Mary the Queen of Heaven

[erowe1]

I certainly didn't mean to offend, but it's difficult to correct someone without telling them you believe they're wrong in the first place. Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved. He doesn't believe that our "good works" are necessary, same you believe. He also provided links to CARM, which is pure Calvinism.

In the link he provided, asserts that the RCC are not Christians--this is wrong as well and should also be accompanied with an apology from Kevin, because I have never once accused Kevin of not being a Christian, but--by his own belief and practice--denotes such as well.

That link Keven provided also makes the statement that the RCC is the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible--this is not true either because I have provided scriptural proof that the "Harlot" mentioned in the Bible is Jerusalem--not the RCC. Scripture after scripture in the word of God refers only to Jerusalem as being the "Harlot" in the Old Testament and the New.

Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian, as he's done to many good faithful Catholics in here and I never would, but the *way* he believes is not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ who most definitely told us that nothing but our good works done in faith can possibly glorify the Father in heaven.

Believing something Calvin believed doesn't mean the same thing as what you said. You also believe lots of things that Calvin believed. But the fact that he also believed those things is irrelevant to you, just as it is to me, and I would assume to Kevin as well.

What's your basis for the comment you made about CARM?

The Roman Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, which it considers an ecumenical council, says that anyone who disagrees with it about the precise list of books belonging to the canon is not Christian, which would rule out Eastern Orthodox. Is that just as wrong?

My observation over the years has been that the bulk of the problems that arise in the religion forums here result from people taking offense that other people think they're not saved. We all just need to take for granted that, no matter who we are or what we believe, someone else thinks we're not saved, and stop getting getting upset when they say so.

As for your last comment, are you sure about that? Jesus never said that anything else, like his crucifixion for example, would glorify God?


ETA: This was pretty easy to find: http://carm.org/carm-calvinism . It makes me wonder whether you bothered checking before you made your claim.

 

[Terry1]

Believing something Calvin believed doesn't mean the same thing as what you said. You also believe lots of things that Calvin believed.

What's your basis for the comment you made about CARM?

The Roman Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, which it considers an ecumenical council, says that anyone who disagrees with it about the precise list of books belonging to the canon is not Christian, which would rule out Eastern Orthodox. Is that just as wrong?

If want to dissect every jot and tittle of doctrine not consistent with the word of God--then you should begin with those who are the most dangerous to the body of Christ which isn't the RCC or the EOC--it is the Protestant doctrines that are saturated with untruths that are far more dangerous to the soul and Spirit than worrying about whether a church believes it's the be all end all of salvation.

Believing that you have already obtained eternal life and are chosen in this life without the chance of losing salvation is the *very belief* that will cause you to lose it. That is something you should be focused on and not whether a church practices idolatry or not or thinks it's the only path to salvation. God is able to over-look many traditions and practices that people do knowing in their hearts that what they do--they do in love and honor to Him, but what God will not over-look are those who live in a state of complacency thinking that they can not fall or that they can live any way they choose and still be saved without good works that follow faith.

Opposite the Protestant and many of the reformers teaching--we are commanded by our Lord Himself to live Godly lives by doing good unto others through our faith and good works and to the very end of our lives, which all through the NT, we are taught by every writer in every book.

No one is once saved always saved in this life--no one is once chosen always chosen in this life--no one is once elected always elected in this life. This life is a test of our faith and good works to the very end of it and then only *God chooses* whom He will after we have been tested and proved to have overcome this life through our choice to walk in the Spirit of the Lord or fall from it. That is the Gospel truth and not what most of the Protestant doctrines are teaching--that is the Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox faith which is most consistent with the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul nowhere tells us that we are eternally secure in this life and any reference to eternal security such as "can not pluck them from my hands" is in reference to after the first death of this life--a future event. "Predestined to be" is a future event *AFTER* this life.

Here Paul tells you that only now he's certain of his eternal life--being at the very end of this life and only hours from his worldly death.

2 Timothy 4:
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

 

[erowe1]

Kevin believes in the perseverance of the saints doctrine Once Saved Always Saved.
....
Like I said--I've never accused Kevin of not being a Christian

And then...

Believing that you have already obtained eternal life and are chosen in this life without the chance of losing salvation is the *very belief* that will cause you to lose it.

I leave it to the reader to decide if you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

 

[erowe1]

The Apostle Paul nowhere tells us that we are eternally secure in this life and any reference to eternal security such as "can not pluck them from my hands" is in reference to after the first death of this life--a future event. "Predestined to be" is a future event *AFTER* this life.

