Biblical basis for having to "Except Christ as your personal saviour"?

[WALTHER]

PART II

Portrait,

First of all, Portrait, I am not Reformed; I am* Lutheran.*

Secondly, you misunderstand the doctrine of the fall of man. It is not that man is as evil as he could be, but rather that man is so corrupted by evil that in all things spiritual man is dead. This does not deny what is often called “pagan kindness”, as even unbelievers are capable of doing good within the civil and earthly realm of good. However, in the heavenly and divine realm, man is wholly incapable of doing anything good apart from the gracious working and operation of the Holy Spirit, without any cooperation, work, effort, striving, merit, preparation, etc. on the part of man. To contribute to saving grace any of these things would be to deny grace, that is, pure and undeserved favor.

Thirdly, Scripture, indeed, “invalidates” the Roman position. To claim that St. Paul was speaking in hyperbole when he quoted from the Old Testament that, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" is entirely contradictory to the context, as he writes of a universal assessment of man’s spiritual ability and inclination, of both Jews and Gentiles.

Therefore, if the context is allowed to stand, and the Holy Spirit is allowed to speak, all claims of “hyperbole” are laid to waste.

You write:

Our Lord’s work on the cross restores us and enables us to co-operate with the grace of God in our lives. Our Church believes that justification is not merely something put over us like a cover; we don’t believe it to be a mere juridical act (actus forensis) in which God declares the sinner justified, although he remains in reallity intrinsically unjust and sinful…

Justification is, regardless of any vain speech to contrary, a juridical imputing of Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner.

To continue with St. Paul’s words in Romans chapter 3:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." [Romans 3:21-25]

Therefore, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and yet, are justified before God by faith, apart from the works of the law. Hence, righteousness cannot be earned or gained or worked for, but only received with the empty hands of faith.

You conclude:

What of the ancient worthies of the old economy such as Abraham, Noah and Daniel etc.,( see St. James 2: 21-26) - thus proving beyond any doubt that we are not justified by faith alone.

The righteousness of Abraham, Noah, and Daniel, was certainly not of themselves (though they did many good works), but of God, flowing forth from faith in the promises of the Gospel. To say that there is “so much more” to faith than belief in the promises of God is a poor understanding of faith. Indeed, we are saved by faith in the Word of God, and from this faith comes good works that we have been predestined to walk in and to live out; just as an evil tree produces rotten fruit, so also a holy tree produces good fruit. It is by faith that we are made “holy trees”, and fruit necessarily follows. Therefore, faith alone saves, but faith is never alone, rather, works are always present with faith, just as fruit is always present with a good tree, yet is never the cause or help of the tree being good.

In regards to the Epistle of St. James, the context of the Epistle deals, not with faith before God, but with faith evidenced before fellow men. It dethrones those who believe that a mere intellectual knowledge of God will save them, though they care nothing for their neighbor or for God. Therefore, when St. James writes that one is justified by works and not by faith alone, he refers back to that faith just mentioned, that faith which belongs even to the devils of hell. To say that this single passage, even if it were torn from its proper context–as is the only way Rome will read it–overthrows all of the Gospels and the writings of St. Paul and St. Peter, is an act of desperation on the part of Rome to support the false doctrine that man is justified by something other than the pure grace of God for the sake of Christ through faith.

St. Paul also accounts the justification of Abraham, except, in context, he deals, not with faith as it is evidence before man, but as it stands before God:

"What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does Scripture say?
'Abraham believed God, and it that is, his belief] was counted to him as righteousness.’
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness [imputed righteousness of Christ to the sinner], just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’" [Romans 4:1-8]

Therefore, it is my earnest prayer that neither you, Portrait, nor any other on this forum, trusts in their own strivings before God and men as in some way contributing to their salvation and justification before God. And if, as it seems to be the case, it is your theoretical formulation, it is also my earnest prayer that your spiritual practice suffers from a most gracious “felicitous inconsistency.”

In brotherly love,
WALTHER

 

[brb2]

To say that Mary was “preserved” from sin from the moment of her conception is to deny the saving and universal work of Christ.

1. Hence, Mary was saved, not only apart from and without sin, but also apart from and the without the blood and cross of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Does the Roman Church teach that Christ died for Mary?

Oh Contrare’

Luke 1:46-50 “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God MY SAVIOR, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. …for he who is mighty HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME, and Holy is His name. And his MERCY IS ON THOSE WHO FEAR HIM …”

Recall in verse 30 … that Mary was afraid … so the Lord’s mercy was upon her.

Did not Mary personally bear her cross, at the foot of the CROSS ? Whereas Christ died in past for us … Mary experienced his grace before the Calvary event, even before his birthday. Yes, the RCC believes Christ died for Mary … even at her conception … since Christ is timeless. He also died for all the OT saints … who preceded him in their earthly birthdays.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Thankyou for taking time to give a detailed response to my last posting. Having now read and inwardly digested your comeback I would like to make some comments by way of reply.

Your disparagement of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between Lutherans and Catholics is far too negative and gloomy. The entire document is a profound, biblically based meditation on justification. Actually it was worked on very carefully by the highest authorities in both churches and is the fruit of much study, prayer and listening. Have you read the document in its entirety?

Nobody is saying that it is a definitive statement. The declararion is a theological concordat and is therefore necessarily limited in its scope. However, your criticism notwithstanding, the declaration is an astounding step forward, and its essential message is that Catholics and Protestants no longer disagree on the basics of justification. Now that is surely a cause for celebration.

It is true that some ecumenical projects are eminently forgetable because they indulge in a sort of sentimental irenicism and have a propensity to fudge the issues. Overall the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has, in my opinion, been far more heavyweight than its Anglican-Catholic counterpart. ARCIC, I believe, made the mistake of creating the impression that the sixteenth-century dispute over justification was down to a huge misunderstanding. Now no one who cares about doctrine will subscribe to that sort of position - that indeed would be superficial and an exercise in futility.

If you acknowledge “pagan kindness”, then you implicitly deny the total corruption of human nature, I’m sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it. If “unbelievers are capable of doing good” (and they most certainly are), then clearly you are stating, however much you may demur, that a vestige of the* imago Dei* remains in fallen man. Moreover it is manifestly self evident that if it were true that man’s nature was a mass of corruption then he could not be aware of his corruption. I mean there would be no moral struggle within, no discontent with self or no desire for the better, nobler things of life. Whilst it is undeniable that man is captivated and subdued by sin, there must, nevertheless, be some trace of his former state to enable him to see and admire what is good. Observe that St. Paul speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural conscience (Romans 2: 14,15) and he does not hesitate to reason with the unregenerate “pagan” Felix “…about justice and self-control and future judgment” (Acts 24:25). All of this is born out by empirical observation which evinces indubitably that godless and irreligious men and women are capable of great acts of kindness and altruism.

