Immaculate conception

[pablope]

Another question. If the bible had intended to teach total depravity, what stronger words could it possibly use that it has not already used?

If you could provide the Bible passage where the Bible exactly teaches total depravity…somuch the better.

But not…the Bible does not teach…it is man that teaches…using one’s interpretation…that is for protestants. This is quite different for Catholics.

With this said…total depravity is an idea sculled from selected passages…it is not taught by the Bible…but you got it from Calvin’s interpretation.

So the question to you is…why do you believe Calvin’s interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

If you could provide the Bible passage where the Bible exactly teaches total depravity…somuch the better.

Indeed.

And I would like something from the Church from the 1st century through the 15th century that proclaims this doctrine of “total depravity”, too.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Egg-zactly.

And the response, I’m predicting, from Arthropod will be: they agree on the essentials.

And that’s where we Catholics are going to ask: what are these essentials, and how do you know they’re essentials?

And so the circle begins again.

POINT: the Bible does not declare something to be an essential or non-essential doctrine.

We know what’s essential and non-essential through the CHURCH.
NOT the Bible.

Besides what everyone considers essential, I think what’s essential to Protestantism are the parts of the Bible they use to defend what is essentially different about themselves as compared to what the Roman Church teaches. It must be essential or they’d have no pretext for remaining apart from the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Besides what everyone considers essential, I think what’s essential to Protestantism are the parts of the Bible they use to defend what is essentially different about themselves as compared to what the Roman Church teaches. It must be essential or they’d have no pretext for remaining apart from the Church.

Right. Or what’s essential to a particular congregation is what they split over their original congregation. So to SDAs, the Scripture verses that detail the Sabbath being the day of worship is essential.

Even though the Bible doesn’t say that it is an essential belief.

And to the Westboro Baptist Church, the verses in Scripture that show God allegedly “hating” are essential verses.

Even though the Bible doesn’t say that it is an essential belief.

In fact, there are no Scripture verses that say “this is something that you can disagree about and still be a Christian” and “this is something that you may not differ from other Christians on.”

That is a man-made tradition.

 

[Goya]

Besides what everyone considers essential, I think what’s essential to Protestantism are the parts of the Bible they use to defend what is essentially different about themselves as compared to what the Roman Church teaches. It must be essential or they’d have no pretext for remaining apart from the Church.

Yep. And then they would have no justification for partaking of the till.

…but shhhhh…we mustn’t ever discuss these things…participation in the profits of Jesus’s name is just covenient happenstance, willed by the Holy Spirity…). Clearly, the Lord approved of such commercialization of His House, as indicated here: Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–2, Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8), John 2:12–25.

Not that those verses were ever interpretted by the Church to apply in such circumpstances…but–putting my sola scriptura hat on–according to my interpretation of scripture, I think it fits rather nicely.

 

[Goya]

Arthropod;10648776]

You mean to say that Mary went through her whole life without anyone touching her? She never bumped into anyone at the market place?

No. I’m simply pointing out that it is not in the Bible. You’ll note that at the beginning of this thread, I referenced an event where surely she was touched–Mary’s birth–but it’s not in the Bible. Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit guided the Church not to include the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary–because then there would be an express contradition in the Bible–as between the Arks.

I have a problem with all this. Even assuming you are right in your biblical references, and also that the ark was immaculate (and I don’t remember the bible saying that), why is it that you believe that Mary absolutely positively MUST have this same characteristic?

Not mine. I don’t put a great deal of weight or authority on ‘my inferences’–I defer to the Church, Sacred Tradtion, and the Magesterium (hence the quotes of the CF’s). e.g.–according to ‘my inferences’, I doubt I could have arrived at the Holy Trinity (one of many examples).

Mary wasn’t a piece of wood, she didn’t have that characteristic, so why is it that she MUST be immaculate?

No, Mary was not a piece of wood–she was so much more! As Jesus Christ–the Word of God Incarnate–was so much more than the Word of God, etched on stone tablets!

And the thing is: not one of those biblical references (assuming you haven’t ripped them all out of context) says Mary is immaculate. You infer that.

Is it theoretically possible that your inferals are wrong? I don’t really see why not.

Again, not my ‘inferals’ [sic]–rather inferences drawn by Church Fathers, and declared by the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit–to which I subscribe.

