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

[guanophore]

The fact is , that peter never went to rome…he was an Apostle to the jews not the gentiles…

Peter was married.
He was a denier of christ. ( 3 times )
He was rebuked by paul the Apostle for his hypocrisy.

so a perfect example of an early so called pope.
and btw…to refer to that impostor in Rome as pope is Blasphemy also…he has no right to be called that !!
you are better off sticing to your bible… get a King james version, the catholics hate it…

Annoyancer, you are a guest on a Catholic forum. You may wish to consider reading the forum rules. You don’t have to embrace our faith to post here, but you are required to post with courtesy. If you wish to spout such insults, I can assure you that there are other forums that will welcome you.

 

[Hamlet123]

Just a note about the KJV of the Bible: The first version was a “Catholic” version. It had all the books in it; albeit, in a different order than we know now. But there were Catholic bibles in early history that also had the approved books in different orders as well.

 

[Pheonix]

Your logic here escapes me.

How so? My logic is completely valid. Unfortunately, yours is not.

The Bible says all have sinned, and obviously this means exactly what it says.

No, it does not. The “all” in Romans does not literally mean “all.” It means “many.” Why? Because as I’ve said before, there are notable exceptions to this “all.”

1. Jesus Christ
2. Mary~ God spared her from the effects of Original Sin because, as I have said before, Jesus inherited His human nature from His mother. Therefore, if Mary was a sinner, then so too was Jesus.
3. Children below the age of reason/accountability~ The Bible defines sin as a “transgression of the Law,” correct? Well, if that’s the case, then young children cannot sin. In order to transgress the Law, one must be able to distinguish the difference between good and evil. Young children cannot do this, and therefore they cannot sin. If you say otherwise, then please provide some credible, logical evidence as to what sins young children commit.
4. People who have had their mental functions stripped away due to mental illness~ same as with the children below the age of reason. If someone no longer has control of his or her thoughts, he or she cannot possibly distinguish between good and evil. Hence, such people cannot sin. Again, if you say otherwise, then please provide evidence as to what sins these people can commit.

However, let’s say you’re right for a moment. If the “all” in Romans literally means “ALL,” then you MUST conclude that Jesus Himself was a sinner. You’re interpreting the “all” as indicating an absolute statement. An absolute statement means there are no exceptions. Period. Therefore, if there are no exceptions to this “all have sinned” verse, then you cannot exclude our Lord and Savior. Allow me to demonstrate this with some syllogism:

A. All humans are sinners.
B. Jesus was human.
C. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.

You can’t escape this logic. Your interpretation of the “all” in Romans is veritably false.

Adam and Eve sinned.

Except that they were sinless when they were first created, which is the point I’m trying to make.

Anyone who sins and repents in sincerity before God is pardoned and could be blameless from that point on, but they have sinned.

Two problems with this:

1. God does not forget our sins. He may forgive us for offending Him, but He still holds us to those sins. We’re still accountable for all sins we commit, and are therefore never “blameless.”
2. Let’s look at the actual verse in question, with respect to Elizabeth and her husband:

And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame. (Luke 1:6)

Since the Bible defines sin as a “transgression of the Law,” then how is it possible for Elizabeth and her husband to have sinned? This verse explicitly states that they were “just before God,” and followed all of His Law without blame. If they followed His Law completely, without blame being held towards them, then how is it possible that they have transgressed the Law?

With all due respect Phoenix , this scriptures give no support for such a claim.

Pray tell, why does Genesis 3:15 not point to Mary’s Immaculate Conception? I didn’t just this the verse, you know. I included a detailed, well-reasoned, and logical explanation as to why this verse points to Mary being without sin. You didn’t refute anything from my explanation. Therefore, you have dodged my argument. Unless you respond to my explanation concerning Genesis 3:15, I will be forced to conclude that you cannot answer my argument.

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."

First of all, many biblical scholars I have read admit that the original Hebrew word in Genesis 3:15 is rather ambiguous, and can be translated as “he,” “she,” or “it.” According to English grammar, then “it” is the most appropriate pronoun. However, the actual Hebrew word used in that verse does not exclusively mean “it.”

