Reformed debate (long! please help!)

[guanophore]

I agree, it’s not ideal. The thing is, I have a severe hearing impairment so discussion with him face to face is difficult. Also, this has been causing problems in his family (he does not go to the weddings of his brothers and does not attend baptisms), I am not attacking, merely telling him the belief of the catholic church so at least he won’t be attacking misunderstood assumptions.

In that case, you have come to the right place. You were given good advice above to take each section one at a time and respond to it. All that material is slamming you and it is overwhelming. It needs to be broken down and addressed part by part.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding and erroneous assumptions in what he has posted, so you might be very successful in being able to articulate the Truth. The most important part is to educate yourself in your faith so that you …"
Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, 15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence."

 

[Steveabrous]

I’m like you… I receive some of the teachings of Augustine and reject other teachings. Do you agree with Augustine’s beliefs and teachings on Mary?

O.k. I am not familiar with Augustin’s views on Mary. But I will say this. Most of what Catholics believe about Mary are not required beliefs. The only required beliefs are; divine Motherhood, perpetual virginity, assumption, and immaculate conception. I believe none of those were dogmatically defined until after Augustine. Hence he would not have been required to believe them. But we know since Augustine submitted to the churches authority on the matters of his day that he would submit to these if he were alive today. And that’s the whole point.

 

[Christian_Unity]

O.k. I am not familiar with Augustin’s views on Mary. But I will say this. Most of what Catholics believe about Mary are not required beliefs. The only required beliefs are; divine Motherhood, perpetual virginity, assumption, and immaculate conception. I believe none of those were dogmatically defined until after Augustine. Hence he would not have been required to believe them. But we know since Augustine submitted to the churches authority on the matters of his day that he would submit to these if he were alive today. And that’s the whole point.

Augustine wrote quite a bit to refute the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We know Mary and Joseph were married for at least 12 years and probably longer.

 

[Steveabrous]

Paperclip.

It’s like this. If the debate focus’s solely on Scripture then the best you are going to get is a draw. I have scriptures to support my view. and you have scriptures to support your view. And there are ample scripture to support Catholicism The question then becomes who has the AUTHORITY to interpret scripture. Then we look at what the early church said and we get quotes like these.

" and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. *** For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority" ***
(ireneaus against heresys book 3 a.d. 175-185)

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast( some translations say “give communion); but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil”(Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrneans a.d. 80-110)

There are literaly hundreds of quotes like this from the early churhc in the 1st and 2nd century that PROVE the early church was Catholic.

 

[Steveabrous]

Augustine wrote quite a bit to refute the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We know Mary and Joseph were married for at least 12 years and probably longer.

“The protoevangelem of James” was written about 200 years before Augustine and proclaims her perpetual Virginity. Perpetual virginity was not defined until well after Augustine. So it wasn’t a required belief when Augustine was around. If Augustine didn’t believe it that proves nothing.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Paperclip.

It’s like this. If the debate focus’s solely on Scripture then the best you are going to get is a draw. I have scriptures to support my view. and you have scriptures to support your view. .

I have to respectfully disagree with your posting. How can a sola scriputra debate of Reformed theology verses Catholic theology end up as a draw if one system of belief is built on Sola Scriptura and the other system is built on three sources of truth (three legged stool)?

 

[Steveabrous]

I have to respectfully disagree with your posting. How can a sola scriputra debate of Reformed theology verses Catholic theology end up as a draw if one system of belief is built on Sola Scriptura and the other system is built on three sources of truth (three legged stool)?

I guess that’s my point. A Catholic should never agree to debate with in scripture alone. Instead should refute scripture alone it’s self. And expose it as a heresy.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I guess that’s my point. A Catholic should never agree to debate with in scripture alone. Instead should refute scripture alone it’s self. And expose it as a heresy.

I completely agree considering the thread topic. That is the central issue of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura verses Apostolic Succession. As a Christian who holds to Reformed theology, I believe if Apostolic Succession is true, then the Catholic Faith is true. If sola scriptura is true, then the Catholic Faith cannot stand an examination test through the means of Sola Scriptura.

 

[pablope]

I completely agree considering the thread topic. That is the central issue of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura verses Apostolic Succession.

It boils down to a question of authority…the protestant reformation ditched apostolic succession…which had been the norm prior…in favor of their own authority.

