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

[sandusky]

AlegreFe:

Mary’s sinlessness IS in Scripture. We’ve just pointed that out to you.

It is not; that is why it was necessary for the Church to put forth such dogmas. If it were clearly stated in scripture, there would be no need for the Marian dogmas and the controversy surrounding them.

AlegreFe:

You just don’t want to see it for fear of your “salvation” being in danger if you dare say that Mary is sinless.

:whacky:

AlegreFe:

Don’t take the “all” in a literal sense. Mary’s sinlessness IS part of Sacred Scripture.

Again, in Rom 3:23, and 5:12, sinned in the Greek is an historical (constative, complexive, narrative) time-frame. IOW, those two verses state an historical fact; namely, in God’s mind, when Adam sinned in the garden, all sinned, ie., EVERYONE ever conceived in the womb sinned in Adam (cf Ps 51:5; Rom 3:23; 5:12). The only stated exception to that is Christ.

Was Mary conceived in the womb? Yes, she was.

AlegreFe:

You’re half backwards on this one!

Not one time has any Catholic said that they believe what the Catholic Church says because she agrees with our private interpretation. We cannot have private interpretations. That’s Scriptural!

There is no verse in scripture that prohibits private interpretations of scripture.

AlegreFe:

If I don’t agree with something the Catholic Church teaches (which is not so, but for sake of conversation) I would still have to obey the Catholic Church. I then would take it upon myself to study why the Catholic Church teaches a certain doctrine. If I still don’t understand, it’s okay, as long as I obey and have Faith in the Catholic Church as I do in Jesus Christ. Since I know that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and that Jesus built His Church on Peter the Rock, then I am to Trust in Jesus Christ and Believe everything that Jesus has said and taught!

Then how is it that you have come to be in agreement with the church if not by your own private interpretation (private understanding, or whatever private you want to call it) that what the church is teaching is true?

AlegreFe:

The phrase is a Perfect passive participle meaning “one who has been perfected in grace” or “one who has been made full of grace.” Mary has received her grace from God who went ahead in time and got the grace from Christ’s Passion and death on the cross. It is a past action that was done to her. She did not attain the grace by her own powers as she has no power to do so, but God did it for her because it was fitting.

This is the common Catholic argument: Because it is in the perfect tense, it means it is perfect grace.

The Greek perfect tense means that the grace has a beginning, and continues. Kecharitōmene literally means the one being graced or favored continually. It carries neither the meaning of an immaculate conception, nor the meaning of sinlessness. To say that is does is pie-in-the-sky.

The basic meaning of charitoō (which is used in Lk 1:28 as kecharitōmene and in Eph 1:6 as echaritōsen is GRACE, or FAVOR only.

AlegreFe:

But being perfected or made full of grace DOES mean to be sinless.

Only in your world, Sandy.

AlegreFe:

Not so. The Greek words used for “grace” in either one of those verses are different words. They are words that have different parts of speech too. Besides, a phrase is used in Luke which is “full of grace” where only one word, “grace” is used in Ephesians. The word in Ephesians is a noun where the phrase from Luke is a verb and to be more precise it’s a perfect passive participle.
Do these two words look the same to you?
• cavritoß (used in Ephesians)
• kecaritwmevnh (used in Luke)

The phrase, which is the “name” given to Mary by God is never used in Scripture other than for Mary in Luke 1:28. You can search the whole bible no matter what version, and you won’t find it anywhere but in Luke 1:28 to describe what happened to Mary by God.

You are wrong, Sandy.

The basic meaning of charitoō (which is used in Lk 1:28 as kecharitōmene and in Eph 1:6 as echaritōsen is GRACE, or FAVOR.

The only two places charitoō is used are Lk 1:28, and Eph 1:6.

Note the bold, underlined portion of each word above.

 

[mrs_abbott]

mrs abbott is not an Authority of the Catholic Church. Neither am I but at least I obey the Catholic Church.

You have got some nerve! Did I say that I didn’t obey the Catholic Church? I have a lot of disagreements but I never said I didn’t obey.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The Marian doctrines are Dogmas of the Faith! We are to obey everything that the Church teaches. Who told you that you are exempt of this? Do you put yourself above the Catholic Church? Well you could put yourself exempt of any teachings of the Church; that just means that you are a “cafeteria” Catholic, a “catholic” in name only. I’m sure you don’t consider yourself that kind of Catholic though. I’m sure you are very devout in your Catholic faith and therefore make sure that you hold to all the teachings of the Church right?