With respect to your interpretation of Romans 3: 10: “None is righteous, no, not one”, you have, owing to your rigid adherence to the letter of scripture, mis-understood what St. Paul is saying. The Apostle does cite against the Jews certain very sweeping assertions of the universality of their guilt. However, they are nonetheless* general* assertions, and thus are not to be understood as if there were no pious God-fearing Jews in the darkest periods of their history; likewise in the very midst of the wickedness of the pagan Roman Empire (see Romans 1: 18-32) there were many seekers after God, and witnesses to the truths which he had written on their hearts. Once again I feel that both history and experience show this to be the correct understanding and that the very literalist view would only be held by those having a particular theory to uphold. At any rate they cannot be employed to support total depravity.

Finally, the Epistle of James has always been a stumbling-block to Protestants, at least historically, because it unequivocally teaches that we are justified by our works and not by faith alone. It is a fact that Martin Luther spoke disparagingly about this Epistle, because it did not support his postion, but was unable to find a rationale for its removal from the Canon.

Moreover, it is also well known that Luther took it upon himself to use his personal interpretation of Romans while translating the Bible into German. Luther added, "Faith…alone to Romans 3:28, because in his erroneous opinion that verse was an important key to the Gospel - his gospel, that is. But Christ gave no man the authority to change Scripture - not even St. Peter, the rock who received the keys to the kingdom, and most certainly not to Martin Luther. However, this is the inevitable consequence when sola-scriptura is adopted as ones criteria for interpreting the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church is abandoned. Protestantism always leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, as its entire history since The Reformation demonstrates.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If I am correct, many Protestants believe that to be saved, you must say some sinner’s prayer and “except Christ as your personal saviour.” Where is the basis for this idea? How do they take lines like “those who believe in him will have eternal life” and turn that into the idea that you must except Him as your personal savior in order to go to Heaven?

Thanks for listening and God bless you all.

“Accept…saviour” needs to be translated into language RCs understand. Catholics need to have an interior religion, not a purely exterior religion. Instead of the negative warning, “Avoid formalism”, “Accept…saviour” emphasises the** positive** reality of faith in Christ. The language may be unfamiliar to those who know no religion but RCism, but the advice given is in no sense unusual within it.​

 

[brb2]

Thankyou for taking time to give a detailed response to my last posting. Having now read and inwardly digested your comeback I would like to make some comments by way of reply.

Your disparagement of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between Lutherans and Catholics is far too negative and gloomy. The entire document is a profound, biblically based meditation on justification. Actually it was worked on very carefully by the highest authorities in both churches and is the fruit of much study, prayer and listening. Have you read the document in its entirety?

Nobody is saying that it is a definitive statement. The declararion is a theological concordat and is therefore necessarily limited in its scope. However, your criticism notwithstanding, the declaration is an astounding step forward, and its essential message is that Catholics and Protestants no longer disagree on the basics of justification. Now that is surely a cause for celebration.

It is true that some ecumenical projects are eminently forgetable because they indulge in a sort of sentimental irenicism and have a propensity to fudge the issues. Overall the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has, in my opinion, been far more heavyweight than its Anglican-Catholic counterpart. ARCIC, I believe, made the mistake of creating the impression that the sixteenth-century dispute over justification was down to a huge misunderstanding. Now no one who cares about doctrine will subscribe to that sort of position - that indeed would be superficial and an exercise in futility.

If you acknowledge “pagan kindness”, then you implicitly deny the total corruption of human nature, I’m sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it. If “unbelievers are capable of doing good” (and they most certainly are), then clearly you are stating, however much you may demur, that a vestige of the* imago Dei* remains in fallen man. Moreover it is manifestly self evident that if it were true that man’s nature was a mass of corruption then he could not be aware of his corruption. I mean there would be no moral struggle within, no discontent with self or no desire for the better, nobler things of life. Whilst it is undeniable that man is captivated and subdued by sin, there must, nevertheless, be some trace of his former state to enable him to see and admire what is good. Observe that St. Paul speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural conscience (Romans 2: 14,15) and he does not hesitate to reason with the unregenerate “pagan” Felix “…about justice and self-control and future judgment” (Acts 24:25). All of this is born out by empirical observation which evinces indubitably that godless and irreligious men and women are capable of great acts of kindness and altruism.

With respect to your interpretation of Romans 3: 10: “None is righteous, no, not one”, you have, owing to your rigid adherence to the letter of scripture, mis-understood what St. Paul is saying. The Apostle does cite against the Jews certain very sweeping assertions of the universality of their guilt. However, they are nonetheless* general* assertions, and thus are not to be understood as if there were no pious God-fearing Jews in the darkest periods of their history; likewise in the very midst of the wickedness of the pagan Roman Empire (see Romans 1: 18-32) there were many seekers after God, and witnesses to the truths which he had written on their hearts. Once again I feel that both history and experience show this to be the correct understanding and that the very literalist view would only be held by those having a particular theory to uphold. At any rate they cannot be employed to support total depravity.

Finally, the Epistle of James has always been a stumbling-block to Protestants, at least historically, because it unequivocally teaches that we are justified by our works and not by faith alone. It is a fact that Martin Luther spoke disparagingly about this Epistle, because it did not support his postion, but was unable to find a rationale for its removal from the Canon.

Moreover, it is also well known that Luther took it upon himself to use his personal interpretation of Romans while translating the Bible into German. Luther added, "Faith…alone to Romans 3:28, because in his erroneous opinion that verse was an important key to the Gospel - his gospel, that is. But Christ gave no man the authority to change Scripture - not even St. Peter, the rock who received the keys to the kingdom, and most certainly not to Martin Luther. However, this is the inevitable consequence when sola-scriptura is adopted as ones criteria for interpreting the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church is abandoned. Protestantism always leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, as its entire history since The Reformation demonstrates.

Brilliant apologetic

 

[WALTHER]

PART I

Portrait,

You write:

Thankyou for taking time to give a detailed response to my last posting. Having now read and inwardly digested your comeback I would like to make some comments by way of reply.

You are most welcome. I reflect your complements back to you.

You then write:

Your disparagement of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between Lutherans and Catholics is far too negative and gloomy. The entire document is a profound, biblically based meditation on justification. Actually it was worked on very carefully by the highest authorities in both churches and is the fruit of much study, prayer and listening. Have you read the document in its entirety?

My “disparagement” of the Joint Declaration may indeed be gloomy, but at least it is truthful. The fact is, Portrait, that this document is neither “profound” nor “biblically based”, but a vain attempt to reconcile an unbridgeable chasm through means of shameless equivocation. In the words of the late Robert D. Preus:

“To arrive at doctrinal consensus and a common confession of faith, words and terms and theological concepts must be used by both parties in the same sense and defined unequivocally.” Justification and Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Dialogues, p. 33]

Therefore, it is untrue when you say:

Nobody is saying that it is a definitive statement. The declararion is a theological concordat and is therefore necessarily limited in its scope. However, your criticism notwithstanding, the declaration is an astounding step forward, and its essential message is that Catholics and Protestants no longer disagree on the basics of justification. Now that is surely a cause for celebration.

As there can be no progression until terms are used in their definite sense, as each church defines them in their confessions. Hence, the “celebration” of the imagined “step forward” the Joint Declaration has made belongs only to those who are either ignorant of their confessional statements or do not take them seriously.

