B
Bellus
Guest
P.S. This is not a criticism. This is just simple fact. We still live in the greatest country in the world and are free to worship as we choose, and for this I am very grateful. God bless you.
- Status
A
ATL_Granny
Guest
I’m not sure the OP meant that we should restrict ourselves to dogmatic teachings of the Church. There are many things that Catholics and non-Catholics believe which aren’t directly mentioned in the bible.
For example, one of our Stations of the Cross – #6 – is Jesus’ face being wiped by Veronica with the ensuing impression of his face on her veil. Where does the Bible mention this? It doesn’t. That comes from contemporaneous writings.
In Protestant circles, a belief which isn’t explicitly in the bible might be the belief that everything they need to know about Christianity is in the bible.
Okay, that’s too easy. But what about the notion that every Christian can discern the Bible’s meaning for themselves? That’s not in there.
F
Frankk
Guest
Bellus,
It’s not a simple fact: it’s how you choose to interpret things as you see them.
Anyway, where about in England do you live?
B
Bellus
Guest
I personally do not believe that I can or am to discerne or for that matter interpret the bible myself. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us in discernment of God’s Word.I’m not sure the OP meant that we should restrict ourselves to dogmatic teachings of the Church. There are many things that Catholics and non-Catholics believe which aren’t directly mentioned in the bible.
For example, one of our Stations of the Cross – #6 – is Jesus’ face being wiped by Veronica with the ensuing impression of his face on her veil. Where does the Bible mention this? It doesn’t. That comes from contemporaneous writings.
In Protestant circles, a belief which isn’t explicitly in the bible might be the belief that everything they need to know about Christianity is in the bible.
B
Bellus
Guest
I don’t live in England, but in the USA. The bible is a book of facts. I do not even try to interpret it. Interpretation is left to the Holy Spirit.Bellus,
It’s not a simple fact: it’s how you choose to interpret things as you see them.
Anyway, where about in England do you live?
Do you believe that the Church Fathers and today’s Church leaders are in authority over interpretation? Do you trust their experiences?
C
chuey55
Guest
Well I’m one of “them”.I won’t stoop to inuendo. Christ was born without sin so that He could make the perfect atonement for our sins. Only the Saviour could do such a thing. No where in the bible are we told, nor are we led to believe that Mary was also born without sin or without the stain of sin. Nor are we told that she remained sinless throughout her life. Likewise the bible doesn’t mention her assumption. All of this can be attributed to supposition. Having said all of this, there is no reason to revere Mary in any type of way, such as prayers and supplications to her. Granted, Mary was a very special young woman chosen to do a great job. She was the most blessed woman I can think of. Yet God’s Word does not instruct us to venerate her in any way. Since the bible clearly states that “no man can come to the Father execpt by the Son” we can know that Mary, the saints, etc. are not going to get our prayers to God for us. Only Christ can do this. This is why we pray to God in the name of Jesus. The bible does not instruct us to pray to Mary or to saint Joseph for anything. Many Christians may feel a kinship with certain biblical characters, such as the Apostle Paul. I feel like Paul did when he said that “the things he wanted to do he did not and those things he did not want to do he did”.
In order for Mary to be “sinless” we’d have to assume she was perfect. But only Christ was and is perfect. This is precisely why He was the perfect blood atonement for the sins of the world.
Whether anyone agrees with me is not important. I’m not here to argue a point, rather to show that this is what most “protestants” believe. I don’t actually consider myself a protestant as I’m not protesting anything. I’m here also to say that in all the years I’ve been reading the bible and studying God’s Word I’ve never read any scripture that would even lead me to believe that Mary was sinless, was assumed into heaven or should be offered prayers to her son.
