How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[fix]

Where does it say that it’s necessary to accept Mary for salvation in the Bible???

Where does it say we each get to interpret the bible ourselves and claim it is the right interpretation even when there are millions of differing interpretations all contradicting each other?

Where does it say in the bible Christ founded a book and not a Church?

Where does it say anything not explicitly stated in the bible is wrong?

For a Catholic to be in full communion with His Church:

In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity…

LUMEN GENTIUM

How can one claim full communion when one denies a doctrine the Church says is necessary to assent to in a very serious way? To deny the authority of the Church to bind one in such a manner is to say one is above the Church. That is not being faithful, is it?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Where does it say we each get to interpret the bible ourselves and claim it is the right interpretation even when there are millions of differing interpretations all contradicting each other?

2 Tim.3:14-17
14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16
3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

fix:

Where does it say in the bible Christ founded a book and not a Church?

It doesn’t say one way or the other. Do you define “church” as a “body of believers”?

fix:

Where does it say anything not explicitly stated in the bible is wrong?

It doesn’t. That’s why we don’t know what happened with Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30.
Of course there’s stuff missing but everything we need to know is in the Bible.

fix:

How can one claim full communion when one denies a doctrine the Church says is necessary to assent to in a very serious way? To deny the authority of the Church to bind one in such a manner is to say one is above the Church. That is not being faithful, is it?

Good thing I’m not a Catholic then. The doctrines you have to hold to attain salvation are heretic and are referenced no where in the Bible (e.g. Mary being worshipped and honored).

 

[JoeyWarren]

Blue Serentity said: Good thing I’m not a Catholic then. The doctrines you have to hold to attain salvation are heretic and are referenced no where in the Bible (e.g. **Mary being worshipped **and honored).

Another misguided, mis-informed, and mis-understood unwitting unaware pawn of Satan…continuing to spread false information against his church.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Another misguided, mis-informed, and mis-understood unwitting unaware pawn of Satan…continuing to spread false information against his church.

I think many Protestants hold this belief because some Catholics hold the Marian doctrines necessary for salvation, when they are, in fact, not.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

I think many Protestants hold this belief because some Catholics hold the Marian doctrines necessary for salvation, when they are, in fact, not.

That’s what I get from the Catholics here, anyways. Only a handful have tried to graciously explain these to me.
I just don’t see why you have to accept the Marian doctrines in order to be saved, according to the CC? The Bible talks NOTHING of that. I’m just confused on why Catholics believe what they believe.

 

[rr1213]

Another misguided, mis-informed, and mis-understood unwitting unaware pawn of Satan…continuing to spread false information against his church.

You’re on a roll Joey…

 

[JoeyWarren]

You’re on a roll Joey…

That is the truth. You keep spouting falsehoods, then you are an unwitting pawn of the dark lord(I think Voldermort is his name)

 

[Blue_Serenity]

That is the truth. You keep spouting falsehoods, then you are an unwitting pawn of the dark lord(I think Voldermort is his name)

Are you a big Lord of the Rings fan? You sound like one of those characters.

 

[fix]

2 Tim.3:14-17
14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16
3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Your interpretation differs from mine? Who gets to decide which one is correct?

It doesn’t say one way or the other. Do you define “church” as a “body of believers”?

Really? Who compiled the bible and decided what writings would be included?

It doesn’t. That’s why we don’t know what happened with Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30.
Of course there’s stuff missing but everything we need to know is in the Bible.

Really? So, what does the bible say about IVF or cloning?

Good thing I’m not a Catholic then. The doctrines you have to hold to attain salvation are heretic and are referenced no where in the Bible (e.g. Mary being worshipped and honored).

The problem is you believe in the bible alone which is not scriptural, historical, logical, or defensible.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Your interpretation differs from mine? Who gets to decide which one is correct?

Really? Who compiled the bible and decided what writings would be included?

Really? So, what does the bible say about IVF or cloning?

The problem is you believe in the bible alone which is not scriptural, historical, logical, or defensible.

Are you seriously asking these questions?
1.) The Holy Spirit reigns supreme on Bible interpretations. If you’re not in “full communion” with God, then your interpretation is flawed. Plus, the Bible is so vague in some areas that multiple interpretations are allowed.
2.) The CC had a big part in composing the Bible. I am forever grateful to the ECFs.
3.) Where the heck did THAT come from?

