Follow
One of the most prevalent and visible forms of devotion among Roman Catholics is their veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Such attributes are assigned to her, and so many accolades poured out upon her by Roman Catholicism, that the veneration paid to her appears to outsiders to be nothing less than worship. Roman Catholic apologist, Fr. William G. Most, answers these charges with the theological equivalent of “This is not what it looks like.” A summary of his reasoning comes from his tract, Devotion To Our Lady And The Saints:
Do Catholics worship her? Protestants often claim that. But let us examine the command of Our Lord: ‘Judge Not.’ We distinguish two things:
a) The objective rating of an action, e.g., murder, is gravely sinful. We can say this independently of the interior dispositions of anyone who does it. If I see someone put a gun to another’s head and pull the trigger, it is not ‘judging’ to say I saw murder.
b) The interior dispositions of the sinner—here we must not judge, for at least in general, we cannot know much if anything of the interior. It is to this that the Gospel command applies.Therefore: as to Marian devotion: a) the forms it takes, asking her to intercede with her Son, lighting candles etc.—these are not in themselves worship.
Fr. Most’s attempt to deflect criticism by claiming that “murder” is objective, but “worship” is subjective and cannot be evaluated objectively, is a false dilemma. Worshiping idols is as objectively wrong as murder. The commandment in the Scripture identifies visible exterior actions that go along with idolatrous worship—namely, making graven images, and bowing down to and serving them—and those visible external actions are just as forbidden as murder:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them… (Exodus 20:3-5)
If we cannot name idolatry when we see it, who are we to judge the “interior dispositions” of the murderer? In his mind, he was just engaging in selective reduction, culling, resource management or population and climate control. Who are we to judge his “interior disposition”? Therefore, Most’s appeal to the interior disposition of the worshiper is simply a red herring. To make the point, let us take Most’s words and apply the Scriptural prohibition: “Bowing down and serving images, is gravely sinful. We can say this independently of the interior dispositions of anyone who does it. …it is not ‘judging’ to say I saw idolatry.” Even the Roman Catholic Catechism extolls the virtue of martyrs who would not even go through the motions of idolatry, “refusing even to simulate such worship,” irrespective of interior dispositions (paragraph 2113). If idolatry is only present when the “interior disposition” is also present, then the martyrs died in vain.
We suspect that Fr. Most would disagree with our assessment, because Roman Catholics ostensibly have three levels of veneration, only one of which is used for Mary. As long as Roman Catholics can maintain that distinction in their minds, no idolatry takes place. So they say.
Dulia, a Greek word signifying honor and veneration, is reserved for the saints. Latria, the Greek word for worship, is reserved for God. Between Dulia and Latria, there exists a form of veneration that is reserved for Mary alone, and that veneration is called Hyperdulia, or literally “hyperveneration.” According to the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, hyperveneration is reserved for “the Blessed Virgin.” It ought to be sufficient, therefore, for Roman Catholics to dismiss all criticism by offering up these three terms. “We don’t worship Mary,” they should say. “We merely hypervenerate her. It is more than the dulia we give to the other saints, but it is less than latria, which is of course reserved for God alone. We are very good at maintaining the distinctions between them.”
What makes such a response implausible is that English translations of papal statements on Mary (as recently as 2023) use the word “worship” where hyperveneration ought to have been used. For example, Pius XII’s papal encyclical, Fulgens Corona, uses “worship” repeatedly to describe Roman Catholic veneration of Mary:
“…there is nothing ‘more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin.’ … But where—as is the case in almost all dioceses, there exists a church in which the Virgin Mother of God is worshipped with more intense devotion, thither on stated days let pilgrims flock together in great numbers and publicly and in the open give glorious expression to their common Faith and their common love toward the Virgin Most Holy. … But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion.” (Pius XII, Fulgens Corona, September 8, 1953, paragraphs 18, 33 & 34)
To get to the bottom of Rome’s veneration, we really ought to look at the Latin version of the text, and the Latin version uses various conjugations of the infinitive colere, “to worship”:
“…dulcius, nihil carius, quam ferventissimo affectu Deiparam Virginem absque labe originali conceptam ubique colere, venerari, invocare et praedicare … Ubi vero — quod in omnibus fere Dioecesibus contingit — sacrum exstat templum, in quo Deipara Virgo impensiore pietate colitur, illuc statis per annum diebus…. Omnium autem in exemplum praecedat haec alma Urbs, quae inde ab antiquissima christiani nominis aetate caelestem Matrem ac Patronam suam peculiari religione coluit.”
Roman Catholic apologists may object to us rendering colere as “worship,” but we remind them that this is their translation, not ours. If it is hyperveneration that is intended by colere, then the translators at the Vatican, whose primary language is presumably Latin, ought to know better. Perhaps the Latin Vulgate can be of some help. At Exodus 20:5, when forbidding idolatry, the Vulgate implores us, “Non adorabis ea neque coles,” that is, “Thou shalt not adore [false gods], nor serve them,” thus distinguishing between “adoration” and “service.” But this does not help, for coles is just as forbidden as adorabis in Exodus 20:5, and what is forbidden there is what Pius XII apparently prescribed to his flock.
It is indeed a difficult task for us to distinguish between latria, hyperveneration and dulia when the Pope dismisses with these precise categories and implores us to worship, venerate, invoke and praise Mary with ardent affection, with intense and special devotion. How can Rome possibly squeeze all this in between latria and dulia? Hyperdulia, if that is what Pius XII meant, seems to leave little room for either latria at one end of the spectrum, or dulia at the other.
In light of this, we receive with considerable skepticism the objection of another Roman Catholic apologist, Keith Fournier. He says that we (and apparently the translators at the Vatican) have this all wrong:
“Catholics only worship and pray to the Creator, not to creatures. It is in this context that one has to understand the role of Mary in Catholic theology.” (Keith Fournier, “What Protestants Should Know About Catholics” Charisma & Christian Life (July 1995))
We are puzzled by Fournier’s grouping of “worship” and “prayer” into the same denial. Clearly Roman Catholics pray to Mary, as Pius XII implored them to do, asking that “fervent prayers be offered throughout the world to the most powerful Mother of God.” And as we read in the same encyclical, Pius XII implored us to worship her, too, using the very word colere. Perhaps another apologist, Fr. Mateo, can be of some help.
