Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!

[Martin777]

So you think that grace from the Cross is limited by time? That it could only be applied after Christ’s death? What about the grace in the Old Testament? What about the Old Testament Saints saved from Hell? The sin offerings in the Old Testament had no power in-and-of themselves, only with Christ on the Cross did they convey grace.

Well I have a feeling you will find a way to violate this principle, but God created humans with the unique ability to choose to love Him. It is what makes them different from the animals. Scripture also makes it clear that we must call on the Lord to be saved. We have to choose Him. We must hear the gospel and believe on it to be saved. What the RCC is stating about Mary means she had no choice. It was a nice whimsical thing they came up with, just odd that neither Jesus nor Paul nor Peter said a single thing to support it. But that doesnt really matter to you, does it?

 

[Matariel]

True, that is what we believe as well. If you die right after baptism when all your sins are wiped away and you are a brand new creation, you go straight to heaven. The sacrament of baptism causes this indelible change in your soul.

Some verses proving baptismal regeneration:

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38 - “Baptism for remission of sin” Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes **AND is baptized **will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally** refers to a ritual washing with water. **

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism.

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

Purgatory, will cease to exist after Christ’s second coming. Any Catholic here in this thread who know I may have got that wrong please correct me a.s.a.p

I think** loving purification from attachments to sin (**formed in our earthly life) is a better way to look at Purgatory, not necessarily punishment. Sure we say “temporal punishment”, but I think it’s meant in a different sense.

 

[Martin777]

A low view of the cross. You have got to be kidding. At the Cross, Christ redeemed us. Redemption is different from salvation.

Is that why you did not answer me when I asked you this question on another post?

True, that is what we believe as well. If you die right after baptism when all your sins are wiped away and you are a brand new creation, you go straight to heaven. The sacrament of baptism causes this indelible change in your soul.

Purgatory, will cease to exist after Christ’s second coming. Any Catholic here in this thread who know I may have got that wrong please correct me a.s.a.p.

Purgatory is only there until the final judgment. So yes, (but I am not sure of this) perhaps that is what will happen at the final judgment, an instant change.

But until then purgatory will be where we will be purified BECAUSE NOTHING UNCLEAN WILL ENTER HEAVEN.

quote]
It is because we will no longer be in these bodies. We will be in new, glorified bodies, the fruit of the resurrection. So he says if you see who you really are, you will be amazed and awed. Just take those verses for what they are and feast on what it means.

I have taken those verses and have proven above that it does not negate purgatory. It is your understanding of purgatory that needed to be amended.

As I have shown above, purgatory is necessary prior to Final Judgment because nothing unclean will enter heaven.

And those who die now, even though their sins have been forgiven are still unclean. Because they have been forgiven they cannot go to Hell, but because they are unclean, they cannot go to Heaven. God’s justice must be satisfied and that is why there is purgatory.

**And the only explosion I heard was when your proposition came crashing down. **

Benedictus, I am going to respectfully say that you tend toward arrogance. You will not be persuaded. You are wise in your own eyes. Tell me what Paul meant when he said to the church at Corinth, a church with a lot of problems, “but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified”. Tell me about that verse, O wise one. Did they all just happen to jump out of the baptismal font right before they read that letter? That must be dogma somewhere, right? Explain that one away now and strip the word of God of more of its glory so the RCC can continue to stand in its prverbial underwear.

 

[Luke65]

I believe if you take seriously what Paul says…

“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)

Thanks for the warning, Papa! I’ll pass it on.

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Thank you, dear Saint, very simple and clear!

No, you cannot “earn” your salvation - it’s a free gift from God in the Sacrament of Baptism - but you can LOSE it! If you don’t do the good works that Christ has given you the grace to do.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’” (Matthew 25:41-43 NIV)

Perfectly clear, Lord!

So Benedictus, tell me which post proved that Paul’s assertion that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law is harmonious to the notion that we are saved by faith plus works.

I believe this post just did that! - “not by faith alone”. You really need to learn to distinguish between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, then you’ll understand St. Paul’s letters better. Haven’t you noticed how Paul always says “the law” without specifying which law he was talking about? Don’t fall into that heretrap!

