G
guanophore
Guest
I fail to see what is so “toxic” about not wanting ones siblings to go to hell?
- Status
Would it be safe to say that if she was born free of original sin it was because of a miracle?
Would it not also be safe to say that if she was freed ofthe stain of original sin at the Annunciation that was the same miracle?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, and this may not sound very Catholic but God is equally capable of taking Jesus’ flesh from her very flesh without taking anything tainted. I know that theologians have been arguing this for millenia, and it is just something that I think God will make clear to me in His time, and I decide not to get hung up on it. I know the doctrines of Mary were developed to clarify the nature of Christ, and I pray that Christ will give me His attitude toward His mother.
I was thinking the other day that there is far too much to understand and absorb, and I think that is why the Church has only required the Creed for baptism. We all need to start with basics.
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you think that Luther did not share this view about the importance of the assembly of ourselves together? I think you would agree that stopping fellowship and feeding of the soul will start a backslide. Even for those who embrace OSAS, I think you would agree that those who are not spiritually fed are more likely to end up living hell in this live, even if not the one to come.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yes I hear your point, but attending Church alone is no guarantee that you will walk with God. I know many evangelicals who walk with God for an hour and a half on Sunday mornings. The rest of the week is all about living with secular standards.
What is needed is for those Church goers to enter discipleship. But discipleship requires hunger and not every believer has the hunger for God.
What is needed is for those Church goers to enter discipleship. But discipleship requires hunger and not every believer has the hunger for God.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Two thoughts: first, what you cite to me is what I’ve already quoted to you!
Second, please review what he asserts in that essay: “we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”
Augustine literally states the later explicit teaching of the Church in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception!
- Mary had an abundance of grace that overcomes sin in every particular [instance in her life] (i.e., she really did “live a sinless life”, contra your claims!)
- This grace was conferred upon her
- This was proper, inasmuch as relates to the fact that she bore Christ, who had no sin
So, here’s the thing: first off, the essay by Ambrose that Augustine quotes is no longer in extent. We have no way of knowing the context in which St Ambrose wrote this. However, we do know the context in which St Augustine used this: “speaking of Christ, [Ambrose] says…”. In other words, when Augustine is speaking of Mary (in his essay on grace), we see him say that Mary is without sin; but, in the context of Christ (and not of Mary!), he makes these other statements! So, I think it’s unreasonable to use Augustine’s statements about Christ as if they apply to Mary.
Second, Augustine’s argument here is in defense of original sin, against those who claimed it did not exist. Naturally, then, his argument must be that it is a ordinary part of human nature. It does not address any particular extraordinary occurrences, but rather, simply asserts what the normal situation of human nature is. We would agree that this is the norm… but as we see in his essay on grace, Augustine asserts that Mary is the exception to this norm!
It means “whatever is asserted free of proof can be rejected without explanation.” You claimed that teachings about Mary were 'forgotten by the 2nd century"… but you’re making this claim without anything to back it up.Gorgias:
What does this saying mean?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
The claim isn’t “go to Mass and be assured of heaven” – it’s “if you don’t follow the Fourth Commandment, I’m afraid that you’ll end up in hell”!
That’s not ‘toxic’ – that’s solid logic! If I said to you “I’m afraid that, if you start breaking the commandments, you’ll be on the path to damnation”, would you really disagree with me?!?!?
A
Agathon
Guest
I’m pretty sure we’ve gone over the analogy of the pit.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I am not talking about cults or world religions. We both make the claim to the authority of the Apostles, but only one of us make this mysterious claim of oral tradition from the same Apostles. But when put to the test, what is claimed in oral tradition (on any given subject) is actually in contradiction to inspired scripture, forcing you to defend it from scripture. And by doing so, you must ignore the obvious and plane meaning found, by redefining words and their meaning. Such is the case of the listing of Mary’s Children, or the implication of the word “first-born.”
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Do you take responsibility for being an accuser of the brethren? I think it is right over your head.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Gorgias, the Cardinals and Bishops blew it. They did not understand the most basic foundational truth of the Gospel, and neither do you. Salvation is s free gift, apart from works like going to Church. Justification is a declaration by the Father, when He sees you express faith in His Son. The 4th commandment plays no role in the Gift. Easy stuff for those who have ears to hear it.
A
Agathon
Guest
Others have told you that all only sons are firstborn sons but not all firstborn sons aren’t only sons. And those brothers are stepbrothers. John 7 implies this heavily.guanophore:
I am not talking about cults or world religions. We both make the claim to the authority of the Apostles, but only one of us make this mysterious claim of oral tradition from the same Apostles. But when put to the test, what is claimed in oral tradition (on any given subject) is actually in contradiction to inspired scripture, forcing you to defend it from scripture. And by doing so, you must ignore the obvious and plane meaning found, by redefining words and their meaning. Such is the case of the listing of Mary’s Children, or the implication of the word “first-born.”
