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

[Angels_Unaware]

You are right. It is important that people don’t jump to conclusions just because they don’t hear the right ‘lingo’. Obviously the truly important thing is that the person has in fact been born again. A lot of people don’t realized that just as I there was an exact moment I was physically born into this world, and it only happens once, so the same thing is true spiritually. Not everybody knows the exact time it happened, but the important thing is knowing that it really did happen. John said, "These things I have written unto you that you may KNOW (Not think or hope…) that you have eternal life. I talk to so many people who don’t know and don’t even think you can know.

Some Catholics do not have a spiritual understanding, (just as some Protestants do not), and some Catholics can identify a time in their life that they “began paying attention to and understanding” their religious education, so that the words became full and meaningful and they knew they were sinful and redeemed through Christ, and some have always, from the time they were small children, heard the voice of Jesus in their lives and lived a spirit-filled life.

I think that the concept of being born again is a very good one and valid one and it emphasizes repentance and baptism and new life in Christ and fruits of the spirit. All of that is good, but for every Protestant who has had a dramatic conversion experience, like Ronald Reagan (he is on YouTube) who was an alcoholic and saw hell and then was dramatically purged of his sin and made new in Christ, there are 20 for whom being born again is a process. It starts with repentance, of course. But to really desire God, and to bear fruit; that often is a process.

I understand that is not how Protestants see salvation, but I think the idea has its flaws, and one of those flaws is that it makes intellectual understanding of the gospel a prerequisite of salvation. I believe salvation is available to babies and the mentally handicapped who respond in their heart to the gospel as communicated by love, rather than to words and understanding.

 

[Matariel]

But my point is simply this: It is saving faith that gets us into God’s family.

And yet, “Faith without works is dead.”

At least he admits to a “post-death” purging.

Which is Purgatory. Purgatory means: a state of purging.
So he does admit to Purgatory…

Martin777,
I don’t think you ever responded to my post on Catholic vs. Protestant music.

BTW, ever heard of John Michael Talbot? He’s a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, and has music you may like.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Talbot

 

[Martin777]

Some Catholics do not have a spiritual understanding, (just as some Protestants do not), and some Catholics can identify a time in their life that they “began paying attention to and understanding” their religious education, so that the words became full and meaningful and they knew they were sinful and redeemed through Christ, and some have always, from the time they were small children, heard the voice of Jesus in their lives and lived a spirit-filled life.

I think that the concept of being born again is a very good one and valid one and it emphasizes repentance and baptism and new life in Christ and fruits of the spirit. All of that is good, but for every Protestant who has had a dramatic conversion experience, like Ronald Reagan (he is on YouTube) who was an alcoholic and saw hell and then was dramatically purged of his sin and made new in Christ, there are 20 for whom being born again is a process. It starts with repentance, of course. But to really desire God, and to bear fruit; that often is a process.

I understand that is not how Protestants see salvation, but I think the idea has its flaws, and one of those flaws is that it makes intellectual understanding of the gospel a prerequisite of salvation. I believe salvation is available to babies and the mentally handicapped who respond in their heart to the gospel as communicated by love, rather than to words and understanding.

Well what we can agree on is that Jesus said if you haven’t been born again, you won’t see the kingdom of heaven. I think the process is God working in the individual to draw them to Himself (an act of total grace!) It takes nine months to arrive at a baby’s birth, but then it happens, bang! Not saying it has to be some big emotional experience either! Just needs to happen, and then we need to help that person understand and grow as a brand new child of God.

 

[twb1621]

God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people. Jesus said that there was no one born of women greater than John the Baptist, but that the least in the kingdom is greater than him. Frankly if the RCC wants to belive Mary was sinless, have at it. It simply is whimsical and less supported by scripture than it’s opposite.

Martin777,If are confident in what you say here I would be interested in hearing your rebuttal to the following;
regarding Mary’s sinlessness

The Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15)

To see that there is more involved than just the fact that Christ came out of Mary’s womb, let us look at the very first prophecy about Christ in the Bible: Genesis 3:15. In that passage, God is cursing the serpent for having caused mankind to fall into sin, and he says,

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel.”