[As to the matter of the document being written by the *“highest authorities in both churches”, the LCMS was asked to respond and evaluate, along with the ELCA, the Joint Declaration. The Missouri Synod stated plainly: “The dialogue, in our judgment, has failed to present the role which the doctrine of justification plays in Lutheran theology in its whole radicality. For Lutherans, this article is at the center of all the other articles of faith and it is the center of each article…and therefore, it is not, nor can it be, merely a metaphor among may (even if granted a “primary” role).” Missouri was excluded from further dialogues with Rome. And thus, the “highest authorities” of the Lutheran Church, of which you speak, belong to a denomination that ordains women, and, now, practicing homosexuals, denying both the Scriptures and the symbols of their church.]

You then write:

If you acknowledge “pagan kindness”, then you implicitly deny the total corruption of human nature, I’m sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it. If “unbelievers are capable of doing good” (and they most certainly are), then clearly you are stating, however much you may demur, that a vestige of the* imago Dei* remains in fallen man.

It is not a matter of my “having my cake and eating it too”, but rather of a serious and necessary distinction that you have failed to make yourself. To speak of “pagan kindness” is only to speak of the civil and earthly sphere of morality. Certainly, no one will deny, when morality is observed upon a purely horizontal basis (that is, of man to man), there are many who do “good” in the same sense of which Christ spoke:

"Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" [Matthew 5:10-11]

Therefore, to observe morality vertically (that is, from man to God), we understand that, as Isaiah the prophet spoke:

**“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.” **[Isaiah 64:6]

Thus, I make the same distinction as Christ has made, namely, that those who do earthly good do not do spiritual good, nor are they capable of doing so, but are instead evil. There is no good work apart from Christ. Hence, “pagan kindness” is of spiritual avail whatsoever.

You write again:

Moreover it is manifestly self evident that if it were true that man’s nature was a mass of corruption then he could not be aware of his corruption. I mean there would be no moral struggle within, no discontent with self or no desire for the better, nobler things of life. Whilst it is undeniable that man is captivated and subdued by sin, there must, nevertheless, be some trace of his former state to enable him to see and admire what is good. Observe that St. Paul speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural conscience (Romans 2: 14,15) and he does not hesitate to reason with the unregenerate “pagan” Felix “…about justice and self-control and future judgment” (Acts 24:25). All of this is born out by empirical observation which evinces indubitably that godless and irreligious men and women are capable of great acts of kindness and altruism.

Firstly, the corruption of man in unknowable in its totality, but is, however, knowable in its partiality. This meaning, man has been created with a natural knowledge of God, knowing both of His Law and His eternal attributes. As the Prophet Jeremiah says:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? [17:9]

Yet, even the Law and the attributes of God are not known fully, but only in part, as man, left to himself, will always view morality differently from the Law of Scripture, rationalizing and concocting diverse and serpentine methods of evasion. Likewise, man, if left to himself, will create a form of religion meant to appease God through his own works and merit. This natural knowledge is exemplified well in the pagan philosophers who wrote consistently of a Cause, Being, etc. that began and/or sustains all things, existing eternally. This is not, in any way or manner, a saving knowledge.

 

[WALTHER]

PART II

Portrait,

You write also:

With respect to your interpretation of Romans 3: 10: “None is righteous, no, not one”, you have, owing to your rigid adherence to the letter of scripture, mis-understood what St. Paul is saying. The Apostle does cite against the Jews certain very sweeping assertions of the universality of their guilt. However, they are nonetheless* general* assertions, and thus are not to be understood as if there were no pious God-fearing Jews in the darkest periods of their history; likewise in the very midst of the wickedness of the pagan Roman Empire (see Romans 1: 18-32) there were many seekers after God, and witnesses to the truths which he had written on their hearts. Once again I feel that both history and experience show this to be the correct understanding and that the very literalist view would only be held by those having a particular theory to uphold. At any rate they cannot be employed to support total depravity.

What else ought the theologian do but “rigidly adhere to the letter of Scripture”?

What do you mean here by “pious, God-fearing Jews”? Unless you are speaking of an ethnic Jew who is a Christian, then these terms are only superficial observations of men, not the saving work of the Father. There is not “piety” apart from Christ either. Jews and Muslims are not saved by their belief in a false god. It is only Christ who saves, and Christ alone.

You write:

Finally, the Epistle of James has always been a stumbling-block to Protestants, at least historically, because it unequivocally teaches that we are justified by our works and not by faith alone. It is a fact that Martin Luther spoke disparagingly about this Epistle, because it did not support his postion, but was unable to find a rationale for its removal from the Canon.
Moreover, it is also well known that Luther took it upon himself to use his personal interpretation of Romans while translating the Bible into German. Luther added, "Faith…alone to Romans 3:28, because in his erroneous opinion that verse was an important key to the Gospel - his gospel, that is. But Christ gave no man the authority to change Scripture - not even St. Peter, the rock who received the keys to the kingdom, and most certainly not to Martin Luther. However, this is the inevitable consequence when sola-scriptura is adopted as ones criteria for interpreting the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church is abandoned. Protestantism always leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, as its entire history since The Reformation demonstrates.

I will repeat what I wrote in my last reply, seeing as how you have ignored it here:

In regards to the Epistle of St. James, the context of the Epistle deals, not with faith before God, but with faith evidenced before fellow men. It dethrones those who believe that a mere intellectual knowledge of God will save them, though they care nothing for their neighbor or for God. Therefore, when St. James writes that one is justified by works and not by faith alone, he refers back to that faith just mentioned, that faith which belongs even to the devils of hell. To say that this single passage, even if it were torn from its proper context–as is the only way Rome will read it–overthrows all of the Gospels and the writings of St. Paul and St. Peter, is an act of desperation on the part of Rome to support the false doctrine that man is justified by something other than the pure grace of God for the sake of Christ through faith.

St. Paul also accounts the justification of Abraham, except, in context, he deals, not with faith as it is evidence before man, but as it stands before God:

**“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does Scripture say?
‘Abraham believed God, and it [that is, his belief] was counted to him as righteousness.’ **
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness [imputed righteousness of Christ to the sinner], just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered [dung covered in snow, if you will];
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’” [Romans 4:1-8]

Let us, then, Portrait, rather than slander the dead (and parrot straw men arguments from the standard playbook of Catholic Apologetics), address the actual text along with its proper context.

What “faith” is James speaking of, and denouncing, in his Epistle?

How do you reconcile Romans 4:1-8 with the peculiar–and desperate–interpretation of Rome?

How do you reconcile the 32nd Psalm of David with it as well?

In addition, the word “alone” was not added to the text in a malicious way, as you and other Catholics report. Rather, it was added by proper virtue of the context. As the text states that we are not saved by works of the law, but by faith (apart from works; that is: alone).

I suggest you read Martin Chemnitz’s Loci on this matter, as he addresses in great detail the Church’s history of translation including several necessary, though foreign, “solas” in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Once again thankyou for your very thorough response to my recent posting.

Your further comments on the ‘Joint Declaration’ notwithstanding, I still feel that you are being far too dismissive and disdainful of this significant landmark in ecumenical relations between our two churches, but that, of course, is your perogative and I respect your sincerity, I just believe that you are sincerely wrong.

