Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[john17]

We can see these participayions of material things in conveying God's graces in our very coming to the world, our birth itself. God, our Creator, gave us our life *through*our parents. That's why we honor our parents and God commanded us to do so. He could have not commanded us to do that since He is the one should be honored for our existence and life. Our honor given to God did not diminish by honoring our parents, rather, the very act of honoring our parents points to God because we acknowledge the divine participation of our parents with God in the marital act. That's why we Catholics honor Mary, way above our earthly parents, since *through* her, our Lord was made flesh that will carry the crosd of our salvation.

 

[notuptome]

Yes, her faith healed her, *through* the cloak. God uses material things to convey his graces. Just like Naaman instructed was instructed to dip his body 7 times in Jordan to be healed. When Moses was instructed to create bronze serpent so that anyone who looks at it will be healed. This is the nature of the sacraments, they channel God's graces through the material things. (Naaman's having to dip 7 times is a foreshadowing of the 7 sacraments on Church).

Trying to bypass this material things as channel of graces is Gnosticism, the atmosphere of mainstream Protestantism today. This is false since God could have saved us in so different ways, but He choses to save us through having a physical body.

We have been saved by faith *through* his flesh.

We are saved by grace not faith. We are not saved through His flesh but by the atonement made by His blood. As creatures made lower than the angels we do not have the full capacity to comprehend all of the spiritual realm. We do need physical things to reference things that are spiritual.

When we are born again we have the Holy Spirit as our instructor of all things Spiritual. There is no virtue in things which have no life in them. Virtue is in Christ and it is through Christ that grace all sufficient to save and keep us is imparted to all who believe and receive. Grace is not given piece meal but in full measure the moment we ask Christ to save us from our sins.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Elin]

We are saved by grace not faith.

That's not the way the NT puts it.

We are saved by grace through faith.

You do a lot of revising of Scripture.

 

[Elin]

Body yes. . .blood not quite so fast.
The blood comes from the Father.

Pseudo science and pseudo religion what a dynamic combination.
Makes for a pseudo believer.

There is no virtue in believing that which is untrue or unbiblical
no matter how dearly held.

Non-responsive. . .

and assertion without demonstration is without merit.

You have not addressed your pseudo science above about blood coming from the father only,

nor have you addressed Jesus coming from Mary's seed in Ge 3:15.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Circular reasoning.

Non-responsive still.

The blood has always been through the father and not the mother.
All of Jewish culture the heritage follows the father not the mother.

Strawman. . .non-fact #1.

Jewish culture has nothing to do with science, as you assert in your non-sensical statement above.

Gen 3:15 has no real bearing on Christ. All seed is through the woman's womb.

It is a very broad and all encompassing statement not unlike Abrahams seed

Non-fact #2. . .are you sure about all that half-baked info.
Do you just make it up as you go along?

"Seed" is sperma in the Greek.
Sperm is from the father, not the mother.

In its various meanings, it is used only once of woman--Ge 3:15.
Eve did not conceive by her own seed.
She conceived by Adam's seed.

Only Mary conceived without human male sperm.
Ge 3:15 is a promise of Messiah, whose humanity came only from Mary's "seed."

God is addressing not Mary but Eve.

Agreed. . .and the rest of the story is in Isa 7:14 and Mt 1:23.

You could use a good Bible study.

The blood type always follows the father.

Non-fact #3. . .more half-baked info.

You could also use a good course in biology.

I'm not going to google blood typing for you as you are an adult
and capable of doing it on your own.

Good decision.

Such self-righteous hubris. . .

for one who traffics in so much misinformation, both Biblically and, in this case, biologically.

You are not credible, and cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Elin]

Yes, her faith healed her, *through* the cloak. God uses material things to convey his graces. Just like Naaman instructed was instructed to dip his body 7 times in Jordan to be healed. When Moses was instructed to create bronze serpent so that anyone who looks at it will be healed. This is the nature of the sacraments, they channel God's graces through the material things.
(Naaman's having to dip 7 times is a foreshadowing of the 7 sacraments on Church).

Actually, seven is a number of completion.

Dipping seven times was complete healing.

 

[notuptome]

Non-responsive still.


Strawman. . .non-fact #1.

Jewish culture has nothing to do with science, as you assert in your non-sensical statement above.


Non-fact #2. . .are you sure about all that half-baked info.
Do you just make it up as you go along?

"Seed" is sperma in the Greek.
Sperm is from the father, not the mother.

In its various meanings, it is used only once of woman--Ge 3:15.
Eve did not conceive by her own seed.
She conceived by Adam's seed.

