Sola Scriptura Silence

[Jerry_Marino]

No, it doesn’t. The most common Protestant objection is the use of Paul’s words “all have sinned”. The word used for “all” in the original Greek version, which is the language in which Paul wrote, is “pas”. “Pas” does not always mean every single one, but the rather a vast majority, most, or a great amount. We can see other times in the Bible where “all” is used, but clearly does not mean every single one:

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” [Romans 15:14]

In this part, “all” certainly does not mean every single one. If it did, the Romans, who had all knowledge, would have had the knowledge of God!

Another Protestant objection: it is not true that if Mary were born without original sin she wouldn’t need a Savior. All redemption comes from the Cross of Christ, including Mary’s. She wasn’t born without sin by her own merit, but by an act of mercy on the part of God. If we believe that Jesus saves us from sin and death even after we have committed our own personal sins, why should we balk at the idea that He saved the woman He chose to be His Mother from sin and death even before she was born? Her immaculate conception was brought about by the grace flowing from the Cross, not from anything she did on her own. Mary is in no way a Savior. She is, however, the Mother of the Savior, and as such needed to be as pure as possible.

so what does it mean, “None is righteous, no, not one” romans 3:10 or when Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” mark 10:18?

i have to be careful as to what i say but mary born without sin?

what does the Bible say about this?

Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

if mary was without sin, why would say this?

all far short of the Glory of God and in need of a Savior.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You are really stretching it, ALL is All accept it. Ralph

Who appointed you an authority on Scripture, Ralph?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.”

Mick, that is not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. God didn’t so much ‘grant’ Mary a sinless state as He willed it because she was to hold the body of His Son.

Anyone subject to sin is subject to Satan. To the Catholic Church, it is unthinkable that the body of the Lord should, in any way, be subject to Satan.

In the OT, the Ark of the Covenant was designed by God to hold His Word, the Commandments. Mary was similarly ‘designed’ by God to hold His Word, Jesus Christ. In that light she can be, and is considered to be the Ark of the New Covenant, an immaculate vessel fit to hold and nurture the Savior of the world.

 

[ralphy]

Who appointed you an authority on Scripture, Ralph?

I just understand english. Ralph

 

[baddog]

so what does it mean, “None is righteous, no, not one” romans 3:10 or when Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” mark 10:18?

i have to be careful as to what i say but mary born without sin?

what does the Bible say about this?

Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

if mary was without sin, why would say this?

all far short of the Glory of God and in need of a Savior.

God is the source of all goodness and righteousness. No one is righteous on their own merit.
Mary needed a Savior as well. She was perserved from sin by God’s saving grace, and not by her own merits.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

that is not biblical though, no where can that be found other than in the teachings of the church.

remember this thread is sola scriptura.

i know the verses the church uses concerning mary but it still does not imply that she was born without sin.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Ferde,

SSTeacher;5035305:

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.”

Mick, that is not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. God didn’t so much ‘grant’ Mary a sinless state as He willed it because she was to hold the body of His Son.

I’m not being stroppy, here, but I simply don’t see any difference between saying that God willed it and saying that God granted it. It amounts to the same thing – one person being granted immunity from sin by the will of God. How come?

Anyone subject to sin is subject to Satan.

Well, we’re all sinners, although I have a feeling that quoting Romans 3:23 to endorse that reality will get me into trouble on this thread.

To the Catholic Church, it is unthinkable that the body of the Lord should, in any way, be subject to Satan.

Well, I guess it’s a pious thought. But…

In the OT, the Ark of the Covenant was designed by God to hold His Word, the Commandments. Mary was similarly ‘designed’ by God to hold His Word, Jesus Christ. In that light she can be, and is considered to be the Ark of the New Covenant, an immaculate vessel fit to hold and nurture the Savior of the world.

I see the argument but I’m not convinced. My uneasiness with the anomaly still remains. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, though.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[baddog]

that is not biblical though, no where can that be found other than in the teachings of the church.

remember this thread is sola scriptura.

i know the verses the church uses concerning mary but it still does not imply that she was born without sin.

Post 279 gives you the implications from scripture.

 

[Benadam]

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?

Free will

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I just understand english.Ralph

Scripture wasn’t written in English, Ralph, so you’re behind from the start. I suggest you give up telling people what Scripture means. Like just about all ‘bible only’ protestants, you have no idea what it means.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Was Jesus a sinner from birth? No, so there is one exception.

Gen. 3:15- I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This passage is messianic. Note that the enmity is put between the serpent and the woman. Now, if Mary was a sinner, she would be in the serpents camp, and there would be no enmity between the serpent and the woman.

Luke 1:27- to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
Note that Mary was “full of grace”. Also the verb tense in Greek is past, present, and future. Mary was about 14 years old at the time of the angel’s greeting.

For example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets her with the phrase: “Hail, Full of Grace” – a phrase which most modern Bibles mistranslate as “highly favored one” or even “highly favored daughter.” Yet those words are not in the original Greek. In the Greek, it is “Kecharitomenae” – literally, “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced” implying an “overflowing” or “abundance” of grace.

Furthermore, the angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary; and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.

So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.

So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, right? (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it?

We Catholics say that it was at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother. Why? Because of Genesis 3:15. Here, God speaks to satan, saying:

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam.

no it doesn’t tell me that mary was without sin. full of grace doesn’t signify that she was and the quote from genesis neither it talks of Jesus. still not convinced.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

no it doesn’t tell me that mary was without sin. full of grace doesn’t signify that she was and the quote from genesis neither it talks of Jesus. still not convinced.

You’re looking for a proof-text. Well, we’re not about to give you one because- guess what? It doesn’t exist, from what I’ve seen.

But we can offer you context. Anyone can take a verse and interpret it to justify any action, but it takes much more to be able to tie together the various parts of Scripture and see how they fit together- with God, there are no accidents, after all.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

fair enuff,

God bless

 

[Benadam]

Could Jesus teach that only a good tree can produce good fruit if the seed that produced His flesh came from an evil tree?

Could a soul distorted by sin be blessed and magnify the Lord from age to age?

God gathered the dust of a sinless earth to form the first Adam without sin.
Would God gather the dust of sin to form the corporeal person of His Son?

 

[SteveGC]

To Jerry and/or Ralph…

It seems clear that both of you will ultimately remained ‘unconvinced’ of any scriptural support Catholics give regarding any doctrine that you have previously convinced yourself is unbiblical.

So, in that light, and in keeping with the subject of this thread, let me ask you some questions…

First, some assumptions…I assume you both know that…

-The Bible was compiled and canonized nearly 400 years after the death of the last apostle.
-The forum for this canonization was primarily the councils of Rome and Hippo.
Now…I’m not sure if you do or do not accept these facts…

-The members of these councils did not select writings based solely on the authorship of each letter
-They selected writings based primarily on Holy Spirit-inspired knowledge (which they themselves possessed) of the authentic teachings of ChristSo, the first question is…do you or do you not concede that these last two statements are true?

And secondly, whether or not you believe these men were as knowledgeable as the apostles were of the authentic teachings of Christ, do you atleast concede that these men were guided by the Holy Spirit to select the proper writings for Scripture?

And lastly, if you concede they were led by the HS, and given the fact that we’re talking about 400 years post-apostolic era, why can you not concede that these men were granted the charism of Holy Spirit protection based on a continuous successive laying on of hands (ordination) that originated from the apostles themselves, especially considering that several of the first anointings (laying on of hands) are supported in Scripture itself? And IF you have 400 years of authentic, apostolic, successive ordinations which take us from apostles to canonizers, why would it be difficult to believe that this succession continued on after the Bible was canonized?

I’d like to hear your reasoning, and if you disagree (which I imagine you both do), I’d like to know if your version of it is something like what follows below…this charism of the Holy Spirit was first with the apostles for the purpose of teaching authentic Christianity, then He entered into anyone who professed belief in Christ, so that then they could also be authentic teachers, then 400 years later, He also inspired specific men to create the Bible, and these men were basically just other believers who professed Christ, then He went back to just indwelling within individual believers and guiding them personally through Scripture, even though it took another 1000 years for anyone to personally ‘have’ a copy of Scripture to read for themselves. In that 1000 years, He was with the few men that had copies for themselves, and He guided them to teach everyone else, then as soon as everyone could get a copy (pretty much just within the last 100 years or so of modern time), men were no longer needed to teach, because now the HS can just be with everyone personally as they read Scripture and He’ll guide everyone unto all truth through reading.
Is that close to your version of it? If not, please edit it for content…Thanks.

God Bless

 

[HereticAmI]

JJ59:

And Enoch walked with 'elohim and was not, for 'elohim took him. He didn’t have either tradition or scripture. So the same apparently aren’t necessary for one’s salvation. The problem with the “scripture” part is that it really isn’t complete. The Torah was never meant to be all-defining. When the Jews were in Egypt, they had an existing social order and an existing social morality. They also had a past. The Torah is God’s commentary on the same. So too re things Pauline. We are in grave danger of working a monstrous evil if we try to live the letters with no understanding of the circumstance of the time. In point of fact, we’ve been there and done that. That’s the larger view. The smaller view is simply the 2 words: You shall love YHWH your God… But what it does it mean to love YHWH with all your heart, strength, etc.? And so word no. 2: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The proof that 1 and 2 are the 2 words, from your and my Lord: whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, that you do to me. And you can give up meat on Fridays and whatever else it is whenever else it is, but what’s the point, as that One desires mercy and not sacrifice. How does one show mercy to God? See word no. 2.

So why make it more complicated than that? Our Lord didn’t.

 

[baddog]

JJ59:

And Enoch walked with 'elohim and was not, for 'elohim took him. He didn’t have either tradition or scripture. So the same apparently aren’t necessary for one’s salvation. The problem with the “scripture” part is that it really isn’t complete. The Torah was never meant to be all-defining. When the Jews were in Egypt, they had an existing social order and an existing social morality. They also had a past. The Torah is God’s commentary on the same. So too re things Pauline. We are in grave danger of working a monstrous evil if we try to live the letters with no understanding of the circumstance of the time. In point of fact, we’ve been there and done that. That’s the larger view. The smaller view is simply the 2 words: You shall love YHWH your God… But what it does it mean to love YHWH with all your heart, strength, etc.? And so word no. 2: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The proof that 1 and 2 are the 2 words, from your and my Lord: whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, that you do to me. And you can give up meat on Fridays and whatever else it is whenever else it is, but what’s the point, as that One desires mercy and not sacrifice. How does one show mercy to God? See word no. 2.

So why make it more complicated than that? Our Lord didn’t.

I don’t quite see your point. Are you saying we have the option of, for example, ignoring what the Lord said in John 6?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

did not know paul, peter, james and john lived that long, it makes perfect sense now thank you steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are really stretching it, ALL is All accept it. Ralph

Can infants sin? Yes or No?
Can mentally deficient people sin? Yes or No?
Did Jesus sin? Yes or No?

Have ALL sinned? Yes or No?

“All” does not mean “each and every single person who has ever been born.”

Accept it.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Jesus’ birth is documented as to how he was conceived not mary’s