 

[Christian_Unity]

It boils down to a question of authority…the protestant reformation ditched apostolic succession…which had been the norm prior…in favor of their own authority.

I agree… I have read testimonies of Reformed Christians who converted to the Catholic Faith and they are all consistent with changing their view of final authority. The conversion is never based on trying to validate Catholic theology based on Scripture alone.

 

[rfournier103]

If you stay within Scriptures alone, it is futile… you will lose the debate.

I’m new to the thread. What question is pending? The only way a Catholic can compete with Reformed theology is to appeal to extra-biblical sources. Yet, Reformed theology is grounded in Sola Scriptura. It’s a no win scenario to debate within the Scriptures alone.

:flowers: Tulip anyone?

Not really, Sir. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Scripture ALONE is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15 says that "…the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Sola Scriptura is a man-made Protestant tradition. Just be honest about what it is, or please tell me where in the Bible I may find where it states that Scripture ALONE is the rule of Christian governance and faith. I think I just competed with Reformed Theology without relying on extra-Biblical sources.

I’m like you… I receive some of the teachings of Augustine and reject other teachings. Do you agree with Augustine’s beliefs and teachings on Mary?

Okay, do you get to pick which truths preached by Augustine are true…or do you have to accept ALL of Augustine? If you accept ALL, then you have to submit to the Catholic Church as he did. If you pick which parts of Augustine are true, you have to demonstrate that you have the authority to rightly determine which parts of his true messsage are true.

I have a friend who left Protestantism and is going through RICA. He asked the Father who is teaching RICA about Augustine’s view on Mary. The Father told him that Augustine got it wrong. My point: we all pick and choose different teachings of Augustine.

Like all of us, sometimes Augustine is right, and sometimes he’s wrong. The writings of Augustine are not inspired. If they were, they would have been included in the Bible; wouldn’t they? They may be used as a ‘guide’ with great discression, but I don’t think you’ll find an educated Catholic who would value Augustine’s writings over those of the Sacred Scripture.

Augustine wrote quite a bit to refute the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We know Mary and Joseph were married for at least 12 years and probably longer.

If MY wife had given birth to the Son of God, I would not have relations with her after that. I can’t speak for Joseph, but I would think that after such a miraculous event, there is no way I would want to stain her in any way. He may have been of the same mind. They lived for Jesus and God, not themselves.

 

[pablope]

I completely agree considering the thread topic. That is the central issue of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura verses Apostolic Succession.

As a Christian who holds to Reformed theology, I believe if Apostolic Succession is true, then the Catholic Faith is true. If sola scriptura is true, then the Catholic Faith cannot stand an examination test through the means of Sola Scriptura./QUOTE]

How can the Catholic faith not stand the examination of scripture…when the Scripture you hold to came from the Catholic Chuch?

What you are in effect saying is…it is your interpretation of Scripture…that you disagree with…not the Scripture itself.

The question is…why do you believe your interpretation to be true if it was borne of the Protestant reformation…based on disobedience?

1Sam 15 says…22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

If your belief system was based on rebellion of your protestant grandfathers…and as 1sam15 says disobedience is like divination…so what of what value is what they taught if it is borne of disobedience to authority?

 

[rfournier103]

In reply to the ORIGINAL POSTER, I reccomend this…

Q: How do you eat an elephant? A: One bite at a time.

Take it one ‘debate’ at a time, and educate this poor man. Learn your faith and be patient. You may never be able to convince your inlaws, but the knowledge you gain will be worth it. I have found scripturecatholic.com/index.html to be VERY helpful. Also, find a good CATHOLIC study Bible. Read. Learn.

You may not have all the answers; but at best you’ll prove your point to him, and at worst you’ll learn your faith in a way that will allow you to worship God in an even more holy way. Please don’t be a stranger here.

God go with you.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Christian Unity;10397519:

I
How can the Catholic faith not stand the examination of scripture…when the Scripture you hold to came from the Catholic Chuch?

Pablope,

If you consider the thread topic, the person who started this thread is currently debating a Reformed Christian. In a real debate on the essential issues which divides us, a Reformed Christian would not take your reasons that you posted seriously at all. If a Catholic tries to debate issues like an imputed justification through Scripture alone, then personally I don’t believe a Catholic will win the debate based on Scripture as being the final authority.

