|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/11/2005 8:42:30 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: caur
Doesn't Romans 3:23 say that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"? Didn't Christ say that He did not come to save the righteous? Does that mean that salvation did not extend to Mary? How could Mary have received the gift of salvation by the atoning blood of Christ if she never sinned? If Mary was sinless, then she is not covered by the Blood. Wouldn't a sinless Mary have meant that there are/were TWO sacrifices capable of atoning for the sins of mankind? Mary was not without sin in her life. To believe such makes the Word of God a lie and the necessity and power of Christ's sacrifice unnecessary since Mary could have done the same thing for mankind. Christ had to be born of a natural woman in order to be born into the same sinful nature that the rest of us were in order to overcome it and be the atoning sacrifice. Remember in Genesis when woman was told that she would be saved through child-bearing?
Dear caur,
Mary's preservation from Originan Sin, and her sinlessness was God's gift to her, the application in advance of Christ's saving work.
Man does not have a sinful nature. Man's nature is in a fallen condition. Christ was born with man's true nature. Only in this way could He be Savior, not saved.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Hi Sdaw,
I have seen your posts before and my conclusion is that you truly are saved by Jesus. And I rejoice in that.
having said that, the Bible never says Mary was preserved from original sin, or that her sinlessness was God's gift to her, or an "in-advance" application of his saving work.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception became official only in 1854 and as with many other unbiblical Catholic doctrines, it was not believed by the first Christians nor by the Early Fathers. It was developed over time and it has absolutely no Scriptural backing; and, it has had the colossally dangerous result of making millions on Earth devote their affections to Mary rather than to Christ.
And THAT is, among others, one of the several significant points of contention between Protestants and Catholics - and it certainly is something I cannot compromise on. Mary was a sinner; Christ was not.
Dear jrah06,
Thank you for your kind words. I rejoice with all of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and look forward to the day when we will be all of one accord in Heaven. Until that time, I hope we can disagree with respect and charity.
Catholic doctrines are not unbiblical, although some are extrabiblical. There is a difference. We understand these doctrines in ways that do not contradict Scripture. Scripture and Tradition, both coming from God, cannot be in conflict, although they may be in tension. Some parts of Scripture are in tension with other parts, witness Paul and James.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/11/2005 9:37:04 PM
|
|
|
TheHustler
Posts: 10
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: The Forgotten State of Dela-where?
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHustler
Then why bother dying on a cross? Why not just "save" all people at the moment of conception? Obviously if Mary knew that she needed a savior, why wouldn't we?
Dear TH,
Mary had been filled with grace. We are not so filled in the same way. She was aware of things we are not. God could have saved everyone in this way. He chose not to.
Catholics do not understand the Immaculate Conception as being in any way other than an application of Christ's atoning death and resurrection.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Well, why would God choose to only save Mary in this way? If He can do this would it not be far more efficient to do this for everyone? It would eliminate the need for a cross or a savior because it would have already been in His power to do it already. But clearly there was a need, and clearly Christ did die; clearly God chose not to save people in that manner. So why is that?
To what end would God send His Son to die on a cross? Even Jesus Himself didn't want to (Luke 22:42). So what would compel God to do it if He could make a way out?
To say that Mary was sinless doesn't make any sense in light of the cross.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/11/2005 10:26:52 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHustler
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHustler
Then why bother dying on a cross? Why not just "save" all people at the moment of conception? Obviously if Mary knew that she needed a savior, why wouldn't we?
Dear TH,
Mary had been filled with grace. We are not so filled in the same way. She was aware of things we are not. God could have saved everyone in this way. He chose not to.
Catholics do not understand the Immaculate Conception as being in any way other than an application of Christ's atoning death and resurrection.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Well, why would God choose to only save Mary in this way? If He can do this would it not be far more efficient to do this for everyone? It would eliminate the need for a cross or a savior because it would have already been in His power to do it already. But clearly there was a need, and clearly Christ did die; clearly God chose not to save people in that manner. So why is that?
To what end would God send His Son to die on a cross? Even Jesus Himself didn't want to (Luke 22:42). So what would compel God to do it if He could make a way out?
To say that Mary was sinless doesn't make any sense in light of the cross.
Dear TH,
You can ask Him when you see Him.
My personal opinion is that, since Adam's sin was one of disobedience, its atonement was an act of perfect obedience, obedience unto death on a cross. No man could do it, since all mankind would be tainted with Original Sin. It was not enough just to have Christ born sinless. If so, He would have been saved, not Saviour. The Immaculate Conception made possible for Christ to have a truly sinless human nature, one that was His by right, not gift.
I am amused by the trouble that the Reformed and Calvinist folk have with this issue. They believe God regenerates us, how else could we seek Him. Why can He not regenerate someone at conception. He maintains us, so they say, in a state of justification by His grace, so that we cannot fall from grace. Why can He not do one really spectacular act of regeneration and grace? To me it seems only a matter of degree, not kind. They go to great lengths to maintain God's infinite power. Why is this a problem?
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/11/2005 10:46:22 PM
|
|
|
TheHustler
Posts: 10
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: The Forgotten State of Dela-where?
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHustler
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHustler
Then why bother dying on a cross? Why not just "save" all people at the moment of conception? Obviously if Mary knew that she needed a savior, why wouldn't we?
Dear TH,
Mary had been filled with grace. We are not so filled in the same way. She was aware of things we are not. God could have saved everyone in this way. He chose not to.
Catholics do not understand the Immaculate Conception as being in any way other than an application of Christ's atoning death and resurrection.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Well, why would God choose to only save Mary in this way? If He can do this would it not be far more efficient to do this for everyone? It would eliminate the need for a cross or a savior because it would have already been in His power to do it already. But clearly there was a need, and clearly Christ did die; clearly God chose not to save people in that manner. So why is that?
To what end would God send His Son to die on a cross? Even Jesus Himself didn't want to (Luke 22:42). So what would compel God to do it if He could make a way out?
To say that Mary was sinless doesn't make any sense in light of the cross.
Dear TH,
You can ask Him when you see Him.
My personal opinion is that, since Adam's sin was one of disobedience, its atonement was an act of perfect obedience, obedience unto death on a cross. No man could do it, since all mankind would be tainted with Original Sin. It was not enough just to have Christ born sinless. If so, He would have been saved, not Saviour. The Immaculate Conception made possible for Christ to have a truly sinless human nature, one that was His by right, not gift.
I am amused by the trouble that the Reformed and Calvinist folk have with this issue. They believe God regenerates us, how else could we seek Him. Why can He not regenerate someone at conception. He maintains us, so they say, in a state of justification by His grace, so that we cannot fall from grace. Why can He not do one really spectacular act of regeneration and grace? To me it seems only a matter of degree, not kind. They go to great lengths to maintain God's infinite power. Why is this a problem?
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Ignoring all else, why would Mary have to be sinless for Christ to be sinless? Clearly it is enough to be God and to be born with a sin nature in order to reject sin. And how else could you face all temptation if there was no nature pointing towards sin? God cannot be tempted, but Christ was, so there would have to be some capacity for sin even if it was not chosen.
