Question for protestants from a protestant

[sonseeker]

RyanL:

Bill,
If death only comes to those with

sin…why did Jesus die? Why did Enoch and Elijah not?
RyanL C’mon Ryan, I’ve spoken with you before on this forum and you are much more intelligent than this. Jesus died for our sins, and He had to be sinless to pay the penalty, as the foreshadowing Levitical sacrifices tell us.

Not much is known about Enoch. His name appears in only 12 verses of all of Scripture, and most of those have to do with genealogies (Gen 4:17, 18; 5:18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24; 1 Chron 1:3; Lk 3:37; Heb 11:5; Jude 14.

The most significant of those is Heb 11: 5: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. That is the only reason I can give for Enoch not dying: his witness was superb, and he was pleasing to God.

On the other hand, much is known of Elijah. He is most fully seen in 1 & 2 Kings, but is also mentioned among the prophets, heavily mentioned in the Gospels, and in two epistles—Romans, and James.

I find the most intriguing mention of him to be in Mal 4:5, the second to the last verse of the close of the O.T., in which it is prophesied that God will send Elijah before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, the day in which God pours out His wrath upon the earth. That led to much speculation over the Baptist in the Gospels. Elijah is also present with Moses at the transfiguration (Lk 9:28ff). We are told Elijah did not die; we are not told why, and I am not going to speculate as to why God took him without his dying.

There are no other instances of living people taken into heaven recorded in the Scripture.

Bill

 

[Eden]

sonseeker:

The most significant of those is Heb 11: 5: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. That is the only reason I can give for Enoch not dying: his witness was superb, and he was pleasing to God.

Do you believe the Virgin Mary’s witness was superb and pleasing to God?

 

[Eden]

badebop:

Here were the clinchers for me (as a protestant convert) for accepting Mary…

Gen 1:15 “I will put ENMITY between you and the woman…”

Mary and Satan are in constant battle with one another, their hatred is so intense.

Luke 1:42 “…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”

Here we have Mary and the Saviour compared equally (with Mary getting top billing, I might add) as being blessed. How blessed would one be if they were as blessed as the Saviour?

Luke 1:48 “…behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”

Ooooo, I do! Do you? If one ignores this prophecy does that make one a “Cafeteria Christian?”

Rev 11:19* “…God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple.” 12:1 “…a woman [appeared].”*

The comparision between the Old Convenant Ark and the New Covenant Ark was too much for me to ignore.

Plus, once I gave the Rosary a trial run, I discovered that it really does bring one closer to Jesus!

I wasn’t going to mention this before because I know that Protestants do not believe in apparitions. But after you posted the Genesis quote I had to add the words of an approved apparition of the Church - Fatima. This gives me chills:

“She (the Blessed Virgin Mary) told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility.”

… Sister Lucy of Fatima speaking​

to Father Fuentes,
December 26, 1957

The only reason that I can see that Protestants have rejected the Blessedness of the Virgin is that it would be “too Catholic” to do so. It is a clear way for them to delineate doctrinal differences. If the devil is in a decisive battle with the Virgin, it would serve his purposes for doubt to be placed in the mind of believers.

 

[Delgadoajj]

C’mon Ryan, I’ve spoken with you before on this forum and you are much more intelligent than this. Jesus died for our sins, and He had to be sinless to pay the penalty, as the foreshadowing Levitical sacrifices tell us.

Not much is known about Enoch. His name appears in only 12 verses of all of Scripture, and most of those have to do with genealogies (Gen 4:17, 18; 5:18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24; 1 Chron 1:3; Lk 3:37; Heb 11:5; Jude 14.

The most significant of those is Heb 11: 5: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. That is the only reason I can give for Enoch not dying: his witness was superb, and he was pleasing to God.

On the other hand, much is known of Elijah. He is most fully seen in 1 & 2 Kings, but is also mentioned among the prophets, heavily mentioned in the Gospels, and in two epistles—Romans, and James.

