/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Absolutely not, you pagan

>>550194

That's not good anon, you should think about it

>>550195

God bless you brother

>>550193

>have you cast God out of heaven and fallen down before this woman instead?

>>550195

now the rest of the world should follow

>>550213

Strange that God forgot to mention Mary is another savior. Maybe because that's heresy

I expect an insightful and well-mannered discussion from this thread.

>>550218

She's not "another saviour", she plays her part in salvation through Jesus's death

>>550221

>She's a savior who is not Jesus

<She's not "another saviour"

>>550224

>>She's a savior

Who says that save protestants?

>>550193

>she plays her part in salvation through Jesus's death

can you elaborate?

Are there other Coredemptrixes that helped Jesus?

>>550252

Exaltation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, in this tragic hour of the world's history, we entrust and consecrate ourselves to your Immaculate Heart, our only refuge, our hope, our salvation. Have pity on this world, torn by the most terrible conflicts, burning with the fires of hate, victim of its own sins. May your heart be moved at the sight of so much ruin, pain and sorrow.

We consecrate to your maternal heart our persons, our families, our country and the whole of humanity. Protect and save us!

O Heart of Mary, source of true love, fill our selfish hearts with divine charity and with that true brotherly love without which there can never be peace. Grant that men and nations may understand and fulfill the precept of your Divine Son, LOVE ONE ANOTHER, in order that true peace may be firmly established in the Justice and Truth of Christ.

Amen.

O Virgin Immaculate, Mother of God and My Mother

O Virgin Immaculate, Mother of God and my Mother, from your sublime heights turn your eyes of pity on me. Filled with confidence in your goodness and knowing full well your power, I beg you to extend to me your assistance in the journey of life, which is so full of dangers for my soul. In order that I may never be a slave of the devil through sin, but may ever live with my heart humble and pure, I entrust myself wholly to you. I consecrate my heart to you forever, my only desire being to love your divine Son, Jesus. Mary, none of your devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved.

Amen.

Prayer to the Mother of Goodness, Love and Mercy

O Mother, of Goodness, Love and Mercy,

I immensely love you and offer myself to you.

Through your goodness, love and mercy save me.

I want to be yours.

I love you endlessly and want you to keep me.

From my heart I beseech you, Mother of Goodness.

Give me your goodness that I may deserve heaven by it.

I ask you for your immense love to give me the grace that I may love everybody as you loved Jesus Christ.

And I ask you for the Grace that I may be gracious to you

I offer myself completely to you and want you to be with me at every step.

For you are full of grace.

Let me never lose God's grace:

And if I should,

Help me.

Amen

>>550292

Prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

O Immaculate Heart of Mary,

full of goodness,

show your love towards us.

Let the flame of your heart,

O Mary, descend on all people.

We love you immensely.

Impress true love in our hearts

so that we have a continuous desire for you.

O Mary, gentle and humble of heart, remember us when we are in sin.

You know that all men sin.

Give us, by means of your Immaculate Heart, spiritual health.

Let us always see the goodness of your motherly heart

and may we be converted by means of the flame of your heart.

Amen.

Immaculate Heart of Mary,

full of love for God and mankind,

and of compassion for sinners,

I consecrate myself to you.

I entrust to you the salvation of my soul.

May my heart be ever united with yours,

so that I may hate sin,

love God and my neighbor,

and reach eternal life with those whom I love.

May I experience the kindness of your motherly heart

and the power of your intercession with Jesus

during my life and at the hour of my death.

Amen.

Prostrate at thy sacred feet,

O august Queen of Heaven,

I venerate thee with the most profound respect,

and I believe that thou art the daughter of the Eternal Father,

the Mother of His Divine Son,

and the Spouse of the Holy Ghost.

Full of grace and virtues and heavenly gifts,

thou art the purest temple of the most Holy Trinity,

thou art the treasury and dispenser of divine mercy.

Thy Immaculate Heart, full of charity, sweetness and tenderness,

has given thee the name of Mother of Divine Clemency.

Therefore, in my affliction

and agony I present myself with confidence before thee,

our most loving Mother,

and I pray thee to make me experience the love which thou bearest us;

Grant me (specify the favor)

if it be the Will of God and for the good of my soul.

Amen.

O Immaculate Heart of Mary,

refuge of sinners,

I beg of you by the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

and by the graces God has granted to you since your Immaculate Conception,

the grace of never going astray again.

Mother, keep me, a sinner,

constantly bathed in the light of your Immaculate Heart.

Amen.

Most Lovable Lady

I love thee, most lovable Lady, By the love which I bear thee, I promise ever to serve thee,

and to do as much as I can, that thou be loved by others also. I put all my hopes in thee,

all my salvation. Receive me as thy servant and cover me with the mantle of thy protection,

thou the Mother of mercy!

Amen.

>>550264

Isaiah 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

qui dicebas in corde tuo in caelum conscendam super astra Dei exaltabo solium meum sedebo in monte testamenti in lateribus aquilonis

ascendam super altitudinem nubium ero similis Altissimo

II Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Guess Christians worship the devil because of the Exultet and the above verses.

>>550292

>>550298

>I cannot into basic mariology: the posts

For Christ's wounds sake.

Let me use Ireaneus to explain it to you:

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race;

So also did Mary', having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen;

So that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.

For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” For the Lord, having been born “the First- begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. +

Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (3, 22, 4)

>>550357

guy i was responding to:

>who says that we say mary is a savior besides protestants?

me quoting your prayers:

>"save me mary pls!"

you:

>uff you're so ignorant on mariology, here's an early church father refuting your argumentation

i didn't make an argument, i just provided examples of you guys calling her your savior.

>>550375

I am that guy.

And you are still to find ONE Catholic prayer, document or whatever that says Mary is savior. Pro tip there is none.

For cause of salvation=/=savior. Baptism is cause of salvation. Grace is cause of salvation. Church is cause of salvation. Justification is cause of salvation. Perseverance is cause of salvation. If thou convert from errors becace of this discurs, I will be cause of your salvation;.

>>550410

>And you are still to find ONE Catholic prayer, document or whatever that says Mary is savior.

okay, if english is not your first language, this is understandable.

if it is, i accuse you of being dishonest.

a savior is someone who saves someone/something.

look at everything i underlined.

Reminder the coredemptrix is not an official title for her.

>>550193

I'm actually not really a fan of the coredemptrix talk. I get that the "co-" part doesn't imply equality in latin, but it does in other languages. It just leads to misunderstandings and Mary already has a lot of titles that honor her so I don't see a reason we should add another one that doesn't actually say anything that isn't trivial.

>>550492

>your statements that Mary is on par with Jesus

where did i state that?

>Then begins to insult people

what in the world?

>>550490

And I hope it won't become one. I know that there is some push to dogmatise the title, but I really don't think the Church should dogmatise something that 1: wouldn't answer any actual controversy, 2: in at least some languages can easily be mistaken for heresy and 3: (to me) appears to be trivial in the languages it can't be mistaken for heresy.

>>550492

you seem confused so i am going to give you the basic rundown of the conversation so far.

guy i was responding to originally:

>who says that we say mary is a savior besides protestants?

me quoting roman catholic prayers:

>"save me mary pls!"

that same guy:

>uff you're so ignorant on mariology, here's an early church father refuting your argumentation

me

>i wasn't making an argument, i was just providing examples of your prayers to her that state she is your savior

that same guy

>you haven't even shown one

me

>you're being dishonest if english isn't your first language

>(i gave him 5)

you

>you stated mary is on par with jesus and are insulting people, look at this cat picture

me

>what the heck?