And if you are sinless, how are you not perfectly obedient? That's what being sinless is, and to say that Christ was perfectly obedient and that Mary was not, but she was still sinless is contradictory by nature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/11/2005 11:29:42 PM
|
|
|
Bokken55
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
|
Luke recounts the angel Gabriel telling Mary, "Hail Mary full of grace!"
Sure seems like she was considered without sin there
The conclusion does not follow, that is simply eisegesis. Scripture says Stephen was "Full of Grace." Yet no one claims he was sinless:
"Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people"--Acts 6:8
In addition, the term “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 is an improper translation based on the Latin Vulgate. The Greek word is “Charitoo”, which means “favored one” or “make accepted” or “to bestow favor upon”. So the angel is greeting Mary in this way because she has found favor in God’s eyes—not because she was sinless. This same word “Charitoo” is referred to all believers in Ephesians 1:6—are they without original sin as well?
Revelation 12 is cited by Catholics as reference to Mary:
"She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth"--Revelation 12:2
It just so happens pain in childbirth is a curse of the fall:
"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children"--Genesis 3:16
To say that Mary was sinless so she could provide a “ark”, a pure “temple” to contain Jesus is really grasping at straws. The RCC pronounced an anathema on any who do not accept her immaculate conception. So, by Rome’s own pronouncement, they anathematized many church fathers, including the great Augustine:
Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, Jesus Christ, alone was born without sin."
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo "He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother."
Ambrose: "Of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only One who experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption."
Leo I (Bishop of Rome): “Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence”
The only way Popes could teach contrary to Catholic dogma had to be because this teaching did not exist. The early church Fathers taught that Mary sinned such as the Greek Fathers Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria who taught that Mary was guilty of sins such as doubt, ambition and vanity. Anslem said that Mary was born with original sin.
Pope Pius IX said:
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful”
So, to be a faithful Catholic you MUST believe that Mary was sinless (this is not just merely a doctrine—it is dogma), let alone the other Mary dogmas—or your under Rome’s “curse”.
Listen to these words by the Pope:
“Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgement; 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 dare to express in words or writing by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart”
So to even THINK otherwise from what the pope has defined is forbidden! Yet it took 1800 years to define such an important doctrine.
< Message edited by Bokken55 -- 5/11/2005 11:35:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 7:02:37 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Bokken,
Some kumitachi. * The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
* Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
* Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
* Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
* Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
* In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
* Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
* it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
* she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
* she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
* when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
* The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
* To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
* Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.
St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.
From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 5:21:42 PM
|
|
|
jrah06
Posts: 32
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
Dear jrah06,
Thank you for your kind words. I rejoice with all of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and look forward to the day when we will be all of one accord in Heaven. Until that time, I hope we can disagree with respect and charity.
Catholic doctrines are not unbiblical, although some are extrabiblical. There is a difference. We understand these doctrines in ways that do not contradict Scripture. Scripture and Tradition, both coming from God, cannot be in conflict, although they may be in tension. Some parts of Scripture are in tension with other parts, witness Paul and James.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Sdaw,
Several Catholic doctrines are extrabiblical as you say, but they are ALSO unbiblical. They contradict Scripture.
Roman Catholicism states tradition comes from God; but much of the tradition-based dogma which Protestants like me strongly disagree with blatantly disagree with the Bible's teachings.
As for some parts of the Bible being "in tension" with each other, we are to rightly divide the Word of truth. But we're not supposed to add teachings to the Bible - see Revelation's final verses - all the more if they contradict the Bible.
Understanding these in ways that do not contradict Scripture - I beg to differ, given how Roman Catholics have often disputed the belief that good works do not get us to heaven. A friend of mine who is a lifelong Catholic, who stubbornly refuses Protestantism's Sola Scriptura, and who was confirmed in her church last year (with a Bishop from Rome presiding) told me that she doesn't know whether she will go to heaven should she die because she hasn't " ... loved people enough." These are her own words.
By her own confession she confessed she understands salvation in a way that CONTRADICTS the Bible, and diametrically so, because we can love all the world and yet without Jesus, we will not be saved.
Finally, on this specific topic: the immaculate conception of Mary directly contradicts Romans 3:23 as well as Mary's own words in Luke 1. She knew she was a sinner, hence her cry of joy - "My soul magnifies the LORD and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."
Blessings to you.
_____________________________
I am barely beginning to learn what following Christ really means - and each lesson is humbling. I'm glad, and fortunate, that God is more loving and patient than me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 5:36:59 PM
|
|
|
GoodME
Posts: 120
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
Several Catholic doctrines are extrabiblical as you say, but they are ALSO unbiblical. They contradict Scripture. Name one.
Roman Catholicism states tradition comes from God; but much of the tradition-based dogma which Protestants like me strongly disagree with blatantly disagree with the Bible's teachings. Name one.
As for some parts of the Bible being "in tension" with each other, we are to rightly divide the Word of truth. But we're not supposed to add teachings to the Bible - see Revelation's final verses - all the more if they contradict the Bible. Name one.
Understanding these in ways that do not contradict Scripture - I beg to differ, given how Roman Catholics have often disputed the belief that good works do not get us to heaven. A friend of mine who is a lifelong Catholic, who stubbornly refuses Protestantism's Sola Scriptura, and who was confirmed in her church last year (with a Bishop from Rome presiding) told me that she doesn't know whether she will go to heaven should she die because she hasn't " ... loved people enough." These are her own words. If "Sola Scriptura", then quote me the Chapter and Verse that instructs us which Scripture belongs in Scripture. The Canon didn't just drop out of the sky, it was given to us by a Church, charged with the office and mission of guarding, defending, and instructing the Faith - by Jesus - at Pentecost (celebrated this Sunday, I think, by some). The very acceptence of the Gospel of John over the Gospel of Thomas as being valid for the instructin of Faith is to accept something other than "Scripture". You don't accept "Sola Scriptura" either, you simply deny that you don't accept it.
By her own confession she confessed she understands salvation in a way that CONTRADICTS the Bible, and diametrically so, because we can love all the world and yet without Jesus, we will not be saved.What she is refering to is widely contained in Paul's epistles about the neccessity of charity to demonstrate Faith. You are expressing unfamiliarity with this aspect of Faith - that a valid Faith will be reflected in choices of thought words and deeds. SHe was expressing the concern that her choices did not reflect her professed Faith - your reaction to that is the un-Scriptural "they don't have to" (Yes, they do).
Finally, on this specific topic: the immaculate conception of Mary directly contradicts Romans 3:23 as well as Mary's own words in Luke 1. She knew she was a sinner, hence her cry of joy - "My soul magnifies the LORD and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."Mary was without sin due to Grace. Sinless does not equate to salvation without Jesus, however. You assume it does. The neccessity of Mary being "full of Grace" (Kere Charitomene - in Greek; we're not making this stuff up out of thin air) was so that she would be ready to bear Jesus when that time came. We can debate whther or not ANY mother of the Christ would have had to have been so Graced (was Mary really obeying God's call, or was God making Mary obey God), but it should be clear that The Savior, The Messiah, was born of a virgin. All Catholics are recognizing then is the Grace supplied by God to one of us to allow this to come to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 6:02:55 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
Dear jrah06,
Thank you for your kind words. I rejoice with all of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and look forward to the day when we will be all of one accord in Heaven. Until that time, I hope we can disagree with respect and charity.