 

[benedictus2]

So Benedictus, tell me which post proved that Paul’s assertion that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law is harmonious to the notion that we are saved by faith plus works. There are so many posts and I have a job and six children and a wife to keep happy. I try my best to speak to the issue, but maybe we just all hear what we want to.

The one I said was responded to many times over was the point on the Immculate Conception.

On Faith plus Works:

Matthew 25 all of it but in particualr 31-46

Mathew 7 entire chapter in particular verse 21

James 2 entire chapter in particular verse 24.

The Beatitudes.

 

[Martin777]

I have taken those verses and have proven above that it does not negate purgatory. It is your understanding of purgatory that needed to be amended.

As I have shown above, purgatory is necessary prior to Final Judgment because nothing unclean will enter heaven.

And those who die now, even though their sins have been forgiven are still unclean. Because they have been forgiven they cannot go to Hell, but because they are unclean, they cannot go to Heaven. God’s justice must be satisfied and that is why there is purgatory.

**And the only explosion I heard was when your proposition came crashing down. **

Benedictus, I am going to respectfully say that you tend toward arrogance. You will not be persuaded. You are wise in your own eyes. Tell me what Paul meant when he said to the church at Corinth, a church with a lot of problems, “but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified”. Tell me about that verse, O wise one. Did they all just happen to jump out of the baptismal font right before they read that letter? That must be dogma somewhere, right? Explain that one away now and strip the word of God of more of its glory so the RCC can continue to stand in its proverbial underwear.

You cannot name one single verse that states clearly that Christians get purged in some ‘process’ after death. Not one! You have to stretch and infer and frankly pretend. Amazing that the majority of Christians in the world reject that stuff. Poor separated brethren that they are, busy leading all the idiots to a salvation that seems strangely like new life. Exciting life, compared to whatever that is that I walked away from as a child. Born again people are writing all those happy songs that stand in contrast to the stuff we hear coming out of the Catholic church. There’s a party going on, Ben, and its a pre-party for the King of Kings. You guys remind me of the Pharisees scowling as Jesus was celebrated by the people. You know a lot of history; I just haven’t met hardly any of you who honestly seem to have LIFE. I’m weary of pretending that you are even on the same level of understanding of the cross. Someone on this site said earlier today that the difference between going to heaven or hell is really only about 18 inches…the distnace between the head and the heart.

 

[Martin777]

The one I said was responded to many times over was the point on the Immculate Conception.

On Faith plus Works:

Matthew 25 all of it but in particualr 31-46

Mathew 7 entire chapter in particular verse 21

James 2 entire chapter in particular verse 24.

The Beatitudes.

I have addressed those verses. Do you want me to print each one out? If you had read all my posts, you would know I have dealt with principles that address those verses. There is an abiding principle that covers the whole matter. Two really. The first is that when James talks about being justified by works, he is speaking of justification in the eyes of man. Faith and works go hand in hand. You have to harmonize all the passages. The Matthew passages can only be fulfilled in one way–by a regenerated person set free to serve in newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter. If he doesnt serve, he was never saved. But it was his faith that brought about his salvation. It is beleiving that brings about the sealing of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, justification, sonship, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and all of that happens in a moment in time. Feast (or gag) on this passage from Eph 2: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” Do you even know what that means? Experientially? Tell me about it in your life. Share your testimony. Its time for that now.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, I am going to respectfully say that you tend toward arrogance. You will not be persuaded. You are wise in your own eyes. Tell me what Paul meant when he said to the church at Corinth, a church with a lot of problems, “but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified”. Tell me about that verse, O wise one. Did they all just happen to jump out of the baptismal font right before they read that letter? That must be dogma somewhere, right? Explain that one away now and strip the word of God of more of its glory so the RCC can continue to stand in its prverbial underwear.

Martin, you are dodging again.You think you can get me off you case by calling me arrogant,hey you are probably right.

But that is neither here nor there. You have not answered any of the points I raised.

