Attacking fundamentalists and evangelists

[JSmitty2005]

JSmitty2005:

God has never exclusively used Scripture to teach His people. For example, go here (posts #205-207) to see examples of Jewish oral Tradition that aren’t found in the Old Testament. Let me ask YOU something:

How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us? He left us with 12 men to lead His teaching Church, not a book.

You forgot to answer my question too, squeekster.

 

[Writer]

“Sound reasoning”? It doesn’t matter what Catholic website you link to. If they claim that Mary was sinless, which is in direct opposition to the Word of God, they are calling God a liar. A person needs Jesus as Saviour because of sin. Mary herself said she needed a Saviour, something she would not have needed had she been sinless.

Speaking of sound reasoning. What kind of “sound reasoning” is it that requires that Mary be sinless all of her life or remain a virgin all of her life anyway?

As far as a baby sinning, babies are born with a sinful nature, which in itself is enough to send a person straight to Hell. But sin is not held against a person until they are capable of knowing right from wrong. Or as your linked Catholic website calls it “age of reason”. And if they never have the capability to distinguish right from wrong, God won’t count anything as sin against them.

**The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was made official by Pope Pius IX in 1854. It declares that Mary was free from the stain of original sin. As The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it, she was “redeemed from the moment of her conception”. While this mystery may be challenging to grasp at first, it makes greater sense if one reflects upon it. If we acknowledge that God is outside of time, then we can understand the implication of Mary’s predestination as hinted at in verses such as Ephesians 1:3-4. God was precisely aware who was destined to bear His Son into the world before even the arrival of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. If we accept God is omniscient and possessed foreknowledge of the details of this miracle, then it only stands to reason that God would shelter this chosen one from the harmful effects of original sin. After all, how can the stain of sin co-exist so intimately (both physically and spiritually) with true good or "life itself, immutable ", as Saint Augustine describes God in his Confessions? Of course, another argument supporting the Immaculate Conception is found in Luke 1:28. How could Mary be “blessed among women”, if she harbored the stain of original sin?

**

 

[JSmitty2005]

How could Mary be “blessed among women”, if she harbored the stain of original sin?

Yes, and furthermore, in the original language, there is no superlative, so it’s actually saying that Mary is the MOST blessed of ALL women. Also, the angel Gabriel addressed Mary as “full of grace” (completely filled with God’s grace) as if it were her name! This fullness of grace has the natural consequence of sinlessness.

 

[Eden]

“Sound reasoning”? It doesn’t matter what Catholic website you link to. If they claim that Mary was sinless, which is in direct opposition to the Word of God, they are calling God a liar. A person needs Jesus as Saviour because of sin. Mary herself said she needed a Saviour, something she would not have needed had she been sinless.

Nobody said Jesus was not Mary’s Savior. We said she was conceived without sin.

The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths: (1) Mary did need a savior; (2) her savior was Jesus Christ; (3) Mary’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and (4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are.

Mary was no less “saved” than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.
As far as our teachings not being Biblical:

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace” or “highly favored”). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as “blessed among women.” The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, “You are tall among men” or “You are wealthy among men” to mean “You are the tallest” or “You are the wealthiest.” Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

Compiled from here: catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

Finally, Squeekster, can you show me in the Bible where it states that Mary* did* sin? Your belief that she, specifically, did sin is not in the Bible.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Mary’s sinlessness can also be attested to by the very fact that she’s the Ark of the New Covenant. Just as God was very specific in His design for the old Ark, so too was He in designing His own mother because He can dwell in nothing less than perfection.

 

[Writer]

Eden:

Squeekster, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is to be the sole source of our Christian knowledge?

And if you were truly Bible-only why do you let preachers (men) tell you what the Bible says? Why can’t you just read it and know yourself? What does a preacher have to tell you that you don’t already know from reading the Bible alone?

More importantly, if the Bible were to be our only resource, don’t you think Jesus would have spent the last years of his life in ministry writing the Bible - which would have been directly from the hand of God - rather than teaching men to carry on His work orally and leaving it to later generations to compile the Word of God?

Why, why, why would Jesus not have written the Bible Himself if it were to be THE SOLE SOURCE of our Christian knowledge? Squeekster, could you please answer this question?

The most obvious argument against a stance of Sola Scriptura is the variety of Protestant opinions. Each of these churces say that the Holy Spirit led them to their particular interpretation of Scripture or a particular view of a social concern. Yet, if that were indeed true, then the Holy Spirit would be leading different denominations entirely different directions on identical issues. A recent example of this is found in the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, within the Episcopal Church. The church’s weak leadership declared that the Holy Spirit had led them to this decision. Well, I do think it was a spirit, but it certainly wasn’t the Holy Spirit.