Catholic doctrines are not unbiblical, although some are extrabiblical. There is a difference. We understand these doctrines in ways that do not contradict Scripture. Scripture and Tradition, both coming from God, cannot be in conflict, although they may be in tension. Some parts of Scripture are in tension with other parts, witness Paul and James.
On the Feast of St. Francis Jerome
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Sdaw,
Several Catholic doctrines are extrabiblical as you say, but they are ALSO unbiblical. They contradict Scripture.
Roman Catholicism states tradition comes from God; but much of the tradition-based dogma which Protestants like me strongly disagree with blatantly disagree with the Bible's teachings.
As for some parts of the Bible being "in tension" with each other, we are to rightly divide the Word of truth. But we're not supposed to add teachings to the Bible - see Revelation's final verses - all the more if they contradict the Bible.
Understanding these in ways that do not contradict Scripture - I beg to differ, given how Roman Catholics have often disputed the belief that good works do not get us to heaven. A friend of mine who is a lifelong Catholic, who stubbornly refuses Protestantism's Sola Scriptura, and who was confirmed in her church last year (with a Bishop from Rome presiding) told me that she doesn't know whether she will go to heaven should she die because she hasn't " ... loved people enough." These are her own words.
By her own confession she confessed she understands salvation in a way that CONTRADICTS the Bible, and diametrically so, because we can love all the world and yet without Jesus, we will not be saved.
Finally, on this specific topic: the immaculate conception of Mary directly contradicts Romans 3:23 as well as Mary's own words in Luke 1. She knew she was a sinner, hence her cry of joy - "My soul magnifies the LORD and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."
Blessings to you.
Dear jrah06,
I am sorry that you friend, and other Catholics for that matter, know so little about their faith. In all truth, I would lay a great deal of the blame for that at the feet of the clergy, who ought to be more vigorous is their teaching ministry, but that does not mean that the teachings itself is wrong.
Catholics understand the teachings of the Church in ways that are supported by Scripture, not in contradiction to it.
The Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary are an example. They are a part of Christ's saving work, not apart from it.
If you will read the dogmatic definition of the doctrine, you will see that for yourself.
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 6:14:53 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
Several Catholic doctrines are extrabiblical as you say, but they are ALSO unbiblical. They contradict Scripture.
Hey there, I am still compiling resources for the other post I promised, but I have a few minutes on break and wanted to address these. :)
I have yet to find one Catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture. One of the tests the Catholic Church applies to a doctrine is whether it contradicts Scripture, if it does, it's invalid.
quote:
Roman Catholicism states tradition comes from God; but much of the tradition-based dogma which Protestants like me strongly disagree with blatantly disagree with the Bible's teachings.
Which ones in particular are you referring to? I can kinda guess you don't agree with the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary obviously... but what else?
quote:
As for some parts of the Bible being "in tension" with each other, we are to rightly divide the Word of truth. But we're not supposed to add teachings to the Bible - see Revelation's final verses - all the more if they contradict the Bible.
But we are told to hold firm to the traditions passed on to us by word of mouth according to St. Paul.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Peter writes also, "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25).
Notice how the message was delivered orally. This is the basis of Tradition. At the time, Paul and Peter had only the Old Testament Scriptures. The gospels had yet to be written, so they relied on Traditions passed on by word of mouth.
quote:
Understanding these in ways that do not contradict Scripture - I beg to differ, given how Roman Catholics have often disputed the belief that good works do not get us to heaven. A friend of mine who is a lifelong Catholic, who stubbornly refuses Protestantism's Sola Scriptura, and who was confirmed in her church last year (with a Bishop from Rome presiding) told me that she doesn't know whether she will go to heaven should she die because she hasn't " ... loved people enough." These are her own words.
By her own confession she confessed she understands salvation in a way that CONTRADICTS the Bible, and diametrically so, because we can love all the world and yet without Jesus, we will not be saved.
Incorrect. She didn't quite understood salvation correctly. But she was closer than you might think. The idea that one can be completely assured of one's Salvation is a VERY unscriptural belief. We can be reasonably confident, but there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of salvation.
Paul wrote, "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)
He also wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4) and "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).
Seems like he wasn't 100% sure of his salvation. He was confident, but not completely sure.
quote:
Finally, on this specific topic: the immaculate conception of Mary directly contradicts Romans 3:23 as well as Mary's own words in Luke 1. She knew she was a sinner, hence her cry of joy - "My soul magnifies the LORD and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."
Blessings to you.
Well, if you hold to the idead of the Immaculate Conception you might realize that Mary could still truthfully call Jesus her Saviour AND be born free from sin. Basically, Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin in the first place. Without His intervention, she would have been born a sinner just like us. And thus she was saved. :)
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 8:13:31 PM
|
|
|
DeborahL
Posts: 1345
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Lurker:
You: Well, if you hold to the idead of the Immaculate Conception you might realize that Mary could still truthfully call Jesus her Saviour AND be born free from sin. Basically, Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin in the first place. Without His intervention, she would have been born a sinner just like us. And thus she was saved. :)
Me: Acording to the word: John: If a man says he is 'without sin' he is a liar.
Grace and Peace
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:07:43 PM
|
|
|
jrah06
Posts: 32
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
Several Catholic doctrines are extrabiblical as you say, but they are ALSO unbiblical. They contradict Scripture. Name one.
The immaculate conception is UNBIBLICAL - as I said, read Romans 3:23. And if you then mean that APostle Paul was wrong, then either the Bible has errors (you would have to say Paul was wrong in saying what he says in Romans 3:23) - or, Mary DID have sin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
Roman Catholicism states tradition comes from God; but much of the tradition-based dogma which Protestants like me strongly disagree with blatantly disagree with the Bible's teachings. Name one.
The immaculate conception. I can name others but I don't want to veer off topic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
As for some parts of the Bible being "in tension" with each other, we are to rightly divide the Word of truth. But we're not supposed to add teachings to the Bible - see Revelation's final verses - all the more if they contradict the Bible. Name one.
The immaculate conception of Mary.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
Understanding these in ways that do not contradict Scripture - I beg to differ, given how Roman Catholics have often disputed the belief that good works do not get us to heaven. A friend of mine who is a lifelong Catholic, who stubbornly refuses Protestantism's Sola Scriptura, and who was confirmed in her church last year (with a Bishop from Rome presiding) told me that she doesn't know whether she will go to heaven should she die because she hasn't " ... loved people enough." These are her own words. If "Sola Scriptura", then quote me the Chapter and Verse that instructs us which Scripture belongs in Scripture. The Canon didn't just drop out of the sky, it was given to us by a Church, charged with the office and mission of guarding, defending, and instructing the Faith - by Jesus - at Pentecost (celebrated this Sunday, I think, by some). The very acceptence of the Gospel of John over the Gospel of Thomas as being valid for the instructin of Faith is to accept something other than "Scripture". You don't accept "Sola Scriptura" either, you simply deny that you don't accept it.