Second of all, this does not answer my argument concerning Genesis 3:15 in any way, shape, or form. The important part of the verse is “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The “he/she/it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his/her/its heel” has no effect whatsoever on my argument.

“I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed” can only refer to Jesus and Mary. Since both are at enmity with the Devil, they both must be without sin.

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

This is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

continued in my next post…

 

[Pheonix]

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, "

As I told you before, the “Mary needed a Savior, therefore she is a sinner” is faulty logic. Mary needing a Savior does not rule out the possibility of her Immaculate Conception.

First of all, all descendants of Adam and Eve are at risk of contracting Original Sin. However, as per Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28, God intervened and spared Mary from the effects of Original Sin. Why? Because Jesus would have been a sinner if Mary had been a sinner also.

Second of all, consider the following analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place.

This is an excellent illustration as to how Mary’s Immaculate Conception happened.

2. She was not excepted as was Jesus when scripture says all have sinned.

As I have already demonstrated, if the “all” in Romans literally means “all,” then you have to conclude that Jesus was a sinner also. You simply cannot escape the logic of this argument.

Since Jesus, the New Adam, was saved from sin, Catholics can logically argue that Mary, the New Eve, was also saved from sin (as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 indicates).

(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.

Again, by this logic, you must include Jesus was under the stain of sin also.

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 ?

First of all, Mary being held in less esteem than John the Baptist is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Second of all, if “none born of women” are greater than John the Baptist (which again, you’re interpreting the Bible quite literally here), then you must conclude that Jesus was lesser than His cousin.

A. No one born of women is greater than John the Baptist.
B. Jesus was born of a woman.
C. Therefore, Jesus is not greater than John the Baptist.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Very well put Pheonix!

On this Alone (pun intended ), we can see how Scripture Alone can’t explain itself and shows why the need of an authority to be explained. Thus the Apostles and their successors.

Peace,

Jose

 

[JonNC]

Pray tell, why does Genesis 3:15 not point to Mary’s Immaculate Conception? I didn’t just this the verse, you know. I included a detailed, well-reasoned, and logical explanation as to why this verse points to Mary being without sin. You didn’t refute anything from my explanation. Therefore, you have dodged my argument. Unless you respond to my explanation concerning Genesis 3:15, I will be forced to conclude that you cannot answer my argument.

*“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.” *

While a agree with a significant portion of what you’ve posted, i am not sure understand how Gen 3:15 points to the IC. It is reasonable to conclude that the Blessed Virgin was full of grace at the time of Christ’s conception. It is alsoacceptable to believe she remained free of personal sin following. But even the Orthodox don’t see the IC here.

orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception

St. Ephraim the Syrian: “As lightning illuminates what is hidden, so also Christ purifies what is hidden in the nature of things. He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power. He purified the Virgin, having prepared Her by the Holy Spirit… having been born, He left Her virgin. I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being illuminated by grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desi*res”

To be sure, I am not saying the IC is wrong, necessarily, but the possibility that she became purified at the visitation, for example, is equally supportable.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

As I told you before, the “Mary needed a Savior, therefore she is a sinner” is faulty logic. Mary needing a Savior does not rule out the possibility of her Immaculate Conception.

First of all, all descendants of Adam and Eve are at risk of contracting Original Sin. However, as per Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28, God intervened and spared Mary from the effects of Original Sin. Why? Because Jesus would have been a sinner if Mary had been a sinner also.

Second of all, consider the following analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place.

This is an excellent illustration as to how Mary’s Immaculate Conception happened.

As I have already demonstrated, if the “all” in Romans literally means “all,” then you have to conclude that Jesus was a sinner also. You simply cannot escape the logic of this argument.

Since Jesus, the New Adam, was saved from sin, Catholics can logically argue that Mary, the New Eve, was also saved from sin (as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 indicates).

Again, by this logic, you must include Jesus was under the stain of sin also.

First of all, Mary being held in less esteem than John the Baptist is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Second of all, if “none born of women” are greater than John the Baptist (which again, you’re interpreting the Bible quite literally here), then you must conclude that Jesus was lesser than His cousin.

