How does Marian devotion save?

[moondweller]

Councils decided WHAT was Scripture. NOT MADE SCRIPTURE!

Those councils decided on a “canon” of Scripture. But the writings were Scripture from the very moment they were penned. They were Scripture regardless of any council. The Jews never had a council to determine their “canon” of Scripture, nonetheless, the Scriptures were well known by that nation. In fact, Jesus Himself constantly appealed to them and opened the minds of the Apostles to understand them (Lk. 24:27; 44-45). Peter, prior to any church council, recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

If a writing claimed it was scriptural, we accept it?

You’re implying that 2 Tim. 3:16 is an empty claim? The writing doesn’t itself claim itself to be Scriptural. But Paul, through the Holy Spirit, states in that Holy Writ that ALL Scripture is theopneustos.

What kind of logic is that my friend? I can write a book that claims it is scriptural. Is it acceptable? I think the truth is that you have no grounding to believe that Scripture is in fact SCRIPTURE unless you accept the infallibility of the Catholic Church’s teaching. How can you still fail to see this?

Do you think the Bible is regarded as “Scripture” because those men claimed to be infallible? Men’s teachings are either true or false, not fallible or infallible. Infallible means incapable of erring. No man is infallible (save the Son of Man). Hence, no church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant can claim infallibility. Their leadership and their teachings are all accountable to God and His inerrant Written Word. The way it’s been since Moses. All teaching of men (an angels) must be tested by the Scriptures, as exampled by Christ Himself.

 

[crazzeto]

moondweller, you’ve never proved how you can derive this… I’ve already brought up various points which directly contradict your claim. So far you have no answer.

 

[moondweller]

Moon,

Some time ago I asked you to literally interpret a few Scripture verses. Your best to reply to my request was that it would be too much work. O.K. fine.

Being the literalist that you have claimed to be, please interpret this ONE verse for us and you can leave your Scofield closed if you don’t mind.

Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins that you retain, they are retained.”

You’ve already stated here and elsewhere that all my interpretations of Scripture are “bogus.” Of what benefit, then, is it to you if I were to fulfill your request? What’s your fascination with “bogus” interpretations? Or is it that, just perhaps, you know inwardly that I am stating the truth and you want to hear more? I’ve got my suspicions.

 

[moondweller]

Infalliblity resides with the teachers (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him) because it is a gift from God. It is a gift that preserves the teacher from error. And since the gift is from God, it is God breathed. It is based on the most explicit promise of Lord (Luke 22:31-32).

Can you show me where bouts of “infallibility” is one of the gifts listed in Scripture?

 

[moondweller]

Moon,

Are you, again, trying to pass your teachings off as infallible?

Every time you quote Scripture passages on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter, whom may I ask are YOU accountable to? Are you saying that your interpretations of Scriptures are protected by the charism of infallibility? Haven’t we been through this with you time and time again?

Nope, no claim to infallibility here. Nor do I know of any such divine gift given to men. One does not need to be infallible to arrive at an accurate interpretation. But one must be a “pneumatikos.” As for accountability, I am accountable to my Lord before whose judgment seat I will stand to either receive reward or not (I was already gifted salvation at the time of personal belief in Him - and "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," Rom. 11:29). Thank you for asking.

 

[Tomster]

moondweller, you’ve never proved how you can derive this… I’ve already brought up various points which directly contradict your claim. So far you have no answer.

To be quite honest, he really has no answers to our questions. He just has suspicions on why we ask them.

 

[anthony022071]

I already told you.

If you believe that the scriptures are inspired by God based upon scripture alone,then it is your faith is based upon your own grasping conviction. You have to grasp for dear life onto the scriptures like they are your possession,or else you’ll plunge headlong into despair.

Then you’re questioning the Scriptures.

No,we believe in the scriptures. We don’t believe in your reasoning.

So the Scriptures are subordinate to human reason?

No,they are believed by way of human reason.

 

[Tomster]

Nope, no claim to infallibility here. Nor do I know of any such divine gift given to men. One does not need to be infallible to arrive at an accurate interpretation. But one must be a “pneumatikos.” As for accountability, I am accountable to my Lord before whose judgment seat I will stand to either receive reward or not (I was already gifted salvation at the time of personal belief in Him - and "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," Rom. 11:29). Thank you for asking.

