Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[CopticChristian]

We are pure and perfect in God’s eyes when we are justified, however that does not happen at our Baptism. It happens when we first believe in and accept the grace of God in the sacrifice of His perfect Son.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I like you Richard. I admire your tenacity. Please for the record when you state something like these notions about belief they are not universal and they are not agreed on and for the record you should, in my opinion, this would be more palatable…

For instance…as you know we disagree on Justification, I, as a Protestant do not believe that it happens in Baptism and I know you do…I on the other hand believe it happens when we believe and as you know I reference the letter to the Romans, thay you disagree on as has been pointed out by others that this statement has nothing to do with salvation, concerning confessing and I have seen that it is addressing the Judiazing Christians. I understand that…

Our Protestant understanding of Salvation includes as you know Justification and Sanctification and I know that it parallels your concept of ongoing Justification in your thinking…and we agree on Glorification. We both agree that we need God’s graces.

Now Richard this would indicate that you know both sides of the coin and then a proper discussion could be entertained…may you stay in Christ.

 

[Frankk]

I have raised a question a number of times which none of the proponents of Sola Scriptura have even attempted any sort of response to.

I will try one more time. The challenge is this:

A SS proponent will have a view on a passage of scripture. I will have a completely different interpretation (say, of Mary’s sinlessness). We are both reading the same passage(s). How do we know which is ‘true’?

The real difficulty here is the reality of the Protestant World. There are over 30,000 protestant denominations all relying on SS and they all differ in some aspect or other of interpretation.

Of course we may all be wrong about the message of the Bible. However, if its message is true then only one of us can be right about its interpretation.

 

[joe370]

gerhardc

Neither of the two options. The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for the ones who are born again (refer John 3:3) and who have received Him - refer Romans 8:16 - **

Regarding Romans 8:

I agree that those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

I agree that the Spirit, all Christians receive, upon baptism, brings about our adoption to sonship.

I agree that the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children which makes us heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

I’m not sure what that had to do with my question.

Regarding 1 John, either you are misinterpreting the context of - “and you do not need that anyone teach you…” or the holy spirit has failed miserably to teach every Christian the same thing regarding certain doctrines that divide Christianity!

Surely you are not suggesting that the Holy Spirit accurately interprets Scripture for me and the Holy Spirit accurately interprets Scripture for you? The holy spirit is the spirit of truth and there can be only one truth regarding any one teaching, and yet you and I do not agree on certain teachings. Is the HS teaching different things to different people?

 

[joe370]

I have raised a question a number of times which none of the proponents of Sola Scriptura have even attempted any sort of response to.

I will try one more time. The challenge is this:

 

[rinnie]

I know that Mary was chosen of God to bear Jesus before this world was ever formed. This mush is true.

But I also know that ever person in the household of faith was written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. It can be seen in Psalms and Revelation.

It says the Lord was made in secret and wonderfully made and all of his members were written before they ever were. It also says the names of those born in Zion were written.

Just because we were written in the Book of Life before this world was made it does not mean that people should pray to us. Neither does it mean that we are some sort of divine being.

Mary may have been foreknew as the one that would bear the Lord Jesus Christ but that does not mean one can go against the words of Christ.
He said he is the only way to God. He also said that the Spirit would bear witness unto HIM.

Marybeloved keeps saying that I am falsely accusing the Catholics with references to their belief she is divine.
You do not have to say Mary is divine word for word if your other words or actions bear witness that is in your heart.
An example is Judas.
He did not say “I betray Christ.”
But, his words and the kiss of deceit showed he used the word deceitfully and betrayed the Lord.
In like manner when people pray to Mary and such as I posted above whet does it REALLY say?

All who are part of the body of Christ were written in the book before we were.
People should not pray to us.
The same holds true with Mary.
She does not make intercession unto God for us.
Jesus does.

And, hopefully Marybeloved will quit with the accusations, judgments and twisting my words.