But unlike my ROman Catholic friend, my beliefs don't contradict the Bible. Hers do, but she doesn't know it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
By her own confession she confessed she understands salvation in a way that CONTRADICTS the Bible, and diametrically so, because we can love all the world and yet without Jesus, we will not be saved.What she is refering to is widely contained in Paul's epistles about the neccessity of charity to demonstrate Faith. You are expressing unfamiliarity with this aspect of Faith - that a valid Faith will be reflected in choices of thought words and deeds. SHe was expressing the concern that her choices did not reflect her professed Faith - your reaction to that is the un-Scriptural "they don't have to" (Yes, they do).
YOu're missing the point, Goodme.
My friend stated her uncertainty because she hasn't loved others. She reflected a works-based salvation philosophy, which contradicts the Bible.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME
Finally, on this specific topic: the immaculate conception of Mary directly contradicts Romans 3:23 as well as Mary's own words in Luke 1. She knew she was a sinner, hence her cry of joy - "My soul magnifies the LORD and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."Mary was without sin due to Grace. Sinless does not equate to salvation without Jesus, however. You assume it does. The neccessity of Mary being "full of Grace" (Kere Charitomene - in Greek; we're not making this stuff up out of thin air) was so that she would be ready to bear Jesus when that time came. We can debate whther or not ANY mother of the Christ would have had to have been so Graced (was Mary really obeying God's call, or was God making Mary obey God), but it should be clear that The Savior, The Messiah, was born of a virgin. All Catholics are recognizing then is the Grace supplied by God to one of us to allow this to come to pass.
1. Who said Mary was w/o sin due to grace - Roman Catholic tradition, or Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or JOhn, or any other NT writer?
2. Are you then telling me that Romans 3:23 is a lie?
_____________________________
I am barely beginning to learn what following Christ really means - and each lesson is humbling. I'm glad, and fortunate, that God is more loving and patient than me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:11:32 PM
|
|
|
jrah06
Posts: 32
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
Dear jrah06,
I am sorry that you friend, and other Catholics for that matter, know so little about their faith. In all truth, I would lay a great deal of the blame for that at the feet of the clergy, who ought to be more vigorous is their teaching ministry, but that does not mean that the teachings itself is wrong.
Catholics understand the teachings of the Church in ways that are supported by Scripture, not in contradiction to it.
The Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary are an example. They are a part of Christ's saving work, not apart from it.
If you will read the dogmatic definition of the doctrine, you will see that for yourself.
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Sdaw,
I must agree that many Catholics know so little.
I recently had a talk with her. She has a feisty personality and doesn't like how Protestants measure everything according to the Bible. So I asked her, "what is your definition of 'Christian?'"
She refused to answer, because she said we Protestants always measure.
I stopped the discussion because knowing her temper, we might have fought. But she fails to realize that Rome has written councils and canon law detailing what is acceptable dogma, and what isn't - see the Council of Trent.
You said, "Catholics understand the teachings of the Church in ways that are supported by Scripture, not in contradiction to it." I haven't seen that.
As for, "The Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary are an example. They are a part of Christ's saving work, not apart from it." --- I don't see that anywhere in the Bible. If Christ alone saves why divert attention from Him and to Mary?
_____________________________
I am barely beginning to learn what following Christ really means - and each lesson is humbling. I'm glad, and fortunate, that God is more loving and patient than me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:25:25 PM
|
|
|
Bokken55
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
|
Sdaw: I like your attitude, and you didn't resort to ad hominems. It's refreshing to say the least. I say this because it has been my experience that the catholics I have dialogued with in the past engaged in ad hominems and straw man arguments.
Lurker said:
I have yet to find one Catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture. One of the tests the Catholic Church applies to a doctrine is whether it contradicts Scripture, if it does, it's invalid.
That's a separate topic which I'd be glad to discuss perhaps on a separate thread. One thing can be said on arguments from silence, scripture never contradicts that Lucifer was not the spirit brother of lucifer, a position mormons hold to--so their teaching is equally valid on the same merits.
But we are told to hold firm to the traditions passed on to us by word of mouth according to St. Paul.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Peter writes also, "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25).
Notice how the message was delivered orally. This is the basis of Tradition. At the time, Paul and Peter had only the Old Testament Scriptures. The gospels had yet to be written, so they relied on Traditions passed on by word of mouth.
Ahhh! I couldn't resist! The position of Rome is that the "traditions" whether being word of mouth or by letter are separate. But the word construction does not support this. It does not say "word of mouth AND letter"--something you'd excpect if they differed in content.
In 1 Corinthinas 11:2 Paul tells us what this "tradition" is, it is the use of head coverings for women which he devotes the next fourteen verses on the subject. Head coverings were a tradition that is no longer practiced today.
In 1 Peter 1:25 the "good news" is simply the gospel. From the greek word "euaggelizo" which can has several meanings including "to bring good news, to announce glad tidings" or " used in the OT of any kind of good news" or "instruct (men) concerning the things that pertain to Christian salvation" and the ususual meaning "in the NT used especially of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation". This same word euaggelizo is used and translated as "gospel" (meaning the gospel as we know it) in Matthew 11:5, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22, Acts 5:42, Acts 8:25, Acts 14:7, Acts 16:10 (just to name a few) all using this word to preach the gospel, not a secret tradition unheard of in scripture.
Second, Paul was aware of Luke's Gospel when he writes:
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"and "The worker deserves his wages"--1 Timothy 5:17-18
The first section Paul quotes Deutoronomy 25:4, while the second is a direct quote from Luke:
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."--Luke 10:7
Third, Peter affirms that all Paul's writings are "scripture"
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"--2 Peter 3:15-16
Not only that, but Peter is aware of "other scriptures. So to say that Peter and Paul only had the OT is false. In addition, Jesus made several references that his words would be made scripture (maybe we can get into this another time).
The idea that one can be completely assured of one's Salvation is a VERY unscriptural belief. We can be reasonably confident, but there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of salvation.
Wow, this is really becoming a free-for all! Actually being assured of one's salvation is more scriptual than denying it. The problem is that there is a misunderstanding among many because then they think "well, if I'm saved I can do whatever I want"--but no true believer would ever utter such a blasphemous statement! Those texts you cited don't support loss of salvation, that would contradict what Paul said earlier in Romans 5:9 and 8:30. In Romans 11:22, Paul is referring to the Gentiles as a group. They could fall out of God's favor, just as the Jews had, as a group. ! Corinthians 4:4 has nothing to do with loss of salvation, it's just talking about judgement (believers will be judged for the good and bad deeds affecting their rewards). Again, 1 Corinthians 9:27 is talking about loss of rewards. Paul explains this in the same book (See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Paul was sure of his own future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, Philippians 1:21-23, 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, 2 Timothy 4:18), and he was also sure that the Corinthian believers would always be saved (1 Corinthians 1:8). Even individual Corinthians who had fallen far short of what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 9 were referred to as remaining saved anyway (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32).