“Take care that you do not fall.” - St. Paul

 

[ddarko]

Those councils decided on a “canon” of Scripture. But the writings were Scripture from the very moment they were penned. They were Scripture regardless of any council. The Jews never had a council to determine their “canon” of Scripture, nonetheless, the Scriptures were well known by that nation. In fact, Jesus Himself constantly appealed to them and opened the minds of the Apostles to understand them (Lk. 24:27; 44-45). Peter, prior to any church council, recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

My question is that from your logic it does not matter if Peter recognized Paul’s writing as scripture. Peter could be in error. The whole nation might have been in error. If you do mean that it means something, then you are assuming Peter made an infallible decision about it

You’re implying that 2 Tim. 3:16 is an empty claim? The writing doesn’t itself claim itself to be Scriptural. But Paul, through the Holy Spirit, states in that Holy Writ that ALL Scripture is theopneustos.

Every claim on the validity of the Bible it-self that is in the Bible becomes an empty claim if you cannot validate the Bible it-self outside of the Bible. Just to give you an example, I write a book. I include 2 Tim 3:16 as part of that book. Does that make my book Scripture? What if I included every passage that you will cite for ‘‘theopneustos’’ and include it in my book? Does that make it scripture?

Do you thinkzthe Bible is regarded as “Scripture” because those men claimed to be infallible? Men’s teachings are either true or false, not fallible or infallible. Infallible means incapable of erring. No man is infallible (save the Son of Man). Hence, no church: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant can claim infallibility. Their leadership and their teachings are all accountable to God and His inerrant Written Word. The way it’s been since Moses. All teaching of men (an angels) must be tested by the Scriptures, as exampled by Christ Himself.

Its not because those men are infallible. Its because we believe that those men are capable of teaching Infallibly. If the church fathers WERE NOT incapable of erring, entire scripture might be an error. God did not come down and write something. People wrote it. Christ did not say ‘‘Write this incident down’’ ‘‘write that one down’’, ‘‘include a bit on my birth’’ etc. Men decided on it. They might have been in error? Don’t you accept that their writing is hence infallible? You do. So how can you deny the logic that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and its leader infallibly?

Either you are still not getting the point that without Infallibility, you don’t have scripture to begin with or you just want to deny it for the sake of it.

God Bless

 

[moondweller]

moondweller, you’ve never proved how you can derive this

Derive what?

… I’ve already brought up various points which directly contradict your claim. So far you have no answer.

Bringing up points that contradict doesn’t automatically “prove” the other person wrong. “Contradictory points” are not necessarily true. They’re simply contradictory. One can make a false contradictory point. Would you not agree?

 

[Tomster]

You’ve already stated here and elsewhere that all my interpretations of Scripture are “bogus.” Of what benefit, then, is it to you if I were to fulfill your request? What’s your fascination with “bogus” interpretations? Or is it that, just perhaps, you know inwardly that I am stating the truth and you want to hear more? I’ve got my suspicions.

I know inwardly and am expressing outwardly that you are cemented in serious, serious error.

My “interest” in your bogus interpretations is to refute them one by one. I know that is why you will not interpret the verses I provided. You are just plain afraid to do so.

 

[crazzeto]

Derive what?

your views on “scripture alone”

Bringing up points that contradict doesn’t automatically “prove” the other person wrong. “Contradictory points” are not necessarily true. They’re simply contradictory. One can make a false contradictory point. Would you not agree?

Correct, but the fact that you can’t answer so much as a single argument is rather telling. You can’t even comment on my side by side posting of 2 Tim 3:16 for goodness sakes, and you seem to cling to this to prove your points, at least that is the general impression I got.

So could you start by answering one single question, which of my two posted versions is correct?

 

[PRmerger]

Then it is clear that we can count on the intercession of the Holy Spirit who searches our hearts and makes intercession according to the will of God.

Amen!

That begs the question: Why is there the emphasis of going to Mary, even though scripture does not include her as one who knows our hearts and minds?

Firstly, do you actually mean “prompts the question?” Because you are using the philosophical phrase, “begs the question” which actually means: to take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example, Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the question–she hasn’t been invited yet. This phrase, whose roots are in Aristotle’s writings on logic, came into English in the late 1500s

Now, to your point: there is no “emphasis of going to Mary” instead of Jesus. Any more than you are going to us rather than talking to Jesus when you’re posting here on the CAFs.

Intercessory prayer is a wonderful thing for us as Christians to be involved in. Because we pray for each other in accordance with God’s will, He moves on our behalf and things are accomplished that we know are only because God’s hand was in it. Our faith in Him then becomes stronger and His peace which passes all understanding becomes our peace.

Amen! That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

Having said that, where you and I differ is that I will only intercede for those who are still alive and are able to communicate with me.

Do you have a verse in Scripture that supports this doctrine, Fair Lady? What chapter and verse says that we can only intercede for those who are still alive and able to communicate with you?

