Doctors of the Church: St. Athanasius of Alexandria

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
BrotherJ, I can only tell about half of the time whether it is you or some commentary speaking. How do we know that we are not following men with itching ears of our own?

.
We are called to test the spirits-are we not?

Are you taking a stance for the RCC?
The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception

The modern Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that Mary was conceived without sin. The Catechism (paragraph 491) states:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God (Luke 1:28) was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

History

How was the idea of Mary's immaculate conception introduced in the catholic church? The doctrine was not a tradition in the early centuries of the church. Some Church Fathers taught that Mary led a sinless life, but they did not teach that she was conceived without original sin. On the contrary the Fathers opposed the heresy of Pelagius who insisted that Adam's sin was not imputed to the human race. For instance, Augustine writes: "He [Christ], therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin" (De Peccatorum Meritis, Bk II, Ch 38). Christ alone never had any sin.

A feast of Mary's conception was celebrated in the Eastern church as early as the seventh century (and later in the West), but that does not imply a belief in "immaculate" conception. In fact, to this day the Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine.

In the 13th-century, John Duns Scotus promoted the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Franciscan monks continued to preach and defend the doctrine, but it was opposed in the 12th-century by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th-century and subsequently by the Dominican friars.

In the 15th-century the Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV established a feast of the Immaculate Conception to be celebrated on December 8.

Finally in 1854 Pope Pius IX issued a solemn decree, Ineffabilis Deus, declaring the Immaculate Conception an essential dogma for all the church.

Scripture

Catholic scholars acknowledge that this doctrine is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

The Catechism refers to Luke 1:28 for scriptural support. But "full of grace" could not possibly mean conceived without sin, for the very same word is used in Ephesians 1:6 referring to ALL believers. Certainly no-one would argue that all Christians are conceived without sin!

Contrary to the Roman Catholic teaching, the Scripture plainly teaches that all Adam's descendents share his sinful nature: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Therefore all Adam's children need to be saved. Mary herself, a natural descendant of Adam, calls God "my savior" (Luke 1:47). Evidently she did not know the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception!

Of Christ alone, the eternal Son who was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin woman, it is ever expressly stated that He was "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Christ alone is immaculate from conception; therefore He alone is qualified to die in the place of sinners. Christ, who knew no sin, "bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24).

In Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX also appealed to Genesis 3:15 as "unmistakable evidence that she has crushed the poisonous head of the serpent." He also states that with and through Christ, Mary was "eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

But the Bible does not say that Mary crushed the serpent's head. Speaking to the serpent, the Lord says:

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.

The woman's Seed, the Messiah, not the woman, bruised the serpent's head.

The paintings of the Immaculate crushing the serpent's head were inspired from a incorrect translation of Genesis 3:15 based on the Latin Vulgate: "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" (Douay-Rheims Bible). Modern Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible, correct the mistake: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Yet Mary is still portrayed crushing Satan's head. Let us not be misled by false images and false doctrine. Nobody but Jesus fulfilled the great prophecy and overcame our deceptive enemy. "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). Through His death, Jesus destroyed "him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release[ed] those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14,15). Let us therefore trust in Him alone to give us victory over Satan, sin and death.

Shipwreck in the Faith

The implications of the Catholic dogma are very serious. Pope Pius IX solemnly warned: "Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart" (Ineffabilis Deus).

The Roman Catholic magisterium would have us believe a novel doctrine (that is neither taught in the Scriptures nor in the writings of the Church Fathers) as an essential article of the Christian faith. But we are convinced that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15). We don't need any extra-biblical doctrines for our salvation. In fact, it is the Roman Church that has suffered "shipwreck in the faith" by embracing a doctrine that is contrary to the Bible; and "separated from the unity of the Church" which for centuries knew nothing of the theological inventions of Rome.

© Dr Joseph Mizzi
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
BrotherJ, I can only tell about half of the time whether it is you or some commentary speaking. How do we know that we are not following men with itching ears of our own?
Peoples salvation-whether they be deceived, or not, is at stake here-why don't you yourself peruse the link I have provided and speak to Mike himself?
 

BarneyFife

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2019
9,122
6,356
113
Central PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I just finished-listening to both videos-and concur re the "systems" the same way Mike Gendor affirms.

So why attack me as building straw men?
J.

Why call a question an "attack?"

When I ask you about things that have nothing to do with the RCC and you reply by asking me if I'm standing for the RCC, I wonder if you're just building straw men to knock down. It seems like a reasonable consideration to me.