If we examine the nature of God, we learn that God is unchanging and will not deny himself; He and His Word are entirely consistent. This being the case, we are left in a quandry. Who or what is leading the Protestant churches in opposing directions? Since God does not contradict himself, these churches either don’t have as a close connection to the Holy Spirit as they believe, or the Holy Spirit is a fickle and changing spirit. The latter view is not supported by Scripture, however, and it borders on a polythiestic belief system. So, if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura, walk two blocks north to one Protestant church, then several more blocks south to another. Their own inconsistent answers to your poll will reveal the lack of sense in this theological view.

 

[Sherlock]

“Sound reasoning”? It doesn’t matter what Catholic website you link to. If they claim that Mary was sinless, which is in direct opposition to the Word of God, they are calling God a liar. A person needs Jesus as Saviour because of sin. Mary herself said she needed a Saviour, something she would not have needed had she been sinless. .

But it’s not in contradiction to God’s word. And since you said that it doesn’t matter to God what church we belong to, then clearly it doesn’t matter what doctrines those churches hold to either, right? What’s your beef? And Mary needed a Saviour just like every other human—in her case, she was saved in advance of falling instead of after.

"Speaking of sound reasoning. What kind of “sound reasoning” is it that requires that Mary be sinless all of her life or remain a virgin all of her life anyway?.

You denigrate God’s grace when you speak of it as a “requirement” rather than a gift. You don’t understand the nature of consecration—what God sets apart and raises, is for God’s use and not for ordinary purposes. The Jews didn’t haul grain in the Ark of the Covenant. But let me ask again: if it doesn’t matter what church we belong to, then why would you object to any doctrine of those churches? You’re contradicting yourself, you know.

"As far as a baby sinning, babies are born with a sinful nature, which in itself is enough to send a person straight to Hell. But sin is not held against a person until they are capable of knowing right from wrong. Or as your linked Catholic website calls it “age of reason”. And if they never have the capability to distinguish right from wrong, God won’t count anything as sin against them.

Baptism removes the stain of original sin, so no, baptized babies are not going “straight to Hell”. My question was, what sins have they committed? You pointed out that “The Word of God says that ALL have sinned”—it doesn’t say, “ALL have a sinful nature”. What sins have baptized babies committed? Could it be—just maybe—that the verse wasn’t meant to be interpreted as an absolute, but was an example of hyperbole? And since you want to interpret “all have sinned” to mean “all have a sinful nature”, then what’s wrong with me interpreting that verse my own way? After all, according to you it doesn’t matter what church I belong to, so God’s not going to hold my interpretation against me, right? Seems to me that if you think He might, then maybe it matters what church one belongs to after all…

 

[Eden]

Writer:

The most obvious argument against a stance of Sola Scriptura is the variety of Protestant opinions.

I agree with you, but I’ve noticed that when I’ve pointed out the presence of these various Protestant opinions in past dialogues with Bible-only believers (I’m generalizing), the significance doesn’t register. I was trying to keep it easy or, um, looking for the best word - simple.

 

[squeekster]

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall.

And Mary needed a Saviour just like every other human—in her case, she was saved in advance of falling instead of after.

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?

Pure ignorance.

 

[mercygate]

squeekster:

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall.

. . . .
Pure ignorance.

Bringing this back to the title of this thread, statements like this one should demonstrate to the OP that the CA Library articles in are by comparison lucid, temperate, and reasonable.

 

[Sherlock]

squeekster:

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall…

Why do you care? You said it didn’t matter what church we belonged to: that means the doctrine of those churches doesn’t really matter either, right? I mean, as soon as you say that a particular doctrine of a particular church is wrong, you are contradicting yourself, because then you’re clearly demonstrating that it DOES matter what church one belongs to. So—which is it? Does God care or not what church I belong to?

squeekster:

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?.

Gee, the Scriptures speak of “predestination”—are you arguing with Scripture? Are you saying that God couldn’t have picked her and prepared her as worthy of receiving the singular grace of bearing the Saviour of the world? If God can’t do that, tell me why. Also, Catholics believe in free will as existing with some of the interpretations of predestination (grace perfects, not suppresses, nature, and free will is part of our nature). However, it’s a rather sophisticated topic, and since according to you it doesn’t matter what church we belong to, then doctrine doesn’t matter either, right?

squeekster:

Pure ignorance.

Pure evasion of the questions, and pure evasion of the fact that you’ve contradicted yourself. It’s easier, isn’t it, to just fall back on ad hominem arguments than admit the logical inconsistencies in your position: if it doesn’t matter what church we belong to, then it doesn’t matter what doctrine the churches hold to either. In which case, you have no beef with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Eden]

squeekster:

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall.

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?

Pure ignorance.

It was in anticipation of her choice. Do you remember when she said “Yes”?

 

[JSmitty2005]

squeekster, (for the 3rd time) will you PLEASE kindly answer this one itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, little question…

How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us?
He left us with 12 men to lead His teaching Church, not a book.

 

[Eden]

squeekster:

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall.

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?

Pure ignorance.

I realize that this idea, that Catholics do teach that Mary needed Christ as her Savior, is upsetting to your world-view and it will take some time getting used to.