I find the most intriguing mention of him to be in Mal 4:5, the second to the last verse of the close of the O.T., in which it is prophesied that God will send Elijah before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, the day in which God pours out His wrath upon the earth. That led to much speculation over the Baptist in the Gospels. Elijah is also present with Moses at the transfiguration (Lk 9:28ff). We are told Elijah did not die; we are not told why, and I am not going to speculate as to why God took him without his dying.

There are no other instances of living people taken into heaven recorded in the Scripture.

Bill

Bill:

Here are three other passages of scripture that refer to Mary’s Assumption in body and soul.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place (Temple, i.e. Heaven), thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven. In the OT, this passage clearly refers to Jesus (the Lord) and the symbol of His power (the Ark = Mary).

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul. Here, John makes a distinction between the “woman” and the “souls of the martyrs”. Remember: All throughout John’s Gospel he refers to Mary as “woman”. He talks about Mary in a unique way, distinct from the rest of the saints.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Jorge.

 

[RyanL]

C’mon Ryan… you are much more intelligent than this.

Bill,

Don’t give me too much credit!

What I’m trying to do is to figure out the non sequitor in your assertions. Let me write them, and perhaps you can see what I mean:

1. “Wages” defined as payment or recompense for work done, does not mean “wages”. It means “inheritance”, as SIDS babies and the mentally impaired are not of the “age of reason”, and thus cannot commit sin. Since they cannot commit sin, they cannot receive a wage for their sin. This means that the bible isn’t saying what it means, but rather I know what it means and this is what it says.
2. This “Inheritance” is the same nature and quality as committed sin. It’s not that we inherit a fallen nature (as every theologian I can think of has said), but rather that we inherit actual sin through no fault of our own, and God holds that sin that we did not commit against us.
3. The “inheritance” of sin is physical death (I would argue that it’s spiritual death, or eternal damnation, but we’ll put that aside for now).
4. The “inheritance” being physical death is clearly evidenced by Elijah and Enoch, who committed sin but never died.
5. Not having this “inheritance” means eternal physical life, as clearly evidenced by Jesus’ death.

See what I mean? You have made wages not mean wages, and followed it up by saying that two opposing stories somehow do not oppose under your understanding. What I am trying to figure out is how you take conflicting views, say they no longer conflict, and evidence minimal logic to support your case. If you could clear this up for me, I would appreciate it.

God bless you,
RyanL

 

[sonseeker]

Ryan, I get your point; but your points, though well-thought out, are not what I am saying; nor are they what the scripture says; let me explain.

Wages in Rom 6:23 are indeed wages (from the Greek, oywnion [pronounced, hopsonion, I have not included the accents as they get screwed up from my program to the web]. Same word can be found in Lk 3:14; 2 Cor 11:8. Wages paid. The wages of sin is death; we do not inherit death; we earn it, in Adam. Death in Rom 6:23 is indeed death (from the Greek qanatoV [pronounced, thanatos, physical death]. That is the same word used in the Septuagint in Gen 2:17; so the death was indeed physical, as is also evidenced by the repeated statement “and he died” in the genealogies of Genesis; those genealogies are pointedly emphasizing the physical death. I would, however, agree with you that the death was also spiritual.

Let’s look at how Paul arrives at his statement, “the wages of sin is death.”

He explains the effects of Adam’s sin in this way: “Therefore…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom 5:12). Paul is not talking about actual sins committed by people throughout their lives; as the context shows (Rom 5:12-21) he is making a comparison between Adam and Christ. When Paul says, “so [Greek, outoV, “thus, in this way”; that is, through Adam’s sin] death spread to all men because all men sinned,” he is saying, literally, that through Adam’s sin, “all men sinned.” (“all men sinned” is an aorist indicative indicating a completed past action. Paul is saying that something happened and was completed in the past, namely, “all men sinned.” But it is not true that all men had actually completed sinful acts at that time, because many of the “all” had not been born at that time, and many died in infancy, without ever having committed any actual sin. Paul’s meaning is that when Adam sinned, God considered it true that all men sinned in Adam.)