But I will humor you.

All the people this is being addressed to if they were baptised were sanctified. But after their baptism they sinned again.

Even in your case where you think saying Christ is your Lord and Saviour actually saves you means zilch if after that you commit all sorts of sins.

It is your concept of justification that needs amending.

And the fact that you are becoming nastier and nastier is just showing to all and sundry that you are losing ground.

If you are sure of your point you will not be doing that. I have come across the same tactic from a protestant friend who becasue he did not have any comeback called me stupid when it was he who could not answer my question.

So why have you still not answered any of my questions on post 169, 174, 175, 178, if you are so good with theology and scripture.?

Here is a good article (a bit lengthy but to someone who like you who did years of Theology this will be a piece of cake) JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE

This will explain to you where Catholics and Protestants differ in understanding of Justification. And it is pact with Scriptural reference which would surely delight you.

 

[Luke65]

Benedictus, I am going to respectfully say that you tend toward arrogance. You will not be persuaded. You are wise in your own eyes.

No, Martin, we don’t lean on our own understanding, we lean on the pillar and foundation of truth for the last 2000 years - the Catholic Church.

Tell me what Paul meant when he said to the church at Corinth, a church with a lot of problems, “but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified”. Tell me about that verse, O wise one. Did they all just happen to jump out of the baptismal font right before they read that letter? That must be dogma somewhere, right? Explain that one away now and strip the word of God of more of its glory so the RCC can continue to stand in its prverbial underwear.

It would help if you checked the translation:

“And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11 NIV)

Try again, without insulting the Bride of Christ.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

AAAhh Martin, I am beginning to think you really do not want to learn.

**Hi Ben,

Do you actually think that? **

I have read your responses to the questions and they are always slightly or greatly askew.

** I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone would recognize that Martin changes things!**

Chesterton’s response was very detailed so you cannot brush it of with “I studied Greek” for 3 years. That cuts no ice.

Martin777:

Well thanks for the Greek grammar lesson. I studied it for over three years in seminary,
B]

hi Martin:wave:
, C’est le grec moderne, j’espère qu’éducation de votre trois année vous autorise à le lire! 2Pete 2:16 “… l’âne muet parlant avec la voix d’homme a défendu la folie du prophète.” Allusion : Martin, vous n’êtes pas le prophète!

but those in the know would probably say your explanation was much adieu about nothing!

Please be careful martin! Some people here would say that your saying that makes you a liar. I don’t think you would deliberately lie! I rather think you are ill-informed

You quoted A T Robertson, but he would never give the time of day to the notion of Immaculate Conception. Mary had a lot of grace for the task at hand and was blessed to birth the Savior.

**Yea, she was “FULL of GRACE” even before birth! **

But nothing in Scripture teaches she was sinless.

**Nothing in the scriptures is required to martin. Didn’t you know? The scriptures are about Jesus not Mary aren’t they? You Know Mary is not Jesus. Mary is not God. Don’t you? Mary wasn’t the focal point, Her son was. **

If she had been, of course, she wouldn’t need a Savior and would miss out on the blessing God reserved for humans in eternity past, something even angels were excluded from

**Now exactly why wouldn’t Mary need a Savior? She was a creature! One last time martin, Please pay attention you make this harder than it needs to be: Mary is not Jesus, Mary is not God!. Now do you understand?
She needed a savior! Mary was sinless, but still a creation of Gods and therefore would need to be saved. But exactly who do you think you are to say when she was saved? This is the fourth time I told you ,so this time I shall type it very slowly for you. ready? Martin, you are not God, you can not tell God what or when to do things. Do you understand now? I can try again …s l o w e r ? **

If you “studied Greek for 3 years” then surely you can prove that our interpretation of kecharitomene is wrong.

