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

[WALTHER]

brb2,

Reading over your post again, I found your absolute assertion that John the Baptist would “never deny Christ three times” to be absolutely appalling. What presumption to claim to know, without any basis from Scripture, the thoughts, intentions, and inclinations of a man. However, it does seem strange that this same man (who you claim to be sinless from birth), who said at his first sighting of Christ, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” later, when imprisoned, sends his messengers to Christ, and they ask Him:

"John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who is come, or shall we look for another?’" [Luke 7:20]

Where, then, has this doubt of Christ’s person and identity arisen from? Surely, all doubt arises from sinful flesh. Therefore, it follows:

1. All doubt arises from sinful flesh
2. John the Baptist doubted Christ’s person and work
3. Therefore, John the Baptist possessed sinful flesh
4. Hence, John the Baptist was not sinless

Sincerely,
WALTHER

 

[brb2]

rejection of the passages already cited, principally, those which speak of faith in utero.

What passages in scripture describe ‘faith’ in utero ? None I’m aware of.

Thats the point here … Mary and The Baptist were filled with God’s spirit of protection… in utero, by an ACT of God himself.

Faith comes later, when God grants us the Grace to believe, and when we possess the CNS maturity & intellectual ability to reason.

 

[brb2]

it does seem strange that this same man (who you claim to be sinless from birth), who said at his first sighting of Christ, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” later, when imprisoned, sends his messengers to Christ, and they ask Him:

Where, then, has this doubt of Christ’s person and identity arisen from? Surely, all doubt arises from sinful flesh. Therefore, it follows:

1. All doubt arises from sinful flesh
2. John the Baptist doubted Christ’s person and work
3. Therefore, John the Baptist possessed sinful flesh
4. Hence, John the Baptist was not sinless

The Baptist did not doubt Christ. So your 4-step rationale gives you an errant conclusion.

The Baptist simply inquired of Christ, by way of a question. And, Christ confirmed his belief that HE ALONE was the ONLY ONE God had promised to Israel.

Try again ---- to prove The Baptist was a sinner

 

[brb2]

Therefore, it follows:

1. John the Baptist doubted Christ’s person and work
2. Therefore, John the Baptist possessed sinful flesh
3. Hence, John the Baptist was not sinless

What you fail to see is that John the Baptist was MORE than a prophet. Just like Mary is more than an ordinary Jewish girl.

Luke 7:26-28 " What then did you go out to see? A prophet ? Yes, I tell you, and MORE THAN A PROPHET. This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee’. I tell you, among those born of women NONE IS GREATER THAN JOHN; …"

Was he Elijah returned ? You tell us. Either way … he was WITHOUT SIN from the womb. Had the ability to recognize the presence of Christ while still within Mary’s womb … and kicked with joy to acknowledge his Savior.

Clearly a supernatural gift to him that no mere mortal possesses. John was Graced BEFORE his birth from Eliz. This you cannot deny … per scriptural accounts of Luke.

Again … was he Elijah, or a ‘greater than Elijah’ ?

 

[WALTHER]

The Baptist did not doubt Christ. So your 4-step rationale gives you an errant conclusion.

The Baptist simply inquired of Christ, by way of a question. And, Christ confirmed his belief that HE ALONE was the ONLY ONE God had promised to Israel.

Try again ---- to prove The Baptist was a sinner

brb2,

Firstly, John the Baptist clearly demonstrates an uncertainty and doubt regarding whether or not Christ was truly the Messiah, as he sends his messengers to ask if they should look for another. This occurs after John the Baptist has already stated of Christ that He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Therefore, the very question asked by his messengers on his behalf proves that he had lost his certainty that Christ was the Messiah; and to not have certainty is to be doubtful.

Secondly, the burden of proof is not upon my position, which is based upon the clear testimony of Scripture, but, rather, your own, as yours insists upon adding foreign words to the text of Holy Writ. No verse speaks of John’s sinlessness. Not one.

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

What you fail to see is that John the Baptist was MORE than a prophet. Just like Mary is more than an ordinary Jewish girl.

Luke 7:26-28 " What then did you go out to see? A prophet ? Yes, I tell you, and MORE THAN A PROPHET. This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee’. I tell you, among those born of women NONE IS GREATER THAN JOHN; …"

Was he Elijah returned ? You tell us. Either way … he was WITHOUT SIN from the womb. Had the ability to recognize the presence of Christ while still within Mary’s womb … and kicked with joy to acknowledge his Savior.

