Romans 3:23

[ddarko]

ddarko Richard believe that we are saved by the cross once and for all. He has no comcept of Original sin or actual sin. And he does not believe that we are given grace from God do good works or we can refuse that grace and lose that grace and not do good works.

Richard believes that once we are saved thats it we are getting in. I just call it Richardology

Haha yea, I think underneath that’s his ultimate goal as a protestant.

But here he is getting it mixed up because he has gone further to try and prove that Catholics state that Grace is also merited by Good works.

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

I think he misinterpreted what was written here:-

“Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness.”

to mean that ‘Grace is furthered and attained through salutary acts or state of holiness’.
What the sentence was actually saying was ‘goal for Eternal Salvation is furthered and attained through salutary acts or state of holiness’ that one is able to perform through God’s Grace.
A good indicator of the fallibility of a private interpretations

But yea, I think he just didn’t know how the word “latter” is used in a sentence.

God Bless

Oh Yes and I forgot Richard thinks he has the gift of the Holy Spirit just like the Pope and the Bishops. He thinks we all can define scripture. Do you not agree my friend

I don’t think Richard likes me very much, because he always ignores my posts. But thats Okay.

 

[rinnie]

Haha yea, I think underneath that’s his ultimate goal as a protestant.

But here he is getting it mixed up because he has gone further to try and prove that Catholics state that Grace is also merited by Good works.

God Bless

Trust me you haven’t seen nothing yet You’ll See

 

[ddarko]

Oh Yes and I forgot Richard thinks he has the gift of the Holy Spirit just like the Pope and the Bishops. He thinks we all can define scripture. Do you not agree my friend

I don’t think Richard likes me very much, because he always ignores my posts. But thats Okay.

Haha, I am even willing to agree with Richard that he has the Gift of the Holy Spirit if he can show me how he knows such a thing is true in the first place

So far, all I can see is Richard saying

1. Private interpretation of mine is solid because the Holy Spirit guides me
2. I know the Holy Spirit guides me because it says so over here in Scripture
3. But that itself is Richards interpretation of what it says in Scripture so he might be wrong about (2) lol

Thus, falls apart the whole Protestant framework.

God Bless

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

First of all I see no evidence from scripture that Mary was “assumed”. And what is the “saving function” of Mary. Mary does NOT win eternal salvation for us. It is a GIFT of the Father in His Son.

Firstly, show me where the scriptures talk about cars (and if you say the apostles were in one accord, Im just going to laugh) and I will show you where it says the Blessed Virgin was assumed

Second, the typical protestant explanation (perhaps not yours, but the typical from my protestant days and the times since my conversion to Christ’s Church) is that Grace is “A gift freely given that causes [or, alternately, represents] salvation” or “grace is the favor [good will] of God”. Neither is accurate, and perhaps neither represents your view, but people tend to clump whole groups under one umbrella and sometimes people just dont fit.

Jn.3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Matthew 7:21 "“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

I don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s wrong. Grace is the unmerited gift of Salvation in Jesus Christ.

See above

Gary this quote “Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness.” is from the link that you provided and clearly says that grace is “furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness” Salutary acts are good deeds, so YOUR LINK is saying that grace is obtained by works NOT ME.

No, it is saying that you may proceed down the path of sanctification through good works and that path may eventually lead to your salvation. Read that sentence in context and it will make more sense. If I read the bible in sentences instead of in part I would think that God promotes murder, fornication, adultery, incest, etc. since out of context all of those things occur in scripture.

You really need to learn how to read.

Ummmmmm… Totally unnecessary comment.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Oh Yes and I forgot Richard thinks he has the gift of the Holy Spirit just like the Pope and the Bishops. He thinks we all can define scripture. Do you not agree my friend

I highly doubt that he feels “we all can define scripture”. I would say his feeling is that we need to study and interpret to understand scripture.

His understanding is different than ours (and I know it to be wrong) but there is no call for mockery because of this difference, even in jest. On a forum (if you are kidding, not serious) sarcasm and playful joking do not come across well. Most times they dont show at all, it just reads as being rude.

