Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosinante
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
Further, how two individual believers - both led into all truth - determine which of them is correct when they have theological differences? More importantly, how is it even POSSIBLE for two believers led by the same Spirit to disagree since there is only one truth on a given theological point? Or do you believe it is possible for something to be true for me and false for you and vice versa?
Click to expand...
This is *the *question. It is incisive and trenchant.

And the answer can only be: we need an infallible arbiter, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
 
Randy_Carson said:
This sounds like a flimsy excuse to avoid having to think more deeply.
Click to expand...
Hmm… I am the one in the forum who has been able to thoughtfully detail a theological position all the while that others are insisting I use a mantra… and I avoid deep thinking?

You just can’t resist…
 
rcjones said:
We’re out of synch… your questions have been answered.

We have no canon.
Click to expand...
:eek:

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you are not of the position that you can say that the Gospel of Mark is inspired revelation?

Or, without the circumlocutions and double negatives: there is no way for you to know with certainty that the Gospel of Mark is inspired?
 
rcjones said:
We’re out of synch… your questions have been answered.

We have no canon. We learn from God and he uses the books we have whether they are identified as scripture or not.

I am reading the Hebrew book that are dropped from the Protestant canon now. The story of the woman with seven sons is probably what the Sadducees were mocking when they tries to trap Jesus. God is using that to show me something.

If I read in Matthew something that I don’t understand, it doesn’t matter if it is labeled scripture or not, God is not currently using it to teach me.

So if I had to invent a sola to give you a sound bite, I would say that I am Sola Spiritu and that even if I no longer had access to a Bible, the Spirit would guide me in truth.
Click to expand...
Kinda makes you wonder why Jesus even bothered promising to build a Church, doesn’t it? 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Do you then believe that we ought not use the term Trinity?

For does it not cause confusion to our Muslim/Jewish/Hindu brethren?

Or, rather, do you believe that we need to proclaim the Truth and evangelize where misunderstandings present themselves?
Click to expand...
Tri-unity though not used in the Bible does not cause confusion. It accurately describes the doctrine. Since the term is an invented term, it MUST BE defined when it is used with people who don’t know what it means.

The Muslim is not confused by the word Trinity. They deny the Trinity. That is different.
 
rcjones said:
Hmm… I am the one in the forum who has been able to thoughtfully detail a theological position all the while that others are insisting I use a mantra… and I avoid deep thinking?

You just can’t resist…
Click to expand...
As long as you can tell yourself that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, etc. haven’t been able to settle their differences, you don’t have to make any effort to sort it out for yourself.

OTOH, if you decide that it matters which group has it right, then you will not be able to remain as you are.

So, not thinking enables you to do nothing…and that is very comfortable for you.
 
rcjones said:
Tri-unity though not used in the Bible does not cause confusion. It accurately describes the doctrine. Since the term is an invented term, it MUST BE defined when it is used with people who don’t know what it means.

The Muslim is not confused by the word Trinity. They deny the Trinity. That is different.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Isn’t it the same with Theotokos???
 
PRmerger said:
:eek:

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you are not of the position that you can say that the Gospel of Mark is inspired revelation?

Or, without the circumlocutions and double negatives: there is no way for you to know with certainty that the Gospel of Mark is inspired?
Click to expand...
The question is irrelevant. Greeks always asking Greek questions of a Hebrew text 😉

The only advantage of placing a label ‘inspired’ on a book, is to force you to submit to what I believe it says. I trust God to make you into the image of Christ.

I can say that the book of Mark has proven itself from usage in the church for teaching doctrine because Mark shows us how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies.
If you read Mark properly you will see why Mark believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. God may permit you to believe it too.

I can say that Protestants miss much of the meaning involved when the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with the seven brothers story because they are unfamiliar with Tobit.

I can say that Catholics miss the meaning of John 1.1-4 because they refuse to learn Hebrew and properly interpret Gen 1.1.