>>550491

>>550503

This

Also even if I love Mary I don't really like this attitude of the catholic church of the XIX, XX centuries to dogmatize that much on marial dogmas. As if the objective was to make the faith more difficult to understand/accept and to make the reunification with the orthobros harder.

>>550193

Yes mommy please give me milkies amen

*completes rcia*

*cries to man in dress for 10 minutes*

*eats bread*

*goes to heaven*

>>550469

>okay, if english is not your first language, this is understandable.

I thank God for that every day.

>if it is, i accuse you of being dishonest.

I accuse you of being intelcutally dishonest by fact of this post existing.

>a savior is someone who saves someone/something.

And cause of salvation which saves is not savior.

>look at everything i underlined.

I looked and behold that you are little of understanding of christology

>>550504

Meanwhile in reality

<YOU SAY MARY IS SAVIOR

>Who even says that except for you?

<LOOK IT SAYS MARY IS CAUSE OF SALVATION

>Cause of salvation is not savior my friend. There are many causes of salvation. Learn basic theology

>MARY IS SAVIOR ACCRODING TO YOU

>>550291

>She gave birth to Jesus by her own will

So? Mary's mom gave birth Mary, is she also a Cordemptrix? Joseph by his own will saved Jesus' life by fleeing to egypt…etc Is he also a coredeemer?

Mary submitted to the will of God, any good in her was the work of God. Every prophet, saint and even Christ himself does not take credit for their deeds, but places all merit upon God, or in Jesus' case he places merit upon the Father.

>God has put enmity between her and the snake, just like He has put enmity between Jesus and the snake. She gave birth to Jesus by her own will, making salvation possible. She also paid the prise, for her soul was pierced (Luke 2:35) in pain of watching her son die. Jesus is the new Adam, for the sin came through one man and grace came through one man, but Mary is the new Eve - for Eve also had her shamefull part in coming of sin and Mary her glorious part in coming of grace.

thanks. ya none of that implies what you want it to. it does not bear such a grand, ambiguous, arguably blasphemous, title like COREDEMPTRIX.

Theotokos is sufficient, full of grace, etc.

Injecting her into the calculus of redemption is uncalled for.

>>550628

>And cause of salvation which saves is not savior.

>Cause of salvation is not savior my friend. There are many causes of salvation. Learn basic theology

i'm sorry, guy, i can't understand what you're trying to communicate, this is unintelligible.

and we've graduated to capital letters (internet screaming) now, i think we should just call this a draw.

good day.

>>550291

>Mary played the role in this salvation

What "role"? The only people who had a "role" in that were Herod, Pilate, Judas, the Jews, and the Romans.

>>550636

Let me put it at as simply as I can.

Cause of salvation - something that brings salvation to you, be it by enabling you to get saved, or being instrument of being saved, or makeing salvation possible in the first place.

Mary is cause of salvation in that sense that she is volountary cause of incarnation.

Savoir - one that is source of salvation, and actualy saves. Means by which he does it are cuases of salvation.

Basics. Basics of theology.

>>550300

>Guess Christians worship the devil because of the Exultet and the above verses.

Implying that translating "helel" as lucifer in Latin is even remotely correct.

>>550871

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

>>550903

>be baptist

>go to the church

>your friend approaches you

>he's a good, saved guy

<Hi anon, I have a hard time recently, could you pray for me?

>wait, what?

>why can't he go directly to God?

>this can't be

>he really wants to receive God's grace through you prayer

>he wants you to be his MEDIATOR

>take out your KJV

>start hitting your "friend" with it

<Get away from me you pagan!

>fucking unsaved reprobates, never reading their Bibles

>>550922

>Have a friend from out of state

>Make graven images of him to remind me to pray to him, light incense

>Fall at the feet of the images I made daily, tell others to do this also

>Huh? He didn't even hear my prayers?

>Oh right, Psalm 65:2

>>550218

Being mother of the Savior, did she not suffer the penalty for your sins also?

Why accept Jesus suffering as redeeming but not Mary's?

>>550940

>did she not suffer the penalty for your sins also?

Allow me to be clear and concise

No

>>550871

>Why would it be blasphemous?

Because it usurps Christ's work and partakes of the spirit of Antichrist?

>Recognizing that Adam brought sin to the world with Eve doesn't contradict Scripture when it says that sin entered the world through one man.

Eve's only role in bringing sin into the world is in leading the man to sin. Likewise, Mary's only role in bringing light into the world was leading the Light to life. Just as sin doesn't come to men through Eve, grace doesn't come to men through Mary.

>None of them were part of the original prophecy of Jesus coming

Neither was Mary

>neither had they their prefirgurement in the garden of Eden

They were prefigured by the serpent.

>>550963

>But, this IS a meme, right? Cathbros don't SERIOUSLY believe his "co-redemtrix" B.S.

Unfortunately, yes, they do.

>>550960

>Allow me to be clear and concise

Then you deny that Christ did.

His death was not a magical event, it was real and physical.

To the extent that He suffered, His mother suffered as well. To deny this is to deny the unique relationship that a mother has with her child.

>>550975

That's wrong.

>>550978

Why, why you don't you tell him that instead of only encouraging him.

>>550980

Because I don't know who that is. Any one professing what he professes is in clear blasphemy. Mary is infinity lesser than God, though she is the greatest creation of God.

That person seems to be holding to a form of Collyridianism, a pre-Islamic Arabian blasphemy that the Church condemned in the 4th and 5th century.

>>550982

Do you really think he got it from pre-Islamic Arabia? Face it, he got it from you guys.

He would agree with the OP and all the following posts.

>>550985

It's a corruption of Catholic teaching.

>>550927

>read Luke

>"In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

>how could they know someone repents if they weren't there?

>realise Luke wasn't saved

>remove his Gospel from your Bible

>>550960

>Because it usurps Christ's work and partakes of the spirit of Antichrist?

Well shit, I guess saying that Eve played a role in bringing sin into the world contradicts the Bible now, since it says that sin came into the world through one man.

>Eve's only role in bringing sin into the world is in leading the man to sin. Likewise, Mary's only role in bringing light into the world was leading the Light to life.

Eve was punished with Adam, likewise Mary should be honoured with Jesus

>Neither was Mary

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed"

>>550963

>Mary played ABSOLUTELY NO role in our salvation

I guess all generations shall call her blessed for no reason then. I've already listed things Mary did, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

>Sounds like every other day at church. What's your point?

The point was to show that baptists also accept other mediators, they just disagree with saints being able to hear our prayers, as the way >>550927 defends his position shows. However in this case, their usage of "one mediator" verse refutes their own rules.

>>550975

This contradicts catholic dogma

Garbage thread. Who even likes the coredemptrix title? It is not Catholic doctrine. Why defend it?

>>550993

>The point was to show that baptists also accept other mediators,

No, wrong.

John 16:23

<Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

I never ask in any other name than Jesus Christ. I never pray to anyone other than to the Father, and in the name of the Son. Jesus is the name on which we mediate our prayer, anon. To no one else and through no one else do we direct our prayer. The verse 1 Timothy 2:5 is therefore entirely relevant, as is Psalm 65:1-2.

>>550999

It may not be an official title for Mary in the Catholic Church but it is important among individual Catholics who have strong Marian devotions and it's perfectly acceptable in Catholic doctrine.

Mary's role in salvation was her co-operation with the Holy Spirit for Christ to come into the world. If Mary had rejected the will of God, Christ would not have been born and there would be no salvation. Yet, she obeyed the will of God. This is what Co-Redemptrix means.

>>550999

>Who even likes the coredemptrix title?