That is false. And your own quotation of the word "predestined" in the past tense proves it.

In the way Paul uses the word, a person who is justified, was already predestined in the past to be glorified in the future. The glorification is future, but the predestination happened in the past.

Also, Paul is very explicit that people can be justified in the here and now, and that each and every justified person, with zero exceptions, is guaranteed to be glorified. He never once entertains the possibility of a justified person not being glorified, and he spends more than one chapter directly and explicitly addressing the issue to proclaim the unbreakable promise that every single justified person will surely be glorified.

I get that you disagree with him. But you can't say he never said that.

 

[Terry1]

And then...


I leave it to the reader to decide if you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

Speaking facts might seem that way to you considering your current state of belief also, but that's not the case. I'm speaking in terms of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us. In essence then--you're claiming that the Gospel is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, unless you can prove with scripture otherwise.

 

[Terry1]

That is false. And your own quotation of the word "predestined" in the past tense proves it.

In the way Paul uses the word, a person who is justified, was already predestined in the past to be glorified in the future. The glorification is future, but the predestination happened in the past.

Also, Paul is very explicit that people can be justified in the here and now, and that each and every justified person, with zero exceptions, is guaranteed to be glorified. He never once entertains the possibility of a justified person not being glorified, and he spends more than one chapter directly and explicitly addressing the issue to proclaim the unbreakable promise that every single justified person will surely be glorified.

I get that you disagree with him. But you can't say he never said that.

Absolutely not--what you've just quoted is in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ erowe. "Glorified" in every sense of the word is a reference to a future event after this life--not in this life. The only way we can be perfect and glorified in this life is by continually walking in the Spirit of the Lord and if we choose not to walk in the spirit of the Lord and for too long in this life--we can and people do most certainly fall from grace and out of salvation. Our faith is for *us to choose to keep* and our *course is what we choose to follow* to the very end of our lives in this life. Rev. 3:5. Also as the Apostle Paul told you that he "chose to keep the faith and stay the course" until his death by doing the "good works"/"works of faith" that our Lord called him to do. Knowing now that he stayed the course and "kept the faith"--knows that he's received his crown of glory, but not before then.


I don't want to derail TER's thread too much here and all I will tell you is that John in Revelation most certainly makes reference to the virgin birth of Christ and Mary as being royalty with the crown of twelve stars and arrayed with the sun. John is making use of a metaphor giving reference to the body of Christ and the church. Mary is most worthy of the title of "Queen of Heaven" and is not out of line to venerate her as such understanding the role she played with regard to giving birth of her own virgin flesh to the Son of God. God would not condemn this and neither should any man being that Johns testimony in Revelation is the very inspiration and revelation from God Himself.

 

[erowe1]

Speaking facts might seem that way to you considering your current state of belief also, but that's not the case. I'm speaking in terms of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us. In essence then--you're claiming that the Gospel is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, unless you can prove with scripture otherwise.

Gotcha.

So you're saying that Kevin says that what he believes is the Gospel, and those who don't believe it deny the Gospel. And Kevin is wrong to do this. And you would never do such a thing.

And you're also saying that what you believe is the Gospel, and that those who don't believe it don't believe the Gospel. And you're not wrong to do this.

Furthermore, anyone who accuses you of holding yourself to a different standard than you hold Kevin is also denying the Gospel.

Again, I leave it to the reader to sort through the implications of all that.

 

[erowe1]

"Glorified" in every sense of the word is a reference to a future event after this life--not in this life.

That's exactly what I said. You must have misread my post.

 

[Terry1]

Gotcha.

So you're saying that Kevin says that what he believes is the Gospel, and those who don't believe it deny the Gospel. And Kevin is wrong to do this. And you would never do such a thing.

And you're also saying that what you believe is the Gospel, and that those who don't believe it don't believe the Gospel. And you're not wrong to do this.

Furthermore, anyone who accuses you of holding yourself to a different standard than you hold Kevin is also denying the Gospel.

Again, I leave it to the reader to sort through the implications of all that.

I only state what I believe according to what the word of God says and it all reconciles with scripture. If you believe I'm wrong, then you must use scripture to prove that. We've already been through this and you always inevitably end up having to add to or take away from scripture to support your belief by claiming that "all doesn't mean all" and that "world doesn't mean world" and that "faith is dead without works" is not saying what it most certainly is saying. I don't have to change a word of scripture to understand that it all reconciles with each other. That's the difference between what you have chosen to believe and what I know is Gospel truth.

