Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

[GodsGrace]

But baptism does save, as Scripture explicitly states...


"because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

Oh boy.
We've circled back to the beginning !
IF baptism saves....then all catholics are going to heaven?

You said this would be true if one died immediately after baptism...
which is why some of the early believers waited a really long time before being baptized....

Something that SAVES lasts FOREVER, for as long as we hold on to that ITEM...

Which in this case is JESUS.

If we are IN CHRIST when we die...we are saved...
from the time we FIRST came to believe and were IN HIM.

As to the creed....
Like I said, we also use the bible that the ECFs used...or at least most ofit....Protestants did not create an entirley new bible.

They kept what they believed to be correct.

 

[GodsGrace]

Obviously you didn't read the quotation from Benedict, as he addresses your concern.

By virtue of the fact that Mary gave a human nature to the Logos, Mary did have a role in salvation history. Thus, anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in salvation history is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

I understand the above.
I understand the reasons why she had A ROLE in salvation economy.
I just don't agree with it.

Jesus was on the cross, not Mary.

There is so much Mary veneration here that A LOT of attention is taken away from Jesus.

Smart Catholics know it's Jesus that is to be worshippped, those that study the bible and go to classes,,,,MOST do not and only see what they see with their eyes....which is veneration of Mary.

I think it's time the church stopped doing this too.....
The church here is caught between a rock and a hard place.

The bishop wanted to stop doing the rosary at funerals...the people won't have it and it continues to this day.
(he wanted a verse to be read and explained).

 

[GodsGrace]

Obviously you didn't read the quotation from Benedict, as he addresses your concern.

By virtue of the fact that Mary gave a human nature to the Logos, Mary did have a role in salvation history. Thus, anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in salvation history is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

I believe I already answered this.
I read the quote of Benedict.
I even told you I respect him.
I know it addressed my concerns.
I said it's unfortunate he's not in charge anymore.

 

[Walpole]

Oh boy.
We've circled back to the beginning !
IF baptism saves....then all catholics are going to heaven?

You said this would be true if one died immediately after baptism...
which is why some of the early believers waited a really long time before being baptized....

Something that SAVES lasts FOREVER, for as long as we hold on to that ITEM...

Which in this case is JESUS.

If we are IN CHRIST when we die...we are saved...
from the time we FIRST came to believe and were IN HIM.

As to the creed....
Like I said, we also use the bible that the ECFs used...or at least most ofit....Protestants did not create an entirley new bible.

They kept what they believed to be correct.

"because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

Have you removed this passage from your Bible? How about Mark 16:16?

 

[Walpole]

I understand the above.
I understand the reasons why she had A ROLE in salvation economy.
I just don't agree with it.

So you don't agree that Mary gave flesh to the Second Person of the Trinity? The same flesh He used to redeem the world?

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." (Gal 4:4-5)

I don't understand why Protestants don't just remove Mary entirely from their Bibles.

Jesus was on the cross, not Mary.

Of course. Yet it was the flesh Mary gave Christ that was on the cross. The same flesh which He used to redeem the world.

There is so much Mary veneration here that A LOT of attention is taken away from Jesus.

Smart Catholics know it's Jesus that is to be worshippped, those that study the bible and go to classes,,,,MOST do not and only see what they see with their eyes....which is veneration of Mary.

I think it's time the church stopped doing this too.....
The church here is caught between a rock and a hard place.

The bishop wanted to stop doing the rosary at funerals...the people won't have it and it continues to this day.
(he wanted a verse to be read and explained).

I disagree entirely. I think the Catholic Church doesn't venerate Mary enough. She is mentioned only twice in most Latin liturgies (once in the Creed and once in the canon). Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy? It is full of reverence and veneration of the Theotokos. Their sanctuaries are full of images of Mary. The Western Church can learn much from the East, particularly when it comes to devotion and veneration of the Mother of God.

I am always suspicious of people who attack Mary. The reason being is that we know that Satan hates Mary. For she embodies the promises of redemption in her person and for this reason she is hated. She is the type, figure and image of the church and in her is the fullness of redemption. She reveals what it means to be redeemed. Thus, anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in salvation history, is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

 

[Walpole]

I believe I already answered this.
I read the quote of Benedict.
I even told you I respect him.
I know it addressed my concerns.
I said it's unfortunate he's not in charge anymore.