Clearly a supernatural gift to him that no mere mortal possesses. John was Graced BEFORE his birth from Eliz. This you cannot deny … per scriptural accounts of Luke.

Again … was he Elijah, or a ‘greater than Elijah’ ?

The fact that no man has been greater than John the Baptist does not extend to meaning that he was sinless, but only that none was greater (just as the text reads).

John the Baptist was not Elijah. John the Baptist was…*John the Baptist. *

Was the Prophet Jeremiah also sinless? For he writes:

"Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’"

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Thankyou for the reply several threads earlier.

The Catholic Church would have no quarrel with you that such texts as you have cited teach unequivocally the doctrine of of original sin. Thus David in Psalm 51 verse 5 - “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” - is speaking of original sin derived from Adam and the first fall, tracing back to the very first beginning of human life a sin handed on with human nature from parent to child. Original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace; it is called sin because we are devoid of that quality which renders us pleasing in God’s sight. St. Paul states very clearly, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…” (Rom. 5:12). Our experience confirms this revealed doctrine, I mean does not our very proness to evil argue a privation of original rectitude? As C.K. Chesterton wittily remarked, men may deny original sin, but almost the only thing they know about original innocence is that they haven’t got it.

Therefore whilst we acknowledge without any reservations the universal sinfulness of mankind, we also say that in the case of the Blessed Virgin the process of inborn sinfulness was interrupted and that she escaped these birth-taints. Again, I would ask, is it really conceivable or deferential to believe that the eternal Son of God would have entered this world through a defiled doorway?

You are, I believe, failing to distingush between original sin and actual sin, the latter being a* deliberate personal* violation of God’s law. However, original sin, which is inherited, does not mean that one has personally and maliciously transgressed. Thus my point regarding young children still stands since before attaining the age of reason they are manifestly devoid of the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. Therefore they, and probably some mental defectives, cannot really be brought under your interpretation of Romans 3: 23.

According to the context of Romans 3: 22,23: “For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, the “distinction” of which St. Paul speaks is the distinction between Jew and Gentile in regard to their common need of an interest in Christ (I think thats how the old Puritans used to put it), becuase they are both equally guilty before God. The Apostle is decidedly NOT saying anything here about possible exceptions (children/mental defectives) or exemptions (the Blessed Virgin Mary). Of course it is true that the mass of mankind do constantly fall short of the glory of God, because all have sinned in Adam, and all are actual sinners by practice and thus ethically disabled, as is all too plainly evident.

Regarding the final comment in my previous posting, what I am basicly saying is that the denial of original sin per se is what is cheifly in vogue nowadays; I mean we live in a world which glories in its ‘post-Christian’ character and takes a perverse delight in debunking every doctrine of our most Holy faith, especially the unpopular ones like original sin. Thus Mary’s Immaculate Conception is not something that is uppermost in “The Post-Christian mind”, to quote the title of a book by Harry Blamires.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

 

[garysibio]

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?

Walther,

On the contrary, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the ultimate expression of the saving work of Jesus. Her salvation was perfect. Let me explain.

Think of sin as being a big pit. Most people would be saved from such a pit by being pulled out of it. However, just as Mary was about to fall into the pit, she was saved by being prevented from falling in. She needed a redeemer but, in this case, the redeemer didn’t wait until she fell in. Her salvation was still through Jesus but it is better than ours because she was saved from even having to fall in the pit in the first place.

 

[Tanner9188]

Just one thing: “except” means to exclude. It’s basically the opposite of “accept”, which is the word you’re looking for.

“Accept Christ as your personal savior” is one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals.

NOWHERE does the Bible use the phrase “accept Christ” or “personal savior.”

Here is the problem with you argument; one you are better staying away from IMO; you open the door for many things. Many things are implicitly stated in Scripture.

Here is how I respond to such claims as “where do I find the phrase”: I just give this as an example so you can save yourself a lot of pain and frustration and time.

