Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Okay, no takers on my question. . .
so I'm going to take my answer from Ps 110:1 and Mt 22:43-45.
In Ps 110:1, two forms, LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai) are used,
as they are in Lk 1:43-47 by Elizabeth (v.43) and Mary (vv. 46-47).
In Mt 22:43-45, Jesus quotes Ps 110:1 and uses kurios for both forms.
In the NT, differing from the customary and general use of it, the Jews
had their peculiar usage of kurios, which they drew from the Septuagint (LXX).
For them it was representative of the Hebrew
Jehovah, LORD (Mt 4:7, Jas 5:11),
adon, Lord (Mt 22:44),
Adonay, Lord (Mt 1:22), and
Elohim, God (1Pe 1:25).
Because Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit of prophecy when she made the acclamation
to Mary, she knew, or at least prophecied, that Mary's child was to be the Messiah, Lord of all.
The multiple usage of the word kurios by the Jews to mean either human or divine
does not lock in divinity as the meaning of Elizabeth's "mother of my Lord."
so I'm going to take my answer from Ps 110:1 and Mt 22:43-45.
In Ps 110:1, two forms, LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai) are used,
as they are in Lk 1:43-47 by Elizabeth (v.43) and Mary (vv. 46-47).
In Mt 22:43-45, Jesus quotes Ps 110:1 and uses kurios for both forms.
In the NT, differing from the customary and general use of it, the Jews
had their peculiar usage of kurios, which they drew from the Septuagint (LXX).
For them it was representative of the Hebrew
Jehovah, LORD (Mt 4:7, Jas 5:11),
adon, Lord (Mt 22:44),
Adonay, Lord (Mt 1:22), and
Elohim, God (1Pe 1:25).
Because Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit of prophecy when she made the acclamation
to Mary, she knew, or at least prophecied, that Mary's child was to be the Messiah, Lord of all.
The multiple usage of the word kurios by the Jews to mean either human or divine
does not lock in divinity as the meaning of Elizabeth's "mother of my Lord."
Last edited:
In some respects English can be worse than the Greek. Those with degrees in theology are the least likely to have the correct understanding of biblical salvation by grace through faith. Religious people are often so self righteous that the cannot comprehend the simple gospel of Gods grace.
Perhaps I should have fully exposed them as false professors instead of simply professors.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Perhaps I should have fully exposed them as false professors instead of simply professors.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
These passages are making it clear that John is not the Messiah. The same question is asked of John by Johns disciples are you the one or should we look for another? When John replies that he is the one sent before to make the way straight for the Messiah.
Mary likely was in need of encouragement which Elizabeth gave her at their meeting. It was not easy for Mary to be with child that everyone knew was not Josephs child.
You are correct that Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit affirmed that Mary was going to birth the long awaited Messiah.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Mary likely was in need of encouragement which Elizabeth gave her at their meeting. It was not easy for Mary to be with child that everyone knew was not Josephs child.
You are correct that Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit affirmed that Mary was going to birth the long awaited Messiah.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
B
I'd like to add that I am here respectfully - to listen to anything that comes my way, and to voice my views in a respectful manner - to see if my perspective will be changed.
I was under the impression you both worship the same god? Surely given that the bible spanned the course of 900 years in its making, and is viewed in different ways by different people - viewed as allegory, read-down, taken literally, and often without any explanation of where this sudden change in perspective has came from - is it not natural to expect that people will take things in different strides? With that said, these sorts of discussions make me very cautious of religion - I would have thought that god, being the only one who can judge, would have no scruples about granting a catholic who tried to live a good and pious life in his name a place in heaven, just as he would someone like yourself, who is also trying to serve him as best he can.
