, you believe that all of God’s Word is contained within its pages.

I know that there were many heresies-even a group that worshipped Mary -

*Collyridians, a small fourth-century sect in Arabia, mainly composed of women, who evidently worshipped the Blessed Virgin, offering cakes to her during a religious ceremony. They claim this is an early example of former pagans worshipping Mary as a “goddess.” *

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

Friend that is exactly the point - Mary Dogmas are not in Scripture - the nature of GOD Jesus and Holy Sprit is.

And clearly, some people can read Scripture, and still not glean the nature of God, and the HS. That is because they read it apart from the faith that produced it. When the Scriptures are read like that, all kinds of error ensues.
schaick;7143328:

There is no evidence that the Apostles, Paul or the Disciples thought/talked about Mary in the way the Dogmas do or that belief in them are required for our salvation.

Your refusal to accept the evidence only makes it disappear for yourself, not for anyone else.

What you are saying is that Jesus was too weak, or disinterested to correct His Church for 1600 years! What happened to the powerful Jesus in the book of Rev? Why did He walk away from His Church, after He promised that He would remain with her until the end of the age?

You are saying GOD left a requirement out of HIS Gospel message?  Only to be developed hundreds of years later?

No, the Gospel message has always been the same. Some of what was committed to the Church was not understood or clarified until later.

The Scriptures were Holy and inspired the moment they were penned. They did not “become” Scriptures when the canon was closed in 382 AD. And, by the way, that canon was closed by a council of bishops that believed the Marian doctrines. How can you accept the NT, if they were so wrong about the Real Presence, the perpetual virginity, etc?

 

[guanophore]

According to many Catholics you have to be a member of the Catholic to be saved.

Fortunately the Teachings of Jesus are not defined by majority vote, nor are they defined by those who depart from them.

Oh no Mary is not a stumbling block for me.  That Bible quote was directed at me- I must not be a stumbling block for those that can not have a personal relationship with Jesus without going through Mary.

It is difficult to imagine that any such persons exist…

What I question is saying it is needed to be believed for our salvation when it is not mentioned by  Jesus, the Disciples, Apostles - Paul

It is not up to you or me, schaick, to determine what is to be believed by our salvation. This is a perogative of God only. He chose, created, and was incarnated through Mary, who He purified to be His Ark of the New Covenant. This was His perogative. He could have descended to earth fully grown, rather than taking on human flesh through her body. But, He chose to lift humanity again to that height that He first created, when Eve was made without sin.

No ordinary dictionary but one showing the use of the word in Scripture and Greek.

I will certainly agree that God wants us to be perfect. But the notion that many insert into this passage that scripture makes us perfect is erroneous. It says that Scripture is profitable in the duties that are given to the Church, to whom authority and gifts are given that we become fully equipped.

Oh my Goodness.  Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

No, actually, it seems much more ridiculous not to see that Paul is making a comparison between Jew and Greek, to show that there are members of both groups that are faithless sinners. If you look at the source of the quote, it will be clear that there are righteous people being contrasted with the sinners.

You have to take the verse out of context to come up with such a silly conclusion.

One has to wonder what you believe the “context” is.

The context of the NT is Catholicism. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. When it is taken out of this context, some of the meaning gets lost.

An excellant example of how heresies can develope

Indeed.

Romans 3
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

There is no difference in how we are justified, the Gk. is justified by faith, just like the Jew. Jews are not righteous just becasue they are Jews (look at the Psalm Paul is quoting).

The Bible does not contradict itself and so we also have:
**1 Peter 2:22 **
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth."

Indeed, Scripture does not, but many of the theologies that have been created through extraction from Scripture contradict what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[joe370]

Guanophore, you said:

No, the Gospel message has always been the same. Some of what was committed to the Church was not understood or clarified until later.

The Scriptures were Holy and inspired the moment they were penned. They did not “become” Scriptures when the canon was closed in 382 AD. And, by the way, that canon was closed by a council of bishops that believed the Marian doctrines. How can you accept the NT, if they were so wrong about the Real Presence, the perpetual virginity, etc?