Can you quote a verse that says “Catholic Church”, “Roman Catholic Church”, “Catholic Priest”, “Immaculate conception”. “Perpetual virginity”, “Pope”, “Purgatory”, “Petrine succession”, “succession”, “Vicar of Christ”, “Pray to a saint”, “Rosary”. “Mary Queen of Heaven”, “Magisterium”, “Pontificate”, “Absolution by a priest”, “Mass”, “Original sin”, Infant sprinkle baptism", “deposit of faith”, “Indulgence”, “co-mediatrix” etc etc etc

I do not want a response; I just wanted to illustrate. Have a great weekend and many blessings.

 

[JustaServant]

The evangelical concept of a ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus, is modern Western, individualistic terminology unknown to the writers of Scripture and the early Church.
Our relationship with Jesus is intensely personal. That is true, but it is not exclusive.
Paul said ‘Christ in you, the hope of Glory’.
In the Greek that Paul used it is plural, not singular.
It should read ‘Christ in YOU ALL, the hope of Glory.’ The Church is not made up of isolated individuals, but members of the mystical body of Christ Himself. Paul said we are “members one to another”.
Jesus said: ‘where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.’ In the company of other Christians, we lay hold of the Lord and His abiding presence. It is in corporate worship that this is seen the greatest.

 

[brb2]

It should read ‘Christ in YOU ALL, the hope of Glory.’ The Church is not made up of isolated individuals, but members of the mystical body of Christ Himself. Paul said we are “members one to another”.
Jesus said: ‘where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.’ In the company of other Christians, we lay hold of the Lord and His abiding presence. It is in corporate worship that this is seen the greatest.

Good point. Too often Protestants think in terms of 'Me & Christ" … and see no compelling need to be an integral part of the Church. Many even think its OK to worship by TV … and never leave their doorstep.

Corporate Worship is what the Early Church excelled at. The Catholic Church has maintained this for 2000 years.

 

[brb2]

Was the Prophet Jeremiah also sinless? For he writes:

Perhaps !

Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Isaiah … might well be considerations too. Elisha had a single portion … prayed for, and got a double.

However, scripture still puts The Baptist in a category all by himself … he is “More Than a Prophet”. And, same goes for Mary … since she alone was Mother of Christ, her Lord.

 

[WALTHER]

Portrait,

I thank you for another thoughtful post.

In it you write:

…such texts as you have cited teach unequivocally the doctrine of of original sin…

Our disagreement, once again, is not over the term itself, but over the definition of the term.

You continue:

You are…failing to distingush between original sin and actual sin, the latter being a* deliberate personal* violation of God’s law…original sin…does not mean that one has personally and maliciously transgressed…

I suggest you re-read my previous reply on this matter. I in no way confound the distinction between original and actual sin. Rather, I vigorously uphold the true doctrine of original sin, namely, the sinful nature we have inherited from the fall of Adam, and from which all actual sins are a result. You err in your viewing original sin as something separate from the person, that is, from his volition, ability, desire, etc. You describe man as though original sin–which produces in our flesh all manner of perversity to the will, work, and Word of God–is something separate from man’s actual desire and inclination; as though man is, by nature, good and not evil. Original sin is, indeed, transgression of the Law, as it is works everything in opposition to it.

Again, here is my previous reply on the matter (please specify that portion wherein I confound orginal and actual sin):

"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 also write:

…my point regarding young children still stands since before attaining the age of reason they are manifestly devoid of the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin…

On the contrary, your “point regarding young children” is wholly invalid. Sin is sin. A child is a sinner when they are born, not apart from their volition, abilities, etc. but in union with such faculties. This meaning, children sin when they lie, when they steal, when they covet, etc. even if they are not yet acquainted with that phantom “age of reason” you mention.

What else does original sin entail other than the intention to do wicked and evil works in the sight of God, seeing that it is the cause and root of all actual sin?

Lastly, you ask:

…Again, I would ask, is it really conceivable or deferential to believe that the eternal Son of God would have entered this world through a defiled doorway?

I must respond with several inquiries of my own:

Is it *“conceivable” *or “deferential” to believe that the Lord of Glory was born of a lowly Virgin, laid in a trough, worshipped only by the likes humble sheep herders, a partaker of our miserable flesh, bruised for our iniquities, broken for our transgressions, stripped naked and bloody upon the cross of Calvary–upon which He was hung by the hands of vile sinners, buried in a tomb, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to heaven, and is now seated at the right of hand of the Father, from which He will come to judge both the living and the dead?