Originally posted by ddarko

Haha, I am even willing to agree with Richard that he has the Gift of the Holy Spirit if he can show me how he knows such a thing is true in the first place

So far, all I can see is Richard saying

1. Private interpretation of mine is solid because the Holy Spirit guides me
2. I know the Holy Spirit guides me because it says so over here in Scripture
3. But that itself is Richards interpretation of what it says in Scripture so he might be wrong about (2) lol

Thus, falls apart the whole Protestant framework.

While I agree with your general statement, I think that we all (myself especially) should practice some charity in our discussion. Sometimes the tone with which something is said can negate your entire argument in someone elses eyes. I know that if I were Richard I would be very tempted to go on the attack against just about everything you say instead of considering your points and responding with reasoned, well thought out, arguments simply because of the seeming condescension in your posts.

If you do not intend to be condescending than I apologize for insinuating that you do.

Again, just my opinion.

Richard, if I am wrong in the above statement replying to rinnie, please correct me on your view.

FSC

 

[ddarko]

Ummmmmm… Totally unnecessary comment.

FSC

Um, with all due respect, keep things like that to yourself.

I can say in the same way you did that your comment was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

While I agree with your general statement, I think that we all (myself especially) should practice some charity in our discussion. Sometimes the tone with which something is said can negate your entire argument in someone elses eyes. I know that if I were Richard I would be very tempted to go on the attack against just about everything you say instead of considering your points and responding with reasoned, well thought out, arguments simply because of the seeming condescension in your posts.

If you do not intend to be condescending than I apologize for insinuating that you do.

Again, just my opinion.

Richard, if I am wrong in the above statement replying to rinnie, please correct me on your view.

FSC

Once again, in case you missed it, he is already on the attack. Otherwise to bring about a question of the definition of Grace and salvation to a topic of Mary’s sinless nature is rather questionable to begin with.

So you might operate at the level of being slightly naive and assuming everyone wants to listen to you. Some do, some don’t. Some people just aren’t looking for answers. That is a judgement I make after conversing with the person for sometime. You are welcome to say they are all looking for answers but that is just your take on the matter. Not mine and no need to enforce it on me.

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

I highly doubt that he feels “we all can define scripture”. I would say his feeling is that we need to study and interpret to understand scripture.

His understanding is different than ours (and I know it to be wrong) but there is no call for mockery because of this difference, even in jest. On a forum (if you are kidding, not serious) sarcasm and playful joking do not come across well. Most times they dont show at all, it just reads as being rude.

While I agree with your general statement, I think that we all (myself especially) should practice some charity in our discussion. Sometimes the tone with which something is said can negate your entire argument in someone elses eyes. I know that if I were Richard I would be very tempted to go on the attack against just about everything you say instead of considering your points and responding with reasoned, well thought out, arguments simply because of the seeming condescension in your posts.

If you do not intend to be condescending than I apologize for insinuating that you do.

Again, just my opinion.

Richard, if I am wrong in the above statement replying to rinnie, please correct me on your view.

FSC

No I am telling you what I am saying is the truth. Ask Richard he will agree with me. He does not accept any of our Church teaching on all of the above that I stated. I never meant to be condescending one bit. I even stated I like Richard I really do. But he has his own way of thinking and he believes he can define scripture and you can also.

Am I not right Richard, If I am wrong on anything I said I will be the first to apologize.

Here is the way he has explaine it to me. If I read it one way, thats how I should do it, and if he reads it his way thats how HE should do it. Forget about ONE truth. There are many.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Um, with all due respect, keep things like that to yourself.

I can say in the same way you did that your comment was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY

God Bless

See, this makes my point. I was just trying to point out the condescending tone in something you said and came off sounding condescending myself. Apologies for that, it was not my intent.

And, ftr, the attitude you put forth makes ME want to argue against your statements, and I agree with them!!!

