The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[Pax]

How could that possibly be, Pax, since 99 percent of what men have claimed for Mary is not found in Scripture? Her alleged powers and heavenly position are found in extra-biblical writing AFTER the Apostolic age.

Oh, and before you go there, allegorizing Scripture to conform to the averments of men doesn’t count. By the allegorical method of interpretation men can conform Scripture (or any writings) to any dogma taught by them. But believers are called to be mature in their thinking, not children.Eph 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

You see…you are not mature in your thinking. Instead, you are closed minded. The scriptures actually say a great deal about Mary, but you are unwilling to explore the threads on this forum that go into this. Instead, you insist that there is nothing there.

You are thinking more like the Jews that Paul argued with in Thessalonica than the Jews he dialogued with in Beroea.

It would appear that only you know when to see the allegory in scripture and when not to. Of course this is driven not by the Spirit but by your doctrine. You are always right and the Church Jesus established is always wrong. Now before you try to say otherwise, simply consider the fact that everytime you have argued a point of interpetation, you have never once conceded and that you have always placed your personal interpretation ahead of the Church’s interpretation. This applies to hundreds of points discussed by you on this forum.

 

[moondweller]

There is so much more in scripture that would help you appreciate all of this. Keep studying.

It would do better for your argument if you told me not to keep studying the Scriptures, Pax. The more I study them the more it is confirmed in my mind that there is no Divine Revelation to support your views of an exalted Mother in Christianity.

Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with {the} women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

This is the last mention of her in the N.T. Scriptures. No Apostle ever mentions her. No Apostle ever appeals to her. No Apostle confides in her either in the Gospel accounts or when writing to the churches.

Catholics do make mention of Rev. 12, but according to interpretation only. Mary, by name, is not actually mentioned.

I do study the Scriptures that I might be mature, and not a child, in my thinking.Matt 18:3-4 He called a child to Himself and set him before them and said,"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."This is said in the context of “believing” not “thinking.” And Jesus harshly warns those who would cause one of those “little ones” who “believe in” Him to stumble. Such stumbling is caused through erroneous doctrines. And for this reason Paul says1 Cor 14:20 “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.”

 

[guanophore]

It would do better for your argument if you told me not to keep studying the Scriptures, Pax. The more I study them the more it is confirmed in my mind that there is no Divine Revelation to support your views of an exalted Mother in Christianity.This is the last mention of her in the N.T. Scriptures. No Apostle ever mentions her. No Apostle ever appeals to her. No Apostle confides in her either in the Gospel accounts or when writing to the churches.

I agree that this is one point where limiting oneself to the Scriptures does truncate one’s experience of the Divine Revelation.

If the Apostles did not confide in her, why was she in hiding with them after the crucifixion?

I don’t think Mary’s larger role became evident until after most of the NT was written. We see some of it in John’s gospel, written later, and in the Apocalypse, also written later. It may be that the power was veiled until she was taken up into heaven.

Do you not believe that Jesus followed the commandment to love His mother?

Sometimes it seems like anti-catholics such as yourself think that Jesus disparaged His mother, but yet, you also purport that Jesus perfectly fulfilled all the commandments. it can’t be both!

 

[moondweller]

It would appear that only you know when to see the allegory in scripture and when not to.

No man has the authority to allegorize the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves make it quite evident when an allegory is being presented. Origin leaned on that spiritualizing (allegorical) method of interpretation (hermeneutics), but as a natural consequence, his “orthodoxy” fell into disrepute.

Your Marian doctrines are based on this same method. And it’s the basis for Replacement theology as well.

The Scriptures reveal many spiritual truths but that does not give its readers the authority to spiritualize them.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

I agree that there are many who have been baptized, who will not be in the Kingdom because of disbelief/disobedience… I’m also certain that there are many who have believed and go on to lose their salvation through disbelief/disobedience.

We are right back to square one. Losing salvation. We’ve had this conversation before, and disagreed then.

Just because someone is “predestined to grace” doesn’t mean they are "predestined to glory."

According to your presupposition.

Here’s Paul’s recitation of the sequence of events of ***election.*****Romans 8:29-30

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.**Where in that verse do you see anything other than predestination to glory?

