-
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.
what a load of PROPAGANDA...and so readily upon your lips.
brainwashed.
and i have a TRUCKLOAD of dirt on OC scott - but unlike you i'm not throwing handfuls of it on every post....i could if you want to know about FALLIBILITY.
who disrespects Mary? THOSE WHO PLACE HER IN A POSITION RESERVED ONLY FOR CHRIST.
i think it is very sad (to say the least) that this excuse to have a QUEEN OF HEAVEN takes the focus off what mary was REALLY saying:
that she would be called blessed for having been shown UNMERITED FAVOUR to bring forth (in sorrow and anguish, both through childbirth, and the suffering of Jesus as her son, and having been with Him as He suffered as her SAVIOUR) - ITS ABOUT JESUS....not mary, scott.
and why not post the entire song?
Luke 1
Mary’s Song of Praise: The Magnificat
46 And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
~
46And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me : >> [my spirit rejoices in God my Savior]
~
IS THAT NOT THE SAME SONG OF PRAISE WE ALL HAVE BECAUSE GOD OUR SAVIOUR HAS DONE MIGHTY AND GREAT THINGS FOR US?
~
btw: why did the ever-Virgin Mary who is the Mother of God who didn't give birth by natural means but the Baby Jesus just appeared outside her body (according to OC "Tradition") need A SAVIOUR?
i wonder why that part is recorded? (could it be to keep people from deifying Mary)?
brainwashed.
and i have a TRUCKLOAD of dirt on OC scott - but unlike you i'm not throwing handfuls of it on every post....i could if you want to know about FALLIBILITY.
who disrespects Mary? THOSE WHO PLACE HER IN A POSITION RESERVED ONLY FOR CHRIST.
i think it is very sad (to say the least) that this excuse to have a QUEEN OF HEAVEN takes the focus off what mary was REALLY saying:
that she would be called blessed for having been shown UNMERITED FAVOUR to bring forth (in sorrow and anguish, both through childbirth, and the suffering of Jesus as her son, and having been with Him as He suffered as her SAVIOUR) - ITS ABOUT JESUS....not mary, scott.
and why not post the entire song?
Luke 1
Mary’s Song of Praise: The Magnificat
46 And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
~
46And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me : >> [my spirit rejoices in God my Savior]
~
IS THAT NOT THE SAME SONG OF PRAISE WE ALL HAVE BECAUSE GOD OUR SAVIOUR HAS DONE MIGHTY AND GREAT THINGS FOR US?
~
btw: why did the ever-Virgin Mary who is the Mother of God who didn't give birth by natural means but the Baby Jesus just appeared outside her body (according to OC "Tradition") need A SAVIOUR?
i wonder why that part is recorded? (could it be to keep people from deifying Mary)?
Scott, I just wanted to let you know that I must also be one of those IGNORANT of SCRIPTURE and ORTHODOX TRADITION. I don't even know what the word "orthodox" means. I am a product of who and where and why and what I was taught since a child. God is giving me a desire to study "words" but I think if I was given lessons that are given in love and not given in arrogance of superior knowledge that I probably would have a desire to understand how words are made and how they are used.
My understandings are ignorant to the learned, but most I take on faith.
Now, to show my ignorance in this debate I want to ask something (possibly dumb). Is it even possible that Joseph was a widow and had children before meeting Mary? And then, if that were possible, could Joseph have never "intimately/physically" known Mary? And this debate regarding Jesus having or not having siblings and Mary always a virgin...does our understanding of these things make our faith in the infallible word of God stronger? That all of the scriptures have a check and balance system and that we are not left to our own opinions and beliefs because of the perfection of God's Words? It seems in this debate we must be left to our opinion and learned beliefs.
And last question, what does Jesus' mother have to do with who Jesus is and what Jesus came to do and what Jesus called for us to do? Jesus even made a point that our families are not to weigh us down or hold us back from becoming followers of Christ and being His disciples and being His witnesses and evangelist.
Luk 14:26If anymancome to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
My understandings are ignorant to the learned, but most I take on faith.