That God considers that “all men sinned” in Adam—by his disobedience—is further indicated by the next two verses:

Romans 5:13-14:
for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. *
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. *

Paul says that from the time of Adam to Moses, no one had God’s written laws, and though their sins were “not counted” as infractions of the law, they still died. That fact is very good proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin; (thus I say that infants have earned the wage of sin; and Paul says that before any are Christians they “were children of wrath” Eph 2:3; and why David says he was conceived in sin Ps 51:5; and why Ps 58:3 says, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth”). That idea (God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin) is further indicated in Rom 5:18-19:

18 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.
19 *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. *

Paul says explicitly that through one man’s disobedience “many were made” [Greek katesaqasan (katestathasan) an aorist indicative—completed past action] sinners. So because of Adam, God thinks of all men as sinners, though not all at that time had been born.

Note also that Paul says in Rom 5:8 “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; again, I was not alive then, but God thought of me as a sinner and sent Christ to die for me.

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #245)

So I am not conflicted; I am using the scripture for my understanding. That is why, in answer to your questions about Jesus dying, and Enoch and Elijah not dying, I told you what the scripture said. Certainly all three were exempted from the “wage of sin” truth by God, who has the right to exempt them.

Be careful with logic. Logic is OK within the confines of the scripture. A pet saying today is “think outside the box.” There is even a fast-food chain that encourages “think outside the bun.” Scripture is the “box,” and the “bun,” and if you look carefully, you will see that every heresy from the past, to the present, to those yet future, has its basis in emotionalism and logic that took place outside “the box.” Reason from the scripture, not to the scripture; be excited by it (the scripture); be uneasy by it; handle it with care, and do what it says.

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

Delgadoajj:

Bill:

Here are three other passages of scripture that refer to Mary’s Assumption in body and soul.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place (Temple, i.e. Heaven), thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven. In the OT, this passage clearly refers to Jesus (the Lord) and the symbol of His power (the Ark = Mary).

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul. Here, John makes a distinction between the “woman” and the “souls of the martyrs”. Remember: All throughout John’s Gospel he refers to Mary as “woman”. He talks about Mary in a unique way, distinct from the rest of the saints.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Jorge.

You are reading into those passages Jorge. I don’t have time to go over them now, but I will and I’ll post it later. I don’t go along with the idea of Mary’s assumption. For it to have the importance given it by the church, it should have a scriptural basis, which it does not (IMHO)

Bill

 

[RyanL]

Bill,
I would like some time to chew this over with my interlinear bible. You present some good points, and I don’t want to drop them - I must say that this will probably take me a few readings before I can do justice to a response. Just so I won’t get distracted on a subject about which we both agree, could you please define Original Sin as it applies in your theology?

Also, could you please tell me the program you have that has the Septuagint on it?!? I’ve been looking for a good one, and haven’t seen anything!

Oh, and there’s a poster on this site who frequently posts Greek excerpts, and does it in the correct font - I don’t know how, but I know it can be done. Every time I try it winds up messed-up some how… if you figure it out, please let me know!

sonseeker:

Reason from the scripture, not to the scripture; be excited by it (the scripture); be uneasy by it; handle it with care, and do what it says.

Such is my desire, and may our search bring us to to unity in Him! God is Truth, Logic, Reason, and Love, so let us search Him out in kind!

Prayerfully,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

My brother in Christ, Bill,
I’m going to use your words for this, so please correct me if I am mis-interpreting you; it is not my intent.

Started with this:

sonseeker:

All mankind is hopelessly trapped in sin

Backed this assertion up with this:

sonseeker:

*1 Kings *8:46
46 “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) …

Refuted yourself with scripture here:

sonseeker:

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus is without sin.