St. Ireneus "causa salutis" do be precise, st. Mother Teresa, Christoph Schönborn, Jorge Medina Estévez, Ramon C. Arguelles, Joseph Danlami Bagobiri, Antonio Juan Baseotto and at least 7mln other faithful that signed the petition to make it a dogma.

>>551003

You accept that God can give you his grace through prayers of others and so do we.

>>551006

I don't pray to others, nor do I somehow hear prayers of others. Being the one who hears all prayers is part of the glory of God.

I can only otherwise communicate with other people that are physically present through physical means, because Jesus is the only one mediator to the Father, they aren't. Pretending to pray to others or directing prayer to them instead of the Lord is simply idolatry.

>>551009

So the issue is not if you can ask for prayers of others or if God can give you His grace through prayers of others, but if people in heaven can hear your prayers.

>I don't pray to others, nor do I somehow hear prayers of others.

Of course you can't, you're a human being and you're limited by your flesh. But saints in heaven are not limited by it.

Mt 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

So if people in heaven are as angels, then it would be reasonable to assume that they posses traits of angels.

"In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:10)

If angels were limited like we are, they wouldn't be able to rejoice over converted sinners - they wouldn't see or hear it.

So, if:

-saints in heaven are like angels

-angels are not limited by place and time as we are

Then there's no reason to assume saints aren't able to hear our prayers

>>550221

So did the Pharisees.

>>551016

They had no share in his suffering though, and made no assent to the will of God for their part in it. They did their own will, while Jesus and Mary did the will of the Father.

>>550871

>Recognizing that Adam brought sin to the world with Eve doesn't contradict Scripture

Doesn't it? When Paul comes round to the topic it goes

>Romans 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

No mention of a sinful or righteous woman, Eve and Mary were not on the short-list as agents of the fall or the redemption.

>>551026

>>Recognizing that Adam brought sin to the world with Eve doesn't contradict Scripture

>Doesn't it? When Paul comes round to the topic it goes

>>Romans 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

But that's exactly my point. Eve had her part in bringing sin into the world, because God punishes her for it:

>Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And yet st. Paul doesn't mention her in Romans. So if the fact the "one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" doesn't mean no one else was involved (and it doesn't, as we see in Genesis), then "by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" doesn't mean no one else was involved.

How long until the blessed Mary is referred as Sophia from the book of proverbs? Hopefully never for the sake of your peace, but knowing the Vatican and it's views on Mary…

>>550971

>To the extent that He suffered, His mother suffered as well

Her emotional suffering payed no debt.

>>550993

>Eve was punished with Adam, likewise Mary should be honoured with Jesus

The antonym of punish is not honor it's worth noting here that Jesus is to be honored as God, so thank you for finally admitting you worship her. Punishment is the result of condemnation, and so your argument is true, in that just as Eve was condemned with Adam, Mary was justified with Christ, just like every other believer.

>"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed"

The "woman", as the whole context implies, is Eve, not Mary. Christ is the seed of Eve because He is not the seed of Adam, He is not the seed of Adam because He is virgin born, and because He is not the seed of Adam He can save us, because He is not counted in Adam.

>>550194

>a warning for calling a heretic a pagan

Disgusting.

This is literal Mary worship. Judas played a role in Jesus' suffering, and he also suffered for it. Every apostle did as well. Jesus' bloodline did as well.

Anyone who believes that Mary is a "coredemptrix" is a LARPer. Repent.

>>551044

>implying papists will listen to reason

>>551033

>The antonym of punish is not honor

Your point being…?

>it's worth noting here that Jesus is to be honored as God, so thank you for finally admitting you worship her

But Mary is not to be honored exactly like Jesus, otherwise the OP would be "Have you accepted Mary as your queen and redemptrix?"

>The "woman", as the whole context implies, is Eve, not Mary. Christ is the seed of Eve because He is not the seed of Adam, He is not the seed of Adam because He is virgin born, and because He is not the seed of Adam He can save us, because He is not counted in Adam.

What the fuck are you talking about, unless Eve was giving birth without having sex with Adam, it's impossible to be the seed of Eve without being the seed of Adam.

>>551044

>Anyone who believes that Mary is a "coredemptrix" is a LARPer

Well fuck, I guess Irenaeus was LARPing when he called Mary "cause of our salvation".

>>551175

>Well fuck, I guess Irenaeus was LARPing >inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed , and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

What Irenaeus means, isn't what you think it means

>[man] become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary

>[Obedience to God so Jesus can come this world] become the cause of salvation, to herself

Irenaeus would've been anathematized by the Vatican for this.

>>551178

>And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (…), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

How is this not what I've been saying?

Eve is cause of death to the whole world which was ultimately done through Adam - so she is co-responsible for bringing sin into world.

Mary, new Eve, is cause of salvation to the whole world which was ultimately done through Jesus, new Adam - so she is co-responsible for redemption of the world. But somehow it doesn't make her a coredemptrix, because reasons.

>Irenaeus would've been anathematized by the Vatican for this

This in no way contradicts immaculate conception.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and IN VIEW OF THE MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful"

She was a cause of salvation to herself, because she was the cause of those merits in view of which she was preserved free from every stain of original sin.

>>550963

Mary played ABSOLUTELY NO role in our salvation.

Vade retro satana.

>>551288

that's not what it means bud...

>>550195

Which cunt?

>>550975

Well, by that logic, we're all God.

Guess the Hindus were right all along…

>>550195

>>550193

Is this really an orthodox position?

>>551363

(Small o)

>>550410

The sacrifice of Christ is the cause of salvation

>>551293

>tfw forgot the >

>tfw can't delete my post

>>551278

>It's a simple fact. You can curse in latin all you like, but you cannot change the truth.

>quoting Jesus is cursing

VADE RETRO SATANA

>>551175

>What the fuck are you talking about, unless Eve was giving birth without having sex with Adam, it's impossible to be the seed of Eve without being the seed of Adam

He isn't the seed of Adam because He has no father, this way He isn't a member of Adam's household and can be head of a new house. Read Romans 5

>>551216

>How is this not what I've been saying?

Because it means Mary only "saves" in the sense of putting Jesus in the circumstance to save. She doesn't do any saving or provide any grace in any way, in Irenaeus' thinking Mary saves just as much as Judas. So if you're going to entrust yourself to Mary as your coredemptrix you better put yourself at Judas' mercy as your coredeemer.

>>551365

As well as Justice of God, Glory of God, Eternal life etc etc.

But neither sacrifice, nor glory, nor justice, nor life are savior.

>>551376

>Judas played the same role as Mary

Nigga, you embarrass yourself.

>>551374

>Christ is not seed of Adam

>Christ is not consubstantial with human race

This is your brain on heresy

>>551278

>She was "blessed" for the very reason she describes herself as blessed: she was chosen by God to bear the Christ man-God.

Which means that she did play a role in our salvation and that's what I was responding to.

>Perhaps linking to your post might have been more useful than expecting others to do your work for you.

Perhaps you should have read the thread before posting. But there you go >>550291

>Secondly, you are mocking this fellow's >>550903 bold-text, I assume? If so, then you missed his point, and if you knew your Bible you would have picked up on it: it's a quote from Paul to Timothy in 1Tim 2:5

I know where it comes from, but every time I see it being used by protestants it's to "refute" intercession of the saints. Since no further explanation was given, I assumed it was an attempt to derail the thread, but went along with it.

>wherein Paul makes ((( 'abundantly ))) clear that we can rely on only one person for salvation: Christ

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I deny none of this. Is Mary God? No despite what you may say. Is Mary our saviour? No. Would Mary be able to save us? No. Did Mary need a saviour herself? Yes.