Ever since the first century, Christians have recognized this as a prophecy of the coming of Christ, who would crush the dead of the devil, even as he himself was stricken by the devil on the cross.
But there is more than just a prophecy of the coming of Christ in this passage and more than a prophecy of the cross and of Satan’s defeat. There is also a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, as even Protestants recognize. The reason is that in this passage, Christ is described as the “Seed” of the woman. This is very unusual in Biblical language because normally it is only men whose offspring are described as their seed. In the ancient, biblical languages men have seed; women do not. The reason for this is that the ancients often held a particular view of human reproduction which made it more natural to talk about men having seed. In the question and answer period, we can discuss this view of reproduction if you want, for now simply note that it was very unusual in the biblical languages for a women to be described as having seed.

Since it was very unusual to talk about women having seed in the Bible, this means that there is something very unusual about the birth of Christ – the Seed of the woman. It means that he was born only of a woman, without the intervention of a man, whose Seed he would otherwise be. As a result, Christians have always regarded Genesis 3:15 as containing a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. And Protestants are included in that. They fully recognize that Genesis 3:15 prophesies not only the coming of Christ, but the way in which he could come: through the womb of a virgin.

But this means that the woman described in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve. Eve was not a virgin. All of the children Eve had were fathered by her husband, Adam, according to the normal course of nature. As a result, the woman in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve because Eve did not have any virgin births. Therefore, we know that Mary, the only woman in history to have a virgin birth, is specially in view in the Genesis 3:15.

 

[twb1621]

Let me ask you a question: What is the purpose of the Law of God?

It establishes man’s social and religious obligations to our creator for the purpose of fullfilling our salvation. Which I might add in order to “fullfill our obligations” it takes works… What’s your reason for asking and what “faith” would you be referring to when asking that?

 

[fbl9]

Not sure what your point is on that.

Martin777 you asked "if Mary was sinless why did she need a savior"quoting St.Luke1:47 as your evidence…“HER SAVIOR”…And i asked did you ever speak of Jesus as “my savior” before you were saved…if Mary wasn’t saved before Jesus was born how coul;d she call Him HER savior…the only way Mary could call Jesus HER savior is if she was saved by Him before He was born…is Jesus refered to in the OT as my savior or the savior?if Mary’s soul was stained still by sin how could it magnify the Lord?

 

[Matariel]

God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people.

Oh, I guess you’re right, Martin. After all, she was only the Mother of God, had God inside her womb for nine months, shared her blood supply with God, raised God, gave her flesh to God, and had God conjoined to her by a fleshly umbilical cord. Yeah, I guess she was just a run-of-the-mill garden-variety saint, nothing too special.

You should understand that all the honour given to Mary by Catholics elevates Christ even higher. Without Christ, Mary would be nothing, just as all of us would be nothing after the fall of Adam.

 

[fbl9]

when i see the phrase “born again” i do not think of it as the conversion …it is at the time of one’s baptism that one is born again,not at any other time…

 

[Martin777]

Martin777,If are confident in what you say here I would be interested in hearing your rebuttal to the following;
regarding Mary’s sinlessness

The Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15)

To see that there is more involved than just the fact that Christ came out of Mary’s womb, let us look at the very first prophecy about Christ in the Bible: Genesis 3:15. In that passage, God is cursing the serpent for having caused mankind to fall into sin, and he says,

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel.”

Ever since the first century, Christians have recognized this as a prophecy of the coming of Christ, who would crush the dead of the devil, even as he himself was stricken by the devil on the cross.
But there is more than just a prophecy of the coming of Christ in this passage and more than a prophecy of the cross and of Satan’s defeat. There is also a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, as even Protestants recognize. The reason is that in this passage, Christ is described as the “Seed” of the woman. This is very unusual in Biblical language because normally it is only men whose offspring are described as their seed. In the ancient, biblical languages men have seed; women do not. The reason for this is that the ancients often held a particular view of human reproduction which made it more natural to talk about men having seed. In the question and answer period, we can discuss this view of reproduction if you want, for now simply note that it was very unusual in the biblical languages for a women to be described as having seed.