(just as I am sure that statement probably puts your hackles up)

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No I am telling you what I am saying is the truth. Ask Richard he will agree with me. He does not accept any of our Church teaching on all of the above that I stated. I never meant to be condescending one bit. I even stated I like Richard I really do. But he has his own way of thinking and he believes he can define scripture and you can also.

Am I not right Richard, If I am wrong on anything I said I will be the first to apologize.

Here is the way he has explaine it to me. If I read it one way, thats how I should do it, and if he reads it his way thats how HE should do it. Forget about ONE truth. There are many.

Ahhh, well then your above statement makes more sense if he has already put that forth as his stance, the “relative” attitude of do what YOU think and I will do what I think and we will all be happy.

Hopefully he comes back soon to confirm or deny this

 

[ddarko]

See, this makes my point. I was just trying to point out the condescending tone in something you said and came off sounding condescending myself. Apologies for that, it was not my intent.

And, ftr, the attitude you put forth makes ME want to argue against your statements, and I agree with them!!!

(just as I am sure that statement probably puts your hackles up)

I know what you mean.

I usually don’t go all out on the attack to be honest. But when I see the person dodging important points, taking a link I posted and then only reading the first line of it and forming a problem, I sort of take it as a mental cue that he is not being honest.

But yes, I see what you mean.

An apology is in order on my part as well! Sorry about that!

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

Ahhh, well then your above statement makes more sense if he has already put that forth as his stance, the “relative” attitude of do what YOU think and I will do what I think and we will all be happy.

Hopefully he comes back soon to confirm or deny this

Oh he will. One thing I will say for Richard he will defend what HE believes to be the truth. I will give him that

 

[GaryTaylor]

I didn’t read into this as intentional yet if someones feelings were hurt {Richards} the an then apology is in order. I also am sorry. Nevertheless being as I stepped out for a moment I agree with ddarko. We can’t assume one doesn’t understand the context of whats related when they fail to state this. So the next thinking is cherry-picking statements which seem to uphold a particular side of a debate. Also not uncommon here and seen.

In truth on-line this makes conclusion of converstion much more in-depth than in person.

Anyway let us proceed in Charity as Christians. Frankly as a Catholic in this day and age I often feel attacket by all aspects of Christianity.

But thats OK because I also know the prevalence of evil today and I wouldn’t expect it any other way.

God Bless, Gary

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=Richard Kastner;8179403]Here’s a quote from your link.

First of all I see no evidence from scripture that Mary was “assumed”. And what is the “saving function” of Mary. Mary does NOT win eternal salvation for us. It is a GIFT of the Father in His Son.

Jn.3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Richard, there is absolutely no Scripture that says that Mary was assumed, not one. I read my bible more than once, look in a concordance, checked the Greek, Latin, Aramaic, King James and you are absolutely correct. However since my beliefs are not based on the Bible alone I am OK with that.

The bible never talks about Mary having the blood of Jesus moving through her body for 9 months. The bible never talks about Jesus having an X-chromosome from Mary or answers the question as to where Jesus got a Y chromosome. St. Augustine says I should not concern myself with the Y issue that sometimes I just have to accept mystery. Probably good advice. The bible says nothing about Mary being washed with the water of the birth of Jesus or being covered with the blood of Jesus when He was born. I believe all that though.

I suggest you read the development of doctrine at this website:
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/1048/Development_of_Doctrine_Vincent_of_Lerins.html

and seek from this website an answer to that question and listen to Sungenis debate Matt Slick where he answers that question.

If you believe in the blood of Jesus the most compelling thing you can do is come to an understanding that Mary is unique. No one but Mary and Jesus had the blood of Jesus flowing through their bodies. Can you imagine what that did to Mary? Know Jesus Know God. No Mary, No Jesus, No Knowing of God. Why did He have to do it that way and cause all this confusion.

