Protestants and the forgiveness of sins

[dbonneville]

Beeper, above, quotes Acts 17:11, but a quick reading of passage implies the opposite of what he implies it says:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

What does it say? It says the Bereans were more noble because they accepted the message on hearing it, before looking it up! They recognized the power and truth of it, independent of Scripture. After accepting Paul’s word at face value, they looked up what he said so they could marvel at the Scriptures. They found that it did say all these things Paul was saying.

Here is what the passage does not say: the Bereans were of more noble character because they heard Paul, looked it up for themselves, decided on their own that Paul was right, then accepted what Paul said. The passage says the exact opposite. Go back and marvel at what the passage is really saying. It’s astonishing.

 

[cazayoux]

Beeper, above, quotes Acts 17:11, but a quick reading of passage implies the opposite of what he implies it says:

What does it say? It says the Bereans were more noble because they accepted the message on hearing it, before looking it up! They recognized the power and truth of it, independent of Scripture. After accepting Paul’s word at face value, they looked up what he said so they could marvel at the Scriptures. They found that it did say all these things Paul was saying.

Here is what the passage does not say: the Bereans were of more noble character because they heard Paul, looked it up for themselves, decided on their own that Paul was right, then accepted what Paul said. The passage says the exact opposite. Go back and marvel at what the passage is really saying. It’s astonishing.

EXACTLY!!

If anything, it shows that the Bereans did not know and memorize scripture since they had to go look it up.

michel

 

[beeper]

Beeper, above, quotes Acts 17:11, but a quick reading of passage implies the opposite of what he implies it says:

What does it say? It says the Bereans were more noble because they accepted the message on hearing it, before looking it up! They recognized the power and truth of it, independent of Scripture. After accepting Paul’s word at face value, they looked up what he said so they could marvel at the Scriptures. They found that it did say all these things Paul was saying.

Here is what the passage does not say: the Bereans were of more noble character because they heard Paul, looked it up for themselves, decided on their own that Paul was right, then accepted what Paul said. The passage says the exact opposite. Go back and marvel at what the passage is really saying. It’s astonishing.

I think you missed my overall point of using Acts 17:11. Let me try to clarify. The point of me using Acts 17:11 was NOT to explain that people can or can’t have the ability to believe in God without the Bible. My point of using Acts 17 was NOT to explain the exact point in which they did or didn’t accept the message. My point was NOT to show they either doubted or accepted Paul’s initial message… My point was the people of the Bearan church were able to understand and interpret the scriptures based on their own understanding. If they couldn’t understand the scripture for themselves, how could they have used the scriptures to confirm what they accepted??? Yes, maybe they accepted it initially, but they still examined the scripture (using their own minds and abilities) to make sure the message was true. That is exactly what the bible states “examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The bible never states that they looked up the scriptures so they could simply marvel at them. Anyway, this is getting way off of the initial point I was making to Michel. If the common people can’t understand the scriptures then how can they possibly know when someone is deceiving them?? The bible is clear people can understand the scriptures based on 1 Corinthians 4:2 and the fact that the Berean church did examine the scriptures. To say Rome’s view of confession is accurate based on the bible, is tough when you consider all verses involved. The main reason I talked about Acts was to show that the Bible can be understood by common people and not just thru the lens of Rome. If so, you open yourself to all kinds of deception. Therefore, when you examine Rome’s view of confession, with John 20 and the rest of the bible, it doesn’t harmonize.

 

[beeper]

EXACTLY!!

If anything, it shows that the Bereans did not know and memorize scripture since they had to go look it up.

michel

Michel, please read my last statement before you read this. If you don’t believe, you yourself, can interpret and understand the gospel message of the Bible without Rome, you can never know if you are being deceived (at least biblically). Therefore, since you are trusting Rome’s interpretation of scripture, you can’t examine anything (like scripture says you can do and the Bereans did) to make sure it is true. According to your view, don’t you really lose the Bible as a source of confirming your overall faith since you can’t understand it on your own and only believe what it says because someone is telling you that it’s true? How do you know Jesus rose from the dead with no Bible? Because the pope says so? A major reason for most believing in the Pope is cause it is supposedly supported by Matthew 16. And since you can’t use Matthew 16 cause you can’t understand it, where do you go from there? Sorry to ramble but the fact that Rome has you believe that you can’t understand the Bible (without their lens) should send up a red flag that something is wrong. Read your Bible for yourself without any Rome lens or Protestant lens etc. and see for yourself how Rome and the Bible compare. As far as John 20 is concerned, Rome’s view of confession is hard to understand in light of all scripture. Thanks for the discussion. In love

 

[dbonneville]

Beeper:

Are you sure you aren’t missing the obvious? Rome gave us the Scripture. Their interpretation is paramount. It’s absurd to say that it isn’t. This is history, not interpretation. Are you aware of the councils and the process involved that gave us the NT? Do you realize what that means? Even Luther said that we are all indebted to Rome for the Scriptures.