Fr. Mateo offers the same objection that Fr. Most did, insisting that we stop saying that Roman Catholics worship Mary, when they so emphatically deny the charge. To take the Roman Catholic denial of idolatry at anything less than face value, he says, is uncharitable and just plain “bad manners.” He even offers a definition of idolatry, which will be of some use to us:
“If someone says, ‘I do not consider Mary, the saints, and the angels to be gods or goddesses, nor do I treat them as such,’ then he doesn’t. You ought to believe him. To insist, in the face of his denial, that he does regard these creatures as gods is not only the sin of rash judgment (Luke 6:37, Rom. 14:4, 1 Cor. 4:3-4) and a grave failure in Christian charity, but it is a deficiency in ordinary common sense. It is bad use of Scripture, bad theology, bad Church history, and bad manners. …what is idolatry? Paul describes it as bartering or exchanging the true, glorious, and immortal God for a lie, paying latria (he uses the very word) to a creature rather than to the Creator (Rom. 1:23, 25). Catholics do no such thing.” (This Rock Magazine, January 1993 edition, “CRI’s Attack on Mary, Part VI,” pg. 18, written by “Father Mateo”, parentheses in original)
This is helpful, as it gets us back to the text of Scripture to define what idolatry is: paying latria to creatures. Fr. Mateo is citing the Greek version of the text, but we shall do one better. The Council of Trent (Session 4, April 8, 1546), as Fr. Mateo must certainly be aware, made the Vulgate the official bible translation of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore it must be “held as authentic.” We will therefore cite Rome’s authoritative version, and get an even clearer definition from Romans 1:25:
Latin: “qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori qui est benedictus in saecula amen” (Romans 1:25)
English: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Our attentive readers will notice that in the Latin, coluerunt—past tense of colere—is rendered “worshiped,” thus distinguishing it from “served.” Fr. Mateo’s definition of idolatry, and his strident objections to the charge, relied on “the very word” Paul used in Romans 1:25. We therefore have no reservations about using the Latin Vulgate to see if his defense holds up. As Fr. Mateo said, idolatry only occurs when colere (worship) is offered to creatures and “Catholics do no such thing.” We will cite his definition again, now using the authoritative Latin Vulgate:
“…what is idolatry? Paul describes it as bartering or exchanging the true, glorious, and immortal God for a lie, paying colere (he uses the very word) to a creature rather than to the Creator (Rom. 1:23, 25). Catholics do no such thing.”
Well, one thing is for sure: Pius XII insisted that Roman Catholics offer colere to Mary, and Fr. Mateo thinks it is idolatry to offer colere to Mary. We are glad at least one Roman Catholic apologist agrees with us. We suspect, of course, that Fr. Mateo would change his tune if he had accessed the Vulgate before offering such a definition. As Pius XII’s encyclical makes clear, Roman Catholics offer to Mary what Moses forbade in Exodus 20:5 and what Paul forbade in Romans 1:25. We suspect the translators in the Vatican knew what they were doing after all. Colere means “to worship.”
What is clear in all this is that there is such a soft boundary between hyperdulia and latria that it is truly hard to determine when one ends and the other begins. We doubt the Roman Catholic laity is sufficiently sophisticated to know that when they offer colere to Mary it is not colere the way Paul describes it in Romans 1:25, but when they offer colere to God, it is not merely colere the way Moses used it in Exodus 20:5. With such a nuanced theology of worship, how can the laity know how much is too much to offer to Mary, and too little to offer to God? Surely God is worthy of more than hyperdulia, and one would not want to make the mistake of offering Him less than He deserves. But Mary is said to be worthy of more than dulia, and one would not want to make the mistake of offering her less than she ostensibly deserves. The same applies in the other direction: we want neither to offer hyperdulia to saints, nor latria to Mary.
But as we can see, even Roman Catholic priests and apologists have a hard time distinguishing between hyperdulia and latria, even as they strenuously insist that they are two different things. The laypeople don’t stand a chance. This boundary problem—between dulia and hyperdulia on the one hand, and between hyperdulia and latria on the other—was exacerbated by Pope Paul VI at Vatican II. He offered no plain definition of dulia, hyperdulia and latria, yet insisted that Roman Catholics offer neither too much, nor too little, of it to the intended recipients:
“…in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. …On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.” (Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, 51)
This is the problem with the hyperdulia-latria boundary. So long as Roman Catholics can maintain the proper distinction in their minds, no idolatry takes place—but that distinction is as imperceptible to the clergy as it is to the laity. This is why Paul VI had to acknowledge that “abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there,” but was cautious in his admonition, lest the laity reduce their adoration to levels that are below what is seemly. That is symptomatic of a much larger problem. Clearly, Pope Paul VI, Fr. Mateo, Fr. Most and Keith Fournier need some help, and that help will come in the form of an actual definition of latria and idolatry.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a working definition of both, so that Roman Catholics can not only know not to offer latria Mary, but can also know that they are idolaters if they do. Under “worship” in the Catechism, these two paragraphs are provided:
“Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love.” (paragraph 2096)
“To adore God is to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the ‘nothingness of the creature’ who would not exist but for God.” (paragraph 2097)
Under “idolatry” these definitions are provided:
“Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God…” (paragraph 2113)
“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who “transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.” (paragraph 2114)
With these definitions, we can now proceed into an informed, rational discussion on latria and idolatry. We therefore return to Fr. Most’s original question, now substituting the Catechism’s definition for idolatry, and therefore objectively rephrasing Most’s question, “Do Catholics worship her?”:
“Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as the Lord and Master of everything that exists? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge her as infinite in Mercy and Love? In their veneration of Mary do Roman Catholics acknowledge in respect and absolute submission, the ‘nothingness of the creature,’ who would not exist but for her? Do Roman Catholics acknowledge Mary as creator and savior? Do Roman Catholics divinize Mary, and transfer to Mary what belongs to God?”
Now that we have objectively quantified the nature of worship and idolatry, next week we will answer Fr. Most’s question.
Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e. relocate – GB] if he could… If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. Then let him worship God in private (at home – ed.), praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate. – John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press, “A Short Treatise,” pp. 93-94
“If they will still cry that we are schismatics and apostates, because we refuse to defile ourselves with their abominations, we cannot but appeal from their corrupt sentence to the uncorrupt Judge, of whose favors we are assuredly persuaded in that point; because he has said, ‘Follow not the multitude in evil doing’. Ex. 23:2.” – John Knox, Works
“Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” – Colossians 2:23, KJV
“All human inventions which are set up to corrupt the simple purity of the Word of God, and to undo the worship which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, in which the Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God, and trampling his honour underfoot.” – John Calvin
“… by all which, you see where the idolatry of worship lies. The instituting of any, though the smallest part of worship, in and by our own authority, without scripture-warrant, makes it idolatrous, as well as if we worshipped an idol” (Ex: 20:5). – The Works of John Flavel, Vol. 4, p. 527
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” – Matthew 15:9, KJV
“The Regulative Principle of Worship declares that God alone is sovereign in worship. The Regulative Principle of Worship simply applies the principles of Calvinism (i.e. God’s sovereign Lordship) to worship, whereas the view that what God doesn’t forbid in worship is permitted is applying the principles of Arminianism (i.e. man’s sovereign lordship) to worship. Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”), so fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in worship (“I can cooperate with God in worship by adding what I desire so long as God doesn’t specifically forbid it”). But just as God condemns a man-centered salvation, so God condemns a man-centered worship (Col. 2:23 specifically condemns all will-worship, i.e. all worship instituted by man).” – Greg Price, Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 10
Huh? Who are you directing this nonsense at Walt? Me?
No?