Now Frank with that said let me begin the Prayer to the Blessed Mother.

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. PRAY FOR US SINNERS. You get it Frank we are asking Mary to PRAY FOR US.

Where in the world do you see us praying TO MARY instead of asking her to PRAY FOR US? Help me here buddy.

 

[Frank_Hagen]

Now Frank with that said let me begin the Prayer to the Blessed Mother.

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. PRAY FOR US SINNERS. You get it Frank we are asking Mary to PRAY FOR US.

Where in the world do you see us praying TO MARY instead of asking her to PRAY FOR US? Help me here buddy.

Rinnie,

You answered your own question if you see what you posted.

If Mary were in the same room with you it would appear you are talking to her.

Since Mary is in heaven you are praying to her and asking in prayer that she likewise pray for you.

Now, to end this.
As I said last night when I logged off I am through with conversations sidetracking the issue of Mary being sinless.

Have a good day and may God bless.

As for me I don’t have time today to stay on the computer like I did half the day yesterday.

May God bless.

 

[Frank_Hagen]

Rinnie,
Just wanted to log for a second and apologize for the previous answer I gave.
My wording is as Paul said rather crude at times.
I have a lot going on today and can’t stay online.
May God bless.

 

[Frankk]

Exactly. In the protestant world the belief is: We possess the infallible bible with no one to infallibly interpret it.

 

[gerhardc]

I notice you omitted the rest of this post of mine, for it illustrates how self-defeating your line of reasoning is.

PAX :heaven:

I posted what I thought was relevant to the discussion. I’m sorry if you feel that way.

I never said Christ cancelled the law, but cancelled it as a source of salvation. Please refrain from replying to my posts if you are going to twist my words. This is dishonest of you.

I understood the view you took in the post below as meaning that Jesus cancelled the Law of Moses, which, for the Jews, had been their source of salvation up to that point. We know that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews exclusively. Nevertheless, you said, “cancelled as the source of salvation”. Clearly you make the case for a law unto salvation and a law unto moral rectitude. Ok, sorry.

He cancelled the law as the source of salvation, but he did not make the law void insofar that we aren’t obligated to observe the moral precepts of the law or repent of our personal sins in order to be saved. The law still serves as a means to be saved.
Good Fella;8477131:

But like you said above, “it still stands for those who wish to follow it.”. This is the spirit of the law - the law of liberty, which I referred to above in my previous post.

We differ over what “the law of liberty” means. You refer to it as the law of Moses. I refer to it as the word of God spoken through the Apostles. See what James says prior to his reference to “the law of liberty”: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:21-25).

James likens the following of the “word” with looking into “a mirror” and again with looking into the “perfect law of liberty”. My reading of it is that the perfect law of liberty is the word which the Apostles had been speaking to the churches. That “word” was the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, not the Law of Moses. The law of liberty is the Gospel. The point is that there is no following of the Law of Moses - neither for salvation nor for moral rectitude - but a following of the law of liberty instead.

Belief alone in Christ doesn’t save.

Romans 10:9-10 says it does. James 1:21-25, which I quoted above, tells you what that faith looks like - it does good works. The believer now wants to do good works because he is one with the *character *of Jesus (note, not one with the person of Jesus).

*And this is his **commanment ***

(my emphasis), that we should believe in the name of Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath commanded unto us.
*1 John 3, 23 *

I like that verse. But, it is a commandment of Jesus to believe and to love, not a proof of the need to follow the Law of Moses even if it is only to moral rectitude. It It says what we should do: 1) believe, and 2) love one another. Believe is what brings salvation, love is what proves it.

 

[gerhardc]

Regarding Romans 8:
I agree that those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
I agree that the Spirit, all Christians receive, upon baptism, brings about our adoption to sonship.
I agree that the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children which makes us heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
I’m not sure what that had to do with my question.