I infer from what you say that you have suceeded from the official Lutheran denomination and have become part of some separatist faction that is more orthodox in both faith and morals. If this is the case then it underscores the fissiparous nature of Protestantism with its pathological tendency to divide, something to which I alluded to in the concluding paragraph of my last posting. Of course I fully sympathise and understand why you would not wish to remain in a denomination that ordains women and practicing homosexuals. Alas these doctrinal/moral aberrations are now all too common in mainstream Protestantism; but crucially they exemplify the fundamental weakness of Protestantism, namely a want of an Authoritative Voice to teach the Faithful. Unfortunately non-Catholics are in a very sad plight because there is no desk where the buck stops so to speak. * Sola-Scriptura* is of no avail since all parties to nearly all disputes energetically make their appeal to the Bible (assuming of course that they accept the bible as an authority in the first place). Moreover, St. Paul called the Church, not the bible, “the pillar and ground of truth” (I Tim 3:15). Now what the Faithful require is a body that can speak into the chaos of conflicting opinions and declare with serene and final authority what the Faith is and what is ethically acceptable. The Catholic Church alone is doing this in todays world, for it alone has been preserved from teaching error in Faith and Morals. That surely is a most remarkable fact given the secular, post-modern and relativistic age in which our lot is cast. Yes Rome has its disidents and progressive thinkers, but these do not speak on behalf of the Church. It is the Magisterium that speaks authoritatively for the whole Church; one may not approve or agree with what Rome teaches, but no one can be in any doubt as to what she teaches. The fragmented condition of Protestantism and the contrasting unbroken unity of Rome is surely evident to the most casual observer unless he is blinkered by prejudice. The uncertainties of ‘private Judgement’ are plain for all to see - 20,000 plus Protestants churches. Seceesion achieves absloutely nothing, accept further multiplication of our unhappy divisions.

As regards your remarks on the Epistle of James I did not intentionally disregard them, you will note that at the outset of my posting I said that I would like to make some comments by way of reply, I did not plan to give a blow by blow response to your every comment. However, out of courtesy I will now deal with your comments.

When St. James uses the phrase “faith alone”, he is speaking in the sense of mere intellectual assent to Christianity. St .Paul does not contradict St. James, as Luther thought, since he employs the word faith in the wider sense of a mans complete allegiance to God with both mind and will. However St. James also uses the word in the broader sense, as he develops his argument ("I by my works will show you my faith).

The whole notion of “faith alone” is emphatically condemned in both James 2: 17 and 2: 24. Now it was for this very reason that St. James’s Epistle was described by Luther as an “epistle of straw, destitute of evangelical character” and deemed by him to be an inferior, second-tier book of the N.T. Therefore I, and many others, deduce from this that the founder of your denomination was profoundly unhappy with the doctrine found in St. James since it did not tally with his novel doctrine. Surely his wanting to throw the Epistle out altogether could be construed as “an act of desperation on the part of Luther to support the false doctrine that a man is justified by faith alone”!

You accuse me of smearing the name of Luther and “parroting straw men arguments from the standard playbook of Catholic apologetics”. I am sorry but I fail to see how I am guilty as charged on both counts. First, how do you equate the stating of indisputable historical facts about a person with slander? Second, the “epistle of straw” (I think that is to what you are refering by “straw men arguments”?) phrase did not originate in any Catholic apologetics textbook, but came from the mind of Luther himself.

The word “alone” (Romans 3: 28) may not have been added by Luther “maliciously” but it was definitely added arbitrarily, with no basis in the Greek text, to bolster his novel doctrine of *sola fide *. Moreover, when St. Paul refered to the “works of the law” he meant the Mosaic Law; what he is saying is absolutely true: We are justified by faith apart from works of the Mosaic Law. We can prove this by looking at the very next verse: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom. 3: 29). Now if he did not mean works of the mosaic law, then this question and its answer would be utterly meaningless. I mean by the phrase “works of the Law” St. Paul refers to something Jews have but the Gentiles do not. namely the Mosaic Law. He makes this point in the very next verse: "Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised (Jews) on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through their faith (Rom 3: 30). Hence the “works of the Law” St. Paul speaks of in v. 28 are those works which characterize Jews not Gentiles, the chief work being circumcision (cf. 3: 29-30). These works of the law are now entirely irrelevant to our salvation under the new covenant in Christ.

I intend now to bow out so this will be my final reply on this topic. It just remains for me to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed are debate Walther and I hope you agree that it has not been “a vain attempt to reconcile an unbridgeable chasm through means of shameless equivocation”! There are indeed very deep differences as to how we see things, nonetheless may I just say in closing that I really respect your biblical and moral orthodoxy; it was good to engage in debate with a man who clearly knows and loves God’s word; as a former Evangelical Anglican I also loved Sacred Scripture but now as a Catholic I love it even more.

With my warmest good wishes and prayers.

Portrait.

 

[brb2]

when St. Paul refered to the “works of the law” he meant the Mosaic Law; what he is saying is absolutely true: We are justified by faith apart from works of the Mosaic Law. We can prove this by looking at the very next verse: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom. 3: 29). Now if he did not mean works of the mosaic law, then this question and its answer would be utterly meaningless. I mean by the phrase “works of the Law” St. Paul refers to something Jews have but the Gentiles do not. namely the Mosaic Law. He makes this point in the very next verse: "Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised (Jews) on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through their faith (Rom 3: 30). Hence the “works of the Law” St. Paul speaks of in v. 28 are those works which characterize Jews not Gentiles, the chief work being circumcision (cf. 3: 29-30). These works of the law are now entirely irrelevant to our salvation under the new covenant in Christ.

I]

A key distinction on Paul’s use of Legalism … that many Protestants don’t appreciate.

Portrait … don’t leave just yet ! Perhaps we can get Walther back on thread’s topic

 

[WALTHER]

PART I
Portrait,

You write:

Once again thankyou for your very thorough response to my recent posting.

I appreciate and thank you for yours as well.

You then write:

Your further comments on the ‘Joint Declaration’ notwithstanding, I still feel that you are being far too dismissive and disdainful of this significant landmark in ecumenical relations between our two churches, but that, of course, is your perogative and I respect your sincerity, I just believe that you are sincerely wrong.

Believe what you will, Portrait. However, the facts of the matter reveal that no actual, substantial reconciliation has been made regarding doctrine between the Lutheran and Roman churches. The same doctrinal conflicts exist today that existed during the Reformation period, and only those who think these conflicts *“unnecessarily divisive” *given our present “existential situation” consider it a “unifying document.” No true progress has been made outside of the usual liberal ecumenical fluff (which is quite telling of Rome’s present doctrinal fortitude, considering that it sees ecumenical relations with a wayward Lutheran church as, in some way, shape, or form, edifying to the Body of Christ).

You write:

I infer from what you say that you have suceeded from the official Lutheran denomination and have become part of some separatist faction that is more orthodox in both faith and morals. If this is the case then it underscores the fissiparous nature of Protestantism with its pathological tendency to divide, something to which I alluded to in the concluding paragraph of my last posting.

