Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2588933]From Tantum Ergo

From Justasking

Wait a minute here. So you are telling me that you teach that the Bible is made up of certain books, but the authority and the notation of those books “in Scripture” isn’t there in the actual Bible itself.

No. If you study how the church determined which books belonged in the canon they had to have a certain “life transforming power of God” in it for example. Also the book had to be associated with an apostle in some way.

You’re also telling me that a definitive Scriptural passage which proclaims that all Christian teaching is to be found ONLY in Scripture ‘isn’t there either.’

If you are asking if a given book said that in and of itself is inspried-inerrant then no.

You are claiming that we have to find the exact words like “Queen” ‘right there in Scripture’ or you can’t believe this as a Christian teaching. . .yet you are using books which themselves are not listed ‘as Scripture’ in Scripture, and claiming a doctrine that “it has to be in Scripture to be a teaching” when there is no such Scriptural passage which claims this.

Don’t you see the disconnect here?

You are confusing two different issues. Each issue requires different methods to deternine the truth of them. For example the claim that Mary was assumed cannot be found in the scriptures and so is not grounded there. Same thing with the issue of Mary being a queen. No NT writer makes such a claim.

You are guilty of exactly what you condemn in us–you are claiming something as a truth which is not ‘found in Scripture’. And you are even more guilty because you are then demanding that anything we say ‘must be found in Scripture’; holding us to a standard you yourselves do not observe.

Not so. Even if i’m wrong about sola scriptura that would not make the claim that Mary was known as a queen by the apostles true. Each of these doctrines must stand on their own merits. I’m not defending sola scriptura here but showing that the inspired-inerrant scriptures (which the catholic church also believes) cannot be found in the scriptures.

Have you any explanation as to why you are not bound by the same rules you seek to bind us with?

I am. However, we are discussing aspects of the marian dogmas and not sola scriptura. Take Mary’s assumption. Even Karl Keating agrees that its not in scripture. Since its not, then we have to then ask how the catholic church knows she was assumed and on what grounds it knows.

 

[justasking4]

This statement proves you don’t understand what infallibility is.

Please enlighten me.

 

[justasking4]

This is what I was trying to say. If Peter or Paul erred in ANY of their teachings, then it follows they were equally capable of error when writing or dictating the Scriptures. They were the same teachers teaching the same truth in both situations. Either all their teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit and infallible, or else none of it, since Jesus didn’t promise only to guide and protect the compilation of scripture.

So - either all official teaching (provided it is taught by Christ’s Church) is infallible or it isn’t. If you believe part is fallible then all, including the Scriptures themselves, must necessarily be fallible, and your faith is built on quicksand.

This does not necessarily follow. The scriptures nature i.e. being inspired-inerrant does not depend on the men who wrote them but on God Himself Who is the source of the scriptures. I would think even catholics would agree with this.
However, what men teach is not inspired-inerrant. Their teachings can be in error.

Do the scriptures ever record Peter or Paul doing something wrong?

 

[justasking4]

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,** baptizing** them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mt 28:19

Where does it saying anything about family here?

 

[justasking4]

Protestants believe that what Mary really meant to say was “All generations shall call me totaly depraved and infested with sin”.

Not so. We do believe she was blessed to be the means by which the Savior was to come inot the world and to play a significant part in raising Him to be the Man He was to become. Even with this great honor she was still a sinner in need of salvation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on infallibility.

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith.417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

417: LG 12; cf. DV 10.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council IS 3074.
419 DV 10 § 2.
420 LG 25 § 2.
421 Cf. LG 25.
422 LG 25.

The relevant Scripture passages from which LG (Lumen Gentium) taught on the charism of infallibility are these:

110 Cf. Heb. 13, 15.

111 Cf. Jn. 2, 20, 27

112 Cf. 1 Thess. 2, 13.

113 Cf. Jud. 3

114 1 Cor. 12, 11.

115 Cf. 1 Thess 5, 12, 19-21.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And just how did the “life transforming power of God” in a given Scripture manifest itself? It still took men, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to distinguish between the many, many texts to discern which were “Scripture” and which were not. Further, as you have been informed, there were 350 years where this canon was simply not available as “the canon of Scripture”. Christ did not found a book, precious as the book is --He founded a Church. The book is a tool of the authority, not the authority itself.

