How does Marian devotion save?

[Tomster]

Everything, if you understood what the Bible says.

Moon,

And, obviously, you do not. You are fallible, by your own admission.

Basic logic, Moon. Basic logic.

 

[moondweller]

Moon,

Do you understand this?

Do you believe the Bible is God’s written Word? Do you believe the Scriptures where it says that all Scripture is inspired (theopneustos, "God-breathed)? Do you believe God is infallible? Can God err?

 

[moondweller]

And, yes, Scriptures, because it is the infallible Word of God, does require an infallible interpreter. And you have just shown all of us why this is true.

Can you show me where it is written that one must be infallible to interpret Scripture? Meanwhile:“You asked me if the Scriptures require an infallible interpreter. I replied, “no.” It needs a pneumatikos, along with dedicated study and prayer. What does the link you provided have to do with the answer I gave you?”

 

[Tomster]

Can you show me where it is written that one must be infallible to interpret Scripture? Meanwhile:“You asked me if the Scriptures require an infallible interpreter. I replied, “no.” It needs a pneumatikos, along with dedicated study and prayer. What does the link you provided have to do with the answer I gave you?”

I think there is an echo in this room.

The premise from which you are operating is false. You have been spoon fed this error by your preachers. It has been graphically demonstrated by Fair Lady that the two of you do not hold the same belief regarding salvation. That is reason enough to prove the Catholic position that the Bible needs an infallible interpreter. The two of you cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

Duh!

 

[moondweller]

I think there is an echo in this room.

The premise from which you are operating is false. You have been spoon fed this error by your preachers. It has been graphically demonstrated by Fair Lady that the two of you do not hold the same belief regarding salvation. That is reason enough to prove the Catholic position that the Bible needs an infallible interpreter. The two of you cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

Duh!

I showed you in Scripture where Scripture itself testifies to the fact that its Author is God who is infallible (cannot err). But you have yet to show me where it is stated that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter. Where does Paul (or any of the N.T. writers) instruct that the Epistles he wrote to churches or individuals be interpreted to them by infallible interpreters? Who was the infallible interpreter for Timothy? For Jude? Can you show me where it states that “infallible interpreter of Scripture” is an office, or, spiritual gift, in the church Christ is presently building? I know that in each of the churches “elders” were appointed, but I see no list of “infallible interpreters of Scripture” assigned to each church. Do you?

 

[crazzeto]

I showed you in Scripture where Scripture itself testifies to the fact that its Author is God who is infallible (cannot err). But you have yet to show me where it is stated that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter. Where does Paul (or any of the N.T. writers) instruct that the Epistles he wrote to churches or individuals be interpreted to them by infallible interpreters? Who was the infallible interpreter for Timothy? For Jude? Can you show me where it states that “infallible interpreter of Scripture” is an office, or, spiritual gift, in the church Christ is presently building? I know that in each of the churches “elders” were appointed, but I see no list of “infallible interpreters of Scripture” assigned to each church. Do you?

Can you show me in scripture, where the table of contents is?

 

[moondweller]

Can you show me in scripture, where the table of contents is?

"I showed you in Scripture where Scripture itself testifies to the fact that its Author is God who is infallible (cannot err). But you have yet to show me where it is stated that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter. Where does Paul (or any of the N.T. writers) instruct that the Epistles he wrote to churches or individuals be interpreted to them by infallible interpreters? Who was the infallible interpreter for Timothy? For Jude? Can you show me where it states that “infallible interpreter of Scripture” is an office, or, spiritual gift, in the church Christ is presently building? I know that in each of the churches “elders” were appointed, but I see no list of “infallible interpreters of Scripture” assigned to each church. Do you?

 

[Lev23]

Can you show me in scripture, where the table of contents is?

You need to back up a step and remember the people where the scriptures came from. Go to your local synagogue. The Jewish Apostles’ witness of Jesus, proof He is the prophesied Messiah and the gospel message comes from the OT scriptures, which every synagogue has.