That statement speaks of one kind of predestination, and that is to glory.

What you’re positing is predestination to justification for the purpose of damnation. Where in the NT do you find any statement that some are justified to damnation?

That’s what you’re positing, another group of justified believers who are predestined to damnation.

Where’s your proof?

Where is a statement to that effect?Also, there exists a group whom He has foreknown, and predestined; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He damned.

ryanoneil:

He who believes, is baptized, and is saved, can lose that salvation through disbelief and disobedience.

I’ll answer your assertion with an assertion of my own: The elect cannot lose their salvation.

 

[guanophore]

No man has the authority to allegorize the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves make it quite evident when an allegory is being presented. Origin leaned on that spiritualizing (allegorical) method of interpretation (hermeneutics), but as a natural consequence, his “orthodoxy” fell into disrepute.

Your Marian doctrines are based on this same method. And it’s the basis for Replacement theology as well.

The Scriptures reveal many spiritual truths but that does not give its readers the authority to spiritualize them.

No, moon. The Marian doctrines are not based on this method, though it is true that we do see allegory in reference to Mary, especially with the New Eve and the Ark. However, the Marian doctrines were developed out of Christology, in response to heresy, and all this prior to the formulation of the canon of Scripture.

None of Catholic Teaching is “bible based”. All of it comes from Jesus, through the Apostles, prior to a word of the NT being written.

 

[guanophore]

According to your presupposition.

Here’s Paul’s recitation of the sequence of events of ***election.***Romans 8:29-30

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.Where in that verse do you see anything other than predestination to glory?

That statement speaks of one kind of predestination, and that is to glory.

That is because this passage is a reference to those who have been glorified (completed the race, having passed from this life into the next).

What you’re positing is predestination to justification for the purpose of damnation. Where in the NT do you find any statement that some are justified to damnation?

No. God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

That’s what you’re positing, another group of justified believers who are predestined to damnation.

There are some branches that are cut off.

Where’s your proof?

I don’t know of any you will accept, since you have artfully danced around all the Scriptural passages to the contrary.

I’ll answer your assertion with an assertion of my own: The elect cannot lose their salvation.

These elect cannot, because the ones he is speaking of (in past tense, notice) have already been glorified. these are they who have persevered to the end. As long as we are in this life on earth, the possiblity exists that we can spurn the Son of God afresh.

 

[moondweller]

I agree that this is one point where limiting oneself to the Scriptures does truncate one’s experience of the Divine Revelation.

And yet, it is only said of the Scriptures that they’re theopneustos.

If the Apostles did not confide in her, why was she in hiding with them after the crucifixion?

Logically, how does “hiding” conclude “confiding?” I don’t read in Acts one that they were “hiding” in the upper room.

I don’t think Mary’s larger role became evident until after most of the NT was written. We see some of it in John’s gospel,

I see nothing in John’s gospel to support it.

and in the Apocalypse, also written later.

Not by name.

It may be that the power was veiled until she was taken up into heaven.

So then you agree it’s all based on conjecture?

Do you not believe that Jesus followed the commandment to love His mother?

He followed the commandment to “honor” both His earthly father and mother. He was born a Jew, born under the Law, and lived it perfectly. There is no commandment in the Law to exalt one’s mother. If you want to carry out your thinking out to it logical conclusion, then all Jewish, believing mothers are exalted in heaven alongside Mary.

Sometimes it seems like **anti-catholics such as yourself **think that Jesus disparaged His mother, but yet, you also purport that Jesus perfectly fulfilled all the commandments. it can’t be both!

Oh! So you’ve brought it down to name calling? So if I don’t accept the Marian dogmas then I, by default, am accused of saying Jesus “disparaged” His mother? How is that even logical?

You do realize that not all Catholics, as those doctrines were being developed, believed them. ALL of them had their opposition. Many died before they became official church dogma. Do you accuse them also of saying Jesus held a low opinion of His mother?

 

[moondweller]

No, moon. The Marian doctrines are not based on this method, though it is true that we do see allegory in reference to Mary, especially with the New Eve and the Ark.

Sheesh, guanophore!! :doh2:

However, the Marian doctrines were developed out of Christology, in response to heresy,

This only had to do with “theotokos.” This has nothing to do with her predicated powers and exalted position in heaven.

and all this prior to the formulation of the canon of Scripture.