Regarding 1 John, either you are misinterpreting the context of - “and you do not need that anyone teach you…” or the holy spirit has failed miserably to teach every Christian the same thing regarding certain doctrines that divide Christianity!

Surely you are not suggesting that the Holy Spirit accurately interprets Scripture for me and the Holy Spirit accurately interprets Scripture for you? The holy spirit is the spirit of truth and there can be only one truth regarding any one teaching, and yet you and I do not agree on certain teachings. Is the HS teaching different things to different people?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I have said before, and say again, is that mankind is slow to hear what the Spirit is saying to them. The reason being that we are conditioned by our culture, our upbringing, the doctrines we hear in church, the iniquities of our heart, etc. Despite having been saved these these make us hear ourselves and not the Spirit. But that does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid: “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”

The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for us so that we may take out of it that which we need in order for us to grow closer to God.

 

[gerhardc]

You see the question is not- Does/did God inspire scripture- Of course he did! Rather, It is- Did he also inspire the selection of scripture (27 Books) in the New Testament by the Church?

Yes, I believe He did.

None of the scriptures in the New Testament calls itself “scripture” or even introduces itself in a way that definitively settles the question of it’s inspiration- How do you decide which books among the available options are the inspired ones? The Donkey, per your analogy, (the bishops of the time) chose the 27 books which you call the New Testament among others- ***So Do you accept now that the Donkey, being merely a Donkey is incapable of knowing the inspired books from the uninspired ones, and therefore must be guided by God the Holy Spirit in such fundamental decisions? ***

Yes, again we agree.

That’s what our faith says. Sinful, even stupid men, being used by God the Holy Spirit to guard the Sacred tradition, including the content of the New Testament and the writings themselves among other sacred treasures of the church, through centuries, and being protected from “messing” that sacred deposit (remember, it’s the donkey we are talking about here- Can’t be too careful)- Infallibility is the name that the Church gives this fundamental protection of God’s treasures from the pope’s and bishops’ messy hands!

Peace!

This is where we see it differently. You make the point that since the Bible was put together by (Catholic men - bless them! ) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these men plus the men who followed them are incapable of making an error or errors about the interpretation of the Bible. You call it Sacred tradition, which, in addition to the Bible, includes “other sacred writings of the church” and that it relates to infallibility.

We agree that God can use anyone, including Catholic men or a donkey (whoever reads this thread, please follow the discussion and don’t jump to conclusions that ‘all Catholics are being attacked’! Phew!) to achieve what He wants to. But we disagree that if God uses a person (or a donkey) once that his/her sayings/writings/work remains infallible. That’s just not how it is. Ask Peter (the first Pope, no?) who was admonished by Paul for his hypocrisy. Is this not the same Peter who wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter? I think it is and it goes to show that if God uses a person once to do something that is perfect (like putting the Bible together), that person’s subsequent writings are not guaranteed to be of God. This is the problem with “other sacred writings of the church”.

To clarify, as per your own admission, the Bible was not put together by anything else (including Sacred tradition) but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I trust the Bible and not Sacred tradition.

 

[gerhardc]

… the four Gospels are not the only ones that spoke about Jesus’ words, deeds and circumstances. There were other epistles that claimed to be from the various Apostles (Some already regarded as scripture by many), to which the Church said- Nope! No, thanks. If you believe that the New testament is properly constituted scripture, you must accept that God guided the Church and rendered that decision infallible- free of error! So we don’t have to wonder: Are all these 27- each and every one of them- scripture? Did we miss one? . That’s all Catholics are saying:shrug:. In matters of faith and morals, God has always guided all the formal teachings of the Church and preserved them from error.

Why is this important? Because it means you can trust the Church’s formal teachings and Apostolic Tradition:

1. On The nature of God (Trinity)
2. On The True dual nature and two wills of Our Lord in One Divine Person
3. On the Apostles and Nicene creeds expressing Christian faith
4. On the exact identity and inspiration of the Scriptures
5. On the means of Salvation granted to the church
6. On all matters of faith proclaimed by the Church, including those discussed here about Mary

This is indeed very good news.