First, there is the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit:
"The Spirit himself testifies with our Spirit that we are children of God"--Romans 8:16
Jesus said this as well:
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day"--John 6:37-39
Again, perhaps someone may like to start a new topic on this as there is much to discuss on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:36:31 PM
|
|
|
jrah06
Posts: 32
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Hey there, I am still compiling resources for the other post I promised, but I have a few minutes on break and wanted to address these. :)
You must be busy!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
I have yet to find one Catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture. One of the tests the Catholic Church applies to a doctrine is whether it contradicts Scripture, if it does, it's invalid.
Papal infallibility.
Purgatory.
confessing sins to a priest.
transubstantiation.
priests, prelates, bishops, popes alone have may interpret Scripture.
Mary as co-redemptress, mediatrix, benefactress, queen of heaven, and her myriad titles found nowhere in the Bible (except for "QUeen of Heaven," which is the name of a pagan idol in the book of Jeremiah)
Mary's assumption.
Fullness of salvation only through the Catholic Church.
All grace comes through the Catholic Church.
Salvation through baptism.
Penance necessary for salvation.
The church can forgive sins.
The mass: a re-sacrifice of Christ.
Forgiveness of sins, and escape from purgatory - through indulgences.
veneration of images, of relics.
These should be discussed in depth in other forums - but of course, pertaining to this thread: Mary's sinlessness.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Which ones in particular are you referring to? I can kinda guess you don't agree with the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary obviously... but what else?
See above list - as well as all the processions for Mary; all the "saints"; rosary; etc.
Rituals, superstitions, relics.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
But we are told to hold firm to the traditions passed on to us by word of mouth according to St. Paul.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
When Paul wrote his letter, did popes exist? Was there a Council of Trent anathematizing anyone who believed in salvation through grace and faith and anyone who believed the Eucharist was symbolic?
Was there: a formal priesthood, a doctrine of purgatory, baptism of bells? Was there indulgences, transubstantiation, purgatory, a doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption? Papal infallibility?
These, and all the doctrines of Rome which we Protestants do not share, came AFTER. NONE of these were "delivered" by Paul.
Paul was referring to traditions of the early church, which was a far cry from what Rome now is. Traditions are fine if they are under the Bible's authority and do not contradict Scriptural teaching.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LurkerPeter writes also, "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Notice how the message was delivered orally. This is the basis of Tradition. At the time, Paul and Peter had only the Old Testament Scriptures. The gospels had yet to be written, so they relied on Traditions passed on by word of mouth.
And again none of what they wrote and said and passed on during that time included the rituals and works-based salvation, and the belief Mary was born without sin, that Rome developed over several centuries.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Incorrect. She didn't quite understood salvation correctly. But she was closer than you might think. The idea that one can be completely assured of one's Salvation is a VERY unscriptural belief. We can be reasonably confident, but there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of salvation.
Really? Ever since my new birth I have been fully assured I am saved. The Bible says that John wrote "These things I have written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe in the name of the Son of God."
Not be "reasonably confident." The Bible says "KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." It is CLEAR.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Paul wrote, "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)
He also wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4) and "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).
Seems like he wasn't 100% sure of his salvation. He was confident, but not completely sure.
You are misinterpreting this. You are saying Paul refers to his SALVATION. Paul si talking about faithfulness in stewardship. Verse 1 speaks of the "mysteries of God". A minister is responsible to serve as the custodian/guardian of the truths God has revealed.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Well, if you hold to the idead of the Immaculate Conception you might realize that Mary could still truthfully call Jesus her Saviour AND be born free from sin. Basically, Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin in the first place. Without His intervention, she would have been born a sinner just like us. And thus she was saved. :)
I couldn't disagree more, and I am surprised you fail to see the logical fallacy in this statement. How can someone call somebody else "Savior" if this someone has no sin? Jesus said healthy people need no doctors; sick people, however, do.
"Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin"
Mary was touched by the Holy Spirit when she physically became pregnant with Jesus when she was already at least, a young woman. Where is there Scriptural proof that Jesus touched her and mad eher sinless when she herself was CONCEIVED AND BORN? You will never find it.
It is a man-made teaching created by the Catholic Church.
_____________________________
I am barely beginning to learn what following Christ really means - and each lesson is humbling. I'm glad, and fortunate, that God is more loving and patient than me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:48:08 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
quote:
ORIGINAL: sdaw
Dear jrah06,
I am sorry that you friend, and other Catholics for that matter, know so little about their faith. In all truth, I would lay a great deal of the blame for that at the feet of the clergy, who ought to be more vigorous is their teaching ministry, but that does not mean that the teachings itself is wrong.
Catholics understand the teachings of the Church in ways that are supported by Scripture, not in contradiction to it.
The Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary are an example. They are a part of Christ's saving work, not apart from it.
If you will read the dogmatic definition of the doctrine, you will see that for yourself.
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
Sdaw,
I must agree that many Catholics know so little.
I recently had a talk with her. She has a feisty personality and doesn't like how Protestants measure everything according to the Bible. So I asked her, "what is your definition of 'Christian?'"
She refused to answer, because she said we Protestants always measure.
I stopped the discussion because knowing her temper, we might have fought. But she fails to realize that Rome has written councils and canon law detailing what is acceptable dogma, and what isn't - see the Council of Trent.
You said, "Catholics understand the teachings of the Church in ways that are supported by Scripture, not in contradiction to it." I haven't seen that.
As for, "The Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary are an example. They are a part of Christ's saving work, not apart from it." --- I don't see that anywhere in the Bible. If Christ alone saves why divert attention from Him and to Mary?
Dear jrah06,
In all truth, I have met a great many Protestants who are equally uninformed. Aren't we all lucky that Salvation does not depend on our knowledge, but God's grace?
I have come to enjoy the Council of Trent.
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/12/2005 9:51:38 PM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bokken55
Sdaw: I like your attitude, and you didn't resort to ad hominems. It's refreshing to say the least. I say this because it has been my experience that the catholics I have dialogued with in the past engaged in ad hominems and straw man arguments.
Lurker said:
I have yet to find one Catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture. One of the tests the Catholic Church applies to a doctrine is whether it contradicts Scripture, if it does, it's invalid.
That's a separate topic which I'd be glad to discuss perhaps on a separate thread. One thing can be said on arguments from silence, scripture never contradicts that Lucifer was not the spirit brother of lucifer, a position mormons hold to--so their teaching is equally valid on the same merits.
But we are told to hold firm to the traditions passed on to us by word of mouth according to St. Paul.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Peter writes also, "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25).
Notice how the message was delivered orally. This is the basis of Tradition. At the time, Paul and Peter had only the Old Testament Scriptures. The gospels had yet to be written, so they relied on Traditions passed on by word of mouth.
Ahhh! I couldn't resist! The position of Rome is that the "traditions" whether being word of mouth or by letter are separate. But the word construction does not support this. It does not say "word of mouth AND letter"--something you'd excpect if they differed in content.
In 1 Corinthinas 11:2 Paul tells us what this "tradition" is, it is the use of head coverings for women which he devotes the next fourteen verses on the subject. Head coverings were a tradition that is no longer practiced today.