How did the Bereans know Jesus rose from the dead? Because Paul said so. There were no Scriptures to look up. Go back to the passage from Acts and read it again. They believed, and were counted as noble for believing, and only after believing, did they go to Scripture.

Does your version read differently? I’m sure it doesn’t.

The supposed proof in Mt 16 for Papal authority is a matter of not just interpretation but of rote history. It was universally understood that Peter was the leader - there was no other concept accepted by anyone, other than heretics. What history are you reading that suggests otherwise? Many Protestant scholars concede this.

The fact that you are reading the Bible alone and deciding for yourself what it means and doesn’t mean should give you pause. Obviously, you don’t agree with every other Protestant who reads the same Bible you have and comes to a different conclusion. Do the math on that.

Even the Ethopian Eunuch concedes this: when Phillip asks him if he understands what he is reading, and even being quite educated himself, says “how can I understand if someone doesn’t explain it to me”. This story is there for a reason. What reason do you suppose that is?

Finally, you don’t even have scripture without Papal blessing, without Apostolic tradition. The tradition of Rome that the NT books are what they are is binding on you. You are not free to decide what books are in and what books are out are you? The church, the same one that is around today, decided what the NT was based on the leading of the Holy Spirit and the authority given to it by Jesus. This is a fact, is it not?

You can understand parts of the Bible, but you will never make coherent sense out of it without Roman tradition. But knock yourself out trying! You will never, ever get there. Join the ranks of the confused and tally ho - or decide to be taught rather than being a teacher.

 

[beeper]

Beeper:

I think you are still missing why I used that verse to begin with. The berean church had the OT scriptures. Anyway, the OT and NT were well known before any counsel put it together. If you look at Polycarp (Apostle John’s successor) you see that he quotes from virtually every N.T book in his writings. This leads many to believe that many churches had the inspired scriptures well before any councils and possibly by the time John died. Plus, if John wrote Revelation around~ 95 ad. How come you don’t see any mention of the papacy in his writings? After all the warnings of false teachers etc. why would you not write about how to look to Rome for guidance? In fact why would John write to seven churches and leave Rome out? Why do you see John writing about the things that God did hate which was the way of the Nicolaitans–which had a hierarchy similar to Rome today. Remember this was close to 20 years after Peter had died. Then Polycarp wrote numerous letters to the Roman community, none of which ever address a papal authority. Paul in the letter to the Romans mentions Linus (if that is the same Linus who became the supposed 2nd Pope) but with no specific title or head position. I can list you numerous quotes that states that Rome was led by a group of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop. Why should I trust Rome’s intrepretation when it was a religion that developed slowly and over many many centuries. The history of the papacy is not pretty from a historical prespective. Especially when you consider the spanish inquistion (which the church never officially recanted) and indulgences. Plus, there are numerous doctrines that the church took centuries to establish. Private confession, Infallibility of the Pope (1890), Purgatory, etc. (Mary is still obtaining higher and higher ranks to this day.) Then they put people under mortal sin if they dont follow them. The best Rome can do is piece things back together thru history to try to make them fit, but when you examine history, the bible, and the progression of numerous doctrines and beliefs, you see that it only fits if you take several major leaps of faith.

 

[dbonneville]

You can’t see the forest for the trees. The NT didn’t magically appear. You acknowledge, rightfully, that bishops were deciding what was inspired and what wasn’t. This is a function of the church, by those who had authority.

No, we don’t see the word “pope” nor do we see the word “new testament” or “trinity”. We don’t see “scripture only” or “faith only” either, yet Protestants are fine with any tradition as long as it’s not Roman, just about. Except for the NT canon.

The NT developed slowly over centuries, as the churchs’ teaching developed slowly over centuries, as the OT developed slowly over centuries. God seems to do everything slowly over centuries. He has the time to do so, and only punctuates history when necessary, in the “fullness of time” as he sees fit.

Have you read any history? Rome is the unqualified center of the Christian world from the earliest times outside Jerusalem. Paul died there. Peter died there. The greatest theological treatise is addressed to them, which as not some kind of gross coincidence.