The original emphasis of the doctrine of “theotokos” was Christ, not Mary, and was based on what the Scriptures revealed about HIM.

The doctrine may have been formulated prior to a canon of the Scriptures, but not prior to the Scriptures themselves. They were the objective source for the development of the doctrine.

None of Catholic Teaching is “bible based”. All of it comes from Jesus, through the Apostles, prior to a word of the NT being written.

And yet, you have no evidence that the Marian doctrines were ever taught by the Apostles. None of those men who formulated those doctrines quote any Apostles or Jesus. So what objective proof can you provide that they’re based on Divine revelation and not just the imagination of men?

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

That is because this passage is a reference to those who have been glorified (completed the race, having passed from this life into the next).

Read the passage, guanophore instead of just spouting the standard un-thought-out apologetic.

While that is true of some of the elect, it’s not true of others of the elect who have yet to ”complete the race, and pass into the next,” it’s also true of others who have yet even to come into temporal existence.

The English definition of predestine is identical to that of a Greek Lexicon: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand.

IOW, it’s a sure thing.

guanophore:

No. God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

IMO, Catholics are very inconsistent in using that verse (1 Tim 2:4), as everyone knows that Catholics insist that “all” doesn’t mean “each and every person”.**Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God**Christ is the second person in the history of the universe to have been born sinless; whose the first?

If “all” doesn’t mean all in Rom 3:23, why does it mean all in 1 Tim 2:4?

guanophore:

There are some branches that are cut off.

That statement doesn’t prove Catholic soteriology with respect to its contention that God has predestined, called, and justified some, only to condemn them.

guanophore:

I don’t know of any you will accept, since you have artfully danced around all the Scriptural passages to the contrary.

You’re projecting. ISTM that about 90% of the time, none of your responses to anyone have anything to do with the posts to which you respond.

guanophore:

These elect cannot, because the ones he is speaking of (in past tense, notice) have already been glorified. these are they who have persevered to the end. As long as we are in this life on earth, the possiblity exists that we can spurn the Son of God afresh.

Another unsupported assertion; I’ll answer in kind.

The elect will not spurn the Son of God.

 

[ryanoneil]

According to your presupposition.

Here’s Paul’s recitation of the sequence of events of ***election.***Romans 8:29-30

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.Where in that verse do you see anything other than predestination to glory?

That statement speaks of one kind of predestination, and that is to glory.

I don’t see anything is this verse other than predestination to glory, because that is what he is talking about. And I’ve already acknowledged this.

What you’re positing is predestination to justification for the purpose of damnation. Where in the NT do you find any statement that some are justified to damnation?

That’s what you’re positing, another group of justified believers who are predestined to damnation.

Where’s your proof?

I’ve never said anyone is justified for the “purpose” of damnation. We’ve had this conversation and disagreed.

“Predestination” means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill).

Where is a statement to that effect?Also, there exists a group whom He has foreknown, and predestined; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He damned.

I don’t believe you’ll find such a statement. Just because scripture doesn’t use those exact words doestn’t prove your point. Here is a case of those predestined to grace:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. (Eph 1:3-5)

If you keep reading, you won’t find a statement saying all these are also destined to glory. Instead we are given a . . .first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:14)

A down payment doesn’t equate to a done deal. He prays "that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, (Eph 1:18)

These verses don’t use the same formula Romans 8:29-30? It doesn’t say those who are predestined to grace are always predestined to glory.

I’ll answer your assertion with an assertion of my own: The elect cannot lose their salvation.

There is plenty of scripture that says otherwise. You just don’t recognize it.

And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time? . . But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:42; 45-46)

Would you agree a steward of God is predestined to be a steward?

Do you think God would put a steward in charge of his servants that was not justified?

I’m guessing your answer is no!

 

[Philthy]

Baptism doesn’t save.Mark 16:16
16 “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; buthe who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Note carefully: condemnation is on the basis of apisteuō—unbelief— condemnation is not on the basis of not having been baptized.

