Sola Scriptura Silence

[rocketrob]

Hi Randy,

I hope you won’t mind me interpolating. The Catholic objection to the Protestant understanding of Romans 3:23 aside, surely the main problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that if sin is the central problem of the human race, as most Christians assert that it is, then the doctrine doesn’t make sense. If I understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception correctly, the inference is that God can grant complete immunity from sin to human beings yet grants it only to one. So why not just grant immunity to everybody and save everybody that way? There seem to be only two Catholic responses to this question. It is either ignored or downgraded to a “mystery of faith.” What answer to this question did you receive that satisfied you enough to feel able to cross the Tiber?

Curiously,
Mick

I think an important clarification should be made in addition to what centurion210 wrote above. The Catholic teaching is not actually that Mary was granted ‘immunity’ from sin. Rather, she was spared the ‘fallen’ sinful state of concupiscence that plagues the rest of mankind as a result of the original sin. She was restored to the state that Adam and Eve originally were created with, by virtue of Christ’s salvific work on the cross (which was to come…but God is not limited by time, remember). Therefore, with God’s grace and a life dedicated to His service, she was able to reverse the choice that Eve made through her own assent to God’s will. Mary did actually make a choice in all of this.

I think a common mistake is made in trying to judge or assess Mary through the cloud of our own fallen state. We can’t imagine how she could resist the temptation to sin. On the other hand, how often do we ask ourselves, “Why oh why did Adam and Eve give up the Garden?! They had everyting they needed, and everything that we all now strive for!” Mary was conceived in the original state of Adam and Eve…she was wise and blessed enough not to repeat their mistake.

SSTeacher, you will not find all of the Marian teachings explicitly laid out in Scripture. But they are consistent with Scripture once you know and understand the actual teachings…even though the opposite is often stated or implied. Perhaps this will help you in your consideration of becoming a Catholic.

rocketrob

 

[ralphy]

Sorry, wrong Ralphy.

If you read Matt 5 closely, toward verse 43 through 48…you’ll clearly see that the call to perfection through Christ is referring to earthly life, not just the afterlife.

It does NOT say “you WILL BE perfect”, which would infer what you would like it to infer, solely a future (afterlife) event…but no…it says “ARE TO BE perfect”, which in the context of what Jesus is telling them, is a present participle, i.e. NOT future tense. In other words, Jesus is talking about their earthly life behaviors, and exhorting them in righteousness. He does this all the way up to verse 48, in which He tells them they “are to be perfect”. He doesn’t go through all the trouble of explaining to the disciples how to behave, and then sum it all up with ‘you’ll eventually be perfect when you die and go to heaven’. That’s not a contextual reading of those verses at all.

Through the gift of grace, we are capable, although not assured of, perfection in THIS LIFE. I’m sure not many attain it, but that doesn’t change the clear fact that Grace makes it possible…just like grace made Mary’s perfection (and the Church’s teaching perfection) possible.

God Bless

So who outside of Christ is perfect. Were the disciples perfect?

 

[ralphy]

I think an important clarification should be made in addition to what centurion210 wrote above. The Catholic teaching is not actually that Mary was granted ‘immunity’ from sin. Rather, she was spared the ‘fallen’ sinful state of concupiscence that plagues the rest of mankind as a result of the original sin. She was restored to the state that Adam and Eve originally were created with, by virtue of Christ’s salvific work on the cross (which was to come…but God is not limited by time, remember). Therefore, with God’s grace and a life dedicated to His service, she was able to reverse the choice that Eve made through her own assent to God’s will. Mary did actually make a choice in all of this.

I think a common mistake is made in trying to judge or assess Mary through the cloud of our own fallen state. We can’t imagine how she could resist the temptation to sin. On the other hand, how often do we ask ourselves, “Why oh why did Adam and Eve give up the Garden?! They had everyting they needed, and everything that we all now strive for!” Mary was conceived in the original state of Adam and Eve…she was wise and blessed enough not to repeat their mistake.

