# What the Reformers said about Mary Mother of God



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. 
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } 

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. 
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } 

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . 
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } 

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . 
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } 

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: 

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. 
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5} 

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." 
Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." 
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." 
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Commentaries on Luther
". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116

"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". 
(David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)

Martin Luther defends the EucharistIn 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 

Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
John Calvin 
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. 
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} 

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. 
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107} 

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. 
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) } 


Huldreich Zwingli 
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522} 

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' 
{Thurian, ibid., p.76} 

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. 
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon} 


Heinrich Bullinger 
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5} 


John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) 
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. 
{"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

The Saint said:


> Great post, Dawg!
> 
> I very much enjoy reading about our Blessed Mother.



The other thread was getting sidetracked into "Mary" debates, so I thought what better way to focus the discussion and start with the Reformers thoughts on her.  Ironically, some on here that are members of teh above faiths, differ from their founders thoughts


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

I'd still like to see where any of this is anything but pure supposition though.  I'm not into attacking the Catholic faith any more than I am anything else.  

But I'd like for someone to show me exactly why any of this is true.  It's simply a belief system.  If you follow it, good for ya.  But it is not, as far as I can tell, in any way supported biblically save the fact that Mary was indeed blessed with a virgin conception and was indeed the mother of Jesus.  All of the rest of these beliefs are simply the belief system passed down through generations people within the Catholic church.

Again, not attacking....just an observation.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'd still like to see where any of this is anything but pure supposition though.  I'm not into attacking the Catholic faith any more than I am anything else.
> 
> But I'd like for someone to show me exactly why any of this is true.  It's simply a belief system.  If you follow it, good for ya.  But it is not, as far as I can tell, in any way supported biblically.  It is the belief system passed down through generations people within the Catholic church.
> 
> Again, not attacking....just an observation.




You don't find it interesting that the Reformers who separated from the Catholic church believed the same things?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

Not particularly.  They were Catholic until they split off.  What other beliefs would you expect them to have?  Methodist?  

My point is that, of course they believed that.  They were brought up to believe it just like millions of others.  That doesn't mean it's biblically supported. 

I'm asking you or somebody to show me the support.  Not saying it's not there.  But PLEASE PLEASE don't post a copy from a website or point me to a link.  Make the case.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Not particularly.  They were Catholic until they split off.  What other beliefs would you expect them to have?  Methodist?
> 
> My point is that, of course they believed that.  They were brought up to believe it just like millions of others.  That doesn't mean it's biblically supported.
> 
> I'm asking you or somebody to show me the support.  Not saying it's not there.  But PLEASE PLEASE don't post a copy from a website or point me to a link.  Make the case.




See , the thing is, I don't have to.  It is in the Bible.  She had a virgin birth, she is the Mother of God, and she didn't have any more children, and she was "full of grace."  End of story.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

Not a very good case.  I already told you that those things were true.  

How about telling me about the whole Mary was purified from original sin stuff and she remained a virgin after his birth, etc etc.  Those are things that some folks way back when WISH were true and they make some pretty big suppositions about God would desire to do it and then just assume they are right.  Then those beliefs got passed down through generations as truth.  But I don't see it.

I'm just curious whether it's actually defendable.  But if you want to give the "I don't have to defend it" answer, that's cool with me.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 15, 2008)

Splits are bad!


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Not a very good case.  I already told you that those things were true.
> 
> How about telling me about the whole Mary was purified from original sin stuff and she remained a virgin after his birth, etc etc.  Those are things that some folks way back when WISH were true and they make some pretty big suppositions about God would desire to do it and then just assume they are right.  Then those beliefs got passed down through generations as truth.  But I don't see it.
> 
> I'm just curious whether it's actually defendable.  But if you want to give the "I don't have to defend it" answer, that's cool with me.




In the big scheme of things, it is really not that important.  But I am quite positive God would not have picked the nastiest, vilest, impure, unclean woman to give birth to Jesus.  Do you?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

Well...I think it's fairly important to be able to clearly explain why you believe something.  But I understand.

Would God have picked the nastiest, vilest, impure, unclean woman to give birth to Jesus?  I don't know.  I don't see why not.  Does it have any impact on who Jesus was?

I'm with you.  Clearly she was a virgin.  It's right there.  But there is nothing in there that says she was pure or blameless or sinless or continued to be after his birth as far as I can tell.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

Big7 said:


> Splits are bad!



Why?  


Would you say that the U.S "splitting" from England was bad?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'd still like to see where any of this is anything but pure supposition though.  I'm not into attacking the Catholic faith any more than I am anything else.
> 
> But I'd like for someone to show me exactly why any of this is true.  It's simply a belief system.  If you follow it, good for ya.  But it is not, as far as I can tell, in any way supported biblically save the fact that Mary was indeed blessed with a virgin conception and was indeed the mother of Jesus.  All of the rest of these beliefs are simply the belief system passed down through generations people within the Catholic church.
> 
> Again, not attacking....just an observation.