Only Mary conceived without human male sperm.
Ge 3:15 is a promise of Messiah, whose humanity came only from Mary's "seed."

Agreed. . .and the rest of the story is in Isa 7:14 and Mt 1:23.

You could use a good Bible study.


Non-fact #3. . .more half-baked info.

You could also use a good course in biology.


Good decision.

Such self-righteous hubris. . .

for one who traffics in so much misinformation, both Biblically and, in this case, biologically.

You are not credible, and cannot be taken seriously.

Hurl all the slanderous insults you like it will not make you wise.

Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Professing themselves to be wise they are as fools.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Elin]

Non-responsive still.

Strawman. . .non-fact #1.
Jewish culture has nothing to do with science, as you assert in your non-sensical statement above.

Non-fact #2. . .are you sure about all that half-baked info.
Do you just make it up as you go along?

"Seed" is sperma in the Greek.
Sperm is from the father, not the mother.

In its various meanings, it is used only once of woman--Ge 3:15.
Eve did not conceive by her own seed.
She conceived by Adam's seed.

Only Mary conceived without human male sperm.
Ge 3:15 is a promise of Messiah, whose humanity came only from Mary's "seed."

Agreed. . .and the rest of the story is in Isa 7:14 and Mt 1:23.
You could use a good Bible study.

Non-fact #3. . .more half-baked info.
You could also use a good course in biology.

Good decision.
Such self-righteous hubris. . .
for one who traffics in so much misinformation, both Biblically and, in this case, biologically.

You are not credible, and cannot be taken seriously.

Hurl all the slanderous insults you like it will not make you wise.

Non-responsive still.

 

[notuptome]

Non-responsive still.

Be glad.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Elin]

Be glad.

Thanks, I'm pretty much always glad.

 

[john17]

We are saved by grace not faith. We are not saved through His flesh but by the atonement made by His blood. As creatures made lower than the angels we do not have the full capacity to comprehend all of the spiritual realm. We do need physical things to reference things that are spiritual.

When we are born again we have the Holy Spirit as our instructor of all things Spiritual. There is no virtue in things which have no life in them. Virtue is in Christ and it is through Christ that grace all sufficient to save and keep us is imparted to all who believe and receive. Grace is not given piece meal but in full measure the moment we ask Christ to save us from our sins.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I'm very glad that you pointed this out. This shows that Catholics and Protestants have different conceptions of the atonement.

The Protestant conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Protestant conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Protestant thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul says that here.) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished. For that reason Protestant theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again.

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ. So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God. The fundamental difference can be depicted simply in the following drawing:

One problem with the Protestant conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.A second problem with the Protestant conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Protestant conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself.

You may continue reading about this difference here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

 

[john17]

This explains why Protestants are scandalized in seeing crucifixes. For them, seeing Christ in the cross, where the wrath of the Father was poured to the Son, is seeing the Father's wrath on our account. For Catholics, looking at the picture of Christ on the cross is looking at the greatest self-sacrificial love ever shown in history. After looking at this picture, we hear Him say: like me, take up your cross and follow Me. Offer your self-sacrificial love to your neighbor and to Me.

 

[Elin]

We are saved by grace not faith.

That's not what the NT states.

We are saved by grace through faith.

I'm very glad that you pointed this out. This shows that
Catholics and Protestants have different conceptions of the atonement.

I smell a simplistic, wrong-headed and dichotomous explanation coming.

The Protestant conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death,
Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Protestant conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Protestant thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son.
(R.C. Sproul says that here.)

Don't need R. C. Sproul to tell us what Scripture states.
To point out a few:

"Christ saves us from God's wrath" (Ro 5:9).

"We considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
He was pierced for our transgression, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree. . .by his wounds you have been healed" (2Pe 2:24).

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son.

And add to those that all creation was not darkened for three hours as Christ suffered separation from his Father.

Then you need to tear Ro 5:9 and Is 53:5-6 out of your Bible.

One problem with the Protestant conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent),

Your problem with penal atonement is your finite wrong-headed faulty human "logic" which the divine wisdom transcends.

or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

Keeping in mind, of course, that your real problem is ignorance of the exacting nature of divine justice
as well as unbelief of the Scriptures in Ro 5:9; Is 53:5-6, 1Pe 2:24.

Your problem is with the word of God.
Take it up with him.

 

[Elin]

I'm very glad that you pointed this out. This shows that
Catholics and Protestants have different conceptions of the atonement.

I smell a simplistic, wrong-headed and dichotomous explanation coming.

