Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[ryanoneil]

I have never heard this before. Would you care to go into this in a little more detail ? What word is used? Can you explain the Greek to me, because if you have read any of my posts you can plainly see that I barely have a working mastery of English.

I can’t really explain the Greek because I am in the same boat as you. The Greek for “all” is pantes. I’m not sure what the Greek is for “many” in Rom 5:19.

 

[joshua_b]

I still can not release the contention that the entire crux of the verse is that no one is without need of Christ, for no one can please God on their own merit. The Church emphatically proclaims that Mary was no exception to this, she, like the rest of humanity, could only be saved through the passion of Christ. The moment in linear time that God chose to save her is of no real consequence, and to deny that God is capable of this (regardless of whether or not you believe this is what happened) denies the very sovereignty of God. God is not bound to the rules He gives us, and is free to save anyone by whatever means He chooses.

My entire premise through presentation of Scripture and logic has not been to convince anyone that they MUST believe this (again, that is the job of the Holy Spirit, not me), but rather to simply demonstrate that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is very justifiable on Scriptural and theological foundations.

As I have stated, to be in the presence of God in His full glory would cause death to anyone unholy…that is Scriptural. The physical presence of the Holy Spirit when Mary conceived Jesus requires Mary be perfect, and we know that no one can be perfected but by Jesus’ Passion. Jesus’ passion is only effecacious if He is unblemished. We know that Original Sin is obviously a very REAL condition, for no one escapes it. It is original sin that prevents us from being pleasing to God in the first place. As another poster pointed out, Mary would have been born with the ovum (egg) that would have developed into Jesus; it would have developed in the womb. I fail to see any other way that Jesus would have been able to remain unblemished and fulfill the requirements necessary to reconcile humanity to God.

Outside of that, i have no real answers on the linguistics of the meaning of the word “all”, and am not a brilliant scholar on Biblical exegesis. I have not spent years and years formally training myself in the theology and doctrinal development of my faith. In a debate with a trained Protestant apologist, I am quite certain that I would get my butt handed to me. A question that always comes to mind on matters such as these, and remains unanswered is …If the Catholic Church went “off the tracks” on this doctrine (or any other doctrine for that matter), where is the dissent of the “true Christians” ? This is something that was declared long before the Reformation, yet there is no evidence that this caused any real division or controversy in the Church. There is no record of Christians splitting from the universal Church in the name of “true doctrine”, or opposing this teaching. Where was the “true Church” that some historical revisionists claim was keeping the “true teachings” of Jesus while the Catholic Church was sliding into heresy and Apostasy ?

 

[ckempston]

I still can not release the contention that the entire crux of the verse is that no one is without need of Christ, for no one can please God on their own merit. The Church emphatically proclaims that Mary was no exception to this, she, like the rest of humanity, could only be saved through the passion of Christ. The moment in linear time that God chose to save her is of no real consequence, and to deny that God is capable of this (regardless of whether or not you believe this is what happened) denies the very sovereignty of God. God is not bound to the rules He gives us, and is free to save anyone by whatever means He chooses.

I will give you that the doctrine is not contradictory to scripture, even if it is not readily apparent to a casual reader.

My entire premise through presentation of Scripture and logic has not been to convince anyone that they MUST believe this (again, that is the job of the Holy Spirit, not me), but rather to simply demonstrate that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is very justifiable on Scriptural and theological foundations.

I’ve enjoyed our conversation and I think you’ve demonstrated your premise is indeed justifiable.

As I have stated, to be in the presence of God in His full glory would cause death to anyone unholy…that is Scriptural. The physical presence of the Holy Spirit when Mary conceived Jesus requires Mary be perfect, and we know that no one can be perfected but by Jesus’ Passion. Jesus’ passion is only effecacious if He is unblemished. We know that Original Sin is obviously a very REAL condition, for no one escapes it. It is original sin that prevents us from being pleasing to God in the first place. As another poster pointed out, Mary would have been born with the ovum (egg) that would have developed into Jesus; it would have developed in the womb. I fail to see any other way that Jesus would have been able to remain unblemished and fulfill the requirements necessary to reconcile humanity to God.

All very reasonable.