I think that you are perhaps right. But it is not just "simply" a belief system passed down.... Devotion to Mary is like the devotion to other Saints, who's purpose is to teach and promote understanding about the faith.

How many people really know what grace is for example? Now many people are fully in the tradition of belief based on the facts of scripture, and claim they are saved ! and yet from their mouths and actions grace or justice is as rare as  wild cougar in the eastern seabord.

Devotion to Mary or Joseph, or other Saints is an attempt to fill this gap. These devotions are in no way additions to scripture, but part of chruch tradition. It is perhaps a system, but it is not "simple" or "simply".

For RC faith is dead if it is not operational. The Saints are a great source for learning the way from those who walked the talk.

And I know you are not attacking....but your "simply" is a defence?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Oct 15, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that you are perhaps right. But it is not just "simply" a belief system passed down.... Devotion to Mary is like the devotion to other Saints, who's purpose is to teach and promote understanding about the faith.
> 
> How many people really know what grace is for example? Now many people are fully in the tradition of belief based on the facts of scripture, and claim they are saved ! and yet from their mouths and actions grace or justice is as rare as  wild cougar in the eastern seabord.
> 
> ...




Never heard it put quite that way Gordon, I think that is one of the better explanations I have ever heard on the Saints. Simple and to the point!

Thank You, Bill J.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Would you say that the U.S "splitting" from England was bad?



I will not answer for other than myself concerning division.  Supposing they are good and bad? Good when they vivify the Way and bad when they don't.

I think that alot of denominational differences are simply cultural and this in itself is not bad. The early gentil converts had an issue with pysical circumcision for example for perhaps two reason. I hope they knew by the newly aquired Holy Spirit that pruning the heart was the essential thing and that if the jews wanted to play with snakes, hey!gentils were not jews!

In Canada, the RC beliefs and how the faith is played out is practiced by two large cultural groups which are french and english canadians. Within these two groups there are still many differing cutural differences which account for differing practices in the cult and in the operation of faith. All are RC, all can worships with the other, but all are different.  

Now get this, we can do the same with different denominations, traditions, etc...We can do this with other religious traditions...unless....we give doctines extreme sway, like the emphasis that man's world is depraved, or Sacraments are essential, or by the demonization of others as in "so and so is the antichrist", that church is a "feel good" chruch, that church is full of "silver tongued devils"  prejorative for those who speak in tongues etc....

I am a RC by choice, even though I was born physically to it and born again to it. I fit that tradition as a christian. I know that many christians are not from my culture or social history and I cannot expect that they worship like me.

Now when are divisions good? There are many who call themselves RC and christians who don't go to church. In many ways they are protestants! Why do I say this? I have a sinking feeling that not too long ago and for perhaps  hundreds of yrs, the RC chruch was full  and fond of preaching " The Hot Place and brimstone, the very much alive and prospering devil himself."  And no wonder people turned away. The church was teaching that everthing was evil and that faith alone  and the sacrements could save. Some folk ran away because the church changed its ways, some whated more of this. Some just can't figure out which way is up!

Far to many churches point to what is down and this is where in my view that divisions are bad. Christ points the diciple to what is up! And denominations and other religions who do this the division is good.

Their are other benefits of division. In Scandinavian countries for example it is documented history that the proliferation of denominations made democracy essential to the nations there! Hey!....

As a christian, as a RC, I don't entertain the notion that Jesus  in all his fullness is just available to christians. None saved but through Him, does it mean through the christian denominations. No. Some denominations, at certain times in their history, RC included, could not save a Mother Theresa if she begged them to do so. Why? THEY ARE DRIFTED OFF THE WAY! Why? Don't know. Culture, indigestion, laziness, neglect, honest error?  Yes all of these and more. A good thing God loves us.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 15, 2008)

Swamp Runner said:


> Never heard it put quite that way Gordon, I think that is one of the better explanations I have ever heard on the Saints. Simple and to the point!
> 
> Thank You, Bill J.



You are listening then! Good!


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 15, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that you are perhaps right. But it is not just "simply" a belief system passed down.... Devotion to Mary is like the devotion to other Saints, who's purpose is to teach and promote understanding about the faith.
> 
> How many people really know what grace is for example? Now many people are fully in the tradition of belief based on the facts of scripture, and claim they are saved ! and yet from their mouths and actions grace or justice is as rare as  wild cougar in the eastern seabord.
> 
> ...



Great post!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Would you say that the U.S "splitting" from England was bad?



YES!
Here is why:

1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ. 
Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. 
Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible. 

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes: 

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgment. 

Slice it, dice it  - do what you may.
The truth has been and will always be the truth.

If you don't like it - that is fine in a free country.
Just don't get confused with what you have been taught
and the teaching of The Church. If on here or wherever
you get your information make sure it is a teaching of
The Church before you make any assumptions.
Please - NOT the anti-Catholic sites. They know nothing.

99.99.99% of what you (and not just you) have 
been filled with is crap and bull about what you "think"
you know about The Catholic Faith.
That's not much.
But we will help. 

Seek (and you will find) if you are not seeking
you will not find.GOOD LUCK in your search for the 
fullness of the TRUTH!

