|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 15, 2008 14:24:47 GMT -5
Hahahaha! I'm sorry, I just HAD TO laugh at this ridiculous post! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 15, 2008 14:43:00 GMT -5
Ahh... the Pelagians believed in perfection. That was part of the whole debate. Pelagius taught that because of free will, perfection was attainable. Augustine counteracted this view by saying that because of original sin, perfection was not attainable. The Pelagians taught that a person could, through the continued right use of their free will, reach a place when all the virtues are attained in this life (perfection). It was a long and hard process they taught, but it was not impossible to reach before death.
And I don't hold to Wesley's view of Christian perfection. If you knew Wesleyan theology, you would know that it's doctrine of perfection is linked to it's doctrine of original sin. Wesleyanism teaches that a person is justified when they put their faith in Christ, but they still have original sin inside of them. So they need a second experience (a second blessing) after justification called sanctification, when original sin is removed. Their idea of Christian perfection is the removal of original sin from the Christian.
My view of perfection is neither Pelagian nor Wesleyan. My view of perfection is the Finneyite view of perfection. I believe that a person is morally perfect when their will submits to, and obeys, all the knowledge that they have. In this way, perfection is both complete and progressive. As a person grows in knowledge, they should also grow in their perfect obedience. A person's obedience should always be perfect, because their will should always submit totally to the knowledge they have. But their perfection is also progressive, because they are growing in knowledge and consequently growing in obedience. But their heart should always be perfect, that is, their will should always be in a state of submission and never in a state of rebellion. If there is not fault in their will, there is no fault in their moral character, and are therefore morally perfect, even though they are not perfect in their knowledge.
I find it ignorant and amusing for you to claim that I have added a "Wesleyan" view of perfection to "Pelagianism", when they are mutually exclusive. And since the Pelagians already believed in perfection. And since I disagree with both Pelagius and Wesley on their doctrine of perfection.
Well said! I completely agree!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 15, 2008 15:49:05 GMT -5
Actually, I was convinced of Christian perfection by reading the Bible. But when I found Finney's writings, I rejoiced to find a theologian that I agreed with.
As a new convert, simply reading my Bible, the Lord immediately taught me two doctrines - conditional security and moral perfection. I've held to them ever since. This was before I even knew who Finney or Wesley was! My Church, which had a baptist background, regarded these doctrines as heretical. I was the only person I knew of that believed it was possible to lose your salvation and believed it was possible to live without sinning. That is, until I found some of these older writers who agreed with me.
Actually, I found open air preaching in the Bible. But I never knew anyone who still did it until I was introduced to Ray Comforts ministry. When I saw how he open air preached, I thought to myself, "That is exactly what I see the Apostles doing in the Bible."
So again, your facts are wrong. I did not get the doctrine of perfection from Finney, I got it from the Bible. I simply happen to agree with Finney. And I did not get open air preaching from Wesley. I got it from the Bible. But it was Ray Comforts influence that helped me put it into practice.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Dec 15, 2008 22:01:43 GMT -5
ouch!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 15, 2008 23:33:03 GMT -5
What happened to all of the posts that "damnedbecauseItrustinmary" made on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 16, 2008 14:33:18 GMT -5
I don't know...... I was wondering that myself....
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 16, 2008 21:22:43 GMT -5
I don't know...... I was wondering that myself.... Maybe he repented for this tread. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 16, 2008 22:25:11 GMT -5
I don't know...... I was wondering that myself.... Maybe he repented for this tread. ;D Hopefully! Or, maybe he just thinks that we are all reprobates because we aren't trusting in Mary too...
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 13:35:03 GMT -5
The Catholic Church is the True Church.
Mary is our Mother in Heaven.
The Church is our Mother on earth.
RbM
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 13:51:35 GMT -5
Is Ruth our mother in heaven too?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 14:00:36 GMT -5
I agree there is only one church.
Figuratively in a spiritual sense. My literal mother was a literal woman like Mary.
Here's another one: Is Joseph our 'stepfather' in heaven?
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 15:19:12 GMT -5
I agree there is only one church. Figuratively in a spiritual sense. My literal mother was a literal woman like Mary. Here's another one: Is Joseph our 'stepfather' in heaven?
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 15:20:55 GMT -5
What happened to all of the posts that "d**nedbecauseItrustinmary" made on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 17, 2008 15:51:18 GMT -5
Sir, The Blessed Mother is given a special place in Heaven. She was bodily asssumed into Heaven and crowned Queen of the angels. Do you have any proof for this? Scriptural proof? Not any more. She would need to be the mother of the whole tryinity if that were true. Mary WAS the mother of Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:07:31 GMT -5
I certainly hope so but it's up to the Father.
Why do you believe that?
That sounds like a silly fable. Is it all part of the same story as the assumption?