…that is, of course, unless you don’t think Jesus was a man…OR…you’re making exceptions…
And that’s the thing about exceptions - once you give gum to one kid in class, you had better bring enough for everyone. You can’t justify making an absolute rule and then breaking it, and then try to forbid the future breaking of your own now broken rule. Your assertion was that all have sinned. In fact, you go so far as to say that we don’t inherit Original Sin…*you *claim we earn it!

sonseeker:

we do not inherit death; we earn it, in Adam.

Rather than state that Original Sin is a state we are in (CCC 404), you claim that this is an act we somehow “earn” with works which we cannot do a sin which we did not commit. Rather than being the deprivation of Original Holiness or Original Justice, leading to a status of mankind as possessing concupiscence and a predaliction for sinful actions, you have Original Sin as being identical to committed sin…

sonseeker:

…there is no distinction between sin inherited and sin committed

Under this reasoning, SIDS babies and the mentally incapacitated are all damned. As it seems you would have it, they have been created for eternal torment and separation from God from before the beginning of the world by a God who predestined all. As Original Sin and committed sin are identical, both bring both physical and eternal death (damnation) as a consequence (else, committed sin won’t bring damnation either):

sonseeker:

…those…are pointedly emphasizing the physical death. I would, however, agree with you that the death was also spiritual.

…then you post something curious…

sonseeker:

many died in infancy, without ever having committed any actual sin. Paul’s meaning is that when Adam sinned, God considered it true that all men sinned in Adam

This doesn’t sound like you. This says something more along the lines of what I have been talking about, drawing a distinction between inheritted sin and committed sin.

…but then back to this…

sonseeker:

from the time of Adam to Moses, no one had God’s written laws, and though their sins were “not counted” as infractions of the law, they still died. That fact is very good proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin

…which seems like a softening of your initial position. The first sentence I can agree with. Your conclusion seems off. I say that because when you say “God counted people guilty”, you must mean “God damned them” - or is there a difference? Is God only inflicting a temporal punnishment on them, while preserving them from eternal punnishment? Where would you get that? (BTW, if you opt for the temporal/eternal punnishment option, you’re starting to sound much more Catholic - think Purgatory ).

sonseeker:

18 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.
19 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.

Paul says explicitly that through one man’s disobedience “many were made”…sinners. So because of Adam, God thinks of all men as sinners, though not all at that time had been born.

Here I lose you. You quote that “one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men”, then quote “many were made sinners”. In your exegesis, you say that “many” means all, but ignore the flip side of the sentence above - were “all justified”, or were “many justified”? Were all Justified, such that none shall now suffer un-Justification? Again, I see a non sequitor in your logic.

sonseeker:

I am not conflicted

It appears otherwise. Again, if I am mis-interpreting you, please let me know. It is not my intent to make you look silly in self-refutations and flip-flops in logic.

 

[RyanL]

sonseeker:

That is why, in answer to your questions about Jesus dying, and Enoch and Elijah not dying, I told you what the scripture said. Certainly all three were exempted from the “wage of sin” truth by God, who has the right to exempt them.

God is Truth. God is Justice. God is Love. God is Mercy. God is not mutable. God is not flippant. God is not a petulant child, smiting as the whim strikes Him and freeing people willy-nilly. When you use the argument that “God must have changed His mind”, you are using the nullification argument of the Muslims. When you say that “justice only applies when God feels like it”, you are making a mockery of Justice. If you cannot provide a reason why Enoch and Elijah were spared from judgement, while Jesus was not, you need to seriously examine your theology. I say this not out of hurtfulness or malice, but as a concerned and loving brother. Perhaps you simply cut your post short, and didn’t fully explain. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

May God bless you and all whome you love,
RyanL

 

[sonseeker]

RyanL:

Bill,
I would like some time to chew this over with my interlinear bible. You present some good points, and I don’t want to drop them - I must say that this will probably take me a few readings before I can do justice to a response. Just so I won’t get distracted on a subject about which we both agree, could you please define Original Sin as it applies in your theology?