 

[pablope]

pablope;10397554:

Pablope,

If you consider the thread topic, the person who started this thread is currently debating a Reformed Christian. In a real debate on the essential issues which divides us, a Reformed Christian would not take your reasons that you posted seriously at all. If a Catholic tries to debate issues like an imputed justification through Scripture alone, then personally I don’t believe a Catholic will win the debate based on Scripture as being the final authority.

Right…as I said before…it boils down to a question of authority…and one’s interpretation of scripture…which interpretation one adheres too…and which authority one adheres to.

Reformed interpretation is based from Calvin…which is based on his own authority.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[De_Maria]

paperclip:

Gifts or Graces in the Church

We believe according to I Corinthians 12 that every believer is a member of Christ’s body,

So do we.

and as such all are given gifts/graces (charismata) of the Spirit.

So do we.

As the members of a body, each part is necessary, and no part can say to the other that it is unnecessary or unimportant.

Agreed.

And those parts which seem less honourable, God has given more abundant honour.

Also true.

We agree that Mary was blessed among women, but so are all women who are saved from damnation.

That doesn’t make sense. Mary is the most blessed among women because she is the Mother of our Lord. She, alone, is the Mother of God.

Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the** mother of my Lord** should come to me?

However, Jael who slew the enemy of God’s people, Sisera, with a tent-peg driven through the temple was blessed above women (Judges 5:24).

Above women in the tent. But Mary is blessed above all women because she gave birth to Christ. Jael, did not.

Judges 5:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.

Other passages which speak of how all members of the body are given gifts are Romans 12:3-8; this explains how different members have different gifts and none should think more highly than he ought of himself (warning against pride), but that our gifts lay upon us responsibility to exercise them. Some gifts are common to all members (faith, hope, and charity, for example, and the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23), yet still in differing measure. The best gift is charity (I Corinthians 13).

All that is wonderful, but Mary remains blessed above all women because she gave birth to Christ.

But I suspect you are saying that God loves all people the same. Whereas, it is clear from Scripture that God loves some more than others. He definitely loves the righteous more than sinners:
Psalm 7:11
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

And God loved Moses more than any other Prophet:
Numbers 12:
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

Others whom God loved more are Abraham, Job, Jacob and many more up to the coming of Mary, whom He loved so much that He made her the Mother of His only begotten Son.

The miraculous gifts have ceased,

Says who? Have you not read in Scripture?
Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Where does Scripture say that miraculous gifts have ceased? You are reading that into Scripture.

1 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit;** to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;**

10** To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:**

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

because their purpose was to confirm the ministry of the apostles (II Corinthians 12:12), which are in the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). A foundation is laid once, and then built upon. Therefore we reject the claims of the Roman see to be an apostolic successor, since that would mean the foundation was still being laid.

You are confusing metaphors.

Peter is the foundation and Christ is building upon it.(Matt 16:18).
Jesus is the foundation. And we are building upon it. (1 Cor 3:1-15).
Jesus and the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation and we are building ourselves upon it (Eph 2:19-21).

These are all different metaphors about the Church. Each has its purpose. But neither you nor I nor Jesus nor the Apostles are actual, lifeless stones made of dead elements. Divide the word rightly therefore study to show yourself approved:
2 Timothy 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Otherwise you are making nonsense of the word of God.

Ephesians 4:7-12 also speaks specifically about the gifts of the teaching ministry poured out on the church.

Upon the Catholic Church. The Magisterium. That means Teacher. God appointed His Church to teach the world:
Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The “evangelists” (some of whom wrote New Testament Scripture) were co-workers with the apostles and had miraculous gifts including prophecy (according to the letters to Timothy and Titus, as well as the references in Acts), so we conclude that they too with the apostles and prophets are in the foundation.

Who is “we”? Why am I supposed to believe this group?

As for me, I follow the Church which Scripture says is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

This leaves the continuing gifts of pastor-teachers only present in the church today. And so we call our minister a teaching Pastor, or a Teaching Elder/Bishop. As we have one continuing teaching office, we have one continuing ruling office, that of elder or bishop or overseer.

And so you reject the Word of God and replace your tradition. For God left us a teaching Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Which teaches His Wisdom infallibly.

This is the only conclusion from Titus 1:5-7 which instructs Titus to appoint “elders” (presbyters), and then in giving their required qualifications, calls them also “bishops” (episcopos). Also in Acts 20, Paul calls the “elders” of Ephesus (v.17), and later calls them by the name “overseers” (v. 28).