Now, to show my ignorance in this debate I want to ask something (possibly dumb). Is it even possible that Joseph was a widow and had children before meeting Mary? And then, if that were possible, could Joseph have never "intimately/physically" known Mary? And this debate regarding Jesus having or not having siblings and Mary always a virgin...does our understanding of these things make our faith in the infallible word of God stronger? That all of the scriptures have a check and balance system and that we are not left to our own opinions and beliefs because of the perfection of God's Words? It seems in this debate we must be left to our opinion and learned beliefs.
And last question, what does Jesus' mother have to do with who Jesus is and what Jesus came to do and what Jesus called for us to do? Jesus even made a point that our families are not to weigh us down or hold us back from becoming followers of Christ and being His disciples and being His witnesses and evangelist.
Luk 14:26If anymancome to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
S
Dear zone, No, it is not "PROPAGANDA", it is the truth. It is also the truth that part, but not all, of the OC, cooperated with the communists in the former SOVIET UNION. So I am well aware of the weaknesses in the OC. I am not brainwashed. You are being unfair to me. Why are you not admitting there are problems in the mainline Protestant denominations? There are. That is not propaganda. It is a simple fact. It is the truth. When I was a mainline Protestant, I lived an immoral life. I am gradually recovering from my bad ways. I didn't learn the whole truth about what not to do until I read THE RUDDER by the OC. It took me a while to even listen and obey that. Anyway, I have nothing against Protestants. I just have been enlightened by John 15:26. So I couldn't in good conscience remain in a Lutheran setting. I believe in the Bible more than I believe in Lutheran tradition. As for Mary, the Orthodox Church does not worship her. And the OC is well aware she is praising God our Saviour, and we should all praise God and God only. That does not change the fact that she is the greatest woman who ever lived. And as such deserves our respect. And veneration. This does not take away from worship of the Trinity alone. People who accuse of propaganda really need to look at their own system of belief. Of course, the OC understands the passages you quoted. All worship and adoration goes to God Almighty alone.
Take care. God bless you. Of course, Mary was saved by Jesus Christ her Son. She is a creature of God, not a goddess or anything more than the ever-virgin Mother of God. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS The Orthodox Church does not place Mary in a position reserved only for Christ. It is Roman Catholicism that does that. Some of Evangelicalism goes to the opposite extreme from Roman Catholicism, and greatly disrespects her, even as Catholicism makes too much of her, the evangelical modern wing of Protestantism makes too little of her. Eastern Orthodoxy keeps the balance, and worships God alone, and calls the Theotokos blessed and prays to God through her prayers and the prayers of the Saints. Its about the truth about Jesus and Mary and all of the NT people Christ loved. Just look at 2 Corinthians if you doubt the saints play a role in our relationship to Christ.
Take care. God bless you. Of course, Mary was saved by Jesus Christ her Son. She is a creature of God, not a goddess or anything more than the ever-virgin Mother of God. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington PS The Orthodox Church does not place Mary in a position reserved only for Christ. It is Roman Catholicism that does that. Some of Evangelicalism goes to the opposite extreme from Roman Catholicism, and greatly disrespects her, even as Catholicism makes too much of her, the evangelical modern wing of Protestantism makes too little of her. Eastern Orthodoxy keeps the balance, and worships God alone, and calls the Theotokos blessed and prays to God through her prayers and the prayers of the Saints. Its about the truth about Jesus and Mary and all of the NT people Christ loved. Just look at 2 Corinthians if you doubt the saints play a role in our relationship to Christ.
W
Scott, everything well said brother. I agree with 99% of what you say. However, Roman Catholicism does not teach worship of Mary. Our attitude towards saints, God, and Mary is defined by three Latin terms. (Im sure you've heard most of this but it is to define and also for others who have not.) The first is dulia. This is the reverence and respect that we show to the saints. Just as we have pictures and statues of past political leaders/presidents/celebrities, we have pictures and statues of the saints to reflect upon their lives and gain inspiration through the holy in which they lived their lifes. We pray to they to intercede for us and and to pray to God on our behalf. Just like I may ask you to pray for me to for various reasons, the saints as part of the mystical body and Church triumphant pray for us. the second is called hyper dulia. This is the attitude that we have for Mary, the Blessed Mother. We honor her and give her the credit she deserves as the Mother of God, perpetual virginity, and Queen of Heaven. We ask her too to pray on our behalf for Jesus would surely not deny anything of his Mother. Because of her closeness with her Son, Catholics have a special devotion to her above the saints, but DO NOT worship her. The last called latria. This is the worship that is left for God alone, this is simply enough understood. He trumps all, we can go to Him for anything at all.