Also, could you please tell me the program you have that has the Septuagint on it?!? I’ve been looking for a good one, and haven’t seen anything!

Oh, and there’s a poster on this site who frequently posts Greek excerpts, and does it in the correct font - I don’t know how, but I know it can be done. Every time I try it winds up messed-up some how… if you figure it out, please let me know!

Such is my desire, and may our search bring us to to unity in Him! God is Truth, Logic, Reason, and Love, so let us search Him out in kind!

Prayerfully,
RyanL

Take your time. I use Logos (Libronix) Software. You can find them on the web at www.logos.com.

My definition of original sin–I believe Calvin’s followers to be the most accurate, biblically, in their formulation of the TULIP acronym.

So I believe that the fall was devastating to man’s nature and his will. Unregenerate man is now totally corrupted by sin, and his will is only for sin; therefore, in his unregenerate state, man is totally unable to move toward God on his own (total depravity/corruption). Also, it is passed on by our parents, and we pass it on to our progeny.

Is that enough? I never know; If not let me know what else you need to know about my understanding of original sin.

Bill

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

hey guys, like I said on another thread, April’s on a missions trip right now, so please keep her questions and threads going for her Thank you so much!

In Him,
Britty

 

[Gantor]

Discover real help for today’s Catholic in our new on-line Resources Catalogue. We thank the Lord that it is working so well and now wherever you live, you can easily get our resources. Just go to our Webpage: bereanbeacon.org and you will see flashing the new button saying: On-line Resources.

There is now a download feature on our articles, and they can be easily emailed to others.

Our site has been updated. There are three topics new topics addressed:

1. The true blessedness of Mary seen in contrast to the tradition that has been built on her name.
2. Catholic mysticism can lead into New Age thinking and can affect many facets of life without being noticed or perceived;
3. The Lutherans of Lutheran World Federation have embraced the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent.

We now have TV shows in the following cities:

1. St Paul and Hastings, MN
2. Dubuque, IA
3. Mid-Hudson, NY
4. Long Island, NY
5. Rome, NY
6. Grand Rapids, MI
7. Traverse City, MI
8. Sometimes in Portland, OR
9. Yonkers, NY
10. We are set to begin soon in Chicago and MT Prospect, IL
11. A brother has registered for Madison WI and Austin TX
12. We are trying to register for Phoenix, AZ and Sacramento CA

Cable access TV is free in each major city, we need an ardent believer who will register and submit four tapes to the cable access station each month.

It would be a great evangelistic tool if you could get our programs on the cable access station in your city in the USA. (We have about 45 professional 1-hour programs made, and we are in the process of making more).

Details of how it all is done are given on an Internet Webpage, nationwide on:

openchannel.se/cat/linksus.htm

Once a time slot is arranged we can send the programs four at a time. Some cities use tapes in ordinary VHS format, some in Super VHS, some in DVD-Cam.

We can send whichever format is required. If you can help please email me at:

personalrb@juno.com

Yours in the grace of the Precious Savior,

Richard Bennett

 

[wjsmartin]

Here are some questions, from an Anglican Priest in a traditional parish, to others, both “Catholic” and “Protestant.”

1. Is there some truth to the notion that both Calvin and Luther, contrary to Erasmus, denied free will?
2. Persuant to # 1, are they then in danger of being revitalizers of a kind of Platonism that, through pride, because it cannot rationally imagine incarnation, is most fully expressed in Islam?- Islam then being the “courageous” reassertion of the opinion, become dogma, that God CANNOT become man.-Or that any communication of idioms is impossible.
3. Having said this, do their respective Articles and Confessions admit of a Grace that destroys rather than redeems nature?
4. In following, how does this compare with the Anglican “corrective” to this, which is found in Richard Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity”?
5. Having said this, doesn’t Hooker then, despite the historical immoralities asssociated with the reinvention of the Church of England, not truly re-locate Anglicanism within Catholicism?
6. And does he not then offer a possibility of Reformed Catholicism which can reconcile the best of the Reformers with the best of the Counters through the logic and spirit of the Fathers and Doctors?
7. In conclusion, please examine his notions of the Holy Communion. I would proffer the view that he actually offers a view that explains the Reformers in a way that they did not understand themselves, and then he goes on to correct the views of the Church of Rome. His view on the Eucharist is, to my mind, more completely reflective of Chalcedon than even the Blessed Thomas Aquinas.
   Cordially yours, Father Martin