And the bible is littered with statements explicitly stating that sin is wide spread, using words like “all”, “any”, “every” and “no one, not even one”.

Is it possible that these verses don’t mean what they say? I don’t see why they should be.

The Bible means so much more than it actually ‘says’.

e.g.–"…in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God". John 1:1.

‘Word’-a sound, noise or utterance, intended to convey a distinct idea, thought or notion.

Ergo, God = a sound, noise or utterance, intended to convey a distinct idea, thought or notion.

Clearly the Bible means so much more than it says here, no?

So, where then to we look for enlightenment on this matter?

The Church. Sacred Tradition. Further back, to Philo. The Logos. Pre-Christian, judaic philosophical history and tradition…

…and things start to come into focus…

And the point about my quote from Augustine was more about what he said, not that I was trying to bash you with brute authority.
He interprets one of the verses in psalms as making one exception, Christ. Just one. Christ-and-Mary are not one.

St. Augustine is one Church Father among many, and he left more that 5 million written words. He is certainly influential–but not necessarily authoratative. That’s why I posted my quotes–to show others (including St. Augustine) who were similarly influential. The totality of the evidence of where the Church Fathers fell vis a vis the IC, tends to support IC, rather than undermine it–according to Pope Pius IX. What’s more, he believed the Holy Spirit communicated this to him. Is it not possible that the Holy Spirit commuincated to the world–Divine Revelation–through the Church that Chirst founded? Just as the HS entrusted to this one and same Church, the rest of the deposit of Faith, including the Bible?

One final point–actually, reiterating a question which I’ve posed at least once before (but which you didn’t answer):

According to your interpretation…your reading…your inferences…your reasoning–what ever you seek to rely on in your reading of the Bible:

What is the point of the story of Mary visiting Elizebeth after the annunciation–if not the parrallel to the Ark of the [Old] Covenant?

Why is that even in the Bible? What is the point? Did the Holy Spirit need John the Baptist ‘leaping in the womb’ to covey that teh baby in Mary’s womb was God? Elizebeth to say “…how is it that [the mother of] my Lord should come to me?” To know that the baby is the Lord? Were there no other events or stories that the Holy Spirit could have used to convey that the baby inside Mary was the Lord? Was any other such event–let alone this one–really even necessary? Are the parallels just accidental conincidence, with no intended meaning whatsoever, beyond the surface?

 

[Goya]

^^^Follow up/clarification:

Anthropod:

I had to reconstruct my post above, because after I had drafted my original answer, I hit some mysterious botton that caused me to lose all my post…and so i had to re-draft–and in looking back, it occurs to me that I mixed some of my answers up. e.g.–confused ‘references’ for ‘inferences’–so here is the revised resposne to this quetion below:

I have a problem with all this. Even assuming you are right in your biblical references, and also that the ark was immaculate (and I don’t remember the bible saying that), why is it that you believe that Mary absolutely positively MUST have this same characteristic?

First, the Bible doesn’t expressly say that the Ark of the Old Covenant was ‘immaculate.’ However, it was designed to contain the Word of God, called for the utmost reverence, as was treated accordingly by the Jews. God seems to have taken great ‘pains’ to describe in very specific detail, how He wanted His Ark constructed, and handled. And Moses repeats these explicit instructions as he sets out to have the Ark constructed–out of the finest wood, and covered in gold…2 poles (not part of the Ark–rather, they slid into slots or such, which were affixed to the Ark) with which to carry the Ark…the priests had to SANCTIFY THEMSELVES, in order to touch the poles–NOT EVEN THE ARK ITSELF!!! (1 Chronicles 15), the Holiest of the Holies, situated in the center of the Temple…etc., etc.

So while not expressly ‘immaculate’–it is certainly described as being treated with the utmost reverence and dignity–as appropriate to the esteemed task of carrying and preserving, the Word of God (afixed to stone tablets). Furthermore, the type of wood called for (and used), as well as teh gold–imply non-curruptability. Hence we get to ‘immaculate’ wrt the Virgin Mary, by following the analogy to its natural conclusion. That is, in order to get to the holiness of the Ark of the Old Covenant, and its non-corruptability–notwithstanding Man’s fallen nature–the Immaculate Conception appears to be the natural bridge. (Not according to me–but according to Sacred Tradition, and confirmed by the Pope/the Magisterium).