Big7


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

It's not simple.  But it IS simply a system passed down from generation to generation that is presented as factual....and it is not provable.

I'm not trying to demean it.  I just don't understand how they can claim "one true" status, when much of it is man made beliefs.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 15, 2008)

Big7, I freely admit I don't understand.  That's why I'm asking questions.  

Problem is, nobody seems to want or be able to answer them.  That is concerning to me.


----------



## PJason (Oct 15, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> It's not simple.  But it IS simply a system passed down from generation to generation that is presented as factual....and it is not provable.
> 
> I'm not trying to demean it.  I just don't understand how they can claim "one true" status, when much of it is man made beliefs.



Could you say any different of the Scripture?

Or even the canon of Scripture?

You could very easily pass off Scripture as nothing more then "man-made" beliefs however you do not. You and I both believe that the Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit, an idea that has been passed on from generation to generation, is it provable or something you take on faith?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 15, 2008)

The support is that it is part of the living church and its tradition, which means it is from the faithful.

The support is the people who read scripture, apocrypta, hear of legends, share church history, to whom Mary and Angels appear, to whom supplication is answered.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Big7, I freely admit I don't understand.  That's why I'm asking questions.
> 
> Problem is, nobody seems to want or be able to answer them.  That is concerning to me.



That is a very well received admission. Thanks for your 
candor.

If you have questions and are truly seeking knowledge,
you have a fine base from which to draw..

There are at least four or five of us (on here)
that would be more than happy to provide you
with answers to your questions. Just ask

Must be that something the in thread has not provided you 
an answer. Ask me. I am more than happy to comply.
pjason, dawg2, my sister (Lil'Sis) and I will do 
our very best to get you the info you need - 
"The Saint" post' are accurate as well
and I'm sure he will help too....

PM me with questions if you don't want to post.
Also PM me with your regular e -mail address if
you want to discuss it in true privacy.

Good luck in your quest, that is all we can ask for:
The fullness of the truth!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

PJason said:


> Could you say any different of the Scripture?
> 
> Or even the canon of Scripture?
> 
> You could very easily pass off Scripture as nothing more then "man-made" beliefs however you do not. You and I both believe that the Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit, an idea that has been passed on from generation to generation, is it provable or something you take on faith?



Of course you could say that about Scripture.  I've made that argument many times on here.  

BUT, since we both (all) see fit to capitalize Scripture, we are going under the assumption that we both believe it to be the inspired true word of God.  So, then, we assume it is not simply man made.

However, we disagree on whether the stuff I listed above regarding Mary is true.  So that is where we start.  

Since we agree that Scripture is true, how about we discuss the things about Mary that we don't agree on?  I'm still not getting answers to anything really.  Rebutles?  Yep...but no real answers.

It occurred to me this morning that I've read a bunch of posts that essentially say this (and I'm paraphrasing):

"Well, the Catholic Church has been in existence longer than any other church in existence today.  Since we are the oldest, we must have superior insight into the truth.  It's been with us from the beginning."

My thought was that being the oldest, while meaning that it could hold to truth, could also mean that the oldest has had the most time to be corrupted by sinful man's desires.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

Big7 said:


> If you have questions and are truly seeking knowledge,
> you have a fine base from which to draw..



You will never hear me say that Catholics or any other faith are "wrong" in a general sense.  I may think you're wrong on certain issues.  

But, if anyone here says that they truly understand everything there is to know regarding God and faith, I'd be warry of them.  That's a TALL claim.  

I'm just trying to move int he right direction (and no....that doesn't equal faith+works)


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 16, 2008)

Ok, I think I might be hanging around Huntinfool a little too much... we are starting to think a lot alike....



DB BB


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ok, I think I might be hanging around Huntinfool a little too much... we are starting to think a lot alike....
> 
> 
> 
> DB BB



Where's banjo? She'd make y'all a trinity.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

That's a scary thought buddy!  You might want to take a little time off.  I don't think ANYBODY around here would say that out loud!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> That's a scary thought buddy! You might want to take a little time off. I don't think ANYBODY around here would say that out loud!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't know about y'all.  But this is a very interesting discussion to me.  

Let's just hope we can keep the attack dogs from finding this thread.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 16, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> Where's banjo? She'd make y'all a trinity.


 

What you talking about...  We already have a trinity.... RJ, Huntinfool, and me...

I guess we could make it a Quartetnity(is that a word?)


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> That's a scary thought buddy!  You might want to take a little time off.  I don't think ANYBODY around here would say that out loud!



Huntingfool, I don't think  for one minute that you don't understand. I think you know the labyrinthine theological history of mariology and your insistance that it be debated on the plains of scripture is like the presumption that one pics the battlefield.

You might want to take a little time off.

Why???As in my comments were offensive? How? Banjo was more than willing to point the dicussion in the right direction when it came to Mary? What gives?