Does this view of Mary (this is a question, not a statement) really detract from the one thing that, as far as I can ascertain, truly matters when it comes to earning salvation - that is believing in God. Now I understand the concept of the trinity but it seems a little unnecessary to me to condemn a god fearing person to hell if they genuinely try to serve god. I know this raises other issues but the general principle is there. In light of the amount of sins that can guarantee you a place in hell, do you honestly believe a catholic deserves a place in hell as much as the likes of I for not believing in God at this point in my life? It seems very extreme to brand a catholic as a heretic. And without wanting to seem childish - over half the christian population is catholic so by true definition this would not make them heretics. There needs to be a dissenting view from the general consensus. Why is the christian view more valid than catholicism anyways? Are your end goals not the same?
I was under the impression you both worship the same god? Surely given that the bible spanned the course of 900 years in its making, and is viewed in different ways by different people - viewed as allegory, read-down, taken literally, and often without any explanation of where this sudden change in perspective has came from - is it not natural to expect that people will take things in different strides? With that said, these sorts of discussions make me very cautious of religion - I would have thought that god, being the only one who can judge, would have no scruples about granting a catholic who tried to live a good and pious life in his name a place in heaven, just as he would someone like yourself, who is also trying to serve him as best he can.
Does this view of Mary (this is a question, not a statement) really detract from the one thing that, as far as I can ascertain, truly matters when it comes to earning salvation - that is believing in God. Now I understand the concept of the trinity but it seems a little unnecessary to me to condemn a god fearing person to hell if they genuinely try to serve god. I know this raises other issues but the general principle is there. In light of the amount of sins that can guarantee you a place in hell, do you honestly believe a catholic deserves a place in hell as much as the likes of I for not believing in God at this point in my life? It seems very extreme to brand a catholic as a heretic. And without wanting to seem childish - over half the christian population is catholic so by true definition this would not make them heretics. There needs to be a dissenting view from the general consensus. Why is the christian view more valid than catholicism anyways? Are your end goals not the same?
U
bob, praying to anyone other than Jesus goes directly against the bible. As does idol worship. Yet Catholics pray to saints, pray to Mary and even can refer to Mary as the mother of God (not of Christ).
And look how many Catholics are known to visit 'sacred' statues of Mary, usually, and sometimes Jesus, that 'heal' or 'cry'. Sometimes even making a pilgrimage to these idols.
Truth is simply saying you believe in the same God does not equate to having the same beliefs. Many Protestants separate themselves because of some serious flaws within the Catholic doctrines that separate themselves from Protestant teachings.
Same with the Mormons. They also claim to be Christian, yet so much of what they teach goes against the bible, even to the point of having their own 'holy book' made.
Some Jehovahs Witnesses also claim to be Christian. But, again, they fall into the issue of going too far against the bible.
A religion can claim a tie in with Christianity all they want, but at the end of the day, if the doctrines you hold to counter the bible, then what good is your claim?
The real question i keep answering, yet no one seems to want to acknowledge, is why so many religions try so hard to tie themselves to Christianity. Every so often a Catholic or someone will say that that's not the case, yet here they are, on this site, and i see that same person debating about how they are Christians as Catholics.
So, to answer your question, just simply believing in God is not, alone, the only goal. Satan believes in God. And believing in God does not earn your salvation. It's about Christ as being the 'only' (only, as the bible says, not Mary or the saints) mediator between God and man. Trusting and believing in Christs sacrifice on the cross and his shed blood to save you. So no, believing in God alone does not equate to salvation. If that were the case Satan and the angels that followed him would be saved as well, yet the bible clearly shows they are not.
And just to make a clarification, salvation cannot be earned, period. Salvation is a gift to be taken or refused, but not earned. There is nothing sinful man can do to earn their salvation.
And look how many Catholics are known to visit 'sacred' statues of Mary, usually, and sometimes Jesus, that 'heal' or 'cry'. Sometimes even making a pilgrimage to these idols.
Truth is simply saying you believe in the same God does not equate to having the same beliefs. Many Protestants separate themselves because of some serious flaws within the Catholic doctrines that separate themselves from Protestant teachings.