Surely, I pray, you will not boast that the Gospel accords with reason, as it is utter folly and madness to those who esteem themselves as being wise and prudent; from these it has pleased the Lord to hide Himself.

Therefore, if the only reason to believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception rests upon the notion that “for Christ to have entered the world through a tainted door” is not “proper” or “worthy” of such divinity, I say: look to that beautiful and bloody cross of shame, upon which our Savior bled.

Yet, let us take this still further, for if it seems “unthinkable” that God would allow for such a one as Christ to enter the world through a vile door, then it follows that God ought not to have allowed Mary to have been conceived in such a tainted womb. Was Mary not born of womb which had inherited sinful flesh? Is it “proper”, “conceivable”, or “deferential” to believe that the Father would allow for the Mother of God to be brought forth in such filth? And what of the one who bore the one who bore Mary, must she be preserved as well? And her mother too? And the mother before her? Etc…However, this cannot last forever, seeing that all roads lead back to Eve, one sharing in that dreadful plight from the heights of innocence to the depths of concupiscence.

Therefore, let us leave such “philosophical necessities” to the heathen, and, as Christians, hold steadfastly to the Word, even though our fallen reason may chide and scoff to its ill-hearted content. For if reason is to play such a role as the Roman church suggests, then the Gospel is to be made void by that same “philosophical necessity”, as it cannot be understood why Christ was made to suffer innocently and bitterly, rather than triumphantly in all worldy glory.

WALTHER

 

[brb2]

Was Mary not born of womb which had inherited sinful flesh? Is it “proper”, “conceivable”, or “deferential” to believe that the Father would allow for the Mother of God to be brought forth in such filth? And what of the one who bore the one who bore Mary, must she be preserved as well? And her mother too?

Not at all. Your logic is flawed.

When God intervenes in any process … his presence makes it NEW & HOLY. Why would you need think that all of the lineage prior to his intervention would of necessity need to be altered ?

Give us examples from OT scriptures of God doing things to alter PAST HISTORY. Even after Calvary … Christ needed to go to the underworld [in realtime] to preach and save the OT souls who had been awaiting HIM / their salvation.

 

[JustaServant]

Good point. Too often Protestants think in terms of 'Me & Christ" … and see no compelling need to be an integral part of the Church. Many even think its OK to worship by TV … and never leave their doorstep.

Corporate Worship is what the Early Church excelled at. The Catholic Church has maintained this for 2000 years.

Here is what evangelicals must wrestle with:
Jesus gave two very clear commands to His Church, Baptism and the Eucharist.
One cannot baptize oneself, it requires another person. Recieving the Eucharist requires another person, even if its a priest to a shut-un.
Christianity is corparate, not individualistic.
There was an old evangelical hymn called ‘Me and Jesus on the Jerico road’, or something like that. Giving the impression that our relationship with Christ is exclusive to an individual person. That is why they think they can ‘worship at home’ in the privacy of their living room listening to a preacher or sacred hymns.
Jesus gave a very clear worship COMMAND that requires other human beings. Not a ‘Lone Ranger’ christianity.

 

[brb2]

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

What about Matt 21:25 “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men ?”

I think Christ has answered your question … with his

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Greetings to you,

Having now re-read your earlier posting and your most recent, I think I get the general thrust of what it is that you are saying. Undeniably our actual sins issue forth and indeed are the fruit of our innate sinfulness. Thus I do not view “…original sin as something separate from the person”.

As regards young children, I have never heard, even as a Protestant Anglican, the age of reason or accountability, call it what you will, refered to as a “phantom”. Surely it would be admitted on all sides that as far as culpability is concerned, young children are not accountable for their actions until they come to the years of discretion and are competent enough to distinguish right from wrong? Those who are not compos mentis may never come to that point in their entire lives; some of those poor unfortunates do not even know what day of the week it is. However, in neither case, does this negate in any way their inherited sinful nature and its consequent pre-disposition towards wrong-doing. It is well to recall that, as St. Paul says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men…” (Rom. 1: 18, emphasis mine), not mens sinful natures as such, with which they born without their consent.