If you trust your judgement, you have all of history to contend with. Sola scriptura becomes your mantra, though it’s found no where in the scripture. There is no verse. The early church was founded on and grew by apostolic tradition. The church grew because it had the truth - not a NT. Did the completion of the canon bring about some kind of magical change in authority of the church to that point? Did it end with the Apostles? Showme the verse! The church decided what was in the NT. It had the authority to recognize, officially, and settle the matter and close the canon.

Is the NT canon still open? If not, why? Who closed it? You can’t say, like a schoolboy, that “God did it”. That’s incredulous. The Church closed it.

“Pretty” history doesn’t matter, but authority does. If your dad gets drunk, even repeatedly, does that make him any less your dad? But by and large most dads sin and get off track, yet still guide their children. Even the best Christian dads sin, but still are the authority in the house. Even when dad is wrong, you have to obey. Paul even says this. Why the hang up on authority? It is a matter of trust in the simple words of Jesus and the simple way in which the early church worked out its simple understanding. There have been, are, and will be hiccups, some big some small in a church run by fallible men. But that doesn’t change anything: the deposit of faith was not left with no one, it was not ambiguous. Let’s not forget small things like Luther’s anti-semitism and Calvin’s heretic-roasts.

If you don’t trust Rome, then you are left to trust yourself and whoever you find to accommodate how you want to believe. What is your measure of truth? Don’t be schoolboy and “the scriptures are the truth” because that solves nothing. What you are really saying, if you say that, is “my interpretation of the scriptures” This is inescapable. You say “well, it’s plain”. It’s plain to you as you see it, of course. But that’s the problem. You assume you can see it. You assume it’s “so plain”. If that is the case, then how did you become able to see so plainly what no two Protestants can agree on? For 500 years there has not been agreement on what you say glibly is easy to see. It’s not so, so don’t say it is. Not even the earliest reformers right out of the gate thought that. Luther says “real presence” but Zwingli says “memorial”. Well, who is right. If you say “obviously its…” you are stuck at the same issue once again. It’s you deciding who is right. Can you possibly do that? No, nobody can, and nobody has, and nobody will outside of received tradition. This is the legacy of all Protestantism. I’d love to see Charles Stanley and Chuck Swindoll and John Piper and Bill Hybels and Billy Graham in the same room agreeing on everything, but the can’t, don’t, and never will. It’s impossible as long as private interpretation runs the show.

Do you think Jesus died so we can all have our own interpretations of the Bible? Is that what he died for? Or did he pray, in his High Priestly prayer, for unity among all that would believe?

Private interpretation is a hopeless tangle of circular reasonings, questionable understandings of history, abstruse hermeneutics, and all passed on as a jumbled mess of unreadable, unreconcilable and incoherent theologies from one generation to the next since the Reformation. It grows in division year by year like a cancer. By God’s grace alone are people responding to Jesus in the Gospel as presented, but they are left as sheep without a shepherd. Even the great Anglican Communion broke apart this very year.

You have to be cock sure and essentially willfully ignorant of reality to say that private interpretation is anything other than complete mess. Spend five minutes at the Christian bookstore. You have to concede, with the best of Protestant theologians, and with a respectable integrity, that all you have for Scripture is “a fallible list of infallible documents” without Roman tradition to settle the matter. Meditating on the problems presented by that pithy statement yield nothing but confusion and division, because it lacks authority from anywhere to say yea or nay about much of anything.

Sola scriptura looks more and more like Eve the garden day by day. “The Roman Church knows that in the day you interpret for yourself the Scriptures that you will become like them with power…” That might sound harsh, but the temptation to “know for oneself” is the original sin, and it always leads to alienation. If Luther was right, we should have had 500 years of blessing, but we have not had that. Rancor and calumny are the soup de jour, everyday, at Cafe Protestante! And will be for ever, world without end!

 

[cazayoux]

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

Great perspective.
Great post.
Thank you.

michel

 

[dbonneville]

Great perspective.
Great post.
Thank you.

michel

Making up for lost time. I spent 20 years outside the Church. I left at 17 when I met some zealous Christians. 20 years and 10 experiments (church plants, ministries, etc) later, my studies and a Bible degree led me back to the unexpected place where all my questions could get a cohesive, simple, unified answer. Not to oversimplify the matter, but rather to sum up, I’m “home”.