 

[Fair_Lady]

Fairlady, I’m curious what you would think about Acts 9… This is something that St. Paul would spend a lot of time thinking about:

Of course Paul wasn’t persecuting Christ was he? He was persecuting Christ’s followers, but Jesus didn’t say “why are you persecuting my followers”, he said why are you persecuting me.

The same principle above applies to what Jesus said in Matthew 25:43-45
"I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. "

Whether it’s good or bad, what we do to others, we are in effect, doing to Christ

Paul would later writing about this in hebrews

The passage you gave there doesn’t establish the idea that we can freely communicate with those that have gone on before us.

That is, all the Saints and Martyrs. Indeed, like I can pray for you, or you for me the Saints and Martyrs who have gone before us can pray for us, most effectatiously and constantly. Mary of course, is the highest of all the Saints, the one whom was always most perfectly conformed to Jesus Christ. This makes her intercession most particularly powerful.

None of that is supported by scripture.

 

[moondweller]

I think there is an echo in this room.

Or the “room” just might be a gymnasium and many of its Catholic occupants are playing dodge ball.

 

[crazzeto]

"I showed you in Scripture where Scripture itself testifies to the fact that its Author is God who is infallible (cannot err). But you have yet to show me where it is stated that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter. Where does Paul (or any of the N.T. writers) instruct that the Epistles he wrote to churches or individuals be interpreted to them by infallible interpreters? Who was the infallible interpreter for Timothy? For Jude? Can you show me where it states that “infallible interpreter of Scripture” is an office, or, spiritual gift, in the church Christ is presently building? I know that in each of the churches “elders” were appointed, but I see no list of “infallible interpreters of Scripture” assigned to each church. Do you?

You didn’t answer the question, where is the table of contents… How do we know which books are inspired?

You need to back up a step and remember the people where the scriptures came from. Go to your local synagogue. The Jewish Apostles’ witness of Jesus, proof He is the prophesied Messiah and the gospel message comes from the OT scriptures, which every synagogue has.

This is a weak argument, particularly coming from a protestant perspective which rejects expressly 7 books which come from the Jews and where used by the Apostles them selves (the 7 DCs). Additional, Luther him self was a personal expression of the problem I highlight, he him self utterly rejected Revelation, James, Jude & Hebrews. Whilst he did in fact technically include these books in his bible, he did so only at the back of the bible (along with the 7 DCs), seperated from the text he considered inspired, and each book had a scathing inditement of their “apistolicness” in the introductory notes. Indeed, of Revelation Luther says the book “neither does this book teach Christ, nor can he be found in it”.

So again, I ask… How do you know your bible has the correct books in it? How do you know it doesn’t have too few, or too many books?

 

[Fair_Lady]

That’s like saying I am my Fathers child You are of course right but your statent is incomplete. What did you think Christ told John while he was hanging on the cross ?

See this: biblestudy.org/question/why-did-jesus-from-cross-say-woman-behold-thy-son.html

Secondly, I mentioned Luther and Calvin since they are the founders of the protestant church. You obviously do believe that they were right in breaking away through the reformation. You are following the church they established. You are following the bible they adopted from the Catholic church with modifications of their own. Why do you pick and choose what you want to believe from their position?

I am a Bible believing Christian and all matters pertaining to denominations and what the early church fathers established are secondary to me, next to scripture. That doesn’t mean that I don’t value what they did. It’s a huge other topic and I really want to stay with the topic at hand.

Plus, the church fathers believed the status of Mary as we do today. Are you saying they were wrong?

Yes. More later. Sorry I haven’t been able to get to this post earlier. It was loaded!