The pastor of my parish told this to me, thank you very much! I am a revert slowly grasping at doctrines and dogmas of the CC that I overlooked when I left.
I would hardly say that I put myself above the CC. That would be blasphemous.
I would hardly say that I’m devout either. I’m just the average joe trying to learn and understand WHY I am Catholic, as opposed to any other denomination.
I’m glad my priest doens’t treat me the way you do or I would have hit the door a long time ago.

 

[eliasaph99]

Actually it was wholly God’s choice to send the Son, not man’s. And the Son willinging complied. Desperate matters (the destruction of mankind) called for a desperate (but loving) action (the blood sacrifice of the Son) on the part of God.1John 4:9-10 “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation (complete satisfaction for the offended holiness of God) for our sins” (emphasis mine).Nope, I see no forcing of God’s hand by man here. Only God knew what it would take to redeem mankind and reconcile men to Himself because of sin. And this was demonstrated out in history and manifested publicly at the cross of Christ.

There was no other way but to send the Son. And so to teach or imply any other way (such as works) is nothing less than blasphemy.

I think that you should take what you’ve written here and put it by what you wrote earlier and compare the two statements. They are almost complete opposites.

Here you claim that God chose, but earlier you ranted about how God had to do things this way and that way. You repeatedly made the point that God couldn’t not do it, He was bound to do so. Here you are saying that God made a loving decision to send His Son.

So which is it?

I love your attempt at the end to change the discussion. It is almost quaint, it’s so transparent.

 

[eliasaph99]

The pastor of my parish told this to me, thank you very much! I am a revert slowly grasping at doctrines and dogmas of the CC that I overlooked when I left.
I would hardly say that I put myself above the CC. That would be blasphemous.
I would hardly say that I’m devout either. I’m just the average joe trying to learn and understand WHY I am Catholic, as opposed to any other denomination.
I’m glad my priest doens’t treat me the way you do or I would have hit the door a long time ago.

The most important reason to be Catholic is because that is where the Truth of Christ is, and nowhere else. Anything else only contains shadows of the reality that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church is the only Church on Earth guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ promised that through the Spirit the Church would be led into all Truth.

This is why it is necessary to believe all that the Church teaches. From time to time, it is of course, permissible to intellectually struggle with a doctrine or dogma of the Faith. However, it is also important to obstinately continue to believe in spite of our doubt and to educate ourselves on why the Church teaches said dogma. Why was it deemed to be true? At what council (if any)? In answer to what challenge (if any)?

I do think that some of those who have replied to you need to exercise a little more charity in their word choice, but the overall content is true.

To be in complete denial of a dogma of the Church is to be in danger of Mortal Sin. According to other teachings of the Church, when one participates in the Mass and Holy Communion, in addition to the most important aspect, the reception of Christ in the Flesh, one is also making a public pronouncement that they accept and agree with all that the official teaching authority of the Church proclaims as true. This applies to both the dogmas and the doctrines. Dogmas are infallibly defined, but doctrines are not. However, they still must be assented to.

I charitably suggest to you that if you are having trouble with this doctrine, you research it. Look up the writings of the Saints and Papal Encyclicals which apply. Find out why the Church teaches it and you’ll be convinced that the Church should teach it and that it is true.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But the question is not about original sin. “All have sinned” is not the same as “all are stained by sin” or “all inherit a fallen nature because of sin”. No, “all have sinned” is a statement that all have committed acts of sin. And I ask, what acts of sin has a stillborn baby committed?

Not necessarily. St. Paul was a first-century Jewish Christian, not a fifth-century disciple of St. Augustine. So he can’t be read as though he was influenced by St. Augustine. Not least because St. Augustine was not a first-century Jew - unlike St. Paul.​

IOW, one can’t read St. Paul as though he must have meant those things, and those only, that his later interpreters find in him; he needs to be read historically, not (or not in the first instance) dogmatically.