You see, Catholics are not taught to worship Mary or give her any type of praise that is reserved for God alone. They are not taught in any way to put her on the same level as God. If anyone does, it is a personal opinion and is not correct. Like members of any church, Catholics can be misled and/or misunderstand their church teachings. Any other Catholics WHO KNOW WELL THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH out there- if I myself mispoke or left anything out, please let me know.
You see, Catholics are not taught to worship Mary or give her any type of praise that is reserved for God alone. They are not taught in any way to put her on the same level as God. If anyone does, it is a personal opinion and is not correct. Like members of any church, Catholics can be misled and/or misunderstand their church teachings. Any other Catholics WHO KNOW WELL THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH out there- if I myself mispoke or left anything out, please let me know.
S
The alleged visions of the "Virgin Mary" (sic) at Lourdes, Fatima, and Medjugorje (and other places) show indeed that Roman Catholicism does make too much of the Virgin Mary. They make her immaculate heart something special, and they also teach the sacred heart of Jesus. These traditions are not Orthodox, and not in keeping with the Orthodox Catholic Faith of the first 1,054 years of the Undivided Orthodox Catholic Church.
Of which the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Rome, used to be a part. The immaculate conception teaching does make Mary something other than human, and that would make her into some kind of goddess or equal with Christ, if she was conceived in the same way that He was conceived, she would be a member of the Godhead. Therefore, Roman Catholic tradition is false in these matters. Papal Rome was good up until about the time of St. Leo III. After that pope of Rome, Rome began being more and more in error. Nicholas I did some bad things against the unity of the Catholic Church, and his attitude toward himself and against Blessed Saint Photios the Great need some healing. Photios was indeed a great saint of God, and a Pillar of Orthodoxy. Against the Filioque error. God save us all. Amen. PS It's a part of alleged papal infallibility all Catholics must believe as a dogma of revealed faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. The false doctrine that came out of Bernadette Subirous and the alleged "our Lady of Lourdes". A false vision.
A false Virgin Mary.
Of which the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Rome, used to be a part. The immaculate conception teaching does make Mary something other than human, and that would make her into some kind of goddess or equal with Christ, if she was conceived in the same way that He was conceived, she would be a member of the Godhead. Therefore, Roman Catholic tradition is false in these matters. Papal Rome was good up until about the time of St. Leo III. After that pope of Rome, Rome began being more and more in error. Nicholas I did some bad things against the unity of the Catholic Church, and his attitude toward himself and against Blessed Saint Photios the Great need some healing. Photios was indeed a great saint of God, and a Pillar of Orthodoxy. Against the Filioque error. God save us all. Amen. PS It's a part of alleged papal infallibility all Catholics must believe as a dogma of revealed faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. The false doctrine that came out of Bernadette Subirous and the alleged "our Lady of Lourdes". A false vision.
A false Virgin Mary.
T
Luke 1:46-48 "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed."
Yes, Mary was certainly blessed. And her's was definitely an important role: because Jesus was born of a virgin, he was not a "sinner from birth", because sin entered the world through Adam. Okay, so she had an important role. But, is she the only one who has been blessed in scripture?
Judges 5:24 """Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women."
Genesis 14:19 "and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth."
Genesis 27:27 "So he went to him and kissed him. When Isaac caught the smell of his clothes, he blessed him and said, "Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed."
Now, these are just a few of the many, many, many blessings that has gone on in the world. If you remember the Beatitudes (ie. Blessed are the hungry, etc...) then you realize that there are a lot of people who were blessed. Mary is not some "magical, super-glorious eternal-virgin". She was a woman, chosen for a very important role, but God could easily have picked another. Do not worship a woman.
Luke 4:8 "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'""
Yes, God blessed Mary. But the "ever-virgin"? That is completely unbiblical and unnecessary. Let's examine the Holy Bible to see what it says.
Matthew 1:25, NIV "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
Matthew 1:25, NLT "But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus."
Matthew 1:25, ESV "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."