SSTeacher, you will not find all of the Marian teachings explicitly laid out in Scripture. But they are consistent with Scripture once you know and understand the actual teachings…even though the opposite is often stated or implied. Perhaps this will help you in your consideration of becoming a Catholic.

rocketrob

That teaching is classed as “another gospel” and we are warned about that in scripture. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

You’re making no sense again, Ralph. If you’re led into all truth, how is it you’re not infallible? If you’re not infallible, how can you be led to all truth?

These are the kinds of knots protestants tie themselves up in when they open with the notion they are ALL authorized to interpret Scripture.

In case you didn’t not know, there is a daily fight going on between the spirit and the flesh. We do sin, even though we may be saved ,there is no perfection in the flesh, therefor we are not infallible. Ralph

 

[rocketrob]

That teaching is classed as “another gospel” and we are warned about that in scripture. Ralph

ralphy,
This statement is simply not true. I think its fairly obvious by now that you are not going to be convinced by any arguments or discussion on this thread…at least not at the present time. And that’s fine. But you need to realize, if you don’t already know, that many of your own arguments are not based on what the Catholic Church actually teaches or maintains to be true.

rocketrob

 

[ralphy]

Try Matthew 16:19 where Jesus says to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Did you ever try binding or loosening something in heaven? Do you know the significance of what it means to bind or to loose? Do you know the significance of the Keys?

Does this have anything to do with “infallibility”. Surely you are not using Peters name as being "infallible. Is this the same Peter who denied Jesus three times? Ralph

 

[ralphy]

ralphy,
This statement is simply not true. I think its fairly obvious by now that you are not going to be convinced by any arguments or discussion on this thread…at least not at the present time. And that’s fine. But you need to realize, if you don’t already know, that many of your own arguments are not based on what the Catholic Church actually teaches or maintains to be true.

rocketrob

The catechism that the Roman catholic teaches, do they maintain that it is true? Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

So who outside of Christ is perfect. Were the disciples perfect?

Well, the point is not who’s perfect, but the fact that it’s clear that grace makes perfection possible on earth.

I was pointing out that the closest adjective scripture has to describe the infallibility of God, was the word “perfect”, and when used in Matt 5, this adjective expresses the potential for perfection that the gift of grace gives to all while still living on earth.

Hence, it should be comprehensible that knowledge of the truth and the perpetual teaching of that truth could easily be given the gift of perfection (infallibility) by God, and it was, to the 12, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. This was not a gift of impeccability, which is the absense of sin. Infallibility is a gift of protection from teaching error, and it is actually a charism of the papal office (Pope and council of Bishops) rarely used in modern history.

Mary’s gift of perfection was at her conception, it was not a gift of infallibility - rather a deliverance from original sin. The absence of explicit scriptural words to express it does not refute that doctrine. There’s plenty of implicit scripture to support it, which you have been given ad nauseum.

Again, my whole point is that scripture reveals that perfection in earth-bound people is possible, and desirable by God. And certainly it is within God’s power to keep His teaching perfect through the instrument of anointed humans.

God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

The catechism that the Roman catholic teaches, do they maintain that it is true? Ralph

Well, I don’t think they’d publish it if it contained falsehood.

And you can drop the “roman” from your description, ralphy. It is just “Catholic”, ok?

 

[SteveGC]

Does this have anything to do with “infallibility”. Surely you are not using Peters name as being "infallible. Is this the same Peter who denied Jesus three times? Ralph

a 43 year Catholic doesn’t know the difference between impeccability and infallibility? Really? are you kidding me?

Impeccability = absense of sin
Infallibility = protection from teaching error

Ralphy, surely you must realize that someone or something this side of heaven has been granted an infallible charism of proclaiming the Chrisitian faith and morals, no? Don’t you, in fact, claim this charism for yourself when you essentially tell us how your interpretation of Scripture is the “right” one?

So, if God could give YOU the gift of infallibility, why not to the apostles?

 

[inkaneer]

They were born tainted. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Well, the point is not who’s perfect, but the fact that it’s clear that grace makes perfection possible on earth.

I was pointing out that the closest adjective scripture has to describe the infallibility of God, was the word “perfect”, and when used in Matt 5, this adjective expresses the potential for perfection that the gift of grace gives to all while still living on earth.