In 1 Peter 1:25 the "good news" is simply the gospel. From the greek word "euaggelizo" which can has several meanings including "to bring good news, to announce glad tidings" or " used in the OT of any kind of good news" or "instruct (men) concerning the things that pertain to Christian salvation" and the ususual meaning "in the NT used especially of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation". This same word euaggelizo is used and translated as "gospel" (meaning the gospel as we know it) in Matthew 11:5, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22, Acts 5:42, Acts 8:25, Acts 14:7, Acts 16:10 (just to name a few) all using this word to preach the gospel, not a secret tradition unheard of in scripture.
Second, Paul was aware of Luke's Gospel when he writes:
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"and "The worker deserves his wages"--1 Timothy 5:17-18
The first section Paul quotes Deutoronomy 25:4, while the second is a direct quote from Luke:
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."--Luke 10:7
Third, Peter affirms that all Paul's writings are "scripture"
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"--2 Peter 3:15-16
Not only that, but Peter is aware of "other scriptures. So to say that Peter and Paul only had the OT is false. In addition, Jesus made several references that his words would be made scripture (maybe we can get into this another time).
The idea that one can be completely assured of one's Salvation is a VERY unscriptural belief. We can be reasonably confident, but there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of salvation.
Wow, this is really becoming a free-for all! Actually being assured of one's salvation is more scriptual than denying it. The problem is that there is a misunderstanding among many because then they think "well, if I'm saved I can do whatever I want"--but no true believer would ever utter such a blasphemous statement! Those texts you cited don't support loss of salvation, that would contradict what Paul said earlier in Romans 5:9 and 8:30. In Romans 11:22, Paul is referring to the Gentiles as a group. They could fall out of God's favor, just as the Jews had, as a group. ! Corinthians 4:4 has nothing to do with loss of salvation, it's just talking about judgement (believers will be judged for the good and bad deeds affecting their rewards). Again, 1 Corinthians 9:27 is talking about loss of rewards. Paul explains this in the same book (See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Paul was sure of his own future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, Philippians 1:21-23, 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, 2 Timothy 4:18), and he was also sure that the Corinthian believers would always be saved (1 Corinthians 1:8). Even individual Corinthians who had fallen far short of what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 9 were referred to as remaining saved anyway (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32).
First, there is the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit:
"The Spirit himself testifies with our Spirit that we are children of God"--Romans 8:16
Jesus said this as well:
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day"--John 6:37-39
Again, perhaps someone may like to start a new topic on this as there is much to discuss on this issue.
Dear Bokken,
I am fairly well-behaved as long as others don't get snippy with me first. My students tell me I am terribly sarcastic. I say, "No, I am very, very good at it."
On the Feast of St. Pancras
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/13/2005 1:52:18 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DeborahL
Dear Lurker:
You: Well, if you hold to the idead of the Immaculate Conception you might realize that Mary could still truthfully call Jesus her Saviour AND be born free from sin. Basically, Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin in the first place. Without His intervention, she would have been born a sinner just like us. And thus she was saved. :)
Me: Acording to the word: John: If a man says he is 'without sin' he is a liar.
Grace and Peace
How does that apply here?
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/13/2005 3:07:11 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrah06
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Hey there, I am still compiling resources for the other post I promised, but I have a few minutes on break and wanted to address these. :)
You must be busy!
Indeed. Work has been... hectic as of late. My team lead got sent to India for 3 weeks, and in the meantime I have to do a good portion of his work on top of the work I was doing before. It's possible, but very hectic.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
I have yet to find one Catholic doctrine that contradicts scripture. One of the tests the Catholic Church applies to a doctrine is whether it contradicts Scripture, if it does, it's invalid.
Papal infallibility.
I think the thread "Why do we need a Pope?" goes a bit more into this. Papal infalliablity does rest on the idea that we do need a pope, so if you don't accept that doctrine, then you obviously won't see the reasoning (and recognize the scriptural support) for Infalliability.
quote:
Purgatory.
Scriptural. Heck, even the Orthodox Jews of today believe that prayers made on behalf of the recently deceased are effective, ask one about what the Mourner's Kaddish is. :)
That said, the great majority of support would be found in Maccabees, but Martin Luther realized that they proved him incorrect so he tossed them out.
There's still hints of it in the writings of Paul. 1 Corinthians talks of when the Day comes for judgement. Those who build a solid foundation of gold, silver, prcious stones, etc on the foundation (Jesus) will see it made manifest on that Day. And if the work is tested and survives, he (the man being tested) will recieve a reward. If it fail.... Well, "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:15). So it sounds like there's going to be some who'll have to go through a bit o' extra cleansing to enter Heaven since nothing unclean can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27).
Even the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus speak indirectly of it. He speaks of those who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) Well, how the heck can we be forgiven after this age (life)? Jesus certainly implies it's possible as there's some people who won't be forgiven...
quote:
confessing sins to a priest.
"‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).
Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins. In order to do that, they'd likely have to know what sins were. Hence, confession.
Notice how it says here that Jesus breathed on them. This is one of exactly TWO times God breathed on man. Once was in the Garden of Eden to give us life. The second was the establishment of His Church through the apostles. The priests are the successors to the apostles and as such, have been granted this authority.
quote:
transubstantiation.
"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
The Jews were confused since Our Blessed Lord was very explicit, He was LITERALLY telling them to eat his flesh and blood. Unlike before where He clarified things if His followers were confused (Matt. 16:5–12), Jesus goes on to repeat Himself. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Later Paul writes "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). It seemed that Paul was taking Jesus literally too. The phrase "to answer for the body and the blood" is generally used to call out those guilty of truly serious crimes such as homicide. All this over something symbolic? Doesn't make sense.
quote:
priests, prelates, bishops, popes alone have may interpret Scripture.
Priests are there. (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15). Greek has them as "Presbytrs"
Bishops are simply priests who have a bit more authority. Instead of one church, they help minster to many.
Philippians 1:1 starts with a greeting to the bishops and deacons. As far as them being entrusted with the authority to interpret scriptures, that's found in scriptures. Paul writes to Timothy "You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2). He's telling Timothy that the teachings of the Church must be entrusted to men of faith who can ensure it's passed on properly.
quote:
Mary as co-redemptress, mediatrix, benefactress, queen of heaven, and her myriad titles found nowhere in the Bible (except for "QUeen of Heaven," which is the name of a pagan idol in the book of Jeremiah)
I don't have much time to go over these tonight but as far as the Queen Of Heaven title... it's just common sense. If Jesus is the ruler (king) of Heaven, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then she's the Queen Mother. It's not saying she's equal to Jesus, but it is a sign of respect for who she is (and who she is can only be understood by understanding Jesus.)
quote:
Mary's assumption.
There's a whole thread dedicated to this. But it does hinge on her sinlessness. And it does have precedent (Enoch and Elijah and of course, Jesus).
quote:
Fullness of salvation only through the Catholic Church.
If the Catholic Church's claims are true, then this just naturally follows.
quote:
All grace comes through the Catholic Church.
Through God, who established the Church.
quote:
Salvation through baptism.
1 Peter 3:21 is most explicit. "Baptism now saves you..."
It's also mentioned in Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, and Col. 2:11–12.
quote:
Penance necessary for salvation.
Being sorrowful and repentant is generally required in most Protestant churches too last I checked...