Matthew 1:25, NASB "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Matthew 1:25 KJV "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
By this point, it's very clear what the scripture is saying: Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to the redeemer of our souls, Jesus Christ. This verse implies Joseph had sex with Mary. God is faithful, and he would not deceive us in scripture.
John 7:2-3 NIV "But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do."
John 7:3 NLT "and Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, where your followers can see your miracles!"
John 7:3 ESV "So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing."
John 7:3 NASB "Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing."
John 7:3 KJV "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest."
There are two clear principles here which demonstrate that Jesus had brothers:
a) It says "His brothers"! The word "brother", in Greek, is adelphos. While it can mean "neighbour, fellow believer, or companion", it primarily means "brother", as in "the son of my mother is my brother".
b) If it meant "follower" or "companion", why would his "brothers" be telling Jesus to go so that His disciples could see His works? Why didn't they say to Jesus "Let us go with you to Judea, so that all of us, your disciples, can see your works!"?
The same word, "adelphos", is also used in Matthew 4:18, 4:21, 12:46-49, 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Luke: 8:20, John 2:12, 7:3, 7:5, and in many more places as well.
So we see, Jesus definitely had brothers. Why does it matter? How is it a strike against Mary? The joy of children, and the pleasure of marital sex glorifies God! Mary glorified God by having pleasureful sex with her husband, and in the process had two children, which later turned to follow Jesus.
So what?
First of all, Sola Scriptura (this means that we should depend on God's word alone, and not on the teaching of men in traditions) is biblical.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The word "thoroughly equipped" here is the Greek word exartizo. It means "to be finished, to be complete, to be completely equipped, furnished, and accomplished.
So we see that we can depend on God's word alone.
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. While it is true that some horribly misled people accept homosexuality as a "lifestyle", this is not common in the true Church. Yes, there are many horrible "liberal-churches", which teach that there is no God, that Jesus was not human, was not God, was an Angel, that there is such thing as Sin, God isn't just, everyone goes to heaven... etc.
The reality is, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. Please try to refrain from throwing blanket statements everywhere. You're not edifying.
Actually, the issue with Mormons (a group completely unrelated to Protestants) is that they don't depend on the Bible enough. Look at this very simple Bible passage that Jehovah's Witness, Islam, and Mormons all ignore:
Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims are state that there gospel was brought by an angel.
Interesting.
May God bless you!
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
so you sinned it up while a Lutheran (you said earlier you got bored)....and that's the Reformed Faith's fault?
or Scott's fault?
as for the ongoing dialectic concerning what OC does and does not REALLY teach "the initiates" about the Theotokos , i already know all that....there are rooms where you will learn it too....eventually.
by Oral Tradition. its about ISHTA....i mean.....the Queen of Heaven.
and concerning the cooperation in the worst slaughter in human history outside Mao's....what happened to perfect communion and infallibility by Traditions.....??
and no restitution or admission....just like Rome.
THIS DID NOT ABRAHAM.
and that dirt doesn't even scratch the surface.
yet the BIG TEMPLE RELIGIONS just love to slam the Reformers as wicked sinners, killers and such as if the BIG TEMPLE GUYS are infallible.
why? two verses.
Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
so please, if you would, show my brothers Martin and William and the others some r-e-s-p-e-c-t. by slowing up a little on the anti-refomers propaganda.
you like your church - COOL!
i like mine too.
thank you.
zone.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
so you sinned it up while a Lutheran (you said earlier you got bored)....and that's the Reformed Faith's fault?
or Scott's fault?
as for the ongoing dialectic concerning what OC does and does not REALLY teach "the initiates" about the Theotokos , i already know all that....there are rooms where you will learn it too....eventually.
by Oral Tradition. its about ISHTA....i mean.....the Queen of Heaven.
and concerning the cooperation in the worst slaughter in human history outside Mao's....what happened to perfect communion and infallibility by Traditions.....??
and no restitution or admission....just like Rome.
THIS DID NOT ABRAHAM.
and that dirt doesn't even scratch the surface.
yet the BIG TEMPLE RELIGIONS just love to slam the Reformers as wicked sinners, killers and such as if the BIG TEMPLE GUYS are infallible.
why? two verses.
Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
so please, if you would, show my brothers Martin and William and the others some r-e-s-p-e-c-t. by slowing up a little on the anti-refomers propaganda.
you like your church - COOL!
i like mine too.
thank you.
zone.
I
I don't recall coming across any ''Gospel according to Paul''. So to which gospel is Paul referring at here when he advises his followers to be on their guard against ''a gospel other than the one [he] (paul) preached'' ?
Paul’s view was not universally accepted or, one might argue, even widely accepted …. Even more striking, Paul’s own letters indicate that there were outspoken, sincere, and active Christian leaders who vehemently disagreed with him on this score and considered Paul’s views to be a corruption of the true message of
Christ …. One should always bear in mind that in this very letter of Galatians Paul indicates that he confronted Peter over just such issues(Gal. 2:11-14). He disagreed, that is, even with Jesus’ closest disciple
on the matter.
We are a universe away from Jesus. If Jesus came “only to fulfill” the Law and the Prophets; If he thought that “not an iota, not a dot” would “pass from the Law,” that the cardinal commandment was “Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one,” and that “no one was good but God”….What would he have thought of Paul’s handiwork! Paul’s triumph meant the final obliteration of the historic Jesus; he comes to us embalmed in Christianity like a fly in amber.
the faith in Christ as held by the primitive churches and by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus; it was a new type of religion. A new type of religion, indeed. And hence the question, "Where is the 'Christ' in 'Christianity?'" If Christianity is the religion of Jesus Christ, where are the Old Testament laws and strict monotheism of the Rabbi Jesus' Orthodox Judaism? Why does Christianity teach that Jesus is the son of God when Jesus called himself the "son of Man" eighty-eight times, and not once the "son of God?" Why does Christianity endorse confession to priests and prayers to saints, Mary and Jesus when Jesus taught his followers, "In this manner, therefore, pray: 'Our Father …'" (Matthew 6:9)?
Is it possible that Christians have been denying Jesus ever since? Transforming Jesus' strict monotheism to the Pauline theologians' Trinity, replacing Rabbi Jesus' Old Testament law with Paul's "justification by faith," substituting the concept of Jesus having atoned for the sins of mankind for the direct accountability Jesus taught, discarding Jesus' claim to humanity for Paul's concept of Jesus having been divine, we have (as Muslims, at least) to question in exactly what manner Christianity respects the teachings of its prophet.
S
Dear zone, Who was the founder of the Reformed Faith? Jesus Christ? No. John Calvin. "Another "j.c.". What was the Reformed Faith's fault? See on GOOGLE John Calvin and Michael (Miguel) Servetus. By the way, the founder of the reformed faith, John Calvin, also believed in the ever-virginity of Mary. Calvin was right on a few things; where he went wrong was over-reliance upon the theology of Augustine of Hippo. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS By the way, I generally find when a person is accused of propaganda, the person has little of substance to say. I don't call the teachings of Protestantism or Catholicism propaganda, although I guess it technically might be okay to do so. What they are mistaken in is their insistence on gleaning many or most of their major ideas from Augustine of Hippo, and that is over-reliance on just one church father. It's wrong to consider Augustine's teaching as beyond criticism, for he did get a few things right. But his distinctive ideas were philosophy and not sound Christian theology; he didn't get his ideas from the other Greek and Latin Church Fathers or from Scripture.
PS By the way, I generally find when a person is accused of propaganda, the person has little of substance to say. I don't call the teachings of Protestantism or Catholicism propaganda, although I guess it technically might be okay to do so. What they are mistaken in is their insistence on gleaning many or most of their major ideas from Augustine of Hippo, and that is over-reliance on just one church father. It's wrong to consider Augustine's teaching as beyond criticism, for he did get a few things right. But his distinctive ideas were philosophy and not sound Christian theology; he didn't get his ideas from the other Greek and Latin Church Fathers or from Scripture.