This is hardly the case. I am a confessing member of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

You write:

Of course I fully sympathise and understand why you would not wish to remain in a denomination that ordains women and practicing homosexuals. Alas these doctrinal/moral aberrations are now all too common in mainstream Protestantism; but crucially they exemplify the fundamental weakness of Protestantism, namely a want of an Authoritative Voice to teach the Faithful.

The LCMS does neither. And these “doctrinal/moral aberrations” are “all too common” to Rome as well. The Roman church suffers immensely from a decidedly liberal wing that is pro-choice, pro-homosexual, and pro-female ordination.

As for the “Authoritative Voice to teach the Faithful”, I am not aware of any want for such a man within the LCMS, as the position has already been filled by the Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Priest, Prophet, and King.

You write:

Unfortunately non-Catholics are in a very sad plight because there is no desk where the buck stops so to speak. * Sola-Scriptura* is of no avail since all parties to nearly all disputes energetically make their appeal to the Bible (assuming of course that they accept the bible as an authority in the first place).

Need I remind you that there are several existing churches who do not uphold, nor do they agree with, the view that Scripture is to be the sole norm, rule, and authority. For instance, the Great Schism in 1054, was this division caused by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or by the Papal office (though other issues were a cause as well)? What of the the several dozen present churches that do not adhere to Sola Scriptura? What will you blame their schismatic tendencies upon now that your scape goat has been taken from you?

You write:

Moreover, St. Paul called the Church, not the bible, “the pillar and ground of truth” (I Tim 3:15). Now what the Faithful require is a body that can speak into the chaos of conflicting opinions and declare with serene and final authority what the Faith is and what is ethically acceptable. The Catholic Church alone is doing this in todays world, for it alone has been preserved from teaching error in Faith and Morals. That surely is a most remarkable fact given the secular, post-modern and relativistic age in which our lot is cast. Yes Rome has its disidents and progressive thinkers, but these do not speak on behalf of the Church. It is the Magisterium that speaks authoritatively for the whole Church; one may not approve or agree with what Rome teaches, but no one can be in any doubt as to what she teaches. The fragmented condition of Protestantism and the contrasting unbroken unity of Rome is surely evident to the most casual observer unless he is blinkered by prejudice. The uncertainties of ‘private Judgement’ are plain for all to see - 20,000 plus Protestants churches. Seceesion achieves absloutely nothing, accept further multiplication of our unhappy divisions.

Rome is not without its schismatic tendencies. Relativism is nowhere better observed than within the four walls of the Roman church. Simply because your several dozen factions co-exist under one name does not provide you with any more unity than the Lutheran churches who have divided for doctrinal reasons.

As to the words of St. Paul concerning the Church as a “pillar and buttress” of truth, let me ask you: what is the sole function of a pillar? Is it not to uphold, support, and buttress the truth? Certainly you are not arguing that a pillar may create, alter, or appoint that which it upholds? Rather, it is bound to the pure and sound words of Christ, as St. Paul continues:

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing." **

You then write:

When St. James uses the phrase “faith alone”, he is speaking in the sense of mere intellectual assent to Christianity. St .Paul does not contradict St. James, as Luther thought, since he employs the word faith

in the wider sense of a mans complete allegiance to God with both mind and will. However St. James also uses the word in the broader sense, as he develops his argument ("I by my works will show you my faith).

St. James, indeed, by his use of the phrase “faith alone” speaks in the sense of mere intellectual assent. And St. Paul, indeed, contradicts St. James in his description of faith as simple trust and belief in Christ’s Word, work, and will. Are these two definitions of faith not diametrically opposed to one another?

In addition, when St. James says, “I will show you my faith by my works”, he is setting a genuine faith, one that is Spirit wrought, against false faith, one that is only esteemed by men.

 

[WALTHER]

PART II

Portrait,

You continue:

The whole notion of “faith alone” is emphatically condemned in both James 2: 17 and 2: 24.

How can this be so, when you have already conceded that in these passages James is speaking of a mere intellectual assent to the Christian faith, rather than a total trust and assurance in the divine Word through the gift of the Holy Spirit?

You write:

Now it was for this very reason that St. James’s Epistle was described by Luther as an “epistle of straw, destitute of evangelical character” and deemed by him to be an inferior, second-tier book of the N.T. Therefore I, and many others, deduce from this that the founder of your denomination was profoundly unhappy with the doctrine found in St. James since it did not tally with his novel doctrine. Surely his wanting to throw the Epistle out altogether could be construed as “an act of desperation on the part of Luther to support the false doctrine that a man is justified by faith alone”!

You accuse me of smearing the name of Luther and “parroting straw men arguments from the standard playbook of Catholic apologetics”. I am sorry but I fail to see how I am guilty as charged on both counts. First, how do you equate the stating of indisputable historical facts about a person with slander? Second, the “epistle of straw” (I think that is to what you are refering by “straw men arguments”?) phrase did not originate in any Catholic apologetics textbook, but came from the mind of Luther himself.

Luther’s words were directed at the use made of them by the Pope and his ilk. However, it is true that Luther, along with the early church fathers, placed the epistle of St. James, along with Jude, I Peter, II and III John, and Revelation, in the antilegomena. These were books that lacked the universal approval of the church as canonical; whereas the rest of the New Testament Scripture belonged to the homolegoumena, that is, those books received as canonical by nearly all sectors of the church.

As Eusebius, in his general history of the church, writes:

"Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s." Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, II, xxiii, 25]

Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed books” History, III, xxiv, 3].

Furthermore, St. Jerome also writes, in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II), of the pseudonymity of St. Jame’s Epistle and its slow acquisition of canonical and authoritative rank.

However, Luther left such things to the individual Christian, but with the warning that no doctrine can be manufactured from the antilegomena that would contradict or battle with the clear words of the authoritative apostolic books (homolegoumena).

You use this quote from Luther out of context and only in an effort to dismiss Luther’s admiration and reverance for the Word of God. That, my friend, is slander of the first degree.

You write:

The word “alone” (Romans 3: 28) may not have been added by Luther “maliciously” but it was definitely added arbitrarily, with no basis in the Greek text, to bolster his novel doctrine of *sola fide *.

It is nothing near “abritrary”, but is entirely warranted in the translation into common language.

For instance, the Latin Vulgate renders II Chronicles 20:12:

“Since we do not know what we should do, we have this **alone **as a refuge…”

Yet, the word alone does not appear in the Hebrew text. Rather, it is necessary for expressing the proper meaning in the Latin tongue.

And what of the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 3:11 as:

“Have you eaten of the tree of which alone I commanded you not to eat?”

Once again, the exclusive particle was not used by the Hebrews, yet, due to the translation into another language, and to the need to retain proper meaning, the term alone is altogether correct.