Counter question to illustrate the point: why weren’t the stone tablets simply made of non-curruptible, invinciple material? Why were they to have been protected by, and carried around in, an Ark in the first place?

…and again…what could possibly be up with the story of the Visitation, if not a reference back to the Ark of the Covenant? What an odd story to include in the Bible, if it served no other purpose than to convey that Mary visited her pregnant cousin…

We go straight from Chirst’s infancy, to his ministry–with but a detour for the ‘lost and found in the Temple’ episode. So some 28 years of nothing…but the Holy Spirit figured we needed to know that Mary visited her cousin Elizebeth… THAT, was worth noting Seems a bit…benign…if not pointless.

…unless that is, we view it in context of the Ark of the Covenant.

Secondly, does Mary absolutely have to be immaculate? Perhaps not. But it is the most consistent reconciliation of scritpure, and the Dogma of the Trinity.

***If Jesus Christ is the second person of the one omnipotent triune God…then it is most appropriate that the person through whom He chose to become incarnate–whom should serve as the vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant–should be immaculately conceived, and thereby spared of any stain of Sin. ***

Else we maintain that Our Lord, who was and is–the antithesis of Sin, chose to be born of Sin.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Goya:

…but the Holy Spirit figured we needed to know that Mary visited her cousin Elizebeth… THAT, was worth noting Seems a bit…benign…if not pointless.

…unless that is, we view it in context of the Ark of the Covenant.

And there is the literal sense. That Mary was shown, right from the event of this Visitation to her cousin Elizabeth, that God would enlighten others about her pregnancy (and later her Son.) Which helps us to understand why Mary did not tell St. Joseph about her pregnancy, but waited for God to tell St. Joseph. This all fits together with the other small tidbits we have in the Gospels of Matthew, and Luke.

 

[Arthropod]

Okey-dokey. If you could provide where the bible teaches this…book, chapter and verse please.

(I think it’s right behind the verse that proclaims the Immaculate Conception, )

Galatians 1:6-9:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a diferent gospel - which is really no gospel at all. . . . . . but even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say so again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

There is no other place anywhere in the bible where a double anathema is used. As I have already said, so now I say so again: There is no other place anywhere in the bible where a double anathema is used. This gospel is therefore of the utmost importance. Roman catholics and protestants differ on the very same point that Paul and the Galatians differed. The Galatians tried to increase their justification by the law. Paul said that they forsook Christ by doing so.
Galatians 5:2-4:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselvs be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

And there is no double anathema on calvinists. There is no double anathema on non calvinists. There is no double anathema on those who baptise infants. There is no double anathema on those who do not baptise infants.

EDIT:

This core is the gospel? Really.
What does that mean? The 4 gospels only?
Also, can you provide a source from each of these protestant churches to which you allude that says this?

Yes, I probably could provide a source from each of these protestant churches to which I allude, but I can’t be bothered. I make that statement as a protestant from personal experience of being in many denominations.

 

[Arthropod]

Indeed.

See this (non-exhaustive) list of differing gospels taught by Protestant denominations:

*Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors

When I said the gospel, I am referring to how you get saved. The fundamentals, if you will.
You seriously mean to say “music or no music” is a salvation issue? Or I can go to hell for an incorrect view of the rapture?
psuedo Jesus:

DEPART FROM ME, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, you who do not sing in church! Depart from me into the eternal fire, you who go to church on Saturday instead of sunday!

Anonymous:

You have brought God down to your level by making him as petty as you are.

 

[Arthropod]

If you could provide the Bible passage where the Bible exactly teaches total depravity…somuch the better.

But not…the Bible does not teach…it is man that teaches…using one’s interpretation…that is for protestants. This is quite different for Catholics.

With this said…total depravity is an idea sculled from selected passages…it is not taught by the Bible…but you got it from Calvin’s interpretation.

So the question to you is…why do you believe Calvin’s interpretation?

I refer you to an earlier post

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Job 9:2 (Job speaking)
"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can a mortal be righteous before God?

(Please read this one in the light of Job 42:7, where God says Job has “spoken of God what is right”.)

