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

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Hello again.

As the mother of the sinless Christ, Mary was incontestably a very unique figure in the Gospel history, of that fact not even the most ultra-Protestant would demur. This granted, it is a perfectly reasonable deduction that the Blessed Virgin was, by a singular Divine intervention, “born of a sinful woman without the infection of original sin”. Indeed, this is the whole raison d’etre for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; if our Lord was to really assume human flesh and become incarnate, as we all surely affirm that He did, then of necessity He had to be born in accordance with the laws of nature. Now since Mary was a child of Adam, she herself would need to be redeemed, antecedent to the Incarnation, otherwise yes Christ would have been contaminated by her sin. That appears to me to be an ineluctable conclusion. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, Jesus was “holy, harmless, unstained, separate from sinners…” (Heb. 7:26 emphasis mine); could He have remained so had He been born of a woman who was a member of Adam’s fallen race?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[brb2]

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

The context of question suggests there was an actual answer Christ was prepared to give … if his audience had accepted his question and offered their answer.

And, we know John was not baptized by men … so voila !! John was baptized by Christ, in the Womb … just as Mary. And yes, we may assume that Both were sinless.

Make the contra case, if you can …

 

[brb2]

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?

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.”

Yes he could of … as we said earlier, whatever God touches … he can heal, make holy.
But, if you could create your mother from scratch … would you not make her perfect from Day 1 ? Since Christ wanted The Baptist w/o sin … it follows that even moreso he would desire his Mother … FULL OF GRACE.

Yes, it appears that Christ visited Moses & Elijah before his Cross passion. The other OT saints he visited and justified while he was 3 days in the earth.

 

[WALTHER]

Dear Walther,

Hello again.

As the mother of the sinless Christ, Mary was incontestably a very unique figure in the Gospel history, of that fact not even the most ultra-Protestant would demur. This granted, it is a perfectly reasonable deduction that the Blessed Virgin was, by a singular Divine intervention, “born of a sinful woman without the infection of original sin”. Indeed, this is the whole raison d’etre for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; if our Lord was to really assume human flesh and become incarnate, as we all surely affirm that He did, then of necessity He had to be born in accordance with the laws of nature. Now since Mary was a child of Adam, she herself would need to be redeemed, antecedent to the Incarnation, otherwise yes Christ would have been contaminated by her sin. That appears to me to be an ineluctable conclusion. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, Jesus was “holy, harmless, unstained, separate from sinners…” (Heb. 7:26 emphasis mine); could He have remained so had He been born of a woman who was a member of Adam’s fallen race?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Firstly, your verse does not support the notion that Mary was sinless, but only that Christ was sinless.

Secondly, you have not answered why the Holy Spirit can preserve Mary from her sinful womb and not Christ.

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

The context of question suggests there was an actual answer Christ was prepared to give … if his audience had accepted his question and offered their answer.

And, we know John was not baptized by men … so voila !! John was baptized by Christ, in the Womb … just as Mary. And yes, we may assume that Both were sinless.

Make the contra case, if you can …

Firstly, your circularity is making me rather dizzy, brb2.
You assume that Mary was baptized by Christ in her mother’s womb and was sinless.
You assume that John was baptized by Christ in his mother’s womb and was sinless.
Then you assert your “victory” by restating your assumptions.:hypno:

Secondly, the verse is not talking about the baptism that John received, but rather that baptism which John administered. Therefore, your conclusion is wholly invalidated by your misunderstanding of the text.

Thirdly, even if we were to grant that the baptism being spoken of in the text was one John received in the womb, yet this still would in no way support the idea of John’s sinlessness. Baptism does not offer “sinless perfection”, but life and salvation.

WALTHER

 

[WALTHER]

Yes he could of … as we said earlier, whatever God touches … he can heal, make holy.
But, if you could create your mother from scratch … would you not make her perfect from Day 1 ? Since Christ wanted The Baptist w/o sin … it follows that even moreso he would desire his Mother … FULL OF GRACE.

Yes, it appears that Christ visited Moses & Elijah before his Cross passion. The other OT saints he visited and justified while he was 3 days in the earth.

You may dabble in speculation all you wish. The fact of the matter is, Scripture states that Christ was born of a woman, not a sinless woman, but a woman born of Adam, who trusted in the Lord for her salvation from the jaws of sin, death, and hell. Any argument to the contrary is nothing, indeed, but* idle speculation.*

So the third person of the Trinity can preserve from a sinful womb whomsoever he pleases, that is, Mary, John the Baptist, and perhaps all of the Old Testament Prophets (as you imagine), but He cannot preserve the second person of the Trinity from the a sinful womb?

Why is it that those who esteem logic so greatly are the same ones who use it so poorly?

