A
AgnosTheist
Guest
If god can tolerate sin, then maybe all that really matters is faith? christian loopholes, oh my gosh.
- Status
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
Thankfully, the Church teaches Purgatory by which the sinner is gradually brought into the presence of God by a process of purification of sins, made possible by the Cross.
This purification is accomplished by God but requires faith.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
must you have faith to qualify for purgatory?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
AT: Your sig is a puzzle to me. (God gave us reason, not religion). By its logic, “reason” and “religion” appear to be mutually exclusive, in that you claim He gave us ‘reason’ (not) “religion”, thereby implying that religion is not only not “God-given” but by definition is ‘unreasonable’, or that “reason” is somehow ‘greater’ than “religion” (without giving nuanced or thorough definitions or either word).
I don’t argue that God did not give us reason (certainly I believe He did). But I do take issue at the idea that He: 1. Did not give us religion. 2. Felt that religion is unreasonable or cannot coexist with reason.
Your sig reminds me of one of those cute little ‘sayings’ that attempts to be oh-so-clever and ‘deep’ yet winds up coming across as a thinly disguised smack-in-the-face to those who would ‘think differently’. Hopefully as you progress in life, you will begin to find yourself aligning more with those who believe that God most certainly gave us far more than ‘reason alone’, who have profitted by the work of many great scholars who have studied both religion and reason (since the two despite your contention co-exist quite happily) over a period of thousands of years, and who find that life and its ‘questions’ are ‘more’ than ‘T-shirt slogans’ or would-be snappy one-liners.
Happily, some of the best and brightest on the ‘religious’ side were once firmly convinced that they were ‘reason’ people and not (the gods forfend) some of those awful ‘religious’ sheep!
I don’t argue that God did not give us reason (certainly I believe He did). But I do take issue at the idea that He: 1. Did not give us religion. 2. Felt that religion is unreasonable or cannot coexist with reason.
Your sig reminds me of one of those cute little ‘sayings’ that attempts to be oh-so-clever and ‘deep’ yet winds up coming across as a thinly disguised smack-in-the-face to those who would ‘think differently’. Hopefully as you progress in life, you will begin to find yourself aligning more with those who believe that God most certainly gave us far more than ‘reason alone’, who have profitted by the work of many great scholars who have studied both religion and reason (since the two despite your contention co-exist quite happily) over a period of thousands of years, and who find that life and its ‘questions’ are ‘more’ than ‘T-shirt slogans’ or would-be snappy one-liners.
Happily, some of the best and brightest on the ‘religious’ side were once firmly convinced that they were ‘reason’ people and not (the gods forfend) some of those awful ‘religious’ sheep!
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Tantrum, i’ll create a thread on your inquiry.
J
justasking4
Guest
Does God have the power to bring Elijah and forgive and cleanse him of his sins?
Yes. Since God knows the future and knows Christ will die for the sins of the world then He can on this basis forgive and cleanse those who have faith in Him before the actual event itself if He so chooses.
M
mercygate
Guest
That is how the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is explained! Careful: you’re gettin’ contaminated by these Catholics!
J
justasking4
Guest
Does the catholic church teach that Elijah had not sinned?
I agree. Now where is the evidence that He did so with Mary?
Again, where is the evidence that He did this for Mary? There is no writer in the scriptures that attest that He this to Mary.
I’m just pointing out to you that Mary’s assumption is not mentioned until 377. 4 centuries later. That is not spurious but a fact of history.
I agree with much what you say here. However, much of the marian doctrines are derived in part from the idea that she is the mother of God. This title has been so warped by the catholic church with its doctrines about her as to make it unbiblical in what the scriptures what the scriptures teach about her.
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem is that in the case of Elijah we have no reason to think he was not a sinner. The same goes for Mary. There is no evidence that Mary was kept from sin in light of what the scriptures teach about her.That is how the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is explained!
Careful: you’re gettin’ contaminated by these Catholics!
M
mercygate
Guest
I have never heard the Elijah did not sin.