One thing that struck me, is that out of all of the posts directed to you, you only addressed this one sentence.

I don’t want to step on JSmitty’s toes . So, after you answer his question, will you answer one of mine?

Where in the Bible does it specifically say that Mary was a sinner?

 

[Writer]

squeekster:

I’ve had better luck conversing with a brick wall.

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?

Pure ignorance.

Free will does not negate the existence of God’s foreknowledge of the event. She had free will, but God simply knew in advance what her answer would be. Do you believe that God’s omniscience concerning our own ultimate ends negates the existence of our own free will? If you believe in your own free will, then, why don’t you understand Mary’s free will in relation to her acceptance of God’s beautiful plan? The two are not mutually exclusive–unless you subscribe to God not being outside of time, which would be a rather weak argument to set forth.

 

[SemperJase]

squeekster:

If you don’t believe it because the Catholic church says it is true, then why do you believe it? If you didn’t get it from the Catholic church or some writings of mere men, where did it come from?

Good question, do you have a couple of days? Actually I can sum up.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - Cardinal Newman

I found this quote after I became a catholic. Of course I learned catholic teachings from the church and they claim it is true. That is the starting point. I am not, as you believe, gullible enough to accept the circular logic of “the church is true because it says it is true”. As I said before, every heretical group makes the same claim.

So I looked outside of the church for verificiation. I was raised as a evangelical/protestant. For me to continue doing that, I would have to accept that God abandoned the world to heresy shortly after the apostles died and did not restore a way of salvation until 1500 years later. There is no historic connection between Christ and protestants. He lived 1500 years before they were founded.

Another reason I believe the church is that I realized sola scriptura believers rewrite the Bible. They claim we are saved by “faith only” when the bible does not say that. It says we are saved by faith (through grace). Luther went so far as to insert the word “only” into his translation of the Bible.

I remember back in my high school youth group going over the book of James at church. It talked about works are necessary for faith. But our “Non-denominational Bible Church” taught that works really weren’t necessary. Actually trying to do good works because the bible said you should meant you had a lack of faith and were trying to earn salvation, which was sinful. You had to do good works but do them because Jesus gave you that desire, not because the bible said we should do good works. Works supposedly followed faith. Not the other way around. Obedience to do works became a sign of lack of faith.

This is how backwards that teaching got. That youth group sponsored a trip to a Mexican orphanage every year to do maintanence and build facilities for the kids. I went on the trip between my freshman and sophmore years. I came back feeling hypocritical because I was doing it out of obedience rather than doing it because my faith gave me a motivation to do it outside of obedience. Confusing isn’t it? So you know what I did? I didn’t go on that trip again for the rest of my high school years. I thought my desire to obey to do good works was wrong. It demonstrated a lack of faith because I knew my obedience preceeded my faith.

Now I look back and realize what is God’s will? That I should have helped orphans out of obedience or that I should have stayed home until I felt that desire to help? I now realize that obedience builds faith. What a wasted opportunity. Not only did those orphans not get needed help from me. I lost the opportunity to build my faith. Yet at the time I thought I was avoiding hypocrisy by not going.

Further complicating that contradiction of works/faith was the claim that their teaching was based on sola scriptura. How can they say only scripture while claiming the bible doesn’t really mean what it says?

This is part of how I got to the point where I considered Catholic teaching. I found the church did have a historic connection to Christ that God didn’t really abandon the world for centuries. I realized that Jesus never said “Bible only”. I realized that 2 Timothy 3:16 was saying that Old Testament writings are still relevant, not that sola scriptura was required.

So yes, to be deep in history was, for me, to cease to be protestant.

 

[Philthy]

Squeakster -

Oh my, what a can of worms you have opened! You need to bring in some back up - its getting to be a “pile on” and, well, you seem…

INN

---

YOUR HEAD

Let me know if I can help…

 

[SemperJase]

squeekster:

So her salvation was FORCED on her at the time of her birth and she didn’t have a choice?

You can make the same complaint about the apostle Paul. He was literally knocked to the ground by Jesus. Did he have a choice? Even the 12 didn’t have such a dramatic encounter when first meeting Jesus.

 

[JSmitty2005]

SemperJase:

You can make the same complaint about the apostle Paul. He was literally knocked to the ground by Jesus. Did he have a choice? Even the 12 didn’t have such a dramatic encounter when first meeting Jesus.

Furthermore, considering the 12, Jesus chose them. They did not choose Him (at first anyways).

 

[Vincent1560]

catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp

i hope you can find something in hear. just post back if you can’t.
idk. i’m just wonderin

god bless

matthew 5:39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

I am an evangelical and did not find this article to be an attack. Catholics certainly have a right to defend and advocate their positions and beliefs just like we do. The important thing is to do it in a spirit of charity (which I thought the article did) and understand that each of us believes the other has erred and that because we love each other we are compelled to try and guide one another to the truth.