Why in thunder would you quote Calvin and Knox to me? I am the good guy remember? It’s me, Jim. I am the the one wearing the white hat on this blog, fighting villains like Knox ( a gelatin ) Calvin ( a weird fashion designer ) and Sturgeon ( a hideous bottom fish ).
Walt, you never say anything in your own words.
Tim, 7 types of sacraments, 5 types of grace, 26 things you have to do in RCIA to be justified and admitted to the church as an Adult, 3 types of veneration, 2 types of sin, 2 types of punishment. The Roman treadmill of works righteousness and idolatry. Twisted rubbish piled high to keep men from heaven. And the abomination of desolation from which rome will never repent, the work of the mass, the re breaking of the Lord’s body to merit extra righteousness. But what they will continue to tell us Tim are the same objections to protect the church they worship. 1. “You don’t understand our doctrine” 2. “We believe grace is free, we don’t merit salvation.” 3.” We don’t worship Mary.” Right. Whatever claim to infallibility and denial, they will stand before the judgment seat for their false gospel, mass, bread worship, and Mary worship.
Reminds of the secret code Catholic song of Partridge in a Pear Tree so the Prots wouldn’t understand.
Tim, 7 types of sacraments, 5 types of grace, 26 things you have to do in RCIA to be justified and admitted to the church as an Adult, 3 types of veneration, 2 types of sin, 2 types of punishment. 6 swans a swimming, 5 golden rings, 4 calling birds, 3 french hens…
Walt, great quotes. As Spurgeon so aptly put it, ” they piled the rubbish high and Luther took a ciccl to it” J.C. Ryle ” Roman Catholicism is one giant system of church worship, sacrament worship, Priest worship, Mary worship, Saint worship, relic worship.
Kevin,
Ciccle?
Priest worship? That’s a first. Walt gives Scottish worship.
You give MacArthur worship. And Sturgeon worship. ( You know, spurgeons eat garbage off the bottom of rivers.)
Walt, yes and Eric W used to say the same thing here, that Romanism is will worship.
Tim, Mary, a model Christian woman would be so embarrassed and upset with the Roman worship and caricature of her. She would detest these prayers to her if she could hear them, but she can’t because Mary hasn’t heard a prayer since the day she died. It would greave her to take anything away from her Lord. She was a faithful servant and humble slave of her Master, calling Him her Lord and savior. Forgive them Lord they know not what they do.
Kelvin,
“Tim, Mary, a model Christian woman would be so embarrassed and upset with the Roman worship and caricature of her”
Why don’t you ask her.
Tim,Te-he Te he! Tim, you are so funny. Istarted reading the first couple of paragraphs and must comment. Father Most is not an apologist. He wasn’t an apologist even when he was alive.
Your murder thing is hilarious. When a person is arrested and charged with murder, the onus is on the accused to bring forth mitigating circumstances to deflect the charge of murder.
Remember Joe Friday? “Just the facts Mam”. The cops just want facts. They don’t look for subjective anything.
Let me get back to your funny story.
Jim, you wrote,
Do I understand then that you disagree with William Most when he says “If I see someone put a gun to another’s head and pull the trigger, it is not ‘judging’ to say I saw murder”? Clearly, he is judging something. Or is it rather that Roman apologists are equipped to evaluate the interior dispositions of sinners, but Protestant apologists are not? I’m not sure what your point is here.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
” So long as Roman Catholics can maintain the proper distinction in their minds, no idolatry takes place…”
You just said it all Tim. The next time you see someone slaughter a goat or lamb as a sacrifice to Mary, then you will have made your case. Until then, chill out.
Tim,
“We doubt the Roman Catholic laity is sufficiently sophisticated”
That’s why we need Kevin Falloni to advise us.
YOU SLAY ME TIM! Ha!
Tim,
Seriously now. As you say, we cannot ell by looking if a person is praying, day dreaming, or what.
Tim, Catholic veneration of Mary has its own built in checks.
Look at the image of our Lady of Guadalupe. Goddess? Look again Tim. ( Psssst! her hands Tim, her hands! )
Our Lady of Lourdes. Goddess? Is she worshiped? How did she pray with Bernadette? ( She said the Glory be )
Fatima? What did she say? ( She didn’t say, ” I wish to establish devotion to my Immaculate heart )
I don’t think it is even possible for a Catholic to be confused. Non-Catholics, maybe hindus, yes. But even they may not be all that confused as even polytheist when dying usually cry out for God in the singular. But Catholics are theists Tim. A theist would not have a female god as theist believe in a transcendent Creator. ( read Fr. Manfred Hauke ) The feminine implies immanence. That would be pantheism. For theists, God is spoken of as male or the prototype of maleness, standing outside of the world.
As a matter of fact, proper devotion to Mary is the strongest bulwark against Trinitarian and Christological heresies. ( I’m thinking of kelvin who is a monophysite or at least a monothelete due to his monergism ). Without the Trinity or even better, the Incarnation, even theism has fallen back into emanationism/pantheism. ( If you like Fr. Most, you will adore a…oops… um … I mean… um… you will really like Fr. Jaki ( I knew him ). He explains how the Jews and Muslims lost theism and fell into heresy without the Jesus, the Son, proceeding from God the Father.
Look what happened to Calvinism, how it morphed into Deism, then Unitarianism and Universalism. Check out some websites. Unitarians admit to being pantheists. All the big Ivy league schools started out Calvinist and ended up Unitarian within a generation or two after their founding. How did it happen? ( Ask me and I will wax eloquent for you).
As for levels of emotional devotion, well, that has nothing to do with Latria or hyperdulia. I can acknowledge God to be God and still have a warmer emotion for a saint. Or even my cat. That has zero to do with anything. Worship starts in the mind.
God is self existing Tim. I have never heard anyone say Mary created herself or the world. If I do, I will let you know. If I were you, I would be worried about staying a theist due to your lack of sound Mariology.
Jim,
Thank you for your comments. When you say, “I don’t think it is even possible for a Catholic to be confused” at the boundary between hyperdulia and latria, are you correcting the ostensibly infallible Lumen Gentium, in which Paul VI says, “if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there” they need to be corrected? If it is impossible for Roman Catholics to be confused, why would Paul VI make references to so much as the possibility “excesses or defects”?
As regards the posture of “Mary” in the image of Guadalupe, or the prayers of “Mary” at Lourdes and Fatima, their prayers are beside the point. Unless you are saying that Jesus should not be worshiped as God because He prayed. We’ve covered all this before, Jim. If goddesses don’t pray, then gods don’t either. Are you denying the divinity of Christ? Jesus prayed to His Father.
The sum of your argument appears to be that Roman Catholics don’t worship Mary because it’s so obvious that they don’t worship Mary. That is tautology. Is theism antithetical to the worship of a feminine deity? Then you are apparently unfamiliar with the debate within Roman Catholicism as to whether Mary is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, or merely the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit, or just the type of the incarnation of the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit were to be incarnated, or just a type of an image of a metaphor of a signification of the inherently feminine in God. You can read more about how impossible it is for Roman Catholics to be confused on this by following the debate between Scott Hahn and Robert Sungenis. They can’t seem to figure out whether the Holy Spirit is actually feminine or if He just has attributes of femininity. By your reckoning, such a discussion would be impossible because it is impossible for Roman Catholics to be confused on this, and it is impossible for theists to think in terms of a female divinity. Here are some Roman Catholic teachings on the topic:
Clearly, none of these are Roman Catholics, because a) it is impossible for Roman Catholics to be confused, and b) theism is antithetical to a feminine deity.
