|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 9/29/2008 11:33:57 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Can we put the other examples of ambiguously worded Scripture on the table for discussion? There is nothing ambiguous in Scripture; only in discernment.
We're trying to figure out how exactly one makes the logical leap that "highly favored" is equivalent to "sinless". It seems like a case of wishful thinking, mostly, because it's such a leap. That's like hearing Obama say something about wanting to help the middle class, and saying "Yay! That means he's going to pay off my mortgage!"
You appear to have a single verse, which does not say anything whatsoever about sin, on which you base this entire theology. That's just not logical.
quote:
While Paul's "none righteous, not one" is often mis-appropriated from some pulpits to dismiss Mary (in verse 9, Paul contexts the Scripture he is actually quoting in verse 10 by describing that "all are under the power of sin" - this speaks to the universal condemnation of original sin, from which Mary was apparently preserved), there were others named as "righteous" in the Bible - John the Baptist lived a sinless life, as well as Abraham, Elijah, Enoch (Scripture tells us these folks were free from sin - righteous).
But there's NO indication anywhere that Mary was "apparently" preserved from original sin. There is no verse indicating that.
It's a matter of false assumptions. If you assume that Mary was preserved from original sin, then obviously you would decide that Paul's commentary on there being "none righteous" would not apply to her. If you assume that some guy named Bob Johnson in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was miraculously born without original sin, then obviously you would decide that Paul's commentary on there being "none righteous" would not apply to him either. Just as Paul doesn't give an exception regarding Bob Johnson from Milwaukee, Paul does not give an exception for Mary. He *does* specifically give an exception for Jesus.
For the record, I've never seen a preacher mention anything at all regarding Mary when preaching on this passage. Protestants simply assume that Mary was a sinner too, in need of salvation (as she calls God her Savior) as there is no scripture indicating otherwise. It would never occur to us to think of Mary as sinless.
Why was Mary named? Well, because she was the mother of Jesus. It would be odd if she weren't. Why was Paul named? Why was David named? Why was Daniel and Samuel and Abraham and Ruth and Solomon named? Why was Ahab named? Why Jezebel? Because all of them, good and bad, were part of the great story of God's mercy, grace, and salvation, in His great plan. There are hundreds and hundreds of people named in the Bible. Only one of those names was ever stated as being sinless, and it wasn't Mary.
quote:
While Paul's "none righteous, not one" is often mis-appropriated from some pulpits to dismiss Mary (in verse 9, Paul contexts the Scripture he is actually quoting in verse 10 by describing that "all are under the power of sin" - this speaks to the universal condemnation of original sin, from which Mary was apparently preserved), there were others named as "righteous" in the Bible - John the Baptist lived a sinless life, as well as Abraham, Elijah, Enoch (Scripture tells us these folks were free from sin - righteous).
You're kidding, right?
Abraham was most certainly not sinless. He disobeyed God DIRECTLY when he had sex and eventually a son with Hagar. He lied about Sarah being his wife. He was righteous in God's sight, yes, but he was quite certainly sinned.
Elijah sinned too, mostly whining a lot about what God wanted him to do. Righteous? Yes. Sinless? No.
John the Baptist, well, we don't know what he did specifically, but we do know that he didn't consider himself worthy of even tying Jesus's sandals, much less baptizing Him, so he must have known something.
Enoch we just don't know much about in general, but since we've demonstrated that Abraham quite definitely could be righteous and still sin, we know that we can't make any assumptions about Enoch that direction.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 9/29/2008 11:48:41 AM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/2/2008 5:44:22 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
The greek is karchetinome which really, properly translated is "full of grace". "highly favored" is not neccessarily contradictory but it looses some of the meaning. Karchetinome is only used for Christ and in some translations Stephen in Acts 8. Full of grace means that there is not room for sin. Another indication of sinlessness is the link between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. 2 sam 6 and Luke 1 parallel Mary and the ark of the covenant.
bar-judah - 2 sam 6
hill country of Judah - Luke 1
"how can the ark of the Lord come to me" 2 sam 6
"how is it that the mother of my lord should come to me". Luke 1
David leaps before the Ark 2 Sam 6
John leaps before Mary in Elizabeth's womb.
The Ark stays with Obemedon for 3 months - 2 Sam 6
Mary stays with Elizabeth in Luke 1.
Also elsewhere the ark was overshadowed by the Spirit of God. The same word, rarely used in scripture has Mary overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. This AOC/Mary parallel has lots of implications regarding Catholic thelogy and Mary.
The ark was made to God's specifications and was so pure and holy that no man could touch it or he would die.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/2/2008 6:28:50 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, Christ was a lot of things besides just sinless. So again, that's not really an indicator. For instance, He wept. That does not mean that everyone who has ever wept is also sinless.
Especially if the word was also applied to Stephen. Unless you're insinuating that Stephen is yet another in your fast-growing list of people who were sinless for their entire lives, which is really starting to mess with various verses about all having sinned and actually needing a savior.
The Ark of the Covenant was a box. An inanimate object. As such, it could not itself sin. Even so, the wood and gold and other various parts of it, when collected, did not kill anyone who touched them. The skilled workmen who built the Ark were not killed by it. It was not until God Himself came upon the Ark that it became holy, so holy that it would kill anyone who touched it... not because the wood and gold were lethal, but because the presence of God was so holy that it was lethal. Similarly, Mary was full of grace because, and when, she was assigned by God, that she would bear His Son.
Grace is a word that means something. In this context, it means favor (as opposed to, say, "moving elegantly"). It's not some magic word that you can invoke to mean anything you want, it has a specific meaning.