But the Church, by the authority given her in Christ to bind and loose on heaven and earth, decided that the highest standard recommended by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul, should be instituted as a discipline:
1 Corinthians 7:31-33
King James Version (KJV)
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Therefore, the Priests of God most high are required to be unwed, that they may care for the things of God above the concerns of a woman.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

1a. Saints

Paul begins Ephesians (as most letters to the churches) by addressing the saints (literally, the “holy”) at Ephesus, and the faithful (literally, “believing”, e.g. contrasted with “faithless” in the admonition to believe given to doubting Thomas, John 20:27) in Christ Jesus. But these are not two distinct groups of people, he is using the conjunction “kai” in the cumulative sense rather than a mere copulative, such as I might address my wife and my beloved (who are one and the same person!). And this is proven by the following context: Addressing these saints/holy and faithful/believing, the Holy Spirit declares that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. These include: that we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him, that in love God has predestinated us to be adopted as His children through Jesus Christ, that we are accepted in the beloved, that we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, that the mystery of His will has been made known to us, that we have obtained an inheritance in Christ, and that we have already received the earnest of this inheritance which is the seal of the Holy Spirit of promise. And all this is according to the good pleasure of God’s will which He purposed in Himself before the foundation of the world, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

That is all true, as far as I can see. Unless you mean to insinuate that there are no sinners in the Church? In which case, you are wrong:
Matthew 13:25
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

It is clear that in all these blessings, there is no distinction within the church in Christ.

I’m not sure what that means since you have already stated that there are apostles, prophets, teachers etc. etc. Therefore, there are many distinctions. Unless you believe that God loves all people alike. Which is easily disproven since God does not love sinners. And there are sinners in the Church.

But especially note verse 4, where Paul says to the “saints” and the “faithful” that we have been chosen that we should be “holy” which is the same word used for “saints” in verse 1. More arguments can be given. Romans 1:7 addresses the church in Rome and calls them “saints”. Furthermore, in chapter 8, when speaking about the Holy Spirit who makes intercession for all of us who have the Spirit who are in Christ and believe, it says that He makes intercession for the “saints”. I Corinthians 1:2 addresses the church at Corinth and calls them all sanctified in Christ Jesus, and “saints” along with everyone who calls upon the name of Christ. Examples could be multiplied, but this suffices to show that every believer is a saint, a holy one of God.

All this the Catholic Church teaches. So, what’s the point?

 

[De_Maria]

Sadly that wasn’t the whole thing…

No problem.

1b. Mary

It is simply not true that Rome only desires to show Mary the respect and honour that she deserves. Consider how the men of Lycaonia tried to show Barnabas and Paul the honour which they thought they deserved by attempting to offer sacrifice as if they were pagan gods.

We don’t worship Mary as a goddess. We pray to her as a righteous woman beloved of God:
James 5:
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

When Paul and Barnabas heard of it, they tore their clothes and ran among the people saying “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein” (Acts 14:15). And consider the angel who brought signified visions to John, whom in his awe he fell down in prostration (“worship”), “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Revelation 22:9). But these things are less than what Rome attempts to offer Mary, yet claiming that it is not “worship”.

It isn’t’ worship. What you fail to recognize is the new dispensation of Christ. We are one Body with all the Saints and Angels united in Christ. That is why we now walk upon Mount Sion:
Hebrews 12:21-24
King James Version (KJV)
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

[Their claim is false, because they ascribe to her names, attributes, and offices which belong only to the true and living God. For example, they teach that she is a co-mediatrix (among other blasphemous titles),

We are all co-mediators with God. Scripture tells us so:
1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
Christ is the only way to the Father, that is true. But do you not know that we are supposed to bring people to Christ?
Romans 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

but Christ alone is the only Mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5).

Christ is the only mediator by nature. We are mediators by His grace:
1 Timothy 2:1
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

They pray to Mary (and other mere creatures, including departed souls, and angels). But that to which you pray is your god. Prayer can only be directly rightly to God therefore.

Then I expect you never pray for anyone nor permit anyone to pray for you. Whereas, we follow the new dispensation of Christ, wherein we lead each other to the bread:
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

And this must be because prayer necessarily ascribes various divine attributes. Prayer to Mary ascribes to her divine omniscience to receive all such prayers, even unspoken ones, simultaneously from millions.

