Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[josephback]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

I came to Catholicism from the Reformation. Sola Scriptura in its historical beginnings was really a way to try and get away from the authority of the Church. Because the Reformation teachings were at odds with historic Christian dogma, they had to find a way to justify themselves against accusations of heresy. How did they do this? By trying to turn the Bible against the Church.

Secondly, they might like to assert a primacy to the Bible, but no one actually uses Scripture alone. How can we know this? Because even if its just us and our Bible in a room together we still bring our own prejuduces and biases to the study. The serious disagreement and debate amongst non-Catholic communities itself is proof that the Bible by itself is not enough to determine dogma. It’s really a war of competing magisteriums (Catholic vs. Methodist vs. Jehovah Witness for instance) than it is a matter of the Catholic Church being un-Biblical. Non-Catholics will generally put their own (or their communities) interpretation on a Bible verse and then claim that the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible. Catholic dogma doesn’t contradict the Bible, it contradicts their communities interpretation of the Bible. This is important to realize.

Finally, as the foundation of the Church in Ephesians Jesus is the chief cornerstone. This has no quarrel with Catholicism. But in Matthew 16:18 He is the architect, the Church’s builder. As the builder, He designates a certain man (Peter) as the rock and leader around which the faithful gather. Jesus went back to heaven but He left His representative in Peter to lead and strengthen the Christian faithful.

Your best bet is to use these non-Catholic assertions for incentive to strengthen your own understanding of Catholicism. The best authority on Catholicism isn’t her enemies, but the Church itself. Find out what the Church teaches and why from the Church herself. Catholic Answers is a wonderful resource to help in this. God be with you

 

[Luvtosew]

I guess this is all just your personal opinion…?

What is your personal opinion/interpretation of the following passage:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:5-6[/BIBLEDRB]

If no person is righteous, including Mary, what does this passage mean?

Are you trying to imply that Zacharisand Elizabeth are born without original sin too.
I never said Mary was not righteous, I said there is nothing to imply she was born without original sin.

To assume otherwise is in error, as she herself said she was handmaid (humbe servant) of the Lord and called the Lord her saviour.

 

[Luvtosew]

Lutosew:

The above argument is weak and for several reasons.

1. By stating if Mary was free of sin,it absolutely means her parents and their parents were also free of sin. So God cannot prevent one girl from original sin simply because it would mean also her parents had to be born of original sin?
2. By making such a claim absolutely means God is limited and therefore cannot be an Eternal God with endless limits.
3. Such a position would render that God the Creator of everything seen and unseen is NOT capable of simply picking ONE person and not be born with original sin.

Your position simply places limits and places God in a box.

Acutally I think your position places limits on God and on who he is.

Why would he need to be born of someone without original sin, sin is not imputed to him.Sin cant enter God.

 

[pismopal]

and you have no proff that she was sinless. No Jesus would not be included because he was God, so he is the only exception. All others in the bible we have to assume were quilty or original sin, and that includes Mary , as they were all born of humans.

If you are going to be strictly literal about the word “all”…you must include the mentally ill…children…and Mary…and Jesus. You are taking the word “all” out of context(another subject) and therefore you are bound by your own rule, which you must/should admit, makes no sense. It is liberating to open your mind to truths that were taught to Christians long before a wriiten Bible was codified, printed and available for reading.

 

[Luvtosew]

Luvtosew,

• God is omniscient, omnipotent, and consistent.
• God chose Mary to bring His Son into the world.
• Actual Sin separates us from God, and the stain of Original Sin makes us inclined to oppose God.
• God would not create a mother who is inclined to oppose or reject her own son.
• Jesus was Mary’s son.
• Mary was not inclined to oppose or reject her own Son, Jesus.
• God is omniscient, omnipotent, and consistent; therefore, God would not create Mary with the stain of Original Sin, while at the same time creating her for the purpose of carrying His Son in her womb, and bringing His Son into the world.

Yes to all above, I dont’ know who said Mary was inclined to reject Jesus, she said “Let it be done” Yes God is consistant to if everyone is born with original sin, everyone is, he is no respector of persons. He does’t force anyone to accept him. Did he not have enough faith in Mary to know she could be holy and honorable for such a posistion to have put her faith and trust in the Lord. In a way your dishonoring Mary, saying God had to make her unable to sin, she herself had faith in the Lord. God has never made anyone in the Bible do anything.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are you trying to imply that Zacharisand Elizabeth are born without original sin too.
I never said Mary was not righteous, I said there is nothing to imply she was born without original sin.