That is a really good question and I look forward to the answer, from a protestant perspective.

 

[schaick]

Just for starters, opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage, a feeling of responsibility to others(especially the less fortunate), zeal for evangelism, etc.

You have taken that statement out of context we were discussing the suffieceny of Scripture and my reply to:

I would agree that there is material sufficiency in the Scriptures for the dogmas of the Trinity and hypostatic union; however, one needs the Church in order to obtain the fullness of Truth regarding these dogmas.

So the given is that all you mentioned is in Scripture:

Abortion- a commandment
Gay marriage- a man and women become one flesh and
Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Feeling of responsibility to others - Good Samaritan story.
Evangalism- the great commission

 

[Patrick_Ambrose]

This is to say good-bye and that I’m signing off this site. For me it is clear that it’s Catholicism is being pummeled with anti-Catholic actions. What saddens me is the number of Christians who continually bash one another; act as though they are a victim of a horrible misunderstanding; feel threatened and have to justify their own beliefs; and defend themselves while throwing around Bible verses. Christ never intended any of this. The Bible is there for our growth and is the written word of God, where Christ is the Living Word of God. It is Him who expressed, lived and taught us before the first word was written and before the Bible was decided on and put together. The problem is that everyone wants to re-write history and make it fit their thoughts and beliefs so they can feel good about continuing on believing with the faith they have decided upon. If you are angered by this, I have two things to say: First, I apologize because it’s not my intent. Second, don’t concern yourself with the words of others but, rather, concern yourself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and pray, then pray, then pray some more and let go of anger, frustration, hate and arrogance because they will tear you down (read the Bible, you’ll find all kinds of evidence and words to back this up).

Finally, to tear something down is easy (as we can all clearly see). But to build something up takes One and all to follow Him and His example, His Love.

May God the Father Bless us and keep us always,
May Jesus live in our hearts for ever,
and May the Holy Spirit Guide and Protect us.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen

 

[schaick]

Truer words were never spoken by a non-Catholic Christian than this!

In order to accept the multitude of NCC doctrines one must take verses out of context to come up with silly conclusions.

Examples:
-baptism is an ordinance
-the Lord’s day must be celebrated on the Sabbath
-the Eucharist is just a symbol
-Jesus is the archangel Michael
-when we die we enter into soul sleep
-the Rapture
-OSAS

Why even give credence to Jehovah Witnesses by mention a believes they as non-trinitarian “christians” hold?

We are not talking about their beliefs.

OSAS Open Source Accounting Software?!?

However, back to the original point of my post:

Which is it, schaick: either

(A) it’s a LITERAL “ALL”, which means Jesus sinned.

Or

(B) it’s an “ALL” with exceptions.

You seem to have opted for choice (B), which means you can’t say “ALL” have sinned has to include Mary.

Logic dictates this, schaick.

You can’t have it both ways.

YOU are equating Jesus with being ONLY totaly human and no divinity by saying all meaning a literal all includes Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

This is to say good-bye and that I’m signing off this site. For me it is clear that it’s Catholicism is being pummeled with anti-Catholic actions. What saddens me is the number of Christians who continually bash one another; act as though they are a victim of a horrible misunderstanding; feel threatened and have to justify their own beliefs; and defend themselves while throwing around Bible verses. Christ never intended any of this. The Bible is there for our growth and is the written word of God, where Christ is the Living Word of God. It is Him who expressed, lived and taught us before the first word was written and before the Bible was decided on and put together. The problem is that everyone wants to re-write history and make it fit their thoughts and beliefs so they can feel good about continuing on believing with the faith they have decided upon. If you are angered by this, I have two things to say: First, I apologize because it’s not my intent. Second, don’t concern yourself with the words of others but, rather, concern yourself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and pray, then pray, then pray some more and let go of anger, frustration, hate and arrogance because they will tear you down (read the Bible, you’ll find all kinds of evidence and words to back this up).