Tim
Tim,
When I posted, I knew with assurance you would ask
““if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there” they need to be corrected? If it is impossible for Roman Catholics to be confused, why would Paul VI make references to so much as the possibility “excesses or defects”?’
The Pope doesn’t enumerate just what he is speaking of. And I think he would give me an atta’ boy for my astute observation too
Please Tim, your analogy of Jesus praying would better be thrown at a Witness than at me. Jesus is true God and true man, yes? Mary is not true goddess and true woman.
I don’t follow your question about theism and a feminine god. I thought I was clear on the contradiction there. Goddesses only exist within a polytheistc/pantheistic system. Do you agree or deny?
As for Maximilian Kolbe, I am the guy who introduced him on this blog months ago. You overstate him by implying Mary to be the 4th member of the Godhead Tim. Naughty, naughty.
I would love to read the Hahn/Sungenis debate you linked but it is in blue and red. The idiots made it impossible to read comfortably.
Yes, I will say it again. A feminine deity does not jive with theism.
Jim, you wrote:
“Jim
June 8, 2014 at 11:39 am
Priest worship? That’s a first. Walt gives Scottish worship.
You give MacArthur worship. And Sturgeon worship. ( You know, spurgeons eat garbage off the bottom of rivers.)”
Let me please clarify.
I’m not interested in what you called “Scottish worship” since that could imply that I believe that the current Presbyterian churches of Scotland and USA are faithfully worshiping as did the reformers in the second reformation.
I think you refer to the reformers here as the deformers. So you can call what I am seeking is worship from the best reformed churches during the first (1560-1600) and second (1638-1649)reformation periods, and a very tiny window of Presbyterian churches that were left isolated from the main churches thereafter. The period of subordinate standards are as follows…in case you wish to do your own research.
As you can see, it is far more than “Scottish worship” once you study the documents and how they seek to define “Terms of Communion” of the most faithful churches from the Apostles.
The Universal Formularies
– The Apostle’s Creed (200?-500?)
– The Nicene Creed (381)
– The Athanasian Creed (415?-550?)
The Scottish Formularies
– The Book of Common Order (1562)
– The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560)
– The First and Second Books of Discipline (1560) (Off-site)
– The Form of Examination Before the Communion (~1567)
– The Psalms of David in Metre (1650) (Off-site)
– The Book of the Universal Kirk (1560-1616)
– The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1638-1649 incl.)
– The True History of the Church of Scotland (1678)
The Westminster Formularies
– The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) (Off-site)
– The Larger Catechism (1648) (Off-site)
– The Shorter Catechism (1648) (Off-site)
– The Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645) (Off-site)
– The Directory for the Public Worship of God (1645) (Off-site)
– The Directory for Family Worship (1647) (Off-site)
The Covenants
– The National Covenant (1581) (Spanish Translation)
– The Solemn League and Covenant (1643, approved by the Westminster Assembly) (in Spanish) (in French) (in Dutch)
The Faithful Covenant Renewals and Renovations
– Renewal of the National Covenant, March 30, 1596, at the Assembly held at the Little Church of Edinburgh, and the Synod of Fife, May 12, 1596, and also in the Presbytery of St. Andrews in 1596
– Act ordaining by Ecclesiastical authority, the Subscription of the Confession of Faith and Covenant, with the Assemblies declaration, August 30, 1639, Session 23
– The Act of the Commission of the General Assembly for renewing the Solemn League and Covenant, October 6, 1648, including a Solemn Acknowledgement of the Public Sins and Breaches of the Covenant
– The Auchensaugh Renovation of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant by the Reformed Presbytery (Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712)
– The Renovation of These Public Federal Deeds Ordained at Philadelphia, October 8, 1880, by the Reformed Presbytery, With Accommodation of the Original Covenants, in Both Transactions, to their Time and Positions Respectively
The Reformed Presbyterian (Scotland and America) Formularies
– The Act, Declaration, and Testimony, by the Reformed Presbytery (Scotland, 1761), with supplements added by the Reformed Presbytery in America in 1876)
Supplements by the Reformed Presbytery of Scotland
– Supplement to Part Second
– Addenda
Supplements by the Reformed Presbytery of the United States
– Supplement to Part III
– Supplement to Part IV
– A Short Directory for Religious Societies (Scotland and America) (1881)
The Constitutions, Terms of Communion, and Judicial Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery in Scotland and America
– The Deed of Constitution of the Reformed Presbytery in America (1840)
– Ecclesiastical Terms of Communion
– Judicial Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery in Scotland (1743-1822)
– Judicial Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery in America (1774 -1778, 1798 -1805, 1840 -1845, 1854 -1887)
– Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery in Ireland (1763-1779, 1782-1839)
– Reformation Principles Exhibited (1806)
Other Formally Approved Subordinate Confessions and Catechisms
– John Calvin’s Genevan Catechism (1541) (Off-site)
– The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith (with qualifications) (1561) (Off-site)
Walt, Knock off all that corny stuff.
Jim,
Sorry, cannot concede to your wishes. I hope to educate my weaker brethren to “come out of Rome” and find in the visible church a faithful remnant that endeavor to testify against Rome since the pre-reformation days (as Tim is soon showing) and to recognize your doctrine for what it is….dangerous and heretical that will take millions (and billions) of souls to everlasting torment. I’ll have to keep protesting against you and your church as our forefathers did.
Tim, here is the point I think you are making that Jim does not see. Calvin writes in his commentary on Isa.43:11:
“And there is no Savior besides me. That we may not suppose that his eternal essence only is here exhibited, but also his power and goodness, which he constantly exercises towards us, and by which he is fully revealed, he adds an epithet as a distinguishing mark, that “he is the only Savior.”
The world falls into the mistake of giving a naked and empty name to God, and at the same time conveying his authority to another, as in Popery God is indeed mentioned, but is robbed of his honor, when one part of it is given to St. Peter, and another to St. Paul, and another to St. William, and another to St. George; that is, his offices are distributed into so many parts, that hardly anything is left to him but a naked and empty name.
They boast, indeed, of worshipping God alone; but when we come to what it belongs to God to do, they make as many gods as they have creatures, and distribute among them his power and authority.
But the Lord has determined that these shall remain entire and uninfringed, and they cannot be conveyed to another without shocking blasphemy; for he alone does good to men, he alone defends and preserves them. The last clause of the verse expresses that knowledge which is derived from experience, that we may not seek salvation in any other than in him who its the only author of it.
Hence we learn that the chief part of the worship of God consists in faith, when he is acknowledged to be the beginning and the end of life, when we bestow on him the title of Savior, and do not convey to another what he declares to belong to himself and to reside in him alone. “
Tim,
Speaking of all this dulia stuff, I have a good one for your mom. I bet she has a devotion to St. Anthony. You know, the saint of lost things?