Same with the Mormons. They also claim to be Christian, yet so much of what they teach goes against the bible, even to the point of having their own 'holy book' made.
Some Jehovahs Witnesses also claim to be Christian. But, again, they fall into the issue of going too far against the bible.
A religion can claim a tie in with Christianity all they want, but at the end of the day, if the doctrines you hold to counter the bible, then what good is your claim?
The real question i keep answering, yet no one seems to want to acknowledge, is why so many religions try so hard to tie themselves to Christianity. Every so often a Catholic or someone will say that that's not the case, yet here they are, on this site, and i see that same person debating about how they are Christians as Catholics.
So, to answer your question, just simply believing in God is not, alone, the only goal. Satan believes in God. And believing in God does not earn your salvation. It's about Christ as being the 'only' (only, as the bible says, not Mary or the saints) mediator between God and man. Trusting and believing in Christs sacrifice on the cross and his shed blood to save you. So no, believing in God alone does not equate to salvation. If that were the case Satan and the angels that followed him would be saved as well, yet the bible clearly shows they are not.
And just to make a clarification, salvation cannot be earned, period. Salvation is a gift to be taken or refused, but not earned. There is nothing sinful man can do to earn their salvation.
J
First, smelling something simplistic, wrong-headed and dichotomous explanation does not negate the truthfulness of the arguments that are *coming*. It just say something about the *person's* sense of smell.
Second, of course, the Protestant interpretations work well within the Protestant paradigm. The question here is determining the correct paradigm in light of which we will read the Scripture. Under the Catholic paradigm, all verses you cited are consistent with the Catholic idea of the Atonement. The verses you quoted in Isaiah 53 only means that Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.
In your interpretation of Romans 5:9, you are presupposing that God *can only* save us from our wrath *by transferring our wrath to His Son*. Presupposed also is that someone has to experience the wrath for us, to be able to save us. This is exactly the Protestant paradigm, where God was viewed to save us only by transferring His punishment (that should be given to us) to His Son. That the Father punished His Son. For the Catholic paradigm, God saved us by the greatest self-sacrificial love He saw in His Son. He didn't punished His Son nor was angry at Him at the cross.
As explained in my post above, the Catholic paradigm is more logical than that of the Protestant paradigm and is more consistent with the God being a Tri-unity of Persons.
Yes, my problem is the word of God *interpreted by Protestants*. Do not conflate the word of God with you own interpretation of the word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
So, do Jesus' words from the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" mean that God the Father abandoned his Son even though, as God, he could have helped him?
Not so. If someone were to say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag" or "Our Father who art in heaven," most people could either finish the quotation or prayer or at least understand the ideas being expressed. That is because certain quotations in our culture, whether secular or religious, are known and even memorized because of their importance.
This was true of the psalms in Jesus time. He needed only to say the first line, and most Jews would have known the rest, or at least the message.
Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a messianic psalm that vividly describes the agony the suffering servant would endure. God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often feel that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn’t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that.aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins—and thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point.
By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending.
Not so. If someone were to say, "I pledge allegiance to the flag" or "Our Father who art in heaven," most people could either finish the quotation or prayer or at least understand the ideas being expressed. That is because certain quotations in our culture, whether secular or religious, are known and even memorized because of their importance.
This was true of the psalms in Jesus time. He needed only to say the first line, and most Jews would have known the rest, or at least the message.
Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a messianic psalm that vividly describes the agony the suffering servant would endure. God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often feel that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn’t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that.aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins—and thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point.
By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending.
J
Recall that Psalm 22 is a prayer of someone who was in a place where he felt that God had forsaken him.
But had God truly forsaken the composer of Psalm 22? Of course not. If God had truly forsaken them, then we would not have Psalm 22 to read today. Neither would Jesus have had it to quote from.
