Faithful Ag said:
Almost 40% of Christians TODAY are "Protestant" with a lot of divergence in beliefs and doctrines.
50% are Catholic (about 62% are Apostolic meaning Orthodox and Catholic combined).
Those are the numbers TODAY. Historically 80-90% of Christians do not or did not accept Calvinism's tenets. I think that was the point.
But again - do you see that Mary was the Ark?
Faithful Ag said:
So you do not believe that Mary was saved? You do not believe that Mary is alive in Christ?
Faithful Ag said:
Okay. I will gladly discuss this with you on a new thread because this is really a different conversation altogether
AgPrognosticator said:Faithful Ag said:
Okay. I will gladly discuss this with you on a new thread because this is really a different conversation altogether
For what it's worth, I have no opinion of whether Mary was saved, other than to say, "I hope she was."
It's not my place, nor any other man's, to substitute my/our judgement for God's. Yet there is an entire Catholic Church premised on an utterly man-made supposition that Christ was living in her. It is an errant way of thinking.
AgPrognosticator said:dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
You do realize that 40% of Christians worldwide are Protestant, right? I fully expect that ratio to grow. Catholicism's dependance on papal authority is in and of itself contrary to Jesus' teachings.
Jesus is my High Priest.
That was the point. And this Protestant has no problem understanding Mary as the Ark.Faithful Ag said:
Almost 40% of Christians TODAY are "Protestant" with a lot of divergence in beliefs and doctrines.
50% are Catholic (about 62% are Apostolic meaning Orthodox and Catholic combined).
Those are the numbers TODAY. Historically 80-90% of Christians do not or did not accept Calvinism's tenets. I think that was the point.
But again - do you see that Mary was the Ark?
10andBOUNCE said:Faithful Ag said:10andBOUNCE said:
Why would she say that?
Because everything about Mary leads us to Christ, and Mary perfectly and completely magnifies Christ for us. This is why when Zobel and I looked at the "blasphemous image of Mary" from your link, we both saw a beautiful image of Christ. Yes, Mary was there by she was not the focus but rather she was magnifying Jesus. Nothing about Mary detracts from God but everything about Mary magnifies Christ.
I think sometimes the evangelical reaction is somewhat knee-jerk when it comes to Mary. There is so much sensitivity and offense taken by anything highlighting Mary that the conditioned response is to jump to blasphemy accusations. Taking a step back and a deep breath might help to see that the accusations might be missing the mark.
Quote:
And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."
Gotcha.
So to the idea that Mary was sinless…did she need a savior if she lived a perfect life? The whole reason we need a savior is because of sin. If someone, in your case Mary, is without sin, I'd think she had no use for a savior. Was Mary her own savior?
The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:Faithful Ag said:10andBOUNCE said:
Why would she say that?
Because everything about Mary leads us to Christ, and Mary perfectly and completely magnifies Christ for us. This is why when Zobel and I looked at the "blasphemous image of Mary" from your link, we both saw a beautiful image of Christ. Yes, Mary was there by she was not the focus but rather she was magnifying Jesus. Nothing about Mary detracts from God but everything about Mary magnifies Christ.
I think sometimes the evangelical reaction is somewhat knee-jerk when it comes to Mary. There is so much sensitivity and offense taken by anything highlighting Mary that the conditioned response is to jump to blasphemy accusations. Taking a step back and a deep breath might help to see that the accusations might be missing the mark.
Quote:
And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."
Gotcha.
So to the idea that Mary was sinless…did she need a savior if she lived a perfect life? The whole reason we need a savior is because of sin. If someone, in your case Mary, is without sin, I'd think she had no use for a savior. Was Mary her own savior?
No analogy is perfect, but maybe this will help:
If we see a super fast runner like Usain Bolt, we see that he is the one doing the running and honing of his skills, but the speed was a gift he was born with. He was given the genetic code necessary to be able to run like that.
With Mary, we can say that she didn't commit any sins, which is her acting in a right manner. But the reason why she doesn't sin is because God have her the grace sufficient to do so. That was gift from Him, not something she did. She needed His help.
Jesus did not need that gift from God because He is God and simply IS sinless. That's the difference between Him and Mary.
The immaculate conception is not necessary to Catholic theology and was not necessary for Jesus or for Mary. However, it is fitting for Jesus that his tabernacle, his Ark, would be pure and holy and properly prepared to contain God within herself. Jesus took his flesh and blood from Mary, the same flesh and blood that he poured out for us on the cross. Jesus, being God, is able to do anything for anyone. Why would he allow his own mother to be stained with sin when he has the ability to prevent that keeping her pure and holy? Jesus honored his mother at all times.Quote:
Help me understand why the immaculate conception is necessary to Catholic theology?
Do you believe Jesus would have been blemished somehow had he been born to a sinner?
Is a sinless Mary biblical? Can you point me to scripture that references or expressly mentions a sinless Mary?
I've gained significant insight into Catholicism on this thread. I appreciate all the responses and variety of input.