**Ben, as you said in a previous post, this thread moves too quickly I am sorry, I didn’t read your interpretation
Here is mine, lets see how close they match! The word kecharitomene was used as the proper name to Mary when she was greeted by Gabriel, so it expressed a characteristic quality of Mary. [Kind of like if you addressed a liar as: “Hey Dumbass”]

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo (Strong’s 5487), meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. Therefore Mary’s grace was not a result of the angel’s visit, and it was complete as possible,and it extended over her entire life, from conception onward. To have been called “Full of Grace” she had to be completely in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
I am not as smart as some of you other guys but I believe that the variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle, according to www.ao.net/~fmoeller/zchxxxi.htm

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

“Chartoo…Highly favoured as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon…it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to.” [Lexicon to the Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc., p.1739]

“Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek ‘kecharitomene’ a perfect passive participle of the verb ,‘Chartoo’ …Abbott-Smith defines ‘Chartoo’ as follows: endow with ‘charis’ i.e. 1. (a) to make graceful; (b) to endure with grace (i.e. divine favor)” [Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle, p.52]

“O favored one” (kecharitomene), the angel’s address to Mary, marks her out recipient of God’s special grace… For Luke she is a model beneficiary of God’s grace (1:48)." [The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Block, p.180]**

So address that point.

As someone (I think TQualey) already said, Mary is FULL OF GRACE. IF WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE AND MARY IS ALREADY FULL OF GRACE THEN SHE WAS ALREADY SAVED.

As I said before, we live in a space-time continuum but God is in eternity not in time. He made available to Mary the graces which came from Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Christ REDEEMED Mary but He did it prior to her conception, whereas with all of us, He redeemed us after the fact.

Think of it this way. Abraham, Moses and all the prophets prior to Christ were also redeemed by Christ. And yet one can ask, how can that be when Christ’s saving grace happenned hundreds of years after their death.

In Mary’s case, God did it prior to her even being conceived because He needed a fitting vessel for His Son.

**

Well said Ben, well said! AMEN!**

 

[benedictus2]

I have addressed those verses. Do you want me to print each one out? If you had read all my posts, you would know I have dealt with principles that address those verses. There is an abiding principle that covers the whole matter. Two really. The first is that when James talks about being justified by works, he is speaking of justification in the eyes of man.

Huh? Now why would we need justification in the eyes of man. Justification only has to do with God. The verse is about being Justified in God’s sight. He speaks of Faith and Works and the inter-relationship between the two.

Re-read that Chapter again.

Faith and works go hand in hand.

PRECISELY

You have to harmonize all the passages. The Matthew passages can only be fulfilled in one way–by a regenerated person set free to serve in newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

You are completely overlooking the fact that there are atheist and agnostics who clothe the naked, feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.

So how can you say that only the re-generated fullfill this passage.

Those unbaptised and non Christians who fed, clothe, gave drink to the hungry, naked and thirsty did this to Christ ACCORDING TO CHRIST HIMSELF.

If he doesnt serve, he was never saved. But it was his faith that brought about his salvation. It is beleiving that brings about the sealing of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, justification, sonship, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and all of that happens in a moment in time. Feast (or gag) on this passage from Eph 2: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” Do you even know what that means? Experientially? Tell me about it in your life. Share your testimony. Its time for that now.

All nice and good but TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE PASSAGES I CITED.

See how you evade passages and dodge passage that dont’ square with your own belief.

So much for believing in the Bible.

You cite Paul all the time, but confronted with the Gospels you duck.

 

[Matariel]

Martin777, won’t you budge? Or are you being unteachable?

So far the protestant view of OSAS has been trounced, and Mary’s God-given sinlessness (after all, she was the Mother of God, Ark of the New Covenant, and Temple of the embryonic Christ, who was conjoined to her by the umbilical cord-- I can’t imagine God being physically joined to a sinful woman! That’d be impossible…) has been aptly demonstrated to be possible (even with* Sola Scriptura*, although that is more when the authority of the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, comes into play) and the statement of Archagel St. Gabriel, “full of grace”, i.e., there’s no room for sin.

So what gives? Is that you’re best shot? Remember, the topic is what is anti-biblical. So far, nothing has been shown anti-biblical, only that it may be para-biblical or extra-biblical.

Let’s move on to the next topic, since noöne has proven any of the aforementioned topics as “anti-biblical”.