"I'm not saying she IS called co-redemptrix, but that the church is coming close to doing this.

I also know that co-has a different meaning in Latin.
I can't remember the definition right now,,,but it COULD mean either equal or not. It WILL be understood to mean equal in person's minds.
A helper in salvation is already attributed to her which is in the doc I posted."


Here again is Benedict addressing this directly...

"I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand [to declare Mary as the Co-redemptrix], which in the meantime is being supported several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly that what is signified by this already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula 'Co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings....

The word 'Co-redemptrix' would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."


Don't lose too much sleep, it's not going to happen.

 

[Walpole]

Right.
I meant Mohammad as an idol...they worship HIM.

No, Muslims do not worship Mohammad. They worship God (to the extent that they know him). In Islam, Mohammad is a prophet, not God. To worship him would be idolatry.

One thing I've learned from debating and discussing religion with Protestants over the years is that they continually misrepresent the beliefs of others. Some do it deliberately (e.g. "Catholics worship Mary!"; "Muslims worship Mohammad!", etc.) and some do it out of ignorance. It makes it difficult to have an intelligent and rational discussion.

"We must understand before we can criticize." - Étienne Gilson

 

[GodsGrace]

"because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

Have you removed this passage from your Bible? How about Mark 16:16?

Mark 16:16 is debatable because baptized is not repeated in part b for being lost.
Acts 16:31 says only to believe.
Acts 19:2-4 would be interesting to discuss.
Acts 17:30 Ditto, in fact Paul spoke a lot about believing and not about baptism...of course, that wasn't his role.
Acts 16:31 they ARE baptized.

I really don't care to discuss this since I DO believe we are to be baptized.

If we are not,,,I don't believe God will throw us into hell.
There is the baptism of belief...
The baptism of desire....

Anyway, I don't think any of us know enough about baptism to really discuss it. It remains, at least for me, a mystery.

 

[GodsGrace]

So you don't agree that Mary gave flesh to the Second Person of the Trinity? The same flesh He used to redeem the world?

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." (Gal 4:4-5)

I don't understand why Protestants don't just remove Mary entirely from their Bibles.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said the above.
Please don't go beyond what I actually SAY.

You did the same in the post just above.

Of course. Yet it was the flesh Mary gave Christ that was on the cross. The same flesh which He used to redeem the world.

Mary is already a co-mediatrix.
I DO NOT believe that she is to be a co-redeemer.
I find nowhere in the bible or any extra-biblical writings that allude to this.

If you do,,,,please post same.

I disagree entirely. I think the Catholic Church doesn't venerate Mary enough. She is mentioned only twice in most Latin liturgies (once in the Creed and once in the canon). Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox liturgy? It is full of reverence and veneration of the Theotokos. Their sanctuaries are full of images of Mary. The Western Church can learn much from the East, particularly when it comes to devotion and veneration of the Mother of God.

As you know, GOD does not have a mother.
JESUS has a mother....
The Son has a mother.
This was settled many years ago...
Mary is the Mother of the Son of God.

I am always suspicious of people who attack Mary. The reason being is that we know that Satan hates Mary. For she embodies the promises of redemption in her person and for this reason she is hated. She is the type, figure and image of the church and in her is the fullness of redemption. She reveals what it means to be redeemed. Thus, anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in salvation history, is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

Did I denigrate her?
You're speaking for me again.

Mary has no role in the salvatiion economy.
What role did she play exactly?

Genesis 3:15 says HER SEED will be pitted against satan.
NOT HER.

 

[GodsGrace]

"I'm not saying she IS called co-redemptrix, but that the church is coming close to doing this.

I also know that co-has a different meaning in Latin.
I can't remember the definition right now,,,but it COULD mean either equal or not. It WILL be understood to mean equal in person's minds.
A helper in salvation is already attributed to her which is in the doc I posted."


Here again is Benedict addressing this directly...