In the words of Martin Chemnitz:

"Thus when Paul says: ‘You have been justified and saved, not of yourselves, not of works, but by faith’ [Eph. 2:8-9], if the question is asked how this statement can be set forth and explained without ambiguity among our people in our common language in a brief, easy, and meaningful way, it is clear that this cannot be done more conveniently than throught the terms sola (alone) and tantum (only), as these examples show. And because the language of Scripture is to be so rendered and explained that it can be understood, it is necessary and right that we do this. The church has always used such liberty of speaking in regard to terms not found in Scripture, as in the examples we have noted. Just as no one finds fault when we say: ‘By the grace of God alone’, or ‘God Himself alone is the righteous One and the One who justifies,’ or ‘Let God alone be true,’ so there is no substantive reason for raising so odious an uproar over the term sola fide." [Loci Theologici, 170].

 

[WALTHER]

PART III

Portrait,

You also write:

Moreover, when St. Paul refered to the “works of the law” he meant the Mosaic Law; what he is saying is absolutely true: We are justified by faith apart from works of the Mosaic Law. We can prove this by looking at the very next verse: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom. 3: 29). Now if he did not mean works of the mosaic law, then this question and its answer would be utterly meaningless. I mean by the phrase “works of the Law” St. Paul refers to something Jews have but the Gentiles do not. namely the Mosaic Law. He makes this point in the very next verse: "Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised (Jews) on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through their faith (Rom 3: 30). Hence the “works of the Law” St. Paul speaks of in v. 28 are those works which characterize Jews not Gentiles, the chief work being circumcision (cf. 3: 29-30). These works of the law are now entirely irrelevant to our salvation under the new covenant in Christ.

Again I will quote Chenmitz on the matter:

"Augustine rejected and specifically refuted the opinion of which we have just spoken [namely, that the “Law” means only the ceremonial Mosaic Law], and contended that Paul was speaking of the entire Law and of the works of the entire Law, in his book On the Spirit and the Letter** and in the Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 3…
…We must take note of the arguments by which it is demonstrated that Paul is speaking not only of the ceremonial laws of Moses but also of the entire Law when he says, ‘without the works of the Law.’

1. The argument of Augustine is this: Paul in Rom. 3:20 shows that he is speaking of the works of that law through which we are made aware of our sins. But in Rom. 7:7 he says: 'I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’" Therefore it is manifest and certain that Paul in this discussion understands particularly the moral law…

…5. In Rom. 2 Paul says that he is speaking of that law whose work is written in the hearts of even the Gentiles, which in no way can be understood of the ceremonial laws of Moses. Thus in Rom. 3:19-20 he says that ‘the whole world is guilty before God, because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.’ But the Mosaic ceremonies applied only to the Jewish people. Therefore it is certain that Paul is speaking of the works of that law which pertains to all human beings and which is neither ceremonial nor civil but moral

1. To the Ephesians, in 2:8, Paul says: ‘By grace are you saved…not of yourselves…not of works.’ Then in v.12 he says that the Ephesians had been ‘aliens from the commonwealth of Moses,’ that is, they had not had the ceremonial law. Thus in Titus 3:5 he says: ‘not by works…which we have done…’ But in Gal. 2 he says that Titus had never received the ceremonial [circumcision] of Moses. Thus it is obvious which works Paul understands.

1. Abraham was justified before the giving of circumcision and 430 years before the Law was promulgated. Yet he had works of which Paul says: ‘not of works, without works,’ etc.

You conlude:

I intend now to bow out so this will be my final reply on this topic. It just remains for me to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed are debate Walther and I hope you agree that it has not been “a vain attempt to reconcile an unbridgeable chasm through means of shameless equivocation”! There are indeed very deep differences as to how we see things, nonetheless may I just say in closing that I really respect your biblical and moral orthodoxy; it was good to engage in debate with a man who clearly knows and loves God’s word; as a former Evangelical Anglican I also loved Sacred Scripture but now as a Catholic I love it even more.

I also have enjoyed our debate together, Portrait. You have been cordial and forthright, and I too appreciate your convictions, though I must, and do, strongly disagree with them.

Further, this surely was not a “vain attempt to reconcile an unbridgeable cahsm thorugh means of shameless equivocation,” as both you and I have stated clearly, and without compromise, our positions and how they necessarily differ. We have both set forth our doctrine upon the basis of our churches confessions and must conclude that much still divides us, though I pray always for that true union wherein the whole of Christ’s body might worship as one. We are assured by Scripture that this day will come; if not here in time, then there in eternity.

Until that blessed day,
WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Precisely: there is no need for salvation apart from and without sin.

To say that Mary was “preserved” from sin from the moment of her conception is to deny the saving and universal work of Christ.

It follows then, that:

1. Christ died for sinners
2. Mary was without sin
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for Mary
4. Hence, Mary was saved, not only apart from and without sin, but also apart from and the without the blood and cross of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Does the Roman Church teach that Christ died for Mary?

Dear Walther,

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception ( officially defined, not invented, in 1854) simply means that the soul of the Blessed Virgin was preserved from the stigma of original sin which the rest of mankind inherits from our our first parents. In a way it was a sort of “anticipated baptism”; a retro-active redemption of Mary’s soul by prevention of sin’s contamination through the merits of Christ. As someone on the Forums said quite recently Mary was redeemed “ahead of time” and that is quite an epigrammatic way of putting it, but on the nose as folk say stateside. This was fundamentally imperative if one ponders on it a little, for could the Eternal Son of God enter this world through a defiled doorway? Surely such a notion is utterly inconceivable as it is disrespectful to she who was and is “Full of grace”.

Contrary to popular Protestant misunderstanding, Mary’s words in The Magnificat canticle, “my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour” (St. Lk. 1: 47), do not argue against the Immaculate Conception. As was stated above Mary was indeed redeemed by the merits of Christ but in the unique way, by anticipation. As Dave Armstrong so nicely puts it, "God redeemed us from the pit, but prevented her from falling into it. In both case, it is proper to speak of God as having “saved” his creatures “from the pit” (A Biblical Defence of Catholicism, Sophia Institute Press, 2003. p. 184) - as the well known adage says, “Prevention is the best cure”. The Blessed Virgin then was redeemed by Christ by prevention (prevention by exemption) rather than by subsequent purification.

In so far as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation, yes Mary needed redeeming and her words in the Magnificat declare that she was aware of this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait.

PS. Walther how does one include “quotes” into ones reply, can you explain please. I confess to being a bit of a techno-phobe when it comes to I.T.

 

[WALTHER]

WALTHER;5610720:

Precisely: there is no need

for salvation apart from and without sin.

To say that Mary was “preserved” from sin from the moment of her conception is to deny the saving and universal work of Christ.

It follows then, that:

1. Christ died for sinners
2. Mary was without sin
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for Mary
4. Hence, Mary was saved, not only apart from and without sin, but also apart from and the without the blood and cross of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Does the Roman Church teach that Christ died for Mary?

Dear Walther,

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception ( officially defined, not invented, in 1854) simply means that the soul of the Blessed Virgin was preserved from the stigma of original sin which the rest of mankind inherits from our our first parents. In a way it was a sort of “anticipated baptism”; a retro-active redemption of Mary’s soul by prevention of sin’s contamination through the merits of Christ. As someone on the Forums said quite recently Mary was redeemed “ahead of time” and that is quite an epigrammatic way of putting it, but on the nose as folk say stateside. This was fundamentally imperative if one ponders on it a little, for could the Eternal Son of God enter this world through a defiled doorway? Surely such a notion is utterly inconceivable as it is disrespectful to she who was and is “Full of grace”.