S
Dear InAtom, What Protestantism is doing is twisting and distorting the words of St. Paul by Martin Luther's incorrect addition of the word "alone" to the text of Romans 3:28. It is then, according to Galatians, another Gospel, other than the Gospel that St.Paul himself preached. It is ADDING to the Word of God, which is strictly forbidden by Scripture. It is also a TAKING AWAY from the Word of God, which is strictly forbidden by Scripture, as Martin Luther was prepared to DELETE James from the New Testament, particularly, he disliked, even seemed to hate, James 2:24. Thus: "Luther took the opportunity afforded him in his self-appointed role of translator of the Bible into German, to add and delete words, from the Bible to bolster his ideological-theological revolutionary agenda. For instance, he decided to strengthen some of his favorite passages, like Romans Chapter 3, and weaken others. He added the word "only" to key Biblical passages in which he revised such sentences as: you are saved only by faith, or you are saved by faith alone. These essential forgeries provided Luther with the "proofs" he needed to bolster his evolving and creatively innovative theology. (1)
"In 1529, Dr. Link, the pre-eminent German language scholar of the day, wrote to Luther asking him why he he had been inserting words into the German Bible. Luther's astonishing written answer nicely sums up the heart of the Protestant problem of individualistic subjectivity, "It is so because Dr. Martin Luther says it is so." (pages 76-77: DANCING ALONE: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion. by Frank Schaeffer, 2002, Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. Regina Orthodox Press Online Store ). Note 1. Luther went so far as to insert the word "alone" into his translation of Romans 3:28 making it read: "that man is justified without the works of the law, through faith alone". While he defended the insertion ... his critics attacked him for "lacerating and falsifying" (Ec. Enchir. 6 C Cath 34: 97-98) not only the biblical text but the biblical doctrine." Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, p. 252.
God save us all. Thank God for the First Amendment, which acknowledges for us the freedom to express agreeing or opposing ideas openly and believe as we will. According to our own conscience in Jesus Christ. Amen. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
"In 1529, Dr. Link, the pre-eminent German language scholar of the day, wrote to Luther asking him why he he had been inserting words into the German Bible. Luther's astonishing written answer nicely sums up the heart of the Protestant problem of individualistic subjectivity, "It is so because Dr. Martin Luther says it is so." (pages 76-77: DANCING ALONE: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion. by Frank Schaeffer, 2002, Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. Regina Orthodox Press Online Store ). Note 1. Luther went so far as to insert the word "alone" into his translation of Romans 3:28 making it read: "that man is justified without the works of the law, through faith alone". While he defended the insertion ... his critics attacked him for "lacerating and falsifying" (Ec. Enchir. 6 C Cath 34: 97-98) not only the biblical text but the biblical doctrine." Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, p. 252.
God save us all. Thank God for the First Amendment, which acknowledges for us the freedom to express agreeing or opposing ideas openly and believe as we will. According to our own conscience in Jesus Christ. Amen. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
LOL Scottbud
i'm not of Calvin:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
~
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
i'm not of Calvin:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
~
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
S
LOL Scottbud
i'm not of Calvin:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
~
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
Dear Zone, If you are Reformed, your faith comes from Calvin, Beza, Knox, Farel, and not from the NT.
No public confession (see James and the 4 Gospels and many references in the Bible).
no oral traditions (see 2 Thess. 2:15)
no good deeds (see Eph. 2:10, see all of St. Paul, and James, which says faith without works is dead)
faith without works is dead, so faith alone is not enough (James 2:24)
7 sacraments are in the whole NT
no iconography? what about the angels on the ark of the covenant, and the other images commanded by God in the OT. If some images are commanded in the OT, can they be forbidden in the NT?
Luther twisted Romans 3:28, and rejected James altogether
Reformed faith read the NT through the Reformers, not separate from them. So you would follow the pathway they tread in the 16th century. The question is, is their Reformed faith taught by the early Church, or is it an innovation? Did id come from Augustine of Hippo, and is his teaching an innovation and heretical? Yes. It comes from Augustine and Augustine was wrong in some of his opinions. God bless you. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
Soli Deo Gloria, yes. Sola Trinitas Faith and love and hope and good works Sola Gratia, yes
Not Sola Fide (see James 2:24)
| Sola Scriptura | Soli Deo Gloria | Solo Christo |
| Sola Gratia | Sola Fide |
i'm not of Calvin:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
~
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
Dear Zone, If you are Reformed, your faith comes from Calvin, Beza, Knox, Farel, and not from the NT.
