Curious. Doubtless, the idea that Elijah was sinless is a pious speculation. Never heard it myself.
Dogmas of the Church ARE true. Dictionary definitions often skip to the bottom line, and usually encompass only the common use of a word. The definition of a dogma as “a truth” is an umbrella definition. In Catholic theology, it specifically applies to doctrines that are logically inescapable when the scriptural fundamentals are drawn out to their conclusion.
Since we know that;
Yes. The Fathers are a guide, not an infallible guide. The Fathers, in themselves are not dogmatic. We value them highly for their place in the history of Church teaching, for their wisdom. In many cases, where they record actual practices in the Church, we learn what the Church was actually DOING – a valuable component of what the Church was THINKING.
No. What we inherited from Adam is concupiscence, or a tendency toward sin. It has wounded our nature, and makes it a struggle to walk in the ways of God.
Not true. This is a common misunderstanding among Protestants. Catholics can interpret the Scripture for themselves. Only when our interpretation contradicts the teachings of the Church, do we need to obey and submit. (Sinlessness of Enoch is an example: Catholics are free to interpret this passage in or against Enoch’s sinlessness and can argue their case.) If you belong to any more or less organized church (which most Protestants do), you’ll understand this, as there are some tenants of the faith that you are not allowed to disregard or be in danger of separating yourself from your church (that’s how almost all Protestant denoms and non-denoms came to being - by objecting to some other Protestant teachings).
Challenging the Church interpretation is one thing, but declaring that the Church shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the Bible or that most Church doctrines are not scriptural, just because they happen to contradict one’s own interpretation is another thing. This is what I call a double standard.
Of course, I’m not objecting to Jesus sinlessness. I’m objecting to JA4’s logic regarding the two passages in Romans (in fact, it seems to me that JA4 is not taking ALL of the Scripture into account, but only these two specific verses).
Yes, God has the power to bring Elihah and forgive his sins.
Yes, because the Church at that time had to define and clarify the nature of Christ as God, in response to the Arian and Nestorian heresies. These clarifications also made more clear the role of Mary.
Yes, the concept of the Theotokos that was used to clarify the Divine and human natures of Christ. All that the Church understands about Mary comes from our understanding of who Christ is.
[/QUOTE]
This is a quotation from the OT. The context from which it comes is talking about “the fool who says in his heart there is no God”. It is speaking about those that deny God, both Jew,and Gentile.
Yes. Except for Mary.
This is probably the subject for another thread. However, although it is not common, there are some.
No.
To the extent that this understanding is consistent with the Apostolic Teaching, yes.
Paul is talking about personal sin in Romans. The Church baptizes infants to wash away original sin.
You misunderstood the passage from which you took this doctrine.
This is the difference between personal sin, and original sin.
Jesus promised that He would send His spirit to guide the Church into all truth. If this did not happen, He is a liar.
Good question. I do think that God is not limited in the least by sin but has in some way for these prophets applied the death of Christ to them. This is speculation on my part though. i really don’t know.
Are we in agreement that all men inherit the sin nature from Adam and are sinners? We would agree that Jesus is the exception but you would say that Mary is also an exception while i would not say she is. Correct?
I think you need to define for us what YOU mean by “all men inherit the sin nature from Adam and are sinners” and how Jesus is the exception.
Regarding this passage…I’ve heard it interpreted it another way. Most Christian denominations believe that the woman in Revelations represents Israel, not Mary. My friend gave me a synopsis of what she was always taught about this passage. It’s quite different than what I was taught, but it seems to be a very common interpretation. Thoughts?
Seems to me that these interpretations are a little bit of a stretch. I could see if they were interpreting the woman to be the Church, but Israel? What special place has been prepared for Israel by God?
No, ja4, it is not a speculation. We know that the sacrifice of Christ transcended time and space, and saved all those who believed in faith.
But so did Abraham and Moses. A lot of people in the Bible obediently submitted to the Lord with no questions asked. (or few!
)See, the part of the nation of Israel giving birth to our savior doesn’t seem at all like a stretch to me. That is something I always thought of in that way, even PRIOR to my trying to understand this passage in Revelation. I always thought “Israel gave birth to Christ, and then many of the Jews didn’t believe Him…how ironic”
The “woman clothed with the sun” is variously interpreted as Israel, Mary, and the Church. There is no problem with considering this figure as representing each of those entities. Even when promulgating the dogma of the Assumption, the Pope, using this passage, did not LIMIT the interpretation to signfying Mary.
Both things are true. Jesus was a Jew, and a Son of the Covenant. John 4:22
Well not exactly, Abraham was told he would father a son, but did not wait to have his son with Sarah…Abraham fathered a son with Hagar the Egyption…But so did Abraham and Moses. A lot of people in the Bible obediently submitted to the Lord with no questions asked. (or few!