And, asking me if I have something to keep me busy... Not sure what to make of that, Brother J.

.
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Why call a question an "attack?"

When I ask you about things that have nothing to do with the RCC and you reply by asking me if I'm standing for the RCC, I wonder if you're just building straw men to knock down. It seems like a reasonable consideration to me.

And, asking me if I have something to keep me busy... Not sure what to make of that, Brother J.

.
Right.
J.
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Yes, I'm familiar with Mike Gendron.

He was destroyed by Catholic apologist, Tim Staples . . .
Don't think so-just to show you I am not biased-you seem to be all out "destroying" any and all who don't hold to YOUR belief.


Where in Scripture does it mention infant baptism? Bryan quotes a Scripture and it had nothing to do with infant baptism.
Secondly-since when are water baptism an instance of regeneration and ONGOING justification?

I never knew Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration and ONGOING Justification-how can a baby be regenerated?

Don't they need to reach the age of Bar Mitzvah?

A snippet-

"Through initial justification, from the Catholic perspective, God obligates us to abide in him (John 14:15) and grow progressively in holiness (see Matt. 5:43-48). This progressive growth after initial justification is known as ongoing justification or sanctification. In ongoing justification or sanctification, we continue to grow in the theological and human virtues, with Jesus as our model. This is not “works righteousness” or “salvation by works” as the Church’s teaching is sometimes caricatured. Works alone, as the heretic Pelagius was reminded by the Church in the 400s, can never save. And works apart from grace cannot even contribute to our salvation. Indeed, our good works only have “merit”—including graces for ourselves and others to grow in holiness and help attain eternal life—because they are rooted in and aided by Christ’s love (CCC 2006–16), so that we might persevere in God’s grace instead of rejecting his gift of salvation. And if we are baptized after the age of reason, even the choice to receive baptism is a good work, again aided by God’s grace."

Justification progressive?

 
Last edited:

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Yes, I'm familiar with Mike Gendron.

He was destroyed by Catholic apologist, Tim Staples . . .
400 AD: Jerome:

"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8)

Jerome clearly believes that if the church in the entire world agrees on some doctrine or practice, it is as good as having a Bible verse in scripture and a binding command. We strongly disagree. Jerome even knew at the time he said this, that NONE of what he talks about in this passage like "laying on of hands after baptism" and "drinking milk and honey" after baptism, was universally practiced. And no one in the modern Roman Catholic or Orthodox church today does so either! What is most important here, is that the "unwritten customs and laws" that Jerome claims were handed down by the apostles, are all very trivial and optional matters like "standing up in worship on the Lord's day". Any Catholic or Orthodox defender who want to use Jerome as an example of a man who felt "unwritten customs and laws" are as binding as scripture are required to do all the things Jerome here identifies as "unwritten customs and laws". Otherwise they are as hypocritical as they are dishonest.

The same goes for Ignatius etc.
Agree?
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
400 AD: Jerome:

"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8)

Jerome clearly believes that if the church in the entire world agrees on some doctrine or practice, it is as good as having a Bible verse in scripture and a binding command. We strongly disagree. Jerome even knew at the time he said this, that NONE of what he talks about in this passage like "laying on of hands after baptism" and "drinking milk and honey" after baptism, was universally practiced. And no one in the modern Roman Catholic or Orthodox church today does so either! What is most important here, is that the "unwritten customs and laws" that Jerome claims were handed down by the apostles, are all very trivial and optional matters like "standing up in worship on the Lord's day". Any Catholic or Orthodox defender who want to use Jerome as an example of a man who felt "unwritten customs and laws" are as binding as scripture are required to do all the things Jerome here identifies as "unwritten customs and laws". Otherwise they are as hypocritical as they are dishonest.

The same goes for Ignatius etc.
Agree?
No answer-
J.
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
This entire rant is based on half-truths, misconceptions and outright HOGWASH. For example – the hatred for the “Roman” Catholic Church.
NOT sure what he’s referring to since there is NO such thing.

I belong to the Catholic Church, which is comprised of around 20 or so LITURGICAL RITES – the largest being the Roman (Latin) Rite.
There is also the Byzantine rite, the Maronite, Coptic, Melkite, etc. They are ALL Catholics in FULL communion with each other. BUT, you could never call ANY Catholics in the other Liturgical Rites “Roman” Catholics.