In stark contrast to the above common sense approach, is the theory that, for example, a young child at the tender age of five could be consigned to eternal punishment, if it died, simply owing to the fact that it has, as the offspring of Adam, inherited a sinful nature through no fault of its own; this is utterly preposterous and plainly repugnant to rational reason. On this view exactly the same destiny would befall the mentally defective. Therefore blanket statements in Sacred Scripture about universal sin must not pressed to such an extent so as to admit of no exceptions whatsoever, apart from our Lord.

With respect to your comments on my comments about Jesus entering this world through a “defiled doorway”, I think that one has been incisively and succinctly answered by my fellow Catholic, brb2, in his last but one thread to you. As he quite rightly remarks, “When God intervenes in any process…He makes it New and Holy. Why would all the lineage prior to His intervention need to be altered.” There is not much that I can add to that statement. The fundamental point is surely that God acted decisively in the case of the Blessed Virgin, since it was her who was chosen to the vehicle of the Incarnation. There really was no need to redeem Anna (Mary’s mother) as well, nor her entire ancestory for that matter, it was Mary and Mary alone who was chosen to be the “Mother of God”.

There are two matters of logic that I wish to put before you for your consideration Walther. Firstly, although our Lord was spared original sin because He was not generated after the manner of men, He would have nevertheless been “infected” by original sin as He assumed Mary’s flesh. Now if He really took Mary’s flesh as we both agree, then the Blessed Virgin herself needed to be preserved from original sin.

The second logical reason why Mary needed to be preserved from the stain of original sin, is that her will would have been impaired owing to the effects of inborn sin. Incontrovertably, original sin causes us to choose wrongly. Thus in order for Mary’s “Yes” to God to have been genuine it needed to be expressive of a totally free choice. So it follows that Mary, of necessity, had to be preserved from the stigma of original sin which would otherwise have biased her choice.

You will, I have no doubt, respond by asking just how far can logic take us. I am going to anticipate that question and answer it. Let me say that I actually think it is a perfectly valid and fair point to ask how far one can go with logical reasonings. We are indeed quite helpless, unaided, to fathom such mysteries; left to our own devices, we end up chasing and falling over our own hypothetical theories. This is why, to avoid the quicksand of private interpretation, we ought to repair to the Church founded by Christ to understand* correctly* the mysteries of redemption, Thus St. Paul writes, "His (God’s) intent is that now , through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known (Eph.3: 10). It makes sense therefore to humbly submit our own theories to the dynamic of the living tradition of the Christ’s Church. For two millenia the best Christian minds have been reflecting, praying, and debating this and other issues, guided by the promised Holy Spirit. One might be able to formulate other theories, but Catholics believe that the consensus of the Church in this matter is the correct one.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[WALTHER]

Portrait,

You write:

There are two matters of logic that I wish to put before you for your consideration Walther. Firstly, although our Lord was spared original sin because He was not generated after the manner of men, He would have nevertheless been “infected” by original sin as He assumed Mary’s flesh. Now if He really took Mary’s flesh as we both agree, then the Blessed Virgin herself needed to be preserved from original sin.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Portrait.

Are you saying that Christ would have been “infected” by original sin if He had entered the womb of a sinful Mary, and yet, contrariwise, that Mary could have, and, indeed, was, born of a sinful woman without the “infection” of original sin?

Why can Mary enter the womb of a sinner and be preserved from original sin, while Christ, by an imaginary logic, cannot?

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

What about Matt 21:25 “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men ?”

I think Christ has answered your question … with his

How does this verse, in any way, establish the sinlessness of John the Baptist?

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

Not at all. Your logic is flawed.

When God intervenes in any process … his presence makes it NEW & HOLY. Why would you need think that all of the lineage prior to his intervention would of necessity need to be altered ?

Give us examples from OT scriptures of God doing things to alter PAST HISTORY. Even after Calvary … Christ needed to go to the underworld [in realtime] to preach and save the OT souls who had been awaiting HIM / their salvation.

The question of why the entire lineage of Mary had not been preserved from sin was to illustrate the obvious question: why was Mary needed to be preserved from sin? Could Christ not have been born of a woman who had inherited Adam’s sin while remaining Himself free from original sin? Do you doubt the work, power, or ability of the Holy Spirit?

Please clarify this: “Christ needed to go to the underworld [in realtime] to preach and save the OT souls who had been awaiting HIM / their salvation.”

Are you saying that the Old Testament saints had not attained heaven until Christ “preached to them in the underworld” after His crucifixion and death?

WALTHER