< Message edited by Zhi -- 10/2/2008 6:39:38 PM >
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/3/2008 8:56:05 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
Stephen was at the end of his life. Mary was in the middle of her life when it was said of her. Do you believe in sanctification? I would guess you do. I think it likely that Stephan had reached a point in his sanctification where he was cleanses of all sin, effects of sin, and corruption of his sin nature and that is why the term is used for him as well. Remeber Enoch and Elijah. The only two of the Old Testament who were taken directly to heaven because of the purity of their lives.
Your initial comments about Christ are silly.
Who said anything about grace menaing "moving elegantly". Grace is the power of God working in and through us. That's not majic at all. Mary was assigned from all eternity to bear the Christ child, before he yes, God made and prepared her.
Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/3/2008 8:57:58 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
By the way, you at least appear to acknowledge the parallel between Mary and the Ark. Most sola scriptura people that I present it to deny, deny, deny, even though it is so obvious. This amazes me. If they truly love the Bible you would think they would be amazed and would seek to understand it's meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/3/2008 11:07:54 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Stephen was at the end of his life. Mary was in the middle of her life when it was said of her. Do you believe in sanctification? I would guess you do. I think it likely that Stephan had reached a point in his sanctification where he was cleanses of all sin, effects of sin, and corruption of his sin nature and that is why the term is used for him as well. Remeber Enoch and Elijah. The only two of the Old Testament who were taken directly to heaven because of the purity of their lives.
Again, Paul never managed and he was quite possibly the greatest Apostle of all time. Furthermore, it obviously does not indicate a lifelong sinless state, if it even indicates a sinless state at that point.
Technically speaking, the minute I get done praying and confessing my sins, I am sinless in the eyes of God. Unfortunately this state does not continue as long as I'd like, but for a while at least I'm cleansed. I'm not sure what you mean by the "effects of sin", because the wages of sin is death, and Stephen most certainly died (and I believe Mary did as well. The jury appears to be out on that in Catholic doctrine, as there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding whether she was assumed before or after she physically died).
We don't really know *why* God decided to take Enoch and Elijah to heaven directly. We don't know a whole lot about Enoch in general, and Elijah... had his moments.
quote:
Your initial comments about Christ are silly.
In what way?
quote:
Who said anything about grace menaing "moving elegantly". Grace is the power of God working in and through us. That's not majic at all. Mary was assigned from all eternity to bear the Christ child, before he yes, God made and prepared her.
Grace is favor. That is what grace *means* (although it can also mean "move elegantly", which is why I noted that definition). The power of God working in and through us is called sanctification. We are sanctified because of His favor... due to His favor He saves us, and sanctifies us (which, also not a magic word, it just means "makes holy" and indicates a process), but the favor itself is not what sanctifies or saves us, it merely indicates why He is willing to do so. Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy.
Let's say I favor my child (which one would say should be a fair assumption). Because I favor her, I make sure she has an education. As such, she is educated because of my favor, but my favor does not directly educate her... my favor causes me to create a path by which she can be educated. Similarly, because of God's grace, His favor, He creates a path by which we can be saved, and then work toward holiness, so that we are acceptable to Him.
quote:
By the way, you at least appear to acknowledge the parallel between Mary and the Ark. Most sola scriptura people that I present it to deny, deny, deny, even though it is so obvious. This amazes me. If they truly love the Bible you would think they would be amazed and would seek to understand it's meaning.
I have no problem with the idea of types and shadows being throughout Scripture. As such, the idea that Mary would spend a small time as the "container" of God here on earth does not really bother me. The thing is, she DID give birth, so the time involved was finite. Just, I suppose, as the Ark's time was finite, as it is no longer available for whatever reason and has not been for a very long time. The thing is, though, just as it was the presence of God upon its mercy seat that made it special, not the wood and gold of which it was crafted, it was the presence of God in Mary's womb that made her special, not Mary herself.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/3/2008 6:28:08 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, Paul never managed and he was quite possibly the greatest Apostle of all time. Furthermore, it obviously does not indicate a lifelong sinless state, if it even indicates a sinless state at that point.
Why? Because the word karchitinome is not used with regard to him? I would contend that the following indicates that he may have reached that level of sanctification.
2Tim.4
1. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
You have attempted to argue from silence. In no way do I claim that just because scripture doesn't use the word karchitnome for anyone else that they did not reach that degree of sanctification by the end of life. If you are familiar with the priniciples of logic, arguements from silence are considered falacy. I believe the Bible follows good rules of logic.
quote:
Technically speaking, the minute I get done praying and confessing my sins, I am sinless in the eyes of God. Unfortunately this state does not continue as long as I'd like, but for a while at least I'm cleansed.
This is actually Catholic theology and I agree with it.
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the "effects of sin", because the wages of sin is death, and Stephen most certainly died (and I believe Mary did as well. The jury appears to be out on that in Catholic doctrine, as there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding whether she was assumed before or after she physically died).
The CC does not say whether she physically died or not. Christ died yet did not sin, so it would seem that while the wages of sin is death that does not mean that the sinless cannot die. Babies die. Do you claim they sin?
quote:
We don't really know *why* God decided to take Enoch and Elijah to heaven directly. We don't know a whole lot about Enoch in general, and Elijah... had his moments.
Yes in fact we do. See Heb 11:5-6. You don't accept sirac as scripture probably but sir 44 and 49 speak about him as well. Sir 48 and 1 Mac 2 speak of Elijah.
quote:
In what way?