The words of God are inerrant and inspired but they are still ‘short’ of the essence or being of God. They are capable of being misunderstood --UNLESS there is a true authority which can authoritatively, definitively pronounce on areas which are capable of being misunderstood.

Christ established a Church and He established it for all time. And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church. Not to guide ‘the book’. The Spirit ‘breathed’ the words and the teaching, not the other way around. You’re arguing not only that the book ‘wrote itself’ (without the help of those pesky darn Catholics who happened to be the ONLY Christians around at the time), but also that the book gave birth to the Spirit. It is the words which you wrap yourself in, and the guidance is not from the Spirit (or you would be embracing the Catholic Church). You may think it is the Spirit. He may indeed be trying to guide you but He won’t be doing it by fostering in you a rebellious determination to ignore the authority of the Church.

 

[LilyM]

This does not necessarily follow. The scriptures nature i.e. being inspired-inerrant does not depend on the men who wrote them but on God Himself Who is the source of the scriptures. I would think even catholics would agree with this.
However, what men teach is not inspired-inerrant. Their teachings can be in error.

Do the scriptures ever record Peter or Paul doing something wrong?

Neither does the protection of ALL Apostolic teaching depend upon who the teachers are or were, but on God Himself who promised to lead His church (not just His scripture writers) into ALL truth, and more, to preserve it in all truth for all time!!!

And Christ promised ALL truth to the Apostles - it can only be possible if He protects ALL their formal teaching, not just the scripture. Remember, most of the Apostles left no writings of any kind. Were they not nonetheless also in possession of the truth along with those few who did leave writings? Were they not equally promised to be led into all truth as the evangelists were?

And why did they all consult in council if they weren’t? Why not just the evangelists, since they alone had any sort of claim to infallibility?

Show me anywhere where he said that ONLY the scriptures would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that they alone would possess ALL truth. The Apostles were indeed infallible-inerrant in their teaching, not in all their private sayings and doings of course.

 

[jabelltulsa]

You must mean Matthew 28. That is true.

Apologies. I was incorrect. It is Matthew that I was referring to.

More to come … I gotta do some work. Talk to you soon.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2589378]Neither does the protection of ALL Apostolic teaching depend upon who the teachers are or were, but on God Himself who promised to lead His church (not just His scripture writers) into ALL truth, and more, to preserve it in all truth for all time!!!

If you look at this passage in John 16:13 (if this this what you are referring to) notice the context. Jesus is speaking to His disciples. This is not the church nor future leaders. Secondly, what “truth” is Jesus referring to that these disciples will be guided into? We definitively can make the case that this “truth” is the NT itself. That’s why the NT alone is apostolic and not other works. To be apostolic is to be inspired-inerrant.

And Christ promised ALL truth to the Apostles - it can only be possible if He protects ALL their formal teaching, not just the scripture. Remember, most of the Apostles left no writings of any kind. Were they not nonetheless also in possession of the truth along with those few who did leave writings? Were they not equally promised to be led into all truth as the evangelists were?

Yes

And why did they all consult in council if they weren’t? Why not just the evangelists, since they alone had any sort of claim to infallibility?

Not sure what you are saying here. I’m not aware of any apostle claiming infallibly. If i’m not mistaken this claim of infallibly in the roman catholic church did not happen for centuries. Do you know if this is correct?

Show me anywhere where he said that ONLY the scriptures would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that they alone would possess ALL truth.

Let me answer this way. We do acknowledge that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant because they have their source in God. I think catholics and protestants agree with this. Now, what other source is inspired-inerrant? If you claim “Sacred Tradition” then i’m going to ask on what grounds and who said it is? Where is it said that Sacred Tradition is guided by the HS?
What is Sacred Tradition as opposed to tradition?

The Apostles were indeed infallible-inerrant in their teaching, not in all their private sayings and doings of course.

Agreed

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2589332]And just how did the “life transforming power of God” in a given Scripture manifest itself?

Thats a good question. Would you agree that this was one of the tests used to determine if a book was inspired?

It still took men, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to distinguish between the many, many texts to discern which were “Scripture” and which were not.

I agree

Further, as you have been informed, there were 350 years where this canon was simply not available as “the canon of Scripture”.

Does this mean that there was no inspired-inerrant scriptures?