Well. June is Sacred Heart month and we will have Portugal’s biggest procession on the 22nd, ( Corpo do Deus ). That should interest you and Kelvin.
But in a couple of days we will have the feast of Lisbon’s patron, St. Anthony. My mom always prayed to him and I could tell you some weird stories ( but not in front of Kelvin ). On the 12th, the eve of the feast. 11 poor girls and their beaus are wed in the cathedral. It is televised and the whole country watches it. Then. all night long we have parades and dancing in Lisbon ( Bet your mom thinks he was from Padua. Nope! He was Portuguese. He is their St. Valentine too. And since he is known for preaching to the fishes. we have the sardine festival. Your mom probably thinks of those little minnows in a can. No way, sardines are like small trout and we barbecue them ( I had some for lunch today ). Does your mom pray to him? I bet she does.
You ought to save up and send her to Portugal so she can visit his church ( in front of the cathedral). He is a favorite with moms. They line up for blocks on the 13 th to get in to his church and offer him dulia and pray for their lost sons.
Jim said ” the next time you see someone slaughter a lamb as a sacrifice to her you will have to worry.” How about praying to her you knucklehead. Would that be a hint. Wake up and smell the coffee JimMary.
Tim, here is another very good one on images by Calvin on Isa.44:10…which goes into your image of the beast.
“10. Who is the maker of God? He pours ridicule on the madness of men who dare to frame gods; for it is a shocking and detestable thing that men should take so much upon them as to create God. Every person certainly will greatly abhor such madness; and yet men are blindly impelled by foolish passion to manufacture gods, and no warning restrains them.
On the other hand, they will say that this never entered into any man’s mind, and that injustice is done to them when they are accused of so great madness; just as the Papists in the present day say that we slander them, when we employ these arguments of the Prophet against them. But in vain do they rely on their sophistical reasonings for avoiding this charge.
***What the Prophet says is most true, that they are so mad as to think that they “make God;” for as soon as the stone or wood has been carved or polished, they ascribe to it divinity, run to it, make prayers, call upon it, and prostrate themselves before it, and in short, ascribe to it those things which they know to belong to God alone.***
Which is profitable for nothing. We ought carefully to observe this clause, which condemns as vain and useless all the images by which God is represented. Hence it follows not only that God is insulted, whenever his glory is changed into dead images, but that all who procure idols for themselves lose their pains and suffer damage.
***Papists allege that they are the books of the unlearned; but this is a paltry evasion, for the Prophet testifies that they are of no use whatever. ***
Let them, therefore, either erase this proof from the Book of Isaiah, ***or acknowledge that images are vain and useless.***
Formerly he expressed something more, when he affirmed that nothing can be learned from them but falsehood. But on this subject we have said enough in the exposition of these passages. (Isaiah 40 and 41.)
walt,
enjoy this
Jim,
Thanks for the link. I have not heard of Pastor Steven Anderson, but clearly his teachings on perseverance of the saints is in error. He agrees that once saved always saved, which is true, but he errors in the distinction between one who claims they are saved by profession but do not demonstrate it by their fruits.
I’ve seen this many many times with many RCC and evangelicals who claim they are saved by their baptism, or saved by their profession of faith in Christ, but outwardly they live like there is no salvation within them.
Anderson does not understand the distinction between justification and sanctification…just like the RCC errors.
Tim, you might find this interesting. It is from the “Edit of Zeno on Retention Of The Urban Episcopate”, (?)474-84.
1. Evagrius (HE 3. 12) reports that Emperor Zeno sanctioned by law that he whom both the clergy and the people should have chosen after the death of Timothy III (d.482), patriarch of Alexandria, would be the bishop of that see. This action, of course, was not the first instant of IMPERIAL INTERVENTION in episcopal selection (see e.g. no. 61), but it testifies to the late continuance of clerical and laic election in the East, where generally the choice of bishops was confined to provincial bishops after 325, when the First General Council of Nicaea recommended (canon 4) that a bishop should be constituted by all the bishops of the province where his see was situated.
The history of episcopal appointments ascends, of course, to the apostolic age, when the apostles apparently selected their successors. Thus St. Paul left St. Titus, traditionally the first bishop of the Cretans, in crete with authority to ordain presbyters (Titus 1. 4-5; Eusebius, HE 3. 4. 5) and consecrated St. Timothy, traditionally the first bishop of the Ephesians, at Ephesus with directions to defend the faith (1Tim.1:3; 2Tim.1:6; Eusebius, loc. cit.). But by the mid-third century St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, writes that Pope St. Cornelius (251-2) was made bishop of Rome by the judgement of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the populace which then was there, by the college of ancient priests (sacerdotes) and of good men, when none had been made so before him (Ep. 55. 8 = CSEL 3. 629-30; cf. Ep. 68 2 = CSEL 3. 745). This kind of choice continued in the West (see e.g. introd. to no. 137, no 352, n. 2), for the Latin canonists interpreted the Nicene canon as simply requiring the provincial bishops’ presence at the consecration. Popular election persisted among Roman Catholics until the Eleventh Century, when the bishop began to be elected by the clergy of the cathedral church.
Participation by the people in episcopal election perhaps emanated from the practice in pagan Rome. There the pontifex maximus (on whom see Introd., n. 26 ad med.) was elected by vote of seventeen of the thirty-five tribes (chosen by sorition) of the Tribal Assembly as early as 212 B.C. and by 104 B.C. the priests (sacredotes) of the three great political priesthoods (pontiffs, augurs, quindecimvirs), who previously had been chosen by their colleagues, were selected by the people (Paterculus, Hist. Rom. 2. 12. 3; Suetonius, Nero, 2. 1).
2. The most obvious examples are the four eastern patriarchal cities: Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.; Antioch, constructed by Seleucus I Nicator in 300 B.C.; Jerusalem, refounded by Hadrian as Aelia Capitolina in 130; Constantinople, rebuilt from Byzantium by Constantine I in 330.”
Jim, just do all that is within you and God will give you grace. That is the Roman Gospel. You do your level best and God gives you grace. The biblical gospel is God gives us grace and we do. You do and God gives you grace. Although Romans 11:6 is clear in Rome it is no longer grace.
Kevin,
You don’t know the Catholic view do you?
For an act to to saving, ( for Catholics ) it must be preceded by grace. ( Psssst! Kelvin! Ever hear of Pelagian? That’s not us ).
The difference between us, you silly little man, is that we say God offers ( honestly offers ) grace to all men and some reject it and some receive it by faith.
We are saved by grace through faith. For the Calvinish, the elect were really always saved. Never really lost. They get saved and then are given faith. It’s all a hoax.
So, Bozo, you can quit preaching. People are saved or lost from eternity. Read the stuff I sent Walt.