Psalm 22 is about a person who gets abused by enemies who pierce his hands and feet, enemies who put him on display so that he can be viewed in shame by all--they even cast lots for his clothes that they rip from his body. Yet the psalmist survived all this and was inspired to tell all about how God did not truly forsake him to these villains. The psalmist wrote this in part because he wanted others to know that even in their darkest times when they feel most abandoned, they are not.
Jesus as God incarnate wanted to share all of human experience, including the feeling we often have of being abandoned. It is of interest that he takes this psalm as his personal prayer on the cross. The details of the psalm prophetically apply to him since he was literally pierced by nails in the hands, put on display on the cross as a criminal, and they literally cast lots for his clothes!
Psalm 22 uses irony to get its point across that there is nothing that humans can experience which will include abandonment by God. God will be there with us. Jesus proved this and brought attention to this fact by using the opening words of this psalm on the cross. "He did not hide his face from me," the psalmist writes about God, "but heard when I cried to him."--verse 24
But had God truly forsaken the composer of Psalm 22? Of course not. If God had truly forsaken them, then we would not have Psalm 22 to read today. Neither would Jesus have had it to quote from.
Psalm 22 is about a person who gets abused by enemies who pierce his hands and feet, enemies who put him on display so that he can be viewed in shame by all--they even cast lots for his clothes that they rip from his body. Yet the psalmist survived all this and was inspired to tell all about how God did not truly forsake him to these villains. The psalmist wrote this in part because he wanted others to know that even in their darkest times when they feel most abandoned, they are not.
Jesus as God incarnate wanted to share all of human experience, including the feeling we often have of being abandoned. It is of interest that he takes this psalm as his personal prayer on the cross. The details of the psalm prophetically apply to him since he was literally pierced by nails in the hands, put on display on the cross as a criminal, and they literally cast lots for his clothes!
Psalm 22 uses irony to get its point across that there is nothing that humans can experience which will include abandonment by God. God will be there with us. Jesus proved this and brought attention to this fact by using the opening words of this psalm on the cross. "He did not hide his face from me," the psalmist writes about God, "but heard when I cried to him."--verse 24
According to the wisdom of men what you think is pretty normal. God however does not use the same reasoning. Salvation is not a reward for good behavior. Salvation is not given to those who suppose they deserve it. The level of ones religionism is not the basis for eternal salvation. There is a way that seems right to men but the end thereof is death.
Romans 3 tells us that all men are sinners and that the wages of sin is death. We have all earned death. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.
There is a lot of religion in the world but there is still only one way to eternal life. Jesus said that He was the way, the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father except they come by Him.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Romans 3 tells us that all men are sinners and that the wages of sin is death. We have all earned death. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.
There is a lot of religion in the world but there is still only one way to eternal life. Jesus said that He was the way, the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father except they come by Him.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The bible says that Jesus came to taste death for everyone of us. He came to be the sacrifice for our sins. He came to pay the debt of sin that I owe. He had no sin of His own. It was my sin that nailed Him to the cross. It was my sin that separated Him from His Father in heaven. He has reconciled me back to the God Who loves me.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
J
Roger,
I totally agree. That's why it's humbling to know that God came down to us as humans to die, offered his self-sacrificial love for us to His Father. The Father saw this self-sacrificial love of His Son as greater than all our sins combined. Hence we were reconciled to God.
Careful. The Father and the Son were not separated at anytime, even at the cross. The Father did not punish Christ on the cross as substitute for us. The Father cooperated with His Son by letting his Son suffer on the cross because of our sins so that we will all be reconciled to Him. This encapsulates the Catholic idea of *redemptive suffering*. Christ showed us that suffering can be redemptive, in that we suffer not because God forsake us, but ultimately God let us suffer to uplift us, in order for us to be glorified with Him. (As depicted in Psalm 22, in which Jesus quoted the first line on the cross). Just like the prodigal son's sufferings made him realize that He needed the embrace of his father. Like Jesus, we are called to carry our crosses daily and offer self-sacrificial love to our neighbors and to Him.