Given the fact that we will all see through the glass darkly--still more is given to those who prayerfully, sincerely and honestly seek it with a whole heart and mind. I know that there's a reason why many are not seeing more clearly and it because they have chosen not to by allowing themselves to become embedded in unsound doctrines.

 

[Terry1]

ETA: This was pretty easy to find: http://carm.org/carm-calvinism . It makes me wonder whether you bothered checking before you made your claim.

I urge everyone to avoid this CARM site completely. CARM is a conglomeration of different people teaching a wide array of reformed doctrine that doesn't even reconcile with some of their own contributors and writers. Instead, what it appears to be is a concerted effort on the part of it's creator/'s to build something large and widespread with all sorts of unbiblical teaching. My personal opinion is that it's a cesspool of misinformation, unbiblical teaching and people who'd very much like to call themselves *leaders of flocks*--when they're anything but that and far-far from it.

This is why there are so many Protestant churches teaching all kinds of differing doctrines, while the Catholic and the EOC are right on the mark and together in their interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Never mind their tradition and practices--their saving message in the Gospel is consistent with the word of God as it always has been since the days of Jesus's Apostles.

Personally I chose the Greek Orthodox faith because their contention is that Jesus is the head of the worldly church and not the Pope. Hopefully as time passes--these two sister churches will fall under the same banner of faith once again.

The assertion and belief that the RCC is the Harlot mentioned in the Bible is totally incorrect. The Harlot was always Jerusalem because Jerusalem sells itself out to the devil who was once faithful to God--Hence God calls Jerusalem--"The Harlot" who will ride the beast of revelation. All you have to do is wiki Jerusalem and see what's happening there and the fight over territory and power and who is and will be in control of it all.

 

[Terry1]

Adding--it's impossible for the RCC to be the Harlot for many reasons but the most glaring is that Isaiah tells you that the Harlot Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. Jerusalem was built upon Zion for a reason. Rome is not Zion. Jerusalem was the "Great City" built upon seven hills--the seven hills of Jerusalem/Zion.

Isaiah 1: 21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

24 Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:

25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.





Revelation 11:8King James Version (KJV)

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives:

1.The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One],

2.The middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two],

3.The highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13).

4.On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name),

5.The "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five],

6.To the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six],

7.And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion."

Revelation 17:9

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Mystery and myth solved. The RCC is NOT--the Harlot that rides the beast of Revelation--Jerusalem is. This is where the reformers perverted the word of God to imply that because Rome is built on seven hills also--that they must be the Harlot--that's wrong and incorrect and unbiblical to say the least.



There are many cities claiming to be built on seven hills--but the seven "heads", "the harlot", "the whore", "Sodom and Egypt" are all referring to Jerusalem as Revelation 11:8 tells you this "where our Lord was crucified"---Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem--Not ROME.

 

[Terry1]

[SIZE=+2]Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian).
[*]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

I have just proven to you that you're wrong with scripture to back it up. The RCC is not the Harlot and CARM is a cesspool of unbiblical teaching.

 

[Kevin007]

Adding--it's impossible for the RCC to be the Harlot for many reasons but the most glaring is that Isaiah tells you that the Harlot Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. Jerusalem was built upon Zion for a reason. Rome is not Zion. Jerusalem was the "Great City" built upon seven hills--the seven hills of Jerusalem/Zion.

Isaiah 1: 21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

24 Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:

25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.





Revelation 11:8King James Version (KJV)

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives:

1.The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One],

2.The middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two],

3.The highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13).

4.On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name),

5.The "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five],

6.To the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six],

7.And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion."

Revelation 17:9

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Mystery and myth solved. The RCC is NOT--the Harlot that rides the beast of Revelation--Jerusalem is. This is where the reformers perverted the word of God to imply that because Rome is built on seven hills also--that they must be the Harlot--that's wrong and incorrect and unbiblical to say the least.



There are many cities claiming to be built on seven hills--but the seven "heads", "the harlot", "the whore", "Sodom and Egypt" are all referring to Jerusalem as Revelation 11:8 tells you this "where our Lord was crucified"---Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem--Not ROME.

7 mountains are the 7 world powers since Adam and Eve. #7 is the revived roman empire.

 

[Terry1]

7 mountains are the 7 world powers since Adam and Eve. #7 is the revived roman empire.

Revelation 11:8 tells you exactly as Isaiah does-- that the whore/Harlot is the city "where our Lord was crucified"--read what I wrote Kevin--don't skim through my posts please. Now surely you're not going to dispute what Revelation and Isaiah are both saying. Revelation 17: 9 tells you that the "seven heads" are "mountains"--not world powers. I have no idea where you've gathered this info, but it's not from reading the word of God, but elsewhere as places like CARM and such.