Roses have pistils, anthers, & stamens, and odours. The seeds they grown from, lack the odour - and stamens. Yet the rose is genuinely continuous with the things from which it grew, even though it has things later that it lacked at first. So it is with dogmas, and the Biblical basis for them: there is genuine genetic continuity even though there is also great difference between the seeds of the dogma, and its later growth.

Which is why it is possible to read St. Paul historically, just like any other author of his time, without requiring him to say all & only what later tradition has found in him, & without requiring him to mean what St. Augustine (say) found in him; while finding later writers (such as Augustine), or St. Thomas, or whoever, to be in continuity with him in this way or that. Tradition can be influenced by & continuous with him, without his having to say what Tradition says.

So - to understand St. Paul meant by those words “all have sinned”:

1. See the argument he is making in Romans 3, in which he uses them. We don’t expect single sentences or phrases from Papal or other speeches to make perfect sense out of context - why do we treat the Biblical authors in this piecemeal way ? “Proof-texting” reduces the Bible to something like automatic writing, as though Paul (say) composed Romans not as a rational being but as though he were a medium in a trance. That notion of inspiration is suitable for the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, but it’s not the sort of inspiration found in the Bible.
2. See where the texts he is quoting come from - I think they are all from the Psalms. Look at the context, in case it helps to show why he choose those texts in particular.
3. Look at what he is doing in the first eight chapters of Romans. They form a complete argument (like the first nine chapters of Hebrews). In 1, he made this point against the Gentiles; in 2, he showed that his fellow-Jews were in no more favourable position. Chapter 3 is a recap & development in detail of just why they are alienated from God - and of what God has done in return: He has provided Jesus Christ to be the expiation for our sins. His point here in chapter three is the universal alienation of mankind from God. We don’t get to Adam, & to Christ Who has restored what Adam lost, until chapter 5 - St. Paul can’t be criticised for developing his argument as he saw fit, rather than as we might.
4. Sin is not a single act - it is state of life: men are sinners by virtue of being men at all. A sinner is simply someone who is not “at one” with God. He isn’t concerned with listing all possible exceptions to what his quotation says - the Psalmist was not talking about stillborn babies, & St. Paul’s point, to express which he quotes the Psalmist, is not affected by questions about them either: for his point is that neither Gentiles & Jews “have a prayer” before God - *both sets of men, & thus all men *(because all men belong to one or other group), “have come short of the glory of God”. That too is what a sinner is - one who “comes short” of what he ought not: he is probably thinking of one of the Hebrew words for “to sin”. (Which is another reason to take him in his own context)

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Not necessarily. St. Paul was a first-century Jewish Christian, not a fifth-century disciple of St. Augustine. So he can’t be read as though he was influenced by St. Augustine. Not least because St. Augustine was not a first-century Jew - unlike St. Paul.​

IOW, one can’t read St. Paul as though he must have meant those things, and those only, that his later interpreters find in him; he needs to be read historically, not (or not in the first instance) dogmatically.

Roses have pistils, anthers, & stamens, and odours. The seeds they grown from, lack the odour - and stamens. Yet the rose is genuinely continuous with the things from which it grew, even though it has things later that it lacked at first. So it is with dogmas, and the Biblical basis for them: there is genuine genetic continuity even though there is also great difference between the seeds of the dogma, and its later growth.

Which is why it is possible to read St. Paul historically, just like any other author of his time, without requiring him to say all & only what later tradition has found in him, & without requiring him to mean what St. Augustine (say) found in him; while finding later writers (such as Augustine), or St. Thomas, or whoever, to be in continuity with him in this way or that. Tradition can be influenced by & continuous with him, without his having to say what Tradition says.

So - to understand St. Paul meant by those words “all have sinned”:

1. See the argument he is making in Romans 3, in which he uses them. We don’t expect single sentences or phrases from Papal or other speeches to make perfect sense out of context - why do we treat the Biblical authors in this piecemeal way ? “Proof-texting” reduces the Bible to something like automatic writing, as though Paul (say) composed Romans not as a rational being but as though he were a medium in a trance. That notion of inspiration is suitable for the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, but it’s not the sort of inspiration found in the Bible.
2. See where the texts he is quoting come from - I think they are all from the Psalms. Look at the context, in case it helps to show why he choose those texts in particular.
3. Look at what he is doing in the first eight chapters of Romans. They form a complete argument (like the first nine chapters of Hebrews). In 1, he made this point against the Gentiles; in 2, he showed that his fellow-Jews were in no more favourable position. Chapter 3 is a recap & development in detail of just why they are alienated from God - and of what God has done in return: He has provided Jesus Christ to be the expiation for our sins. His point here in chapter three is the universal alienation of mankind from God. We don’t get to Adam, & to Christ Who has restored what Adam lost, until chapter 5 - St. Paul can’t be criticised for developing his argument as he saw fit, rather than as we might.
4. Sin is not a single act - it is state of life: men are sinners by virtue of being men at all. A sinner is simply someone who is not “at one” with God. He isn’t concerned with listing all possible exceptions to what his quotation says - the Psalmist was not talking about stillborn babies, & St. Paul’s point, to express which he quotes the Psalmist, is not affected by questions about them either: for his point is that neither Gentiles & Jews “have a prayer” before God - *both sets of men, & thus all men *(because all men belong to one or other group), “have come short of the glory of God”. That too is what a sinner is - one who “comes short” of what he ought not: he is probably thinking of one of the Hebrew words for “to sin”. (Which is another reason to take him in his own context)

Hi,

Great points of which I totally understand because I have just started studying Romans.

 

[apophasis]

I think that you should take what you’ve written here and put it by what you wrote earlier and compare the two statements. They are almost complete opposites.

Here you claim that God chose, but earlier you ranted about how God had to do things this way and that way. You repeatedly made the point that God couldn’t not do it, He was bound to do so.

I said no such thing. You need to reread my former post but devoid of the emotions of your own prejudices.

Here you are saying that God made a loving decision to send His Son.

Absolutely. And I said nothing contrary to this in my former post.

What you didn’t like was my statement that in respect to sin and redemption there was no other way possible but through the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of the Son. This I supported by Christ’s prayer to the Father in Matt. 26:39.

You RCs are now being taught by your apologists that God just happen to choose redemption through the Son’s sacrifice, but being God, He could have chosen any other method to his liking. Like maybe as Mrs_Abbot suggested, that He just erase sin. Sorry, not according to Matt. 26:39.

What you utterly fail to understand is the depth of sin (of any kind) in light of and in contrast to the infinite holiness and justice of God.

It is this truth that the Reformers exhumed; and the profound, divine wisdom of the cross once again shown brightly; and as a result salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone was again established as in the first century by the Apostles, only now with even greater conviction - as some would pay with their lives.

 

[AlegreFe]

Mary was saved by grace, and certainly the Scriptures say nothing bad about her. But men say many false things about her, and that’s certainly disrespectful.

You’re absolutely right about that. I appreciate your respect.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I charitably suggest to you that if you are having trouble with this doctrine, you research it. Look up the writings of the Saints and Papal Encyclicals which apply. Find out why the Church teaches it and you’ll be convinced that the Church should teach it and that it is true.

That’s what I’ve been doing. It’s one of the few reasons I stick around here for.
I listen to the opinions of folks here and then check them with credible sources of the CC, whether it be priests or books or sites or whatever.
Since I’ve reverted back, I’m just taking everything with a grain of salt. This time, I want to know what I believe is the Truth.

 

[AlegreFe]

There is no verse in scripture that prohibits private interpretations of scripture.

20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy
of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation
2 Pet 1:20

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah
the prophet and said, “Do you understand
what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone
instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in
and sit with him.
Acts 8:30-31

sandusky:

Then how is it that you have come to be in agreement with the church if not by your own private interpretation (private understanding, or whatever private you want to call it) that what the church is teaching is true?

I believe because it is Jesus Christ who taught and preached. And it is Jesus Christ who built His Church on Peter the Rock. God did give us an intellect so as to learn and reach the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

My intellect, however, is not what is driving me to believe. My faith (verb) is driving me to believe. And that “faith” is a gift from God. The “be all” and “end all” that makes me Catholic is not because I “agree” with the Church. It is because I have Faith in Jesus Christ. I have faith in everything that Jesus has taught and not just have faith in Him as to “accept Jesus as my Lord & Savior” as that is not enough. I have faith because God gave it to me as a gift.