Finally, to tear something down is easy (as we can all clearly see). But to build something up takes One and all to follow Him and His example, His Love.

May God the Father Bless us and keep us always,
May Jesus live in our hearts for ever,
and May the Holy Spirit Guide and Protect us.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen

I am sorry to see you leave, Patrick.

But I am puzzled about what your objections are to being on the CAFs? On this thread, in particular, there has been no contempt for Catholicism–criticisms have been raised in a polite (thank you, schaick!) manner.

 

[PRmerger]

Why even give credence to Jehovah Witnesses by mention a believes they as non-trinitarian “christians” hold?

Because it’s a great example of someone taking verses out of context and creating a weird doctrine.

We are not talking about their beliefs.

We’re talking about all beliefs which have divorced themselves from the Teachings of the Apostles.

OSAS Open Source Accounting Software?!?

LOL! Once Saved, Always Saved.

YOU are equating Jesus with being ONLY totaly human and no divinity by saying all meaning a literal all includes Jesus.

No. I’m just saying you can’t have it both ways.

Is it a literal “all” schaick? Yes or no?

 

[schaick]

Joe your answer to the question:

*The Scriptures were Holy and inspired the moment they were penned. They did not “become” Scriptures when the canon was closed in 382 AD. And, by the way, that canon was closed by a council of bishops that believed the Marian doctrines. How can you accept the NT, if they were so wrong about the Real Presence, the perpetual virginity, etc? *

LOL! I have been asked do I simply believe Scripture dropped down from heaven? LOL! Do you believe that the codices for the Bible simply appeared in 382AD?

They only canonized what had already been accepted 200 -300 years earlier by the Apostles, Paul and earliest Church Fathers,

Paul never mentions Marian Doctrines but he recognized the Gospel message as Scripture in his writings.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Paul knew Luke as Scripture:

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7**

 

[guanophore]

You have taken that statement out of context we were discussing the suffieceny of Scripture and my reply to:

I would agree that there is material sufficiency in the Scriptures for the dogmas of the Trinity and hypostatic union; however, one needs the Church in order to obtain the fullness of Truth regarding these dogmas.

So the given is that all you mentioned is in Scripture:

Abortion- a commandment
Gay marriage- a man and women become one flesh and
Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Feeling of responsibility to others - Good Samaritan story.
Evangalism- the great commission

Yes. Sacred Tradition has more to do with how we understand what is written, than related to what is not written. Sacred Tradition is a mindset - a world view, called in the NT “The Way”.

For example, the apostles taught that salvation is not separated from the Good Samaritan story. Yet, some of our Reformed brethren have told us here on CAF that these stories don’t apply to Christians “this side of the cross”. For many, salvation has been separated from the good deeds it produces.

 

[guanophore]

They only canonized what had already been accepted 200 -300 years earlier by the Apostles, Paul and earliest Church Fathers,

Yes, and that canon was based on Sacred Tradition. The council that closed the canon also accepted the Marian doctrines you reject. How can you be sure they did not make a mistake with the canon? What if some of the 400+ works floating around at the time should have been included but were not?

Either Jesus kept His promise to guide His Church into “all Truth”, or He broke His Word, left the Church orphaned, and did not come to them.

Paul never mentions Marian Doctrines but he recognized the Gospel message as Scripture in his writings.

No schaick. You have your history out of order. Paul’s letters were written prior to the Gospels. The message of which Paul speaks is the kerygma, which he received from the Church and passed down faithfully. that is how it is still done today.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

He is referring to the paradosis here. He received this from Sacred Tradition. This is how the faith is to be obtained, not extracted from the pages of a book 2000 years after the fact. That is why the Gospel Paul preached (which was Catholic) is so different from the extracted gospels that are popular today.