"I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand [to declare Mary as the Co-redemptrix], which in the meantime is being supported several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly that what is signified by this already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula 'Co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings....

The word 'Co-redemptrix' would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."


Don't lose too much sleep, it's not going to happen.

Maybe not now that Francis is in charge.
Some changes are coming next year....I'm not sure what yet....

 

[GodsGrace]

No, Muslims do not worship Mohammad. They worship God (to the extent that they know him). In Islam, Mohammad is a prophet, not God. To worship him would be idolatry.

One thing I've learned from debating and discussing religion with Protestants over the years is that they continually misrepresent the beliefs of others. Some do it deliberately (e.g. "Catholics worship Mary!"; "Muslims worship Mohammad!", etc.) and some do it out of ignorance. It makes it difficult to have an intelligent and rational discussion.

"We must understand before we can criticize." - Étienne Gilson

Well I guess you can stop speaking to me then.
No intelligence here at all.

I DID say that M. is an idol.
Now you're repeating he's an idol and not their God.

Tell me this:
Who wrote the Qu'ran?
Why do Muslims follow all those regulations in there?
Were they sent by God? Or Muhammad?
Does GOD tell Muslims to kill the infidel or does M.?

And when did I ever say Catholics worship Mary?
You do like to put words into my mouth.
You should forget what other protestants say about catholicism and speak TO ME.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You two might be able to explain this better. But I don't understand the position of the Pope. There must be a history for why the position came about. Is it to settle disagreements and heresies among elders and bishops? To rule over Christianity like a king? Or something else?

In the old Testiment God had judges and prophets, then later He allowed Israel to be ruled by kings. From what I read in the New Testiment there were apstoles, prophets, and elders. And from Acts there is the meetings of the elders for a few topics (or maybe there was only one meeting discussing whether Gentiles could be Christian and the laws they are to hold to vurses the laws that are not a burden for them? I can't remember if there was another one or not.)

But it must have been later for the position of a Pope. I honestly don't know when or why it came or what role it provides.

(Sorry to change the subject a bit).

 

[GodsGrace]

You two might be able to explain this better. But I don't understand the position of the Pope. There must be a history for why the position came about. Is it to settle disagreements and heresies among elders and bishops? To rule over Christianity like a king? Or something else?

hI Not_Now.Soon
You've asked very good questions.
Happily, I know the answer to them and I'm sure Walpole will agree since I do believe he knows church history.

Right after Jesus' ascension, it was discovered that someone had to be in charge of the church because questions did come up, as you've stated. For instance...were new Christians that were NOT Jewish supposed to be circumcised?

Since Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter,, he was a very important figure at that time. Peter was made Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop of Jerusalem was James the Just (the brother of Jesus).

EVERY area of the first Christian churches had a bishop.
It then came about that five of these areas became the most important and were looked to for leadership. Thus, these bishops were also the most important:
Jerusalem
Rome
Antioch
Alexandria
Constantinople

I believe in the 600's it was decided that ONE of these 5 Bishops was to be the head of the church for the reasons you stated.

Since Rome was the most important city at this time...the Bishop of Rome was officially called Pope.

Why Pope? Because as a term of endearment the 5 most important Bishops had come to be called PAPA...Dad in English. (not daddy as some say).

So PAPA was left as the title for ONLY the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is STILL the Bishop of Rome to this day.j His official title is PONTEFICE. PONTE means bridge....The Pope is a bridge between the people and Heaven/God.

Now the other member might say that Peter was the first official POPE, but this would not be historically correct. What the CC did was to go back and call EVERY BISHOP OF ROME,,,Pope.

In the old Testiment God had judges and prophets, then later He allowed Israel to be ruled by kings. From what I read in the New Testiment there were apstoles, prophets, and elders. And from Acts there is the meetings of the elders for a few topics (or maybe there was only one meeting discussing whether Gentiles could be Christian and the laws they are to hold to vurses the laws that are not a burden for them? I can't remember if there was another one or not.)

Correct.
The first Bishop of Jerusalem was chosen by Peter...I'm posting a link with the information since I don't remember this part very well. I'm sure there's much info if you want it.