To assume otherwise is in error, as she herself said she was handmaid (humbe servant) of the Lord and called the Lord her saviour.

Luvtosew,

Have you had a chance to read what the RC teaches about Mary?

Do you disagree with the Church and with the Papal Encyclical then?

Peace,

Jose

 

[Luvtosew]

Luvtosew,

Have you had a chance to read what the RC teaches about Mary?

Do you disagree with the Church and with the Papal Encyclical then?

Peace,

Jose

Yes I know the Church teaching on Mary, but I have come to not agree with her being born without origianal sin. In no way does this take away from Mary, we all know she was special and is special to our Lord. All the world will call me blessed. I think she is too be looked up to, to of been born human and of being so honored by Christ to of been his earthly Mother. We should all wish we in with our sinful nature should be so honored. I don’t understand why this would mean such a difference, how wonderful for God to make people sinless for us to look up to, I believe God blesses people who have put their faith and trust in him and apparently she did.

 

[stewstew03]

Luvtosew,

Have you had a chance to read what the RC teaches about Mary?

Do you disagree with the Church and with the Papal Encyclical then?

Peace,

Jose

This is a good place to start. I’m having a hard time following LTS’s position…

 

[stewstew03]

Yes to all above…

If you agree to all of the above, then we are in agreement on this issue.

“All” means “all” right?

 

[stewstew03]

Yes I know the Church teaching on Mary, but I have come to not agree with her being born without origianal sin. In no way does this take away from Mary, we all know she was special and is special to our Lord. All the world will call me blessed. I think she is too be looked up to, to of been born human and of being so honored by Christ to of been his earthly Mother. We should all wish we in with our sinful nature should be so honored. I don’t understand why this would mean such a difference, how wonderful for God to make people sinless for us to look up to, I believe God blesses people who have put their faith and trust in him and apparently she did.

Are you saying Mary somehow “earned” God’s favor, and therefore allowed her to carry the Son of God in her womb?

 

[Luvtosew]

Are you saying Mary somehow “earned” God’s favor, and therefore allowed her to carry the Son of God in her womb?

Earned no not in the way of works, but by her life, the way she lived , her love and honor for God, God found favor with her, because she loved the Lord so much she put her trust and faith in him.
We, or I’ll speak for myself, don’t even come close to her holiness that God seen in her. Like I said very special.

but look at Adam and Eve, first created people, although I know thats debated now as just a story by some, but they were not born with original sin and they both sinned, so how did that happen. So what does being born without origianal sin have to do with anything. We are always tempted by Satan. It makes no sense.

I also think its taking away from Marys humanity too.

 

[Nicea325]

Acutally I think your position places limits on God and on who he is.

Why would he need to be born of someone without original sin, sin is not imputed to him.Sin cant enter God.

Far from it! Listen to what you are saying? It is you who is claiming Mary HAD TO BE BORN with sin because “All” means…ALL. Therefore God would not and did not protect Mary from original sin. We Catholics are saying God can do such a task,thus we are NOT limiting Him. It is you alone placing limits on God. And why? Because it conflicts with your interpretation and novel tradition.

Why would he need to be born of someone without original sin, sin is not imputed to him.Sin cant enter God

EXACTLY! Because sin cannot co-exist with God,thus he needs a clean vessel.

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men **who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant), and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

Your argument simply holds no logical explanation.

 

[Luvtosew]

Far from it! Listen to what you are saying? It is you who is claiming Mary HAD TO BE BORN with sin because “All” means…ALL. Therefore God would not and did not protect Mary from original sin. We Catholics are saying God can do such a task,thus we are NOT limiting Him. It is you alone placing limits on God. And why? Because it conflicts with your interpretation and novel tradition.

EXACTLY! Because sin cannot co-exist with God,thus he needs a clean vessel.

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men **who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant), and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

Your argument simply holds no logical explanation.

Nicea, its not the All , at all. its the whole Bible, everyone in it. God can be near sin, he is not infused with sin, it can’t affect him except in the pain he feels when he sees us sin. He had no fear of sin.

I place no limits on God and I see Mary as human being, and she is not a body of sin, she was a honorable woman, and God blessed her. Sad to say Mary was under the debt of sin, because she inherited origianl sin like the rest of us?