I’ve spoken to many Catholics on this subject and their belief (the one’s I spoke with) is that Catholic scholars and leaders down through history have declared that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven based on the belief that only a perfect and sinless woman would have been allowed to carry and give birth to the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind. Again this is supposition on their part. If God did not clearly instruct us to venerate Mary and to seek her guidance in dealing with Jesus why make that jump? We know from history that Mary was a simple girl from a simple family. If Mary were born sinless wouldn’t it stand to reason that her mother also would have to have been born sinless? And if that were so wouldn’t her grandmother also have been born sinless? The entire lineage would have had to come from a sinless parentage in order for this to work. I see no reason what-so-ever to place something special on Mary that God did not tell us to. Mary was special in that God chose her. My focus is and will remain on Christ. As for Mary, I don’t know what actually happened to her. Whether or not her life ended in death or whether she was assumed into heaven is of no consequence. She was an obedient woman who did what God called her to do. There has never before nor since been a woman who was called to such a great thing as bringing the Son of God into the world. Did that make Mary a special woman? Yes, by all means. Does she deserve our veneration, our worship? No. Only God through His Son deserves our veneration and worship. Mary deserves all the respect we can give to her.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I find this confusing. I hear it all the time. I assume you mean that the Holy Spirit leads us each individually in the discernment of God’s Word. If this is true–why doesn’t he lead everyone to the same truth? When you run into another Christian who interprets a verse differently than you–how do you know you’re right and he is wrong – i.e. how do you know that the Holy Spirit led you and not him? Who makes that decision?
It is fine to say you do not believe you can discern or interpret the Bible yoursefl–that it is the Holy Spirit–but how do you know?
I have yet to hear or read a satisfactory answer. The greatest scandal in Christendom–is our division. Christ prayed for us to be one and yet we are not.
Peace,
Mark
G
geekborj
Guest
Also:
Acts 15:27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth…
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Where in the Bible that says, the same Bible is the ONLY source of our knowledge of what was revealed by God through Christ (the Word of God)?
C
chuey55
Guest
Few thoughts for ya brother:
Mary Being Without Sin
This dogma is obviously closely related to the Immaculate Conception, since if Mary was without sin her entire life, she would have to have been without sin at the moment of her conception. This particular belief in regard to Mary is where the loudest howls of protest come in from non–Catholics and, unfortunately, sometimes from those who call themselves Catholic. I see the arguments against the Immaculate Conception as merely a sidebar to the arguments against Mary’s lifelong sinlessness. After all, if God stepped into history and created Mary without sin, then that would be a good foundation from which to argue for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness. So I believe that the arguments against the Immaculate Conception, are simply the result of folks not wanting to give an inch in regards to their belief that Mary was not without sin her entire life.
As I mentioned above , the Scripture verses that will almost always be mentioned first, when arguing Mary as having been without sin, will come from chapter 3 of Romans: Rom 3:9–12, “…I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.’” And, Rom 3:22–23, “For there is no distinction since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” “See”, they will say, “The Bible says that all are under the power of sin and that all have sinned. No one is righteous, no, not one.” They have made these words of Scripture an absolute. “All” have sinned. It says, “all,” by golly, so that means all – everyone – without exception. 0; Which means, they believe, that Mary could not have been without sin her entire life.
The very first thing I do when presented by someone with these passages as “proof” that Mary had to have sinned, is to ask that person a question. And that question is this: “Are you seeking God in your life?” If I’m speaking to them in person, I almost always get a quick retort of, “Absolutely!” To which I respond by pointing out that they just contradicted the Bible. Romans 3:11 states very specifically that “no one seeks for God,” yet they just told me that they do indeed seek for God. How can that be? Either they’ve just contradicted the Bible, or there is a problem with their absolutist interpretation of this passage of Scripture.
Another question you could ask at this point is this: “Is praying to God a good thing?” You will undoubtedly be a nswered in the affirmative. You then ask, “Do you pray?” And they will respond that they do. You can then make the observation that by praying, they are doing good; yet, in Rom 3:12, it says that “no one does good, not even one.” So, once again, either they have contradicted the Bible, or there is a problem with their absolutist interpretation of these passages from Romans.
If they interpret “all have sinned” as meaning every single human being, without exception, they can’t then turn around and interpret “No one seeks for God” and “No one does good” as not meaning every single human being, without exception. But, their absolutist interpretation of these passages puts them in the position, if they wish to not contradict the teaching of the Bible, of having to say they do not seek God in their lives, or that they never do anything good in their lives. B oth of which are ridiculous things to have to admit if you’re a “saved” Christian doing your best to follow God’s will for your life.
to be con’t…
Mary Being Without Sin
This dogma is obviously closely related to the Immaculate Conception, since if Mary was without sin her entire life, she would have to have been without sin at the moment of her conception. This particular belief in regard to Mary is where the loudest howls of protest come in from non–Catholics and, unfortunately, sometimes from those who call themselves Catholic. I see the arguments against the Immaculate Conception as merely a sidebar to the arguments against Mary’s lifelong sinlessness. After all, if God stepped into history and created Mary without sin, then that would be a good foundation from which to argue for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness. So I believe that the arguments against the Immaculate Conception, are simply the result of folks not wanting to give an inch in regards to their belief that Mary was not without sin her entire life.
As I mentioned above , the Scripture verses that will almost always be mentioned first, when arguing Mary as having been without sin, will come from chapter 3 of Romans: Rom 3:9–12, “…I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.’” And, Rom 3:22–23, “For there is no distinction since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” “See”, they will say, “The Bible says that all are under the power of sin and that all have sinned. No one is righteous, no, not one.” They have made these words of Scripture an absolute. “All” have sinned. It says, “all,” by golly, so that means all – everyone – without exception. 0; Which means, they believe, that Mary could not have been without sin her entire life.
The very first thing I do when presented by someone with these passages as “proof” that Mary had to have sinned, is to ask that person a question. And that question is this: “Are you seeking God in your life?” If I’m speaking to them in person, I almost always get a quick retort of, “Absolutely!” To which I respond by pointing out that they just contradicted the Bible. Romans 3:11 states very specifically that “no one seeks for God,” yet they just told me that they do indeed seek for God. How can that be? Either they’ve just contradicted the Bible, or there is a problem with their absolutist interpretation of this passage of Scripture.
Another question you could ask at this point is this: “Is praying to God a good thing?” You will undoubtedly be a nswered in the affirmative. You then ask, “Do you pray?” And they will respond that they do. You can then make the observation that by praying, they are doing good; yet, in Rom 3:12, it says that “no one does good, not even one.” So, once again, either they have contradicted the Bible, or there is a problem with their absolutist interpretation of these passages from Romans.
If they interpret “all have sinned” as meaning every single human being, without exception, they can’t then turn around and interpret “No one seeks for God” and “No one does good” as not meaning every single human being, without exception. But, their absolutist interpretation of these passages puts them in the position, if they wish to not contradict the teaching of the Bible, of having to say they do not seek God in their lives, or that they never do anything good in their lives. B oth of which are ridiculous things to have to admit if you’re a “saved” Christian doing your best to follow God’s will for your life.
to be con’t…
C
chuey55
Guest
Part 2 Mary Being without sin
Furthermore, the folks who interpret these verses from Romans 3 as absolutely meaning “all” – everyone without exception – have sinned, fail to take something into account in their fallible, non–authoritative interpretation of these Scripture verses. I’m going to give you a Catholic principle here, one which is very important to remember. In R omans 3, Paul is quoting from the Old Testament (O.T.). And, whenever you see a quote from the O.T., you need to go back and read it in its entirety so that you can get the O.T. context – in order to put it in its proper context when it is used in the N.T. If you don’t get the O.T. context, you will quite possibly misinterpret the N.T. passage it is used in. And that’s the mistake a lot of people make when reading Romans 3, they don’t look at the Old Testament to get the context of the passages Paul is quoting from.
Let’s look at an example of this principle. A passage which is often misunderstood by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is Matthew 27:46, where Jesus cries from the Cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” I have often heard people say that that passage means that God turned His back on Jesus at that moment. As if you can separate Jesus from God. Jesus was and is Go d. Can God turn His back on Himself? Can you ever separate Jesus from God? Was there ever a moment when Jesus wasn’t God? No! What they fail to understand is that these words of Jesus are coming straight from Psalm 22. Listen to what Psalm 22 has to say. This is how it starts: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?
Psalm 22 goes on to say, “All who see me mock me…I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint…they divide my garments among them…they have pierced my hands and feet.” Sound familiar? This is a prophetic psalm that points to the Crucifixion. But, even though Psalm 22 starts off with a pathetic and seemingly hopeless cry from a man in agony, it ends up as a triumphant statement full of the hope and the glory and the victory of God. This psalm is saying that even though t hings seem bad, and even though it seems, at first, that God is nowhere to be found…that’s not actually the case. This psalm is saying that God is in control and that ultimately the victory is His.
So, Jesus’ cry from the cross does not prove that God turned His back on His Son, rather it was Jesus’ way of bringing Psalm 22 to the memory of those at the foot of the cross and to everyone who ever reads or hears about Jesus’ cry from the cross. This was Jesus’ way of saying that even though this looks like defeat, it is, in reality, victory. Read Psalm 22 and you will know exactly what I am talking about! But, you don’t understand this if you don’t look at the O.T. context of Jesus’ cry from the Cross.
The same happens with the quote by Paul from Romans about “for all have sinned”. We need to understand the O.T. context of the quote Paul is using in R omans. And, what is that context from the O.T.? Let’s see: Ps 14:1–5, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good [sound familiar?]. The Lord looks down from Heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” And there is almost the exact same passage in Ps 53:1–4.
Psalm 14 starts off talking about the “fool” who says there is no God. It says that they, the fools who do not believe in God, are corrupt and do abominable deeds. “There is none [of the fools] that does good.” It goes on to tell us that there are evildoers, none of whom do right. But then, it speaks of God’s people, “the generation of the righteous.” So, the Psalm that Paul quotes, even though it says, “…there is none that does good, no, not one,” is obviously not talking about all people, but only those fools who do not believe in God and who it goes on to call “evildoers”. Because, if it was talking about absolutely all people, then how can the Psalm talk about, just a verse or two later, the generation of the righteous? If all have gone wrong, if there are none that do good, then there are no righteous people.
To be continued…
Furthermore, the folks who interpret these verses from Romans 3 as absolutely meaning “all” – everyone without exception – have sinned, fail to take something into account in their fallible, non–authoritative interpretation of these Scripture verses. I’m going to give you a Catholic principle here, one which is very important to remember. In R omans 3, Paul is quoting from the Old Testament (O.T.). And, whenever you see a quote from the O.T., you need to go back and read it in its entirety so that you can get the O.T. context – in order to put it in its proper context when it is used in the N.T. If you don’t get the O.T. context, you will quite possibly misinterpret the N.T. passage it is used in. And that’s the mistake a lot of people make when reading Romans 3, they don’t look at the Old Testament to get the context of the passages Paul is quoting from.
Let’s look at an example of this principle. A passage which is often misunderstood by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is Matthew 27:46, where Jesus cries from the Cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” I have often heard people say that that passage means that God turned His back on Jesus at that moment. As if you can separate Jesus from God. Jesus was and is Go d. Can God turn His back on Himself? Can you ever separate Jesus from God? Was there ever a moment when Jesus wasn’t God? No! What they fail to understand is that these words of Jesus are coming straight from Psalm 22. Listen to what Psalm 22 has to say. This is how it starts: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?
Psalm 22 goes on to say, “All who see me mock me…I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint…they divide my garments among them…they have pierced my hands and feet.” Sound familiar? This is a prophetic psalm that points to the Crucifixion. But, even though Psalm 22 starts off with a pathetic and seemingly hopeless cry from a man in agony, it ends up as a triumphant statement full of the hope and the glory and the victory of God. This psalm is saying that even though t hings seem bad, and even though it seems, at first, that God is nowhere to be found…that’s not actually the case. This psalm is saying that God is in control and that ultimately the victory is His.
So, Jesus’ cry from the cross does not prove that God turned His back on His Son, rather it was Jesus’ way of bringing Psalm 22 to the memory of those at the foot of the cross and to everyone who ever reads or hears about Jesus’ cry from the cross. This was Jesus’ way of saying that even though this looks like defeat, it is, in reality, victory. Read Psalm 22 and you will know exactly what I am talking about! But, you don’t understand this if you don’t look at the O.T. context of Jesus’ cry from the Cross.
The same happens with the quote by Paul from Romans about “for all have sinned”. We need to understand the O.T. context of the quote Paul is using in R omans. And, what is that context from the O.T.? Let’s see: Ps 14:1–5, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good [sound familiar?]. The Lord looks down from Heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” And there is almost the exact same passage in Ps 53:1–4.
Psalm 14 starts off talking about the “fool” who says there is no God. It says that they, the fools who do not believe in God, are corrupt and do abominable deeds. “There is none [of the fools] that does good.” It goes on to tell us that there are evildoers, none of whom do right. But then, it speaks of God’s people, “the generation of the righteous.” So, the Psalm that Paul quotes, even though it says, “…there is none that does good, no, not one,” is obviously not talking about all people, but only those fools who do not believe in God and who it goes on to call “evildoers”. Because, if it was talking about absolutely all people, then how can the Psalm talk about, just a verse or two later, the generation of the righteous? If all have gone wrong, if there are none that do good, then there are no righteous people.
To be continued…
C
chuey55
Guest
Part 3 Mary being without sin
Now that we have the O.T. context, we can look at the N.T. context. So, is Paul really saying that all men, with no exceptions, have committed sin? Is he really saying that all men, with no exceptions, are not righteous? Is he really saying that all men, with no exceptions, do not seek God? Is he really saying that all men, without exceptions, never do good? No, he isn’t. Remember, the O.T. passage he is quoting is not talking about all men, even though it uses the word “all.” Which means, that these verses from Romans 3 are not the “proof” of Mary’s sinfulness that many non–Catholics think they are.
Paul is not talking about all men having committed sin. Even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe Paul is talking about personal sin here in Romans, make exceptions for infants and young children. Everyone agrees that neither an infant, nor a young child, has committed a personal sin. So, even those who quote this passage to show that all men, without exception, have committed personal sin… don’t believe that all men, without exception, have committed personal sin. They make exceptions. < /p>
Plus, remember it says in Romans 3:9–12, that no one is righteous, no not one. Well, if we are to make this an absolute, as many non–Catholics do, then we would expect not to find anyone in the Bible referred to as being righteous. Yet, Luke 1:6 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah, the parents of John the Baptist, were “righteous” before God. How can that be if no one is righteous, no not one? In chapter 5 of James it says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Well, if no one is righteous, no not one, then what righteous men is James talking about? And there are other righteous folks mentioned throughout the Bible as well.
We mentioned Elizabeth and Zechariah, John the Baptist’s parents, being righteous before God. Something else that Luke 1:6 says is this: “And [Elizabeth and Zechariah] were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Blameless? Would that be… without sin?! How does this fit with “all men have sinned”?
And listen to this from Lk 1:15, “…and he [John the Baptist] will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Would you say that a man who is filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even before he is born, was a sinner?
Lk 1:28, “And he [the angel Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you!” Mary is “full of grace” even before Jesus is conceived. Would someone who is “full of grace”, full of the very life of God, be considered a sinner?
And, if the wages of sin is death, as Paul clearly says in Rom 6:23, then the argument can be made that Enoch and Elijah must not have ever sinned – because they never died. We see this in Heb 11:5, “By faith Enoch was t aken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.” [see also Gen 5:24]. 2 Kings 2:11, “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven.” Neither Enoch nor Elijah died. If the wages of sin is death, as Paul says in Romans, then a case could be made that neither of them sinned.
So, Paul was not talking about absolutely “all” men, without exception, committing personal sin. Most everyone agrees that he was not talking about infants and young children. Scripture tells us that the parents of John the Baptist were blameless before the Lord in all of His commandments and ordinances. Scripture also tells us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from even before he was born! I can’t be sure, but it looks like a pretty sinless fa mily to me…at least, that’s what the Bible seems to be saying.
What is going on here in Romans, chapter 3, is that Paul is saying to the Jews that even though they have had a privileged position as God’s people in the past vis–a–vis the Gentiles, and even though they often considered themselves as being without sin as opposed to the Gentile sinners, it is actually the case that both groups – Jews and Gentiles – are under the power of sin. Paul is telling the Jews that they are not as special as they think they are. They, too, can sin. He goes on to tell them that the playing field has now been leveled through the death and resurrection of Christ, and that both groups – not just the Jews – now have access to salvation through Christ.
Paul is saying that all men – Jew or Gentile – left unto themselves, of their own power, are indeed sinners. However, by the grace of God, there are also men that can truly be called righteous. He is indeed speaking in absolutes when it comes to men who have not God, to “The fool who says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” but he is not speaking in absolutes when it comes to those who live by the grace of God.
That’s why there are men who can truly be called righteous by the Scriptures, even though Romans 3:10 says, “None is righteous, no not one.” Which is also why it is possible that Mary lived her life without sin, even though Romans 3:23 says that, “all have sinned.”
Mary, without God, would indeed have been under the power of sin. As it was, though, God, by a special grace, saved her from sin at the very moment of her conception. And, she was so full of God’s grace, that she did not sin during her entire life. We need to always remember Luke 1:37, “For with God, nothing is impossible.R 21; I believe even the most strident anti–Catholic will admit, that God could indeed have created Mary without sin, and that it is indeed possible, by the grace of God, that she remained without sin her entire life. Would any one of them dare deny that this is at least a possibility?