Of course Christ was more than Mary. He was God. To be sinless does not require one to be God.
quote:
Grace is favor. That is what grace *means* (although it can also mean "move elegantly", which is why I noted that definition). The power of God working in and through us is called sanctification. We are sanctified because of His favor... due to His favor He saves us, and sanctifies us (which, also not a magic word, it just means "makes holy" and indicates a process), but the favor itself is not what sanctifies or saves us, it merely indicates why He is willing to do so. Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy.
Your going to have to prove for me that grace is just favor. It is more than that I will contend. The protestant concept of irresistable grace actually implies that grace is more than just favor. We are sanctified by his grace as well. Grace is not just God being nice and forgetting about our sins. Nowhere have I claimed that grace is magic.
quote:
Let's say I favor my child (which one would say should be a fair assumption). Because I favor her, I make sure she has an education. As such, she is educated because of my favor, but my favor does not directly educate her... my favor causes me to create a path by which she can be educated. Similarly, because of God's grace, His favor, He creates a path by which we can be saved, and then work toward holiness, so that we are acceptable to Him.
Yes, grace is God's favor, his free gift. But the problem you have is that you have not shown me that grace is just favor. Why if it is just favor does the Bible have separate words for favor and grace. English words also don't capture the total meaning of greek and hebrew words.
quote:
I have no problem with the idea of types and shadows being throughout Scripture. As such, the idea that Mary would spend a small time as the "container" of God here on earth does not really bother me. The thing is, she DID give birth, so the time involved was finite. Just, I suppose, as the Ark's time was finite, as it is no longer available for whatever reason and has not been for a very long time. The thing is, though, just as it was the presence of God upon its mercy seat that made it special, not the wood and gold of which it was crafted, it was the presence of God in Mary's womb that made her special, not Mary herself.
Christ has to be physically in us? Paul says "not I but Christ lives in me" in Gal 2. The crafting of the Ark was a sign of the holiness that it became. It was per God's design and so it was holy/sacred because of that. God designed his son a mother as well. God was not present in her just when Jesus was within her womb. Jesus is God and does not have that limitation. When he walked this earth he was not just where his body was. He was still omnipresent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/3/2008 7:34:06 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Why? Because the word karchitinome is not used with regard to him? I would contend that the following indicates that he may have reached that level of sanctification.
2Tim.4
1. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
He doesn't say "I am now sinless, yay". Which you would kind of think he would have, given all his lamentations in his previous letters about his inability to get free from sin entirely.
quote:
You have attempted to argue from silence. In no way do I claim that just because scripture doesn't use the word karchitnome for anyone else that they did not reach that degree of sanctification by the end of life. If you are familiar with the priniciples of logic, arguements from silence are considered falacy. I believe the Bible follows good rules of logic.
Mmm. So then everything the Bible DOESN'T say is true now too? Hoo boy. This will get interesting. When will you be officially converting to Mormonism?
The Bible says plenty of times that Jesus is the only One who was sinless. It doesn't matter if someone eventually "reached a state where they stopped sinning", all the sins previous to them making it that far would have been enough to condemn them without His sacrifice. So, there is again no indication whatsoever that Mary had a sinless life. Especially given that the word you're trying to say says she was sinless, is also applied to another person who was not sinless his whole life either. You cannot conclude, then, that Mary was sinless, from anything the Bible says. What the Bible says is that Jesus was the only One who led a sinless life. Period. Not an omission, an explicit statement.
quote:
This is actually Catholic theology and I agree with it.
Well, it's Biblical. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9.
I didn't realize it was Catholic theology as well, though. Don't you still have to pay for it in Purgatory?
quote:
The CC does not say whether she physically died or not. Christ died yet did not sin, so it would seem that while the wages of sin is death that does not mean that the sinless cannot die. Babies die. Do you claim they sin?
Christ died because that was the payment for our sin. Not His sin. The wages of sin is death. He paid it so we wouldn't have to pay it to the point of eternal separation from God, but we still have part of that penalty upon us because we live in a fallen world. Because of His payment, though, death has no sting, the grave has no victory.
Babies have a sin nature, but Scripture indicates that children are not held responsible for their sin prior to the age of accountability, so babies are paid for in the same way the rest of us are.
quote:
Yes in fact we do. See Heb 11:5-6. You don't accept sirac as scripture probably but sir 44 and 49 speak about him as well. Sir 48 and 1 Mac 2 speak of Elijah.
Hebrews doesn't specify what he did exactly either. Nor does it say he was "fully graced", much less sinless. The "By faith" list includes Abraham, who we know most certainly did sin (and rather spectacularly at that). I mean, the list has a prostitute in it for crying out loud. So, a list of the faithful, yes. A list of the sinless, hardly.
quote:
Of course Christ was more than Mary. He was God. To be sinless does not require one to be God.
According to Scripture, for lifelong sinlessness, yes, one does.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
quote:
Your going to have to prove for me that grace is just favor. It is more than that I will contend. The protestant concept of irresistable grace actually implies that grace is more than just favor. We are sanctified by his grace as well. Grace is not just God being nice and forgetting about our sins. Nowhere have I claimed that grace is magic.
It is *possible* for us to be sanctified because of His grace (favor), in which He sent His only Son to pay the penalty for our sin. No, grace is not God being nice, it's God looking on us with favor which prompted Him to take an active part in doing what we could not... reconciling us to Him.
"Irresistable grace" has nothing to do with a person being sinless (or not). It has to do with an inability to avoid God's intent of showing unmerited favor to you. I'm not really a Calvinist anyway. *shrug*
quote:
Yes, grace is God's favor, his free gift. But the problem you have is that you have not shown me that grace is just favor. Why if it is just favor does the Bible have separate words for favor and grace. English words also don't capture the total meaning of greek and hebrew words.