John I (bishop of Jerusalem) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But it must have been later for the position of a Pope. I honestly don't know when or why it came or what role it provides.

(Sorry to change the subject a bit).

Great question.
Instead of just criticizing the CC, more questions should be asked.
The first OFFICIAL POPE was in the early 600's.

The purpose of the Pope is to be the head of the CC...
to make sure that doctrine and dogma are maintained in tact.
This can be disputed because it has changed over the years, but that is one of the roles.

He also is part of the magesterum...
The magesterum of the CC is made up of the Pope and all the Bishops....you would know them as cardinals...

Unlike Protestantism that has many churches and each one is allowed to understand the O.T. and the N.T. in their own way,,,,catholicism uses the magesterum so that ALL it's many "branches of churches" teach the same doctrine.

I can't think of anything else, maybe the other member will.

 

[Walpole]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said the above.
Please don't go beyond what I actually SAY.

You did the same in the post just above.

Are these not your words?

I understand the above.
I understand the reasons why she had A ROLE in salvation economy.
I just don't agree with it.

---> "I just don't agree with it."

Hence my question: So you don't agree that Mary gave flesh to the Second Person of the Trinity? (That was her role in salvation economy.)

Mary is already a co-mediatrix.
I DO NOT believe that she is to be a co-redeemer.
I find nowhere in the bible or any extra-biblical writings that allude to this.

If you do,,,,please post same.



As you know, GOD does not have a mother.
JESUS has a mother....
The Son has a mother.
This was settled many years ago...
Mary is the Mother of the Son of God.

God does have a mother. Either Christ is God or He is not. If He is, then Mary can be called the Mother of God. The incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

You cannot divide Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions. He is one Person and Mary is His mother.

"And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him." (Matthew 2:11)

Did I denigrate her?
You're speaking for me again.

If you deny her role in the economy of salvation like you do below, then you are denigrating her.

Mary has no role in the salvatiion economy.
What role did she play exactly?

Genesis 3:15 says HER SEED will be pitted against satan.
NOT HER.

You just answered your own question. (She provided the "Seed".) Christ took His human nature from her. Again, the incarnation, by definition, requires a mother.

 

[Walpole]

Maybe not now that Francis is in charge.
Some changes are coming next year....I'm not sure what yet....

One can only hope...

 

[Walpole]

Well I guess you can stop speaking to me then.
No intelligence here at all.

I DID say that M. is an idol.
Now you're repeating he's an idol and not their God.

Tell me this:
Who wrote the Qu'ran?
Why do Muslims follow all those regulations in there?
Were they sent by God? Or Muhammad?
Does GOD tell Muslims to kill the infidel or does M.?

And when did I ever say Catholics worship Mary?
You do like to put words into my mouth.
You should forget what other protestants say about catholicism and speak TO ME.

Ok, we'll end it then. Best wishes to you and God bless.

 

[stovebolts]

Walpole
I've been reading a few of your responses and what I can tell, you've been in some heated debates with protestants in the past.

We are not your enemy, we are your Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

I am reminded of Pricilla and Aquilla then they took Stephen aside to gently correct him, and that's the atmosphere we want to create here.

You say another member denies the role of Mary as well as other things and do so in an aggressive way which is conducive to creating hard feelings and further division. Simply put, you don't need to act that way here.

Instead, I would ask that you build the body up, and share what you know in a way that doesn't pit us against one another.

I know this sounds odd for a forum, but we've worked hard to create friendships on this site, and as the owner of this site, its my desire to curb away from harsh words to create an environment that facilitates growth and unity.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Walpole]

You two might be able to explain this better. But I don't understand the position of the Pope. There must be a history for why the position came about. Is it to settle disagreements and heresies among elders and bishops? To rule over Christianity like a king? Or something else?

In the old Testiment God had judges and prophets, then later He allowed Israel to be ruled by kings. From what I read in the New Testiment there were apstoles, prophets, and elders. And from Acts there is the meetings of the elders for a few topics (or maybe there was only one meeting discussing whether Gentiles could be Christian and the laws they are to hold to vurses the laws that are not a burden for them? I can't remember if there was another one or not.)