This thread is about dogma. I’ve kind of lost track: has the word “dogma” been defined in this thread? If not, dogma is, by definition, a doctrinal truth that does NOT explicitly appear in Scripture but that logically unfolds from points of Scripture and from developed doctrines, such as the Holy Trinity, and the hypostatic union.
All I did was observe that, quite independently of the Catholic Church, you intuitively arrived at the explanation by which the Church understands the Immaculate Conception.
Remember: Catholic theology is subject to the authority of what Scripture DOES say but not exclusively limited by what Scripture does NOT say.
This goes to the frequent complaint that the Catholic Church thinks it has “all the answers” – I say, “Heck no! We don’t even have all the QUESTIONS!” You don’t develop dogmatic teachings in a phantasm of groundless piety.
J
justasking4
Guest
It seems some catholics here believe that he didn’t because he was taken up directly to heaven without dying.
i have never seen it defined this way. I think of the definition given in a dictionary that states its something to be true.
How so?
This would include also Sacred Traditions?
R
rbarcia
Guest
**
Luke 8:20-22
20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
**
I guess any woman who obeys God’s word can be called mother of God then?
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
Justasking4,
I think we’ve now arrived at the inevitable conclusion. The sinlessness of Mary is perfectly possible according to the logic of scripture and your own rule that you your self have stated.
The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary has always been a teaching of the Church, we can see that this tradition has been passed down orally along with and in light of the understanding that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and the Second Eve. Though the particular understanding of the Immaculate Conception is a further clarification of the orthodox understanding of her sinlessness.
It is not only possible that God could do such a thing, not only does the logic of scripture demand such a thing (that God’s presence must dwell in something purified) but also the Church has long taught as this a part of the oral Apostolic Tradition.
J
justasking4
Guest
Not according to the scriptures. They never attest that she was sinless.
It has not always been the teaching of the church. Much of this was totally unknown to the church for centuries. What tradition are you speaking of that has been passed down orally?
I don’t know how you can say her immaculate conception is orthodox when the scriptures and early church history is silent.
What has not been shown here is that evidence that God did what the catholic church claims. There is no evidence in scripture that she was immaculate concieved or taken to heaven. Nor is there anything like this for centuries.
I’m still try to understand what oral Apostolic Tradition is that is not in the scriptures. If its oral, you don’t have any records of what it is.
D
De_Maria
Guest
But you do. Lets go over this again. You said that this verse means that all have sinned:
Romans 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There are two types of righteous. Those who have never sinned, such as innocent babes and those who have sinned and been forgiven before God.
But if you interpret this verse to mean that none are righteous without exception, then you are making Scripture contradict itself because Scripture says that:
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
In what sense is St. Paul using it in this verse:
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Obviously, St. Luke mentions at least two people that sought after God.
But that is not the sense in which St. Paul was using the word when he said, “none is righteous”. He was using the phrase to describe those who do not seek after God.
Again, both Enoch and Elijah went straight to heaven without tasting death. Therefore, it is possible that they never sinned. Unless you can prove from Scripture that they both sinned.
In fact, there are many people in history who have died without committing a sin. Many children have died in the womb, many have died at birth, many have died in the first day of life, and so one and so forth, many have died before the understood what was right and wrong. Our Church teaches that one can’t commit sin until one knows right from wrong. What does yours teach.
I believe I clarified it above.
It doesn’t mean they sinned either. And since death is the punishment for sin, it is possible that they never sinned.
Can you prove it from Scripture.
But does Scripture say that Enoch and Elijah sinned?
Please tell me how unborn children in the womb have committed sin.
Except Adam, Eve, Jesus and Mary.
I think the Church is right because Scripture says that the Church is the pillar of Truth.
Matt 18:17
There are a few. Mostly those interpretations which Protestants challenged. See the Council of Council of Trent.
Sincerely,
De Maria
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
JustAsking4
The implicit scriptural support is the angel greeting Mary as “full of grace” and her implicit comparison to the Ark of Covenant in the Gospel of Luke.