 

[jimmy]

wjsmartin:

Here are some questions, from an Anglican Priest in a traditional parish, to others, both “Catholic” and “Protestant.”

1. Is there some truth to the notion that both Calvin and Luther, contrary to Erasmus, denied free will?
2. Persuant to # 1, are they then in danger of being revitalizers of a kind of Platonism that, through pride, because it cannot rationally imagine incarnation, is most fully expressed in Islam?- Islam then being the “courageous” reassertion of the opinion, become dogma, that God CANNOT become man.-Or that any communication of idioms is impossible.
3. Having said this, do their respective Articles and Confessions admit of a Grace that destroys rather than redeems nature?
4. In following, how does this compare with the Anglican “corrective” to this, which is found in Richard Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity”?
5. Having said this, doesn’t Hooker then, despite the historical immoralities asssociated with the reinvention of the Church of England, not truly re-locate Anglicanism within Catholicism?
6. And does he not then offer a possibility of Reformed Catholicism which can reconcile the best of the Reformers with the best of the Counters through the logic and spirit of the Fathers and Doctors?
7. In conclusion, please examine his notions of the Holy Communion. I would proffer the view that he actually offers a view that explains the Reformers in a way that they did not understand themselves, and then he goes on to correct the views of the Church of Rome. His view on the Eucharist is, to my mind, more completely reflective of Chalcedon than even the Blessed Thomas Aquinas.
   Cordially yours, Father Martin

Welcome wjsmartin (Father Martin). I hope you enjoy the forums.

I do not know who Hooker is. What was his view of the Eucharist that you prefer over St. Thomas’?

 

[Christian4life]

I can’t help u there…my reasons for not joining are more personal. For one thing I would be expected to go to church and I can’t go because I don’t drive. I know all of you are gonna say oh just ask somebody but no way. I’m not asking a stranger to drive me and my daughter around and I don’t like asking favors from people even if they are nice.

 

[Christian4life]

The only real doctrinal type issues I have with the church are with praying to saints…I know Catholics aren’t supposed to pray TO saints, but I just don’t feel the need to at all. It is too much of a risk of accidentally commiting idolatry.

The other thing is I’m not sure I buy the Papal infallibility even when it comes to ex-cathedra statements. I think some of the popes have not been so moral at all.

 

[sonseeker]

Ryan,

You say that by my post: *All mankind is hopelessly trapped in sin…*my quoting 1 Kings 8:46, and Heb 4:15, that I have made self-refuting statements, and that I am making exceptions. For the record, I did not write those scriptures, I am merely quoting from them. *I *have not made Christ the exception, the scripture has. You say: “unless you don’t think Jesus was a man,” Surely you understand that Jesus is singularly unique. Again, I am not excepting Christ from sin, God is.

With respect to my statement: “we do not inherit death; we earn it, in Adam,” scripture bears that out in the Romans 5 passage previously discussed.

Also, you state:

RyanL:

In fact, you go so far as to say that we don’t inherit Original Sin…*you *claim we earn it!No; I said by Adam’s sin, we earn death no original. Remember, I showed you that because of Adam’s sin, God sees all men as sinners. What we inherit from Adam is not his sin, but his sin(ful) nature, having been utterly corrupted by his disobedience; God holds us *guilty *for Adam’s sin, as the Rom 5 passage clearly shows.