The Protestant conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death,
Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Protestant conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Protestant thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son.
(R.C. Sproul says that here.)

Don't need R. C. Sproul to tell us what Scripture states.
To point out but a few:

"Christ saves us from God's wrath" (Ro 5:9).

"We considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
He was pierced for our transgression, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed." (Is 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree. . .by his wounds you have been healed" (1Pe 2:24).

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins.
The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son.

And add to those that all creation was not darkened for three hours as Christ suffered separation from his Father.

Then you need to tear, among others, Ro 5:9, Is 53:5-6, and 1Pe 2:24 out of your Bible.

One problem with the Protestant conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent)

Your problem with penal atonement is your finite, wrong-headed, faulty human "logic" which the divine wisdom transcends.

or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

Keeping in mind, of course, that your real problem is ignorance of the exacting nature of divine justice
as well as unbelief of the Scriptures in Ro 5:9; Is 53:5-6, 1Pe 2:24 and others.

Your problem is with the word of God.
Take it up with him.

This explains why Protestants are scandalized in seeing crucifixes.

Are you sure about that?

Like you're sure Jesus wasn't punished for our sin (Is 53:5-6)?

 

[Patnubay]

At first glance, it seems the label of Mary as the "Mother of God" is blasphemous, since God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But the Gospel tells us that the God being referred to here, in which Mary is a mother of, is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus and not the whole trinity. Knowing that Jesus is God, we can rightly label Mary as the "Mother of God" being conscious that the God here is the second person of the Trinity.

So we have two choices:
1. Declaring Mary as "Mother of God" being conscious that the God here is the second person of the Trinity; or
2. Declaring Mary as "Mother of Jesus" being conscious that Jesus is God and is the second person of the Trinity.

The first option serves *so many* purposes than the second, in terms of preaching the Gospel.

First, it makes the mystery of Incarnation (the central mystery of Christianity, aside from the Trinity) so fully alive. Anyone who has not encountered Christianity hearing the phrase "Mother of God" will be compelled to ask: How can a God, an eternal Being, has a mother? Then we can answer him: God's love is tremendous that He came down to us, as a baby born in Bethlehem, to redeem us of our sins and reunite us again with the Triune God, the thing Adam and Eve lost in the Fall. So the three words "Mother of God" captures this mystery of incarnation. The Word made flesh.

Second, the phrase automatically profess the divinity of Christ, and removes the early heresy saying that Jesus is only human, not divine. This heresy is still alive today (e.g. Jehova's Witnesses), and hence the Church has been battling this heresy for a very long time. Proponents of this heresy even uses the Bible to prove that Jesus is only human. (This is one of the flaws of denying the living Magisterium and just subscribe to private interpretation of the Bible). So in declaring Mary as "Mother of God", we are putting forward Christ's divinity, not just a required awareness.

Third, officially calling Mary as the "Mother of God" separates us from these "christians" who deny Christ's divinity, since all of them (e.g. Jehova's Witnesses) declares Mary as a mother of Jesus, but without the additional conviction that Jesus is God.

Fourth, the title prevents the error of Nestorianism, the teaching that Christ's humanity and divinity are disunited. This heresy gives us two Jesuses: one human and one divine. The error is that we have two beings: one is created, and one is uncreated. But Jesus is only one, and he is 100% human and 100% divine. We cannot say that Mary gave birth to only the human Jesus because there is only one Jesus, and this includes his divinity. At some point, before the Second Person of the Trinity is born, the Second Person of the Trinity is purely spirit. After He is born, then he is now 100% human and 100% divine. So in a way, choosing Mary as "Mother of Jesus" with the attached reason that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, then one has fallen to the error of Nestorianism.

All these reasons of choosing Mary as "Mother of God" is really Christ-centered. We don't call Mary as "Mother of God" as if she has supernatural powers above the Triune God. I don't see anything wrong calling Mary as "Mother of God" with the awareness that this God is Jesus.

We call Mary as the "Mother of God" because she gave birth to Jesus, our Lord, Saviour and ultimately, God.

But why make it so difficult. Mary is a vessel used by God to deliver the Second Person of the Trinity. It is much simpler. Mary, though a worthy vessel for Jesus, will never be the mother of God. It just defies everything in theology and logic. God can not have a mother however one puts it.

 

[Elin]

But why make it so difficult. Mary is a vessel used by God to deliver the Second Person of the Trinity. It is much simpler. Mary, though a worthy vessel for Jesus, will never be the mother of God. It just defies everything in theology and logic. God can not have a mother however one puts it.