Outside of that, i have no real answers on the linguistics of the meaning of the word “all”, and am not a brilliant scholar on Biblical exegesis. I have not spent years and years formally training myself in the theology and doctrinal development of my faith. In a debate with a trained Protestant apologist, I am quite certain that I would get my butt handed to me. A question that always comes to mind on matters such as these, and remains unanswered is …If the Catholic Church went “off the tracks” on this doctrine (or any other doctrine for that matter), where is the dissent of the “true Christians” ? This is something that was declared long before the Reformation, yet there is no evidence that this caused any real division or controversy in the Church. There is no record of Christians splitting from the universal Church in the name of “true doctrine”, or opposing this teaching. Where was the “true Church” that some historical revisionists claim was keeping the “true teachings” of Jesus while the Catholic Church was sliding into heresy and Apostasy ?

I’m certainly no scholar either, but I have taught myself a fair amount of Greek. The more I’ve learned the more I realized that where Catholicism sticks to the Bible, it is pretty much on the money. However, I can’t shake this feeling, which you point out, that somewhere along the way, something went wrong. My answer to your objection of, “If not the Catholic church, which one?” is that this is not even the question. I realize we’ve beaten this to death, but I still stand by my claim that “the church” on this earth is not simply the Catholic church (as a corporate body). It is simply made up of all Christians, whether Catholic or otherwise, and I do not believe it has boundaries (the type where you can draw a line and say, “It starts here, and ends there.”)

 

[joshua_b]

I w

I’m certainly no scholar either, but I have taught myself a fair amount of Greek. The more I’ve learned the more I realized that where Catholicism sticks to the Bible, it is pretty much on the money. However, I can’t shake this feeling, which you point out, that somewhere along the way, something went wrong. My answer to your objection of, “If not the Catholic church, which one?” is that this is not even the question. I realize we’ve beaten this to death, but I still stand by my claim that “the church” on this earth is not simply the Catholic church (as a corporate body). It is simply made up of all Christians, whether Catholic or otherwise, and I do not believe it has boundaries (the type where you can draw a line and say, “It starts here, and ends there.”)

If you research how the Catholic Church defines “the Church” (yes, in the fullness of the term) you will find, ironically enough, that you are probably largely in agreement with what the Catholic Church has to say on the subject. Of course the Catholic Church maintains that it is “the Church”, but if you look at what the catechism says that includes, who the members of the Church (as the Body of Christ) are, how far it extends, and who/what it includes in it’s entirety, you may just be surprised. The Church Militant (the visible Catholic Church we see on this earth) is only one part of the Universal Church. Quite frankly, I personally find the official Catholic teaching on the Church to be the most complete and inclusive definition that has been presented by any faith tradition I have ever seen.

 

[ckempston]

If you research how the Catholic Church defines “the Church” (yes, in the fullness of the term) you will find, ironically enough, that you are probably largely in agreement with what the Catholic Church has to say on the subject. Of course the Catholic Church maintains that it is “the Church”, but if you look at what the catechism says that includes, who the members of the Church (as the Body of Christ) are, how far it extends, and who/what it includes in it’s entirety, you may just be surprised. The Church Militant (the visible Catholic Church we see on this earth) is only one part of the Universal Church. Quite frankly, I personally find the official Catholic teaching on the Church to be the most complete and inclusive definition that has been presented by any faith tradition I have ever seen.

A lot of irony around here lately. Catholics thinking like Protestants, Protestants thinking like Catholics. What gives?

That’s very interesting. I’ll have to dive back into the Catechism and see what else I agree with.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Joshua !
Quote= Joshua, Outside of that, I have no real answers on the linguistics of the meaning of the word “all”, and am not a brilliant scholar on Biblical exegesis.

Quote= onenow1, I don’t think most of the people Jesus chose were brilliant scholars. Post # 422

Quote =onenow1 Are there any exceptions to the word ‘All’?
What about babies and those with a mental retardation who have no reasoning power? Have they sinned? Have children below the age of reason sinned? Have comatose and senile people sinned? As you can see, there are exceptions.

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, “Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord”.

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb”.

Do these verses sound as if Zachary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist have sinned?

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since it is shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD?