I agree. It makes me cry every time I think about His passion.
I totally agree. That's why it's humbling to know that God came down to us as humans to die, offered his self-sacrificial love for us to His Father. The Father saw this self-sacrificial love of His Son as greater than all our sins combined. Hence we were reconciled to God.
Careful. The Father and the Son were not separated at anytime, even at the cross. The Father did not punish Christ on the cross as substitute for us. The Father cooperated with His Son by letting his Son suffer on the cross because of our sins so that we will all be reconciled to Him. This encapsulates the Catholic idea of *redemptive suffering*. Christ showed us that suffering can be redemptive, in that we suffer not because God forsake us, but ultimately God let us suffer to uplift us, in order for us to be glorified with Him. (As depicted in Psalm 22, in which Jesus quoted the first line on the cross). Just like the prodigal son's sufferings made him realize that He needed the embrace of his father. Like Jesus, we are called to carry our crosses daily and offer self-sacrificial love to our neighbors and to Him.
I agree. It makes me cry every time I think about His passion.
J
Ugly,
I am sure you heard this many times, but I will try saying it again. Catholics don't pray to Mary, they ask for her prayers to God. Some Catholics use the word 'pray' interchangeably to the word 'request'. This is because the word 'pray' has a wider meanings before the Protestant Reformation in England had come to limit it to praying to God. Until that time, the sentence "I prayed to my teacher that he will give me extra points in the last exam" is just fine.
The issue here is whether people in Heaven can hear our prayers for them to intercede for us. In Revelation, we can see an "angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God".
The saints in heaven, do not need to pray for themselves, because they are now in the presence of God. So what do they pray for?
Moreover, we know that God alone can forgive sins. But in John 20:23, the apostles were given the authority to forgive sins. We know God alone can bind or loose in heaven, but in Matthew 18:18, the apostle Peter was given the authority to bind or loose. So the premise "God alone can hear prayers from earth" may not be necessarily true. Without losing His glory, God gave those people in heaven the power to hear requests directed to them, as part of His command that members of the Body of Christ should pray for one another, and death does not cut off members of this mystical Body.
I don't see anything wrong with believing with miracles. There are so many stories in the bible where we can see this type of episodes. We saw how Naaman's leprosy was miraculously healed by dipping his body by the water of the Jordan river. How Israelites gazed upon the bronze serpent and was healed. Sounds all superstition. But all in the Bible.
Statues are just another art form. If you watched the Passion of the Christ and was moved by it, then a movie as an art form serves the purpose of moving the people to reflection. This is the same with statues, another art form. We look at them to be able to help us to reflect on the representation of the statue.
But again you might say, "Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The problem here is when you equate Christianity with your *own interpretation of the Bible*. The 33,000+ denominations within Protestantism (a new denomination is built every week) is just a proof of how erroneous the rule of trusting one's own interpretation of the Bible to define Christianity. "If no church adheres to my beliefs of what the Bible is truly teaching, then I shall build mine!" so goes the slogan.
So what is Christianity?
This sounds so vague since the word "believe" here was used to mean "believing the existence". Yes, believing the existence of God does not earn your salvation.
Catholics affirm to this. If you think they do not, then you are attacking a straw man.
This is also Catholic doctrine. If you believe Catholics "work" their way to salvation, then you learned Catholicism from some non-Catholics, which is not a safe method.
I am sure you heard this many times, but I will try saying it again. Catholics don't pray to Mary, they ask for her prayers to God. Some Catholics use the word 'pray' interchangeably to the word 'request'. This is because the word 'pray' has a wider meanings before the Protestant Reformation in England had come to limit it to praying to God. Until that time, the sentence "I prayed to my teacher that he will give me extra points in the last exam" is just fine.
The issue here is whether people in Heaven can hear our prayers for them to intercede for us. In Revelation, we can see an "angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God".