Any Lurkers out there,
” just do all that is within you and God will give you grace. That is the Roman Gospel. You do your level best and God gives you grace. ”
This ridiculous fellow has zero understanding of Catholicism. This very proposition he puts forth is condemned. Certain nominalist theologians taught it and were slapped down.
( Still, I would like to see Fallonius wrestle with James 4:8 )
Ex opere operato Kelvin. Demonstrate your vast ignorance of the Faith by using it in a sentence.
Kelvin is a Calvinist. He is the one who is painted into a corner of explaining a system that turns men into robots and then punishes them for acting like robots.
What an awesome god!
Kelvin,
You believe ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. So you can murder, rape, pillage and plunder all day long as still go the heaven.
The Bible says the opposite.
Johnny Mac is a Romanist because he says sin can blow it for you. He believes in works. He says no works no salvation. Bad works are not allowed in his church but in yours they are, huh?
You think you only have to believe you are saved and that does it for you.
Where do I sign up. What a nice religion. Just believe you are saved.
Jim, you said:
“Kelvin,
You believe ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. So you can murder, rape, pillage and plunder all day long as still go the heaven.
The Bible says the opposite.”
Jim, I thought that Rome taught that you can rape, pillage, plunder, murder, and go to heaven as long as you pay money for indulgences? Is that not what Rome has taught in the paying of indulgences? Pay money to the church, and go to heaven through the forgiveness of your sins?
Jim, you don’t merit your start into grace, but you can better believe you merit your continuance in it. You do, God gives you grace. You do your level best and God gives you grace.
Yes.
Walt,
I need your help. Kevin has got me all confused. He says we Catholic’s do a good work then God justifies us. Can you remember when you were a Catholic learning this? What are some of the good works we do so God can justify us? Give money? How much? Do Catholics do a Sacramental work like Baptism? Is Baptism a work? We actually pour water in Baptism. “To pour” is a verb so it’s a work, right?
Walt, the doctor says I need to lose some weight by dieting. Does that mean I have to diet first, before the weight loss?
The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. That means faith first, then salvation, doesn’t it?
Kevin says people get saved and then they have faith. Help me understand Walt.
In your own words please Walt. Don’t give me a link to the WCF or some Scottish divine. You tell me yourself, okay.
Tell me about works. Whether I do works to get saved, to stay saved or to prove I have been saved, it all comes out the same; works are necessary. Not faith alone. Right?
I really like the strong evidence for Calvinism you three guys have been presenting me with. I am swayed and just may join you guys. I especially find compelling the “death wafer” argument. It has really opened my eyes and got me thinking. It is so brilliant.
Walt, why have you never presented me with the death wafer of magic water of of Baptism argument? Are you weak in your commitment to Calvinism? Kevin and Tim like it. Why not you?
Also, Kevin tells me he is justified and sanctified. When I questioned him on why he shows zero evidence of sanctification, he said, ” O Jim Baby, if you could only have seen how bad I was! You could see the progress I have made.”
Does that mean if Kevin used to snort coke and fornicate everyday but doesn’t now, he is holy? I mean, lets say he snorts coke and fornicates only once in a while, that is progress right? Just so long as he is making progress, one occasional act of fornication is fine, right? You do reject the concept of mortal/venial sin, don’t you?
Tim checks in only intermittently. Kevin never was a Catholic ( although his aunts are???) so he only speaks in caricature bashing. That leaves just you. You were once one of us and rejected it for something better, right? Tell me about that.
Tell me why you like the Calvinist god who creates men for hell, commands them to be good, and when they fail, “justly” punishes them for what He really wanted them to do all along.
Why don’t you like the Catholic God who wants us all in heaven with Him?
Again Walt, in your own words.
Jim you wrote:
“Walt, the doctor says I need to lose some weight by dieting. Does that mean I have to diet first, before the weight loss?
The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. That means faith first, then salvation, doesn’t it?
Kevin says people get saved and then they have faith. Help me understand Walt.
In your own words please Walt. Don’t give me a link to the WCF or some Scottish divine. You tell me yourself, okay.”
Jim, I’m very sad.
I wrote you a while ago in my own detailed words on this blog on this subject, but you did not even read or comprehend what I wrote. You make me sad. It tells me that neither what I write, nor what I post from the reformers, does even get read by you, nor certainly comprehended.
I wrote the gospel in detail to you on this point. Why don’t you listen to people who write you but rather ignore them and ask the same silly questions over and over?
I read what you write so please explain again to me.
Jim, here is the testimony I gave you before on the subject you are confused about above. If you read it with a humble heart, you will see what the Scripture teaches as well in context.
Walt
June 3, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Kevin,
What Jim does not understand is the order of salvation…and I don’t expect him (you should not either) to learn that doctrine.
What he is seeking is saving faith leading over time to regeneration and justification/sanctifying faith.
What Scripture teaches is regeneration first, then renewing of your mind to believe, and then faith which is a free gift. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph.2:8)
Faith is a free gift. He saved us by regenerating us first.
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Tit.3:5-6)
You can see Jim (Arminian) vs. Kevin (Bible) understand below:
Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
So who is this that can believe?
“That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (Jn.3:15)
Who is this “whosoever”? Is whosoever the entire world? NO.
“As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Rom.9:33)
“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Rom.10:11)
Thus, the WHOSOEVER is those who believeth! Who are those that believe? : ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
What about the Whosoever that are like Jim?
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal.3:4)
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (Jam.2:10)
JIM, my dear brother, the Lord is calling you to reach out to Him at the end of your life, and not look to your obedience to justify yourself before Him, but to KNOW that your obedience is but filthy rages. He is the ONLY perfect shed blood, and it is NOW FINISHED. His atonement has fully satisfied your disobedience…you are guilty of all for violating one point.
Ignore yourself, deny yourself, repent and crawl to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as His wrath in the seven vial judgements are coming near and soon to a city near you!
Jim said “the bible says we are saved by grace thru faith” Finish the verse Jim. It goes on to say “not of yourselves” not a result of works” And its a gift. You don’t work for a gift. Its free. What part of it has nothing to do with you and your stinking works don’t you understand. Salvation is all a work of God. Its is true that saving faith will produce good works, but they are not meritorious in salvation.
Following our acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Savior we are justified. Sanctification is that which follows. Our works may be the renewing and changing of our hearts and attitudes. It doesn’t necessarily mean we go build an orphanage.
Titus 3:5 ” He saved me not on the basis of deeds done in righteousness, but according to His mercy.” 2 Timothy 1:9 ” who saved us and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus” Jim, I love you and I’m telling you it can’t be any plainer than this. Run from that church as fast as you can and jump on the mercy train to Zion. And the works that come from a heart trusting in faith alone can be saved too. ” Come out from her” jump on the mercy train. There is a seat between me and Tim and Walt and Eric W and Bob.
Jim, that should read a heart trusting in Christ alone.
Walt,
Kelvin is trying to trick me. Tell me about works. John MacArthur says I can’t just take Jesus as my savior. I have to stop sinning. “Stop” is a verb, something one does. Stopping is a work. Paul said “not by works”.