Depends on your translation, some don't. Especially in the salutation from Gabriel to Mary.
But, no translation has any trouble getting across the point that Jesus was sinless, so I don't see why they would have had a problem stating the same thing about Mary if that had been the case. The reality is that the word you claim means lifelong sinlessness is applied to Mary, and a guy who we don't think was sinless for life (Stephen), and there is no other indicator that Mary was sinless for life, and there are many indicators that only Jesus was sinless for life. As such, I'm not sure how you can assert that grace = sinless for life, but only in the case of one person.
quote:
Christ has to be physically in us? Paul says "not I but Christ lives in me" in Gal 2. The crafting of the Ark was a sign of the holiness that it became. It was per God's design and so it was holy/sacred because of that. God designed his son a mother as well. God was not present in her just when Jesus was within her womb. Jesus is God and does not have that limitation. When he walked this earth he was not just where his body was. He was still omnipresent.
God designed all of us. He numbers the hairs on our head. That doesn't make us sinless. Christ lives in me too, as a Christian, but that hasn't made me sinless, sadly. Has He made you sinless yet?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/5/2008 2:59:33 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
He doesn't say "I am now sinless, yay". Which you would kind of think he would have, given all his lamentations in his previous letters about his inability to get free from sin entirely.
Paul tells us elsewhere that he does not judge himself and so he wouldn't and I didn't claim that the Bible said specifically that he had reached that level of sanctification. I only said that we can't say for sure he wasn't sinless at that point in his life. But all this positioning you do raises an interesting question. If we are not sanctified COMPLETELY at death how do we become completely sanctified. Could there be a PURGATORY, i.e. a final cleansing place where Christ does the final purification?
quote:
Mmm. So then everything the Bible DOESN'T say is true now too? Hoo boy. This will get interesting. When will you be officially converting to Mormonism?
At this point I wonder if you know what logic is. You certainly did a fine job of distorting what I said. If you can't understand the words of a man how can you understand the word of God. Where did I say anywhere close to anything about the Bible being completely and inerrantly true?  It is. You insults notwithstanding.
quote:
The Bible says plenty of times that Jesus is the only One who was sinless. It doesn't matter if someone eventually "reached a state where they stopped sinning", all the sins previous to them making it that far would have been enough to condemn them without His sacrifice. So, there is again no indication whatsoever that Mary had a sinless life. Especially given that the word you're trying to say says she was sinless, is also applied to another person who was not sinless his whole life either. You cannot conclude, then, that Mary was sinless, from anything the Bible says. What the Bible says is that Jesus was the only One who led a sinless life. Period. Not an omission, an explicit statement.
Thank you for your infallible interpretation.
quote:
I didn't realize it was Catholic theology as well, though. Don't you still have to pay for it in Purgatory?
Evidently there is alot more you don't know about Catholic theology.
[
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/5/2008 4:07:38 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
But, no translation has any trouble getting across the point that Jesus was sinless, so I don't see why they would have had a problem stating the same thing about Mary if that had been the case.
Amen to Jesus being sinless. Again there are indications but you don't accept them.
quote:
The reality is that the word you claim means lifelong sinlessness is applied to Mary, and a guy who we don't think was sinless for life (Stephen), and there is no other indicator that Mary was sinless for life, and there are many indicators that only Jesus was sinless for life. As such, I'm not sure how you can assert that grace = sinless for life, but only in the case of one person.
I did not claim it meant lifelong sinlessness. You seem to have trouble parsing sentences and logic. I said that it indicates that at a point in time one was sinless and that that point was in the midst of Mary's life can be understood as pointing to a sinless life. Stephen's being said to be karchitnome at death indicates a sanctification process that ended in being totally free from sin at the end of life. I have not claimed it to be definitive. Nor can you show that your personal interpretation in the matter is definitive. But the Chruch is the pillar and support of the truth and so I go with 2000 years of Church teaching on that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/5/2008 8:55:51 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Paul tells us elsewhere that he does not judge himself and so he wouldn't and I didn't claim that the Bible said specifically that he had reached that level of sanctification. I only said that we can't say for sure he wasn't sinless at that point in his life. But all this positioning you do raises an interesting question. If we are not sanctified COMPLETELY at death how do we become completely sanctified. Could there be a PURGATORY, i.e. a final cleansing place where Christ does the final purification?
There does not appear to be any indication of Purgatory in Scripture. Furthermore, you agree that any of us can be sinless, at least on a temporary basis until we sin again, after we confess our sin. Therefore there would not seem to need to be any "work it off" context, especially as it says in Romans "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." I lean on the example of the thief on the cross.. if anyone had stuff to "work off" and a lack of time to do so he probably would have, and yet Jesus told him he would be dining with Him that very night in heaven.
quote:
At this point I wonder if you know what logic is. You certainly did a fine job of distorting what I said. If you can't understand the words of a man how can you understand the word of God. Where did I say anywhere close to anything about the Bible being completely and inerrantly true? It is. You insults notwithstanding.
I wasn't trying to be insulting, though I was wondering if you were with the "fallacy" claims. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the innerancy of Scripture. It's quite simple. If Mary is that special, so special that she's sinless and perfect and basically the best Christian on the planet and giving out grace and healing people left and right even these couple thousand years later, the Bible should say so for her time as well. Rather, she more or less falls almost completely out of the picture soon after the Resurrection, even though there's every indication that she lived for a very long time after that.
quote:
Thank you for your infallible interpretation.