The saints in heaven, do not need to pray for themselves, because they are now in the presence of God. So what do they pray for?
Moreover, we know that God alone can forgive sins. But in John 20:23, the apostles were given the authority to forgive sins. We know God alone can bind or loose in heaven, but in Matthew 18:18, the apostle Peter was given the authority to bind or loose. So the premise "God alone can hear prayers from earth" may not be necessarily true. Without losing His glory, God gave those people in heaven the power to hear requests directed to them, as part of His command that members of the Body of Christ should pray for one another, and death does not cut off members of this mystical Body.
I don't see anything wrong with believing with miracles. There are so many stories in the bible where we can see this type of episodes. We saw how Naaman's leprosy was miraculously healed by dipping his body by the water of the Jordan river. How Israelites gazed upon the bronze serpent and was healed. Sounds all superstition. But all in the Bible.
Statues are just another art form. If you watched the Passion of the Christ and was moved by it, then a movie as an art form serves the purpose of moving the people to reflection. This is the same with statues, another art form. We look at them to be able to help us to reflect on the representation of the statue.
But again you might say, "Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The problem here is when you equate Christianity with your *own interpretation of the Bible*. The 33,000+ denominations within Protestantism (a new denomination is built every week) is just a proof of how erroneous the rule of trusting one's own interpretation of the Bible to define Christianity. "If no church adheres to my beliefs of what the Bible is truly teaching, then I shall build mine!" so goes the slogan.
So what is Christianity?
This sounds so vague since the word "believe" here was used to mean "believing the existence". Yes, believing the existence of God does not earn your salvation.
Catholics affirm to this. If you think they do not, then you are attacking a straw man.
This is also Catholic doctrine. If you believe Catholics "work" their way to salvation, then you learned Catholicism from some non-Catholics, which is not a safe method.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which arguments turned out to be as expected. . .simplistic, wrong-headed and dichotomous.
You are misinformed regarding the "Catholic paradigm."
That explains how you arrive at your denial of substitutionary penal atonement. . .just say Scripture doesn't mean what it states.
I suggest Is 53:5 means exactly what it states:
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed (of the guilt of sin)."
And yet that is precisely what Scripture states in Is 53:5.
Your problem is unbelief.
The consequences for sin is its penalty; i.e., God's wrath (Ro 5:9).
To suffer for us is to suffer in our stead.
Not to mention Catholicism does not deny substitutionary penal atonement
in Christ's satisfaction for sin.
Nope. . .The text states that Christ saved us from God's wrath, not our wrath.
Precisely what Is 53:5 states above.
You are misinformed of the "Catholic paradigm," where Christ made satisfaction for our sin,
and you substitute human pietistic notions for the mighty power of God to save according to his justice.
And that is your fundamental error regarding Christ's atonement.
It is based in your human logic, rather than the word of God in Is 53:5; Ro 3:25.
You are misinformed regarding the "Catholic paradigm."
That explains how you arrive at your denial of substitutionary penal atonement. . .just say Scripture doesn't mean what it states.
I suggest Is 53:5 means exactly what it states:
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God) was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed (of the guilt of sin)."
And yet that is precisely what Scripture states in Is 53:5.
Your problem is unbelief.
The consequences for sin is its penalty; i.e., God's wrath (Ro 5:9).
To suffer for us is to suffer in our stead.
Not to mention Catholicism does not deny substitutionary penal atonement
in Christ's satisfaction for sin.
Nope. . .The text states that Christ saved us from God's wrath, not our wrath.
Precisely what Is 53:5 states above.
You are misinformed of the "Catholic paradigm," where Christ made satisfaction for our sin,
and you substitute human pietistic notions for the mighty power of God to save according to his justice.
And that is your fundamental error regarding Christ's atonement.
It is based in your human logic, rather than the word of God in Is 53:5; Ro 3:25.
Last edited: