To be deep in the Bible: For all have sinned

[CollegeKid]

estesbob:

Isnt that exactly what we do when we enage in “verse wars” with Protestatnts? Arent we then buying into their false belief of Sola scriptura? . When I debate I not only think Marian apparitions are appropriate but also the infallible teachings of my Church and our rich history of 2,000 years. I will not allow myself to be shackled by Sola Scriptura. Think about it-when discussing whether Mary was born without sin how could we, as Catholics. ignore the fact she confirmed this herself at lLurdes?

Because its not a “fact”, per se, that “she confirmed this herself at Lourdes.” Its something we believe in. I believe its a fact, but I don’t know that it is, so I can’t appeal to it in an argument as if is an empirically-proven truth, like the fact of the law of gravity or the fact of the Kennedy assassination. Since the Lourdes apparition is something we as catholics believe in* but cannot scientifically prove, if we go around citing the Lourdes apparition in debates about the Immaculate Conception, Protestants, who don’t believe in either, and know we cannot prove these areas of faith, are naturally just going to let whatever we have to say go in one ear and out the other.*

 

[CollegeKid]

For example, if I were in a debate with a Protestant about the validity of confessing sins to a priest, I would cite John 20:23, where Christ told the Apostles, “Who’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven, who’s sins you retain, they are retained.” Why would I do this? Because both myself and the Protestant accept the Bible as a valid authority of faith. Naturally, however, if I say to the Protestant, “Priestly confession is valid because the Catholic Church says so and the Catholic Church is 2000 years old and it has a rich history and its infallible and its the one true church,” I’m not going to get very far in the debate, because right off the bat, there’s that little fact that the Protestant doesn’t believe in the claims of the Catholic Church! These are all things that I believe and can present evidence for, but I cannot prove any of these points. That would be like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. And as you know, the existence of God is something we have to believe in, but cannot know. Its like saying to a person, “My beliefs are right because your beliefs are wrong.”

 

[NotWorthy]

CollegeKid:

Because its not a “fact”, per se, that “she confirmed this herself at Lourdes.” Its something we believe in. I believe its a fact, but I don’t know that it is, so I can’t appeal to it in an argument as if is an empirically-proven truth, like the fact of the law of gravity or the fact of the Kennedy assassination. Since the Lourdes apparition is something

we as catholics believe in* but cannot scientifically prove, if we go around citing the Lourdes apparition in debates about the Immaculate Conception, Protestants, who don’t believe in either, and know we cannot prove these areas of faith, are naturally just going to let whatever we have to say go in one ear and out the other.*
And the Choir says,

Notworthy

 

[dcdurel]

JaneFrances:

Great point! The Greek word used to mean “All” is indeed “pas” which is used elsewhere in Scripture to mean “every kind,” “many,” “great number.” There is no good Scriptural support for the word “pas” (translated as “all”) to ONLY mean “no exception.”

My very favortite example of “pas” is found in 1 Cor. 15:22:

“Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will come to life again. . .” (Are we to think by reading this Scripture that ALL will be saved? Whew. That’s a load off my mind! No more working towards my salvation with fear and trembling!)

Other good examples of the word “pas” in Scripture are:

“and then all Israel will be saved. . .” (Romans 11:26)

“They are filled with **every kind ** of wickedness. . .” (Romans 1:29)

“In whom you have been richly endowed with every gift of speech and knowledge. . .” (1 Cor. 1:5)

“I am convinced, my brothers, that you are filled with goodness, that you have complete knowledge. . .” (Rom. 15:14)

“At this news King Herod became greatly disturbed and with him all Jerusalem. . .” (Matt. 2:3) SO, EVERY single person in Jerusalem, without exception was deeply disturbed at the news of the newborn king of the Jews? Hmmmm?

There are more examples, of course. The point being that we can pluck out words and verses to make any case we want.

Excellent!!!

Jesus said we must believe the Gospel the Church teaches, not the Gospel we make up by our own guesswork on scripture verses. If God’s word handed down in Tradition said Mary was without sin, then we must believe God’s word as taught by His Church, and not our own personal guesswork on bible verses.

 

[estesbob]

dcdurel:

Excellent!!!

Jesus said we must believe the Gospel the Church teaches, not the Gospel we make up by our own guesswork on scripture verses. If God’s word handed down in Tradition said Mary was without sin, then we must believe God’s word as taught by His Church, and not our own personal guesswork on bible verses.

Which is exactly why we should not limit ourselves to who’s version of Scripture and who’s interpreation of Scripture we use whem discussing faith, morals and theology with our seperated brethern.I will not be defensive about my Chuch’s tecahings nor limit myself to only those things our seperated bretheren find appropriate.