Christ did not found a book, precious as the book is --He founded a Church. The book is a tool of the authority, not the authority itself.

Here is where this becomes problematic. Are only the Scriptures that are inspired-inerrant or are men also? Can the scriptures err in what they teach? Can men err in what they teach?

The words of God are inerrant and inspired but they are still ‘short’ of the essence or being of God. They are capable of being misunderstood --UNLESS there is a true authority which can authoritatively, definitively pronounce on areas which are capable of being misunderstood.

How can men who are fallen not be capable of erring? Even though church leaders have authority it does not follow that they are incapable of misunderstanding the scriptures either by ignorance, not enough data for a passage to determine what it means etc. Christ did not promise any protection from this or divine insight into all that the scriptures mean. Thats why the scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many.

Christ established a Church and He established it for all time. And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church. Not to guide ‘the book’. The Spirit ‘breathed’ the words and the teaching, not the other way around.

Could the church exist without the scriptures?

You’re arguing not only that the book ‘wrote itself’ (without the help of those pesky darn Catholics who happened to be the ONLY Christians around at the time),

i make no such claim that the “book wrote itself” but used men of God to do so. I also have no problem if God used the catholic to determine the canon.The issue is not who God chose as His instrument but what is the source of the scriptures. Do you claim it has its source in catholicism itself?

but also that the book gave birth to the Spirit.

This is not true. The scriptures have its source in the Spirit.

It is the words which you wrap yourself in, and the guidance is not from the Spirit (or you would be embracing the Catholic Church).

How can this be when the catholic church teaches so much against what the scriptures teach? This discussion on the marian doctrines is so important for the fact that they are not grounded in the scriptures but are the doctrines of men.

You may think it is the Spirit. He may indeed be trying to guide you but He won’t be doing it by fostering in you a rebellious determination to ignore the authority of the Church.

I’m not ignoring it but challenging because it teaches false doctrines and practices to its people. The catholic church is not inspired-inerrant. Only the scriptures are.

 

[Nordar]

Hm… ok I accept the context and other relevant passages in the Scripture. One of the basic priciples of exegesis is to explain Scripture with Scripture. I suggest then to look then at some passages from the OT mentioning the ark, tabernacle and the temple. By analyzing similarities one can see how the Immaculate Conception is altogether keeping with the typologogy within the Bible:

The temple was sacred an holy(1 Chron 29:3; Isa 11:9; 56:7; 64:10) as its various rooms and areas and all its sacred objects (Ezek 42:13;46:19; Isa 62:9) and the city of Jerusalem itself (Neh 11:1,18; Isa 48:2). The ground of the Mt. Sinai was holy due to God’s peculiar presence (Ex 3:5) and God’s presence in the Israelites camp rendered it holy (Deut 23:14)

The presence of God always imparted holiness (Deut 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3) Even God’s “holy name” was thought by the Jews to constitute hi actual presence with them (Lev 20:3, 22:2; 1 Chron 16:10). Angels were called “holy ones” precisely because of their proximity to God (Job 5:1; Ps 89:6-7)

The furnishings of the tabernacle, a portable sacred tent then prefigured and preceeded the temple, were not to be touched by the Levites (or anyone else, save for a selected priests), on pain of death (Num 1:51-53; 2:17; 4:15). Likewise, the ark, which was carried on poles inserted through rings on its edges, was so holy that it could not be touched.

On one occasion, the ark was about to fall over when being transported, and one Uzziah (who wanted nothing more than to prevent it from falling) reached out to steady it and was struck dead (2 Sam 6,6-7). The men of Bet-Shemesh also died when they merely looked inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; Ex 33:20).

I could go on. Scholars say Luke intentionally depicted Mary as the ark for God’s dwelling by making parallels with David’s carrying the ark into Jerusalem. Look at THIS chart.

Now tell me - can it be reasonably argued that Mary had to be the most sacred place on earth where God would dwell for the 9 months while he was in the womb? Can a holy Holy place contain something that is unholy? Isn’t this Scriptural evidence enough for making a reasonable conclusion it all points to this?

Thank You Zemi, for that link I printed that out!

 

[Nordar]

Therefore I see Justasking4’s interpretation and understanding as false, so JustAsking4 must be evil?

And Reading JustAsking4’s post I get this feeling of a hamster running around in a wheel!:hypno:

 

[zemi]

Thank You Zemi, for that link I printed that out!