Jesus came to save sinners, maybe I’m wrong here but doesen’t this imply from Jesus Himself said there are those without personal sin.:twocents:

Peace, onenow1

 

[ryanoneil]

You’ve taken the verse out of context, I’m afraid. Paul says:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience ** the** many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Take note of the article preceding “many.” It literally says, “this many” or “this multitude”, referring to an antecedent already noted in the passage. The antecedent is “all men.” The meaning of the passage is clearly:

…through one man’s disobedience this multitude of all men were made sinners.

Does that also mean: through the obedience of the One this multitude of all men will be made righteous?

Do you see the problem that arises when “all” means absolutely everyone?

The other problem with your interpretation is that it would contradict the doctrine of Original Sin. If all doesn’t mean all, it means that some people are not affected by Original Sin. I doubt you’ll be willing to admit that’s the case.

If all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well (which is what you were talking about).

I agree Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary’s sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

No, all means all.

Including every baby who wasn’t strong enough to survive infancy?

Believe me when I say, I like things that are cut and dry. This isn’t the case with the meaning of “all.”

Peace

 

[joshua_b]

A lot of irony around here lately. Catholics thinking like Protestants, Protestants thinking like Catholics. What gives?

That’s very interesting. I’ll have to dive back into the Catechism and see what else I agree with.

Truth is not denominational I suppose. LOL

 

[ckempston]

Hi, Joshua !
Quote= Joshua, Outside of that, I have no real answers on the linguistics of the meaning of the word “all”, and am not a brilliant scholar on Biblical exegesis.

Quote= onenow1, I don’t think most of the people Jesus chose were brilliant scholars. Post # 422

Quote =onenow1 Are there any exceptions to the word ‘All’?
What about babies and those with a mental retardation who have no reasoning power? Have they sinned? Have children below the age of reason sinned? Have comatose and senile people sinned? As you can see, there are exceptions.

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, “Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord”.

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb”.

Do these verses sound as if Zachary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist have sinned?

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since it is shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD?

Jesus came to save sinners, maybe I’m wrong here but doesen’t this imply from Jesus Himself said there are those without personal sin.:twocents:

Peace, onenow1

The Apostle is actually saying that all sinned in Adam, not that all are guilty of sins of commission.

 

[ckempston]

Does that also mean: through the obedience of the One this multitude of all men will be made righteous?

Do you see the problem that arises when “all” means absolutely everyone?

This goes way off topic, but there is no problem. All will be made Righteous in the New Creation, through one of two possibilities: the Restoration Of All Things or the complete Annihilation of Evil. Either way, all is then Righteous.

I think it is you who are failing to see a problem: If “all” have not sinned (whether original or actual), then there are some who do not need Jesus. Are you going to admit this is the case? I think your problem is far more difficult to overcome than the merely apparent problem you’ve pointed out for my position (which I think I’ve answered satisfactorily).

If all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well (which is what you were talking about).

Jesus gets an exception because he is God, which I already explained. The logic is impeccable. Mary gets no such exception based on this passage, though if you follow my conversation with Joshua, you will see that I admitted to the possibility that Mary could get an exception, and still have this fact reconcilable with scripture.

I agree Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary’s sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I accept this as a possibility; however, it doesn’t change the plain meaning of the word “all.” Mary needed to be rescued from Adam’s sin just like the rest of us, she just got rescued beforehand.

Including every baby who wasn’t strong enough to survive infancy?

Every baby is born in Original Sin according to the Catholic church, and it seems to put those souls in the hands of God, which I believe is the correct position to take.

Believe me when I say, I like things that are cut and dry. This isn’t the case with the meaning of “all.”

Peace

It is indeed the case. Giving “all” the actual meaning “all” results in far fewer inconsistencies, problems, and mental gymnastic explanations than sometimes allowing it to mean “some.”

 

[ryanoneil]

I think it is you who are failing to see a problem: If “all” have not sinned (whether original or actual), then there are some who do not need Jesus. Are you going to admit this is the case? I think your problem is far more difficult to overcome than the merely apparent problem you’ve pointed out for my position (which I think I’ve answered satisfactorily).

Maybe I’ve been splitting hairs this whole time. There is a big difference between actually sinning and being subject to original sin. If “all” means actually sinning it’s hyperbole. If “all” is being subject to original sin then yes.

Either way, everyone needs Jesus.

(Your answer doesn’t make sense to me.)