 

[estesbob]

CollegeKid:

One more thing, I don’t think this has so much to do with the doctrine of sola scriptura, as even the truth of scripture is something we take on faith. As a Catholic I believe in the inerrancy and truth of the Bible, but I know that I can’t prove, with 100% certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything in scripture is literally true.

There is no more to Sola Scritpura that just the inerrancy of Scripture. It also falsely teaches that we each can come to out owm interpreation of Scitrure.

 

[MariaG]

Okay, great, all the Catholics here are in agreement.

Any Protestant who disagreed with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture want to say what personal sin, since it is personal sin Paul was speaking of, an infant, 2 year old, and mentally retarded person have if “all” has no exceptions, except Jesus? (Which is of course an exception in itself)

God Bless,
Maria

 

[CollegeKid]

estesbob:

There is no more to Sola Scritpura that just the inerrancy of Scripture. It also falsely teaches that we each can come to out owm interpreation of Scitrure.

I think you might be confusing the inerrancy of scripture (inability to err, or be wrong) with the belief in the sufficiency of scripture, or that it is the only rule of faith. That’s sola scriptura, and I don’t adhere to it. I accept the Tradition of the Church. That Tradition includes scripture, which we as Catholics believe to be inerrant, at least in as far as that we don’t believe it errs in teaching on faith and morals. And the more I think about it, I guess you’re right that what this comes down to is being able to argue from scripture and tradition versus being shackled by sola scriptura. What I’m saying is this: If you hope to convince a Protestant by citing things that Mary told us at the Lourdes apparition or any other apparition, you’re probably going to have to get them to accept the Tradition and teaching authority of the Catholic Church first. That isn’t going to be easy, because to be Protestant by its very definition means that you don’t accept the tradition and authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[estesbob]

CollegeKid:

I think you might be confusing the inerrancy of scripture (inability to err, or be wrong) with the belief in the sufficiency of scripture, or that it is the only rule of faith. That’s sola scriptura, and I don’t adhere to it. I accept the Tradition of the Church. That Tradition includes scripture, which we as Catholics believe to be inerrant, at least in as far as that we don’t believe it errs in teaching on faith and morals. And the more I think about it, I guess you’re right that what this comes down to is being able to argue from scripture and tradition versus being shackled by sola scriptura. What I’m saying is this: If you hope to convince a Protestant by citing things that Mary told us at the Lourdes apparition or any other apparition, you’re probably going to have to get them to accept the Tradition and teaching authority of the Catholic Church first. That isn’t going to be easy, because to be Protestant by its very definition means that you don’t accept the tradition and authority of the Catholic Church.

I will continue to use all three pillars of our faith-scripture, traditions and the teaching of the magestrium when i discuss our faith with others. To ignore two of the three when dicussing our faith is to concede to our seperated bretheren the legitimacy of their mistaken belief in Sola Scriptura.

 

[RyanL]

20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Prove it to them as one under Sola Scriptura so that you may gain those under Sola Scriptura, even though you are not under Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[MariaG]

Where are all my non-Catholics?

We still have an unaswered questions. If “all have sinned” as in personal sin since this is what Paul was refering to, if all have sinned has no exceptions to it, what personal sin does an infant have? a 2 year old?

Tell me what sin infants have. That would make it possible for Paul to not have one exception to this verse except Christ Himself. If we must take this verse to be very literal with no implicit exceptions, what personal sin do infants have? This is a sincere plea.

God Bless,
Maria

ps, you can admit that there were exceptions to the verse without saying you think *Mary *was an exception. You *would *be admitting that Catholic teaching of Mary’s Immaculate conception does not contradict Scripture in that one verse since you cannot prove that Mary was NOT one of the exceptions, but neither can I prove from that verse that she was an exception.

What personal sin does an infant have?

 

[trumpet152]

MariaG:

Where are all my non-Catholics?

We still have an unaswered questions. If “all have sinned” as in personal sin since this is what Paul was refering to, if all have sinned has no exceptions to it, what personal sin does an infant have? a 2 year old?

Tell me what sin infants have. That would make it possible for Paul to not have one exception to this verse except Christ Himself. If we must take this verse to be very literal with no implicit exceptions, what personal sin do infants have? This is a sincere plea.

God Bless,
Maria

ps, you can admit that there were exceptions to the verse without saying you think *Mary *was an exception. You *would *be admitting that Catholic teaching of Mary’s Immaculate conception does not contradict Scripture in that one verse since you cannot prove that Mary was NOT one of the exceptions, but neither can I prove from that verse that she was an exception.

What personal sin does an infant have?

Yes, come back to us! The debate is getting very one-sided.