Are you talking about Christ’s transfiguration? Do you believe that it was only then that Moses and Elijah were brought to heaven? How do you justify this in light of the surrounding text?

WALTHER

 

[brb2]

You assume that John was baptized by Christ in his mother’s womb and was sinless.
Then you assert your “victory” by restating your assumptions.:hypno:

Secondly, the verse is not talking about the baptism that John received, but rather that baptism which John administered. Therefore, your conclusion is wholly invalidated by your misunderstanding of the text.

Hey silly … get a grip.

Firstly, The Baptist was “filled with the H.S. from the womb” - per scriptures.
What is the normative means of receiving the H.S. ? Might it be via Baptism ? Don’t you believe [as Catholics] that man performs the Sacrament with H20… while Christ Infuses his H.S. within ? The only way John could of obtained H.S. in the womb … is from Baptism with H.S. by Christ, while his Mom Eliz … provided the placental H20 …

Secondly, in order for John to understand the necessity for Baptism … he would had to of EXPERIENCED IT. Who taught him to perform Baptisms … men or God ?

Voila -----

 

[WALTHER]

Hey silly … get a grip.

Firstly, The Baptist was “filled with the H.S. from the womb” - per scriptures.
What is the normative means of receiving the H.S. ? Might it be via Baptism ? Don’t you believe [as Catholics] that man performs the Sacrament with H20… while Christ Infuses his H.S. within ? The only way John could of obtained H.S. in the womb … is from Baptism with H.S. by Christ, while his Mom Eliz … provided the placental H20 …

Secondly, in order for John to understand the necessity for Baptism … he would had to of EXPERIENCED IT. Who taught him to perform Baptisms … men or God ?

Voila -----

Baptism is, indeed, the normative means for infants to receive the Holy Spirit. However, the case of John the Baptist is obviously not normative.

In order for John to understand the necessity of Baptism requires that he first experienced it? Does one need to first experience a thing in order to understand its necessity? If so, are you willing to concede that Mary must have first experienced being saved from her sin through faith in Christ before she could understand its necessity? And how could she understand sin unless she first experienced it?

WALTHER

 

[brb2]

So the third person of the Trinity can preserve from a sinful womb whomsoever he pleases, that is, Mary, John the Baptist, and perhaps all of the Old Testament Prophets (as you imagine), but He cannot preserve the second person of the Trinity from the a sinful womb?

WALTHER

Christ is ONE with the H.S. Three Persons in ONE …

And, no … Christ doesn’t need to preserve HIMSELF. But, regarding other humans,etc, He only needs to speak the word & everything he desires is made Holy.

Who created Mary anyways ? Who implanted the soul within her ? Can you tell God how he must make woman ? Don’t make mistake of putting God in a Box.

 

[WALTHER]

Christ is ONE with the H.S. Three Persons in ONE …

And, no … Christ doesn’t need to preserve HIMSELF. But, regarding other humans,etc, He only needs to speak the word & everything he desires is made Holy.

Who created Mary anyways ? Who implanted the soul within her ? Can you tell God how he must make woman ? Don’t make mistake of putting God in a Box.

Christ is ONE with the H.S.

Are you inferring that I have in some way denied the essence of the Trinity? Did I not speak of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity? Did I not speak of Christ as the second person of the Trinity? Do these terms, which are standard terms when speaking of the Trinity, not necessitate unity?

Answer the question: why can God create a sinless man from a sinful womb but not a sinless God-man from a sinful womb?

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

Re. your first point, If you read my remarks again you will observe that I have stated why God preserved the Blessed Virgin from the stigma of original sin. In His infinite wisdom God decided that our Lord would enter this world via an earthly woman, “in accordance with the ordinary laws of nature”. The Hebrews text does indeed declare the sinlessness of Christ, which is why it is inconceivable that there should be a union between He who was holy and sinless with one who was unholy and sinful, assuming of course there was no Immaculate Conception.

Re. your second point, It is not really a matter of what God can or cannot do but rather what He in His boundless wisdom so decides to do. Who are we to dictate to the Almighty how He should act; “who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counsellor?” As I said previously, we must be careful that we do not end up chasing and falling over our own hypothetical theories. In the final analysis it is what the Church teaches that is of consequence not our own private opinions or interpretations, for the Church (not the Bible) is “the pillar and ground of truth”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[brb2]

Answer the question: why can God create a sinless man from a sinful womb but not a sinless God-man from a sinful womb?*

WALTHER

Because he can do so in the first case,[John & Mary]
But, in the second … the God-man is Unified with the Father, w/o sin, and w/o need of Baptism — although he gave consent to desire/obtain it from John — in order to fulfill scriptures.

This proves that while John was Baptized in Womb … Christ was not. Christ had no need for it, his only Baptism was John’s H20 bath, while God himself sent the H.S. down upon Christ.