Time off as in Banned! For what breach of custom am I persona non grata? This would add to the, note that I am not on the good standing lists as a RC authority. LOL

I'm very interested in what are attack dogs? LOL

This tread should be tacked on the "So catholics don't read the bible" tread, that's the direction "I" point it to. LOL


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> Huntingfool, I don't think  for one minute that you don't understand. I think you know the labyrinthine theological history of mariology and your insistance that it be debated on the plains of scripture is like the presumption that one pics the battlefield.
> 
> You might want to take a little time off.
> 
> ...



Gordo....

Uh, sorry to disappoint you buddy.  I was actually talking to DBBB.  He said he was agreeing with me.  I was telling him that THAT was a scary thought and the HE should take some time off.  

Sorry if you thought I was talking to you.  I do, though, appreciate the harsh words....It means I'm getting back in my groove after a long vacation.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

Big7 said:


> 1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgment.
> 
> Slice it, dice it  - do what you may.
> The truth has been and will always be the truth.



Funny how you keep pointing to this scripture about schisms and splits being bad (yes, when they are in the church, they can be bad and are bad).

However, Christ also tells us to beware of false prophets.  

Acts 20:28-30
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.  Be shepherds of the church of God,which he bought with his own blood. 29  I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30  Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31  So be on your guard! 

2 Cor 11:13-15
13  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15  It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

I'm not saying that all Catholics or all Protestants are false prophets.  But Paul says to watch out for there will be people out of the church that rise up and distort the truth.  So, should those people not be kicked out?  Should the true church not split away and put a schism between the truth and the lies?  Based on your interpretation of I Cor 1:10, you think not.  Again, you are using I Cor 1:10 out of context.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Ok, I think I might be hanging around Huntinfool a little too much... we are starting to think a lot alike....
> 
> 
> 
> DB BB



DB BB,
Uh oh, man, a couple of days ago, you say you are on the same wavelength as me, then yesterday, the same wavelength as Huntinfool....your radio might explode pretty soon


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 16, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Funny how you keep pointing to this scripture about schisms and splits being bad (yes, when they are in the church, they can be bad and are bad).
> 
> However, Christ also tells us to beware of false prophets.
> 
> ...



How are you sure the schism is not the "false-prophet" or a distortion of "the truth?"


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that you are perhaps right. But it is not just "simply" a belief system passed down.... Devotion to Mary is like the devotion to other Saints, who's purpose is to teach and promote understanding about the faith.
> 
> How many people really know what grace is for example? Now many people are fully in the tradition of belief based on the facts of scripture, and claim they are saved ! and yet from their mouths and actions grace or justice is as rare as  wild cougar in the eastern seabord.
> 
> ...




Gordon, I agree that the saints can and should be looked to for encouragement.  Look at Hebrews 11 and the hall of faith.  Paul tells us that we have a great cloud of witnesses to look to and to encourage us in our daily walk.

However, what is problematic to the Protestant is that this "devotion" has turned into something that appears to be so much more.  People bowing down to and praying to NT saints and Popes seems much more than what Paul describes in Heb 11.  The line between devotion and worship is very thin and it appears that it has been crossed by many.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> How are you sure the schism is not the "false-prophet" or a distortion of "the truth?"



The Bible.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 16, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> The Bible.



Which one?  The original one or the ones that were changed?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Which one?  The original one or the ones that were changed?



Your bible or my bible.  They are both very similar in how they deal with the issues that have been brought up here.

Also, you'd think that the Jews would have a good understanding of what belongs in the OT...why do they not have the apocrypha as part of their OT?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

dawg2 said:


>



dawg...you're going to get fat eating all that


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Gordo....
> 
> Uh, sorry to disappoint you buddy.  I was actually talking to DBBB.  He said he was agreeing with me.  I was telling him that THAT was a scary thought and the HE should take some time off.
> 
> Sorry if you thought I was talking to you.  I do, though, appreciate the harsh words....It means I'm getting back in my groove after a long vacation.




 I am told by my challenging half, just this morning, that I have a tendency to take away the fun from normal day to day stuff by being eh,,, " pointing to the obivious inappropreately...

In the spirit of bettering myself I am going to start my own sandbox or tread, The good, the bad and the ugly about differing to scripture exclusively for spiritual Truth in the light that billions on the planet are neither christian or jew. But not just yet. I'm debating the appropreatness of naming it simply "So, protestants worship the bible?"

If I had access to emotons when I edit I would smile with a twinkle in my eye, but appropreately.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> "So, protestants worship the bible?"
> 
> If I had access to emotons when I edit I would smile with a twinkle in my eye, but appropreately.



Just hit the advanced button when you edit...it can be done.

I thought about adding a thread "Are Protestants Christians" since Dawg started the Catholics Christians thread.


In all seriousness, I am devoted to the Bible.  It is the written Word of God.  I don't kiss it, I don't bow down to it, I don't pray to it, I don't say "through the Bible, I can do all things."


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> dawg...you're going to get fat eating all that



Talking about getting fat. Sheep, are they fat under the wool, or are they like goats, skinny. What should they be?

This is what one Dante said  in his Devine Comedy about fat and skinny. "I was one of the lambs of the sacred flock. ... Where we get fat, unless we lose our way and get lost."