 

[Martin777]

Martin, you are dodging again.You think you can get me off you case by calling me arrogant,hey you are probably right.

But that is neither here nor there. You have not answered any of the points I raised.

But I will humor you.

All the people this is being addressed to if they were baptised were sanctified. But after their baptism they sinned again.

Even in your case where you think saying Christ is your Lord and Saviour actually saves you means zilch if after that you commit all sorts of sins.

It is your concept of justification that needs amending.

And the fact that you are becoming nastier and nastier is just showing to all and sundry that you are losing ground.

If you are sure of your point you will not be doing that. I have come across the same tactic from a protestant friend who becasue he did not have any comeback called me stupid when it was he who could not answer my question.

So why have you still not answered any of my questions on post 169, 174, 175, 178, if you are so good with theology and scripture.?

Here is a good article (a bit lengthy but to someone who like you who did years of Theology this will be a piece of cake) JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE

This will explain to you where Catholics and Protestants differ in understanding of Justification. And it is pact with Scriptural reference which would surely delight you.

Yes, I am getting upset. I feel like driving some people out of the temple that shouldn’t be in there. But I don’t want you off my case. I live to share the truth with people like you. I love it, and I love educationg those who are observing. Why do I talk to so many former Catholics who have the same story? Dead, dry religion until they found out what it means to be born again. Don’t tell Jesus I didn’'t warn you that He said “you must be born again” You really don’t know what all the fuss is, do you? “Let’s not get so excited there, pal.” “I can’t help it sir, I’ve found new life!” “Well you didn’t find it here, so calm down.”

And I am finally onto you regarding a couple of those passages. The verse “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”…Your answer is bogus and you know it. Paul knew that every person who would hear that letter read out loud to the assembly…every believer had sinned many times since the were saved. But guess what? They were STILL in the condition Paul called “washed, sanctified, justified” Now you apologize and come up with a responsible answer. The reason it is so odd to you IS in fact because you don’t know EXPERIENTIALLY what the atonement is all about. You don’t know that “by ONE OFFERING He perfected forever those who are sanctified” (the church) Oh you’ve read it, Ben, you just don’t KNOW it.

 

[Martin777]

Martin777, won’t you budge? Or are you being unteachable?

So far the protestant view of OSAS has been trounced, and Mary’s God-given sinlessness (after all, she was the Mother of God, Ark of the New Covenant, and Temple of the embryonic Christ, who was conjoined to her by the umbilical cord-- I can’t imagine God being physically joined to a sinful woman! That’d be impossible…) has been aptly demonstrated to be possible (even with* Sola Scriptura*, although that is more when the authority of the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, comes into play) and the statement of Archagel St. Gabriel, “full of grace”, i.e., there’s no room for sin.

So what gives? Is that you’re best shot? Remember, the topic is what is anti-biblical. So far, nothing has been shown anti-biblical, only that it may be para-biblical or extra-biblical.

Let’s move on to the next topic, since noöne has proven any of the aforementioned topics as “anti-biblical”.

So I want you to restate your comments about believers being wahsed, sanctified and justified…and we’ll forget we readthat last explanation. I will not let you go on this one, because it is at the heart of what is so wrong about Catholic teaching on salvation

 

[Henning]

But that is why I said, you cannot add either “in sin” or “to sin” although in the context of the entire Chapter, died to sin is a better choice than “in sin”.

I guess then we disagree as to which is better to sin or in sin. BTW I did read, a few times, 2 Cor ch.s 3-6 to get context and there doesn’t seem to me to be anything preventing the verse to be understood as dead in sin.

Also, this is from Haydock’s
Ver. 14. For the charity of Christ, the love of God, the love that Christ has shewn to me and all mankind, and a return of love due to him, presseth me on, is the motive of all that I do; because I consider that if one, our Redeemer Christ Jesus, died for all, then all were dead, and had been lost in their sins, had not Christ come to redeem us.

As I mentioned before,that is probably why Paul left it at all have died. Or you can say all were dead.

If however we read ALL were dead without exceptions, then we can conclude that Christ is included in the ALL being part of Humanity.