 

[crazzeto]

@fairlady,

You seem to, while acknowlegeing that we are all members of the body of Christ, simutaiously deny the same principal… Or, otherwise seem to claim that somehow a member of the body of Christ can be seperated from said body. Which of course, we know is impossible thanks to Romans:

Douay:

Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?
Rom 8:36 (As it is written: For thy sake, we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.)
Rom 8:37 But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Fairlady, we are all members of the Body of the Christ, nothing can seperate us from that body, and no member of the body of Christ is dead:

Luk 20:38 For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.

Fairlady, you must reject one of these points in order to reject the intercession of Mary and the Saints.

 

[ddarko]

See this: biblestudy.org/question/why-did-jesus-from-cross-say-woman-behold-thy-son.html

Ooook? So? Are you saying Jesus just said this to solely to make sure Mary was going to be ok? He could have just said, ‘‘John, take care of my mom for me’’. Why did he have to say, ‘‘Son’’ . You make no sense here. Plus you are ignoring the role of Mary that is evident throughout the Bible.

I take it you like to be close minded but that doesn’t help. Either you read the supporting evidence against your position in books like ‘‘Hail Holy Queen’’ or you simply reduce yourself to a state of an atheist who is refusing to see the truth.

I am a Bible believing Christian and all matters pertaining to denominations and what the early church fathers established are secondary to me, next to scripture. That doesn’t mean that I don’t value what they did. It’s a huge other topic and I really want to stay with the topic at hand.

Ok please understand this. The problem here is that you are ‘‘Bible believing’’. What is your basis for believing the Bible? How do you know the Bible is the word of God? Now don’t tell me because it is written in the Bible because that is circular logic. It proves nothing. I can write a book with a line ‘‘this is infallible and from God’’ and it doesn’t make it true. Scripture alone can’t be the only truth. It has to be Scripture plus Tradition. You only believe in the Bible because the Christian tradition tells you. Right now you are being very naive by ignoring the rest of the tradition and having a weird belief that ‘‘Scripture is the only thing I trust’’.

Also, it is not like the intercession of Mary is not supported in the Bible. I gave you the example of CANA which is IN the BIBLE. Jesus didn’t say, ‘‘Mom, tell them to come and talk to me directly if they want something’’. He granted her request even though ‘the time was not right for him’. Do you see the power of Mary’s intercession?

And please, I beg you, have an open mind. If you chose to have a close mind, you are no different than an atheist or the Pharisees who did not believe Jesus.

Yes. More later. Sorry I haven’t been able to get to this post earlier. It was loaded!

Please do, there was a lot more concerns that I raised in my previous posts that are yet to be answered by you.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

"I showed you in Scripture where Scripture itself testifies to the fact that its Author is God who is infallible (cannot err). But you have yet to show me where it is stated that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter. Where does Paul (or any of the N.T. writers) instruct that the Epistles he wrote to churches or individuals be interpreted to them by infallible interpreters? Who was the infallible interpreter for Timothy? For Jude? Can you show me where it states that “infallible interpreter of Scripture” is an office, or, spiritual gift, in the church Christ is presently building? I know that in each of the churches “elders” were appointed, but I see no list of “infallible interpreters of Scripture” assigned to each church. Do you?

Buddy, if scripture states it is infallible it does not make it so. I can write a book with a line that says ‘‘this book is infallible’’. It doesn’t make my book any more infallible. You are using circular logic.

Now you are not the only Christian who tries to use this type of argument but you should know it is logically flawed. These are the types of arguments atheist ridicule and quiet rightly so.

We believe in biblical infallibility since from TRADITION, we know that the scripture is the word of God. So the real question you should be asking, is whether TRADITION supports infallibility?

Secondly, infallibility is a necessity. The best experiment of a church without infallibility is a BIG failure as we can see from the Protestant church. Hardly any two Protestants can agree with what to believe in. But surely there is only one truth. Christ does not let such divisions happen to his church and distort the truth. That is why there is infallibility for the Pope (its leader) and the magestirium

God Bless

 

[anthony022071]

The same way you or any of us do:2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired (thepneustos: God-breathed) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"

So how do you know that Paul,who is part of scripture,was telling the truth about scripture?