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Just hit the advanced button when you edit...it can be done.
> 
> I thought about adding a thread "Are Protestants Christians" since Dawg started the Catholics Christians thread.
> 
> ...



Good. I have to say your devotion is good. I would also add that in my case I have your devotion but also an equal devotion to my church, which can be a devotion to the Saints, but does not have to be.

I was looking at Baptist foot washing on U-tube last night, which I though was beautiful. Now why don't I allow a Saint to wash my heart? To me it is two dozen of the same. Who bows to who, or is it Whom? Do pilgrims bow out of service to others and humility or as a public show and selfishness?

I think that our undertanding of God, His will and His purpose is incomplete if we do not undertand or look to his creation. I have always felt sort of uneasy when some say that one good look at nature, one great sunrise or sunset assures us of the majesty of God, his hand. Yet, how many see his hand in the hunter/gatherer we call a human being, in his churches, in his denominations, in his religions.

The saints offer to us this view, as do the poor. Like scripture, they are His and perhaps Him in some sense. They along with scripture, point us to the way.

 But as regards myself, I'm just not sure if I should be a fat sheep or a skinny one?

Ok I'm off for a while. I got to burn some garbage, burning permits not required after Oct 15 here, I got to finish a deer mount, I got to reload some 375H&H for the range and hunting and I got to try and love the people that keep me.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 16, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> dawg...you're going to get fat eating all that



I'm working on my "ab"


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

I have no idea what you just posted Gordon.....


You got me scratching my head again!!!!!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 16, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I'm working on my "ab"


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I have no idea what you just posted Gordon.....
> 
> 
> You got me scratching my head again!!!!!!




Ok first off do you know who I'm talking to? It's rjcrueser who said his devotion was to the bible. I said and elaborated that my devotion was also to the bible, but to the church as well and that the saints were a part of the chruch.

Or are you looking at something else....


PS. If ever you get the calling to be a missionary it will be for your own good, just as much as for those  your work will target?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 16, 2008)

gordon 2 said:


> ...PS. If ever you get the calling to be a missionary it will be for your own good, just as much as for those  your work will target?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 16, 2008)

Gordo, 

You keep taking offense to things that meant no offense.  I had no impression that you were talking to me.  I just (along with many others) have no idea what you're talking about sometimes when you post.  

It's just hard to read and understand.  And, yes, I'm from Covington.  But, contrary to popular belief, some of us are actually highly educated.

No harm intended.  I was just saying that your posts are sometimes like decifering some sort of code...that's all.

This is the one I was talking about.  It just struck me as funny....



gordon 2 said:


> Talking about getting fat. Sheep, are they fat under the wool, or are they like goats, skinny. What should they be?
> 
> This is what one Dante said  in his Devine Comedy about fat and skinny. "I was one of the lambs of the sacred flock. ... Where we get fat, unless we lose our way and get lost."


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Gordo,
> 
> You keep taking offense to things that meant no offense.  I had no impression that you were talking to me.  I just (along with many others) have no idea what you're talking about sometimes when you post.
> 
> ...



Brother, you are right....I take off on tangents. Sorry. I know you mean no offence, as I don't. Again I will try to keep it relevant. I talked about getting fat as I was interested about the comment regards Dawg eating lots of popcorn....and since we are sheep I recalled that  Dante had said that sheep (christians) fatten up when they are in the way....

And you are right, I got to stop doing that. 

I am guilty of taking treads off topic I guess...and sounding harsh....


----------



## ToLog (Oct 16, 2008)

this is most interesting. i just dropped by, scanning the posts and this one caught my eye.

i haven't been here many times before, so the interchange is quite attractive.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 16, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Gordo,
> 
> You keep taking offense to things that meant no offense.  I had no impression that you were talking to me.  I just (along with many others) have no idea what you're talking about sometimes when you post.
> 
> ...



FYI: It is "deciphering"


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 16, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> FYI: It is "deciphering"



Gees....Huntinfool isn't doing a good job of showing off his 3rd grade education.  We just had that word on our spelling test this past week too.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 16, 2008)

roothog said:


> this is most interesting. i just dropped by, scanning the posts and this one caught my eye.
> 
> i haven't been here many times before, so the interchange is quite attractive.




Stick around the spititual Rush Limbaugh's of this world are still in their kindergarden sandboxes when it comes to the smarts here. We are all up for grade three or four graduations. I think RJ is in grade four but he's sixteen and wears lumberjack boots or is it Dawg? 

We are attractive yes. Our hormones have not kicked in yet and our mothers are often in our ears.







PS. Do you know if we are saved by works or faith?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> FYI: It is "deciphering"



Thank you.  I had no idea I had my own personal spell checker.

When did they add that feature to Woody's???  This place gets better every day!


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 17, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Thank you.  I had no idea I had my own personal spell checker.
> 
> When did they add that feature to Woody's???  This place gets better every day!




It just lends better validity to one's position when they spell words correctly.  Not picking on you, just expressing a point


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

I'm back.....

