This is from a discussion I'm having with a Protestant named Bob, here.
Bob said:
I’d like to address some of your points. How could 2 Peter 2:1 be about protestants only? In fact we already see in Revelation 1-3 where the Lord Christ Himself is rebuking various churches for holding to false doctrines.
In regards to your church we could look at a number of examples of its teachings and see if they line up with Scripture. Take Mary’s sinlessness. No one in the New Testament taught she was without sin and in fact acknowledges her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47. To claim she would was without sin would contradict Romans 3:9 for example. Have you ever read The Glories of Mary by Alfonso Ligori?
Do you also believe that all grace comes through Mary?
What is your definition of Sola Scriptura? I want to know if we agree on what it is before I can agree with you that its false.
Here is what a couple of Roman Catholic scholars say about the woman of Rev 12:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
You use Matthew 19:21 as the basis for indulgences but the verse in context has nothing to do with the idea of “the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven”. There is no mention of any kind of sacrament in this passage. I don’t get it.
Even the Old Testament passages don’t support this idea. It is true there can be and usually consequences of sin in our lives but there is no promise in Scripture that these consequences will be alleviated because of some sacrament.
Where does it say in Matthew 19:21 or anywhere in Scripture that one man’s treasure in heaven can be used for others? Where does it say in Scripture that the church can use these “extra treasures” for others?
Trust me. I don’t want to scare you but i want to understand how you arrive at your beliefs that Roman Catholic doctrines are true.
If by the merits of Christ all mankind is saved then why is there a continual warning about hell? If all are saved, then there can be no hell.
Getting back to the claim that Mary was without sin based on Luke 1:28 here is what a New Testament Greek lexicon says what the words “favored one” mean: “To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitó? there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)
As you can see, it does not mean she was without sin. It does not even mention it.
Again, Matthew 18 has nothing to do with traditions or doctrines but only with church discipline. Good exegesis requires us not to go beyond what is written. Claiming its about Traditions is to go beyond what this passage is saying.
I’ll address your other points next.
My response:
Hi Bob,
I’d like to address some of your points. How could 2 Peter 2:1 be about protestants only?
Did I say Protestants ONLY? I meant Protestants ALSO. There have been many heresies which the Catholic Church defeated in 2000 years.
In fact we already see in Revelation 1-3 where the Lord Christ Himself is rebuking various churches for holding to false doctrines.
True.
In regards to your church we could look at a number of examples of its teachings and see if they line up with Scripture.
Awesome! Let's also look at the Reformers doctrines. You've yet to show any evidence of their being in Scripture. You just sort of expect us to take your word for it.
Take Mary’s sinlessness. No one in the New Testament taught she was without sin
This is very repetitious. We already discussed it above. Do you think that you repeating Protestant lies is going to make them true? I repeat, St. Luke taught the doctrine in verse 1:28 where he calls her "kecharitomene" which means "always full of grace."
And no one in the New Testament denies that teaching.
and in fact acknowledges her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47.
True. She received these mighty gifts of God because of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is her Savior also.
To claim she would was without sin would contradict Romans 3:9 for example.
No, it wouldn't because St. Paul says in Rom 5:14 that some have not sinned:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Have you ever read The Glories of Mary by Alfonso Ligori?
Yes. I love the book. I call myself "De Maria" partially because of St. Alphonsus "de Marie" Liguori and partially because of St. Louis "Marie" de Montfort.
Do you also believe that all grace comes through Mary?
Is Jesus "all grace"? Was He born of Mary?
What is your definition of Sola Scriptura? I want to know if we agree on what it is before I can agree with you that its false.
YOU tell me. It is your doctrine. But when you tell me, make sure to show me from Scripture.
Here is what a couple of Roman Catholic scholars say about the woman of Rev 12:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
1st. What's your point? Do you believe everything these Catholics teach? If you did, you would be a Catholic. Because they are both faithful Catholics.
2nd. These two Catholics are mistaken. I can prove they are mistaken but I've already explained several other doctrines and you, "don't get it." So, what's the point?
3rd. I'll tackle that in a separate article.
You use Matthew 19:21 as the basis for indulgences but the verse in context has nothing to do with the idea of “the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven”. There is no mention of any kind of sacrament in this passage. I don’t get it.
I can tell that you don't understand it. Your question is completely illogical. The reason no sacrament is mentioned is because it is "extra-sacramental". The fact that you ask this question and the way you word the question indicates that you are faking it. You are trying Do you know what the prefix "extra" means?
extra-
a prefix meaning “outside,” “beyond,” freely used as an English formative: extrajudicial; extraterritorial; extra-atmospheric.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extra
Even the Old Testament passages don’t support this idea. It is true there can be and usually consequences of sin in our lives but there is no promise in Scripture that these consequences will be alleviated because of some sacrament. Where does it say in Matthew 19:21 or anywhere in Scripture that one man’s treasure in heaven can be used for others? Where does it say in Scripture that the church can use these “extra treasures” for others.
You said you don't get it, leave it at that. God doesn't expect everyone to be a theologian.
Trust me.
That is the last thing in the world I will do. You have admitted that you don't have faith in anything you don't understand. Therefore, it is doubtful to me that you can believe in God. Since the very idea of God is well beyond ANY MAN'S UNDERSTANDING. Therefore, no, I do not trust you.
I don’t want to scare you
What makes you think you scare me?
but i want to understand how you arrive at your beliefs that Roman Catholic doctrines are true.
I already told you.
If by the merits of Christ all mankind is saved then why is there a continual warning about hell? If all are saved, then there can be no hell.
Now it sounds like you're just making noise. The Catholic Church teaches that the righteous are saved. Not the wicked. You interpreted my statement in a manner that goes against that which I believe and that which the Catholic Church teaches.
Getting back to the claim that Mary was without sin
Why? I already explained it to you about five times in about three articles on Devin's blog. Are you going to believe me if I explain it again?
based on Luke 1:28 here is what a New Testament Greek lexicon says what the words “favored one” mean: “To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitó? there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai
That is a Protestant Lexicon which passes on Protestant doctrine. Here is a Catholic Translation:
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) As you can see, it does not mean she was without sin. It does not even mention it.
Yes, it does. You, just "don't get it." In the meantime, you repeating the lies of your blind guides will not make them true.
Again, Matthew 18 has nothing to do with traditions or doctrines but only with church discipline. Good exegesis requires us not to go beyond what is written. Claiming its about Traditions is to go beyond what this passage is saying.
It is you going beyond what is written, since that verse does not limit itself church discipline to anything.
|
I’ll address your other points next.
Sincerely,
De Maria