Heave is outside of time. Have you not read in Scripture that the angels receive all the prayers of the faithful? Are angels omniscient?
Revelation 8:4
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

It also ascribes divine omnipotence to answer such prayers. These are attributes which may only be ascribed to God.

I don’t know why that is so since God sends His angels here and there in response to His commands.

Furthermore, God has forbidden and made impossible any contact with the dead (Deut. 18:10-12). A necromancer is one who communicates with the dead. If Rome will claim, “Aha, but we don’t claim to get messages back.” First of all, that is false, because there are innumerable claims of people receiving messages from Mary, other saints, and angels. And secondly, it is still necromancy even without receiving any message back. Saul tried to pray to Samuel, and you see what judgment he received (I Samuel 28:11-20).

You are confused. This is an episode where Saul sought out a witch. A witch is a servant of Satan.

You are also confused because the dead in Christ are alive in Christ. And we are united to Him in the Body and to them through Him.

cont’d
[/quote]

 

[De_Maria]

Furthermore, this denies all this is, as Deuteronomy describes (and I’m not trying to be insulting), an abomination because it denies the place of God as the one to whom we should bring all our requests and petitions.

Then I assume that you have no friends or loved ones for which you pray nor who pray for you.

Isaiah 8:19-20 draws this truth out. He condemns the living for seeking to the dead instead of to their God.

The dead in Christ are alive in Christ. Do you not believe this?
John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

And the way he prescribes that they should seek to God is to His law and testimony, telling us that whoever does not speak according to God’s word, has no light in them.

That is true.

Scripture teaches us how we should pray, especially when Christ was asked this, he taught that our prayers must be directed towards our Father in heaven.

Scripture there tells us to pray like this. Not to pray these words all the time. Scripture gives us additional instructions on prayer.

Praise Mary - Luke 1:48
Request the prayers of the Saints: James 5:16-17
Pray in the name of prophets- Matthew 10:41
Pray to those who have preceded us in the faith: Luke 16:24

Furthermore, our prayers must be according to the will of God only, and since we pray according to God’s will only, we must pray with the full assurance of faith, since we believe that God is faithful and works all things for our good (Romans 8:28; Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 4:14-16; James 1:5-8).

We do.

Finally, our ancient creed of Chalcedon, deliberately, wisely, and reverently, does not call Mary simply the “mother of God”. It was because of the blasphemous abuse of this title that the controversy arose within the church which produced this creed. Instead, the creed carefully qualifies it, “mother of God, according to the manhood”. Mary was not the mother of Christ according to the least part of His divine nature.

Jesus was conceived in Mary including His Divine Nature. And the creed which you mention does not deny that Mary is the Mother of God. While Scripture does not follow that particular formula. Scripture merely says that Mary is the Mother of God.

Luke 1:43 says, “How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me.” Obviously this use of the word “Lord” means “God” since in the very next verse St. Elizabeth says, “Blessed is she who believes what the Lord has said unto her”. Therefore proving that St. Elizabeth said that Mary is the Mother of God. Notice Scripture does not add, “in accordance with his humanity.”

And as for the “Immaculate Conception” such a doctrine was unknown in the early church, and many of the early fathers specifically referred to Mary as a sinner, Tertullian, Athanasius, Crysostom, to name a few. And this can be proven clearly not only from her own words (Luke 1:47-48), or from her conduct and Christ’s teaching (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27-28),

On the contrary, Scripture in Luke 1:28, calls Mary “kecharitomene” meaning, always full of grace. Therefore, Scripture confirms that Mary never sinned.

but also from the doctrine of original sin and total depravity which applies to all under the headship of Adam (Romans 5:12-21).

You ignored Rom 5:14 which says:
Romans 5:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, **even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, **who is the figure of him that was to come.

When the Holy Spirit teaches in Romans 3:12 by quoting the Old Testament, "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one,”

That is a reference to fools and unbelievers.
Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

it does not make an exception for Mary.

It doesn’t need to. Mary is a believer.

Christ is alone excepted, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that His sinlessness and divinity can only be properly ascribed to God (Hebrews 2:16-18; 4:15).

That is true. But Mary is also without sin as Scripture never ascribes to her any sin.

As for Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 11:27-28. You have read them wrong. They confirm that Mary is without sin and the most faithful of women. That is why she is the Mother of Jesus Christ.

Only those who do the will of God are related to Christ. The closest relationship to Christ is that of Mother. Therefore, it is because she did the will of God more faithfully than anyone else.

Sincerely,

De Maria