But

Did Mary, through her obedience, become the cause of salvation? Yes. Was Mary the new Eve? Yes. Was Eve the cause of damnation? Yes, because if she wasn't, she wouldn't be punished by God. Did sin enter the world through one man, Adam? Yes. Therefore saying that there is one saviour, Jesus and Mary had her part in that is not contradictory.

>>551363

I know of no anathema that would make it unorthodox, st. Mother Teresa held that position and none of the signers of the petition to make it a dogma was excommunicated, so it's not a heresy.

>>551374

>He isn't the seed of Adam because He has no father, this way He isn't a member of Adam's household and can be head of a new house. Read Romans 5

Romans 5 says no such thing, it says that through Adam we have death and through Jesus we have life.

Jesus is the seed of Adam in literal sense, because He's a human. Being of the seed of Eve in non-literal sense wouldn't help much, because Eve was also under penalty for commiting sin in Eden. Unless you imply that all women in themselves do not have curse of Adam on them.

Mary, of course, wasn't counted in Adam but it was because of immaculate conception, not because only males carry the curse.

>>551376

>Because it means Mary only "saves" in the sense of putting Jesus in the circumstance to save.

Just like Eve "only" put Adam in circumstance to sin and yet she was punished.

>She doesn't do any saving or provide any grace in any way

Of course she doesn't, how could she?

>in Irenaeus' thinking Mary saves just as much as Judas. So if you're going to entrust yourself to Mary as your coredemptrix you better put yourself at Judas' mercy as your coredeemer.

What.

"so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation"

"by yielding obedience"

That's the opposite what Judas did. That's the opposite of what EVERYONE involved did, except Mary. And guess what is the cause of our salvation? OBEDIENCE.

>For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

>>551423

I really wish you guys would stop even pretending this was a Biblical doctrine, and just admit the fact that this entire disagreement folds squarely back into the argument from different final authority.

Mine is Scripture only, yours is the Roman Catholic opinion: which is the only place one gets all this. You have no ground to stand on outside of that for half of what you are saying here. For instance, someone other than God being called "the cause of salvation" is from you only, not from anywhere in Scripture. And from your tradition which ye have delivered. That's why you identify yourself with and insert your pride into it so much, even to the point of diminishing Jesus to a less central role and one who is required to kneel at his mother's feet, all based on your need to one-up others. I've seen that said on here. Despite the fact that none of this is from the Bible and you know it. I feel bad for the falsehoods and damage being caused in the process of you "one-upping" us, and regularly accusation against the rest of us of hating Mary. Something which I personally have never seen except of the Talmud. It's not right. You will give account for your words.

>>551522

>Mine is my own interpretation of scripture only

Ftfy

How hard you try to deny it, if you take scripture as your sole authority it's your own interpretation of scripture that the final authority and not the bible itself.

if you take 2 sola scriptura people and give them a decent bible like the KJV, they'll both have a different interpretation yet both will claim the same authority.

Now tell me, how do you know when someone's interpretation is right?

If it's because he interprets some passages the same as you do, it's because you take yourself as a standard, making you the final authority.

If it's because you say the Holy Spirit works so that the bible is interpreted rightly then no one can trust you because 1) lots of people claim the Holy spirit and 2) it could very well be a demon (2 Corinthians 11:14; but then again you can interpret this verse otherwise).

If you want to go by the majority rule (the most used interpretation is the good one) then you won't end anywhere since you can already find hundreds of sola scriptura sects who differ on the core principles like the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist, the Nature of Christ, priesthood, salvation theology, worship, baptism, grace and whatnot.

If you also want to see how even the smallest detail of the bible is mostly interpreted then the possibilities are endless.

>>551411

>scripture is wrong

>Jesus had original sin

This is your brain on papism

>>551423

>it says that through Adam we have death and through Jesus we have life

And why is that? Because Adam is the federal head of a covenant and Jesus is the federal head of a covenant

>Being of the seed of Eve in non-literal sense wouldn't help much, because Eve was also under penalty for commiting sin in Eden

We didn't fall in Eve

>Mary, of course, wasn't counted in Adam but it was because of immaculate conception

She wasn't counted in Adam because she received the righteousness of Christ through faith. She was a sinner saved by grace like everybody else

>Just like Eve "only" put Adam in circumstance to sin and yet she was punished

She was punished in Adam. Likewise, Mary was justified in Christ.

>Of course she doesn't

Ok, good to know you reject the "coredemptrix" heresy

>That's the opposite what Judas did

I already explained, the reason why that makes her the cause of salvation is that by her obedience she placed Jesus in the circumstance to save us. Thus Judas is in like manner a cause of salvation because by his betrayal Jesus is able to save us.

>And guess what is the cause of our salvation? OBEDIENCE.

The obedience of JESUS

>>551527

>Now tell me, how do you know when someone's interpretation is right?

>If it's because you say the Holy Spirit works so that the bible is interpreted rightly then no one can trust you

Good thing they don't have to, and all saved who received the Holy Spirit will come to the same correct belief anyway. Whether or not I even say a single word.

>If you want to go by the majority rule

Catholics already go by a modified version of this. Relying on the historical record as most reliable instead of believing Scripture on its face.

Also,

>it could very well be a demon

Try telling that to John or to anyone who he truly said this to.

>But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

>lots of people claim the Holy spirit

Good thing the Holy Spirit indwells the invidivual directly, removing the need to believe anyone's claim on their word alone. John 14:16-17.

>>551524

>the Roman Catholic interpretation dates back to the early Christians

Could you show me this >>550292 in the early Christians, I'm having trouble finding it

>>551527

>How hard you try to deny it, if you take scripture as your sole authority it's your own interpretation of scripture that the final authority and not the bible itself.

I'm going to start by pointing out that of all the arguments used to attack sola scriptura, I have yet to see one consistent with Roman Catholic epistemology. None of them has the solution of "infallible magisterium" or "apostolic tradition". Though they are deceptively used to advocate those things, the only thing they really support is solipsism. You are arguing it is impossible for the final authority of belief to reside outside of the self. All epistemic authorities require interpretation to function, except those which are interior. As such your argumentation should be rejected a priori since it is contradictory to the Christian worldview at the most fundamental level; is God in charge, or man?

>if you take 2 sola scriptura people and give them a decent bible like the KJV, they'll both have a different interpretation

A distinction is required. Firstly, how do you know? It is possible for two people to reach the same conclusion on any given text. Secondly, of what? Having a difference of interpretation on whether the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is literal or merely allegorical can hardly be compared to a difference of interpretation on whether Jesus is God. Thirdly, in the most important issues, which are most clear, is it not more likely that the issue is with one of the people, who choose to reject the teaching of that scripture for one reason or another, rather than the problem being with scripture itself? Fourthly, this is inconsistent with reality. One thing that is very important to Christianity is the question of what Paul was even talking about. Over the past 500 years we have had two scholarly movements focused around Paul's epistles, the Protestant Reformation and the New Perspective on Paul. The reformers were unanimous as to what Paul's whole point was, and were often unanimous as to the meaning of any given Pauline text, whereas N.T. Wright has noted that "there are nearly as many new perspectives as there are 'new perspectivists'".

>Now tell me, how do you know when someone's interpretation is right?

According to the example of the faithful Bereans, search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so.

>you can already find hundreds of sola scriptura sects who differ on the core principles like the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist, the Nature of Christ, priesthood, salvation theology, worship, baptism, grace and whatnot.

Really? Can you really? I have often noticed that Romanists think the dichotomy is Rome vs everything from during and after the Reformation. It isn't. On whether the final authority is scripture alone or scripture plus something else the likes of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and nearly every other pseudo-Christian cult are on your side of the chasm, not ours.