Scripture testifies of Scripture.No council made the Scriptures (O.T. and N.T.) God’s Word. They were from the moment they were penned. And I am extremely logical here.

Scripture testifies of scripture,yes,but that is hardly a logical ground for believing that it is inspired by God. You have to first believe scripture in order to believe what it claims for itself,just as you have to first trust a person in order to believe what he claims about himself. So what is your ground for believing in scripture at all? Do you believe in it simply because of what it claims for itself?

 

[moondweller]

Buddy, if scripture states it is infallible it does not make it so. I can write a book with a line that says ‘‘this book is infallible’’. It doesn’t make my book any more infallible. You are using circular logic.

I didn’t use that “logic.” I said the Scripture itself testifies to the fact that ALL Scripture is * theopneustos* (God-breathed), and that God is the only One who is infallible. You do agree that God, who “breathed” the Scriptures into existence via human agents, is infallible, right? And since God Himself is infallible (being infinitely perfect), we can trust, without doubt, that the Scriptures are inerrant - agreed? That’s not “circular logic,” that’s just plain “good logic.”

Secondly, infallibility is a necessity. The best experiment of a church without infallibility is a BIG failure as we can see from the Protestant church.

Have you ever studied the doctrinal history of the Christian church? If you would you’d see that doctrinal diversity did not find it’s birth with Protestantism. In fact, the sure way for churches to no longer keep error from prevailing is for its leadership to claim infallibility and the people to believe said claim. Error is checked and the quest for doctrinal purity is achieved only with the freedom to dialogue and investigate new teachings. However, a claim to infallibility squelches any such investigation by the people.

Hardly any two Protestants can agree with what to believe in.

That’s not true. And if you think Roman Catholicism is monolithic, and has been since its beginning, well, then who am I to convince you otherwise.

But surely there is only one truth.

And Scripture reveals it to be a Person (Jn. 14:6), not a church hierarchy that claims of itself infallibility and therefore need not be accountable to anyone or anything but itself. Not even God.

Christ does not let such divisions happen to his church and distort the truth.

Then you certainly don’t know church history. But, for the saved (by grace alone through faith alone), we will all give an account of our works (but not for salvation, which was gifted upon personal belief in Christ).

That is why there is infallibility for the Pope (its leader) and the magestirium

I do not at all dispute that that is what you’re taught and are required to believe.

 

[moondweller]

So how do you know that Paul,who is part of scripture,was telling the truth about scripture?

Paul is not a part of Scripture. But God used Paul to write God-breathed Scripture. What was written is theopneustos, not the writer.

Scripture testifies of scripture,yes,but that is hardly a logical ground for believing that it is inspired by God. You have to first believe scripture in order to believe what it claims for itself,just as you have to first trust a person in order to believe what he claims about himself. So what is your ground for believing in scripture at all? Do you believe in it simply because of what it claims for itself?

I believe in the One who “breathed” it into existence. Maybe that’s where we differ?

 

[anthony022071]

I didn’t use that “logic.” I said the Scripture itself testifies to the fact that ALL Scripture is * theopneustos* (God-breathed), and that God is the only One who is infallible. You do agree that God, who “breathed” the Scriptures into existence via human agents, is infallible, right? And since God Himself is infallible (being infinitely perfect), we can trust, without doubt, that the Scriptures are inerrant - agreed? That’s not “circular logic,” that’s just plain “good logic.”

So on what grounds do you believe that what scripture claims for itself is true? We’re not questioning that scripture is inspired by God or that God is always true,we’re questioning the grounds for your own belief in what scripture says. Scripture needs trustworthy witnesses to its truth for it to be acceptable to human reason,just as Jesus had a trustworthy witness in John the Baptist.

See post 720.