If you have any scriptural evidence to the contrary, then by all means present it.
quote:
Evidently there is alot more you don't know about Catholic theology.
From my experience, Catholic theology tends to shift based on whom you're asking. *shrug*
quote:
Amen to Jesus being sinless. Again there are indications but you don't accept them.
You've brought up one verse, repeatedly. And one word in that verse, repeatedly. A word that is used for another person who we don't assume was sinless for life. A word that doesn't mean "sinless". I'm not sure what you expect me to do with that.
quote:
I did not claim it meant lifelong sinlessness. You seem to have trouble parsing sentences and logic. I said that it indicates that at a point in time one was sinless and that that point was in the midst of Mary's life can be understood as pointing to a sinless life. Stephen's being said to be karchitnome at death indicates a sanctification process that ended in being totally free from sin at the end of life. I have not claimed it to be definitive. Nor can you show that your personal interpretation in the matter is definitive. But the Chruch is the pillar and support of the truth and so I go with 2000 years of Church teaching on that matter.
You claim it means lifelong sinlessness on the part of one person, but not the other. Regardless, the fact that something is true at one point in someone's life does not mean it has been true their whole life. I would hope that I'm somewhere around the midpoint of my life, and I am currently in the state of being pregnant. This does not mean that I have been and will be pregnant my whole life simply because it's true at the midpoint, averages simply don't work that way, thank goodness (I don't think I could handle the heartburn, frankly). So, even if you can stretch "grace" to mean "sinless" at one single point in Mary's life (which I don't think the two ideas have anything to do with each other), there's no indicator that you should stretch it out for her whole life.
What we're questioning here, really, though, is how good of a pillar of truth the RCC is. Between the corrupt Popes, the political machinations, and the odd doctrines like this one and others that seem to have no scriptural support, I see no reason to accept the RCC as a pillar of much of anything.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/6/2008 8:56:14 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
There does not appear to be any indication of Purgatory in Scripture. Furthermore, you agree that any of us can be sinless, at least on a temporary basis until we sin again, after we confess our sin. Therefore there would not seem to need to be any "work it off" context, especially as it says in Romans "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." I lean on the example of the thief on the cross.. if anyone had stuff to "work off" and a lack of time to do so he probably would have, and yet Jesus told him he would be dining with Him that very night in heaven.
Your phrase "work off" is nowhere in CC theology so why do you use it. Purgatory is not anything about our working off anything. It is the cleansing fire of God's love purifying our souls for entry in to heaven. It is him doing any work. It is CC theology that man can do NOTHING for himself in purgatory. Read mal 3 I believe it is about the refiners fire. Do you know when the silver is fully purified. When the refiner can see his image in it. Now you said that we cannot be sinless in this life and so somethings gotta give before heaven or Ps 24 is false. You don't like the word purgatory but your theology demands it. As for purgatory in scripture. By the logic you use "ie. the word isn't in there" we can discount the concepts of "faith alone" and "Bible alone" and the Trinity among other doctrines. But 1 Cor 3:15 is a pretty clear statement of purgatory.
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Not the last phrase. That's pretty much our claim about purgatory. There is a final refinement neccessary. It's clear to me but of course you will ahve to "come up" with something else.
quote:
I wasn't trying to be insulting, though I was wondering if you were with the "fallacy" claims. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the innerancy of Scripture. It's quite simple. If Mary is that special, so special that she's sinless and perfect and basically the best Christian on the planet and giving out grace and healing people left and right even these couple thousand years later, the Bible should say so for her time as well. Rather, she more or less falls almost completely out of the picture soon after the Resurrection, even though there's every indication that she lived for a very long time after that.
She's the Ark of the new covenant. You don't get what that means. God made a woman to his specifications for the birth of his son. A vessel to hold GOD HIMSELF in for 9 months. It does say it but you don't listen and come up with you own personal interpretations of what God is trying to tell you and your own claims of what he should say and your own understanding. Read prov 3:5. It says trust not in your own understanding.
quote:
From my experience, Catholic theology tends to shift based on whom you're asking. *shrug*
This is funny considering there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. Kinda the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know what Catholcis you have spoken to. You may not even understand what is being said and it may be consistent or you may just be talking to liberal Catholics. But unlike the protestant Churches we have a Catechism and if you want to know what the CC teaches you can go there. It quotes scripture and refers to it alot if you want to Check it with scirpture. If someone speaks against it they are simply wrong. But in protestantism if someone speaks against the pastor they can go out and start their own church. What's one more denomination.
quote:
Amen to Jesus being sinless. Again there are indications but you don't accept them.
You've brought up one verse, repeatedly. And one word in that verse, repeatedly. A word that is used for another person who we don't assume was sinless for life. A word that doesn't mean "sinless". I'm not sure what you expect me to do with that.
quote:
You claim it means lifelong sinlessness on the part of one person, but not the other.
I didn't just use that word to indicate why in Mary's case it appears from scripture (though not explicitly clear) that she was sinless her whole life. You also reject tradition, though 2 thes 2:15 clearly states there is an oral teaching that goes with the written. Scripture is not explicitly clear on all matters. I never claimed the word meant lifelong sinlessness. But it makes sense that it is used at the end of Stephen's life and during Mary's. That's my point.
quote:
Regardless, the fact that something is true at one point in someone's life does not mean it has been true their whole life. I would hope that I'm somewhere around the midpoint of my life, and I am currently in the state of being pregnant. This does not mean that I have been and will be pregnant my whole life simply because it's true at the midpoint, averages simply don't work that way, thank goodness (I don't think I could handle the heartburn, frankly). So, even if you can stretch "grace" to mean "sinless" at one single point in Mary's life (which I don't think the two ideas have anything to do with each other), there's no indicator that you should stretch it out for her whole life.