One thing that you are missing if you concentrate on the ALL and take that literally as it stands without references to other passages in the Bible is that you open yourself up to the question of whether Jesus is in the All. But then you say No, He is not. And someone can say. Then how can that be ALL? Paul said He did not cling to His equality with God so He was fully human.

but if I say ‘all dead in sin’ then Jesus is excepted from this all on account of these three verses (each is talking about Christ)

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Pet 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

As has been explained, Mary was redeemed by a singular grace and the support for this comes from Luke.

If she is FULL OF GRACE before she conceived Jesus, then what more Grace does she need? If she is FULL OF GRACE, how can she be in original sin which is how you interpret “dead” or “died in sin”.

that’s the problem for me, how to reconcile her being without original sin (which she is) and 2 Cor 5:14 .

There is a really good book called “Why does God Permit Evil” by Dom Brunno Web and I have recommended this to every one I know. It is about the fall, the covenant, the whole economy of salvation. The dogmas of the Catholic Church fit so well into the whole economy of salvation, and the Immaculate Conception has to be seen in this light as well.

just ordered it from Amazon (less than 10bucks, not bad )

Also to some discussing these things might seem boring (not implying you) but I argue…‘you gotta be detail oriented’…from suturing or scripture to whatever…for as they say, ‘the devil is in the details’. good night Benedictus2 :tiphat:

 

[Martin777]

Martin777, won’t you budge? Or are you being unteachable?

So far the protestant view of OSAS has been trounced, and Mary’s God-given sinlessness (after all, she was the Mother of God, Ark of the New Covenant, and Temple of the embryonic Christ, who was conjoined to her by the umbilical cord-- I can’t imagine God being physically joined to a sinful woman! That’d be impossible…) has been aptly demonstrated to be possible (even with* Sola Scriptura*, although that is more when the authority of the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, comes into play) and the statement of Archagel St. Gabriel, “full of grace”, i.e., there’s no room for sin.

So what gives? Is that you’re best shot? Remember, the topic is what is anti-biblical. So far, nothing has been shown anti-biblical, only that it may be para-biblical or extra-biblical.

Let’s move on to the next topic, since noöne has proven any of the aforementioned topics as “anti-biblical”.

I’ve addressed all of it. You simply didn’t like the answers. Don’t blame the messenger. Or…you want a much more practical exercise? Go listen to Casting Crowns’ song “lifesong” or Mercy Me’s “I Can Only Imagine”, then listen to something a Catholic created…and if you dare to be brutally honest, ask yourself why there is such an incredible, glorious difference. Serious. I dare you. I would recommend you do it on your knees, alone, and pray like crazy that God would break through and show you why the difference in our music and yours is so staggering. Just a thought. You go do it too, Ben. Come back and tell me what God shows you. I have addressed your issues, you didn’t like the answers, Ben is over there pondering how to explain why Paul says those nasty Corinthian believers were still washed, sanctified and justified (I Cor 6:11)

 

[Matariel]

So I want you to restate your comments about believers being washed, sanctified and justified…and we’ll forget we readthat last explanation.

What’s your problem with it? I’ve been concentrating on my posts to you and your posts to me, so I’ve not heard your question with it?

I will not let you go on this one, because it is at the heart of what is so wrong about Catholic teaching on salvation

Okay. Remember, you must prove something is anti-biblical, not para-biblical or extra-biblical.

And I have another question: If something were the pillar and foundation of the Truth, could any error come from it? Just a question.

 

[Matariel]

I’ve addressed all of it. You simply didn’t like the answers. Don’t blame the messenger. Or…you want a much more practical exercise? Go listen to Casting Crowns’ song “lifesong” or Mercy Me’s “I Can Only Imagine”, then listen to something a Catholic created…

I used to listen to that all the time when I was protestant.

and if you dare to be brutally honest, ask yourself why there is such an incredible, glorious difference. Serious. I dare you

Dude, the beauty, gloriousness, and sacredness of Catholic music (especially the ancient worship hymns) is one of the reasons I was originally attracted to Catholicism. It’s much more deep, sacred, and I daresay more Christian. For instance: O Come O Come Emmanuel. The Breastplate of St. Patrick. Veni Creator Spiritus. Pange Lingua. I could go on.