Not making any sense got burdensome beyond all hope. The devil kept walking into every work I was a part of, and he did whatever he wanted, and nobody could stop him. Now that everything makes sense, I’m more excited than ever for church work. The devil is still around, but division isn’t a trick he can pull on me anymore

 

[cazayoux]

Making up for lost time. I spent 20 years outside the Church. I left at 17 when I met some zealous Christians. 20 years and 10 experiments (church plants, ministries, etc) later, my studies and a Bible degree led me back to the unexpected place where all my questions could get a cohesive, simple, unified answer. Not to oversimplify the matter, but rather to sum up, I’m “home”.

Not making any sense got burdensome beyond all hope. The devil kept walking into every work I was a part of, and he did whatever he wanted, and nobody could stop him. Now that everything makes sense, I’m more excited than ever for church work. The devil is still around, but division isn’t a trick he can pull on me anymore

sounds like a long journey … but oh how fantastic, right?
You should pen your story … if not for anyone else, for yourself. (but I would be interested, too)
welcome home.

michel

 

[Singinbeauty]

How did the Bereans know Jesus rose from the dead? Because Paul said so. There were no Scriptures to look up. Go back to the passage from Acts and read it again. They believed, and were counted as noble for believing, and only after believing, did they go to Scripture.

When one has the source of an eye witness then Scripture isn’t required. They believed because they got the information first hand. We really can’t compare ourselves to those who experienced the events or got their info from those who experienced them because, well - they were there!

I would believe Paul before I would believe someone who heard the story from someone who heard the story from someone who heard the story from somone else. That is why Scriptures are important. To give first hand accounts of what happened. To believe in what could be considered like the game of Telephone gets kind of murkey and sometimes dangerous. Of course, this is my humble opinion…

 

[cazayoux]

To believe in what could be considered like the game of Telephone gets kind of murkey and sometimes dangerous.

The game-of-telephone analogy just doesn’t fit.
The way to CHECK if the story is still correct is to look back at the writings.
We can look at the scriptures.
We can also look at writings from those first Christians.

Let’s pick one topic.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is found in scripture as well as in the Christian writings of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, … centuries.

So … no telephone game here.
Do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist like those early Christians did?

Your view of Catholicism being a story told as a chain with no direct link to the early centuries just isn’t correct.
You’ll have to give us a little more credit.
We are not the mindless automatons you might think we are.
We actually read and study scripture, as well.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Your man is back!

Thank your man for all of us for his service!
Tell him we said WELCOME BACK !!!

HOOO-WAHHH

michel

 

[Singinbeauty]

The game-of-telephone analogy just doesn’t fit.
The way to CHECK if the story is still correct is to look back at the writings.
We can look at the scriptures.
We can also look at writings from those first Christians.

Let’s pick one topic.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is found in scripture as well as in the Christian writings of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, … centuries.

So … no telephone game here.
Do you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist like those early Christians did?

Your view of Catholicism being a story told as a chain with no direct link to the early centuries just isn’t correct.
You’ll have to give us a little more credit.
We are not the mindless automatons you might think we are.
We actually read and study scripture, as well.

michel

Well, my response would be, why pick the topic of the Eucharist when we are talking about Mary’s Immaculate Conception? For me, the jury is still out on the Eucharist and how it is viewed by catholics. But I was responding to Mary’s sinlessness. Where is that in Scripture?

 

[dbonneville]

If you ask where something is in Scripture, I’d ask where your list of Scriptures is in Scripture, so that you know from Scripture what Scripture is Scripture so you can be sure you are reading Scripturre. But, the list, it’s not there is it? Just like the teaching about Mary. But the list of Scripture is Apostolic Tradition, just like the tradition about the Trinity, or the sinlessness of Mary. If you accept one Apostolic Tradition, on what basis do you decide to reject another Apostolic Tradition? To accept one Apostolic Tradition is to imply belief and trust in all of them. Its a package deal, is it not?

Picking and choosing what Apostolic Tradition to believe in has no integrity of logic. The NT list of books is Apostolic Tradition: it is a settle fact of history. On what basis, with your extremely limited knowledge, experience, and theological training, did you determine that the NT as you read it is in fact the NT we should have? Do you believe that the NT is complete? On what basis? On the basis of Apostolic Tradition that hopefully, you lovingly and thankfully accept every time you flip open the Good Book. Right?

There is safety in admitting to not being so smart as to think you can determine what is right and wrong, in our out. Eve got in trouble for that, along with Adam. But for us, it was settled and handed down. That’s about the size of it.