My faith will not increase according to my intellect. I cannot force faith with intellect. It takes my free will to want faith and it takes for God to give me that faith. I am so grateful to God for giving me His gift of faith. God chose me, I have no idea why He would chose me, to have faith and therefore gave it to me. For those who are weak in their faith, just pray and ask God for it. But you have to be open and willing to accept the gift. You cannot rely on your intellect or trying to understand why certain doctrines exist, in order that your faith increase. No matter how hard you try to understand or agree with certain doctrines, it will not increase your faith.

We are to believe everything that Jesus has taught and therefore believe everything that the Church has taught whether I agree or not; which I don’t have any disagreements anyway. When a person disagrees on one of the Doctrines or Dogmas, they still have to BELIEVE and OBEY. Faith is just that, blind Faith. Just as Jesus said, blessed are those who believe and have not seen. I don’t require “proof” of the object of my faith. I just believe.

sandusky:

The only two places charitoō is used are Lk 1:28, and Eph 1:6.
Note the bold, underlined portion of each word above.

You must need glasses or something because charitoō is not the same word as kecharitōmene. It might have the same root word but that doesn’t mean that it’s the same word or that it has the same part of speech, or that it has the same exact meaning. You can say that I am wrong all you want but that doesn’t make you right.

 

[AlegreFe]

AlegreFe:

mrs abbott is not an Authority of the Catholic Church. Neither am I but at least I obey the Catholic Church.

You have got some nerve! Did I say that I didn’t obey the Catholic Church? I have a lot of disagreements but I never said I didn’t obey.

From a lot of your posts on the Blessed Virgin Mary I would conclude that you do not. But if you do obey then I apologize for my comment. I just said that in conclusion of a lot of your posts that attack us on our beliefs in the Virgin Mary.

But I guess I should’ve added that we have to still believe everything that the Church teaches whether we agree or not. And it seems to me that you do not believe. Perhaps you want to believe and that is a start. Have you prayed to God and asked Him to give you the Faith that you need in order to believe everything that His Church teaches?

I certainly will pray for you.

 

[AlegreFe]

I’m glad my priest doens’t treat me the way you do or I would have hit the door a long time ago.

I haven’t “treated” you in a mean way. I was just being honest. I don’t mince anything and perhaps I should watch myself more but that doesn’t mean that my intention was evil. I am only pointing out the truth to you as I see it from your many “attacking” posts on our Catholic faith.

And from that last statement saying that you would leave the Church if anyone “treated” you in a certain way, that just goes to show that your faith is not strong at all.

No matter how someone treated me in a Parish, I would never leave the Catholic Church. That would just mean that I never had faith to begin with.

Don’t let your emotions get the better of you and take what faith you do have. I know you have faith or you would not have come back. But you seem to let your anger take over your faith. I certainly hope that you would never leave the Catholic Church because someone doesn’t treat you right. I’m not saying that anyone should treat you in a rude way. And if you feel that I have treated you rudely, then I apologize.

You are in my prayers.

 

[apophasis]

1. Look at what he is doing in the first eight chapters of Romans. They form a complete argument (like the first nine chapters of Hebrews). In 1, he made this point against the Gentiles; in 2, he showed that his fellow-Jews were in no more favourable position. Chapter 3 is a recap & development in detail of just why they are alienated from God - and of what God has done in return: He has provided Jesus Christ to be the expiation for our sins. His point here in chapter three is the universal alienation of mankind from God. We don’t get to Adam, & to Christ Who has restored what Adam lost, until chapter 5 - St. Paul can’t be criticised for developing his argument as he saw fit, rather than as we might.

I agree with you that Paul’s statement, “for all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) must be understood in its whole context (the first eight chapters of Romans), but I think we get great theological insight into what that context is in that one verse. Especially in the tenses used. “All sinned” is in the past tense (some translations don’t properly reflect this), while “are falling short” is stated in the present tense. IOW, when Adam had ONCE sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did ALL HIS RACE (Jew and Gentile) by him and after him.

Sin is a one time occurrence in that respect. From that time onward, all men were made “sinners” in Adam:“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).The OP finds his answer regarding the “stillborn” in Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 in that “in Adam” all (humanity) sinned (past tense) and so death spread to all men. Hence, infants die before actually sinning being “in Adam.”