Kevin says I have to get regenerated. How can I get God to regenerate me? Can I do a works? Say a prayer? Do a sacrament ex opere operato? Pay money ex opere operato? When you were a Catholic, you thought God would regenerate whoever was Baptized. Kevin says only the regenerated come to faith ( unless they are a baby. Presbyterians baptize babies just to put them in a covenant, a covenant that doesn’t really save them).
Walt, I understand the calvinish god gives some men a sort of faith for a season. They think they are saved but their awesome god is only kidding. He likes to play games. After years of false faith, they wake up and realize they are damned.
Kevin says his heart tells him he is elect. I thought Kelvin’s heart was desperately wicked and deceitful. I am so confused.
Kevin is like the lucky pharisee who is so special. He is regenerate and knows he is elect. Kevin berates all the poor publican Catholics. He boasts in his regeneration. He thanks his god for not making him like all those reprobate men. Kevin hates them. He is angry with them for their sin and unbelief. He hates the unregenerate just as his god hates them. He wants them in hell just as his god wants them in hell. But he pretends he wants them saved. Tell Kelvin to start thinking with the mind of Christ. Calvin’s Christ hates the sinners and Kevin should to. He should make his will like god’s.
What did Kevin do to get regenerated? Not by washing his body. The Bible says so. Not by works. His works flow out of his regenerate heart.
By Baptism? ( Water and Spirit) I have been baptized. Is that all it takes?
Kevin says works don’t do anything. They just prove one is elect.
Kind of like a teacher handing out As,Bs,Cs,Ds, and Fs on the first day of class and then the students working and studying accordingly to live up to their respective grades for the rest of the school year.
Kevin says that Jesus was wrong to say,” IF you love me, keep my commandments”.
He was supposed to say, “Since you love me, you shall keep my commandments”.
Jesus was not to have said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”. Kevin thinks He should have said, ” Those who are saved, (elect of my father ) will come to you for Baptism”.
Walt, we Catholics think the 10 Commandments are imperatives. Kevin says keeping the commandments are proof of the saved.
Jim, Galatians 3: 1-5″ You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched , before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works os the Law, or hearing by faith? Are you foolish? Have you begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing by faith? Jim we are regenerated by the Spirit by hearing with Faith, not by baptism or any work. We hear the gospel the Spirit regenerates us we repent and believe and are justified, sanctified and glorified. This is all a work of the Spirit of God thru the Word and a gift of God. Romans 5:17, 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18. For Paul all of Salvation was forensic. Justification undergirds all of salvation. God gives life to spiritually dead people by the Spirit thru the Word, hearing by faith. Spurgeon said anyone who attributes salvation to the free will of man could not know God.
Kelvin,
You totally don’t get what Paul meant by works.
Jim said Kevin says” his heart tells him he is elect” The scripture says the Spirit witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. 1 John 5:13 says ” these things have been written to you who believe that you may KNOW that you have eternal life. Again this is hard for you because you can never know your saved, the threat of a mortal sin throwing you out, you have to save your self. Ya you get the special juju, but you have to get there and if you get there you get there, and if you don’t you don’t. You aren’t justified by faith alone in Christ alone, but only as faith is activated in your being, your doing, your being righteous in your self. False gospel.
Jim said” Kevin berates all the poor publican Catholics. He boasts of his regeneration. He thanks god for not making him like all those reprobate men.” Jim you are disingenuous and make judgments about my motives. But as Tim says to you, you can impute whatever you want to me. I don’t berate Catholics. I hate Catholic doctrine for the same reason I hate sin, because it keeps men out of heaven. I don’t boast in anything but theLord. 1 Corinthians 1:30 , it is by his doing I am in Christ Jesus who became to me wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption. And I am thankful that he chose me. I have the assurance that the scripture offers to those who are trusting in Christ alone. And yes I am forever grateful and in amazement that God would have mercy on me and choose me, when it would have been fair for Him to let me go to hell. The spirit of God showed me my utter sinfulness and my need for forgiveness. And like the Romans 7 man the closer I get to God as he sanctifies me, the more I see my sinfulness, and the more I appreciate that I contribute nothing to my justification. As scripture says if He were to number our sins who could stand. You will never get in on your own righteousness Jim, I suggest you run to “the righteousness of God” Christ in faith alone. God will get all the glory, and you will receive eternal life.
Tim,
Under the blue and red stuff you will find the readers’ comments. The first one, by Ben, should allay all your fears.
More dulia here today. It’s a holiday. Day of Portugal for the secular folks. For us Catholics, it’s called Day of the Angel of Portugal ( he is the one who brought Holy Communion to Lucia at Fatima ).
We don’t worship the angel Tim. We worship Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. We aren’t confused.
Have you googled Fr. manfred hauke’s work on the feminine, priesthood, theism, etc.?
Of course God is immanent in the world. Yes, indeed. And God is “like” a mother a couple of times in the Bible.
Sticking to my guns Tim. Theists would not have a Mother Goddess as their supreme deity. Never has happened and never will. Mary will never usurp God’s role in Catholicism.
You Calvinists have the problem. By making even sin to fall within God’s decrees, you have blurred all distinction between good and bad. All that is, should be. All reality emanates from God. The emanated world is the son of god a.k.a. god. Monogenes was a pagan term first, Tim. So was the Logos.
While on the topic, pagans and theists view time differently. For us, it’s linear. For them, circular. Jesus incarnating in the womb of Mary, once and for all, does away with all eternal returns doctrine. Mary guards the correct view of Jesus.
Nope Tim, you guys are almost heathens. Not us.
So, get a little glow in the dark statue of Mary, pick some posies and put them in a glass of water in front of it. Kneel down before it. And make sure the kids see their father give hyprdulia. If you don’t, they will grow up and not give God latria.
Tim,
Speaking of angels, have you taught your kids the Guardian Angel prayer? ( Has your mom? )
You know, I was wondering how to get through to kelvin and I thought of you and your kids.
Have you ever said to one of them, while they were bawling their little eyes out over something, ” Big boys don’t cry”? Or, “Boys don’t hit girls” after one of them just pinched, kicked or gouged his sister? Or the one I always got told, “Big boys don’t poop their pants”?
Tell Kelvin that St. Paul used the same way of speaking on his listeners. For instance, by calling them “saints”, he was exhorting them to act like it. Kelvin really should realize this but he doesn’t.
Jim, I learned to pray the Guardian Angel prayer as a child, and prayed it for many, many years each night before bed. I have not taught the Guardian Angel prayer to my children. My mother has not taught the prayer to my children, and I do not allow her to instruct my children on spiritual matters.
Thanks for writing,
Tim
TIM! TIM!
I was outside doing some yard work and remembered a Marian abuse for you so I shot in to tell you about it.
It was years ago, in St. Dominic’s church in Oakland or San Francisco. I was there for JPll’s Mass and visited some of the churches. Of course I went to the Dominican one ( Fr. Dominic, remember?)