Incidentally, when a saint dies, isn’t it called eternal LIFE? So how can a saint be dead? Then it would be eternal DEATH, right?

Does Mary have those attributes that make it possible for us to communiciate with her? We don’t have anything in scripture that speaks to that and indicates that she does.

“Amen amen I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do and still do greater ones than these.”

So why not go to God alone whom we know hears us, knows us inside out and has the sovereign power to work on our behalf.

How can you ask this question, unless your pastor preaches we should go to God alone-- and you’ve never prayed for anyone in your church?

 

[Fair_Lady]

That’s a bit disingenous,Fair Lady. There were many texts being read during the 1st century gatherings of Christians–many were not inspired.

Without the CC you would not know whether this is inspired or not:

“If you produce what is within you, what is within you will save you.
If you do not produce what is within you, what is within you will destroy you.”

Is there something in the above quote’s essence that tells you it’s inspired or not inspired?

How would you know?

Because the CC told you so!

Referring again to Acts 17:
" 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

It doesn’t appear that the Bereans consulted with a pope from the CC to find out whether or not the scriptures were the inspired word of God. Paul and Silas arrived, armed with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they taught to the Jews in Berea at this point. It is noted that these people “were more noble than those in Thessalonica”. Why? Because “they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily”! And that was without the pope or his bishops! And still they came to the knowledge of the truth! Because they heard the word and then searched the scriptures to verify that what was being taught them was true, they believed. How could this be so before they heard from the pope whether or not the scriptures were inspired of God? I believe it was because the Holy Spirit was working among them.

The word of God is powerful! Hebrews 4:12 says it like this: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Did you notice that the CC isn’t even metioned in there? I’m not negating the value of our teachers and preachers within our churches. I’m just pointing out that the word of God stands over and above all and that we can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, discern truth from scripture without leaning on what the CC says. As a matter of fact, we had better do as the Bereans did and search the scriptures to see if what is being said by the church is really true.

Without the CC you would not know whether this is inspired or not:

“If you produce what is within you, what is within you will save you.
If you do not produce what is within you, what is within you will destroy you.”

Is there something in the above quote’s essence that tells you it’s inspired or not inspired?

How would you know?

Because the CC told you so!

In one split second I can tell that is not a God inspired quotation and I didn’t need the help of the CC. Why? Because I know enough of the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ to know that that statement is false and therefore cannot be inspired by God.

 

[Pitcharan]

Referring again to Acts 17:
" 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

…

In one split second I can tell that is not a God inspired quotation and I didn’t need the help of the CC. Why? Because I know enough of the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ to know that that statement is false and therefore cannot be inspired by God.

Dear Fair Lady, who religiously follows the scriptures! do not forget the fact that there were many “scripture scholars” who read the scriptures day-in and day-out, but failed to recognize the promised Messiah prophesied in the scriptures.

The Bible itself contains verses that suggest attempts to distort truth.
How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD”, when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jer 8:8)

Precious things are seldom available in pure form: gold, silver, diamond. They are mined and separated from the muck that surrounds them. (Though you may find a least precious thing like sand abundantly without the need to clean it or separate it from other things.)

The Word of God is most precious; we have to ponder over scripture texts and receive the truth by the help of God’s Spirit.

Salvation is all about separating light from darkness and segregating the sheep and the goats.

The jews believed that divorce was fine with God and quoted Mosaic laws. Our Lord gently and most effectively established the truth by recalling the originally good creation of God and clearly pointing out the corruption brought about by hard hearted humans who forcibly obtained from Moses what they wanted.

Scripture is only an aid; it’s accuracy or shortcoming is not an issue for God’s people who depend on His Spirit.

The catholic church that promotes Marian devotion, is led by God’s Spirit. Many Protestants, Lutherans, Muslims and Hindus have personally testified to me saying, they experienced (actually felt) God’s presence only in a catholic church.

 

[ncgolf]

As for accountability, I am accountable to my Lord before whose judgment seat I will stand to either receive reward or not (I was already gifted salvation at the time of personal belief in Him - and "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," Rom. 11:29). Thank you for asking.

The gifts and call mentioned here are given to people who are enemies of the gospel … not the believers. If anything this throws the idea of knowing who is gifted or elect into turmoil. The very people you would think are not of the elect (enemies of the gospel) are given a promise in v29 that is astounding. If you use the entire passage you get an entirely different perspective on who is being given the promise in 11:29.

Romans 11: 25 "I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise [in] your own estimation; a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of Gentiles comes in, 26 and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

The deliverer will come out of Zion,
he will turn away godlessness from Jacob;
27 and this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.