Again you don't get the Ark of the Covenant analogy with Mary at all. Sad.
quote:
What we're questioning here, really, though, is how good of a pillar of truth the RCC is. Between the corrupt Popes, the political machinations, and the odd doctrines like this one and others that seem to have no scriptural support, I see no reason to accept the RCC as a pillar of much of anything.
There is no corruption in your ptoestant denominatiosn. So I guess we don't have any pillar and foundations of anything. The vast majority of Popes were good men in FACT. You can listen to Mr. Billington's presentations if you would like on Jeff and Lee's show.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/6/2008 11:06:02 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Your phrase "work off" is nowhere in CC theology so why do you use it. Purgatory is not anything about our working off anything. It is the cleansing fire of God's love purifying our souls for entry in to heaven. It is him doing any work. It is CC theology that man can do NOTHING for himself in purgatory. Read mal 3 I believe it is about the refiners fire. Do you know when the silver is fully purified. When the refiner can see his image in it. Now you said that we cannot be sinless in this life and so somethings gotta give before heaven or Ps 24 is false. You don't like the word purgatory but your theology demands it. As for purgatory in scripture. By the logic you use "ie. the word isn't in there" we can discount the concepts of "faith alone" and "Bible alone" and the Trinity among other doctrines. But 1 Cor 3:15 is a pretty clear statement of purgatory.
Nooooo... I said that nobody has had a truly sinless life but Jesus. I also said that when we confess our sins, we are forgiven for those sins, making us sinless until we mess up again. I've also said that I'm not counting on my righteousness, but on Jesus's righteousness, and no amount of purgatory or lack thereof is going to change that.
The Trinity is most certainly in the Bible. Here's a decent list of verses, because it's too long for me to list. http://www.geocities.com/rgl466/scripture-supports-the-trinity.html
Justification by faith is all over the place in scripture.
Romans 4:5 - "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Romans 5:1 - "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Galatians 2:16 - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Philemon 3:9 - "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
The usefulness of the Scripture is all over the place too.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
We're kind of getting off topic though, so I'll stop now.
quote:
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Not the last phrase. That's pretty much our claim about purgatory. There is a final refinement neccessary. It's clear to me but of course you will ahve to "come up" with something else.
Fires tend to be pretty quick, really. Rather the counterpoint to the years and years that papal dispensations were sold to knock short time periods off of. Yes, there will be a judgement, both of the just and the unjust, scripture is very clear on that, but there's no indication that there's a waiting period.
quote:
She's the Ark of the new covenant. You don't get what that means. God made a woman to his specifications for the birth of his son. A vessel to hold GOD HIMSELF in for 9 months. It does say it but you don't listen and come up with you own personal interpretations of what God is trying to tell you and your own claims of what he should say and your own understanding. Read prov 3:5. It says trust not in your own understanding.
Okay. There were obviously specifications... the woman had to be a virgin, at that time period, in a certain place, and had to have a certain general lineage. But that's no indication that He made her sinless. When there are so many other verses saying that nobody was sinless but Jesus, then the contrary is indicated.
Even your own church teaches that it was not NECESSARY for Mary to be sinless, you just think she was. As such, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this.
quote:
This is funny considering there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. Kinda the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know what Catholcis you have spoken to. You may not even understand what is being said and it may be consistent or you may just be talking to liberal Catholics. But unlike the protestant Churches we have a Catechism and if you want to know what the CC teaches you can go there. It quotes scripture and refers to it alot if you want to Check it with scirpture. If someone speaks against it they are simply wrong. But in protestantism if someone speaks against the pastor they can go out and start their own church. What's one more denomination.
Sure. But at least we're honest about it. *shrug* You will find that the differences between denominations tend to be more a matter of organizational and service-related preferences than any major theological points though.
Half of my extended family is catholic, so I know quite a few.
quote:
I didn't just use that word to indicate why in Mary's case it appears from scripture (though not explicitly clear) that she was sinless her whole life. You also reject tradition, though 2 thes 2:15 clearly states there is an oral teaching that goes with the written. Scripture is not explicitly clear on all matters. I never claimed the word meant lifelong sinlessness. But it makes sense that it is used at the end of Stephen's life and during Mary's. That's my point.
No, it doesn't make sense, because that's simply not what the word means, and the large quantity of indicators to the contrary in scripture support my conclusion.
You can't just go picking out random words that have clear meanings and claim that they sort of kind of indicate that maybe this other thing that isn't even mentioned is true but just in that case.
quote:
Again you don't get the Ark of the Covenant analogy with Mary at all. Sad.
Sure I do. But I don't think it requires the same conclusions that you think it requires. Just as the Ark of the Covenant was plain old wood and gold made holy by God's presence when it carried His mercy seat, Mary was a plain old girl made holy by God's presence when she carried His Son. Frankly, to Protestants, that's part of the wonder of it all.
quote:
There is no corruption in your ptoestant denominatiosn. So I guess we don't have any pillar and foundations of anything. The vast majority of Popes were good men in FACT. You can listen to Mr. Billington's presentations if you would like on Jeff and Lee's show.