Since it was very unusual to talk about women having seed in the Bible, this means that there is something very unusual about the birth of Christ – the Seed of the woman. It means that he was born only of a woman, without the intervention of a man, whose Seed he would otherwise be. As a result, Christians have always regarded Genesis 3:15 as containing a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. And Protestants are included in that. They fully recognize that Genesis 3:15 prophesies not only the coming of Christ, but the way in which he could come: through the womb of a virgin.

But this means that the woman described in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve. Eve was not a virgin. All of the children Eve had were fathered by her husband, Adam, according to the normal course of nature. As a result, the woman in Genesis 3:15 is more than just Eve because Eve did not have any virgin births. Therefore, we know that Mary, the only woman in history to have a virgin birth, is specially in view in the Genesis 3:15.

I totally agree with that! That has been my message regarding Genesis 3:15 for years. It is very clear that the virgin birth was prophesied in the OT and that it was fulfilled in the life of Mary and Jesus. But of course that is a completely different issue than Mary’s supposed sinlessness.

 

[Church_Militant]

Frankly if the RCC wants to belive Mary was sinless, have at it. ** It simply is whimsical and less supported by scripture than it’s opposite.**

And that is simply not true as these links clearly show, though I’m sure you wish it was so.
Mary: Full of Grace
Immaculate Conception and Assumption
When did the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption become dogmas?
Are there Bible verses that support Mary’s sinlessness?
About Mary…where in the Bible does it say…
Mary’s Sinless Nature

 

[notsmart]

CM, meet Martin. Martin, meet CM.
I tried to introduce you both earlier, but better late than never.

Get ready for some fun times people!

 

[Martin777]

And that is simply not true as these links clearly show, though I’m sure you wish it was so.
Mary: Full of Grace
Immaculate Conception and Assumption
When did the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption become dogmas?
Are there Bible verses that support Mary’s sinlessness?
About Mary…where in the Bible does it say…
Mary’s Sinless Nature

You know, I wouldn’t really care if Mary was sinless or not. It doesn’t affect me at all. What affects me is false teaching that distracts people from the supremacy of Christ and inserts things foreign to the inerrant Word of God. I looked at one of those links so far, and it was empty words about Catholic dogma and an attempt to show Jesus had no brothers. A bogus waste of time. Whimsical and wasteful. There have been multiple false religions for millenia, starting with Babylon and Isis, that promote the cult of mother/son worship. Not saying here that you are worshipping her (are you?), but It will take us millions of years to discover the depths of Christ, and the RCC has distracted people with the Queen of Heaven. It is an abomination.

 

[Matariel]

God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people.

Oh, I guess you’re right, Martin. After all, she was only the Mother of God, had God inside her womb for nine months, shared her blood supply with God, raised God, gave her flesh to God, and had God conjoined to her by a fleshly umbilical cord. Yeah, I guess she was just a run-of-the-mill garden-variety saint, nothing too special.

You should understand that all the honour given to Mary by Catholics elevates Christ even higher. Without Christ, Mary would be nothing, just as all of us would be nothing after the fall of Adam.

 

[Matariel]

God can do anything He wants. We all know that. Mary was surely blessed. So were and are a lot of other people.

Oh, I guess you’re right, Martin. After all, she was only the Mother of God, had God inside her womb for nine months, shared her blood supply with God, raised God, gave her flesh to God, and had God conjoined to her by a fleshly umbilical cord. Yeah, I guess she was just a run-of-the-mill garden-variety saint, nothing too special.

Even when I was a Protestant I suspected that Mary must’ve been free from sin (at the *very least *at Christ’s conception and growth in the womb). Frankly, to me it is unimaginable that God would be enfleshed and conjoined to a sinful woman. That’s completely senseless to me. Especially when you see how the Ark is treated in the Old Testament, which contained the Spirit of God. But Mary contained the Spirit and the Flesh of God. How could God become Man in a sinful woman? That almost seems blasphemous to me…

You should understand that all the honour given to Mary by Catholics elevates Christ even higher. Without Christ, Mary would be nothing, just as all of us would be nothing after the fall of Adam.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why is that such a hard statement to embrace? I’m not singling out Catholics when I talk about that. You need to calm down. Paul said that when our works are thrown into the fire (the only post-death purging the Bible knows anything about, incidentally), much will be burned up–the ‘wood, hay and stubble’. Look it up. He said on that day God will judge the motives of us all. He says that if there is gold in what we have done, it will stand the test of the fire.