Belief is required - we all agree. Belief alone, however, cannot be embraced based upon this verse. This is another perfect opportunity to clarify the alleged insignificance of Baptism clearly - once and for all - and eliminate all the distractions of what is required and to let “faith alone” shine in all its pure, unadulterated glory. It doesnt happen…again. Not here, and no where else in all of Scripture. To the objective mind there must be a reason for it. I believe there is. The reason is because baptism is somehow essentially, fundamentally, and irreplacably united to that faith which is in Christ. Just as faith and obedience are inseparable, so is faith and God’s promise in baptism.

 

[Pax]

It would do better for your argument if you told me not to keep studying the Scriptures, Pax. The more I study them the more it is confirmed in my mind that there is no Divine Revelation to support your views of an exalted Mother in Christianity.This is the last mention of her in the N.T. Scriptures. No Apostle ever mentions her. No Apostle ever appeals to her. No Apostle confides in her either in the Gospel accounts or when writing to the churches.

Catholics do make mention of Rev. 12, but according to interpretation only. Mary, by name, is not actually mentioned.

I do study the Scriptures that I might be mature, and not a child, in my thinking.Matt 18:3-4 He called a child to Himself and set him before them and said,"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."This is said in the context of “believing” not “thinking.” And Jesus harshly warns those who would cause one of those “little ones” who “believe in” Him to stumble. Such stumbling is caused through erroneous doctrines. And for this reason Paul says1 Cor 14:20 “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.”

As you wish.

 

[Pax]

No man has the authority to allegorize the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves make it quite evident when an allegory is being presented. Origin leaned on that spiritualizing (allegorical) method of interpretation (hermeneutics), but as a natural consequence, his “orthodoxy” fell into disrepute.

Your Marian doctrines are based on this same method. And it’s the basis for Replacement theology as well.

The Scriptures reveal many spiritual truths but that does not give its readers the authority to spiritualize them.

Yes, yes, yes…you are the expert and authority that exercises all insight into the scriptures. The Church is wrong and always has been. You are now the pillar and bulwark of the truth and the Church must bow to your interpretations. Origen makes a mistake and the Church corrects him, but you claim that the Church makes multiple mistakes and that you are correcting the Church.

You can’t even refute my posts on Abraham yet you place yourself above the Church instituted by Jesus himself. The gates of hell could not prevail against the Church, but somehow you think that you have. Your views, your opinions, your interpretations, and your ego need to be put aside or you will never learn much of anything about the truth.

I do not mean to be uncharitable in my remarks. On the other hand, what I have pointed out is something that you need to hear and reflect upon.

 

[ryanoneil]

The restoration of Israel will include an earthly Kingdom in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem, and the nations will come to worship Him, and to serve Israel, and those that don’t will be utterly ruined and perish.

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps we could discuss this on a thread about dispensationalism.

**Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18:36) **

 

[Pax]

Sheesh, guanophore!! :doh2:This only had to do with “theotokos.” This has nothing to do with her predicated powers and exalted position in heaven.The original emphasis of the doctrine of “theotokos” was Christ, not Mary, and was based on what the Scriptures revealed about HIM.

The doctrine may have been formulated prior to a canon of the Scriptures, but not prior to the Scriptures themselves. They were the objective source for the development of the doctrine.And yet, you have no evidence that the Marian doctrines were ever taught by the Apostles. None of those men who formulated those doctrines quote any Apostles or Jesus. So what objective proof can you provide that they’re based on Divine revelation and not just the imagination of men?

Spend some money and get the cd set at the link below: It is a marvelous and informative piece of work that will help correct your thinking.

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CA155.html?L+scstore+fhnh7356ff9c9c9c+1222299893

 

[Pax]

Your thinking is not what I was referring to when I spoke of being more child like. If you would like me to describe your thinking, I can do that as well. What I am talking about is what Jesus talks about when he speaks to his disciples about being like little children. It is a matter of the heart and mind being open to the truth in love and humility. It has everything to do with trusting God and his word like a child trusts its parents. What I said has nothing to do with immature thinking.

As far as pitting imagination against divine revelation is concerned, I will say this:

You are uttering the sophist’s argument and pitting our points against something that they already coincide with. ISTM, that your approach sucks the power out of grace, and sucks the life of God in his saints out of heaven.