I could spend hours destroying all of the other points he made – and have done so on this forum – ad nauseam. For now, however – I’ll wait for this poster to admit his error with regard to “Roman” Catholic Church moniker . . .
No-I don't think you can spend hours "destroying" as to what stands written-make your appeal as to what stands written, not the Church fathers and catechisms.

An aside-I am still learning, at the moment-but thank you for giving the "20 or so" liturgical rites.
J.
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Two things?
Since you are not willing to give this video clip a listen-

Ep 100 | Catholicism vs. The Bible with Mike Gendron | Redeeming Truth-

Why don't you go to the site and read?

-and after reading-we can have a "simple discussion" Who is Mike Gendron? DO you know?

And is the Mass propitiatory?
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,975
3,415
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Don't think so-just to show you I am not biased-you seem to be all out "destroying" any and all who don't hold to YOUR belief.


Where in Scripture does it mention infant baptism? Bryan quotes a Scripture and it had nothing to do with infant baptism.
Secondly-since when are water baptism an instance of regeneration and ONGOING justification?

I never knew Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration and ONGOING Justification-how can a baby be regenerated?

Don't they need to reach the age of Bar Mitzvah?

A snippet-

"Through initial justification, from the Catholic perspective, God obligates us to abide in him (John 14:15) and grow progressively in holiness (see Matt. 5:43-48). This progressive growth after initial justification is known as ongoing justification or sanctification. In ongoing justification or sanctification, we continue to grow in the theological and human virtues, with Jesus as our model. This is not “works righteousness” or “salvation by works” as the Church’s teaching is sometimes caricatured. Works alone, as the heretic Pelagius was reminded by the Church in the 400s, can never save. And works apart from grace cannot even contribute to our salvation. Indeed, our good works only have “merit”—including graces for ourselves and others to grow in holiness and help attain eternal life—because they are rooted in and aided by Christ’s love (CCC 2006–16), so that we might persevere in God’s grace instead of rejecting his gift of salvation. And if we are baptized after the age of reason, even the choice to receive baptism is a good work, again aided by God’s grace."

Justification progressive?

Soooo – did the babies who were circumcised in the OT decide to be circumcised??
They entered into the Covenant with God through circumcision (Genesis 17:10-12).

You accept the idea of a baby having his foreskin cut off to enter into the Covenant with God – but you reject a baby being Baptized to enter the New Covenant with Him. Babies were guided by their parents in the OT – but that cannot be guided by them in the NT, according to YOU.

WHY is that??
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,611
4,885
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Soooo – did the babies who were circumcised in the OT decide to be circumcised??
They entered into the Covenant with God through circumcision (Genesis 17:10-12).

You accept the idea of a baby having his foreskin cut off to enter into the Covenant with God – but you reject a baby being Baptized to enter the New Covenant with Him. Babies were guided by their parents in the OT – but that cannot be guided by them in the NT, according to YOU.

WHY is that??
Is a baby who's foreskin cut off regenerated and justified?
In the NT is a baby-not having reached the age of accountability-regenerated and justified in the waters of baptism?

Uh-no-instead of reading the "infallible teachings of what the Church fathers wrote"------


You should read elsewhere the ancient rabbinical writings-yes? And please-don't misrepresent me in what I am NOT saying

You want me to share my sources with you?

Shalom
J.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,975
3,415
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
400 AD: Jerome:

"Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked." (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8)

Jerome clearly believes that if the church in the entire world agrees on some doctrine or practice, it is as good as having a Bible verse in scripture and a binding command. We strongly disagree. Jerome even knew at the time he said this, that NONE of what he talks about in this passage like "laying on of hands after baptism" and "drinking milk and honey" after baptism, was universally practiced. And no one in the modern Roman Catholic or Orthodox church today does so either! What is most important here, is that the "unwritten customs and laws" that Jerome claims were handed down by the apostles, are all very trivial and optional matters like "standing up in worship on the Lord's day". Any Catholic or Orthodox defender who want to use Jerome as an example of a man who felt "unwritten customs and laws" are as binding as scripture are required to do all the things Jerome here identifies as "unwritten customs and laws". Otherwise they are as hypocritical as they are dishonest.

The same goes for Ignatius etc.
Agree?
No.

What we have here in Jerome’s text is an example of Tradition (Baptism) and tradition (milk & honey). One is doctrinal and is binding on the believer. The other is a custom and is not binding.

Paul clearly taught that Tradition is just as binding on the believer as Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).