Hey, no problem!

 

[NotWorthy]

And Reading JustAsking4’s post I get this feeling of a hamster running around in a wheel!:hypno:

I’m sorry, but where in Scripture does it say we can run around in circles?

 

[zemi]

I’m sorry, but where in Scripture does it say we can run around in circles?

Where do you have in Scripture that we have to have it in Scripture?

 

[Nordar]

I’m sorry, but where in Scripture does it say we can run around in circles?

The same place where it says Mary was a sinner I guess!

 

[davidv]

Thats a good question. Would you agree that this was one of the tests used to determine if a book was inspired?

This doesn’t answer the question raised. See below. No. Since when did an inanimate object (a book) contain any “life transforming power”? This kind of power only comes from God through the Holy Spirit.

Tantum ergo;2589332]And just how did the “life transforming power of God” in a given Scripture manifest itself?

Does this mean that there was no inspired-inerrant scriptures?

Prior to the canonization of the NT, there were many texts which eventually determined to not be so.

Here is where this becomes problematic. Are only the Scriptures that are inspired-inerrant or are men also?

This is a false dicotomy. The choice is not Scripture or"men". It is Scripture and/or Church. And the answer is both/and not either/or.

Can the scriptures err in what they teach?

Invalid question. Teachers teach. Books do not.

Can men err in what they teach?

Yes. But the Church cannot when teaching on faith and morals.

How can men who are fallen not be capable of erring?

See above

Even though church leaders have authority it does not follow that they are incapable of misunderstanding the scriptures either by ignorance, not enough data for a passage to determine what it means etc. Christ did not promise any protection from this or divine insight into all that the scriptures mean. Thats why the scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many.

Even if they misunderstand the Holy Spirit will prevent them from teaching error.

Could the church exist without the scriptures?

Yes, but this is highly unlikely, since the written word is so important in communication amongst us humans.

i make no such claim that the “book wrote itself” but used men of God to do so. I also have no problem if God used the catholic to determine the canon.The issue is not who God chose as His instrument but what is the source of the scriptures. Do you claim it has its source in catholicism itself?This is not true. The scriptures have its source in the Spirit.

Where does the Church teach that it is the source of Scripture?

How can this be when the catholic church teaches so much against what the scriptures teach?

Because this is a false accusation. The Church does not teach anything against Scripture.

I’m not ignoring it but challenging because it teaches false doctrines and practices to its people.

This is a baseless charge and patently false.

 

[justasking4]

davidv;2591853]This doesn’t answer the question raised. See below. No. Since when did an inanimate object (a book) contain any “life transforming power”? This kind of power only comes from God through the Holy Spirit.

See Hebrews 4:12 for example.

Prior to the canonization of the NT, there were many texts which eventually determined to not be so.

They were never inspired-inerrant to begin with.

]This is a false dicotomy. The choice is not Scripture or"men". It is Scripture and/or Church. And the answer is both/and not either/or.
Are you saying your church is inspired-inerrant?

Invalid question. Teachers teach. Books do not.

Can a person learn if he reads the Scriptures without a teacher?

Yes. But the Church cannot when teaching on faith and morals.

There is no such promise of this in scripture nor could it be true so long as the church is composed of fallen sinful people.

See above

Even if they misunderstand the Holy Spirit will prevent them from teaching error.

This sounds great but the problem is that the NT doesn’t say this. If this were true there would be no reason to warn of false teachers.

Yes, but this is highly unlikely, since the written word is so important in communication amongst us humans.

Where does the Church teach that it is the source of Scripture?

The scriptures were in existence before the church i.e. the OT scriptures and the oral teachings of Christ and His apostles. It is from these sources with the power of Christ that the church derives its power and existence.

COLOR=black]Because this is a false accusation. The Church does not teach anything against Scripture.

Of course it does. The idea that Mary was without sin goes against Romans 3:23 and her own admission of needing a Savior and the sin offering she makes in Luke 2:22-24

This is a baseless charge and patently false.

Not so. The scriptures show otherwise.

 

[justasking4]

check out history (and Isaiah 22). Jesus doesn’t do things for no reason.

i checked out Isaiah 22 and i don’t see the connection. What speciifcally does tthis have to do with Mary?