No public confession (see James and the 4 Gospels and many references in the Bible).
no oral traditions (see 2 Thess. 2:15)
no good deeds (see Eph. 2:10, see all of St. Paul, and James, which says faith without works is dead)
faith without works is dead, so faith alone is not enough (James 2:24)
7 sacraments are in the whole NT
no iconography? what about the angels on the ark of the covenant, and the other images commanded by God in the OT. If some images are commanded in the OT, can they be forbidden in the NT?
Luther twisted Romans 3:28, and rejected James altogether
Reformed faith read the NT through the Reformers, not separate from them. So you would follow the pathway they tread in the 16th century. The question is, is their Reformed faith taught by the early Church, or is it an innovation? Did id come from Augustine of Hippo, and is his teaching an innovation and heretical? Yes. It comes from Augustine and Augustine was wrong in some of his opinions. God bless you. In Erie PA USA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
Soli Deo Gloria, yes. Sola Trinitas Faith and love and hope and good works Sola Gratia, yes
Not Sola Fide (see James 2:24)
| Sola Scriptura | Soli Deo Gloria | Solo Christo |
| Sola Gratia | Sola Fide |
W
Why do you say they are alleged? The Catholic church puts a lot of time and emphasis into making sure that these apparitions are genuine. If they didnt Mary, Jesus, and the saints would suddenly popping up everywhere. Why do you think that Mary could not have appeared to anyone? Do you believe in the visionaries before 1054? I just dont see how these visions prove that there is too mush emphasis on Mary in the Catholic Curch.
As for the Sacred Heart of Jesus, i cant remember exactly but i think it was Jesus Himeslf that appeared and gave it to us. I could be wrong though.. As for the Immaculate heart of Mary, the name says it all. She was pure and clean, ever virgin, and without sin. why should we not fascinate ourselves with her love and the devotion to her Son? Simon in the temple talked about her heart being pierced with a sword. This is why when you see pictures of it, it is often pierced by a sword seven times. The teaching is that her immaculate conception was a GIFT. This means it was bestowed on her from God- making her less than Him. It is also taught that she did not sin. This is not because she had any type of divine nature. Once you start saying that Mary had a divine nature, making her more than a creature then it is wrong. The Curch teaches that she definately could sin (unlike God) but she chose not to.
If the Popes are the successors of St. Peter and are meant to lead the Church here on earth as the Vica of Christ on earth, how can one break off and say that this is not correct any more? There have been sinful Popes true, because infallibility does not say that the Pope is perfect or will go to Heaven. Few Popes have actually even canonized. Also of all the mistakes past Popes may have made, none were greater than St. Peter denying that he even knew Christ. Yet Jesus chose to give him the keys of Heaven anyway.
Lastly, if the apparitions at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe were all false, how do you explain the countless miracles and the predictions that Our Lady gave to the children at Fatima- all of which came true. God bless.
As for the Sacred Heart of Jesus, i cant remember exactly but i think it was Jesus Himeslf that appeared and gave it to us. I could be wrong though.. As for the Immaculate heart of Mary, the name says it all. She was pure and clean, ever virgin, and without sin. why should we not fascinate ourselves with her love and the devotion to her Son? Simon in the temple talked about her heart being pierced with a sword. This is why when you see pictures of it, it is often pierced by a sword seven times. The teaching is that her immaculate conception was a GIFT. This means it was bestowed on her from God- making her less than Him. It is also taught that she did not sin. This is not because she had any type of divine nature. Once you start saying that Mary had a divine nature, making her more than a creature then it is wrong. The Curch teaches that she definately could sin (unlike God) but she chose not to.
If the Popes are the successors of St. Peter and are meant to lead the Church here on earth as the Vica of Christ on earth, how can one break off and say that this is not correct any more? There have been sinful Popes true, because infallibility does not say that the Pope is perfect or will go to Heaven. Few Popes have actually even canonized. Also of all the mistakes past Popes may have made, none were greater than St. Peter denying that he even knew Christ. Yet Jesus chose to give him the keys of Heaven anyway.
Lastly, if the apparitions at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe were all false, how do you explain the countless miracles and the predictions that Our Lady gave to the children at Fatima- all of which came true. God bless.