Paul knew Luke as Scripture:

Backwards again, schaick. Luke wrote Paul’s Gospel. Luke gave an account of what had been received by himself, Paul, and their companions from the Church. Luke travelled with Paul, interviewed Mary personally when they resided together with her in Ephesus. the reason Luke’s gospel parallels the experience of Mary with the OT Ark is because Luke received these Marian stories directly from her.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7**

All the Aposltes used the Septuagint.

Sacred Tradition is not separated from the Scriptures.

No attempt was made in the NT to create a full compendium of the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

They only canonized what had already been accepted 200 -300 years earlier by the Apostles, Paul and earliest Church Fathers

Yes, schaick. Now you must see where this statement leads you: this is a testament to the validity of Sacred Tradition.

And to the infallibility of an outside authority, the Catholic Church.

 

[Janet1983]

*Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus’ mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
*

Nice deduction.
Even though what you write is true, I will not go ahead and call her mother of God. Not because Jesus was not God, nor because I would believe that she was just a sort of incubator and had no relations to Him.
I will not call her mother of God because of the other logical thoughts that are intertwined with this:

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.
Mary is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit.
Mary is not the mother of God in this sense.

 

[Cruxis117]

Nice deduction.
Even though what you write is true, I will not go ahead and call her mother of God. Not because Jesus was not God, nor because I would believe that she was just a sort of incubator and had no relations to Him.
I will not call her mother of God because of the other logical thoughts that are intertwined with this:

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.
Mary is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit.
Mary is not the mother of God in this sense.

Well, if Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is God the Son, then we can, and do, and will, rightfully call her the Mother of God. While yes, you are correct in your statement of how she is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, she did give birth to Christ Jesus, who is God the Son. And I am glad that you would not go as far to say that she was merely is incubator. I’ve met many people who were foolish enough to say such a thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is God the Son, then we can, and do, and will, rightfully call her the Mother of God. While yes, you are correct in your statement of how she is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, she did give birth to Christ Jesus, who is God the Son. And I am glad that you would not go as far to say that she was merely is incubator. I’ve met many people who were foolish enough to say such a thing.

Indeed.

And to say Mary is the Mother of God proclaims** loudly and proudly **to the non-Christian world:

[SIGN]JESUS CHRIST IS GOD! Not a prophet! Not a teacher! Not a rabbi. But the Word Made Flesh! Amen![/SIGN]

When a pagan ponders, “Hmmm… who do these Christians say he is?” when they hear Catholics call Mary the Mother of God, it leaves no doubt as to who we say he is, eh?

Mother of Jesus Christ? What would a pagan glean from that?

 

[Janet1983]

When a pagan ponders, “Hmmm… who do these Christians say he is?” when they hear Catholics call Mary the Mother of God, it leaves no doubt as to who we say he is, eh?

Mother of Jesus Christ? What would a pagan glean from that?

I’d figure they would assume first that the trinitarian Christian God has a mother.

 

[Cruxis117]

Indeed.

And to say Mary is the Mother of God proclaims** loudly and proudly **to the non-Christian world:

[SIGN]JESUS CHRIST IS GOD! Not a prophet! Not a teacher! Not a rabbi. But the Word Made Flesh! Amen![/SIGN]

When a pagan ponders, “Hmmm… who do these Christians say he is?” when they hear Catholics call Mary the Mother of God, it leaves no doubt as to who we say he is, eh?

Mother of Jesus Christ? What would a pagan glean from that?

I completely agree! However, I know that you aren’t saying that he isn’t a prophet or a teacher, but that he isn’t just these things.

[SIGN]Praise be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! [/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

I’d figure they would assume first that the trinitarian Christian God has a mother.

Fair enough.

But those 3 words “Mother of God” is a catechesis in itself, yes? It speaks VOLUMES. It gives the pagan pause, does it not?

 

[PRmerger]

I completely agree! However, I know that you aren’t saying that he isn’t a prophet or a teacher, but that he isn’t just these things.

[SIGN]Praise be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! [/SIGN]

No, I wouldn’t call Jesus a prophet or a teacher. That would be as inadequate as calling the ocean “wet”.