Our foundation is Jesus and the Word of God. Both of those are incorruptible. Can we have leaders that go astray? Yes, but it is our responsibility to confront that when it happens and no longer follow them. You Catholics, sadly, do not have that option, which is a major issue I have with your church. You have Popes who obviously did go astray. The number is inconsequential due to the repercussions of that fact... Popes have gone astray, and they can again, and you have no recourse but to either follow them despite their depravity, or step away and basically lose your faith (at least from the point of view of the RCC).
In fact, the only reason Protestantism exists is because your Pope became so corrupt that some of your own clergy simply could not take it anymore. And, once you come to the realization that your church's highest authority is wrong despite the fact that that's not supposed to happen, one must look back over the teachings of the RCC and wonder what of that was implemented by similarly corrupt leadership. As such, Protestants had to go back to the beginning. Back to the very words of the apostles. That's why we rely on scripture, and reject any RCC teachings that do not line up with it.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/6/2008 1:16:45 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nooooo... I said that nobody has had a truly sinless life but Jesus. I also said that when we confess our sins, we are forgiven for those sins, making us sinless until we mess up again. I've also said that I'm not counting on my righteousness, but on Jesus's righteousness, and no amount of purgatory or lack thereof is going to change that.
So you don't believe in sanctification? I agree that when we ask forgiveness we are "sinless" but the effects of the sin are not cleansed immediately. That's even more so true in protestant theology which believes in imputed righteousness. We are snow covered dung is how luther termed it. We are not truly clean. That's Protestant theology.
The Trinity is most certainly in the Bible. Here's a decent list of verses, because it's too long for me to list. http://www.geocities.com/rgl466/scripture-supports-the-trinity.html
I don't need your list of scriptures. I have my own and fully believe in the trinity as defined in the council of Nicea. The point is the quality of your arguement about purgatory is the same quality. The word is not in there but the concept clearly is. I can give you a whole list of quotes about purgatory as well.
quote:
Justification by faith is all over the place in scripture.
Again I don't need your list for justification by faith. I agree with justification by faith. A real and living faith that produces fruit. What I said was that you cannot find justification by "FAITH ALONE" which again is common protestant theology. The New Testament uses the word faith some 300 or so times. Oddly enough there is only one place in today's bible's where the word alone is used with the word faith. It's James 2:24 and if you read it it won't help you much. Luther did insert the word alone in to Romans 3:28 and every single Bible today has removed the word as a corruption of the passage. Now if God meant faith alone why did he never say it? Because he didn't mean it. Yet it is according to Luther and others one of the three pillars upon which the reformation stands or falls. It fell long ago. 2000 years ago.
quote:
The usefulness of the Scripture is all over the place too.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
Again, if you notice I think scripture is very useful and if you listen to the debate I have linked in another thread in this area, I quote it alot. Again the problem is scripture alone. It's nowhere in the Bible and the concept is quite arguably no there. If you are trying to use 2 Tim 3:16 to prove sola scriptura (another of those three legs upon which the reformation stands) you have a problem. It is clear that the passage is speaking of the Old Testament scriptures if you start at 2 Tim 3:14 "Which you have known since your childhood". To use it as proof for sola scriptura also presents the problem that in 2 Thes 2:15 Paul indicates that there are oral and written teachings that need to be followed. That's not sola scriptura. So you have the thessalonians being told "not by scripture alone" and the Ephesians where timothy lived being told sola scriptura.
We're kind of getting off topic though, so I'll stop now.
quote:
Fires tend to be pretty quick, really. Rather the counterpoint to the years and years that papal dispensations were sold to knock short time periods off of. Yes, there will be a judgement, both of the just and the unjust, scripture is very clear on that, but there's no indication that there's a waiting period.
Again you prove only your ignorance of Catholic theology on purgatory and the prejudice under which your views of the Catholic faith are formed. Catholic theology does not say there is a period of time spent in purgatory. It simply says there is a cleansing that takes place after death for those who's good they have done does not outweigh the bad which is exactly what the passage says. Purgatory is outside of time and space and so it is only a speculation as to whether there is a time spent in purgatory or an intensity of the purification that is instantaneous. But the passage again fits purgatory perfectly. Purgatory is about sanctification and I can show you in scripture where almsgiving and other "works" do affect our sanctification.
quote:
Okay. There were obviously specifications... the woman had to be a virgin, at that time period, in a certain place, and had to have a certain general lineage. But that's no indication that He made her sinless. When there are so many other verses saying that nobody was sinless but Jesus, then the contrary is indicated.
Even your own church teaches that it was not NECESSARY for Mary to be sinless, you just think she was. As such, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this.
The Church says it is fitting rather than neccessary. Again you miss the gist of the Ark of the Covenant parallel and the great purity of the Ark. Yes it was due to the Ark being the God bearer, but though Christ physically left Mary's womb I contend that he spiritually did not. The Church does not say that her being sinless is optional. It is dogma of the Church and there is good reason for it when you realize the parallel of mary and the Church which is beyond your desire to understand. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. Individual interpretation gets 30,000 + denominations. Did you know that 99+ percent of all denominations started in the reformation.
quote:
Sure. But at least we're honest about it. *shrug* You will find that the differences between denominations tend to be more a matter of organizational and service-related preferences than any major theological points though.
Really? Lutherans, presbyterians, anglicans, and I think Methodists, believe in baptismal regeneration. Baptists deny it. I can list abou 10 different teachings on baptism itself in various denominations. Lutherans and Anglicans have a far closer to the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper and the sacramental reality. Presbyterians and Methodists see a spritual reality. Batpists and non-denoms see only a symbolic view. Pre-trib, post trib, amil, no trib if you want to talk end times views. There are over 20 different views on justification. Arminianism and Calvinism are not organizational or service related. Do I need to go on. Haven't even gotten in to pentecostalism. Your way off on your view.
quote:
No, it doesn't make sense, because that's simply not what the word means, and the large quantity of indicators to the contrary in scripture support my conclusion.
