This is well stated. And I would say this logic is very well suited for the doctrinal “tradition” of Mary’s present postion of “Queen of Heaven.” It simply has no Biblical basis - no Apostolic support - no divine revelation whatsoever.
No biblical basis? Interesting. Do you guys get **anything **out of the Old Testament? Anything at all?
Even fairly treated, SS is a rubbish theology which results in anarchy.
If God’s speaking clearly enough through the words of Scripture to correct the “Reformers”, why didn’t the “Reformers” listen the first time?
No…there are “subordinate standards” because Scripture is not clear and needs outside explaination.
If it adds nothing, why are these things on your bookshelf?
Yes, the Bible and the Bible alone is the holy, inspired, inerrant word of God. That’s what the Church teaches, so that’s what I believe. How you get from there to “reject the Apostles’ teachings” I’ll never know…
Couple of questions:
I agree - just make sure you know what the Gospel is before you claim they have “obscured” it.
Yeah…there’s nothing about marriagein the Scriptures…
Go tell it to James White. Let me know how that goes for you.
How you can believe that infant baptism is clearer in Scripture than the Assumption I’ll never know, but you’re definitely drifting far from your self-proclaimed “derivable doctrines” doctrine…
Calvinists are heretics on many levels, so it’s not surprising that they reject these Biblical truths.
I have never met a Protestant who gives Mary her due. The Trinity could be “completely haywire” and modalism correct – doesn’t stop you from making the Trinity a dogmatic issue, though, does it?
False.
Irony – where is this stated in Scripture?
Claiming the Spirit is leading you is easy. Believing the Spirit is leading you is only slightly more difficult (just ask the Mormons). Actually having the Spirit lead accurately is much more of a challenge.
How about the Bible’s Table of Contents…
Not quite. Go pick up Ott’s Development of Catholic Dogma.
Yup – you could even try claiming Sola Scriptura is in Tradition. You’d be wrong, though.
You’re shooting yourself in the foot with this argument, so you know.
Poetic, but completely divorced from the Catholic teaching. Straw man? You bet!
Who says what’s compatible and what isn’t?
Excuse me? Where exactly does the Bible or Catholic theology say that Jesus is not the KIng of Heaven? Catholics certainly don’t think so. The last Sunday of the liturgical calender is the Feast of Christ the King.
Yes, Catholic theology and liturgy refer to Jesus as “King of Heaven.” And it is true, the Bible does not say He is not “King of Heaven.” But then why would it? It was written BEFORE men began to call Him that.
Where in the Bible does it say to use scripture alone??? Where does it say to ONLY use the written word of God??? Also, according to scripture what is the pillar and foundation of Truth???
Rev 12:1.
See my posts #s 60, 69, 74, 75
The key phrase in Is. 9:7 is “the throne of David.” This is an earthly throne, not Heavenly. Jesus, sharing His Heavenly Father’s throne, still anticipates His return to this earth to sit on His father David’s throne (see Rev. 3:21) to rule the nations with a “rod of iron.” This will fulfill the prophecy in Psalm 2
s 2:6-10 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the {very} ends of the earth as Your possession. 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware."God the Son is, and always was, Lord of the Universe, but the incarnate Son, the Man Christ Jesus, is yet to sit on “His father David’s throne” (Lk. 1:32-22) in Jerusalem, to rule over Israel and the Gentile nations. This is not happening now in Heaven, but will occur at His second advent. It’s the reason He’s coming back:Rev 19:11-16 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it {is} called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes {are} a flame of fire, and on His head {are} many diadems; and He has a name written {on Him} which no one knows except Himself. {He is} clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white {and} clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."This will fulfill what was written by the Hebrew prophet Zehcariah:Zech. 14:8-9 “And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be {the only} one, and His name {the only} one.”He is not reigning as “King” now. He’s sharing His Heavenly Father’s throne and functioning as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate. But He will return and reign as King on David’s earthly throne in Jerusalem and rule over Israel and all the nations. See my post above.
The thief said one thing, Jesus replied with another. “Paradise” is not the Davidic Kingdom in which Jesus will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords on His throne, in the city of David, Jerusalem.
Okay. That means that Nathanael was wrong.
Couple of quick questions, so I know where you stand.
I have already addressed this statement by Christ about His kingdom: post # 59. As for the context, the earthly, Messianic Kingdom foretold by the ancient, Hebrew prophets, promised according to unconditional, divine covenant, and for which Jesus was born into this world, IS THE CONTEXT of the kingship and kingdom of the Messiah. It is totally germane to the argument.
Can you show me these “numerous” parables and how you perceive them to be talking about Heaven? Can you show me where Scripture describes His “Coronation” as “King of Heaven?”
One
Most certainly. One Person but not the “blending” of the two natures. He is fully God and fully man. A true hypostatic union.
Absolutely
Absolutely
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you’re asking, did the Son take on full humanity, then yes. And at His birth He was named Jesus.
One
I don’t know what “circumincession” is.
No problem, but all the parables are right there in the Gospel accounts. If Christ actually teaches in them that the Kingdom he inherits from His father David is heavenly, then it should say just that in those numerous parables. Why would you need another book?
I never said that the parable say, “that the kingdom he inherits from his father David is heavenly”. I said that the king must travel to a distant land to receive his crown. This is a parable for Jesus going to heaven to receive his crown.