Interesting…you immediately assume that Moondweller is correct in his understanding of Catholic doctrine while a large number of Catholics are trying to correct him.
That is simple. She assumes MD is correct because she agrees with him. Since we Catholics disagree, we are obviously wrong.
I understand your concern. The reality is that those who have a vibrant faith that includes honoring Mary are drawn closer to Jesus. That’s what she does…she brings Christ to us and us to Christ. If your concern were to become a reality - that there are those whose focus is so exclusively on Mary that they are somehow led away from Christ, then that would be problem. But your concern is a speculation that has no basis in reality.
Only to draw us closer to our Triune God. Scripture reveals God through humanity because there really isnt any other way to accomplish it (apart from private revelation).
Really? Maybe you can explain it then. Here’s how I see it:
MD in Christ,
And now for the double standard. You demand that a particular word be in the text for our point to stand, but when it comes to every thread you’ve ever participated in concerning salvation, you have always exempted yourself from this same requirement when it comes to “faith alone.” Moreover, even though that word “alone” does not appear in Paul’s writings and is irrefutably denied by the apostle James, you still refuse to give up your own exemption from what you require of the Catholics on this forum. That kind of thing is simply ridiculous and unacceptable.
WHAT?
,Moondweller’s interpretations of Sacred Scripture are fallible? Please tell me you’re kidding!This is the sort of thing that I was talking about in my recent criticism of the kind of “scholarship” that MD has been displaying throughout this thread.
In such a case, the word “saved” would be totally inappropriate. “Spared” would be the appropriate word. If she was “spared” from original sin and then lived a sinless life, then she was not ever in need of a Savior. But she herself testified to the contrary in theopneustos Scripture.
To the contrary. Rom. 3:23 doesn’t state “…all HAVE sinned.” But rather, according to the Greek, “…ALL SINNED (aorist, not perfect tense, i.e., in Adam) and (continually, present tense) fall short of the glory of God.”
It’s a non-issue here. ALL men were “made sinners” by ONE act of ONE man (Rom. 5:19). You may not like it, but that’s Divine revelation. You may not even believe it, nonetheless, that’s Divine Revelation.
He knew That “…ALL sinned (in Adam) and (continually)* fall short of the glory of God*.” His statement would include Mary. NOWHERE in Scripture does Paul or any other writer teach otherwise.
You needed to read my previous posts, Pax. I have no problem with the word “accept.” She accepted (synonymous with believed) “that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1:45). “Accept” is not “consent.” “Accept” is rooted in belief. Go back and read my previous posts on this.
No. Not “asks of us.” But what has been revealed to us, even spoken to us regarding the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ.
They do. It’s synonymous with personally believing in what had been “spoken to them” concerning Jesus Christ and salvation: gifted through faith in Him alone.
Oh for cryin’ out loud…
I doubt if MD will be swayed by this, Gregg.
MD in Christ,
Scripture repeatedly shows that “all” does not always, necessarily, or absolutely mean “every single one”. Thus, your argument is flawed. Here is a list:
MD, why don’t you answer this question?
You should know by now that MD isn’t here to answer questions, he is here to make statements to either further his evangelical agenda or to call the Catholic views into question. Keep in mind that this is very valuable to us, because it gives us a forum to answer his assertions. The truth is apparent to those that read here, even if not to Moondweller…
Amen to that Paul.