Job 15:14 (Eliphaz the Temmanite speaking)
"What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?

Job 25:4 (Bildad the Shuhite speaking)
How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?

1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chronicles 6:36 (This is Solomon speaking at the consecration of the temple):
"When they sin against you–for there is no one who does not sin–and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near;

Psalm 14:3
All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:3
Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 130:3
If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?

Psalm 143:2
Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you.

Proverbs 20:9
Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”?

Ecclesiasties 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10-12
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.

James 3:2
We all stumble in many ways. . . .

 

[Arthropod]

First off, no they don’t. Protestants denominations only agree on Jesus’ person and that only faith is needed for salvation. Everything else is left to the denominations to decide. Even with Fairh alone there is disagreement over who actually is saved by that faith. Some say Adam and Eve are literal, others say they are allegories. Some say that Christ is present in the Eucharist others say he is not. The more denominations you bring in the less agreement you get.

And you admit that they all agree on the one point that I am stressing here, the means of justification! Good!
Unfortunately, most of the protestant church teach a metaphorical Adam and Eve, but is there actually any who teach that officially?
Even if there are some that I don’t know about, they are wrong, and it is simple to prove it from the bible.
But even so, there is no double anathema on those who disagree.

On your gospel comment, all the churches you mentioned do teach a different gospel. Also the bible agrees with the “roman” doctrine of faith through works by grace. What else could James have meant by " Not by faith alone"? “Faith without works is dead”? Is there only one truth?

Ιf you could prove that, then I would be a protestant no longer.

If there is then why do you tolerate 38000 different truths?

Please document your 38,000 different gospels. Till you do, I won’t believe that statement!

If Jesus only taught one truth why is any variation hand waved? Are only the elect saved? Is everyone saved? Is God or isn’t God present at the altar? These are not trivial.

God bless.

They are trivial by comparison, unless you want to argue that my views on these issues somehow disqualify me from salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

When I said the gospel, I am referring to how you get saved. The fundamentals, if you will.

Again, what are these verses that are the fundamentals, and how do you know?

For example, is John 3:11 a fundamental?

What about Malachi 1:11?

Or 1 Timothy 3:11?

You seriously mean to say “music or no music” is a salvation issue? Or I can go to hell for an incorrect view of the rapture?

Well, what do you say? And what Bible verse tells you the answer to your questions above? Book, chapter and verse, please!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

There is no other place anywhere in the bible where a double anathema is used. As I have already said, so now I say so again: There is no other place anywhere in the bible where a double anathema is used. This gospel is therefore of the utmost importance. Roman catholics and protestants differ on the very same point that Paul and the Galatians differed. The Galatians tried to increase their justification by the law. Paul said that they forsook Christ by doing so.

My friend, I am so utterly confused by your claims.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

I see nowhere in that link that the Church claims that our justification is somehow ‘increased’ by our works or that we are still abiding by the Old Testament law.

Our works are merely a response to God’s grace that allow us to walk in Him more fervently. Catholics proclaim we are saved by grace: the Lord Jesus died for our sins, and by the grace He gives us, we are drawn to Him. Through the water of baptism (and thus the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised), sanctifying grace is given to the one baptized, and a continual participation in Christ’s Sacraments and prayer draw us ever closer to Him throughout our walk of faith. Our response to His grace opens us to greater grace. This is the point of works: they are a response to God’s grace. We do not somehow save ourselves, and this is taught nowhere in the Church.

I hope any confusion has been cleared up.

 

[Trebor135]

My friend, I am so utterly confused by your claims.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

I see nowhere in that link that the Church claims that our justification is somehow ‘increased’ by our works or that we are still abiding by the Old Testament law.

Our works are merely a response to God’s grace that allow us to walk in Him more fervently. Catholics proclaim we are saved by grace: the Lord Jesus died for our sins, and by the grace He gives us, we are drawn to Him. Through the water of baptism (and thus the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised), sanctifying grace is given to the one baptized, and a continual participation in Christ’s Sacraments and prayer draw us ever closer to Him throughout our walk of faith. Our response to His grace opens us to greater grace. This is the point of works: they are a response to God’s grace. We do not somehow save ourselves, and this is taught nowhere in the Church.

I hope any confusion has been cleared up.