If it wasn’t handed down (which is possible right?) then we are all way off track. But yet that very first church remains to this day, while others come and go with the ebb and flow of cruel master death and relentless master time. I’d put my life, time, and money, on the one bet that has stood the test of time. The Roman Catholic Church, battered and bruised at times, remains. It remains, and it is living testimony to you to trust what it has faithfully maintained all these forlorn years, from the earliest days. It’s best days are ahead and not behind. The best days of the separated churches can never come: it is off limits.

 

[Singinbeauty]

If you ask where something is in Scripture, I’d ask where your list of Scriptures is in Scripture, so that you know from Scripture what Scripture is Scripture so you can be sure you are reading Scripturre. But, the list, it’s not there is it? Just like the teaching about Mary. But the list of Scripture is Apostolic Tradition, just like the tradition about the Trinity, or the sinlessness of Mary. If you accept one Apostolic Tradition, on what basis do you decide to reject another Apostolic Tradition? To accept one Apostolic Tradition is to imply belief and trust in all of them. Its a package deal, is it not?

Picking and choosing what Apostolic Tradition to believe in has no integrity of logic. The NT list of books is Apostolic Tradition: it is a settle fact of history. On what basis, with your extremely limited knowledge, experience, and theological training, did you determine that the NT as you read it is in fact the NT we should have? Do you believe that the NT is complete? On what basis? On the basis of Apostolic Tradition that hopefully, you lovingly and thankfully accept every time you flip open the Good Book. Right?

There is safety in admitting to not being so smart as to think you can determine what is right and wrong, in our out. Eve got in trouble for that, along with Adam. But for us, it was settled and handed down. That’s about the size of it.

If it wasn’t handed down (which is possible right?) then we are all way off track. But yet that very first church remains to this day, while others come and go with the ebb and flow of cruel master death and relentless master time. I’d put my life, time, and money, on the one bet that has stood the test of time. The Roman Catholic Church, battered and bruised at times, remains. It remains, and it is living testimony to you to trust what it has faithfully maintained all these forlorn years, from the earliest days. It’s best days are ahead and not behind. The best days of the separated churches can never come: it is off limits.

Wow, what a way to avoid the question…

Is Scripture mentioned in Scripture… this point or argument always makes me laugh!!! Does your favorite novel mention itself within the pages? No. Why would Scripture mention itself? IT IS THE SCRIPTURES for goodness sake.

On this point I know that God, in His infinant wisdom, would make sure that we have the scripture needed. All we have did not come from a group of men but from God. But as you pointed out we are WAY off topic… So I will stop… LOL

 

[dbonneville]

Wow, what a way to avoid the question…

Is Scripture mentioned in Scripture… this point or argument always makes me laugh!!! Does your favorite novel mention itself within the pages? No. Why would Scripture mention itself? IT IS THE SCRIPTURES for goodness sake.

On this point I know that God, in His infinant wisdom, would make sure that we have the scripture needed. All we have did not come from a group of men but from God. But as you pointed out we are WAY off topic… So I will stop… LOL

Avoid the question? You are kidding I hope. You are also kidding I hope by avoiding the answer I just gave. This IS the point of the entire Reformation - Sola Scriptura. Where is your divinely appointed Table of Contents? The best Protestants can do is say “all Scripture is sufficient” but the passage in Timothy only refers to the OT because no NT scripture existed as such when it was written. This point or argument should not make you laugh - maybe you haven’t read enough history? When you say Scripture - what are you referring to? How’d we get Scripture? That’s the funny part that seems to be escaping you, based on what you just wrote.

Now, here is the interesting part, where you say “I know that God in his infinite wisdom would make sure that we have the scripture we needed…” No, you don’t know. You think you know, or you have some very vague or abstract feeling in your belly. You can’t know, except for what the Catholic Church decided you can know about what is and isn’t Scripture. And if you insist you do know by some means, you rely on…what it is again? Your source for knowing what is scripture and what isn’t? It is…yes… what the Catholic Church has given you. You rely on the Catholic Church for your NT. There is no magic here - the NT didn’t arrive from heaven on a FedEX, or UPS. It was decided for you and given to you. The Catholic Church took 300 years and figured it out bit by bit. That is how you, in fact, know you have the Scriptures. In 313 Christianity was declared legal. Around 380 it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. Around 385 or so, the canon of the NT was closed by the Roman Catholic Church. Are you OK with that? That is how you know what is Scripture and what isn’t. You don’t, however, just “know God would give us what we need” outside of what he in fact did concretely do in verifiable history through the administration of his Church.