Unless that's changed recently.
quote:
The church can forgive sins.
Again, that authority was given to the Church in John 20:21–23, and also in Matthew 16:15-18
quote:
The mass: a re-sacrifice of Christ.
Incorrect and not taught by the Church. It's participation in the one sacrifice. Christ's gift of salvation through His Passion is both a past event, and also is an ongoing process.
quote:
Forgiveness of sins, and escape from purgatory - through indulgences.
veneration of images, of relics.
You're starting to repeat yourself.
Veneration of images is scriptural. Worshipping them as equal to God isn't. Good things Catholics' don't teach that. :)
quote:
These should be discussed in depth in other forums - but of course, pertaining to this thread: Mary's sinlessness.
I have a big stack of notes here and am truly working on it. I mean it! :D
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Which ones in particular are you referring to? I can kinda guess you don't agree with the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary obviously... but what else?
See above list - as well as all the processions for Mary; all the "saints"; rosary; etc.
I did.
quote:
Rituals, superstitions, relics.
Some of the rituals date back to Christ himself.
Superstitions are prevalent in Protestant churches as well.
Relics are simply a way to remember/touch a piece of history. Wouldn't you want to look at a piece of the Cross? I know I would.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
But we are told to hold firm to the traditions passed on to us by word of mouth according to St. Paul.
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
When Paul wrote his letter, did popes exist? Was there a Council of Trent anathematizing anyone who believed in salvation through grace and faith and anyone who believed the Eucharist was symbolic?
Peter was around. Heck, Paul met with him several times. The Council of Trent wasn't convened until the 1500s though so I don't think there was one then. There were councils though around that time. And Paul certainly believed in the literalness of the Eucharist and would probably be aghast at those who didn't.
quote:
Was there: a formal priesthood, a doctrine of purgatory, baptism of bells? Was there indulgences, transubstantiation, purgatory, a doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception and her assumption? Papal infallibility?
Yes, yes, unsure what you mean, yes, yes,yes, in it's infancy but yes, and yes.
quote:
These, and all the doctrines of Rome which we Protestants do not share, came AFTER. NONE of these were "delivered" by Paul.
Uhm... They're in the scriptures. And those have been pointed out time and time again. They've been believed and attested to since the early Church. I'm sorry you can't see them. =(
quote:
Paul was referring to traditions of the early church, which was a far cry from what Rome now is. Traditions are fine if they are under the Bible's authority and do not contradict Scriptural teaching.
They're the same traditions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Peter writes also, "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Notice how the message was delivered orally. This is the basis of Tradition. At the time, Paul and Peter had only the Old Testament Scriptures. The gospels had yet to be written, so they relied on Traditions passed on by word of mouth.
And again none of what they wrote and said and passed on during that time included the rituals and works-based salvation, and the belief Mary was born without sin, that Rome developed over several centuries.
The idea of Mary's sinlessness is attested to by the Early Church and alluded to very strongly in the scriptures. Works based salvation is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, it's a misinterpretation that is explained in the Salvation thread elsewhere.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Incorrect. She didn't quite understood salvation correctly. But she was closer than you might think. The idea that one can be completely assured of one's Salvation is a VERY unscriptural belief. We can be reasonably confident, but there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee of salvation.
Really? Ever since my new birth I have been fully assured I am saved. The Bible says that John wrote "These things I have written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe in the name of the Son of God."
Once again, Paul talks about this. You even quote me below...
quote:
Not be "reasonably confident." The Bible says "KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." It is CLEAR.
Eternal life yes, salvation no. I know that I'm going to spend eternity somewhere. I am confident in my salvation, but continue to work it out. There's no guarantee though.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Paul wrote, "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)
He also wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4) and "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).
Seems like he wasn't 100% sure of his salvation. He was confident, but not completely sure.
You are misinterpreting this. You are saying Paul refers to his SALVATION. Paul si talking about faithfulness in stewardship. Verse 1 speaks of the "mysteries of God". A minister is responsible to serve as the custodian/guardian of the truths God has revealed.
No, I think you're misinterpreting this. Paul seems quite clear to me and to the early Church fathers as well.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
Well, if you hold to the idea of the Immaculate Conception you might realize that Mary could still truthfully call Jesus her Saviour AND be born free from sin. Basically, Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin in the first place. Without His intervention, she would have been born a sinner just like us. And thus she was saved. :)
I couldn't disagree more, and I am surprised you fail to see the logical fallacy in this statement. How can someone call somebody else "Savior" if this someone has no sin? Jesus said healthy people need no doctors; sick people, however, do.
So if you're standing near a deep crevice and are about to fall in, and indeed would fall in but at the last second someone reaches out to grab your hand and stop you... that person didn't save you from falling....
Right. I know that if I nearly fell down a deep cliff face but was pulled back by someone, I'd sure consider them as having saved me. Just as I would also consider them as saving me if they lowered a rope down if I'd fallen.
quote:
"Jesus saved Mary before she could fall into sin"
Mary was touched by the Holy Spirit when she physically became pregnant with Jesus when she was already at least, a young woman. Where is there Scriptural proof that Jesus touched her and made her sinless when she herself was CONCEIVED AND BORN? You will never find it.
It is a man-made teaching created by the Catholic Church.
It's a teaching passed down to us and preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit. ANd it fits in with the whole idea of her being the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant which I really do plan on explaining...
Right now, it's 12:06am here. I'm exhausted. Night. :)
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/13/2005 9:43:55 AM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
This thread is specifically about the sinlessness of Mary.
Attempts to discuss other Catholic doctrine/teachings will be considered off-topic.
Such posts may result in them being removed and the author banned from the catholic threads or forums.
Post on topic or stay out of the thread.
Please do not respond to this warning within the Community.
Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this warning.
_____________________________
Fred "Fritz" Alberti
Director of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Read today's Bible verse from my favorite online Bible
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/13/2005 11:56:58 AM
|
|
|
meep meep
Posts: 89
Status: offline
|
Actually, any health professional will tell you that the best cure is one that is preventative.
That means one should not wait until an illness strikes in order to go to the doctor - although one of course should do that if the need develops.
Sick people are not the only ones who need a doctor; healthy people go to doctors to prevent illness and disease.
Sinners are not the only ones who need God. God wants us all to say "yes" to His holiness - and that's how we remain in Him and He remains in us.
Didn't God create Eve without sin?
All Eve had to have done is to have said "yes" to God, all she had to do was say"yes" and she, too, would have been preserved sinless.
Is it so hard to think that an Almighty God would and could preserve someone sinless?
Does he not preserve each of us sinless as we say "yes" to holiness daily?
Does a SAVIOR not preserve us from a calamity ( in this case sin) BEFORE as well as after the fact?
Of COURSE God was Mary's Savior but where in [specifically] scripture does it state it DOES NOT mean her preservation from sinning?
Finally, the very FIRST Council is in Acts, and there were many after that, including the Council of Trent ( for those who feel councils are unscriptural or non existent in the Early Church).
In Christ,
Meep meep
_____________________________
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies." - Augustine, The True Faith
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/13/2005 5:41:01 PM
|
|
|
Bokken55
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
|
Didn't God create Eve without sin? All Eve had to have done is to have said "yes" to God, all she had to do was say"yes" and she, too, would have been preserved sinless.