 

[ddarko]

I didn’t use that “logic.” I said the Scripture itself testifies to the fact that ALL Scripture is * theopneustos* (God-breathed), and that God is the only One who is infallible. You do agree that God, who “breathed” the Scriptures into existence via human agents, is infallible, right? And since God Himself is infallible (being infinitely perfect), we can trust, without doubt, that the Scriptures are inerrant - agreed? That’s not “circular logic,” that’s just plain “good logic.”

All this breath of God being mentioned in the Bible is useless if you do not know the Bible is infallible or that it is the word of God in the first place.

So my question to you is what is the basis for you to claim that the Bible is the word of God? I believe its the word of God because I believe TRADITION and the Catholic Church made an infallible construction of the Bible. You don’t believe tradition or infallibility and have a weird concept that ‘‘Bible is the only thing I believe’’. So my dear friend, please care to explain what is your grounding for believing in the Bible as the word of God.

Have you ever studied the doctrinal history of the Christian church? If you would you’d see that doctrinal diversity did not find it’s birth with Protestantism. In fact, the sure way for churches to no longer keep error from prevailing is for its leadership to claim infallibility and the people to believe said claim. Error is checked and the quest for doctrinal purity is achieved only with the freedom to dialogue and investigate new teachings. However, a claim to infallibility squelches any such investigation by the people.

Listen, any doctrinal errors are called heresies. I don’t know what doctrinal history you studied. The difference with protestants is that Protestants have no basis to say one interpretation is wrong over the other. No one can claim what is the truth. All you have is a nice little consensus and break-away model going. Christ on the other hand has given the Church infallibility through the Pope and the magisterium to pronounce what is TRUTH.

TRUTH is not a democracy or up for discussion. What kind of truth do you believe in? Has the Protestant church decided that TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE now? Truth absolute whether you have issues with it or not. We encourage freedom of dialogue BUT a heresy is a heresy. You seem to have a subjective view of TRUTH which is not compatible with Christianity or any of the Theistic religions I know.

So please, don’t even compare the failed state of the Protestant model to that of the Catholic church. Do keep in mind that Protestant doctrine is just another heresy/doctrinal error just like all the other ‘‘doctrinal conflicts’’ you referred to.

That’s not true. And if you think Roman Catholicism is monolithic, and has been since its beginning, well, then who am I to convince you otherwise.

What on earth is that suppossed to mean? The RC has only one truth. There are no multiple versions. I think you are confusing it with the Protestant church here

And Scripture reveals it to be a Person (Jn. 14:6), not a church hierarchy that claims of itself infallibility and therefore need not be accountable to anyone or anything but itself. Not even God.

What? No church hierarchy or POPE says he is not accountable to God. I will just take this as an emotionally charged argument by you.

Then you certainly don’t know church history. But, for the saved (by grace alone through faith alone), we will all give an account of our works (but not for salvation, which was gifted upon personal belief in Christ)

Don’t even get me started on Faith You can’t even justify why you believe the bible yet you want claim justification from faith alone. I suggest you first start by justifying why you believe the Bible is the word of God. Then we can talk more about this Faith issue.

.I do not at all dispute that that is what you’re taught and are required to believe.

Its not what I was taught to believe. It is common sense. If Christ established a church where every Tom and Dick can make his own interpretation, then you are certainly mistaken. Christ established a church that followed ONE ABSOLUTE truth. Not some subjective relativism.

Secondly, if no one was infallible, we wouldn’t know what the word of God was to begin with. How can someone put together the Bible without error from all the books and forgeries available? If the Catholic Church was never infallible, the Protestant church would be in big big trouble because they go from SCRIPTURE ALONE while the SCRIPTURE could be a total ERROR!

So my friend, I don’t think you have a case here. If you do reply, please remember to answer my question clearly as to ‘‘What is the basis for you to believe that Bible is the word of God’’. If not, you are just avoiding the question and it would appear that you aren’t even sure as to why your main source of knowledge is correct

God Bless