I don’t need a label ‘canon’ to say those things.
 
rcjones said:
We’ve been there, done that…

Mother of God (Father, Son or Holy Ghost)… it is confusing on it’s face.
Click to expand...
Theotokos though not used in the Bible does not cause confusion. It accurately describes the doctrine. Since the term is an invented term, it MUST BE defined when it is used with people who don’t know what it means.
 
rcjones said:
The question is irrelevant. Greeks always asking Greek questions of a Hebrew text 😉

The only advantage of placing a label ‘inspired’ on a book, is to force you to submit to what I believe it says. I trust God to make you into the image of Christ.

I can say that the book of Mark has proven itself from usage in the church for teaching doctrine because Mark shows us how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies.
If you read Mark properly you will see why Mark believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. God may permit you to believe it too.

I can say that Protestants miss much of the meaning involved when the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with the seven brothers story because they are unfamiliar with Tobit.

I can say that Catholics miss the meaning of John 1.1-4 because they refuse to learn Hebrew and properly interpret Gen 1.1.

I don’t need a label ‘canon’ to say those things.
Click to expand...
So, can you tell us exactly how the Holy Spirit led you to understand that the Philemon, 2 John and 3 John are inspired? What were the precise points that made the difference?

Conversely, after you reviewed Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, how did the Spirit warn you that He had not inspired that book? And why did so many early Christians (also led by the same Spirit as you) consider that it was inspired? 🤷
 
rcjones said:
The question is irrelevant. Greeks always asking Greek questions of a Hebrew text 😉

The only advantage of placing a label ‘inspired’ on a book, is to force you to submit to what I believe it says. I trust God to make you into the image of Christ.

I can say that the book of Mark has proven itself from usage in the church for teaching doctrine because Mark shows us how Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies.
If you read Mark properly you will see why Mark believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. God may permit you to believe it too.

I can say that Protestants miss much of the meaning involved when the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with the seven brothers story because they are unfamiliar with Tobit.

I can say that Catholics miss the meaning of John 1.1-4 because they refuse to learn Hebrew and properly interpret Gen 1.1.

I don’t need a label ‘canon’ to say those things.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I am misunderstanding you, but Catholics do understand the beginning of John to be a recreation story. He’s a video on Mary which mentions that.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA&feature=plpp
 
Let me get this straight…

We’re in a Catholic forum arguing with a Jew who lives in Utah surrounded by Mormons about a Greek word used in Christian theology?

Let that sink in for a moment… 😛
 
Randy_Carson said:
As long as you can tell yourself that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, etc. haven’t been able to settle their differences, you don’t have to make any effort to sort it out for yourself.

OTOH, if you decide that it matters which group has it right, then you will not be able to remain as you are.

So, not thinking enables you to do nothing…and that is very comfortable for you.
Click to expand...
You are overstepping again. So now I am lazy.

As I have stated elsewhere and on more than one occasion:
I personally subscribe the the idea that the church is invisible. This is one of the reasons that I started investigating Catholicism, because I recognize that in reading scripture, often you can only discern what you are familiar with. I can see Christ throughout the Old Testament because I am familiar with him. But I was not familiar with Catholicism. So on my own, if it was in the Bible, I would not be able to see it.
Click to expand...
Please don’t be so lazy before attributing the quality to me. The reason I am in CAF is to let Catholics show me the church in scripture if it is there.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Let me get this straight…

We’re in a Catholic forum arguing with a Jew who lives in Utah surrounded by Mormons about a Greek word used in Christian theology?

Let that sink in for a moment… 😛
Click to expand...
Church universal 😉
 
rcjones said:
ty to me. The reason I am in CAF is to let Catholics show me the church in scripture if it is there.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

This may help.

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

+++

There is also this:

Is the Church Visible or Invisible?
By John J. Moran
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9301fea2.asp
 
Randy_Carson said:
… since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting my church again… plus you still have the problem of the schism.

To me, the schism is like the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed because temple rituals would have been pagan to God after the cross, so he destroyed it so that he Jewish faith could not be practiced at all.

Physical, earthly, unity of the faith is central to the physical Catholic church. The schism permanently destroyed that to show that the church is invisible. Communion takes place across the physical organizational boundaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top