In Rom. 3:10-18 Paul vividly demonstrates how all “are falling short of the glory of God,” but he doesn’t stop there, but ends with:"…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).Christ didn’t just restore what Adam lost (a state of innocence) for those who put their faith in Him, but all who personally trust/believe in Him are “made righteous” in Him. Which is what Paul means by “being justified as a gift.” All who have truly believed in Christ are “made righteous” (not infused righteousness) in Him (Rom. 5:19). Christ Himself being another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). Not just a “living soul,” but a “life giving spirit.”

 

[Nita]

From Post #29:

None of the scriptures taken to prove that all have sinned ever qualify what they mean by “all” or “none”. All of the passages are quite absolute.

I disagree that ALL of the passages are absolute and that the use of “all” or “none” is never qualified.

14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 14:3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. 14:4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD?
(Verse 4 qualifies the use of “all” and “none” and “not one” used in verse 3)

*53:2 God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any that are wise, that seek after God. 53:3 They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one. 53:4 Have those who work evil no understanding, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God? *
(Again, verse 4 qualifies the meaning of “all” and “none” and “not one” used in verse 3)

And, once one accepts that qualification, it also gives definition to the term “sons of men” as it is often used in Scripture. It means those who do not follow God, are not His people; and those who are evildoers.

Nita

 

[eliasaph99]

I said no such thing. You need to reread my former post but devoid of the emotions of your own prejudices.Absolutely. And I said nothing contrary to this in my former post.

What you didn’t like was my statement that in respect to sin and redemption there was no other way possible but through the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of the Son. This I supported by Christ’s prayer to the Father in Matt. 26:39.

You RCs are now being taught by your apologists that God just happen to choose redemption through the Son’s sacrifice, but being God, He could have chosen any other method to his liking. Like maybe as Mrs_Abbot suggested, that He just erase sin. Sorry, not according to Matt. 26:39.

What you utterly fail to understand is the depth of sin (of any kind) in light of and in contrast to the infinite holiness and justice of God.

It is this truth that the Reformers exhumed; and the profound, divine wisdom of the cross once again shown brightly; and as a result salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone was again established as in the first century by the Apostles, only now with even greater conviction - as some would pay with their lives.

The damage which the Reformers did to Christianity is still being tallied. Because of their actions, today Europe can hardly be said to be Christian at all and, in the United States, which is an overwhelmingly Christian culture, abortion is legal. But a discussion down this road would be completely off topic.

Also, your last paragraph is heretical and anti-historical. All but one of the Apostles was martyred and Christians were persecuted and put to death for much of the first 4 centuries of the Church.

To get back to refuting what you have said, let me say that you’re right, you didn’t explicitly say that God was constrained to send Christ. However, you did say that God had to act in certain ways. You claimed that He had no choice in judging sin and in acting in other ways. In fact, you began your post with a list of things which God is incapable of doing. This is baloney.

God is not incapable of doing these actions. However, God will not do them. This is because of His Character - because of the Holy Perfection of His Attributes. This is a totally different view. God has freedom and free will. He can act however He wishes. He is not constrained to act in certain ways. He acts in those ways because He is Perfect.

Please note the difference in our approaches. It is significant and profound. The way you have described God, you have turned Him into a constrained animatron who can only do what is in His programming. This is false.

God can do anything. But there are some things He will not do because of His Character.

As I wrote, you didn’t explicitly state what I wrote, but by logical extension, you said exactly that. If your view of God is correct, then God didn’t make a decision to send His Son, He had no choice but to do it. It is this which is incorrect.

Gods actions are made by His choice. And they are always Perfect because His Attributes are Perfect.

 

[eliasaph99]

What you didn’t like was my statement that in respect to sin and redemption there was no other way possible but through the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of the Son. This I supported by Christ’s prayer to the Father in Matt. 26:39.

You RCs are now being taught by your apologists that God just happen to choose redemption through the Son’s sacrifice, but being God, He could have chosen any other method to his liking. Like maybe as Mrs_Abbot suggested, that He just erase sin. Sorry, not according to Matt. 26:39.

What you utterly fail to understand is the depth of sin (of any kind) in light of and in contrast to the infinite holiness and justice of God.