>If you also want to see how even the smallest detail of the bible is mostly interpreted then the possibilities are endless

Sure, the possibilities are endless, but I'm not interested in the many pretzels any given scripture can be twisted into, I'm interested in what the author actually intended to communicate.

I have to go for a bit, so I'll just post these to respond in advance in case you're still gonna criticize this.

John meant what he said in the first epistle:

1 John 3:24

<And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

The anointing in 1 John 2:27 really is the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

<Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

The Comforter of John 14:16-17 is the Holy Spirit. And does specifically give the interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) and the understanding:

John 14:26

<But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13

<Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13

<Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

All persons who are saved receive Him, every single one:

Ephesians 1:13-14

<In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Acts 5:32

<And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Luke 11:13

>If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

1 Thess. 1:5

<For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

2 Corinthians 13:14

<The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

>>550193

No, I only follow Christ and not false gods.

>>551531

>This is your brain on papism

<Being human is equal to having original sin

<Adam and Eve were not humans

<original sin is not lack of original grace, a state that we are born with

Dude, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself

>And why is that? Because Adam is the federal head of a covenant and Jesus is the federal head of a covenant

And?

>We didn't fall in Eve

But she was nonetheless the cause of it.

"I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.

And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression."

Paul is clear about it.

"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die."

And prophet also.

>She wasn't counted in Adam because she received the righteousness of Christ through faith. She was a sinner saved by grace like everybody else

How could she been sinner if she was full of grace? Grace have no fellowship with sin.

And if you are so eager to point that all were sinners I presume you don't hold that Jesus is human. Oh wait you do.

>She was punished in Adam. Likewise, Mary was justified in Christ.

Though statement is true, your use of it is false.

>Ok, good to know you reject the "coredemptrix" heresy

Cause=/=Source

>I already explained, the reason why that makes her the cause of salvation is that by her obedience she placed Jesus in the circumstance to save us. Thus Judas is in like manner a cause of salvation because by his betrayal Jesus is able to save us.

You do know that sooner or later pharisees would condemn Christ? Moreover, they already did. Judas "only" sold where Jesus is.

Also by your reasoning Satan himself is cause of salvation. For without him there would not be need of salvation in the first place. Of course it completly ignores fact that God is not author of wickendeds and created nothing that he hates but I do not presume that you even read Scripture at all knowing that you spread such heresies as Apollinarianism.

>The obedience of JESUS

As well as his gory, justice etc etc.

>>551535

>Could you show me this >>550292 in the early Christians, I'm having trouble finding it

Rylands Papyrus P470 Egypt (250 ad)

Under thy compassion we take refuge, O Mother of God (Theotokos). Do not despise our petitions in the time of trouble, but from dangers ransom us, singularly holy, singularly blessed.

>>551537

>1 John 3:24

Post the whole verse

And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him.

>The anointing in 1 John 2:27 really is the Holy Ghost

Yes. But that does not mean that youunderstund what Spirt teaches. That's why Christ said:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

>2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Yes, baptism imprints in us character unbreakable. What's your point?

>2 Peter 1:20

But not to all in the same sense. It's literally in the Letter itself, verse before.

And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

"We" here is hierarchy. "You" here are body of Christians as whole.

"For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."

Also, 1 Corinthians 12:28-31

And of course, John 14:26 John 16:13 was said to twelve. And tweve recived this spirt, John 20.

>1 Corinthians 2:12-13

Literally says that not all teach, but apointed ones, like Paul. For we might' and not do.

>All persons who are saved receive Him, every single one:

But not all in the same way. One have ten talents, one have five etc.

>Ephesians 1:13-14

Literally says that not all teach, but apointed ones, like Paul. For we heard' and not preach.

>Acts 5:32

So those who disobey do not have Spirit anymore.

>Luke 11:13

But not in the same degree

>1 Thess. 1:5

Literally says that not all teach, but apointed ones, like Paul. For to us came and not from us.

>2 Corinthians 13:14

And sadly, many are deep in heresy like omnipopism.

>>551552

>you spread such heresies as Apollinarianism.

What?

>>551532

>If it's because you say the Holy Spirit works so that the bible is interpreted rightly then no one can trust you

<Good thing they don't have to, and all saved who received the Holy Spirit will come to the same correct belief anyway

So no one can know if they're saved or not because everybody has his own interpretation of scripture however small.

Say that we put you and 10 other people who adhere to sola fide and sola scriptura, you will all have another interpretation of the bible.

Now, since saved people received the Holy Spirit, and all 10 adhere to sola scriptura and sola fide yet have another interpretation of scripture, then who is certain of his salvation?

How would you know out of that bunch that you are saved (because you only need belief)?

>lots of people claim the Holy spirit

<Good thing the Holy Spirit indwells the invidivual directly, removing the need to believe anyone's claim on their word alone.

If they all have the Holy Spirit, how do one know if He works through him?

If he always works through him, then why do people have another interpretation of the bible?

>>551535

>the only thing they really support is solipsism.

How can a denomination that relies on centuries of interpretation of thousands of other people support solipsism, and a denomination that calls for self-interpretation not?

>if you take 2 sola scriptura people and give them a decent bible like the KJV, they'll both have a different interpretation

<Firstly, how do you know?

Because I've seen it everywhere.

My father's family side is evangelical, he has his own interpretation of what a good christian must do according to the bible, my uncles all have another say on that view however.

A roman catholic cousin of mine married another evangelical, she converted and now she too has her own interpretation than her husband.

>Secondly, of what?

>Having a difference of interpretation on whether the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is literal or merely allegorical can hardly be compared to a difference of interpretation on whether Jesus is God.

True, true, but even if we talk about the core values like soteriology, baptism, the Eucharist, saints, priesthood and whatnot we'll see lots of debate.

Soteriology alone has already spawned thousands of different sects.

You can also talk about the moral interpretation of Leviticus, which is also bound to make some people split.

>Thirdly, in the most important issues, which are most clear, is it not more likely that the issue is with one of the people, who choose to reject the teaching of that scripture for one reason or another, rather than the problem being with scripture itself?

At first glance one would say yes, but even things that are clear as water for us are twisted by protestants (like the Eucharist and salvation by faith alone). Heck back when I was a lukewarm protestant-catholic mix I could scripturally prove that extramarital sex is not a sin because hey my interpretation.

>Fourthly, this is inconsistent with reality.

>The reformers were unanimous as to what Paul's whole point was, and were often unanimous as to the meaning of any given Pauline text

Because they came together and/or kept contact and decided on it right there and then (sounds pretty much like the catholic way of interpretation doesn't it?) and look what has come of it, tens of thousands of different protestant sects in 500 years.

>According to the example of the faithful Bereans, search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so.

You tell me that you need to search scriptures daily (thus interpret it on your own) to see if someone else his interpretation of scripture is right?

It all just boils down to your interpretation versus his.

>you can already find hundreds of sola scriptura sects who differ on the core principles like the Holy Trinity, the Eucharist, the Nature of Christ, priesthood, salvation theology, worship, baptism, grace and whatnot.

<Really? Can you really?

Yes, I can find about a handful of non-named denominations on my father's side of the family only, I'm sure I can find a lot more.

>the likes of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and nearly every other pseudo-Christian cult are on your side of the chasm, not ours.

Mormonism came to being in a protestant majority country, Jehova's Witnesses are hyper-Calvinists.

Sounds more like your bunch.

>I'm interested in what the author actually intended to communicate.

So is everyone, yet everyone interprets it different, claims the same source as their authority and the Holy spirit as their guidance.