Hence, it should be comprehensible that knowledge of the truth and the perpetual teaching of that truth could easily be given the gift of perfection (infallibility) by God, and it was, to the 12, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. This was not a gift of impeccability, which is the absense of sin. Infallibility is a gift of protection from teaching error, and it is actually a charism of the papal office (Pope and council of Bishops) rarely used in modern history.

Mary’s gift of perfection was at her conception, it was not a gift of infallibility - rather a deliverance from original sin. The absence of explicit scriptural words to express it does not refute that doctrine. There’s plenty of implicit scripture to support it, which you have been given ad nauseum.

Again, my whole point is that scripture reveals that perfection in earth-bound people is possible, and desirable by God. And certainly it is within God’s power to keep His teaching perfect through the instrument of anointed humans.

God Bless

No one in the flesh is perfect. Ralph

 

[inkaneer]

Does this have anything to do with “infallibility”. Surely you are not using Peters name as being "infallible. Is this the same Peter who denied Jesus three times? Ralph

Because what it means is that whatever Peter bound on earth would be ratified in heaven. Jesus is going to back Peter all the way. But Peter is not going to go off willy nilly binding and loosening. He is going to be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. That is why he is infalible.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

In case you didn’t not know, there is a daily fight going on between the spirit and the flesh. We do sin, even though we may be saved ,there is no perfection in the flesh, therefor we are not infallible. Ralph

As it happens, I do know it, Ralph. And I know especially we are not infallible as certainly I know you and the rest of the Bible believers are not led to all truth, nor are you authorized to interpret Scripture.

You seem to be having trouble holding two thoughts at one time. Try thinking things through in light of what you’ve already said before you post in haste.

 

[ralphy]

Because what it means is that whatever Peter bound on earth would be ratified in heaven. Jesus is going to back Peter all the way. But Peter is not going to go off willy nilly binding and loosening. He is going to be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. That is why he is infalible.

My understanding of infallibility is that one does not make mistakes. I think Peter did a few times. Ralph

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Does this have anything to do with “infallibility”. Surely you are not using Peters name as being "infallible. Is this the same Peter who denied Jesus three times? Ralph

The Lord’s commission to bind and loose in heaven what Peter and the Apostles and their successors after them bind and loose on earth has EVERYTHING to do with infallibility. I’m amazed you would question that. Peter’s denial of the Lord is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Parenthetically, one thing you prots overlook while you’re condemning Peter is, at least he was there, following the Lord! The rest of them ran away.

 

[ralphy]

As it happens, I do know it, Ralph. And I know especially we are not infallible as certainly I know you and the rest of the Bible believers are not led to all truth, nor are you authorized to interpret Scripture.

You seem to be having trouble holding two thoughts at one time. Try thinking things through in light of what you’ve already said before you post in haste.

You say “we are NOT infallible”, you surely did not include your pope in that did you.?

 

[ralphy]

The Lord’s commission to bind and loose in heaven what Peter and the Apostles and their successors after them bind and loose on earth has EVERYTHING to do with infallibility. I’m amazed you would question that. Peter’s denial of the Lord is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Parenthetically, one thing you prots overlook while you’re condemning Peter is, at least he was there, following the Lord! The rest of them ran away.

Who was at the cross. Ralph

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No one in the flesh is perfect. Ralph

Did you understand even one word of what Steve wrote to you? The Catholics on this board are trying to teach you about the Christian faith and the Gospel message and all you can do is respond with bumper sticker slogans and revival tent cheers. Please stop pretending you know something, Ralph. Make an effort to understand what’s being said instead of firing off an unthinking, nonsensical comebacker.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

My understanding of infallibility is that one does not make mistakes. I think Peter did a few times. Ralph

Your understanding is, as usual, incorrect. Infallibility in the Church, which is what we’re talking about, rises from the Lord’s promise to lead the Church to all truth and His promise to bind and loose in heaven what the Church binds and looses on earth. The doctrine pertains ONLY to matters of faith and morals. The reason is to insure that the truth of the Christian message will be taught on earth. That’s why it is in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church ONLY where the fullness of Christian truth resides.