Paul says this:

Eph 3:20
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine,

If this applies to us, then what about the saints in heaven that Jesus says are “like the angels?” Think about all that scripture attributes to angels. This also applies to the saints in heaven.

1 Cor 2:9
But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

1 Cor 13:11-12
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

I think that you need to reconsider what I said and meant about being more child like and you need to reconsider what I said about mature thinking as these apply to learning something of what God has in store for those in heaven. There is so much more in scripture that would help you appreciate all of this. Keep studying.

Moon,

I see that you have failed to grasp what scripture says, and that you have failed to address this post and what it means to receive power by way of grace and the implications of what it means to be in heaven.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

I don’t see anything is this verse other than predestination to glory, because that is what he is talking about. And I’ve already acknowledged this.

OK. God predestines to glory.

ryanoneil:

I’ve never said anyone is justified for the “purpose” of damnation. We’ve had this conversation and disagreed.

ISTM that’s what you’re positing.

You said, Just because someone is “predestined to grace” doesn’t mean they are "predestined to glory."

What do you mean by "predestined to grace," then? Where do you find that in Scripture?

“Predestination” means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill).

Proof? And, describe your freewill, and the abilities you ascribe to it, please.

ryanoneil:

I don’t believe you’ll find such a statement. Just because scripture doesn’t use those exact words doestn’t prove your point. Here is a case of those predestined to grace: **Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. **(Eph 1:3-5)

You’ve taken that verse completely out of context, Ryan. Please, give me a scripture stating “predestination to grace.”

ryanoneil:

If you keep reading, you won’t find a statement saying all these are also destined to glory.

To quote you, ”Just because scripture doesn’t use those exact words doesn’t prove your point.”

ryanoneil:

Instead we are given a . . .first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:14)

I submit that predestination to glory is inclusive of everything mentioned prior to v14 and more.

Furthermore, Paul presents an analogy of a business transaction, and what v14 states is that the Holy Spirit is given as a pledge (Gk arrahbon), that the full amount will finally be paid (that’s the idea behind the word).

Do you think that God will welsh on His pledge, which pledge is the Holy Spirit? That doesn’t seem likely to me.

ryanoneil:

A down payment doesn’t equate to a done deal. He prays "that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, (Eph 1:18)

Ryan, your partial quote of v18, and your lead in (that a down payment doesn’t equate to a done deal), indicates to me that you’ve left the context of the passage, for your Tradition.

In context, what Paul is praying for is that the Holy Spirit whom they already have will deepen their understanding of what they possess in Christ.

ryanoneil:

These verses don’t use the same formula Romans 8:29-30? It doesn’t say those who are predestined to grace are always predestined to glory.

You’ve yet to offer any proof of “predestination to grace only.”

ryanoneil:

There is plenty of scripture that says otherwise. You just don’t recognize it.

There is plenty of scripture that says otherwise to what you say. Neither do you recognize it.

ryanoneil:

And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time? . . But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:42; 45-46)

Would you agree a steward of God is predestined to be a steward?

Do you think God would put a steward in charge of his servants that was not justified?

I’m guessing your answer is no!

That’s a different topic, and more interested in the things in this post that precede this question.

 

[Pax]

…
…
The elect will not spurn the Son of God.

This is true, but the way you apply it is not. If I am discussing the “elect” in a general way, then I am discussing all of those that ultimately wind up in heaven. In that sense all that you have said is true.

The problem is that you continue to make the mistake of believing that only the elect receive the first grace that brings a person into a state of justification. This is what we have argued against, and have proven by an enormous amount of scripture over the course of this and the prior thread.

Naturally, you disagree but the mountain of scripture we quoted indicates otherwise.

If we stick to the term “elect” as meaning those that ultimately wind up in heaven then I can agree. If we are talking about everyone that comes into justification then we will disagree. The latter group do not fit into my understanding of the “elect.”

 

[sandusky]

This is true, but the way you apply it is not. If I am discussing the “elect” in a general way, then I am discussing all of those that ultimately wind up in heaven. In that sense all that you have said is true.

The problem is that you continue to make the mistake of believing that only the elect receive the first grace that brings a person into a state of justification.

This sounds like Ryan’s “predestination to grace only.”

Where do you find that in Scripture?