Faithful Ag said:
Mary is most certainly not dead but she is very much alive and she sits at the right hand of her son, Jesus, in heaven.
dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
Is that Psalm 45?Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
10andBOUNCE said:Faithful Ag said:
Mary is most certainly not dead but she is very much alive and she sits at the right hand of her son, Jesus, in heaven.
Yikes. I know this isn't the point of this thread but this is a pretty provocative statement.
So is the teaching of free will a false teaching? Or the teaching that double predestination is wrong theology a false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
No, not saying anything other than reformed theology is false teaching. But I do think the percentage is significant. Not really having to do with reformed or not.
I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
Just because certain points are not agreed upon does not make the teacher entirely false. Most of my past church history has been at non-denom Arminian churches, but I would not label the Pastor a false teacher just because they did not align on election or free will. As I have noticed on other threads, we likely align with the main points of salvation, being saved by grace through faith ONLY by Christ's work on the cross, his resurrection, and his acsension.dermdoc said:So is the teaching of free will a false teaching? Or the teaching that double predestination is wrong theology a false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
No, not saying anything other than reformed theology is false teaching. But I do think the percentage is significant. Not really having to do with reformed or not.
If you believe those are false teachings then you have to be saying that 80-90% of theologians and clergy are false teachers.
10andBOUNCE said:I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
I can at least follow what you all have been talking about regarding the ark (I don't agree with it but I at least follow the logic). This one seems a bit more out of left field for me.Faithful Ag said:
Correct. Mary is the Queen Mother as is the custom of the Davidic Kings which is why we know she is in heaven and sits at her son's right hand.
It is scriptural and historical. Not provocative.
dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/psalm-45-blessed-virgin-mary/
Anglican Church teaching which is Protestant.
Yeaaa. I am not going to be exalting Mary. And she is not over me.Quote:
What can we appreciate from this title of Mary as Queen of Heaven? Rightly understood, it gives us a way of exalting her within the Church, explaining her relationship "over" us, while yet maintaining her relationship under Christ.
10andBOUNCE said:Just because certain points are not agreed upon does not make the teacher entirely false. Most of my past church history has been at non-denom Arminian churches, but I would not label the Pastor a false teacher just because they did not align on election or free will. As I have noticed on other threads, we likely align with the main points of salvation, being saved by grace through faith ONLY by Christ's work on the cross, his resurrection, and his acsension.dermdoc said:So is the teaching of free will a false teaching? Or the teaching that double predestination is wrong theology a false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
No, not saying anything other than reformed theology is false teaching. But I do think the percentage is significant. Not really having to do with reformed or not.
If you believe those are false teachings then you have to be saying that 80-90% of theologians and clergy are false teachers.
10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/psalm-45-blessed-virgin-mary/
Anglican Church teaching which is Protestant.Yeaaa. I am not going to be exalting Mary. And she is not over me.Quote:
What can we appreciate from this title of Mary as Queen of Heaven? Rightly understood, it gives us a way of exalting her within the Church, explaining her relationship "over" us, while yet maintaining her relationship under Christ.
Sounding like you're reformed already!dermdoc said:Is there predestination? Sure. Is God sovereign? Of course.10andBOUNCE said:Just because certain points are not agreed upon does not make the teacher entirely false. Most of my past church history has been at non-denom Arminian churches, but I would not label the Pastor a false teacher just because they did not align on election or free will. As I have noticed on other threads, we likely align with the main points of salvation, being saved by grace through faith ONLY by Christ's work on the cross, his resurrection, and his acsension.dermdoc said:So is the teaching of free will a false teaching? Or the teaching that double predestination is wrong theology a false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.10andBOUNCE said:
Appreciate it.
And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.
Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.
Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.
Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.
Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?
Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/
In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.
I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.
And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?
No, not saying anything other than reformed theology is false teaching. But I do think the percentage is significant. Not really having to do with reformed or not.
If you believe those are false teachings then you have to be saying that 80-90% of theologians and clergy are false teachers.
Well, it isn't like I made this up all on my own.dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/psalm-45-blessed-virgin-mary/
Anglican Church teaching which is Protestant.Yeaaa. I am not going to be exalting Mary. And she is not over me.Quote:
What can we appreciate from this title of Mary as Queen of Heaven? Rightly understood, it gives us a way of exalting her within the Church, explaining her relationship "over" us, while yet maintaining her relationship under Christ.
Fair enough. Free will is real.
Spirit filled theologians disagree with your personal interpretation.
10andBOUNCE said:Well, it isn't like I made this up all on my own.dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:dermdoc said:10andBOUNCE said:I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.
https://leorningcniht.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/psalm-45-blessed-virgin-mary/
Anglican Church teaching which is Protestant.Yeaaa. I am not going to be exalting Mary. And she is not over me.Quote:
What can we appreciate from this title of Mary as Queen of Heaven? Rightly understood, it gives us a way of exalting her within the Church, explaining her relationship "over" us, while yet maintaining her relationship under Christ.
Fair enough. Free will is real.
Spirit filled theologians disagree with your personal interpretation.
What is a "spirit filled" theologian? How do you know?