False dilemma, Mary was preserved from sin well before she said "yes". The whole basis of this doctrine is based on the mistranslated latin vulgate Luke 1:28 passage which was discussed already: "hail, full of grace" meaning she was already full of grace, implying she was already sinless. Roman Catholicism teaches Mary did not commit a single sin in her ENTIRE life.
I’m not aware of any consensus among the church fathers before the 3rd Century that referred to Mary being either immaculate conceived or living a sinless life. Around the end of the 4th Century the Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome, which included the erroneous translation of Luke 1:28 that even the Catholic Bible now translates correctly as “highly favored”. A whole doctrine (in this case a sinless Mary) has been built upon on that one mistranslated verse, and EVERY faithful Catholic MUST believe that without exception (even though the Greek does not support it nor do the scriptures). If you disagree, the Church condemns you. It’s rather odd, that such an important doctrine that Mary lived a sinless life that is so essential to faith is not even recorded in the scriptures, let alone evidence this is what the early Christians believed before the third century.
What all this really comes down to is what/who is the ultimate authority? The Catholic will say it’s the church and it’s traditions while the evangelical will say it is the scriptures. In this particular case of Mary being immaculately conceived and her living a sinless life, there is no support from the scriptures, and it is even contradicted by Romans 3:23. So the only valid positions the Catholic can make is from reason and tradition, mainly if God could do it, he should do it—and he did. But God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. ONLY scripture is Theopnuestos—which literally means “God Breathed”. Can a Catholic say tradition is Theopneustos? Is reason Theopnuestos?
A sinless Mary also creates huge theological problems. It is said Mary was given a special grace so she didn’t sin with absolutely no biblical support at all for this. In fact, the scriptures contradict this as “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. To argue from silence and say because the bible doesn't say she didn't sin is just as convincing that the Mormons practice of baptizing for the dead is ok since scripture doesn't say otherwise.
She needed a savior which was already discussed, and the Catholic position is that she was preemptively saved. So again, the Catholic must rely on reason and church tradition. The council of Trent declared “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin”. In Catholic teaching, Mary did not even have the tendency to sin nor did she ever sin during her entire life.
So, “come, let us reason”. Adam and Eve were our human representatives, who did not have original sin, yet they sinned. If God could give Mary that special grace not to sin, He could have easily done the same for Adam and Eve---preventing the worst tragedy in human history! This perhaps is one of the biggest implications of holding to such a doctrine.
The argument that God saved Mary preemptively is not only found severely wanting from scripture but logically as well. First, you only need a savior if you’re a sinner—and according to Catholic teaching Mary was not a sinner because of special grace (she was preserved from the stain of original sin and personal sin). Therefore for her to call Jesus her “savior” makes no sense. Second, again if God could preemptively save Mary before she was conceived then does it not follow He can do this for every individual on the face of the planet? We would have a whole race of sinless people, would we not? If God could prevent Mary from sinning then he could do it for everyone else—that logically follows. If God can do it but does not then he is willfully sending people to hell for sins he could have prevented. So theologically and logically speaking, a sinless Mary creates insurmountable problems and makes God malevolent.
As brought up before, to base a doctrine that one HAS TO believe or as the pope said your “faith is shipwrecked” and the church declared “let him be anathema” demonstrates that Rome is held accountable to no one, not even the scriptures. In an infallible system you can come up with almost anything that “does not contradict the bible”. As said before, the Mormons have an infallible system as well, and in the case of Lucifer being the spirit brother of Jesus that is not contradicted by scripture so they have an equal valid argument as Rome.
< Message edited by Bokken55 -- 5/13/2005 5:48:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/15/2005 5:11:08 PM
|
|
|
jrah06
Posts: 32
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
In an earlier post, I wrote this:
"(focus on Mary) has had the colossally dangerous result of making millions on Earth devote their affections to Mary rather than to Christ."
NOt only has the attention on Mary been extreme in some Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil, it has become mixed with indigenous religions.
This focus on Mary has had the CATASTROPHIC result of Mary being seen as a goddess, and even if Catholics here refuse to admit that or deny it - even if they themselves do not worship her as such: let us see what the following pagan website says:
http://www.thewhitemoon.com/mary/other.html#TITLES
Just like any other Goddess, Mary has many different titles. She appears in many different forms (or personifications) and has many different attributes. She is known for what is sacred to her, the gifts she has given, and whom she especially protects.
While the topic "Mary and Other Goddesses" is discussed in almost every section of this website, this page is intended as an easy reference for comparing Mary to the specific Goddesses discussed here.
Tradition holds that Mary ascended into heaven before she became an old woman, before she became a crone. But Mary does share characteristics with the Dark Goddesses, especially as Our Lady of Sorrows and as The Black Madonna.
But in addition to the belief she was born without sin, the issue I have as a Protestant with the Catholic focus on Mary is that she is made to be not only SINLESS but also a co-redemptrix.
Much of what has been documented about Mary is BLASPHEMOUS!
Rome has called her:
“full of grace”
“the All Holy One”
“the cause of salvation”
There is NO way around if one is to use the SCRIPTURES!
She was NOT born without sin (see Luke chapter 1 - "my spirit rejoices in God my Savior".
She was not taken up to heaven as the Assumption of Mary teaches.
She does NOT intercede for us.
She has NOT role in our salvation.
WHY WHY WHY is there a focus on a sinner whom God chose to be blessed among women because she bore the Christ child?
WHY is it OK for Catholics to address her with a title, "Queen of Heaven," whose only appearence in the Bible is towards a pagan idol the worship of whom God condemned?? (Jeremiah, chapter 44)
If Jesus died for our sins and it was GOd's love and idea, why all these processions, these prayers to Mary?
I close by quoting a Catholic friend of mine, whom I've mentioned before. I am now convinced that despite having been raised Catholic and confirmed in 2004, she is NOT BORN AGAIN. (I admit without problems that many people are born and raised in Protestant churches but do not know Christ as Savior. I was one of them until age 17.).
This is what she said when we were having a heated discussion about Mary last year:
"It's an idol!"
Yet the Bible CONDEMNS idolatry as GOD ALONE is to be worshipped.
_____________________________
I am barely beginning to learn what following Christ really means - and each lesson is humbling. I'm glad, and fortunate, that God is more loving and patient than me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/17/2005 5:10:20 PM
|
|
|
ToolmanUF
Posts: 97
Joined: 4/14/2005
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
|
Speaking of Mary, what does everybody think about the article that was posted on the opening page of this website (the one which stated that the Anglican church and the Catholic Church have come to an agreement regarding to Mary, the mother of Jesus)?
Isn't it comforting to know that the two largest Christian bodies have been able to realize that Mary doesn't have to be a issue dividing the Church, that what Christians share is greater than what separates?
I look foward to seeing more progress among these two Christian churches and I hope that they continue to work for full communion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 5/17/2005 5:49:55 PM
|
|
|
AprilMtns
Posts: 789
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Wyoming
Status: offline
|
I am unable to find the article that you are speaking of. Do think you could you include a link?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