Not only is Catholic music much better, deeper, more meaningful, and more inline with historic Christianity, I much prefer it to new-fangled Protestant praise-and-worship stuff. It just strikes me as not as deep, and a bit bland. Sorry, just my opinion.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I think** loving purification from attachments to sin (**formed in our earthly life) is a better way to look at Purgatory, not necessarily punishment. Sure we say “temporal punishment”, but I think it’s meant in a different sense

**
Hi Matariel:wave:

There is no “loving” purification per say, but whatever will get me into heaven will be fine. There is the BURNING away of our sins. That is a better and true way of looking at it as taugh by the catholic church!
freesmileys.org/smileys/violent031.gif**
[How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants](Click on: Purgatory as taught by the catholic Church )

Catholic theology regards Purgatory as a cleansing and preparation for heaven. Only those with unremitted venial sins may enter Purgatory. Unconfessed or unrepented mortal sin is considered damnable.

“Every man’s work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” 1 Corinthians 3:13-15

The verse above talks of ‘fire’ and this is taken to refer to the purifying fires of Purgatory which unite the will of the soul to that of God.

"All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire…" Paragraphs 1030-1, CCC.

God Bless

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, I am getting upset. I feel like driving some people out of the temple that shouldn’t be in there. But I don’t want you off my case. I live to share the truth with people like you. I love it, and I love educationg those who are observing. Why do I talk to so many former Catholics who have the same story? Dead, dry religion until they found out what it means to be born again. Don’t tell Jesus I didn’'t warn you that He said “you must be born again”

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are so many converts from Protestantism who are now at the forefront of Catholic Apologetics. These people hated the Catholic Church that they did they utmost to get people out of the Church.

But when they converted, boy!. Scott Hahn alone is like St Paul.
And there’s Stephen Ray, Marcus Grodi, etc.
And you know what, they were pastors with years of theology under their belt.

As a matter of fact, Tim Staples, converted to Catholicism whilst studying at one of the most anti catholic colleges.

You know what, you should read their stories. Because they were protestant and very anti-catholic you will understand more what we are trying to say from them because they’ve been where you are.

Some of them were Catholics, then they become born again, then realized that they left the true blue real deal Church of Christ so they came back.

Here’s a link to one of them.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html

I have heard of many Catholic reverts, you know those who were Catholic, became protestant, then became Catholic again. As a matter of fact, a lot of them are in this forum.

Anyone you know who did the reverse, Protestant, became Catholic, became Protestant again? And I am not talking about those who converted to Catholicism just to get married or something. I mean those who converted to Catholicism for doctrinal reasons, then left to become protestant again.

And I am finally onto you regarding a couple of those passages. The verse “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”…Your answer is bogus and you know it. Paul knew that every person who would hear that letter read out loud to the assembly…every believer had sinned many times since the were saved. But guess what? They were STILL in the condition Paul called “washed, sanctified, justified”

That was someone else who replied with exactly those verses (I think Luke)
But anyway, yes they were still sanctified, they were still washed, they were still justified. It would be like me seeing a dirty cloth saying : But I washed it. Just now it’s dirty again.Only difference being that, original sin is completely gone. Once washed away, that’s it.

However, the other sins committed after that stain the soul again.

So here’s a question, one of them commited murder and adultery then died. Where would that person go?

Now you apologize and come up with a responsible answer. The reason it is so odd to you IS in fact because you don’t know EXPERIENTIALLY what the atonement is all about. You don’t know that “by ONE OFFERING He perfected forever those who are sanctified” (the church) Oh you’ve read it, Ben, you just don’t KNOW it.

Why should I apologize? I am not the one calling people names, helooooo.!

Totally in agreement with that one time redemption.
But that is not what is in question here.

Answer my question above about the murderer and adulterer who died and maybe we will get somewhere.