 

[mattrue]

no one can run from it but everyone has original sin. like it or not, its the hand we have been dealt. Mary was an exception.

 

[estesbob]

RyanL:

Prove it to them as one under Sola Scriptura so that you may gain those under Sola Scriptura, even though you are not under Sola Scriptura.

God Bless,
RyanL

Well Ryan you go at em your way and Ill go at them my way and with the help of the Spirit(and the knowledge we are speaking the TRUTH) I am sure we will prevail!

 

[Singinbeauty]

I have been reading this thread and a few thoughts have popped into my head. Mind you, they are still in process, but let me know what you think.

1. On the subject of Mary being sinless or not… My question that pops into my head is this, if Jesus was really to be FULLY human wouldn’t that mean that He would have been born on this earth to a FULLY human woman, born of Original Sin and all? You all ask why a protestant can’t think that God would want to be born of a sinless woman and I ask you… to be the fully modest and humble Man that He is why would He give Himself special treatment? My whole thought process of why Jesus had to be fully human and fully God, born to a woman who is just like the rest of us, is to come to the earth just like the rest of us. He could have shown up in the richest family in the world, fully righteous and without sin and grow in the lap of luxory and still accomplish what He did. We would still believe as we do today and He wouldn’t have had to endure the pain He did. But that isn’t what He did. He experienced a poor upbringing full of trials. If He wanted the full affect of being poor and humble why would He save Mary from Original Sin? Does this make sense. To get the full experience He would HAVE to be born of a woman who, in ALL ways, was just like the rest of us. That way He became the PERFECT sacrifice, paying for what we could never even imagine.
2. This is a bit off topic but it kind of goes in the same direction at the same time. We can start a new thread off it if you would like… I have noticed, in my study, that Jesus never refers to Mary as ‘Mother’. We are the ones who give her that title but He always refers to her as ‘woman’. Even when those outside told Him that His mother and brothers were waiting outside to talk to Him He denied that title to them and gave it to His disciples. It got me thinking… That even Jesus removes Himself from that because He doesn’t want to give her a special place above us. Like I said, these are still thoughts in process so don’t flame too bad…
3. The whole ‘do you think newborns sin’ argument is weak at best. We aren’t necessarily talking about the ACTION of sinning that is attached to us but we are talking about the Original Sin that is attached from birth. We all fall short of the Glory of God. No one, not even a baby, can earn the place next to God. It is Jesus’ sacrifice that brings us to God, not our own volition.

Anyway, I know that not everyone is going to agree with these points. In fact the majority of you are going to scoff, complain, disagree, and ridicule these thoughts and that is your right. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say!

 

[scylla]

1. To be fully human does not include sin. Sin is a negative thing and being human is a good thing. To act on a mere desires and sin is denying your humanity.
   To sin boldly, is this more in the image of God as we are made or less?
2. I will let someone else comment on the mother comment.
3. I am sure you have been on this board long enough to know that Catholics don’t think we earn our way into heaven in any way. Catholics believe Jesus is our salvation.

I am not sure if I am ridiculing but just responding in the best way I know how.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[CollegeKid]

Singinbeauty:

I have been reading this thread and a few thoughts have popped into my head. Mind you, they are still in process, but let me know what you think.

1. On the subject of Mary being sinless or not… My question that pops into my head is this, if Jesus was really to be FULLY human wouldn’t that mean that He would have been born on this earth to a FULLY human woman, born of Original Sin and all? You all ask why a protestant can’t think that God would want to be born of a sinless woman and I ask you… to be the fully modest and humble Man that He is why would He give Himself special treatment? My whole thought process of why Jesus had to be fully human and fully God, born to a woman who is just like the rest of us, is to come to the earth just like the rest of us. He could have shown up in the richest family in the world, fully righteous and without sin and grow in the lap of luxory and still accomplish what He did. We would still believe as we do today and He wouldn’t have had to endure the pain He did. But that isn’t what He did. He experienced a poor upbringing full of trials. If He wanted the full affect of being poor and humble why would He save Mary from Original Sin? Does this make sense. To get the full experience He would HAVE to be born of a woman who, in ALL ways, was just like the rest of us. That way He became the PERFECT sacrifice, paying for what we could never even imagine.
2. This is a bit off topic but it kind of goes in the same direction at the same time. We can start a new thread off it if you would like… I have noticed, in my study, that Jesus never refers to Mary as ‘Mother’. We are the ones who give her that title but He always refers to her as ‘woman’. Even when those outside told Him that His mother and brothers were waiting outside to talk to Him He denied that title to them and gave it to His disciples. It got me thinking… That even Jesus removes Himself from that because He doesn’t want to give her a special place above us. Like I said, these are still thoughts in process so don’t flame too bad…
3. The whole ‘do you think newborns sin’ argument is weak at best. We aren’t necessarily talking about the ACTION of sinning that is attached to us but we are talking about the Original Sin that is attached from birth. We all fall short of the Glory of God. No one, not even a baby, can earn the place next to God. It is Jesus’ sacrifice that brings us to God, not our own volition.