Jesus gets an exception because he is God, which I already explained. The logic is impeccable. Mary gets no such exception based on this passage, though if you follow my conversation with Joshua, you will see that I admitted to the possibility that Mary could get an exception, and still have this fact reconcilable with scripture.

Yes, I noticed and agree.

I accept this as a possibility; however, it doesn’t change the plain meaning of the word “all.” Mary needed to be rescued from Adam’s sin just like the rest of us, she just got rescued beforehand.

I agree she was subject to original sin and needed rescue beforehand.
But, she really never had sin then, did she?

Every baby is born in Original Sin according to the Catholic church, and it seems to put those souls in the hands of God, which I believe is the correct position to take.

Agreed.

It is indeed the case. Giving “all” the actual meaning “all” results in far fewer inconsistencies, problems, and mental gymnastic explanations than sometimes allowing it to mean “some.”

But you want “some” to mean “all” so what is the difference?

This goes way off topic, but there is no problem. All will be made Righteous in the New Creation, through one of two possibilities: the Restoration Of All Things or the complete Annihilation of Evil. Either way, all is then Righteous.

It is not off topic at all. Paul says “all” and “many” have sinned. You want “many” to mean “all” in verse 19a but use metal gymnastics to make “many” mean “some” in 19b.

** For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners,** a
so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. b

The restoration of all sinners nullifies every word Christ spoke about eternal damnation, and the annihilation of evil means that “all” doesn’t mean “all.”

What am I missing here?

 

[ckempston]

Maybe I’ve been splitting hairs this whole time. There is a big difference between actually sinning and being subject to original sin. If “all” means actually sinning it’s hyperbole. If “all” is being subject to original sin then yes.

That’s what I thought it meant; maybe I wasn’t clear.

Either way, everyone needs Jesus.

(Your answer doesn’t make sense to me.)
Yes, I noticed and agree.

I agree she was subject to original sin and needed rescue beforehand.
But, she really never had sin then, did she?

She didn’t commit actual sin, nor was she subject to original sin (according to Catholic doctrine), but the passage still applies to her, because she was indeed “justified freely by his grace,” just beforehand (I guess.). I don’t want to split hairs either.

Agreed.

But you want “some” to mean “all” so what is the difference?

Where do I “want some to mean all”? This is just some basic grammar. “All” refers to the same group as “the many” in this passage. The phrase “the many” just refers to an indeterminate number of people; the number would be determined by context. In the context of the passage, it is “all.”

It is not off topic at all. Paul says “all” and “many” have sinned. You want “many” to mean “all” in verse 19a but use metal gymnastics to make “many” mean “some” in 19b.

I do no such thing. The phrase for “the many” has a definite article in Greek, further illustrating that it is referring to something very specific, which would be the subject of the passage, and the recipient of the action: ALL.

** For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners,** a
so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. b

The restoration of all sinners nullifies every word Christ spoke about eternal damnation, and the annihilation of evil means that “all” doesn’t mean “all.”

What am I missing here?

There is not a single word in the Bible that, by itself, means eternal. So, you’re wrong there. Besides that, “destruction” means to destroy. If a thing lasts forever, it is not destroyed. This should be self-evident.

FYI, this concept has been around since antiquity, and I’m somewhat surprised that you have never heard of “the Greater Hope” or “Universal Restoration”, which was believed by several Greek speaking Fathers, though apparently the Latins were more interested in scaring people, so the idea of “eternal torment” was more attractive to them.

 

[ryanoneil]

FYI, this concept has been around since antiquity, and I’m somewhat surprised that you have never heard of “the Greater Hope” or “Universal Restoration”, which was believed by several Greek speaking Fathers, though apparently the Latins were more interested in scaring people, so the idea of “eternal torment” was more attractive to them.

Is that the idea no one stays in hell for eternity? I pray it is somehow in God’s plan, but it doesn’t appear to be the case.

There is not a single word in the Bible that, by itself, means eternal. So, you’re wrong there. Besides that, “destruction” means to destroy. If a thing lasts forever, it is not destroyed. This should be self-evident.

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Mat 25:45-46)

Christ’s words make a strong case that “all” those in Rom 5 will not be made righteous. Unless you are saying hell is temporary and “all” those who end up there become righteous?

Or are you saying something completely different?