A
Agathon
Guest
A gift maintained by obedience to God’s commands.Gorgias:
Gorgias, the Cardinals and Bishops blew it. They did not understand the most basic foundational truth of the Gospel, and neither do you. Salvation is s free gift, apart from works like going to Church. Justification is a declaration by the Father, when He sees you express faith in His Son. The 4th commandment plays no role in the Gift. Easy stuff for those who have ears to hear it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yep. I agree. That’s what I was trying to explain. But, since you put it that way, let me ask you a question, by virtue of an example: let’s suppose you accept the free gift of justification, but then, throughout your life, act in ways that are sinful (and do not repent). Would you assert that your salvation is not at risk? Or, would you think that your actions matter, to some extent?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about here. Even though most basic understanding of a gift is defiled.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK – so you’re an adherent to “once saved, always saved.” Got it.
Not every Christian in the world agrees with you. How you assert that you’ve found a truth that other Christians have missed might make for an interesting conversation. (Then again, it might just lead in circles.)
(P.S., the basic understanding of a gift is that it can be rejected by the recipient.
)
A
Agathon
Guest
So Peter had a flawed understanding as well? “Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.”
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yes the narrative of the scripture tells us that Joseph listened to the angel of the Lord after he found out she was with child yet claimed to be a virgin. The angel said, go ahead and marry her.
In this context, we read, “but (he) did not know her intimately until she gave birth to her firstborn son…” Matt. 1:25. But also Luke 2:7 confirms these points. Both of these passages suggest more than proving she had other children. They both prove she did not remain a virgin. The language here is not tricky or with hidden meaning.
Couple those point together with the many scriptures dealing with Mary’s children and the Lord’s brothers, or the Lord’s brother James, and it is not rocket science.
It was unnatural and contrary to Jewish custom and certainly the Law for married Jews to not have sexual relations in a marriage. They were expected to obey the Genesis mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Mary and Joseph wouldn’t have been any different in their perspective.
In this context, we read, “but (he) did not know her intimately until she gave birth to her firstborn son…” Matt. 1:25. But also Luke 2:7 confirms these points. Both of these passages suggest more than proving she had other children. They both prove she did not remain a virgin. The language here is not tricky or with hidden meaning.
Couple those point together with the many scriptures dealing with Mary’s children and the Lord’s brothers, or the Lord’s brother James, and it is not rocket science.
It was unnatural and contrary to Jewish custom and certainly the Law for married Jews to not have sexual relations in a marriage. They were expected to obey the Genesis mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Mary and Joseph wouldn’t have been any different in their perspective.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Its one thing to reject God’s offer of eternal life as a gift. People do this all the time. But to receive this gift, freely, by acknowledging and receiving Christ the savior, in baptism, will only seal them with the holy Spirit UNTO the day of their physical redemption. The gift remains in them, free from any misguided perceptions or delusions thrown at them by the devil or people used by the devil. In the end God still gets all of the glory for saving them.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Peter is one of my favorites. The context explains the passage.
To those who have "obtained a faith of equal standing with ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savor Jesus Christ. 1:1.
God’s divine power has granted to us ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS. 1:3.
Peter is talking specifically about godly living for the believer, the justified one who has eternal life. In this context everything else makes sense.
v4 granted to us precious promises. so we can become partakers of the divine nature. This was Peter’s way of saying that we can walk in the Spirit of God and not fulfill the works of the flesh.
v5 He list a few things to apply in faith. virtue, knowledge, self control, … etc.
v8 For if these qualities are yours and increase, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord. v9 For whoever, (in Christ) lacks these qualities is nearsighted and blind having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins, (through Christ work on the cross.)
v10 Be all the more diligent to CONFIRM your calling… (confirm to who?)… and election,…(confirm their election to who?..)
verse 11 continues his promise of life and godliness. "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. "
A predictable interpretation is that it is believed that Peter was talking about going to heaven, but that is not what he said here. An entrance to the KINGDOM WILL BE provided. Not an entrance to eternal life itself, or heaven. So… what is the kingdom?
To those who have "obtained a faith of equal standing with ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savor Jesus Christ. 1:1.
God’s divine power has granted to us ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS. 1:3.
Peter is talking specifically about godly living for the believer, the justified one who has eternal life. In this context everything else makes sense.
v4 granted to us precious promises. so we can become partakers of the divine nature. This was Peter’s way of saying that we can walk in the Spirit of God and not fulfill the works of the flesh.
v5 He list a few things to apply in faith. virtue, knowledge, self control, … etc.
v8 For if these qualities are yours and increase, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord. v9 For whoever, (in Christ) lacks these qualities is nearsighted and blind having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins, (through Christ work on the cross.)
v10 Be all the more diligent to CONFIRM your calling… (confirm to who?)… and election,…(confirm their election to who?..)
verse 11 continues his promise of life and godliness. "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. "
A predictable interpretation is that it is believed that Peter was talking about going to heaven, but that is not what he said here. An entrance to the KINGDOM WILL BE provided. Not an entrance to eternal life itself, or heaven. So… what is the kingdom?
- Status