Yes, I know protestant ones, because they have to deny the Catholic position.
quote:
You can't just go picking out random words that have clear meanings and claim that they sort of kind of indicate that maybe this other thing that isn't even mentioned is true but just in that case.
You added to it words I did not say. You seem to have trouble with precise definitions and the understanding that there are real differences between words and we also have to consider the context.
quote:
Sure I do. But I don't think it requires the same conclusions that you think it requires. Just as the Ark of the Covenant was plain old wood and gold made holy by God's presence when it carried His mercy seat, Mary was a plain old girl made holy by God's presence when she carried His Son. Frankly, to Protestants, that's part of the wonder of it all.
Mary is "blessed among women"! She is the Mother of God! Christ was always present in her unless you don't believe in his omniprescence.
[quotes]Our foundation is Jesus and the Word of God. Both of those are incorruptible. Can we have leaders that go astray? Yes, but it is our responsibility to confront that when it happens and no longer follow them. You Catholics, sadly, do not have that option, which is a major issue I have with your church. You have Popes who obviously did go astray. The number is inconsequential due to the repercussions of that fact... Popes have gone astray, and they can again, and you have no recourse but to either follow them despite their depravity, or step away and basically lose your faith (at least from the point of view of the RCC).
Odd how Jesus says in matt 23 "the scribes and the pharasees sit on Moses seat. Therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU". God does not promise us perfect leaders. He will hold them accountable if they are not living rightly. He even spoke the truth through Caiphas in John 11 and 18 even though Caiphas was culpable of one of the greatest sins ever. Having the son of God crucified. Scriptural interpretations are not incorruptable and there are 30,000 denominations IN FACT teaching contradictory doctrines to prove that they can be corruptable. Popes who were corrupt coincidently added no doctrine to Catholic teaching. Generally they were to busy with temperoral affairs. Popes in fact never added doctrine. They did dogmatize what quite clearly if you read the Church fathers had been passed on from the very beginning.
quote:
In fact, the only reason Protestantism exists is because your Pope became so corrupt that some of your own clergy simply could not take it anymore. And, once you come to the realization that your church's highest authority is wrong despite the fact that that's not supposed to happen, one must look back over the teachings of the RCC and wonder what of that was implemented by similarly corrupt leadership. As such, Protestants had to go back to the beginning. Back to the very words of the apostles. That's why we rely on scripture, and reject any RCC teachings that do not line up with it.
It is quite provable that the doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are wrong. Protestants rely on their own understandings of scripture, which contradict eachother and the Bible. Prov 3:5 says we should not trust in our own understanding, but it is the basis of the reformation.
Again 300 times Paul and the NT writers use the word faith and only once as a double negative do they pair it with faith. It's unbiblical.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/6/2008 1:23:34 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
BTW
quote:
No, it doesn't make sense, because that's simply not what the word means, and the large quantity of indicators to the contrary in scripture support my conclusion.
You can't just go picking out random words that have clear meanings and claim that they sort of kind of indicate that maybe this other thing that isn't even mentioned is true but just in that case.
Karchitnome is only used three times in scripture as I said. Its not a random word and it quite clearly implies more than just favored or highly favored. In context there are strong implications, along with the understanding of the Ark of the Covenant that Mary was sinless. But you also expect me to come up with explicitness for things when you yourself come up with no explicit statement regarding faith alone or scripture alone. To that I will add altar calls without baptisms and more if you like. Nowhere in scripture does it speak of a time when people come forward to recieve the Lord and they are not baptized. Check it out. Yet every single sunday in protestant Chruches and millions of times in Louis Pallow and Billy and Franklin Graham crusades it is done regularly. Rarely are there baptisms at these events. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Billy and Franklin. My comment is not against them and what they do. It is in the context of your demanding explicit biblical support for beliefs and practices. Protestantism does not measure up to that. Let's add wedding cerimonies and wedding rings and particular vows in to the list of things that Protestants can't support explicitly from scripture. Again don't think I am speaking against these things. It is not I that teach sola scriptura and the restrictive way that protestants place demands on the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/6/2008 4:10:29 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
So you don't believe in sanctification? I agree that when we ask forgiveness we are "sinless" but the effects of the sin are not cleansed immediately. That's even more so true in protestant theology which believes in imputed righteousness. We are snow covered dung is how luther termed it. We are not truly clean. That's Protestant theology.
Yes, I believe in sanctification. But, I believe we are fully sanctified and capable of being with God in heaven when we die. I base this on several scriptural principles, such as Paul's assertion that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and Jesus's promise to the thief on the cross that he would be dining with Him in heaven that night (not "after a while spent suffering to make you good enough to be with God").
quote:
I don't need your list of scriptures. I have my own and fully believe in the trinity as defined in the council of Nicea. The point is the quality of your arguement about purgatory is the same quality. The word is not in there but the concept clearly is. I can give you a whole list of quotes about purgatory as well.
Go ahead if you'd like, but I'd guess you're going to go through all the verses that Protestants believe apply to our time here on earth and the work God does in us here. Also, way off topic.
quote:
Again I don't need your list for justification by faith. I agree with justification by faith. A real and living faith that produces fruit. What I said was that you cannot find justification by "FAITH ALONE" which again is common protestant theology. The New Testament uses the word faith some 300 or so times. Oddly enough there is only one place in today's | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