 

[joshua_b]

“That would depend on what the meaning of the word ‘is’, is…”

 

[ckempston]

“That would depend on what the meaning of the word ‘is’, is…”

Very funny. You are close, though, this is going WAY off topic.

The word in question is not “is” but “eternal”, which in the Bible (NT) is always a variation of the Greek word “aion,” a noun which simply means “age.” The word is often pluralized, which makes no sense if it means “eternity.” It is often spoken of with a beginning and an end, which also makes no sense if it means “eternity.” There are a lot of other reasons, but these pretty well sum it up.

 

[onenow1]

The Apostle is actually saying that all sinned in Adam, not that all are guilty of sins of commission.

Exactly original sin ! !

Peace, onemow1

 

[Namesake]

The Church declares that she was saved from original sin by a special grace of God that applied the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus passion to Mary specifically at the moment of her conception. The Church has always upheld that all humans (Mary included) are only saved through the passion of Christ. But since the sacrifice of Jesus is transcendent of time and space, it was applied to Mary to cleanse her of the original sin she would otherwise have been born with.

Then why would God not do the same for us all and avoid the horror of Jesus crucified? If He would do that for Mary, why not all of us?

 

[NonCatholic]

onenow1:

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since it is shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD?

Why did Mary of the Bible say my God my “Savior”, what non-sinner needs a Savior?

The Bible clearly states “ALL of fallen short”, “All have sinned”, “In Him there is no evil”, which would make God a liar, which He cannot. When you start making exceptions that directly conflict with what God stated, then 2 things happen, one makes oneself a higher authority than God…right? and one opens a Pandora’s box on what God says…God does not misspeak…that’s why the whole sin problem is inherited by Adam. As far as the other saints mentioned, nothing says they ever sinned or never sinned, but God said all have. The Bible doesn’t spell out concerning babies that die, but we all have the original sin nature even babies; therefore they must be washed before even they can enter Heaven, but when we reach an age of accountability are we no longer under special Grace, what I believe, but cannot prove from Scripture, God’s special Grace. What I do know is people go the Hell because of unbelief; so obviously a baby or mentally challenged person will never be able to comprehend and make the choice of unbelief; therefore it is logical to assume all people that cannot make that choice will be in Heaven by God’s Grace through Christ Jesus.

What is the penalty to all mankind for Adams sin or any sin? DEATH Babies die, all the others mentioned above died. Enoch and Elijah in the old testament are the only 2 I can think that appeared not to die. We cannot say they were without sin, because the Bible doesn’t state that. Also, because someone is said to find favor with God is different than saying they did not sin. Anyone who goes to Heaven found favor with God…and if you count common Grace, then we all find some favor with God.

 

[onenow1]

Why did Mary of the Bible say my God my “Savior”, what non-sinner needs a Savior?

Quote=,onenow1, Blessed Mary said God my savior, because He indeed is savior of all human kind.

It’s like this N.C. you can be saved before you drown or after you drown.

Quote= nom-catholic, The Bible clearly states “ALL of fallen short”, “All have sinned”, “In Him there is no evil”, which would make God a liar, which He cannot. When you start making exceptions that directly conflict with what God stated, then 2 things happen, one makes oneself a higher authority than God…right?
Quote=,onenow1, Wrong ! Rom 11:26, “ALL Israel shall be saved.” We know for certain that ‘ALL’ in Israel will not be saved.

Why can’t God save Blessed Mary before she was born ? With God all things are possible. Right ?

Peace, omenow1

 

[NonCatholic]

onenow1:

Why can’t God save Blessed Mary before she was born ? With God all things are possible. Right ?

It would make the Bible Fallible, thus God fallible.

Once that road is taken, then anything can and does go in my opinion and observations. It really wasn’t a snake in the garden, it was a guy with a pitchfork since snakes don’t really talk and God doesn’t really say what he means. Johan wasn’t literally in the belly of a sea creature/whale for 3 days and 3 nights-no one could live through that and God was just making up some example.

I have looked at the relationship between Jesus and Mary in chronological order (sometime ago) from the Biblical perspective and I see a distinctive pattern of separation from the earthly-motherly relationship as we know it between our own parents, to one of a compassionate Savior.

This is an area of faith for each individual ; I personally have a hard time understanding.