Queen Mary of Guise of Scotland, with help from the French, regained control of the Castle, and in July 1547, the men in St. Andrews were forced to surrender.  Knox and many of his companions were destined to become galley slaves in the French navy, where they remained for two years.

When the Catholic sailors would try to make these Scots revere the mass, they would cover their heads with their caps and refuse even to listen to them.  On one occasion, the skipper tried to force Knox to kiss a painted statute of the Virgin Mary.  “Knox replied, ‘Trouble me not, such an idol is accursed; therefore I will not touch it.’  The skipper, determined to overcome Knox, thrust it in his face and said, ‘Thou shalt handle it.’  At this Knox took the idol and cast it into the water and said, ‘Let our lady now save herself.  She is light enough; let her learn to swim.’  Thereafter, the Catholics appeared to leave the Scots alone” (Knox, HISTORY, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 18).


----------



## gtparts (Oct 17, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I'm back.....
> 
> Queen Mary of Guise of Scotland, with help from the French, regained control of the Castle, and in July 1547, the men in St. Andrews were forced to surrender.  Knox and many of his companions were destined to become galley slaves in the French navy, where they remained for two years.
> 
> When the Catholic sailors would try to make these Scots revere the mass, they would cover their heads with their caps and refuse even to listen to them.  On one occasion, the skipper tried to force Knox to kiss a painted statute of the Virgin Mary.  “Knox replied, ‘Trouble me not, such an idol is accursed; therefore I will not touch it.’  The skipper, determined to overcome Knox, thrust it in his face and said, ‘Thou shalt handle it.’  At this Knox took the idol and cast it into the water and said, ‘Let our lady now save herself.  She is light enough; let her learn to swim.’  Thereafter, the Catholics appeared to leave the Scots alone” (Knox, HISTORY, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 18).


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

gtparts said:


>



Would it be any fun if the pot never got stirred????


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 17, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Would it be any fun if the pot never got stirred????



Those dog gone depraved french sailors! They could not tie down the Knox! 

Welcome back Banjo...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

> Those dog gone depraved french sailors! They could not tie down the Knox!






> Welcome back Banjo...



Thanks, Gordon.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> It just lends better validity to one's position when they spell words correctly.  Not picking on you, just expressing a point



Right.  I got it. 

You mean like this?



dawg2 said:


> Ironically, some on here that are members of *teh* above faiths, differ from their founders thoughts



Or this?



dawg2 said:


> It means more than you give it credit...*vey* important...even the early Protestant Reformers agreed on that point.



Or this?



dawg2 said:


> There is *diagreement* over translations as to whether Jesus had blood siblings or not.



I'm just messing with you man.  Point taken.  I'll try to make sure I spell everything correctly for you.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Right.  I got it.
> 
> You mean like this?
> 
> ...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

Just some more history, for those who are interested:

Before long  John Knox returned to Scotland and sought a personal interview with the queen, then 20-years-old, “with intent to bring her heart to Jesus.” Mary then tried her hand at converting Knox back to Roman Catholicism – or the “Mother Church” – with bribes of political power. Stormy interviews followed, punctuated by “covenantal lawsuits” served up by Knox and his followers.

In response to Knox’s imprecatory prayers, Mary Queen of Scots is reputed to have said: “I fear the prayers of John Knox more than all the assembled armies of Europe.” 

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0525_Bios-_John_Knox.html


----------



## gtparts (Oct 17, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Just some more history, for those who are interested:
> 
> Before long  John Knox returned to Scotland and sought a personal interview with the queen, then 20-years-old, “with intent to bring her heart to Jesus.” Mary then tried her hand at converting Knox back to Roman Catholicism – or the “Mother Church” – with bribes of political power. Stormy interviews followed, punctuated by “covenantal lawsuits” served up by Knox and his followers.
> 
> ...



Finish the story. What happened to Knox? Knowing minds want to inquire.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 17, 2008)

> Finish the story. What happened to Knox? Knowing minds want to inquire.



“Knox continued to preach until the end, although his health was rapidly deteriorating.  He grew so weak that he had to be assisted into the pulpit by several men.  Once he began to speak, however, his strength would return, and he would speak with such power and vehemence that young James Melville, trying to take notes, would drop his pen in sheer fright.  At times it seemed as if Knox would break the pulpit in pieces and go flying out of it.  Knox preached his last sermon on November 9, 1572, and afterward was escorted home by his entire church.  He stayed in bed for the next two weeks, and on November 24, he asked his wife to read aloud the seventeenth chapter of John’s gospel, where, he said, ‘I cast my first anchor.’  Six hours later he died.” 

The battle for Scotland did take its toll on John Knox who near the end of his life, wrote in 1570:  "And so I end; rendering my troubled and sorrowful spirit in the hands of the eternal god, earnestly trusting at His good pleasure; to be free from the cares of this miserable life, and to rest with Christ Jesus, my only hope and life."

(Can't post a weblink here, this is taken from a paper written by Dr. Joseph Morecraft.)