Contrary to popular Protestant misunderstanding, Mary’s words in The Magnificat canticle, “my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour” (St. Lk. 1: 47), do not argue against the Immaculate Conception. As was stated above Mary was indeed redeemed by the merits of Christ but in the unique way, by anticipation. As Dave Armstrong so nicely puts it, "God redeemed us from the pit, but prevented her from falling into it. In both case, it is proper to speak of God as having “saved” his creatures “from the pit” (A Biblical Defence of Catholicism, Sophia Institute Press, 2003. p. 184) - as the well known adage says, “Prevention is the best cure”. The Blessed Virgin then was redeemed by Christ by prevention (prevention by exemption) rather than by subsequent purification.

In so far as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation, yes Mary needed redeeming and her words in the Magnificat declare that she was aware of this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait.

PS. Walther how does one include “quotes” into ones reply, can you explain please. I confess to being a bit of a techno-phobe when it comes to I.T.

Portrait,

Firstly, thank you for the clarification and expounding of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness as it pertains to Christ’s redemptive work and preservation.

From what I gather, the Roman church teaches that Mary indeed would have inherited the sin of Adam, but by the application of Christ’s redemptive work, she was preserved, body and soul, from all sin, both original and actual.

While this may appeal to reason, seeing that it seems only proper that the Mother of God be without sin, yet it does not conform to the clear teaching of Scripture, namely, that all have fallen in the sin of Adam [Romans 3:10-18; 3:23; 5:12; etc.].

Now, I have heard the argument, several times over, that all of these verses which speak of universal guilt necessarily excludes Jesus Christ. Therefore, why cannot Mary also be excluded? However, this does not adhere to the testimony of Scripture; for it consistently tells us of his exclusion from this universal guilt [II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15; etc.].

Therefore, once again, all must return to that precise cause of our disagreement, namely, the sole authority, norm, and judge of doctrine. If we are to grant the “Church” as such, then we are able to allow, not only for the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption into heaven, but also Mary’s role as co-mediatrix. However, if Scripture is to be the sole authority and judge, then Mary is no more than a chosen vessel of God, a sinner in the same manner as us, who, being the Mother of God, bore God’s Son in her womb, raised Him at her breast, shed her tears for Him beneath the cross, and was saved, in the same manner as us, by the justifying blood He thereon shed.

[On a divergent note, we do find agreement, to some extent, on the matter of Mary’s virginity. I hold to the opinion that Mary was a *perpetual

Virgin. However, I do not hold to it dogmatically, seeing that it cannot be proven or shown from the clear testimony of Scripture]

Secondly, as regards the addition of “quotes” in your threads:

1. Type in your text
2. Highlight that text which you wish to stand in quotations
3. Click on the “quotation bubble” on the tool bar just above the text window (beginning from the “bold” option on the left, it is 15 options to the right).

Happy quoting!

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[brb2]

Portrait;5625216:

seeing that it seems only proper that the Mother of God be without sin, yet it does not conform to the clear teaching of Scripture, namely, that all

have fallen in the sin of Adam [Romans 3:10-18; 3:23; 5:12; etc.].

Now, I have heard the argument, several times over, that all of these verses which speak of universal guilt necessarily excludes Jesus Christ. Therefore, why cannot Mary also be excluded? However, this does not adhere to the testimony of Scripture; for it consistently tells us of his exclusion from this universal guilt [II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15; etc.].

Walther …

Is it ‘so extreme’ to believe Mary was ‘preserved from sin’ from her conception ? Paul’s teaching that all have sinned … obviously doesn’t mean ALL.
Would you not agree ?

Can’t you think of another example from Scripture ? How about John the Baptizer ? Scipture tells us he was "filled with H.S., FROM THE WOMB. And, what about those born with severe mental retardation issues ? Clearly Paul was not thinking of these exceptions to the rule he gives us.

 

[WALTHER]

WALTHER;5625893:

Walther …

Is it ‘so extreme’ to believe Mary was ‘preserved from sin’ from her conception ? Paul’s teaching that all have sinned … obviously doesn’t mean ALL.
Would you not agree ?

Can’t you think of another example from Scripture ? How about John the Baptizer ? Scipture tells us he was "filled with H.S., FROM THE WOMB. And, what about those born with severe mental retardation issues ? Clearly Paul was not thinking of these exceptions to the rule he gives us.

brb2,

As I have already said:

Now, I have heard the argument, several times over, that all of these verses which speak of universal guilt necessarily excludes Jesus Christ. Therefore, why cannot Mary also be excluded? However, this does not adhere to the testimony of Scripture; for it consistently tells us of his exclusion from this universal guilt

[II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15; etc.].

Therefore, while St. Paul does not refer to “all” in the sense that Christ, the perfect Son of God, is excluded, nevertheless, this does not translate into meaning that we are at liberty to then speculate as to who else may be excluded. All are under sin; all inherit the sin of Adam; all are under the curse of the fall.

This universal statement, indeed, includes John the Baptist and all of the Prophets of Old; for to be filled with the Holy Spirit does not entail being sinless, as the life of blessed St. Peter well testifies.

As for those with “severe mental retardation issues”, they too inherit the sin of Adam and are in need of a Savior. Are you suggesting that such people cannot have faith in Christ?

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Portrait;5625216:

Portrait,

Firstly, thank you for the clarification and expounding of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness as it pertains to Christ’s redemptive work and preservation.

From what I gather, the Roman church teaches that Mary indeed would have inherited the sin of Adam, but by the application of Christ’s redemptive work, she was preserved, body and soul, from all sin, both original and actual.

While this may appeal to reason, seeing that it seems only proper that the Mother of God be without sin, yet it does not conform to the clear teaching of Scripture, namely, that all

have fallen in the sin of Adam [Romans 3:10-18; 3:23; 5:12; etc.].

Now, I have heard the argument, several times over, that all of these verses which speak of universal guilt necessarily excludes Jesus Christ. Therefore, why cannot Mary also be excluded? However, this does not adhere to the testimony of Scripture; for it consistently tells us of his exclusion from this universal guilt [II Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15; etc.].

Therefore, once again, all must return to that precise cause of our disagreement, namely, the sole authority, norm, and judge of doctrine. If we are to grant the “Church” as such, then we are able to allow, not only for the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption into heaven, but also Mary’s role as co-mediatrix. However, if Scripture is to be the sole authority and judge, then Mary is no more than a chosen vessel of God, a sinner in the same manner as us, who, being the Mother of God, bore God’s Son in her womb, raised Him at her breast, shed her tears for Him beneath the cross, and was saved, in the same manner as us, by the justifying blood He thereon shed.