Now that we have the O.T. context, we can look at the N.T. context. So, is Paul really saying that all men, with no exceptions, have committed sin? Is he really saying that all men, with no exceptions, are not righteous? Is he really saying that all men, with no exceptions, do not seek God? Is he really saying that all men, without exceptions, never do good? No, he isn’t. Remember, the O.T. passage he is quoting is not talking about all men, even though it uses the word “all.” Which means, that these verses from Romans 3 are not the “proof” of Mary’s sinfulness that many non–Catholics think they are.
Paul is not talking about all men having committed sin. Even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe Paul is talking about personal sin here in Romans, make exceptions for infants and young children. Everyone agrees that neither an infant, nor a young child, has committed a personal sin. So, even those who quote this passage to show that all men, without exception, have committed personal sin… don’t believe that all men, without exception, have committed personal sin. They make exceptions. < /p>
Plus, remember it says in Romans 3:9–12, that no one is righteous, no not one. Well, if we are to make this an absolute, as many non–Catholics do, then we would expect not to find anyone in the Bible referred to as being righteous. Yet, Luke 1:6 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah, the parents of John the Baptist, were “righteous” before God. How can that be if no one is righteous, no not one? In chapter 5 of James it says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Well, if no one is righteous, no not one, then what righteous men is James talking about? And there are other righteous folks mentioned throughout the Bible as well.
We mentioned Elizabeth and Zechariah, John the Baptist’s parents, being righteous before God. Something else that Luke 1:6 says is this: “And [Elizabeth and Zechariah] were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Blameless? Would that be… without sin?! How does this fit with “all men have sinned”?
And listen to this from Lk 1:15, “…and he [John the Baptist] will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Would you say that a man who is filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even before he is born, was a sinner?
Lk 1:28, “And he [the angel Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you!” Mary is “full of grace” even before Jesus is conceived. Would someone who is “full of grace”, full of the very life of God, be considered a sinner?
And, if the wages of sin is death, as Paul clearly says in Rom 6:23, then the argument can be made that Enoch and Elijah must not have ever sinned – because they never died. We see this in Heb 11:5, “By faith Enoch was t aken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.” [see also Gen 5:24]. 2 Kings 2:11, “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven.” Neither Enoch nor Elijah died. If the wages of sin is death, as Paul says in Romans, then a case could be made that neither of them sinned.
So, Paul was not talking about absolutely “all” men, without exception, committing personal sin. Most everyone agrees that he was not talking about infants and young children. Scripture tells us that the parents of John the Baptist were blameless before the Lord in all of His commandments and ordinances. Scripture also tells us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from even before he was born! I can’t be sure, but it looks like a pretty sinless fa mily to me…at least, that’s what the Bible seems to be saying.
What is going on here in Romans, chapter 3, is that Paul is saying to the Jews that even though they have had a privileged position as God’s people in the past vis–a–vis the Gentiles, and even though they often considered themselves as being without sin as opposed to the Gentile sinners, it is actually the case that both groups – Jews and Gentiles – are under the power of sin. Paul is telling the Jews that they are not as special as they think they are. They, too, can sin. He goes on to tell them that the playing field has now been leveled through the death and resurrection of Christ, and that both groups – not just the Jews – now have access to salvation through Christ.
Paul is saying that all men – Jew or Gentile – left unto themselves, of their own power, are indeed sinners. However, by the grace of God, there are also men that can truly be called righteous. He is indeed speaking in absolutes when it comes to men who have not God, to “The fool who says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” but he is not speaking in absolutes when it comes to those who live by the grace of God.
That’s why there are men who can truly be called righteous by the Scriptures, even though Romans 3:10 says, “None is righteous, no not one.” Which is also why it is possible that Mary lived her life without sin, even though Romans 3:23 says that, “all have sinned.”
Mary, without God, would indeed have been under the power of sin. As it was, though, God, by a special grace, saved her from sin at the very moment of her conception. And, she was so full of God’s grace, that she did not sin during her entire life. We need to always remember Luke 1:37, “For with God, nothing is impossible.R 21; I believe even the most strident anti–Catholic will admit, that God could indeed have created Mary without sin, and that it is indeed possible, by the grace of God, that she remained without sin her entire life. Would any one of them dare deny that this is at least a possibility?