But it must have been later for the position of a Pope. I honestly don't know when or why it came or what role it provides.

(Sorry to change the subject a bit).

I'll try to be brief...

The Church is Apostolic, meaning that she traces her episcopacy in an unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles. Why is this important?

The Scriptures show us how the primitive Apostolic Church functioned, as well as how the Apostles themselves planning for its eventual continuation apart from them. The Gospels, epistles and personal correspondences which would later be compiled into what we call the New Testament were the most important documents in the early Church because they were tied to the person of an Apostle, which in turn led back to Christ Himself. Thus we see the importance of the personage of the Apostles and a physical pedigree descending from them, which is why they physically ordained men, "laying on hands" in order to seal their word and mission to successors as authoritatively connected to them, and through them, back to Christ. The faith does not and has never existed in a vacuum, isolated and cut off from its roots. In the early Church, no one could act independently of a successor to an Apostle. In other words, the faith can never be isolated and maintained apart from true Apostolic succession. Anything not part of this vine was the simplest litmus test for what was not authentic Christianity. The early Church could demonstrate this empirically, by simply pointing to the sees where the Apostles themselves had been active and who in turn chose men to succeed them in their work by the "laying on hands." These sees became the reference points for orthodoxy and oversight (later what we call dioceses) for the true faith and for valid orders to perpetuate the teaching of Christ and sanctifying the Church via the sacraments, which Christ instructed to continue.

In the New Testament, there is one Apostle who is always listed first in order of importance - the protos. That Apostle is St. Peter. He is mentioned nearly 200 times in the Gospels and is continually singled out by Christ to be the leader amongst the Apostles. Christ changes his name, gives him the keys to the kingdom, instructs him to feed His sheep and strengthen his brethren, speaks for the Church at the Council of Jerusalem; etc. Thus St. Peter is clearly given authority over the Church, even above that of the other Apostles.

Because St. Peter eventually went to Rome, by virtue of him, Rome was therefore the standard for true and authentic Apostolic doctrine. Thus, the early Church used the Roman Church as the litmus test for what was true and authentic doctrine. In the Church's infancy, Rome was always looked upon as the place from whence pure doctrine is safeguarded and transmitted. It should be noted this acknowledgement of the primary of the Church of Rome actually precedes the canon of the New Testament. In other words, the early Christians knew what see protected the doctrine of the faith before they knew what books were to be considered inspired Scripture.

So who is the pope? He is Peter's successor.

 

[Walpole]

Walpole
I've been reading a few of your responses and what I can tell, you've been in some heated debates with protestants in the past.

We are not your enemy, we are your Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

I am reminded of Pricilla and Aquilla then they took Stephen aside to gently correct him, and that's the atmosphere we want to create here.

You say another member denies the role of Mary as well as other things and do so in an aggressive way which is conducive to creating hard feelings and further division. Simply put, you don't need to act that way here.

Instead, I would ask that you build the body up, and share what you know in a way that doesn't pit us against one another.

I know this sounds odd for a forum, but we've worked hard to create friendships on this site, and as the owner of this site, its my desire to curb away from harsh words to create an environment that facilitates growth and unity.

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for the post. I apologize if I have come off argumentative. This thread got off the rails pretty early. I simply was asking a question that I was having trouble logically understanding.

One of the posters asked me to stop discussing with her so that should end it.

 

[stovebolts]

Jeff,

Thanks for the post. I apologize if I have come off argumentative. This thread got off the rails pretty early. I simply was asking a question that I was having trouble logically understanding.

One of the posters asked me to stop discussing with her so that should end it.

I understand, it's been quiet the norm for online forums. We're trying to change that here, and I could sure use your help.

We've got a good community here and we've tried hard to be respectful to one another.

I've got lots of questions I don't have the answers to including ones I've asked God to reveal for me, so I've got to take not knowing and not understanding as the answer God gives me.

Anyway, it's good to see you on the board, it's been awhile since I've seen you. I hope you'll have some patience, but more importantly I hope you show charity and grace to us and I'll try and make sure you get treated the same.

Take care, grace and peace.