Or is original sin not true, I see nothing in the Bible stating original sin. Can’t have it both ways.

Yes the HS is will not dwell in an unbeliever, so right about that. But that wasnt Mary.

So your argument holds no logic either. Or should I say the Churches stand on it. which I find very confusing, depending on who you read or listen too, I’ve heard some Priests say oh Gen , the Ark and Jonah are just stories, not real. Now what is the Churches teaching on creation and evolution, theres also some debate there. One either needs to trust the Bible or on take bits and peices of it I guess.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes I know the Church teaching on Mary, but I have come to not agree with her being born without origianal sin. In no way does this take away from Mary, we all know she was special and is special to our Lord. All the world will call me blessed. I think she is too be looked up to, to of been born human and of being so honored by Christ to of been his earthly Mother. We should all wish we in with our sinful nature should be so honored. I don’t understand why this would mean such a difference, how wonderful for God to make people sinless for us to look up to, I believe God blesses people who have put their faith and trust in him and apparently she did.

Sister,

If you know what the Church teaches, why would you bring up arguments that the Church already explained?

So in your interpretation, you don’t stand on Sola Scriptura or on Roman Catholicism

Would you agree that knowledge and understanding are not the same?

You can know something but not understand it, I know that God said: “Let there be light”, but I don’t understand how it exactly happened, or how exactly the Word of God is so powerful that by His command light comes into being. I **know **He can, but I don’t **understand **how He does it.

In that sense, how can you understand God made flesh from a sinful woman? And how can you understand different from what the Church teaches?

Peace,

Jose

 

[pablope]

and you have no proff that she was sinless. No Jesus would not be included because he was God, so he is the only exception. All others in the bible we have to assume were quilty or original sin, and that includes Mary , as they were all born of humans.

Hmmm…here is your contradiction…first you said "all’…there are no exceptions…then you exclude Jesus…so you are already making an exception…and contradicting your self.

Here is another contradiction that is caused by your interpretation…from Luke 1…there are persons called sinless/blameless in the Bible…from Luke 1…5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

If all is all…why the Bible contradicting itself when it says…Zechariah and Elizabeth are both blameless?

 

[Luvtosew]

Hmmm…here is your contradiction…first you said "all’…there are no exceptions…then you exclude Jesus…so you are already making an exception…and contradicting your self.

Here is another contradiction that is caused by your interpretation…from Luke 1…there are persons called sinless/blameless in the Bible…from Luke 1…5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

If all is all…why the Bible contradicting itself when it says…Zechariah and Elizabeth are both blameless?

No but were they born without orignal sin?

Jesus is God,of course he is an exception, He IS God on Earth. Our Creator.

 

[pismopal]

Hmmm…here is your contradiction…first you said "all’…there are no exceptions…then you exclude Jesus…so you are already making an exception…and contradicting your self.

Here is another contradiction that is caused by your interpretation…from Luke 1…there are persons called sinless/blameless in the Bible…from Luke 1…5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

If all is all…why the Bible contradicting itself when it says…Zechariah and Elizabeth are both blameless?

We are witnessing what happens when someone relies on their own understanding. A wonderfull object lesson for believers who include among their beliefs that Jesus left us a Church and a Magesterium.

 

[Nicea325]

Luvtosew:

Nicea, its not the All , at all. its the whole Bible, everyone in it. God can be near sin, he is not infused with sin, it can’t affect him except in the pain he feels when he sees us sin. He had no fear of sin.

I am sorry,but now you seem to be diverting. You quoted Romans 3:23 and you were very adamant there was no EXCPETIONS. Thus…it would mean Jesus who also is MAN…100% would be included.

I place no limits on God and I see Mary as human being, and she is not a body of sin, she was a honorable woman, and God blessed her. Sad to say Mary was under the debt of sin, because she inherited origianl sin like the rest of us?

Of course you do place limits on Him and you just confirmed it again:

Sad to say Mary was under the debt of sin, because she inherited origianl sin like the rest of us?

Mary WAS under the debt of sin? You a finite creature knows with 100% certitude God DID NOT & would not protect His vessel who would conceive GOD in the flesh from sin? Wow!

You have yet to rebuke my rebuttal:

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant**), and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself!

Can you explain that mystery?

Or is original sin not true, I see nothing in the Bible stating original sin. Can’t have it both ways.