A. No one born of women is greater than John the Baptist.
B. Jesus was born of a woman.
C. Therefore, Jesus is not greater than John the Baptist.

The only problem is Jesus is God on earth and can’t sin and is immune to sin. John the Baptist is 100 human, and all have sinned does not include Jesus, just everyone else.

 

[Pheonix]

While a agree with a significant portion of what you’ve posted, i am not sure understand how Gen 3:15 points to the IC. It is reasonable to conclude that the Blessed Virgin was full of grace at the time of Christ’s conception. It is alsoacceptable to believe she remained free of personal sin following. But even the Orthodox don’t see the IC here.

Here’s how I see: Genesis 3:15 says that the seed and its mother shall be at enmity with the Devil. I take the seed to be a reference to Christ, and therefore see the “at enmity” as a reference to sin; Christ, besides the fact that He is God, is like us in all ways except sin because He was also fully man. I don’t see how someone can be at enmity with the Devil if he or she is giving into the various temptations of sin.

Since the verse says the seed’s mother is likewise at enmity with the Devil, I believe that this points to Mary being like us in all ways except sin also. Whether this sinless-ness happened at the time of her conception or at the Annunciation is still a theological debate.

You’re free to disagree with my explanation, but I hope I explained myself well enough as to how I, and some of my fellow Catholics, see Mary’s sinless nature being foretold in this verse.

To be sure, I am not saying the IC is wrong, necessarily, but the possibility that she became purified at the visitation, for example, is equally supportable.

 

[Pheonix]

The only problem is Jesus is God on earth and can’t sin and is immune to sin. John the Baptist is 100 human, and all have sinned does not include Jesus, just everyone else.

This doesn’t make logical sense, though. Yes, Jesus is fully God, but He is also fully man. Jesus being perfectly divine does not somehow cancel out His perfectly human nature (i.e. Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent human).

If the “all” in Romans is literally supposed to mean “all,” then it indicates an absolute statement. An absolute statement, such as “anything can be a symbol,” holds that no exceptions can be made. Period. If, therefore, the “all have sinned” verse is supposed to be taken that literally, then Jesus has to be included in that “all” because He was perfectly human also.

If your logic, that all humans are sinners because of the “all have sinned” verse, then the following syllogism is completely valid:

A. All humans are sinners
B. Jesus was a human.
C. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.

 

[guanophore]

The only problem is Jesus is God on earth and can’t sin and is immune to sin. John the Baptist is 100 human, and all have sinned does not include Jesus, just everyone else.

This thinking represents an early heresy. Jeuss is 100% human, and as such, he had the capacity to sin.

In reference to your misinterpretation of the scriptures about “all have sinned”, I think it might help if you look at the context from which Paul is quoting. He took that verse from one of the Psalms. When you go back and look at the context, it is clear that the Psalmist is describing two types of people, the righteous, and the unrighteous. Paul is also describing two groups of people, Jews and Gentiles. He is saying that Jews are not righteous just because they are Jews, and Gentiles are not lost just because they are Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles sin.

 

[Luvtosew]

Both Jews and Gentiles sin and everyone in between. So Jesus could sin hey,well he didn’t.

Ya know if yous want to bring Mary on equal ground as Jesus be my guess, but she was born like the rest of us, with original sin. Of course we are all free to believe what we want.

 

[Elixir]

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

The Bible never says anywhere that it alone is all you need. That notion is very unbiblical. Indeed, the Bible never came with a table of contents so how are you sure of which books should even be in the Bible? You’re sure, and even Protestants are sure (at least about the New Testament), because of the authority of the Catholic Church to decide and canonize the books of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is so obviously false on it’s face that it hardly needs refuting.

 

[Nicea325]

The only problem is Jesus is God on earth and can’t sin and is immune to sin. John the Baptist is 100 human, and all have sinned does not include Jesus, just everyone else.

Heretical! Jesus also is 100%…no matter how much you wish to deny it! Why you keep on denying Jesus full human nature is beyond me and others here. Jesus was born 100% human and also died 100%!