Up high, almost to the ceiling, is statue of Mary in the stonework they keep darkened. Maybe they busted it out when they earthquake proofed the church in the 90’s. I don’t know if it was considered heretical to picture Mary as such but it certainly was capable of being misunderstood so Rome put a stop on it around 1900. ( ? )
I shouldn’t tell you what it is as you might hurt yourself with it. Just be assured, the Church policed the possible problem before a problem developed.
Jim, you have two choices the religion of divine accomplishment or the religion of human achievement. Christianity or Rome. Which will it be?
OOPS! Knucklehead meant to say, ” The religion of Christianity or Geneva!”
The religion of Divine achievement of of robots.
Imagine a boxing match where the guys walk out and immediately one is pronounced the champion. Then the fights begins. The men are told to fight accordingly with the loser taking a dive at the predetermined time.
Why bother with the fight if it is predetermined? For the glory of somebody. The ref? The winner? The fight fixers? Who knows! Who cares! But that is the wonderful and wacky world of Calvinismo.
Jim, said ” Imagine a boxing match and the guys walk out and one is declared the champion” Thats exactly the mercy of God Jim, giving something to someone they don’t deserve because Jesus won the fight in his place. You see my friend its only when you understand the perfect law of God that requires perfection and the you understand our utter sinfulness and bankruptcy that one can appreciate the “free gift of righteousness” Romans 5:17 that he gave us thru simple faith. Tim’s jealousy article has made an permanent impression on me Jim. God did not come for people who think they are righteous. He came for sinners to redeem them. To appreciate the biblical teaching on psub one must understand their total inability to save themselves. He took the cup of God’s wrath and it pleased God to crush Him for my iniquities. ” My god My God why have you forsaken me” He bore the penalty of my law breaking and gave me his righteousness. 2 Corinthians 5:21.Oh sweet exchange, that the sins of the many would be hid in Him, and the righteousness of the one should be imputed to the many. This is mercy and this is grace which God lavishes on us as a “free gift”. Roman Catholicism does not believe this. Peter said He bore our sins on a tree and Romans 8:3 says He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law in us. God’s wrath and our sins were nailed to the cross. For you your “certificate of debt hasn’t been cancelled” Colossians 2:14 The “working of the works” Jim. Earning extra righteousness by your merits. Repent and believe Jim and find eternal life and you can be in God’s elect.
kelvin,
“Tim’s jealousy article has made an permanent impression on me Jim. God did not come for people who think they are righteous”
Righteousness, imputed or imparted, you are the smuggest person I have ever known of.
Tim, where are we going from here. I can’t wait. I have learned so much from you this year. Will you address sacerdotalism and how sacramental efficacy has been put up in the place of the atonement in RC. Thx for all your great work. Kevin
Kelvin,
Maintain! You are so sycophantic! Talk about Mary being embarrasses to have us pray to her, don’t you think Tim is embarrassed to read your grovelling spittle licking?
Remember how Paul and Barnabas felt when the pagans wanted to offer a bull in sacrifice and call the Mars and Jupiter?
Kelvin,
“And I am thankful that he chose me. I have the assurance that the scripture offers to those who are trusting in Christ…”
Every backslider out there had the same assurance you have.
You won’t know if you are saved til you are judged. Why? Because you can’t trust the Bible’s assurances?
No. Because you can’t be sure of YOUR degree or quality of Faith.
Jim said, ” You won’t know if you are saved until you are judged Why? Because you can’t trust the bible assurances? No because you can’t be sure of your degree or quality of faith. This is the lie of Roman Catholicism. And if I were a Roman Catholic I wouldn’t have assurance either. Because God only gives you grace and righteousness when you earn it. We are trusting in Christ’s finished work on the cross for our salvation. Hebrews tells us He OBTAINED salvation. “It is finished” 1 John 5:13 tells us that we can know we have eternal life now. And your comment about the degree of saving faith isn’t biblical because Paul says “when we are faithless He remains faithful.” Our eternal security is in the righteousness of Christ and the fact Jesus says He loses none that the Father has given Him,”no one can SNATCH them out of His hand.” We aren’t cooperating in a state of grace to earn our salvation, we are saved now and enjoy the benefits of being inherited, and heir, and an adopted child by simple faith in Christ. Titus 3:5 ” He saved us, not by righteous deeds but according to his mercy.” God does not give grace piecemeal. We aren’t saved by attainment but by atonement. He was crushed for our iniquities and raised for our justification. He was numbered among the transgressors. “By His stripes we are healed” You are saved by baptism, penance, masses, indulgences, scapulars, rosaries etc. The blood of Christ does nothing for you. You Catholics don’t understand death. Death is the wages of your sin, both spiritual and physical. You are DEAD in your sins and need a savior, not sick and need just some help and you can do the rest. You are bankrupt in your sin and you cannot keep the law perfectly ( which is what God requires). Your only chance in to repent of your awful attempt to attain your salvation and run to the gospel in faith. Jim if you can understand Romans 9:30-10_4 you will find the key. K
Kelvin,
“And if I were a Roman Catholic I wouldn’t have assurance either.”
Well, DUH? Who said we Catholics say we do?
You should be reading the fine material I am posting on Jason’s to Robert. As it’s the weekend, nobody is responding. But it is pure gold. Go educate yourself.
Jim, I have been reading. Faith saves a person not baptism. Baptism is a sign and a seal and confirmation of grace. God regenerates thru the Spirit and the Word. Read Romans 5:17, 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18. We are justified by faith and his blood, not infant baptism. We are born again thru faith not infant baptism. Aunt Mary’s faith won’t cut it for little Billy. There is no magic water in Scripture making babies Christians. Children are under the care of God, but infant baptism does not justify a baby, wash away original sin and is a profession of faith. And tell Jonathan to wake up from his platonic dream, babies are born with a sin nature. Where does he live in Willie Wonka’s land of pure imagination. No magic water. If you don’t believe, you aren’t saved. You guys trust everything but the blood of Christ and what Christ did on the cross. You trust your infant baptism certificate, masses, penance, scapulars, Mary, saints, pilgrimages, everybody but Jesus Christ alone. Because with you man’s not so bad and God’s not so mad.
Walt, I remember reading what you wrote to Jim and it is spot on. God regenerates those He has chosen thru the word by the Spirit unto faith. Thats why I told Jim in Rome they do and God gives them grace, for us God gives us grace and we do. They do their level best and God gives them justice, God justifies us by faith and we do. False gospel versus true gospel. 1 Peter 1:23 ” for you have been born again not of a seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, thru living and enduring word of God.” We can only hope that our Roman friends will see that salvation is the work of God and that they will repent of attainment for the atonement. He didn’t make salvation possible, He saved us having obtained eternal redemption.
Great article. Thank you for making this point.
I have made a reply to one portion of this article:
Is All Bowing Before Images “Idolatry”?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2023/07/is-all-bowing-before-images-idolatry-vs-t-l-kauffman.html
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to commend the research and refutation of Catholicism’s thinking of Mary (not the holy virtuous one of Scripture) far, far, far “above that which is written.
I referenced this post within a web page I put together years ago (https://peacebyjesus.net/marysc.html). To God be the glory.
Thank you, Daniel.