Your tirade against the Catholic church is absolutely and totally unfounded, unbiblical and you have been sorely misled by Protestant teachings.

 

[Kevin007]

Great post TER. And since the Church is the very physical image of Christ in this world--we worship Christ *through* the Church that contains the very body of believers in this world. I think this is where some of the Protestants are confusing the issue of "worship", thinking it's idolatry. I don't believe that they *get--that the worldly ancient church is our physical and tangible link to Christ Himself.

I know myself coming out of the Protestant churches that there is a wall that's been built between the Catholics and the Protestants that's very difficult to penetrate scripturally speaking. The reformers did so much damage in their quest to *reform* that they actually corrupted the true teachings of the Gospel of Christ to the point now it's been like a cancer that's spread through the centuries to what we have today. This is indeed a stronghold that I see that's not of God, but at the same time--God knows the hearts and minds of those who He can make stand regardless.

The most detrimental and dangerous teaching to the soul I can see today, is the teaching that "belief and faith" are synonymous and that "good works" are not needed, when Jesus our Lord tells us the exact opposite as well as every single apostle, prophet and teacher in the word of God.

I think that before we can convince the Protestants that veneration is not the same as worship with regard to Church traditions and practices, we first have to break down that wall of corruption leading them to believe that because Jesus finished the work on the cross, that we have nothing left to do. We know this isn't true because our faith, good works and ministry begin at the time of belief and confession--they don't end there. Through prayer and witness--somehow we must find a way to reveal to them where they err.

prove it.

 

[Terry1]

prove it.

How can I prove what's in the heart of the believer that they profess too? Only God can do that. If someone tells you they only worship God--then you must believe them. If whatever a believer does--they do in honor and worship to our Lord God--then God is able to see that and make them stand. I could very well accuse you of idolatry considering that you're choosing to believe a false doctrine above the word of God too. In essence you're worshiping a doctrine that's inconsistent with Gods word too. As in calling the book of the Bible "inerrant" because it contains the word of God. That is worshipping a book above God, because scripture can be perverted as it's interpreted the wrong way--so written words on pages can not be "inerrant".

Romans 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

 

[Kevin007]

lets take the Eucharist for example. Jesus said do this in memory of me. It was to be a memorial, not an ongoing sacrifice. We remember Him because He is physically absent. He is in Heaven. Jesus is not in the Eucharist. The RCC is wrong on so many things.....

 

[Terry1]

lets take the Eucharist for example. Jesus said do this in memory of me. It was to be a memorial, not an ongoing sacrifice. We remember Him because He is physically absent. He is in Heaven. Jesus is not in the Eucharist. The RCC is wrong on so many things.....

Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was. This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.

I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here.

John 6:
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.


This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body. So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such. If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.

1 Corinthians 11: 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So when someone takes the body and blood--they'd better examine themselves closely--otherwise they are bringing damnation upon themselves by doing this unworthily. It's a serious consequence for not understanding what one is doing here. This is why the Eucharist is the very central part of the church within the EOC. Everything centers around Jesus our Lord and Savior.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

prove it.

This has been proven ~38 ways from Sunday. Ditto for icons. You simply choose to ignore it so as to troll people rather than engage the subject.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus is most certainly present in the Eucharist--Jesus Himself told you He was. This is why without doing it "worthily" you can bring damnation upon yourself.

I hate to put it so bluntly here, but Jesus Himself said "eat me"--LOL We're supposed to do this as if we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies and is very consistent with the word of God as John tells you right here.

John 6:
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

This is why the word of God also instructs not to do this unless they understand that yes--you are literally taking and eating of Jesus into your own body. So an unsaved and unbaptized individual should not do this because they are defiling Jesus by doing such. If they do this without doing it "worthily"--then they are placing the body and blood of Jesus into an unclean vessel.

1 Corinthians 11: 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So when someone takes the body and blood--they'd better examine themselves closely--otherwise they are bringing damnation upon themselves by doing this unworthily. It's a serious consequence for not understanding what one is doing here. This is why the Eucharist is the very central part of the church within the EOC. Everything centers around Jesus our Lord and Savior.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.

The fact of the liternalness of the eucharist is a big part of why it is carefully guarded. Our forefathers in Christ took this sacrament very, very seriously and very literally. There was a time when catechumen were not even allowed to be present while the Eucharist was served.