----------



## gtparts (Oct 17, 2008)

Banjo said:


> “Knox continued to preach until the end, although his health was rapidly deteriorating.  He grew so weak that he had to be assisted into the pulpit by several men.  Once he began to speak, however, his strength would return, and he would speak with such power and vehemence that young James Melville, trying to take notes, would drop his pen in sheer fright.  At times it seemed as if Knox would break the pulpit in pieces and go flying out of it.  Knox preached his last sermon on November 9, 1572, and afterward was escorted home by his entire church.  He stayed in bed for the next two weeks, and on November 24, he asked his wife to read aloud the seventeenth chapter of John’s gospel, where, he said, ‘I cast my first anchor.’  Six hours later he died.”
> 
> The battle for Scotland did take its toll on John Knox who near the end of his life, wrote in 1570:  "And so I end; rendering my troubled and sorrowful spirit in the hands of the eternal god, earnestly trusting at His good pleasure; to be free from the cares of this miserable life, and to rest with Christ Jesus, my only hope and life."
> 
> (Can't post a weblink here, this is taken from a paper written by Dr. Joseph Morecraft.)



Love the story. It's about finishing well, like Paul.

Peace.


----------



## Sally (Oct 17, 2008)

This was soooo much better than story time at the library and to think these were actual people.  Why aren't their stories more well known?!  

Thank you, Banjo, for enlightening us.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 17, 2008)

Banjo said:


> (Can't post a weblink here, this is taken from a paper written by Dr. Joseph Morecraft.)



I don't know Banjo...that sure sounds an aweful lot like what I read over at Ian Paisley's website.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> It just lends better validity to one's position when they spell words correctly. Not picking on you, just expressing a point


 

The Validity in a point, is in the meaning of the point, not the spelling of the point...

DB BB


----------



## Big7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Would you say that the U.S "splitting" from England was bad?



In reverse order.

England has nothing to do with it. Unless you count
King James authorizing the KJV. I do not.

Why:
Because the Word says so.

"There be NO schisms among you and that you are all on the same page." 1 Corinthians
Chapter 1  V10 Link HERE: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians1.htm

Pretty simple to me. You are going along for 1500 years  - then some wants to split, divide, have division after division -  split and divide again. Then say "we can discern for ourselves" I don't think so...ALL are schisms. God don't like that!


----------



## farmasis (Oct 17, 2008)

Maybe it was the Roman Catholic church that split away from the church Christ built, and the reformers were actually returning to it....


----------



## Big7 (Oct 18, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Maybe it was the Roman Catholic church that split away from the church Christ built, and the reformers were actually returning to it....



That is not what the historical facts state.

One Catholic Church founded 33AD

33,000  Protestant splits - starting around 1500 - 1600AD
and going right up to the 1990's
See where you fall in. HERE: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html
READ UP! 

Looks like more Reformers are Reforming among
themselves, rather than The Catholic Church. 

Banjo and reformedpastor are two that just come to mind.
But we got plenty!

Splits are bad!
Splits - translated to - well nevermind... Is a 
Schism - NOT GOOD! 

It's a long read but all there right up on your computer screen 
MORE HERE: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10569


----------



## Banjo (Oct 18, 2008)

> I don't know Banjo...that sure sounds an aweful lot like what I read over at Ian Paisley's website.





On my honor, I only visited there once, and then only because Pjason suggested it....I was completely ignorant of such a site....

I will never visit Ian Paisley's website.  I will never visit Ian Paisley's website.  I will never visit Ian Paisley's website......


----------



## Banjo (Oct 18, 2008)

> Looks like more Reformers are Reforming among
> themselves, rather than The Catholic Church.
> 
> Banjo and reformedpastor are two that just come to mind.
> ...



Wait a minute.  Splits are BAD??

Didn't the RC church split from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 11th century?


----------



## PJason (Oct 18, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Wait a minute.  Splits are BAD??
> 
> Didn't the RC church split from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 11th century?



No they split from the Catholic Church


----------



## Sally (Oct 18, 2008)

> No they split from the Catholic Church



I bet that's not the historical facts as the Eastern Orthodox Church sees it...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 18, 2008)

Sally said:


> I bet that's not the historical facts as the Eastern Orthodox Church sees it...




"Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that the Orthodox Church is the authentic and original Christian Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. As such, the Eastern Orthodox Church views its role as the preserver of the teachings and traditions given to the Early Christians by the Apostles nearly 2,000 years ago and the developer of conciliar interpretations which expand and illuminate the original teachings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

Hmmm....seems I have heard these same things from the RC's here.  So which is it?


----------



## Israel (Oct 18, 2008)

Cheerleading for one's denomination is an abhorently transparent celebration of self. 
Why do folks glory in of what they should be ashamed?


----------



## farmasis (Oct 18, 2008)

Big7 said:


> That is not what the historical facts state.
> 
> One Catholic Church founded 33AD
> 
> ...


 

I should read up on the history of the church from a Catholic website. Rich.