It is not a matter if original sin is true or not,it is a matter of you admiiting that you accept a novel belief,whether you care to admit it or not. No different than Protestants claiming God is NOT present in the Eucharist. It is called spiritual pride…sorry to say it.

Yes the HS is will not dwell in an unbeliever, so right about that. But that wasnt Mary.

According to you it was not Mary,holds little credence against what God did. It pales in comparison.

So your argument holds no logic either.

Of course it does,you just cannot accept it,plain and simple. Again…explain how the following statement holds no logic:

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant**), and yet NOT sanctifying the womb who carried God himself!

How is that illogical?

Or should I say the Churches stand on it. which I find very confusing, depending on who you read or listen too, I’ve heard some Priests say oh Gen , the Ark and Jonah are just stories, not real.

And? Does not matter,erroneous beliefs have no bearing on doctrinal truth.

Now what is the Churches teaching on creation and evolution, theres also some debate there. One either needs to trust the Bible or on take bits and peices of it I guess.

I do not place trust in the Bible,but God.

 

[Phineas]

Phoenix says:: Not necessarily true. Adam and Eve, when they were first created, were without sin. There are even several instances in Scripture were people are called “blameless before God,” such as Elizabeth and her husband.

Your logic here escapes me. The Bible says all have sinned, and obviously this means exactly what it says. Adam and Eve sinned . Anyone who sins and repents in sincerity before God is pardoned and could be blameless from that point on, but they have sinned. Abraham was said to be righteous and a keeper of the commandments, but that did not mean he had never sinned. He broke the 9th commandment when he lied about his wife.

Phoenix: Genesis 3:15~ I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

this verse explicitly states that the seed’s mother is likewise at enmity with the Devil.

With all due respect Phoenix , this scriptures give no support for such a claim. First of all, the correct translation of Gen 3:15 from the Hebrew text does not say “she shall crush thy head” ,but rather Gen. 3:15 says" And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The English Douay–Rheims Bible 1609 onwards has “she (Mary) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” The reading was supported in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of December 1854, and is defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), where Anthony Maas (noted catholic exegete) acknowledges that the Douay–Rheims does not follow the Hebrew" Wilkopedia

Phoenix:There is no scriptural evidence to suggest that Mary was a sinner.

1.She needed a Savior:
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

. Mary obviously knew she had sinned because she called Jesus her Savior. Jesus came to redeem sinners and pay the penalty for their sins. If one has never sinned than one does not need a Savior. Jesus said, "
… "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mark 2:17 )

2. She was not excepted as was Jesus when scripture says all have sinned.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
3:23 Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

(Gal 3:22 KJV) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
**
3. John the Baptist more esteemed than Mary**
Matt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

If there were no greater person born of woman than John the Baptist, does that mean he was also sinless and of an immaculate conception ? What was it about Mary that made her less honorable than John in Jesus’ estimation?

 

[Luvtosew]

Luvtosew:

I am sorry,but now you seem to be diverting. You quoted Romans 3:23 and you were very adamant there was no EXCPETIONS. Thus…it would mean Jesus who also is MAN…100% would be included.

Of course you do place limits on Him and you just confirmed it again:

Sad to say Mary was under the debt of sin, because she inherited origianl sin like the rest of us?

Mary WAS under the debt of sin? You a finite creature knows with 100% certitude God DID NOT & would not protect His vessel who would conceive GOD in the flesh from sin? Wow!

You have yet to rebuke my rebuttal:

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant**), and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself!

Can you explain that mystery?

It is not a matter if original sin is true or not,it is a matter of you admiiting that you accept a novel belief,whether you care to admit it or not. No different than Protestants claiming God is NOT present in the Eucharist. It is called spiritual pride…sorry to say it.

According to you it was not Mary,holds little credence against what God did. It pales in comparison.

Of course it does,you just cannot accept it,plain and simple. Again…explain how the following statement holds no logic:

There would be no sense in** sanctifying men** who carried a box (Ark of the Covenant), and yet NOT sanctifying the womb who carried God himself!

How is that illogical?

And? Does not matter,erroneous beliefs have no bearing on doctrinal truth.

I do not place trust in the Bible,but God.

To say you do not place your trust in the bible proves my point, as there is no way you can place your trust in God either. Mary needed a Saviour , the Bible says so, and that is what we need to go by. There is no one that has not sinned in the Bible. And either Adam and Eve didn’t pass on original sin or they did, if they did , we all got it. Even Noah and his sons took it in Ark with them and kept passing it on.