In your first paragraph, you’re partially correct. I don’t like you saying that. It stinks of human arrogance and someone claiming to know the mind of God. God is not constrained. He can do many things. I have no doubt that the way in which God chose to offer salvation to mankind is the most Perfect, Holy, and Blessed way possible, but it does not mean that it is the only way God could have done it.

Your second paragraph is inflammatory. The words “just happen” are rubbish and don’t dignify the discussion. As I stated in my other response to this post of yours, God always makes the Perfect Choice, or Perfect Decision. God never randomly chooses or acts and no Catholic would ever believe or teach such a thing.

The second sentence is making hay out of a straw man. Mrs. Abbot has stated herself that she is having trouble understanding this doctrine. She has an incomplete understanding of the portion of the doctrine to which she has referred. Briefly, I will state a better understanding here.

The Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross supersedes time. This is possible because God exists outside of Time. Mary was saved because of this Sacrifice. To our perspective, this occured before the Sacrifice happened, but from God’s perspective, there is no before and after. To God, the Sacrifice is, it exists. And its benefits were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception to provide a perfect vessel for Christ to enter our world in.

We see a shadow of this in the OT, where the Prophets are confident of their salvation. Yet, at the very least, they died with the stain of original sin upon them. They should have gone to Hell, but they didn’t. Why?

Because Christ’s Sacrifice supersedes time and the Sacrifice saved them.

Your third paragraph is laughable. You have no idea of my understanding of sin. I will make an assumption that you believe that once a sinner is saved they cannot lose their salvation. If I’m wrong and you don’t believe this, you can correct me.

This is the view which cheapens sin. It allows the murderer, the adulterer, the fornicator, etc. to believe that they don’t need to seek forgiveness because they have the “blessed assurance”. “I’m saved,” they confidently and tragically proclaim, while all the while they are on the wide path.

The Catholic understanding of sin is the correct understanding. Mortal sin separates us from God, literally killing the soul. This sin requires repentance, forgiveness and penance. God will not let the unrepentant into His House simply because they had a “salvation experience” once during their life. The idea cheapens God and once again, constrains Him.

 

[San_Patricio]

You either believe the Holy Spirit or call Him a liar. The latter, as explained in Mark 3:29, has consequences. The Holy Spirit says “For all have sinned” and I believe Him.

Wow. You just called Jesus a sinner. Also, if you want to flesh-out the allegation you started to make in post # 187…

 

[mrs_abbott]

From a lot of your posts on the Blessed Virgin Mary I would conclude that you do not. But if you do obey then I apologize for my comment. I just said that in conclusion of a lot of your posts that attack us on our beliefs in the Virgin Mary.

But I guess I should’ve added that we have to still believe everything that the Church teaches whether we agree or not. And it seems to me that you do not believe. Perhaps you want to believe and that is a start. Have you prayed to God and asked Him to give you the Faith that you need in order to believe everything that His Church teaches?

I certainly will pray for you.

You do know that I am a practicing Catholic, right?
I’m not going to argue about Mary anymore, as it’s just going to go around in circles. You’ll pull your sources and I’ll pull mine. You’ll say you’re right and I’ll say you’re wrong. There’s no point and quite frankly, I’m exhausted.
I guess I’m just not up to your standards as a Catholic.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I haven’t “treated” you in a mean way. I was just being honest. I don’t mince anything and perhaps I should watch myself more but that doesn’t mean that my intention was evil. I am only pointing out the truth to you as I see it from your many “attacking” posts on our Catholic faith.

And from that last statement saying that you would leave the Church if anyone “treated” you in a certain way, that just goes to show that your faith is not strong at all.

No matter how someone treated me in a Parish, I would never leave the Catholic Church. That would just mean that I never had faith to begin with.

Don’t let your emotions get the better of you and take what faith you do have. I know you have faith or you would not have come back. But you seem to let your anger take over your faith. I certainly hope that you would never leave the Catholic Church because someone doesn’t treat you right. I’m not saying that anyone should treat you in a rude way. And if you feel that I have treated you rudely, then I apologize.

You are in my prayers.

Like I said, if emotions controlled whether or not I was a member of the CC, I would have left a long time ago. I pray for humility so that I may better understand those who know all.