Christ did not set up a Catholic church. It was catholic. Reformers are reforming to the church Christ built.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 18, 2008)

The Catholic church was not even established in the 1st century.
Christ's church was established in AD 33.

I agree with Israel.  "Cheerleading for one's denomination is an abhorently transparent celebration of self. 
Why do folks glory in of what they should be ashamed?"

Why?  Because they worship their church rather than Christ.


----------



## PJason (Oct 19, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> The Catholic church was not even established in the 1st century.  Christ's church was established in AD 33.



Seeing that they are one in the same this is a pretty big contradiction



Ronnie T said:


> I agree with Israel.  "Cheerleading for one's denomination is an abhorently transparent celebration of self.
> Why do folks glory in of what they should be ashamed?"
> 
> Why?  Because they worship their church rather than Christ.



Ah I always love the big ending with finger pointing “You don’t worship Christ”, it puts the judgmental cherry on top of everything doesn’t.


----------



## PJason (Oct 19, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I should read up on the history of the church from a Catholic website. Rich.
> 
> Christ did not set up a Catholic church. It was catholic. Reformers are reforming to the church Christ built.



Yes that is rich. Just as crazy as reading a history the Undited States written by an American. I say we only read histories of the United States written by Soviets.


----------



## Israel (Oct 19, 2008)

PJason said:


> Yes that is rich. Just as crazy as reading a history the Undited States written by an American. I say we only read histories of the United States written by Soviets.


Actually all the histories of any denominations are meaningless in light of the spirit...one need not search backward when one smells the flesh, its origins are painfully obvious.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
No room here for mutations or evolution.
Death is required for change.


----------



## Sally (Oct 19, 2008)

I think farmasis' point about reading church history is well taken.

PJason, does your response mean that the only church history worth reading or that is truth is written by Roman Catholics?


----------



## farmasis (Oct 19, 2008)

PJason said:


> Yes that is rich. Just as crazy as reading a history the Undited States written by an American. I say we only read histories of the United States written by Soviets.


 
Are you saying that only Catholics are Christian?

Of course the Catholic church is going to trace it's roots back to Peter, and so can I.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 19, 2008)

Israel said:


> Actually all the histories of any denominations are meaningless in light of the spirit...one need not search backward when one smells the flesh, its origins are painfully obvious.
> That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
> That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
> No room here for mutations or evolution.
> Death is required for change.


 
That was my point. Christians were given a godly heritage of every one that feared God. That is all the way back to Abraham and even Adam.


----------



## PJason (Oct 19, 2008)

I am saying I trust a history of the Catholic Church written by anti-Catholics as much as I would trust a history of the Jews written by Hitler.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 19, 2008)

> I am saying I trust a history of the Catholic Church written by anti-Catholics as much as I would trust a history of the Jews written by Hitler.



Now you're comparing other non-Catholic religions to the Nazis????



(I really am kidding!)


----------



## farmasis (Oct 19, 2008)

PJason said:


> I am saying I trust a history of the Catholic Church written by anti-Catholics as much as I would trust a history of the Jews written by Hitler.


 
I understand that. However, I don't believe that the RCC is the only true church. 
God did not intend divisions in his church, but it happened. I personally do not think God intended for the Catholic church to evolve to what it is today, and IMO, contrary to some scriptural teachings in it's doctrine. But, it did. (Totally my opinion) So, I think the reformation of the church back to scriptural teaching honored God.
I do not expect you to agree with that. I consider you a brother in Christ, nonetheless, with different ideas. I repect your ideas and your reverence to your church's history and tradition. I do not think that the differences in our faith will seperate either one of us from the love of Christ.


----------



## PJason (Oct 19, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Now you're comparing other non-Catholic religions to the Nazis????
> 
> 
> 
> (I really am kidding!)



No just the anti-Catholic ones


----------



## Banjo (Oct 19, 2008)

> No just the anti-Catholic ones



Do you mean the ones who don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true Church?


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2008)

farmasis said:


> That was my point. Christians were given a godly heritage of every one that feared God. That is all the way back to Abraham and even Adam.



Yes. 
Regardless of that which may be most 'ancient" on earth, if it doesn't come today, right now, from God's heart, it is meaningless.
Either we have been delivered from the dead weight of history into God's glorious presence...and to speak and act as those who "stand before him"...or not.
Either arise and shine is a present instruction, or we still have blinders on.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 20, 2008)

Israel said:


> Cheerleading for one's denomination is an abhorently transparent celebration of self.
> Why do folks glory in of what they should be ashamed?



Man, I'm glad somebody else was thinking the same thing!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 20, 2008)

Banjo said:


> "Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that the Orthodox Church is the authentic and original Christian Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. As such, the Eastern Orthodox Church views its role as the preserver of the teachings and traditions given to the Early Christians by the Apostles nearly 2,000 years ago and the developer of conciliar interpretations which expand and illuminate the original teachings."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
> 
> Hmmm....seems I have heard these same things from the RC's here.  So which is it?



It is this: 

The Catholic Church sees itself as in partial, not full communion, with other Christian groups. "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" Catechism of the Catholic Church (838).


----------