C
chuey55
Guest
Part 4 Mary being without sin
The first Adam and the first Eve were conceived without sin. The second Adam was conceived without sin. Would not the second Eve also be conceived without sin? The difference in the first Adam and the second Adam, in their human natures, was that the first Adam sinned and the second Adam did not. Does it not then make sense that the difference between the first Eve and the second Eve would be that the first Eve sinned and the second Eve did not?
Through the first Eve, sin entered the world. Through the second Eve, salvation entered the world. The first Eve brought sin into the world through her disobedience. The second Eve b rought salvation into the world through her obedience. The first Eve, created without sin, sinned. The second Eve, created without sin, did not.
The arguments against Mary’s sinlessness lack any foundation whatsoever. I have already shown that the one passage from Scripture – Romans: 3:23 – which is used over and over and over again by Protestants to “prove” Mary could not have been without sin, actually “proves” no such thing. If it “proves” that Mary did indeed sin, then it also proves that no Protestant is seeking God and that no Protestant ever does good and that no Protestant fears God (see Romans 3:10–12, and 18). If the word “all” is an absolute in verse 23, then it is also an absolute in verses 10–18. Would anyone who believes Romans 3:23 proves Mary sinned also then admit that they do not seek God, that they never do good, and that they have no fear of God? I doubt it.
And, whether Rom 3:23 is referring to personal sin or to Original Sin or both, it makes no difference. If it is ref erring to Original Sin, then “all” still isn’t an absolute. Adam and Eve were created without the stain of Original Sin. Jesus Christ was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. Is it not possible for God to have Mary conceived without the stain of Original Sin? Of course it is. All things are possible with God.
Now, some people will say, “Well, if Mary was conceived without Original Sin, and if she never sinned her entire life, then she has no need of Jesus Christ as her Savior. Yet, Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior; therefore, Mary had to have sinned!” The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it flows from a limited view of the power of God. These folks seem to think that God can only save someone after that person has sinned, and not before.
I am not an alcoholic. Why? By the grace of God. God saved me from being an alc oholic before I ever became one. In that same vein, if I am walking along and fall into a big hole in the ground, and someone comes by and pulls me out of that hole, then they have indeed saved me from that hole. However, if I am walking along and just before I reach the hole, someone comes by and prevents me from falling into it, did they not also save me from that hole? Of course they did. Which means, someone can be saved from something either after they have fallen into it, or before they ever fall into it. So, Mary rightly claims God as her Savior because He saved her, before the fact, from Original Sin, and because He saved her, by His grace, from ever committing an actual sin.
There are also those who say that by claiming Mary was free from the taint of sin, we Catholics are making Mary equal to God. Where is the logic in that? Does that mean Adam and Eve, before they sinned, were equal to God? Of course not! So, Mary being sinless in no way makes her equal to God, just as Adam and Eve being sinless in no way made them equal to God. That argument is based on faulty logic. Besides, how could Mary be equal to God, when it was only by the grace of God that she was immaculately conceived and was able to avoid sin her entire life?
Done…Whew!
The first Adam and the first Eve were conceived without sin. The second Adam was conceived without sin. Would not the second Eve also be conceived without sin? The difference in the first Adam and the second Adam, in their human natures, was that the first Adam sinned and the second Adam did not. Does it not then make sense that the difference between the first Eve and the second Eve would be that the first Eve sinned and the second Eve did not?
Through the first Eve, sin entered the world. Through the second Eve, salvation entered the world. The first Eve brought sin into the world through her disobedience. The second Eve b rought salvation into the world through her obedience. The first Eve, created without sin, sinned. The second Eve, created without sin, did not.
The arguments against Mary’s sinlessness lack any foundation whatsoever. I have already shown that the one passage from Scripture – Romans: 3:23 – which is used over and over and over again by Protestants to “prove” Mary could not have been without sin, actually “proves” no such thing. If it “proves” that Mary did indeed sin, then it also proves that no Protestant is seeking God and that no Protestant ever does good and that no Protestant fears God (see Romans 3:10–12, and 18). If the word “all” is an absolute in verse 23, then it is also an absolute in verses 10–18. Would anyone who believes Romans 3:23 proves Mary sinned also then admit that they do not seek God, that they never do good, and that they have no fear of God? I doubt it.