The reason why I became a catholic is that the fundamental sola scriptura question was never answered to me: how can I be sure that my interpretation is right, and how can I be sure that I'm not wrong?

>>551522

>I really wish you guys would stop even pretending this was a Biblical doctrine

So far I've been using only Bible and Irenaus's commentary of what it teaches. I've used a Church document once and it was to show the definition of immaculate conception.

>just admit the fact that this entire disagreement folds squarely back into the argument from different final authority

The catholic church doesn't consider coredemptrix to be an official teaching or heresy, so it's not an issue of authority in this case. But yes, the ultimate division and disagreement between catholics and protestants is the issue of authority.

>Mine is Scripture only, yours is the Roman Catholic opinion

More like: "Mine is my opinion on what the Scripture says, yours is the Church with its greatest theologians"

>>551531

>We didn't fall in Eve

So what if she also was under original sin? She wasn't pure, being of "her seed" is absolutely meaningless

>She was punished in Adam. Likewise, Mary was justified in Christ.

And she was the cause of this punishment, just like Mary was the cause of justification

>Ok, good to know you reject the "coredemptrix" heresy

Good to know that you don't remember what I've written here >>550291. You know, something about Mary not being saviour, nothing important

>I already explained, the reason why that makes her the cause of salvation is that by her obedience she placed Jesus in the circumstance to save us. Thus Judas is in like manner a cause of salvation because by his betrayal Jesus is able to save us.

The difference is that Mary by her own will accepted to be the part of the plan, while Judas did it unknowingly.

>The obedience of JESUS

Yes, but because we were saved through obedience, it means that Judas and his disobedience don't play a role in salvation and were a mere means to the end, just like cross. Mary however is an active participant, because was obedient.

>>551567

>How can a denomination that relies on centuries of interpretation of thousands of other people support solipsism

You seem to have misunderstood my point. It was not that you are solipsist, it was that your argument is for solipsism, and you are abusing it by using it to support Romanism instead. It's a major inconsistency, for one, since you have to interpret the magisterium just like I have to interpret the bible. It's just your personal interpretation, maybe Tim Kaine's interpretation is the right one, who are you to judge?

>Because I've seen it everywhere

So two men cannot reach the same conclusion as each other from the same text, because you have observed them having different conclusions twice? Or is it that, considering the subject of "what a good christian must do according to the bible", some people have overriding modern preconceptions?

>True, true, but even if we talk about the core values like soteriology, baptism, the Eucharist, saints, priesthood and whatnot we'll see lots of debate

Not really. Baptism, the Eucharist and the Ordo Salutis each only have a handful of perspectives. By "saints" and "priesthood" I'm guessing you mean the cult of the saints and the sacerdotal priesthood. Protestants are unanimously against both

>Soteriology alone has already spawned thousands of different sects

You should not be so bold to bear false witness. Name five sects which adhere to sola scriptura and teach contrary to sola fide

>You can also talk about the moral interpretation of Leviticus, which is also bound to make some people split

If someone looks at Leviticus 20:13 and interprets it to mean anything other than sodomy being strictly forbidden, they do not care what the bible says, they will only accept those parts of the bible which they already like. This falls under the "overriding presupposition" category. It doesn't mean we don't know what a text says, it means some people reject what it says, because they do not believe in sola scriptura.

>At first glance one would say yes, but even things that are clear as water for us are twisted by protestants (like the Eucharist and salvation by faith alone)

Those things are clear to you because your overriding presupposition tells you it has to be. I have observed that the hermeneutics employed by Roman Catholics to argue against sola fide are consistent with those used by Unitarians to argue against the deity of Christ.

>Heck back when I was a lukewarm protestant-catholic mix I could scripturally prove that extramarital sex is not a sin because hey my interpretation

No, my friend, you could not, what you could do is choose what you will and will not believe in the bible. And you still do that, you've just changed your overriding presupposition. That is why there are "so many" interpretations, because most people pick and choose what they will and will not believe.

>Because they came together and/or kept contact

You haven't studied the reformers very much at all

>decided on it

Nobody "decided" on it, they simply came to the bible and said "hey this is what it says let's just believe it".

>and look what has come of it, tens of thousands of different protestant sects in 500 years

The claim of tens of thousands of Protestant sects is nothing more than a boldfaced lie.

>You tell me that you need to search scriptures daily (thus interpret it on your own) to see if someone else his interpretation of scripture is right?

Yes. Compare their interpretation to the text. The Bereans didn't run to the rabbis to decide for them, they searched the scriptures daily. Were they wrong to do that?

>It all just boils down to your interpretation versus his

In some more difficult scriptures, sure. But in the majority of cases it's just a question of "Will I choose to believe this or will I choose to reject it?"

>>551572

>Yes, I can find about a handful of non-named denominations on my father's side of the family only, I'm sure I can find a lot more

The vast majority of non-denominational denominations teach some form of Reformation doctrine.

>Mormonism came to being in a protestant majority country

And Catharism came in a majority Catholic country, so what? What does their place of origin have to do with their rejection of sola scriptura, anon?

>Jehova's Witnesses are hyper-Calvinists

I don't think I could come up with a less accurate description if I tried

>Sounds more like your bunch

They both say one must be under the authority of an exterior body to understand scripture. A direct parallel to Rome (although the most knowledgable Catholics will say they cannot understand anything in scripture with the aid of tradition, they can only understand what it isn't).

>So is everyone

Men who hate God are not interested in submitting to His word. An Arian is not interested in what John intended to communicate in the first chapter of his Gospel, because what John intended to communicate directly contradicts what he believes.

>claims the same source as their authority

This is not a problem with the source. It's a problem with the men who twist it. When men twist scripture to mean something it doesn't, the solution isn't to find someone to tell you how to twist it, the solution is simply not to twist it.

>how can I be sure that my interpretation is right, and how can I be sure that I'm not wrong?

Here is how you can be sure. Do not treat scripture as some mystical, divine writing (though it is divine to be sure), but remember that it is very much a human book, and as such, interpret it with the same respect for the authors as you show any other man, including myself, and how you take my words as representative of what I believe, instead of finding a meaning to them more palatable to you.

>>551572

>So what if she also was under original sin? She wasn't pure, being of "her seed" is absolutely meaningless

The point is that she wouldn't the federal head of a covenant. That is what matters. Original sin is forensic, not ontological.

>And she was the cause of this punishment, just like Mary was the cause of justification

And in the exact same way, not as if Mary were a co-mediatrix of all graces

>Good to know that you don't remember what I've written here >>550291

I remember what was written here >>550292 and here >>550298

>The difference is that Mary by her own will accepted to be the part of the plan, while Judas did it unknowingly

What does it matter if they were willing, they effected salvation in the same way

>Yes, but because we were saved through obedience, it means that Judas and his disobedience don't play a role in salvation

We are saved by Mary's obedience in the same way we are saved by Judas' betrayal. You can't have just one, it's all or nothing.

>>551555

You deny that Jesus is truly human i.e. you say that he is not from Adam.

>>551594

>for one, since you have to interpret the magisterium just like I have to interpret the bible.

I do not have to interpret the magisterium, what they say is the interpretation.

>So two men cannot reach the same conclusion as each other from the same text, because you have observed them having different conclusions twice?

If by text you mean the entire bible then definitely no.

>Not really. Baptism, the Eucharist and the Ordo Salutis each only have a handful of perspectives.

Baptism: that saves/doesn't save, baptism as a requirement, pedobaptism

Eucharist: consubstantiation, transubstantiation, completely figurative

Ordo Salutis: as far as I understand comes down to sola fide or not, and you can bring calvinism into the equation too

Those three alone can create many different perspectives.