Not really. In my opinion, that's choking on the doctrine of the trinity to make that statement. Mary is not the mother of the Father and she is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she was not the mother of the Word before he became flesh in her. In my opinion, to say that Mary has become the mother of God is misleading because of the silliness of people trying to fathom the trinity doctrine. That could be a whole new thread on the trinity doctrine huh?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 17, 2008 16:15:24 GMT -5
I consider that a compliment coming from you!
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 16:23:54 GMT -5
Sir, The Blessed Mother is given a special place in Heaven. She was bodily asssumed into Heaven and crowned Queen of the angels. Do you have any proof for this? Scriptural proof? Not any more. She would need to be the mother of the whole tryinity if that were true. Mary WAS the mother of Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Dec 17, 2008 16:24:43 GMT -5
sir rescuedbymary06
You say The Church is our Mother on earth.
but the Scriptures say that the Mother of all true Christians is the Jerusalem that is above :
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. [Galatians 4:25-27]
Children of God are those who are born from above, not those who are born by the traditions of man, not by the will of the flesh , nor by the blessing of any pope or any man.
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13]
The true Church , or assembly of the saints is made of all these who have believed in Him , who were once dead in sins, but now are alive in Him and sit together in heavenly places in Christ as Ephesians say it.
Why is this true Church called a "mother" ? because each member is nourished and nutured by it , as the Scriptures say in Ephesians 4
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
You can join the true Church , the company of the saints, when you will believe that the blood shed by Jesus was sufficient and necessary for your redemption, there is nothing to substract and nothing to add to what God has said and done.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 16:29:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 16:35:26 GMT -5
sir rescuedbymary06 You say The Church is our Mother on earth. but the Scriptures say that the Mother of all true Christians is the Jerusalem that is above : But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. [Galatians 4:25-27]Children of God are those who are born from above, not those who are born by the traditions of man, not by the will of the flesh , nor by the blessing of any pope or any man. as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13]The true Church , or assembly of the saints is made of all these who have believed in Him , who were once dead in sins, but now are alive in Him and sit together in heavenly places in Christ as Ephesians say it. Why is this true Church called a "mother" ? because each member is nourished and nutured by it , as the Scriptures say in Ephesians 4 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. You can join the true Church , the company of the saints, when you will believe that the blood shed by Jesus was sufficient and necessary for your redemption, there is nothing to substract and nothing to add to what God has said and done.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 16:41:43 GMT -5
I consider that a compliment coming from you!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:44:21 GMT -5
Even Jehovah's Witnesses know that when people goof around with words like this that it makes the listeners easy targets for their "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklets. No one denied that Jesus is God but you are trying to force physical and spiritual things together. How can you expect to intellectually merge the physical birth of Jesus through a woman into the very "nature" of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You can shuffle two halves of a deck of cards together but I don't think you should be going about this the same way.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 17, 2008 16:45:22 GMT -5
How about you offer some actual arguments for your position instead of making the same bombastic assertions over and over again. I think we are all aware that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that sola fide is false (heck, you might even find some protestants here who agree with you), and that Mary is the mother of God, and that she is exalted to a special place in heaven, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven, and was sinless, and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and etc.
It's not to say that I even agree with the people you're arguing with. But at least some civil dialogue should be possible between us even if we radically disagree and consider each other heretics.
Debonnaire and others: Scriptural proof for these things is asked for, and well, since the RCC rejects sola scriptura, they don't even have to offer any scriptural proof for anything that they don't want to. The various doctrines are merely ascribed to "traditions" handed down from Paul (as the Bible even mentions in parts), but I have *never* seen any proof that the early Christians had even heard of doctrines such as the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary, or papal infallibility (Paul rebuked Peter for his error in Galatians, for instance), etc.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 16:47:36 GMT -5
haha, Don't eat the sweet old lady's apple Kerrigan. Just wait till the dwarves come home.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 16:57:35 GMT -5
Even Jehovah's Witnesses know that when people goof around with words like this that it makes the listeners easy targets for their "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklets. No one denied that Jesus is God but you are trying to force physical and spiritual things together. How can you expect to intellectually merge the physical birth of Jesus through a woman into the very "nature" of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 17:01:19 GMT -5
and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and etc.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 17, 2008 17:03:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was sometimes referred to as belief in the real presence of Christ therein, i.e. that it is actually transmuted into Christ's flesh and blood.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 17, 2008 17:17:52 GMT -5
Nature: The essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. Part of one's nature would be part of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. I've thought for a while now that the concept of two natures is nonsensical. If you add more qualities and characteristics there is no need to create a second nature to hold the overflow. The word nature, by definition, is capable of encompassing all of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 17:21:32 GMT -5
Nature: The essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. Part of one's nature would be part of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. I've thought for a while now that the concept of two natures is nonsensical. If you add more qualities and characteristics there is no need to create a second nature to hold the overflow. The word nature, by definition, is capable of encompassing all of the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized.
|
|
|
Post by rescuedbymary06 on Dec 17, 2008 17:24:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was sometimes referred to as belief in the real presence of Christ therein, i.e. that it is actually transmuted into Christ's flesh and blood.
|
|