You quote me: *“…there is no distinction between sin inherited and committed,” *I do not remember what I was thinking at the time, but you right in correcting me. As stated above, we do not inherit sin, but a sin(ful) nature.

You say:

RyanL:

Under this reasoning, SIDS babies and the mentally incapacitated are all damned. As it seems you would have it, they have been created for eternal torment and separation from God from before the beginning of the world by a God who predestined all. As Original Sin and committed sin are identical

, both bring both physical and eternal death (damnation) as a consequence (else, committed sin won’t bring damnation either):That is a conclusion that you have reached. I am still undecided as to that issue. There are indications from scripture that infants go to heaven; I think of David’s statement in 2 Sam 12:23; however, I have heard some very convincing arguments dealing with election. I am simply undecided (that does not effect my salvation), and prefer at this point to echo Abraham: …shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?

As far as your statement about them being created for eternal torment, etc., Pro 16:4 says: The Lord has made everything for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. Your argument is not with me, or what “I would have.” I am the creature, not the Creator; he does as he pleases (Ps 115:3 etc). Scripture is making you uneasy.

RyanL:

…which seems like a softening of your initial position. The first sentence I can agree with. Your conclusion seems off. I say that because when you say “God counted people guilty”, you must mean “God damned them” - or is there a difference?

Is God only inflicting a temporal punishment on them, while preserving them from eternal punishment? Where would you get that? (BTW, if you opt for the temporal/eternal punishment option, you’re starting to sound much more Catholic – think purgatoryYes, I do mean guilty is damned (eternally); but there is always the potential for repentance.

RyanL:

Here I lose you. You quote that “one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men”, then quote “many were made sinners”. In your exegesis, you say that “many” means all, but ignore the flip side of the sentence above - were “all justified”, or were “many justified”? Were all

Justified, such that none shall now suffer un-Justification? Again, I see a non sequitor in your logic.Yes, Paul suddenly shifts from “all” to “many.” I can only hazard a guess as to why he did that. Perhaps it was to maintain parallelism with the thought. Clearly his testimony in the chapter, and elsewhere is that “all” without exception have sinned. Don’t bring Christ up again; you know the difference. And, no, not all will be justified.

(continued below)

 

[sonseeker]

(continued from post #257)

You say:

RyanL:

God is Truth. God is Justice. God is Love. God is Mercy. God is not

mutable. God is not flippant. God is not a petulant child, smiting as the whim strikes Him and freeing people willy-nilly. When you use the argument that “God must have changed His mind”, you are using the nullification argument of the Muslims.God is immutable (Mal 3:6); that immutability is an attribute; it is His essence. God’s making exemptions/exceptions are His right; His actions are not flippant, petulant, whimsical, or willy-nilly; they are right; they do not indicate a change in His nature, or a change of mind; rather, He had decided (willed) it to be. You see it as His changing His mind; it was not, rather, it was decided in eternity.

RyanL:

When you say that “justice only applies when God feels like it”, you are making a mockery of Justice. If you cannot provide a reason why Enoch and Elijah were spared from judgment, while Jesus was not, you need to seriously examine your theology. I say this not out of hurtfulness or malice, but as a concerned and loving brother. Perhaps you simply cut your post short, and didn’t fully explain. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am not saying that; I provided you with a reason from the scripture as to why Enoch was spared: he had a superb witness, and he was pleasing to God (Heb 11:5); the problem is that you don’t like my answer; as to Elijah, we are not told “why;” we are told “that.” And, I said they were spared from death, not judgment; although, every believer is spared from judgment (Jn 5:24).

Thank you for your concern about my theology; you also might want to examine yours. My theology comes from the scripture; yours is taken to the scripture for support. What I mean is, I am assuming that you are belaboring this issue, because if all men sinned, you have no biblical support for the virgin’s sinlessness; it seems to me that it is *your *theology that has *you *contending with me about scripture’s clear testimony; I am quite sure of my own. Keep struggling; frustration is a great teacher.

In Him,
Bill