We can see this setup in the life of Abraham: compare Hebrews 11/Genesis 12 with Romans 4/Genesis 15.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

And you admit that they all agree on the one point that I am stressing here, the means of justification! Good!
Unfortunately, most of the protestant church teach a metaphorical Adam and Eve, but is there actually any who teach that officially?
Even if there are some that I don’t know about, they are wrong, and it is simple to prove it from the bible.
But even so, there is no double anathema on those who disagree. Ιf you could prove that, then I would be a protestant no longer.Please document your 38,000 different gospels. Till you do, I won’t believe that statement!
They are trivial by comparison, unless you want to argue that my views on these issues somehow disqualify me from salvation.

The core of the matter is whether they ae different or not. If it isnt the same why do you not speak against them? Any incorrect teaching is against Jesus truth. That is why the Church disagrees with the Protestants. I remember reading a wise quote. “Rapid expansion and division. The marks of heresy.” It was talking about Marcion’s followers but I think it is an interesting theory. It is true for Gnosticism, Judaizers, and the Protestants as well. What are your thoughts?

Here is a link it goes over every single denomination in the US. It does not go into doctrinal differences as many of these churches are quite small. It was very long so I had no time to read it. Tell us what you think. adherents.com/Na/Na_173.html#955

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Also Arthropod it seems you are being overwhelmed by the amount of people you have to explain things to. I will stop posting on this thread. God bless.

 

[JamesCaruso]

They are trivial by comparison, unless you want to argue that my views on these issues somehow disqualify me from salvation.

Honest differences in doctrinal views do not disqualify one from salvation. But, from a Catholic perspective, a view that Catholicism is not the one true Church of Jesus Christ is a view that may dramatically reduce one’s chances for salvation, in that it deprives a person of the fullness of truth in directing his actions, and separates him from the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, and other graces available only to members of the Church proper.

My only advice is to never allow it to be merely an argument instead of first and foremost a desire for the truth. You may well be better at argumentation than any Catholic apologist you encounter, but winning arguments is not the goal of a disciple of Christ; it is coming into the fullness of His truth no matter the personal cost. If you are seeking Christ with all your heart, what more could He ask of you?

 

[Arthropod]

My friend, I am so utterly confused by your claims.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

I see nowhere in that link that the Church claims that our justification is somehow ‘increased’ by our works or that we are still abiding by the Old Testament law.

Our works are merely a response to God’s grace that allow us to walk in Him more fervently. Catholics proclaim we are saved by grace: the Lord Jesus died for our sins, and by the grace He gives us, we are drawn to Him. Through the water of baptism (and thus the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised), sanctifying grace is given to the one baptized, and a continual participation in Christ’s Sacraments and prayer draw us ever closer to Him throughout our walk of faith. Our response to His grace opens us to greater grace. This is the point of works: they are a response to God’s grace. We do not somehow save ourselves, and this is taught nowhere in the Church.

I hope any confusion has been cleared up.

You know, Every time I open my mouth on here about what the Roman church says, there is someone else who says different. I have heard so many people say so many different things about what the roman church is supposed to teach that I have pretty much turned off to all of them.

For the big doctrines, (espcially justification), I only go by the official sources which are supposedly infallible.

Here is what the ‘infallible’ source says:
Council of Trent:

Canon 24: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved** and also increased before God through good works**; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”

Note: your words:

. . . . that our justification is somehow ‘increased’ by our works . . .

Trent’s words:

. . . . .the justice received is . . . . increased before God through good works

I am certainly glad that you think differently to Trent, but given that you call yourself Catholic, it is fair to ask: why do you think of yourself Catholic if you disagree with Rome? According to Rome, you are anathematised by default.

 

[Arthropod]

Again, what are these verses that are the fundamentals, and how do you know?

For example, is John 3:11 a fundamental?

What about Malachi 1:11?

Or 1 Timothy 3:11?

Well, what do you say? And what Bible verse tells you the answer to your questions above? Book, chapter and verse, please!

Is it not enough that the bible does not even mention these things in connection to justification?

If it was necessary for the bible to contain a list of all the things we are not justified by (like . . . . being good at computer games ) then the bible would be so big no one would read it.

As it is, the bible tells us the basis on which we are justified. Is it not enough that all these things are left out of the biblical picture of justification?