>You should not be so bold to bear false witness. Name five sects which adhere to sola scriptura and teach contrary to sola fide

Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism all have thousands of different sects that branched off of them, and lots of those have some extra details too (like you need to belong to their denomination, others have a kind of Andersonism which says that some people aren't saved despite sola fide, some say baptism needs to be done etc.).

>If someone looks at Leviticus 20:13 and interprets it to mean anything other than sodomy being strictly forbidden, they do not care what the bible says, they will only accept those parts of the bible which they already like

Even though this is very clear some argue against this one, and lots argue for even the ceremonial law.

Then now, who's interpretation is right?

>Those things are clear to you because your overriding presupposition tells you it has to be.

More like Jesus stressing a few times on it really being His Flesh and Blood but ok.

>I have observed that the hermeneutics employed by Roman Catholics to argue against sola fide are consistent with those used by Unitarians to argue against the deity of Christ.

You mean that unitarians go back to the early Church fathers too?

>No, my friend, you could not, what you could do is choose what you will and will not believe in the bible.

Oh no I definitely could, and it's all a matter of interpretation.

>And you still do that, you've just changed your overriding presupposition

What might this so called 'overriding presupposition' of mine be then?

I could say the same about you too about sola fide and the Eucharist.

>You haven't studied the reformers very much at all

So the Augsburg Confessions were made by the representatives of lutheranism coincidentally having the exact same arguments without any form of discussion beforehand?

The Book of Concord was made without any debate either I suppose?

>Nobody "decided" on it, they simply came to the bible and said "hey this is what it says let's just believe it".

Yeah sure, that's why all the reformers believed the same and definitely no sects were spawned because of differing opinions.

>The claim of tens of thousands of Protestant sects is nothing more than a boldfaced lie.

I'd have believed you if only my family didn't invent 5 extra denominations to add to this list.

>Yes. Compare their interpretation to the text.

This is literally comparing someone interpretation with yours.

>The Bereans didn't run to the rabbis to decide for them, they searched the scriptures daily. Were they wrong to do that?

What they did was listen to Paul and Silas preach the Gospel, and the Bereans checked the scriptures if these were true.

Nothing whatsoever about someone's interpretation of scripture against someone else his.

>In some more difficult scriptures, sure. But in the majority of cases it's just a question of "Will I choose to believe this or will I choose to reject it?"

Definitely not.

Our whole discussion is a testimony on how even the easiest verses that were interpreted the same for 1,5 millennia could get interpreted differently.

>>551602

Everything I said went right over your head, didn't it

>>551604

>I do not have to interpret the magisterium, what they say is the interpretation

What you have is your interpretation of the interpretation. Try as you might, you cannot escape this fact; you must interpret your epistemic authority.

>as far as I understand comes down to sola fide or no

Then you don't understand it

>Those three alone can create many different perspectives

Of the first one you named three different disputes each of which are binary, i.e. they each of only two possible positons. Of the second, you named three perspectives on real presence. Of the third, you don't understand what it means.

>Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism all have thousands of different sects that branched off of them

Can you name them?

>Then now, who's interpretation is right?

Well, anon, you tell me. Your church has not spoken on that verse, or any verse relevant to that sin, so you are bound to believe the sodomite interpretation might be correct and that sodomy may be fine and that a pope may make an ex cathedra statement saying so.

>You mean that unitarians go back to the early Church fathers too?

Unitarians and Roman Catholics will apply the same hermeneutics on the issues which they dispute with us. They will both treat those scriptures in a way they would not treat any other thing, because they must maintain their self-deception that they care what scripture teaches. If you only believe scripture when it agrees with you, then it isn't the bible you believe, but your own opinion.

>Oh no I definitely could

You could certainly twist scripture into a knot (as you must now, too) but you could not make God's word permitting of that which it forbids. Keep in mind that God is listening, and when you say that you are calling God a liar.

>What might this so called 'overriding presupposition' of mine be then?

Roman Catholicism. You will not allow any bible verse to contradict the dogmatic decrees of the Catholic Church, regardless of how clear it is.

>I could say the same about you too about sola fide and the Eucharist

I don't care what you could say. The difference is that what I said is true. This latent Postmodernism I keep encountering from you papists is most annoying.

>So the Augsburg Confessions were made by the representatives of lutheranism

The Confession (singular) has a single author

>The Book of Concord was made without any debate either I suppose?

Do you not understand the difference between a few men coming together to produce a subordinate standard and John Calvin coming to the same conclusions as Martin Luther without having read or spoken to Luther?

>Yeah sure, that's why all the reformers believed the same and definitely no sects were spawned because of differing opinions

I would like you to find me two Protestant Reformers who disagreed with each other on one of the key issues of the Reformation, that is, on the topic of Soteriology where one agreed with Rome whereas the rest disagreed.

>I'd have believed you if only my family didn't invent 5 extra denominations to add to this list

I will again remind you that God is listening. Do not bear false witness again. If you try to find some way to make this sentence remotely truthful, remember that equivocation is false witness.

>This is literally comparing someone interpretation with yours

My interpretation is not the text. Despite your Gnostic belief, the bible is not a magic book which only the spiritual caste can understand.

>What they did was listen to Paul and Silas preach the Gospel, and the Bereans checked the scriptures if these were true

And were they wrong to do that? If they were not wrong to test the apostles themselves by scripture, how am I wrong to test the church of Rome by the same standard?

>Definitely not

Empty words that contribute nothing

>Our whole discussion is a testimony on how even the easiest verses that were interpreted the same for 1,5 millennia could get interpreted differently

Our whole discussion is a testament to the atheistic nature of Roman Catholic argumentation, since it involves the exact same irrational, stiffnecked skepticism.

Why did you ignore the rest of my response?

>>551613

You said: "He isn't the seed of Adam because He has no father, this way He isn't a member of Adam's household and can be head of a new house. "

THis is denail of Jesus being truly human, for Adam is father of human race. Jesus is Adamite for his Mother was Adamite. Luke is clear about it in gospel. You are Apollinarianist in some way.

>>551552

>Yes. But that does not mean that youunderstund what Spirt teaches.

Oh, so John 16:13 is wrong then? Wow.

>Literally says that not all teach, but apointed ones, like Paul.

Actually, it says that the Holy Ghost teaches there.

>But not in the same degree

You are nullifying the word of God. Saying parts of Scripture mean nothing. If you think God gave the Spirit of truth in such a small degree that they never understand anything, why would He even say all these things. You are nullifying it. Also who said anything about the gift of teaching, I'm talking about being able to understand the truth from Scripture directly from God, not about ability to teach it to others.

>Post the whole verse

You didn't post the whole verse either.

>>551567

>So no one can know if they're saved or not because everybody has his own interpretation of scripture however small.

Not everybody, because some people have been saved and received the Holy Spirit and so they have been given His interpretation.

>you will all have another interpretation of the bible.

You can't know this, because the Spirit exists, and there are two things inaccurate about this statement. First of all, the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth. We are still fallible human beings, but God still uses his elect to witness the Gospel, Acts 5:32.

Second of all, someone who doesn't receive this will have their private interpretation, regardless. So then, it depends on whether or not they have been guided to truth by the Holy Spirit already or not. You can't say this statement, because the Spirit exists.

>Now, since saved people received the Holy Spirit, and all 10 adhere to sola scriptura and sola fide yet have another interpretation of scripture,

False.

>then who is certain of his salvation?

Whoever is saved, because they believe with certainty the word of God. Hebrews 6:17-19.

>How would you know out of that bunch that you are saved (because you only need belief)?

Because I still have the word of God.

>If they all have the Holy Spirit, how do one know if He works through him?