S
LOL Scottbud
i'm not of Calvin:
Dear zone, Do you claim to be of the Reformed faith? If so, you should know where your own faith comes from. It comes from John Calvin, John Knox, and the other Calvinist Reformers. It is completely dishonest to disavow the true origin of the Reformed faith, and to look for Scriptural justification for it. It comes from Calvin's interpretation of Scripture, not from Scripture as it is read in the early Church. We should know the difference between NT teaching as it is believed in the first 451 years of Church history to the ecumenical council of Chalcedon, and NT viewed mainly through Augustine and Calvin. Not every one agrees with Augustinianism. Reformed Faith is a form of Augustinianism. You can not in all honest say the Reformed Faith doesn't come from John Calvin. Get your historical facts correct, you will learn where the Reformed teachings come from. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Dear zone,
Not a result of works of the law, Judaism: circumcision, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, sabbath keeping. Not with any works whatsoever. That would be reading the word "any" into Scripture. It does not say "not a result of any works". That's the error of sola fide, when Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make St. Paul contradict St. James 2:24. Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
i'm not of Calvin:
Dear zone, Do you claim to be of the Reformed faith? If so, you should know where your own faith comes from. It comes from John Calvin, John Knox, and the other Calvinist Reformers. It is completely dishonest to disavow the true origin of the Reformed faith, and to look for Scriptural justification for it. It comes from Calvin's interpretation of Scripture, not from Scripture as it is read in the early Church. We should know the difference between NT teaching as it is believed in the first 451 years of Church history to the ecumenical council of Chalcedon, and NT viewed mainly through Augustine and Calvin. Not every one agrees with Augustinianism. Reformed Faith is a form of Augustinianism. You can not in all honest say the Reformed Faith doesn't come from John Calvin. Get your historical facts correct, you will learn where the Reformed teachings come from. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Dear zone,
Not a result of works of the law, Judaism: circumcision, dietary laws, ceremonial laws, sabbath keeping. Not with any works whatsoever. That would be reading the word "any" into Scripture. It does not say "not a result of any works". That's the error of sola fide, when Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to make St. Paul contradict St. James 2:24. Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott
- no 7 sacraments
- no public confession
- no iconography
- no oral traditions
- no twisting of james
- no good deeds
- no faith + anything
S
These things aren't taught or believed by any of the ancient Greek and Latin Church Fathers. Therefore, they should not be believed, for the ancient Christian faith is patristic. Mary's immaculate conception is a heresy that makes Mary a fourth member of the Holy Trinity. Equal with God. If Mary were immaculately conceived, she would be divine. No Greek Orthodox Church Father taught that Mary was conceived immaculately. Your own Latin teacher, Thomas Aquinas, taught that Mary was not immaculately conceived.
W
Scott, because no early Church father has specifically mentioned a topic, does that mean it doesnt exist? Of course not. Secondly you've failed to mention how her Immaculate Conception makes her part of the trinity. Which is biblical and makes no mention of Mary by the way. I said that the Immaculate conception is a miracle worked by God through Mary. Because sinners were healed by Christ's miracles does that make them divine and part of the trinity? Of course not.
The "all" in scripture is the greek word pas and has several meanings. It does not mean literally "every single one without exception." for example in the same book Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26) but we know this can't be true. In Romans 15:14 Paul says that the member of the Church are "filled with all knowledge." yet this cant be true. So what does this say about Romans 3:23? Maybe Paul overlooked the Mother of God, or quite possibly he wasn't aware of her Immaculate Conception. If you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 273, 411, 485-495, 508-509, 721-723, 829, 963-972, and 2030 are all relevant. And i didnt know Thomas Aquinas said that. Where/what book or writing did he say that in? Did he say it wasnt true or that he couldnt understand it? And if he did, who says that he is right?
The "all" in scripture is the greek word pas and has several meanings. It does not mean literally "every single one without exception." for example in the same book Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26) but we know this can't be true. In Romans 15:14 Paul says that the member of the Church are "filled with all knowledge." yet this cant be true. So what does this say about Romans 3:23? Maybe Paul overlooked the Mother of God, or quite possibly he wasn't aware of her Immaculate Conception. If you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 273, 411, 485-495, 508-509, 721-723, 829, 963-972, and 2030 are all relevant. And i didnt know Thomas Aquinas said that. Where/what book or writing did he say that in? Did he say it wasnt true or that he couldnt understand it? And if he did, who says that he is right?