 

[guanophore]

Both Jews and Gentiles sin and everyone in between. So Jesus could sin hey,well he didn’t.

I am glad that you have received this part of the Apostolic faith.

People don’t have to sin, Luvtosew. Jesus broke our slavery to sin, and has instilled His Holy Spirit in us, so that we can choose not to sin. It is not part of the human nature to sin. Humans were made free of sin, and through Christ, we are delivered from slavery to it.

Ya know if yous want to bring Mary on equal ground as Jesus be my guess, but she was born like the rest of us, with original sin. Of course we are all free to believe what we want.

All of us are brought into Christ by grace. We are partakers of the Divine Nature, but that does not make any of us Divine, Mary included. She is a creature.

As Catholics, we are not “all free to believe what we want”. We have an obligation to embrace the faith that was once for all committed to the Church by the Apostles. We are not free to depart from it. There is a lot of freedom in Catholicism for thought and choices, but departing from the One Faith is not included. If we were to choose to believe as you do, we would find ourselves “accursed” because we would have embraced “a different gospel” than the one that was delivered by the Apostles.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then too not only is Orthodoxy and Tradition disregarded, the Bible itself which comes from them is misunderstood. Who was Mark, John, Luke, Matthew, Peter, Paul, Jude, James etc? They were members of the Apostolic Church. Thus not only is this disregarded, but the correct understanding of their teaching is either twisted, ignored, or misunderstood in light of itself, and their teaching.

Let me show you an example how easy scripture is misunderstood. As this is discussed here.

google.com/url?q=http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html&sa=U&ei=36DKT-_pFYX-8ATf2ODvDg&ved=0CBgQFjAB&sig2=ICjBgGihG-EEJ7V1AWzkMA&usg=AFQjCNEVnv4VN4ioo4UneDQ1IQboFOZRPg

 

[Luvtosew]

However, if one assumes that the word “all” does not allow for exceptions then, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who observed “all” the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, are exceptions to “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23. However, if this person maintains that Zechariah and Elizabeth must have sinned in some way then he is forced to accept that the word “all” in Luke 1: 6 is to be understood so as to allow for some exception. Either way the word “all” must be allowed to be understood in the collective sense and permitting some exceptions. With that demonstrated it is no longer possible to maintain that the definition of the word “all” in Romans 3:23 never allows for exceptions.

That does not say they never sinned. Also why wasn’t Zechariah able to speak till John was born, and why didnt Elizabeth leave the house.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The point is Luv the word “all” must be allowed to be understood in the collective sense and permitting some exceptions.

 

[Luvtosew]

The point is Luv the word “all” must be allowed to be understood in the collective sense and permitting some exceptions.

Thats fine Gary, its not necessary for me to have respect for Mary even if I believe she was born with original sin. Its just not that big of an issue, and I’m not going to debate sola vs Rc, but I just stoped in about Mary, as I know one can debate SS vrs Tradition forever with no resolve, as there is none. There are several questionable places in the bible like 1 John 5:7 or that , the comma thing, but most of them dont’ really change the meaning of anything. If some want to believe there were some perfect sinless people thats fine. I not and have never met one.

 

[guanophore]

Thats fine Gary, its not necessary for me to have respect for Mary even if I believe she was born with original sin.

This amazes me when I hear things like this. How can any Christian claim that it is not necessary to have respect for the Mother of the Lord?!

She was good enough for Jesus to subject Himself to her. How is it she is not good enough for His followers?

I just can’t imagine that the disciples of Jesus who knew Mary personally had no respect for her!

If some want to believe there were some perfect sinless people thats fine. I not and have never met one.

I can assure you that heaven is full of them.

 

[Luvtosew]

This amazes me when I hear things like this. How can any Christian claim that it is not necessary to have respect for the Mother of the Lord?!

She was good enough for Jesus to subject Himself to her. How is it she is not good enough for His followers?

I just can’t imagine that the disciples of Jesus who knew Mary personally had no respect for her!

I can assure you that heaven is full of them.

You read me wrong, Its not necessary for me to believe Mary was born without original sin to have Respect for her, maybe I wrote it wrong, of course I respect her, all Christian do or should.