And, whether Rom 3:23 is referring to personal sin or to Original Sin or both, it makes no difference. If it is ref erring to Original Sin, then “all” still isn’t an absolute. Adam and Eve were created without the stain of Original Sin. Jesus Christ was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. Is it not possible for God to have Mary conceived without the stain of Original Sin? Of course it is. All things are possible with God.
Now, some people will say, “Well, if Mary was conceived without Original Sin, and if she never sinned her entire life, then she has no need of Jesus Christ as her Savior. Yet, Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior; therefore, Mary had to have sinned!” The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it flows from a limited view of the power of God. These folks seem to think that God can only save someone after that person has sinned, and not before.
I am not an alcoholic. Why? By the grace of God. God saved me from being an alc oholic before I ever became one. In that same vein, if I am walking along and fall into a big hole in the ground, and someone comes by and pulls me out of that hole, then they have indeed saved me from that hole. However, if I am walking along and just before I reach the hole, someone comes by and prevents me from falling into it, did they not also save me from that hole? Of course they did. Which means, someone can be saved from something either after they have fallen into it, or before they ever fall into it. So, Mary rightly claims God as her Savior because He saved her, before the fact, from Original Sin, and because He saved her, by His grace, from ever committing an actual sin.
There are also those who say that by claiming Mary was free from the taint of sin, we Catholics are making Mary equal to God. Where is the logic in that? Does that mean Adam and Eve, before they sinned, were equal to God? Of course not! So, Mary being sinless in no way makes her equal to God, just as Adam and Eve being sinless in no way made them equal to God. That argument is based on faulty logic. Besides, how could Mary be equal to God, when it was only by the grace of God that she was immaculately conceived and was able to avoid sin her entire life?
Done…Whew!
C
Cristian_B
Guest
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Ecclesiastes 7:20
Can it be clearer than this? Note that this passage says that even those who do good have already sinned. We know only one exception: Jesus.
C
chuey55
Guest
God speaks in Scripture to reveal Himself and His plan of salvation. He writes using human authors and their abilities as writers who write precisely what God inspires them to write. This is why in the Catholic Church biblical interpretation begins with discovering what the human writer wished to express in his words. This is because whatever the human writer wanted to say, we can be sure that God Himself is speaking to us.
This old testament single passage you’re using to refute eeeeeeeeverything that was said is in reference to the same passage you guys take out of context in Romans. It proves nothing. What is the book Ecclesiastes about? Who wrote it and for what purpose?
I’m sorry, you’re not being clear at all, I find it hard to understand scripture by using only one verse to prove an opinion. Please help.
C
chuey55
Guest
Sooo, since this passage you posted says “for there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good”-mean you are incapable of doing good. Or better yet, no man whom is just is capable of doing good. Man, I’m ready to break away from your church and start my own already, we can’t seem to agree on one single passage!
J
joelo
Guest
i’ve often wondered about the religions that assume that once they are “born again” that they are GUARANTEED a ticket to Heaven, and therefore they make statements about KNOWING where they are going after death.
i know being “born again” is mentioned, but i don’t know if that guarantee of eternal life is mentioned.
i know being “born again” is mentioned, but i don’t know if that guarantee of eternal life is mentioned.
A
ATL_Granny
Guest
This current dialogue reminds me of a famous saying by Scott Hahn:
"Proof text, out of context, is nothing more than a pre-text."
"Proof text, out of context, is nothing more than a pre-text."
C
coosa
Guest
This exchange has been very interesting. Let us not forget that we ARE one. We are all God’s family, and as in any family we have different ideas and beliefs. The one and ONLY belief that matters is in Christ. I must believe that it is God’s plan for the catholic church
(Roman, Methodist, Prebyterian, etc.) to be where they are today as they are today. If it is God’s will for all to agree on every aspect, then it will probably happen on His schedule.
(Roman, Methodist, Prebyterian, etc.) to be where they are today as they are today. If it is God’s will for all to agree on every aspect, then it will probably happen on His schedule.
R
rainman10
Guest
Coosa, I find it interesting that you overlooked ALL of Chuey55’s comments and did not address any of them at all. Is this because you are stumped? Do you not have any answers, other than to quote that one verse, out of context, from Ecclesiastes?
S
Scardinoz
Guest
Is there any part of the scripture that explicity instructs us to pray to Jesus?
- Status