28 In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election they are beloved because of the patriarchs. 29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable."

Commentary from the NAB on this:
25-29 “In God’s design Israel’s unbelief is being used to grant the light of faith to the Gentiles. Meanwhile, Israel remains dear to God (cf 9, 13), still the object of special providence, the mystery of which will one day be revealed.”

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t appear that the Bereans consulted with a pope from the CC to find out whether or not the scriptures were the inspired word of God. Paul and Silas arrived, armed with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they taught to the Jews in Berea at this point.

Fair Lady, what Scriptures did these Bereans consult? It certainly wasn’t the Gospel of Matthew. Nor the Hebrews. Nor Romans…

It seems that what they were consulting was the OT.

So if you’re going to follow the example of these Bereans then you ought to use only the OT.

Again, the only reason you know to cite Acts 17 as inspired, and not the Didache, is because the CC decided this for you.

As a matter of fact, we had better do as the Bereans did and search the scriptures to see if what is being said by the church is really true.

Well, you and your church will be missing a HUGE PORTION of the Word of God, if you’re going to “do as the Bereans did”. They searched the OT, remember?

In one split second I can tell that is not a God inspired quotation and I didn’t need the help of the CC. Why? Because I know enough of the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ to know that that statement is false and therefore cannot be inspired by God.

Now, that, Fair Lady, is a great example of truly “begging the question”, using the correct philosophical meaning.

It’s circular reasoning. “I know what’s the Word of God because what’s inspired is in the Bible.” It’s a tautology.

How in the world would you know that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is inspired? Did God give you some sort of private revelation?

The only reason you know whether a verse is inspired or not is because the CC told you so.

There’s nothing about the Gospel of Jesus in the above verse, yet it’s clearly inspired–from the book of Job–and the CC decided that for you centuries ago.

 

[LilyM]

It’s circular reasoning. “I know what’s the Word of God because what’s inspired is in the Bible.” It’s a tautology.

How in the world would you know that “My breath is offensive to my wife” is inspired? Did God give you some sort of private revelation?

The only reason you know whether a verse is inspired or not is because the CC told you so.

Another great example is ‘Saul went into the cave to relieve himself’. (1 Sam 24:3) Now I defy ANYONE to find ANYTHING about such a sentence, that will leap out at ANYBODY as marking it as inspired scripture. If you are familiar with scriptures, the name ‘Saul’ might possibly give it away, but not otherwise.

But let’s really test this theory of yours, FL. If you’re up for the challenge. I’ll find ten textual passages for you - maybe all from scripture, maybe all non-scriptural sources, maybe a mix. If you get ten for ten right, without consulting any books or googling or asking anyone else, and only going from your own gut, then I’ll enteratain the possibility that you’re right. Are you up for the challenge?

 

[crazzeto]

Referring again to Acts 17:
" 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

It doesn’t appear that the Bereans consulted with a pope from the CC to find out whether or not the scriptures were the inspired word of God. Paul and Silas arrived, armed with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they taught to the Jews in Berea at this point. …

Fairlady, you act as if they showed up with a book and said “here read”, but anything could be further from the truth… Yes they came armed with the Gosple of Jesus Christ, but not the written Gosple of Jesus Christ, rather they came only with the Oral tradition. This tradition was taught to them by the Apostles (in the case of Paul first by the Christians at Damascus, then the Apostles filled in the gaps).

Paul says so him self in his epistles:

1Th 2:9 For you remember, brethren, our labour and toil: working night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you, we preached among you the gospel of God.
1Th 2:10 You are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and without blame we have been to you that have believed:
1Th 2:11 As you know in what manner, entreating and comforting you (as a father doth his children),
1Th 2:12 We testified to every one of you that you would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
1Th 2:13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

That is, we came to you and preached that is we told you of the Gosple of Jesus Christ and you accepted our oral teaching as the Word of God. So what really happened was

1. Paul converts
2. He is told of the Gosple in Damascus
3. He is largely ignored in acts… Until he comes to Jerusalem and has hands laid on him by the Apostles
4. After this Acts starts recording Paul
5. He goes out Preaching to the Thessalonians by the authority of the Apostles
6. Initially they accept this teaching as the Word of God
7. They fall into heresy
8. Paul finally writes a letter to correct their misguided ways

In his second letter to the Thessaolinas Paul would reenforce this

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Note:

**We’re receiving reports that this thread is veering off track into inappropriate discussions. Please keep the discussion clean and on-topic or it will have to be closed. Thank you. **