I believe the Bible is the only infallible source we have for instruction, see 2 Tim.3:14-17. We use other sources, like the ECFs. We recognize the importance of the early CC, as it was what we believe today. But due to many corrupt popes and changes in the CC, we don’t acknowledge anything the CC does after 400 A.D…

 

[fix]

Are you seriously asking these questions?
1.) The Holy Spirit reigns supreme on Bible interpretations. If you’re not in “full communion” with God, then your interpretation is flawed. Plus, the Bible is so vague in some areas that multiple interpretations are allowed.
2.) The CC had a big part in composing the Bible. I am forever grateful to the ECFs.
3.) Where the heck did THAT come from?

I believe the Bible is the only infallible source we have for instruction, see 2 Tim.3:14-17. We use other sources, like the ECFs. We recognize the importance of the early CC, as it was what we believe today. But due to many corrupt popes and changes in the CC, we don’t acknowledge anything the CC does after 400 A.D…

I hate to break it you, but your position is one of moral relativism. You claim the bible is the sole authority, but to understand what it says you need some authority outside yourself. If you say it is the Holy Spirit, how do you know which interpretation *guided *by the HS is correct?

In short, your interpretation is your private opinion. It contradicts other people’s private opinion. There is no arbiter other than you.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

I hate to break it you, but your position is one of moral relativism. You claim the bible is the sole authority, but to understand what it says you need some authority outside yourself. If you say it is the Holy Spirit, how do you know which interpretation *guided *by the HS is correct?

In short, your interpretation is your private opinion. It contradicts other people’s private opinion. There is no arbiter other than you.

That’s where we turn to your ECFs and the history of the making of the Bible and why certain things are there and others aren’t.
Do you agree that the Holy Spirit influenced the writing of the Bible? Do you agree that the Holy Spirit also influenced those editing the Bible?

 

[JWilson]

“All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”.A baby is born in to sin like all the rest of us.Jesus died to redeem us of that sin.Can a baby sin?Very obviously not but he/she is born in to it.It says in the Bible that if you even think a sin through in your mind you have already done it.A baby is automatically included in saying that “all have sinned” because he/she is born of sinful parents.As far as whether the baby goes to heaven or hell is really not for us to decide is it?God is the Judge of that.We can all come up with different theories on that one but no where in the Bible does in mention what happens to babies.Stop debating an issue that is in God’s control.If He says ALL have sinned in His word then ALL have sinned.Believe it or don’t.

 

[sandusky]

fix:

I hate to break it you, but your position is one of moral relativism. You claim the bible is the sole authority, but to understand what it says you need some authority outside yourself. If you say it is the Holy Spirit, how do you know which interpretation guided by the HS is correct?

In short, your interpretation is your private opinion. It contradicts other people’s private opinion. There is no arbiter other than you.

A knife that cuts both ways.

You imply that one should have a final arbiter other than oneself; even in the Catholic case, the final arbiter is the individual Catholic, though he claims the CC.

You have decided that the CC is correct based upon your own private interpretation; therefore, according to your reasoning in which a protestant does the same thing, you have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct.

If a non-Catholic is in a sinking boat because of his private interpretation, then you are right alongside him.

Grab a lifejacket!

 

[apophasis]

JoeyWarren:

Jesus was not free of sin?

From what in my post do you assert I even questioned the sinlessness of Christ? Why did you quote me completely out of context? Was this not malice on your part?

The translation “Full of Grace” instead of “Highly Favored” or “freely beloved” is far more accurate to the Greek. The Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions bare the truth of this out. The translation “Full of Grace” was also approved by the early Christian fathers.

Sandusky has rightly pointed out that the only other place the word is used is in Eph. 1:6. And there Paul teaches that believers are made “objects of grace” (i.e., objects of divine favor) and has nothing to do with believers being “immaculately conceived.”

J.P. Green translates Lk. 1:28 as “Hail, thou favored one” in his Interlinear Greek N.T.

Vincent in his “Word Studies In the New Testament” writes:“Thou that art highly favored” (kecharitomene)", and goes on to state that the only other place the word is used in Scripture is Eph. 1:6, and boldly states that therefore the rendering “full of grace” in the Vulgate, Wyc., and Tynd. is “wrong.”

This Scan is from The Holy Bible From The Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Gorge M. Lamsa’s. It is a translation of the ancient Eastern Aramaic Version of the Scriptures called the “Peshitta” . As we can the see third century Aramaic supports “Full of Grace” as the correct meaning of the passage.