Keeping in mind that Mary is the vessel God used to conceive the human body

of his divine Son, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Patnubay]

Nah, just so utterly misguided actually, Roger.

That's one of the many dangers of Protestantism. Everyone interpreting scripture for themselves, therefore ending up with 1000's upon 1000's of false teachings which inevitably lead people off in just as many different directions (just spend a day at christianchat.com). No one possibly able to agree with one another. Each ending up instead ignorantly creating God in their own image, making Jesus what they want him to be instead of understanding who he actually is, all because they lack any proper teaching. Very sad, and very dangerous.

30,000+ different denominations, each teaching something different. Protestantism is a ship without a rudder, to put it mildly.

There is indeed some truth in what you said. Each denomination in protestantism is making an interpretation for themselves. Some of them are even funny worst heretical. But because of this freedom, every interpretation is subject to analysis and criticism from all 30k plus denominations. Just imagine what would be left and how strong the interpretation would be to survive such analysis and criticism. On the other hand, the obedience the Catholics are taught to follow the "official Vatican interpretation" will render even the "weakest" interpretation to survive and remain for generations until found not applicable. I guess both have a weakness.

 

[Elin]

Nah, just so utterly misguided actually, Roger.

That's one of the many dangers of Protestantism. Everyone interpreting scripture for themselves, therefore ending up with 1000's upon 1000's of false teachings which inevitably lead people off in just as many different directions (just spend a day at christianchat.com). No one possibly able to agree with one another. Each ending up instead ignorantly creating God in their own image, making Jesus what they want him to be instead of understanding who he actually is, all because they lack any proper teaching. Very sad, and very dangerous.

30,000+ different denominations, each teaching something different.
Protestantism is a ship without a rudder, to put it mildly.

Except for that lil ole rudder called the Holy Spirit.

God provides teachers and leaders for his sheep among the professing church,
and the Good Shepherd guarantees to lead them in knowledge to salvation and obedience.

That is all that matters. The rest is window dressing.

An absolute teaching authority on earth which entrenches doctrine
can also entrench anti-gospel doctrine which cannot save.

There is more danger in absolute teaching authority of man on earth
than there is in trusting the Good Shepherd to shepherd his sheep to salvation and obedience.

 

[Elin]

It's OK to come up with *opinions*, just don't automatically elevate them and regard them as the *correct interpretations*.
Trusting one's own opinion is the reason why we have 30,000+ Protestant denominations,

And in those 30,000 (?) denominations only a few do not hold to the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity:

inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
deity of Christ,
Christ's virgin birth and miracles,
Christ's penal death for sin,
Christ's physical resurrection and personal return.

And also in those 30,000 (?) denominations are found sheep of the Good Shepherd
who guarantees their knowledge to salvation and obedience,
and who are free to receive that knowledge without human "authority" forbidding them to do so,
which is the real danger to their salvation, rather than the window dressing
of what they do not agree on.

 

[Elin]

Come to think of it,
how exactly did Satan deceive Eve? He did so in three steps.
First he *belittled the authorized interpretation* of God's prohibition

Come to think of it,
belittling the authority of God's word can be laid at the feet of Catholicism
which rejects salvation by true faith only (Eph 2:8-9),
by which God justifies (declares "not guilty" and in rightwise standing with him) them (Ro 4:5),
saving them from his wrath (Ro 5:9) on their guilt at the Final Judgment,
and which salvation produces the obedience of the faith which saved them.

 

[notuptome]

And in those 30,000 (?) denominations only a few do not hold to the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity:

inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
deity of Christ,
Christ's virgin birth and miracles,
Christ's penal death for sin,
Christ's physical resurrection and personal return.

And also in those 30,000 (?) denominations are found sheep of the Good Shepherd
who guarantees their knowledge to salvation and obedience,
and who are free to receive that knowledge without human "authority" forbidding them to do so,
which is the real danger to their salvation, rather than the window dressing
of what they do not agree on.

Believers know there are only two denominations. Saved and unsaved. The rest is an attempt by unbelievers to confuse and distract from the basic premise. Goats or sheep, wheat or tares, saved or unsaved there are no other groups of people in Gods creation.

The great danger today is that unbelievers posing as believers make it appear that one can believe what they please and still claim to be Christian. Thirty thousand denominations are a pretty good indication that the tactic is working for the enemy.

God is glorified in the remnant church which He has preserved unto this day. Much is said about God separating His people from among the worlds people.

I suspect that ninety to ninety five percent of those warming a church pew on any given day are not what they want you to think they are. A sobering thought that there are many posers and few possessors.

For the cause of Christ
Roger