The point that Scripture doesn’t mention Scripture is not funny and should not make you laugh. It is not funny whatsoever. It’s the very foundation of the entire Reformation, and the reformers went to great lengths to show that scripture references itself as sufficient and that no authority was needed outside of scripture. However, they never, ever did, nor ever will, surmount the problem of the very canon being a Catholic and Apostolic Tradition. It is inescapable, and is not in any way laughable. It was not laughable to the 100,000 peasants that died in the Peasants War as a result of the Reformation. It was no laughing matter to every state church in Europe that sprung up when each state decided that it was the sole arbiter of Scripture.

All we have did not come from a group of men but from God

This is quite a statement. Who decided what was the NT contained? Well, it was a “group of men” at a fixed point in time, to be sure. How did it get to us from God himself? Did God deliver it personally, or did have someone or something in place to make that delivery or determination? It did in fact come from a group of men, many men, in fact many, many, many men, over a span of many, many years. 300 years to be more exact. God let his Church work it out over that time period, he let them discern it, and navigate it, and deliberate it, and deliberate it again and again, until 300 years later these men were sure they were doing the will of God by closing the canon. The Catholic Church closed the canon. The official church of the Roman Empire closed the canon of Scripture. In fact, God waited until the Church was the official Church of the entire Roman Empire before leading the Church to close the matter. He could have done it in the year 250, at least 60 years after the last Apostle died. But he did not. He waited until about 385 before nailing it down, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, working through the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope - and even the Roman Emporer - to nail it down. Grab your history books and check back. You’ll see that this is in fact the case. It’s nothing to chuckle about. It’s the very hand of God working in history, continuing his revelation of truth through the Holy Spirit, through his Church, for the administration of the Gospel to all mankind…

We don’t need myths about the creation of the NT when rote history does a more than adequate job. We don’t “feel” what the NT is. We receive it from the hands of the men whom by the authority given to them by God decided what it would be, once and for all time. The NT is a Catholic collection of documents. It is no more, no less.

 

[benedictus2]

sounds like a long journey … but oh how fantastic, right?
You should pen your story … if not for anyone else, for yourself. (but I would be interested, too)
welcome home.

michel

Please, please. I love conversion stories. I have learned so much from reading them.

**BIG WELCOME HOME!! **

 

[benedictus2]

Well, my response would be, why pick the topic of the Eucharist when we are talking about Mary’s Immaculate Conception? For me, the jury is still out on the Eucharist and how it is viewed by catholics. But I was responding to Mary’s sinlessness. Where is that in Scripture?

The Immaculate Conception is a result of the Church coming to a deeper understanding of the economy of salvation.

In a nutshell, the Redeemer cannot be born of a woman tainted with sin like the rest of us. If Mary were not conceived without sin, then it would follow that being a sinner, any offspring of hers, would also be a sinner.

But scripture has it that though He became sin, Christ himself was sinless. This is why the Church from very early on, has always held that she was conceived without original sin.

Anyway, that is not really the issue separating the Protestants from the Catholics.

At the root of this divide is not Mary, not the Eucharist, or any other Catholic practice.

Rather, it is the authority of the Church and whether the Catholic Church is who she claims to be - THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD HERE ON EARTH.

I have read of converts who struggled with the Marian doctrines, Eucharist, etc and only came to accept it when they realized that these are really all side issues. If they accept the Catholic Church as THE Church of Christ (the one He established on Peter and promised to lead into all truth by sending her the Holy Sprit), then it follows that her authority to proclaim the dogma on the Immaculate Conception was a prompting of the Holy Spirit and thus something to be accepted.

So now I pose a few questions to you SingnBeauty and to Reformed.

In Matthew 16: 13-19 Christ singles out Peter and promises to build His Church on him. Come Pentecost and the Church was born, preaching boldly the Good News.

If we are to take Christ at His word, then that Church would still be here today because He promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

So Question1: Of the multitude of Protestant Denominations out there (Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc) which of this would you say is the Church that Christ founded on Peter.

Question 2: Once you have picked a particular church, illustrate via a timeline and trace it back to that time when Christ founded his Church on Peter. Show succession.

Question 3: If you chose on Question 2 a church other than your church. Why are you then not in this Church?

Question 4: If you chose on Question 2, a church other than your church, that would mean that your church is not Christ’s Church, so whose Church, is it?

 

[Singinbeauty]

In a nutshell, the Redeemer cannot be born of a woman tainted with sin like the rest of us. If Mary were not conceived without sin, then it would follow that being a sinner, any offspring of hers, would also be a sinner.

Then Mary’s mother would have to be without sin for this logic to work…