In 155, Justin Martyr speaks of the Virgin as the Second Eve:
St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (d. 270) writes:
The early Church slowly came to formulate its understanding of sin and its thoroughness in the human condition. It is quite clear that the early Church regarded Mary as ever virgin, the New Eve and as the Ark of the New Covenant. Along those lines we can also see an implicit assumption that she was called by a special grace to be pure in a distinct manner worthy of bearing God and the Son and “undoing the knot tied by the disobediene of Eve”.
Firstly, Sacred Tradition need not be in the scriptures (in fact it is not explicitly in it, that is why it is Tradition). Tradition can not violate scripture, as we have already established, Mary’s sinlessness does not violate scripture.
The implicit scriptural support is the angel greeting Mary as “full of grace” and her implicit comparison to the Ark of Covenant in the Gospel of Luke.
In 155, Justin Martyr speaks of the Virgin as the Second Eve:
The word undefiled is not another way of saying she is a virgin. As the Second Eve, Mary is like the first Eve before the fall; a virgin and undefiled by sin with the same oppertunity to be disobdient and “bear the word of the Serpent and bring forth death” as Justin writes, or be obediant and “concieve the Word of God”.
St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (d. 270) writes:
Why would we expect Scripture or Tradition to be speaking of Mary as free from Original Sin before Augustine? Before the concept was even an interpretation of scripture!
The early Church slowly came to formulate its understanding of sin and its thoroughness in the human condition. It is quite clear that the early Church regarded Mary as ever virgin, the New Eve and as the Ark of the New Covenant. Along those lines we can also see an implicit assumption that she was called by a special grace to be pure in a distinct manner worthy of bearing God and the Son and “undoing the knot tied by the disobediene of Eve”.
B
BrewMax
Guest
This is not so. First you say that Sacred Tradition doesn’t have to be in the Scriptures, then you say that they are nevertheless supported by Scripture. What??? Where does Scripture support the Assumption of Mary??
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
I’m speaking about the sinlessness of Mary here. Since scripture is not sufficient in terms of understanding fully the person of Mary, Tradition begins where Scripture leaves off.
“Hail Mary, full of grace” is a sufficient springboard for considering the doctrine of her sinlessness. The doctrine is implicit in this statement but needs Tradition in order to arrive at that conclusion.
“Hail Mary, full of grace” is a sufficient springboard for considering the doctrine of her sinlessness. The doctrine is implicit in this statement but needs Tradition in order to arrive at that conclusion.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
As for the Assumption of Mary - there are many places in the Bible that demonstrate that an assumption can occur (i.e., Elijah, Enoch, etc.). For Mary’s Assumption, one of the verses used is Rev. 12:1 (this also speaks to her Coronation).
Almost all Traditions have some foundation in the Scriptures. Many of them are implicit in the Scriptures. Not one of them is contradicted by Scriptures (note that contradiction is completely different than presence).
As for the Assumption of Mary - there are many places in the Bible that demonstrate that an assumption can occur (i.e., Elijah, Enoch, etc.). For Mary’s Assumption, one of the verses used is Rev. 12:1 (this also speaks to her Coronation).
J
justasking4
Guest
When Romans 3:10 says “none is righteous, no, not one” what does none and not one mean in this verse?
i thought the catholic church taught that all men inherit original sin. Thats why they baptize babies. Is this not correct?
No man truly seeks after God with all his heart mind and soul.
I’m sure you are aware that in scripture that it does not record the individual sins of most people it speaks of and yet we would not assume they were sinless because it doesn’t mention their sins would we?
We would go by the scriptures as all men are born sinners because they inherit this nature from Adam.
If what you say is true about the catholic church then why do they baptize infants?
Only that the scriptures teach that all men are sinners.
Not that i’m aware of.
Its not about doing something sinful rather it has to do with inheriting the sin nature from Adam.
I agree with the first 3 but not Mary.
Even in this statement does it mean the church cannot err.
- Status