If you truly want an answer look it up and when you are done at least you will know why it is believed. I want you to stop thinking about Mary and all about the blood stuff and just move on to another topic. Do not think about Mary anymore as it is only causing conflict. We want peace. We want love. Is this is causing you problems just stop thinking about Mary and all that other stuff. Erase Mary from your mind. Don’t give her another thought. Don’t mention her in writing. Move on to something that will satisfy your desire to know.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ahhh, well then your above statement makes more sense if he has already put that forth as his stance, the “relative” attitude of do what YOU think and I will do what I think and we will all be happy.

Hopefully he comes back soon to confirm or deny this

:
Originally Posted by rinnie
No I am telling you what I am saying is the truth. Ask Richard he will agree with me. He does not accept any of our Church teaching on all of the above that I stated. I never meant to be condescending one bit. I even stated I like Richard I really do. But he has his own way of thinking and he believes he can define scripture and you can also.

Am I not right Richard, If I am wrong on anything I said I will be the first to apologize.

Let me just comment on rinnie’s post here. I do believe that it is possible for each and every one of us to have a correct and true interpretation of the bible, but what rinnie has left out of her analysis of my beliefs is that this is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t know whether she just forgot about that little detail or if she intentionally left it out, but since I have had experience with her in the past pulling similar shenanigans, I tend towards the later. As for this

Here is the way he has explaine it to me. If I read it one way, thats how I should do it, and if he reads it his way thats how HE should do it. Forget about ONE truth. There are many.

I don’t know where she got this nonsense from, but it wasn’t from me.

 

[CopticChristian]

I do believe that it is possible for each and every one of us to have a correct and true interpretation of the bible, but what rinnie has left out of her analysis of my beliefs is that this is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Richard,
This is an impossibility. What you are saying is that either the Holy Spirit wants confusion and division or that if you disagree amongst each other than you have not been led by the Spirit and when you agree at some level you have. This makes absolutely no sense.

Led by the Spirit? In 1600 we have
Anglicans with the King the head of the church
Calvinists
Lutherans
Baptists
Anabaptists
Swedenborgians
Herrnhuters
Socianism
Pietism
Antinomis
Schwenkfeldians

The synod of Dort led by the Spirit declared the Arminians to be heretics. The Calvinists and Lutherans persecuted all the others listed. Calvin murdered at least two people that voiced opposition to him.

Who was led by the Spirit?

 

[Paxvobis]

Sometimes the Bible makes generalizations. If you say that everybody has sinned, than that includes Jesus too (true God but also true Man).

 

[CopticChristian]

So then everyone outside of the audience here is exempt from this generalization (aside from Christ, as I addressed in a previous post)?

Let me be even more specific: is it true or false that every person with a biological dad has a sin nature?

Yes that is true. Everyone with a biological dad has a sin nature. Jesus had no biological dad. Wonder where his Y chromosome came from. Adam and Eve were created without sin and had no biological dad and yet they sinned.

The other exception besides Jesus is Mary. God has the capacity to create creatures without sin as seen with Adam and Eve. Paul in Romans calls Jesus the new Adam and
early Christian belief always associated Mary with Jesus in the divine plan. The Patristic writers referred to Mary as the “new Eve,” who cooperated with Christ, the “new Adam.” In the writings of Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.), Irenaeus (202 A.D.), Ephraem of Syria (403 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (348 A.D.), Jerome (420 A.D.), Augustine (430 A.D.), Epiphanius of Salamis (403 A.D.), and John Chrysostom (407 A.D.), Mary is portrayed as bringing life (Christ) into the world, whereas Eve brought death, and Mary’s humility and obedience is contrasted with Eve’s pride and disobedience.

You may want to read Newman on Mary. He was a convert to Catholicism. Some of it can be found here:
christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html

 

[rinnie]

Oh Yes and I forgot Richard thinks he has the gift of the Holy Spirit just like the Pope and the Bishops. He thinks we all can define scripture. Do you not agree my friend

I don’t think Richard likes me very much, because he always ignores my posts. But thats Okay.

Hold on there Richard before you accuse me of my shenanigan’s did I not say that you feel that you have the gift of the Holy Spirit to define scripture just like the Pope and Bishops. Lets be fair.