[On a divergent note, we do find agreement, to some extent, on the matter of Mary’s virginity. I hold to the opinion that Mary was a *perpetual Virgin. However, I do not hold to it dogmatically, seeing that it cannot be proven or shown from the clear testimony of Scripture]

Secondly, as regards the addition of “quotes” in your threads:

1. Type in your text
2. Highlight that text which you wish to stand in quotations
3. Click on the “quotation bubble” on the tool bar just above the text window (beginning from the “bold” option on the left, it is 15 options to the right).

Happy quoting!

Sincerely,
WALTHER

Dear Walther,

With reference to passages which declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, for instance Romans 3:23, Protestants generally deduce from texts such as these that everyone commits actual sins; they conclude therefore that the Blessed Virgin must have sinned during her life - and that, most assuredly, would militate against an Immaculate Conception. However is the Protestant analysis of such texts sound and hence irrefutable? Actually no it is not. Consider for a moment a child before reason has dawned. Now obviously he cannot sin, as sinning requires both ability to reason and ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before perpetrating an actual sin, because he is not mature enough to know what he is doing, then what act of his brings him under the Protestant elucidation of Romans 3: 23? Answer: Absolutely none.

Roman Catholic lay Apologist, Karl Keating:

“Paul’s comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to to have one of two meanings. Despite the phrasing, it might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind( which means young children and other special cases, such as Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary - but she, although due to be subject to it, was preserved from its stain”* (Catholicism & Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press 1988, p. 271)
In any event denials regarding the Immaculate Conception are becoming much less common in a world which repudiates original sin altogether and which wishes to exempt everybody from it!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[brb2]

This universal statement, indeed, includes John the Baptist and all of the Prophets of Old; for to be filled with the Holy Spirit does not entail being sinless, as the life of blessed St. Peter well testifies.

As for those with “severe mental retardation issues”, they too inherit the sin of Adam and are in need of a Savior. Are you suggesting that such people cannot have faith in Christ?

Hello … You are not allowed to pick an choose which scriptures to accept.

Was Peter filled with H.S. from the womb ? Not a chance Would The Baptist forsake Christ 3 x’s ? … not a chance. As scripture quotes Christ … “None born of woman has ever been greater” … than the Baptist.

Just as Christ selected the Baptist to announce his coming … in like manner he selected sinless Mary to be his Mother, and Mother of his Church.

And Yes, I do suggest that the severely mentally retarded [in some cases] lack sufficient mental capacity to have faith. How do YOU define faith ?

 

[WALTHER]

brb2,

You write:

Hello … You are not allowed to pick an choose which scriptures to accept.

Be specific, brb2. What Scripture have I “denied”?

You continue:

Was Peter filled with H.S. from the womb ? Not a chance Would The Baptist forsake Christ 3 x’s ? … not a chance. As scripture quotes Christ … “None born of woman has ever been greater” … than the Baptist.

Scripture nowhere tells us, even by implication, of the “sinlessness” of John the Baptist.

My use of St. Peter was to refute the notion you seem to endorse, namely, that one filled with the Holy Spirit cannot sin; even as St. Paul testifies, the spirit serves the Law of God faithfully, but our flesh serves the Law of sin.

You also write:

Just as Christ selected the Baptist to announce his coming … in like manner he selected sinless Mary to be his Mother, and Mother of his Church.

Indeed, Scripture does tell us of John the Baptist being chosen as the Prophet who would make the way for Christ’s coming (not of his sinlessnes, however). In the same manner, the Scriptures tell us of Mary, the chosen Mother of God, who bore divinity in her womb by the working of the Holy Spirit (yet, never does it tell us, nor does it imply, her sinlessness).

You write:

And Yes, I do suggest that the severely mentally retarded [in some cases] lack sufficient mental capacity to have faith. How do YOU define faith ?

Scripture defines faith as simple trust in the promises of God, namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is a gift of God, not of ourselves [Eph. 2:8-9]; born in us by the Word of God [Romans 10:17]. Therefore, if you are to argue that a person suffering from severe mental retardation cannot have faith due to their lack of mental capacity, then you must also, following your line of reasoning, argue that a one-day old child in its mother’s womb “lacks sufficient mental capacity to have faith” as well. However, to do this requires an explicit rejection of the passages already cited, principally, those which speak of faith in utero.

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

Portrait,

You write:

With reference to passages which declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, for instance Romans 3:23, Protestants generally deduce from texts such as these that everyone commits actual sins; they conclude therefore that the Blessed Virgin must have sinned during her life - and that, most assuredly, would militate against an Immaculate Conception. However is the Protestant analysis of such texts sound and hence irrefutable? Actually no it is not. Consider for a moment a child before reason has dawned. Now obviously he cannot sin, as sinning requires both ability to reason and ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before perpetrating an actual sin, because he is not mature enough to know what he is doing, then what act of his brings him under the Protestant elucidation of Romans 3: 23? Answer: Absolutely none.

This is precisely why I denounce all applause given to the recent dialogues between the Roman and “Lutheran” churches. This definition of sin, which you here present, is one entirely opposed to the teaching of Scripture. For as the Psalmist writes:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." [Ps. 51:5]

Therefore, at the very moment of conception, the Psalmist speaks of his own sinful nature. This is precisely the point at which we diverge from one another: your formulation of sin is presented as if sin is something foreign to man’s nature, a thing that is only acquired through “intent” and “ability”; whereas Scripture speaks of sin as something belonging to man’s fallen nature, that is, man is a sinner by nature (again, not his created nature, but his fallen nature), and thus actual sins result from this nature. As Moses records in the book of Genesis:

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." [Genesis 6:5]

This is what is termed concupiscence. That meaning, man is not only dead in his trespasses and sins [Eph. 2:5; Romans 5:12; etc.], but he is also entirely opposed to the work, Word, and will of God, being in bitter enmity with Him, as St. Paul writes in the 8th chapter of Romans:

"…the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." [vv.7-8]

And again, in the second chapter of I Corinthians:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." [v. 14]

Time and again Scripture tells us of our desperate condition, namely, the complete and utter inability of our flesh to work, acheive, or merit anything that is spiritually good.

Therefore, to argue that St. Paul’s use of the word “all” in his description of man in Romans chapter 3 does not truly mean “all” amounts to nothing more than Calvinist-esque sophistry and rationalization, doing violence to the clear and plain meaning of the text and its surrounding verses.

You continue:

Roman Catholic lay Apologist, Karl Keating:

“Paul’s comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to to have one of two meanings. Despite the phrasing, it might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind( which means young children and other special cases, such as Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary - but she, although due to be subject to it, was preserved from its stain”* (Catholicism & Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press 1988, p. 271)*

This is a desperate effort to salvage Rome’s Marian doctrines in the face of clear and opposing Scripture. We are not to speculate or debate over what persons or actions are and are not sinful, rather we are to profess and proclaim the teaching of Scripture, namely:

"For there is no distinction

: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." [Romans 3:23-25]

You conclude:

In any event denials regarding the Immaculate Conception are becoming much less common in a world which repudiates original sin altogether and which wishes to exempt everybody from it!

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Let me know if I am misrepresenting you, but from what I gather, you are saying that as the denial of original sin increases, the denials of the Immaculate Conception, in turn, decrease?

Sincerely,
WALTHER