It’s the meaning your tradition pours into the phrase, “full of grace” that is the real issue. In neither Lk. 1:28 or Eph. 1:6 can the CONTEXT support the meaning your tradition attaches to it. In Lk. 1:28 Mary is the object of divine favor being chosen to give birth to the Messiah, and in Eph. 1:6 it is all believers (which would include Mary) who are recipients of divine “favor” through faith in Christ Jesus. In neither is the CONTEXT addressing, stating or asserting their “sinless conception.”

I think Sandusky’s response to Alegra-Fe bears repeating

Within the context of “tradition” all of what the CC does makes sense. It is when the scripture is brought to bear upon tradition that it falls apart.

Sandusky:

Only within your tradition is that true; remember, the scripture says that in Adam all sin, and all are sinners.

More accurately in Adam “all sinned,” hence, death spread to all men (Rom. 5:12). And congruently Paul teaches elsewhere that "in Adam ALL die " (1 Cor. 15:22). Mary (as all of us) was a descendant of Adam, and therefore, like all his descendants to this day, she too died, because she too sinned in Adam.

As Sandusky rightly points out, Scripture will not lend your tradition credence.

 

[sandusky]

JoeyWarren:

That’s your opinion.

And it is the opinion of many others as well.

JoeyWarren:

The Word Pictures in the New Testament, by the renowned Protestant Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, expounds Luke 1:28 as follows:

Yesterday, I linked you to this, and you called it Protestant Rubbish.

Which is it? Is it supportive of you, or is it rubbish?

Which makes my point; namely, I am not arguing about the phrase full of grace, but what that phrase means.

In your post 293, and elsewhere, you offer lexical definitions of charitoo, and all pertain to grace, but what is absent is any lexical definition concerning an immaculate conception, or sinlessness.

You are redefining grace to mean sinless. :tsktsk:

If that is the case in Lk 1:28, then it must also be the case in Eph 1:6.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

A knife that cuts both ways.

You imply that one should have a final arbiter other than oneself; even in the Catholic case, the final arbiter is the individual Catholic, though he claims the CC.

You have decided that the CC is correct based upon your own private interpretation; therefore, according to your reasoning in which a protestant does the same thing, you have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct.

If a non-Catholic is in a sinking boat because of his private interpretation, then you are right alongside him.

Grab a lifejacket!

Well put!

 

[apophasis]

Originally Posted by apophasis
And how would God remain just by simply “erasing” her of sin? Sins can never be simply “erased” away, but washed away by blood - His blood.

Mrs_Abbott’s response:
But God is God and capable of doing ANYTHING!!! Are you trying to limit God’s power???

Actually, God is not capable of doing “anything.” For instance, He is not capable of sinning, or exercising any action against His own Personal attributes, such as His veracity, holiness or righteousness. And certainly the great, “I AM,” is incapable of denying Himself.

I believe it’s possible for Mary to have sinned during her life but at the moment the angel appeared to her and asked her if she would bear Jesus in her womb and she said yes, then her sins were erased to that point. She very well could have sinned after she gave birth to Jesus but I believe that God protected her from sin while she was carrying His Son.

True Christianity is based not on human speculation, but divine revelation.

So for starters, what you suggest must be revealed by God, but is not. We are not allowed the liberty to state, “I think,” when it comes to the faith.

And beyond that, for God to do what you suggest above, i.e., arbitrarily, and temporarily “erase” Mary of all sins, He would have had to go against His own justice in respect to the offense of human sin.

Scripture reveals that sins are forgiven and men are cleansed of all unrighteousness by God based solely on the propitiatory sin-sacrifice of the Son. Propitiatory in that His substitutionary, blood sacrifice satisfied the offended holiness of God because of man’s sins. Not even the Almighty, without denying Himself, could simply “erase” sins at will - not even Mary’s (an idea based on the false notion that Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to the Messiah, the Son of God).

Christ’s blood sacrifice was the only way He could justly, and forever, deal with the whole sin issue. As Jesus Himself prayed to the Father concerning this possibility:Matt. 26:39 "And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."Obviously the answer was no. There was no other way possible for God to justly forgive, redeem and cleanse men of sin but through the blood of His cross.