Peace!

We agree about how the Bible was put together. But we probably disagree about what “church” constitutes.

You probably (I’m making an assumption here) define church as an institution that meets in a building, follows certain official teachings, by-laws and rituals (I don’t mean that in an empty manner) and which has a hierarchy of officials who interpret various writings (including Scripture), formulates codes and tell people what to do in terms of building their relationship with God (I mean to simplify the explanation of church, not to make light of it).

I see church as a body of believers who are encouraged by elders to personally follow the word of God (including the following of certain rituals) and to personally follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the word of God so as to have a personal relationship with Him. The meeting place is largely irrelevant.

You probably rely much on the writings of extra-Biblical scholars. I trust the Bible, only.

Because we differ on the definition *we will see the **role *of the church differently.

 

[joe370]

No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I have said before, and say again, is that mankind is slow to hear what the Spirit is saying to them. The reason being that we are conditioned by our culture, our upbringing, the doctrines we hear in church, the iniquities of our heart, etc.

I guess you are suggesting that some have truth and some do not?

In a world where people are conditioned by their culture, upbringing, the doctrines they hear in their church, the iniquities of our heart, etc - do you believe there is a way for each and every person to have a firm grasp of the truths found in the bible? Keeping in mind that the bible is not working because the bible says different things to different folks regarding certain teachings.

The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for us so that we may take out of it that which we need in order for us to grow closer to God.

I have no idea how a collection of books, we call the holy bible, can interpret itself??? People interpret those books and people take out of it that which they need in order for them to grow closer to God, and quite often what people take from the bible gives way to doctrinal division.

I’m trying to understand but I’m just not getting it… The only conclusion I can draw based on your statements is:

Doctrinal truth regarding certain doctrines that divide Christianity, is relative. There are no absolute truths regarding those doctrines that divide Christianity.

Is that a correct assessment?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I like you Richard. I admire your tenacity. Please for the record when you state something like these notions about belief they are not universal and they are not agreed on and for the record you should, in my opinion, this would be more palatable…

For instance…as you know we disagree on Justification, I, as a Protestant do not believe that it happens in Baptism and I know you do…I on the other hand believe it happens when we believe and as you know I reference the letter to the Romans, thay you disagree on as has been pointed out by others that this statement has nothing to do with salvation, concerning confessing and I have seen that it is addressing the Judiazing Christians. I understand that…

Our Protestant understanding of Salvation includes as you know Justification and Sanctification and I know that it parallels your concept of ongoing Justification in your thinking…and we agree on Glorification. We both agree that we need God’s graces.

Now Richard this would indicate that you know both sides of the coin and then a proper discussion could be entertained…may you stay in Christ.

Well thanks for the lesson on posting 101, however if people are reading the post they probably have a pretty good idea of what the other side is because it’s usually right there for them to read. I believe these posts are long enough without me reposting what the other person has already posted. I have not caught up to the end of this thread. Just wondering, have you given this advice to Good Fella?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I have raised a question a number of times which none of the proponents of Sola Scriptura have even attempted any sort of response to.

Probably because the title of this thread is Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

 

[PRmerger]

The Bereans, by studying the OT in light of Paul’s teachings, they saw that Jesus was truly their long awaited Messiah and this lead them to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You don’t even realize, I think, the importance of what you just stated above.

The above is EXACTLY the Catholic paradigm. We hear the kerygma–and study the Scriptures and understand it in light of the Oral Teachings.

IOW: “by studying -]the OT /-] Scriptures in light of -]Paul’s /-] the Church’s teachings, they saw that Jesus was truly their long awaited Messiah and this lead them to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

[PRmerger]

When I pray, I will always pray to God the Father, and all my request will be in Jesus name, nor will I be** repetitious,** because I believe what Jesus and the scriptures say about prayer.** I will not judge how others pray,** but this is the way I choose to pray and why.