Anyway, I know that not everyone is going to agree with these points. In fact the majority of you are going to scoff, complain, disagree, and ridicule these thoughts and that is your right. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say!

As for 2., I’m going to be honest. You hit a nerve there. I know you probably didn’t mean to, but to suggest that Jesus held no special reverence for his own holy and blessed mother, to me, that’s like saying I hold no special reverence for my own mother. And believe me, I do. My own mother is very special to me, and to myself and lots of other Catholics, Mary is a spiritual mother to be loved wholeheartedly and whose intercession we never cease to ask for. If Mary held no special place in Jesus’s eyes, why, when they were at the foot of the cross, would He tell her and John that they should consider each other mother and son? I submit to you that Jesus referred to Mary as “woman” during her earthly lifetime only to build up her humility, when if fact she was much more than just another “woman” to Him.

 

[save_me_Jesus]

CollegeKid:

As for 2., I’m going to be honest. You hit a nerve there. I know you probably didn’t mean to, but to suggest that Jesus held no special reverence for his own holy and blessed mother, to me, that’s like saying I hold no special reverence for my own mother. And believe me, I do. My own mother is very special to me, and to myself and lots of other Catholics, Mary is a spiritual mother to be loved wholeheartedly and whose intercession we never cease to ask for. If Mary held no special place in Jesus’s eyes, why, when they were at the foot of the cross, would He tell her and John that they should consider each other mother and son? I submit to you that Jesus referred to Mary as “woman” during her earthly lifetime only to build up her humility, when if fact she was much more than just another “woman” to Him.

actually, referring to her as “women”, in those times, was showing her the utmost respect

 

[RyanL]

Hi, singin’! I don’t think I’ve told you how much I like your name…good choice!

You are right in that the “infants have not sinned” argument is silly, but it is necessary to shoot down the “all have sinned” stance taken by some. Once there is a distinguishing between Original Sin and Committed / Personal Sin, the discussion can move forward. As shown, not “all” have committed Personal Sin; likewise, not “all” have Original Sin (Adam, Eve, and Jesus at a christian minimum). So the “all” doesn’t mean “all” any more than it would if I were to say “all were present at the party last night”. It’s simply a broad and encompasing expression, not a literalistic truth.

As for “truly human”…was Jesus “truly human”? If yes, He must have had Original Sin by your logic. If no, how was He like us in all things? To be “truly human” is to be restored to the state of “true humanity” as it was prior to the fall, which is to say entirely without sin (Original or Committed). So by that vein, you are entirely correct that God would want to become “truly Man” by a “true Woman”. Therefore, it is fitting that Mary not have Original Sin.

Which leads me to my second point - “Woman”. As said above, it was far more respectful then than it is in the modern West. It was akin to calling her “Lady”, but moreso. Perhaps “M’Lady”, but not in a corny way. And you’re wrong, BTW; Jesus does indeed refer to her as “Mother”. He does this when all eyes are upon Him, at the key moment in salvation history, from the cross, when He says to the Apostle whom He loved, “Woman, behold your son…[John,] behold your Mother.” (John 19:26-27.) Interestingly, the Greek in John 19:27 reads more like “…from that hour the disciple took him as their own.” Once you read Rev 12:17 it falls into place who should view her as their mother, and why the Greek would be plural here.

You may also note that Eve was not called Eve until after the fall; when she was still perfect before God, she was only called “Woman”. You may also take note of Gen 3:15.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[estesbob]

2. This is a bit off topic but it kind of goes in the same direction at the same time. We can start a new thread off it if you would like… I have noticed, in my study, that Jesus never refers to Mary as ‘Mother’. We are the ones who give her that title but He always refers to her as ‘woman’. Even when those outside told Him that His mother and brothers were waiting outside to talk to Him He denied that title to them and gave it to His disciples. It got me thinking… That even Jesus removes Himself from that because He doesn’t want to give her a special place above us. Like I said, these are still thoughts in process so don’t flame too bad…

Well what a turnaround-we have went from Jesus is the only one without sin to even Jesus is a sinner. Per you, in order to make sure no one gets the idea his Mom is special, he continually violates the 4th commandment throughout his life time.

In my studies it has always disapointed me that ,in their zeal to deny all things Catholic , so many of our seperated bretheren dishonor Mary.