That would be 1st Corinthians 3, but let’s look at the actual passage and see if there’s anything in there at all about “motives” because I know for a fact that there is not.
10 According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble 13 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. 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 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.

Anybody see the word “motives” in that? Or even anything that implies it? It’s not there. Big surprise, right?

What’s so hard to understand about that? If you are a parent, would you want, say, your 16 year old to bring you a birthday gift because they were hoping that in doing so you wouldn’t beat them later on, or that you would love them if they could bring you a good enough gift? Of course not, and neither does God want that. But that is what a lot of people are bringing Him and, guess what bro? Those works will be burned to a crisp at the Judgement. Comprende?

Thanks for the personal (or denominational…I can’t tell which) interpretation, but again, this passage that you offer in support does not apply as you want to infer.

St. Paul is plainly speaking of the kind of teachings and doctrines that are properly Christocentric and which build up the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

What you are trying to infer here is that Catholics live their faith in fear, which is hogwash (at least) and specious misrepresentation (at worst).:whackadoo:

 

[notsmart]

You know, I wouldn’t really care if Mary was sinless or not. It doesn’t affect me at all. What affects me is false teaching that distracts people from the supremacy of Christ and inserts things foreign to the inerrant Word of God. I looked at one of those links so far, and it was empty words about Catholic dogma and an attempt to show Jesus had no brothers. A bogus waste of time. Whimsical and wasteful. There have been multiple false religions for millenia, starting with Babylon and Isis, that promote the cult of mother/son worship. Not saying here that you are worshipping her (are you**?), but It will take us millions of years to discover the depths of Christ**, and the RCC has distracted people with the Queen of Heaven. It is an abomination.

And the Catholic Church my friend, has spent more time than anyone delving into the matters of Christ, and more years defending his Divinity and Humanity and every other attack made against Christ, More time than any other community can ever claim.

Marian doctrines that you are objecting to, helped to preserve and defend against many many an attack on these very things.

Whilst the non catholic sits back, and has the nerve to say such nonsense!

 

[Matariel]

You go, Church Militant!

Make sure you check out my above post, Martin777.

 

[Matariel]

… There have been multiple false religions for millenia, starting with Babylon and Isis, that promote the cult of mother/son worship.

Read any Jack Chick lately? Alexander Hilsop?

Not saying here that you are worshipping her (are you?), but It will take us millions of years to discover the depths of Christ,

Oh, the Catholic Church was delving into the mystery of Christ (and defending it from heresy) loooooooooooooooooong before Protestantism was even concieved in the minds of the Protestant revolters. Ever heard of St. Augustine? St. Thomas Aquinas? St. Anselm? St. Ignatius? Thomas-a-Kempis? We have a long-standing tradition of delving into the mystery of Christ-- as a matter of fact, it was the Catholic Church that clarified His divinity, his hypostatic union of natures, and His will… all things that Protestants believe, but refuse to admit that the Church infallibly stated in Oecumenical Councils.

…and the RCC has distracted people with the Queen of Heaven. It is an abomination.

A false either/or dichotomy.

 

[benedictus2]

CM, meet Martin. Martin, meet CM.
I tried to introduce you both earlier, but better late than never.

Get ready for some fun times people!

Fun times indeed! This needs a good cup of coffee…and maybe some popcorn. although that combination might cause a riot in my stomach

 

[Luke65]

I totally agree with that! That has been my message regarding Genesis 3:15 for years. It is very clear that the virgin birth was prophesied in the OT and that it was fulfilled in the life of Mary and Jesus. But of course that is a completely different issue than Mary’s supposed sinlessness.

Excellent! You agree “the woman” is Mary! So, what do you think God meant when He said He would “put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed”? You see that this is something that God did for only two people - Jesus and Mary. Jesus was in a perpetual state of enmity with Evil - sinless - therefore, so was Mary! God’s analogy, not mine or anybody else’s. God has done this, and it is wonderful in our eyes!