Well, it’s a good thing you say you don’t judge how others pray, because if you did, you’d be condemning the Inspired Writer of Psalms, who clearly is being repetitious.

Praise the LORD, for he is good;

for his mercy endures forever;
With mighty hand and outstretched arm,
for his mercy endures forever;

Who split in two the Red Sea,
**
for his mercy endures forever;**

And led Israel through its midst,

for his mercy endures forever;

But swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea,

for his mercy endures forever;

Who led the people through the desert,i
**
for his mercy endures forever;**

Who struck down great kings,j

for his mercy endures forever;

Slew powerful kings,

for his mercy endures forever;

Sihon, king of the Amorites,

for his mercy endures forever;

Og, king of Bashan,

for his mercy endures forever;

And made their lands a heritage,

for his mercy endures forever;

A heritage for Israel, his servant,

for his mercy endures forever.

The Lord remembered us in our low estate,

for his mercy endures forever;

Freed us from our foes,

for his mercy endures forever;

And gives bread to all flesh,

for his mercy endures forever.

Praise the God of heaven,

for his mercy endures forever

 

[PRmerger]

Nonetheless, I believe God, through men, put the Bible together.

Well, this makes you quite Catholic in your belief, gerhard! God did put the Bible together through men. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be specific, in union with the Pope.

Whether or not that authenticates the men in question is answered by the questions as to whether or nor Balaam’s donkey was authenticated when he spoke to him. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not saying that the men who put the Bible together were d
donkeys!

No one here has been saying that these Catholic bishops were “authenticated” (whatever that means).

But what it does show is that you subscribe to an authority OUTSIDE of Scripture. It is the authority of these Catholic men that you give tacit approval to, each and every time you quote Philemon, Titus, Romans, Psalms, Genesis, etc etc etc.

For you would not know that any of the above ancient texts were inspired were it not for these men who discerned them to be inspired under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Only that God can get done what needs to get done through anyone. )umbsup:

Remember you quoting previously that Jesus Himself inspired the Apostles’ teachings (as is reflectef in their letters - what we know as the Epistles)? I agree with that. Jesus is God. That makes the Epistles the word of God. The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God. Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

What about the Gospel of Thomas? Why do you not accept that to be the Word of God?

Here’s the reason you don’t: because the Catholic Church discerned for you that this ancient Christian text did not contain the* kerygma, *the faith given once for all to the saints.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Well, it’s a good thing you say you don’t judge how others pray, because if you did, you’d be condemning the Inspired Writer of Psalms, who clearly is being repetitious.
Praise the LORD, for he is good;

for his mercy endures forever;

And Jesus as well:
Mark 14::

				[[32]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=32#x) And they came to a farm called Gethsemani. And he saith to his disciples: Sit you here, while I pray. 					[[33]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=33#x) And he taketh Peter and James and John with him; and he began to fear and to be heavy. 					[[34]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=34#x) And he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death; stay you here, and watch. 					[[35]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=35#x)  And when he was gone forward a little, he fell flat on the ground; and  he prayed, that if it might be, the hour might pass from him. 					 					[[36]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=36#x)  And he saith: Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove  this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt. 					[[37]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=37#x) And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? couldst thou not watch one hour? 					[[38]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=38#x) Watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 					[[39]](http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=14&l=39#x) And going away **again, he prayed, saying the same words.**

 

[CopticChristian]

Well thanks for the lesson on posting 101, however if people are reading the post they probably have a pretty good idea of what the other side is because it’s usually right there for them to read. I believe these posts are long enough without me reposting what the other person has already posted. I have not caught up to the end of this thread. Just wondering, have you given this advice to Good Fella?

If it happens that after a series of dialogues with Good Fella I find that I have been less than humble as I reflect on our dialogue and if I find that I gain as much admiration for good fella as I do for you and I find that it is appropriate I might. May you remain in Christ.