Man’s sinful estate, experiential and being in Adam, is not a moral issue, or reality, God can turn on and turn off like a light bulb. Not in Mary or any of Adam’s descendants. God must judge sin (not simply erase it), and His Judgment Day on our sins was 2000 years ago when He imputed themto His beloved Son on the cross and judged Him in our stead - and He died. And since His bodily resurrection, three days later, the “Word of reconciliation,” through personal faith in Christ, has gone out to the world, preached to each generation, beginning with the Apostles.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Actually, God is not capable of doing “anything.” For instance, He is not capable of sinning, or exercising any action against His own Personal attributes, such as His veracity, holiness or righteousness. And certainly the great “I AM,” is incapable of denying Himself.True Christianity is based not on human speculation, but divine revelation.

So for starters, what you suggest must be revealed by God, and is not. We are not allowed the liberty to state, “I think” when it comes to the faith. And beyond that, for God to do what you suggest above, i.e., arbitrarily, and temporarily “erase” Mary of all sins, He would have had to go against His own justice in respect to the offense of human sin.

Scripture reveals that sins are forgiven and men are cleansed of all unrighteousness by God based solely on the propitiatory sin-sacrifice of the Son. Propitiatory in that His substitutionary, blood sacrifice satisfied the offended holiness of God because of man’s sins. Not even the Almighty, without denying Himself, could simply “erase” sins at will - not even Mary’s (a idea based on the false notion that Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to the Messiah, the Son of God). Christ’s blood sacrifice was the only way He could justly, and forever, deal with the whole sin issue. As Jesus Himself prayed to the Father concerning this possibility:Matt. 26:39 "And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."Obviously the answer was no. There was no other way possible for God to justly forgive, redeem and cleanse men of sin but through the blood of His cross.

Man’s sinful estate, experiential and being in Adam, is not a moral issue, or reality, God can turn on and turn off like a light bulb. Not in Mary or any of Adam’s descendants. God must judge sin (not simply erase it), and His Judgment Day on our sins was 2000 years ago when He imputed our sins to His beloved Son on the cross and judged Him in our stead - and He died. And since His bodily resurrection, three days later, the “Word of reconciliation,” through personal faith in Christ, has gone out to the world, preached to each generation, beginning with the Apostles.

:clapping: :yup:

 

[eliasaph99]

Actually, God is not capable of doing “anything.” For instance, He is not capable of sinning, or exercising any action against His own Personal attributes, such as His veracity, holiness or righteousness. And certainly the great, “I AM,” is incapable of denying Himself.True Christianity is based not on human speculation, but divine revelation.

So for starters, what you suggest must be revealed by God, but is not. We are not allowed the liberty to state, “I think,” when it comes to the faith.

And beyond that, for God to do what you suggest above, i.e., arbitrarily, and temporarily “erase” Mary of all sins, He would have had to go against His own justice in respect to the offense of human sin.

Scripture reveals that sins are forgiven and men are cleansed of all unrighteousness by God based solely on the propitiatory sin-sacrifice of the Son. Propitiatory in that His substitutionary, blood sacrifice satisfied the offended holiness of God because of man’s sins. Not even the Almighty, without denying Himself, could simply “erase” sins at will - not even Mary’s (an idea based on the false notion that Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to the Messiah, the Son of God).

Christ’s blood sacrifice was the only way He could justly, and forever, deal with the whole sin issue. As Jesus Himself prayed to the Father concerning this possibility:Matt. 26:39 "And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."Obviously the answer was no. There was no other way possible for God to justly forgive, redeem and cleanse men of sin but through the blood of His cross.

Man’s sinful estate, experiential and being in Adam, is not a moral issue, or reality, God can turn on and turn off like a light bulb. Not in Mary or any of Adam’s descendants. God must judge sin (not simply erase it), and His Judgment Day on our sins was 2000 years ago when He imputed themto His beloved Son on the cross and judged Him in our stead - and He died. And since His bodily resurrection, three days later, the “Word of reconciliation,” through personal faith in Christ, has gone out to the world, preached to each generation, beginning with the Apostles.

Amazing. All this time I was looking for God in Church and the Bible and all I really had to do was go to Disneyworld and find the animatronic God. Thanks for clearing that up.

Finally I know that it’s not God in charge, because he’s all trussed up by a bunch of liliputian restraints and could not have done anything any different than what has been done, and can’t change what will happen. It’s the restraints that are really in charge!

In your view and it’s logical extension, the statement that “God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son” has become “God so loved the world that he was forced by the exterior constraints placed upon Him to sacrifice His Son. He had no choice in the matter, luckily for us. Phew! Glad God is all trussed up!”

What an impoverished view of the Lord!