Because the word of God is true.

>why do people have another interpretation of the bible?

Depends. Either fallibility or in a case like Judas, it was made manifest they were not of us. 1 John 2:19. And yes, I'm fallible also, but the word speaks louder.

>calls for self-interpretation

It's the Holy Ghost interpreting. Otherwise, no understanding.

>You tell me that you need to search scriptures daily (thus interpret it on your own)

False.

>So is everyone, yet everyone interprets it different, claims the same source as their authority and the Holy spirit as their guidance.

First off, not all people are what they say they are. But God's word can be trusted. Secondly, very few people actually claim to know because of the Holy Spirit or even understand that doctrine at all. I never hear it mentioned from people with weird interpretations. Not surprising.

>>551572

>So far I've been using only Bible and Irenaus's commentary of what it teaches.

And also yourself just saying things with no reference whatsoever. Don't forget that part, as that's what I've been talking about.

>>551750

>Oh, so John 16:13 is wrong then? Wow.

Again, it was to twelve.

>Actually, it says that the Holy Ghost teaches there.

In each of it it says that teaching authority (apostles, bishops, presbyters etc) teaches.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31

>You are nullifying the word of God.

I could say the same about you.

> Saying parts of Scripture mean nothing.

It means all but Scripture cannot deny Scripture and Scripture is clear that not all are teachers.

> If you think God gave the Spirit of truth in such a small degree that they never understand anything, why would He even say all these things.

I am saying that God gave spirit of truth but not too all. For there are instructors, there are doctors etc. Are al ldoctros? Are all instructors? No.

>You are nullifying it.

I could say the same thing about you.

>Also who said anything about the gift of teaching, I'm talking about being able to understand the truth from Scripture directly from God, not about ability to teach it to others.

The very existence of gift of teaching implies that it is necessary for God's works are wise and perfect. And thus it implies that someone must be teached. And fact that this gift is rare implies hat majority does not have it. Are all instructors? No. Are those who are not instructors need instructors? Yes. And the very existence of apostolic letters prove it.

>You didn't post the whole verse either.

1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

I just added to what you omitted.

>>551753

>In each of it it says that teaching authority (apostles, bishops, presbyters etc) teaches.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

>It means all but Scripture cannot deny Scripture and Scripture is clear that not all are teachers.

Again, receiving the Spirit of truth is not the same as having the gift of teaching. It is the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, which has shined in our hearts.

>I am saying that God gave spirit of truth but not too all.

The Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit by the way. John 15:26. So please tell me why this passage exists:

Luke 11:9-13

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Acts 11:15-17

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

>I just added to what you omitted.

Alright, so now you see where it says "we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."

>>551758

>1 Corinthians 2:9-13

And? Spirit indwells in all that have grace. Does he give all his gifts to all?

Also, notice last verse you posted:

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Which things - i.e. mysteries and divine truths

we speak - apostles (even when we speak to the more perfect sort of men) deliver

not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth - not in the fine language, studied periods and sentences arranged by the art of rhetoric, but

but which the Holy Ghost teacheth - that is, as the Spirit of God within us teacheth us for the good of those that hear us.

Comparing spiritual things with spiritual - that is, treating of spiritual things with persons that are more spiritual and more perfect, adapting our discourses to the capacity of those we speak to. Others will have the sense to be: we compare spiritual things with spiritual things, that is, we treat of such matters after a spiritual manner, with proofs and examples out of the revealed Scriptures

St. Paul seems in this place to answer an objection that might be brought against him. If, as you say, you are gifted with a knowledge of mysteries, who do you not reveal those mysteries to us? To this he seems to answer, because to spiritual persons, we impart spiritual knowledge

>Again, receiving the Spirit of truth is not the same as having the gift of teaching. It is the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, which has shined in our hearts.

And if thou have not gift of teaching then you cannot teach. And if you cannot teach you cannot presume that your interpretation is true one

>The Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit by the way. John 15:26. So please tell me why this passage exists:

One is Spirit but many aspects of it and many gifts. For the same Spirit that is Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Sanctification, Spirit of Peace, Spirit of Meekness, Of understunding, prophecy, tonages. Are all speak tonages? Are all heall? Are all interpretors? Not. Are all saints have but one spirit though? Yes they have.

>Luke 11:9-13

If one asks for spirit of understanding and interpretation in humbleness of heart, if it is according to God will, he will grant it. But if it nos according to God will he will not. Is spirt of interpreatation neccesarry to all? No, for we are many members in one body.

>Acts 11:15-17

I don't remember them being interpretors or teachers. But I rember Peter being one in here.

>Alright, so now you see where it says "we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."

And I see that he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him.

So I can already throw out someone out of possible teachers someone who denies that works are salvific in any sense or those who say that salvation is once closed deal.

>>551779

>To this he seems to answer, because to spiritual persons, we impart spiritual knowledge

To spiritual persons, the Holy Ghost imparts spiritual knowledge.

It literally says the words "which the Holy Ghost teacheth" so I don't know how you could miss this.

>you cannot presume that your interpretation

And yet not mine, but the Spirit that lives in us; which is the earnest of our inheritance, and the anointing according to 1 John 2:27; wherein we have been sealed until the day of redemption, according to the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

>And I see that he that keepeth his commandments,

John 6:40

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

>>551647

>THis is denail of Jesus being truly human

So that's a yes, that did go completely over your head?

>>551294

>Which cunt?

Saw this without context and became triggered.

>>552091

>Christ never spoke in Latin

Did I say he did? And how do you know he never spoke it?

>>551918

what did they mean by this?

>As a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestatism, I found this book to be very helpful. I believe it would be the same for Roman Catholic converts as well. St. John takes a very balanced approach that I believe is the truth. The Protestants completely neglect Mary, the Theotokos, while Roman Catholics can elevate her too high as a co-redeemer with an immaculate conception. I would definitely recommend this to converts, people who are inquiring into the Orthodox faith, or someone who simply wishes to understand why the Orthodox display such reverence for the Mother of God.

>>551794

>To spiritual persons, the Holy Ghost imparts spiritual knowledge. It literally says the words "which the Holy Ghost teacheth" so I don't know how you could miss this.

Existence of final cause does not deny the instrumental cause.

To put in analogy: When I play trombone, can we truthly say two fallowings:

>I create music

>Trombone makes music

Yes we can assure both. For even though I create the music (final cause) it does not change the fact that I do it through trombone and thus trombone also makes it (instrumental cause).

Paul and rest of magistrium, is intrument of One Teacher, God. And likewise they are teachers.

>And yet not mine, but the Spirit that lives in us; which is the earnest of our inheritance, and the anointing according to 1 John 2:27; wherein we have been sealed until the day of redemption, according to the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

And yet you interpret the very passage here to claim that possession of Spirit is equal with gift of interpretation.

>John 6:40

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication.

Or better yet

John 6:57

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

John 15:5

I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

1 John 2:10

He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and there is no scandal in him.

1 John 4:16

And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.

>>551914

Answer me yes or not: Do you deny that Christ is seed of Adam?

>>552091

>Christ never spoke in Latin

Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke with him. If Mark, under Peter, spoke Latin which is evident from his Gospel, why Jesus could not? Plus Latin was sanctified by Cross.

Not to mention that Christ spoke badger as well, he is God

>>552266

>I create the music (final cause)

That isn't the final cause. How do you not know something as basic as Aristotelian causation? What you're describing isn't the final cause, it's the efficient cause.

>Do you deny that Christ is seed of Adam?

Federally, yes. Physically, no.

>Pilate spoke Latin

He was actually probably speaking Greek

>>553178

more like different sides of a coin