Why doesn't the Bible say that Mary was sinless?

[JoeyWarren]

You’re consistent within your argument, Joey; I hope it’s not just to prove that you are.

The whole of Scripture is God’s call for men to repent, and come to Him, from Cain in Genesis, right on through.

In keeping with the whole of Scripture, the desire of God spoken of in 1 Tim is consistent with His desire for every single person to be saved.

(Also, the Greek word for many does exist, as the link you provided indicates, and Paul used that word often; he had it at his disposal for 1 Tim 2:4, but chose “pas” instead. The word translated many is used more than 100 times in the NT).

Now if Paul had used hapas or hekastos then I would believe it meant each and every man.

Either word would have left no doubt as to the meaning.

Now I will give you the benefit of doubt. Man

2 different words get used to indicate man.

That verses uses anthrōpos which denotes** “**mankind” whereas the other word **anēr **denotes an “individual man”

Then in that case it does mean every single man, because "mankind’ is the collective, but it does not derive it’s “all without exception” from pas.

So a more direct transliteral would be

Who desires all of Mankind to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

.
Yes, I am consistent or at least I make a concerted effort to do so, even though I may not represent that in writing.

 

[bookgirl32]

That’s not what the text says, be careful!

Here, read your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

The Greek word in question, pas does not appear in that passage in the Septuagint.

Sandusky, honest question here, do you believe the Bible can be just “picked up” by anyone and the correct message can then be gleaned from reading it?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

Do you have to go all the way to Ambrose to get the indirection you want to obscure that these words come directly out of Matthew 9:17? If you put down your bible and reach out to the early church fathers are you signaling that you can accept ALL of what the early church fathers are saying in the same sense you claim that ALL people sin? My bet is you won’t be consistent since ECF writings collectively contradict many or all Protestant tenants. It also follows that if you accept ALL of the ECF writings then you must also take ALL the critiques of the ECFs and put away your bible as the sole source of God’s word. Are you willing to do this?

I bet you didn’t know that St. Jerome, the first translator of the Catholic Bible had a serious problem with some of Ambrose’s works - in particular the very one you reference here. Albeit St. Augustine and Rufinas defend him so I am neutral on him. After-all he is a Doctor of The Church and way over my head. But I think your objective to try to use the pedigree of The Church Fathers to refute The Church Teachings. Impossible and not without consequence.

I think that by going to ECF to create an indirection through yet another context just to repaint your private interpretation of scripture confirms a telling pattern of desperation for pedigree. Just how many context switches of scripture does it take through a sleigh of indirection and temporal usage to change the truth to something you would want us to believe? Ambrose’s writings have footnotes referencing scripture. So admit it, you will not be constrained by mere context nor by progressively distant layers of translations to find the “contextual noise” that produces an artifact or spurious message that appears to support your perspective. But partial truths are partial truths. Ambrose was writing about the Holy Spirit here and not at all focused on Mary. Note too that a fragment of partial truth that originates from scripture and propagates through the writings of an ECF can not be extracted out the other end and mosaic-ed and reconstructed into a new full truth. Ambrose is not saying anything new here. He is just elaborating a teaching on the Holy Spirit.

The basic premise of information is that it is purest from nearest its source. And that is ORAL Tradition - not written tradition.

So, come on - be honest here. The Early Church fathers and Doctors of The Church can’t be hijacked and converted to Protestantism from the grave and made to say things against The Church they loved. There is plenty of ECF references and Catholic practices that attest to Marian doctrine. The Early Church fathers have earned their salvation through fidelity to their Catholic Faith and have made their contributions to the deposit of faith to benefit The Church. That can’t be hijacked. Nor can the same truth be made to say something different than it was originally said through the writings of someone who referenced it.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Doctrines that are required of the faithful for salvation do not appear out of thin air after hundreds or a thousand years.

Repeated assertions with zero evidence does not make something true.

Hey we have hope here boyz and girlz. I agree, then why do we have those that invent sola scriptura 1500 years after Christ?

James

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by kaycee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

I did a search on this. It seems to be the sole ECF proof text of anti-catholic websites across the internet. Yes, they do ignore the collective writings of the ECF which do support our beliefs. Just another Satanic tactic of picking and choosing those things that supports Satan’s own designs against God’s Elect.

P.S. there are 15 distinct quotes from the ECF that contradict Ambrose on this subject.

 

[jmcrae]

Doctrines that are required of the faithful for salvation do not appear out of thin air after hundreds or a thousand years.

No kidding. Everybody had always believed in the doctrines of Mary, way before 1850, when they were declared to be Doctrine of the Church. The Rosary actually predates the Declaration by nearly a thousand years - people didn’t just suddenly start praying the Rosary in 1850.

Repeated assertions with zero evidence does not make something true.

That’s true. Your repeated assertion that the Early Church knew nothing of Mary is not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[sandusky]

bookgirl32:

Sandusky, honest question here, do you believe the Bible can be just “picked up” by anyone and the correct message can then be gleaned from reading it?

I worked with a fellow in the late 90’s who was an unbeliever, but, nevertheless, had a keen interest in literature, and knew the Bible, its characters, its lessons, and even the message of the gospel as well as any believer that I know, and he would have his wife, and his children sit with him several times a week in the evening as he read from it.

However, he didn’t believe a word it said.

His was a literary understanding, not a salvific understanding which comes only by God’s grace.

(Sadly, he died a few years ago of a drug overdose, alone, in a hotel room; he and his wife had separated previous to that.)

The Gospel, and therefore, the scripture is a directed message. It’s intended audience, as the Lord exclaimed, is those “who have ears to hear.”

 

[bookgirl32]

I worked with a fellow in the late 90’s who was an unbeliever, but, nevertheless, had a keen interest in literature, and knew the Bible, its characters, its lessons, and even the message of the gospel as well as any believer that I know, and he would have his wife, and his children sit with him several times a week in the evening as he read from it.

However, he didn’t believe a word it said.

His was a literary understanding, not a salvific understanding which comes only by God’s grace.

(Sadly, he died a few years ago of a drug overdose, alone, in a hotel room; he and his wife had separated previous to that.)

The Gospel, and therefore, the scripture is a directed message. It’s intended audience, as the Lord exclaimed, is those “who have ears to hear.”

Okay, so what I meant is, are those who DO have ears to hear, in other words want to believe in Jesus and are looking for instruction, able to pick it up and read it themselves and able to understand?

 

[sandusky]

bookgirl32:

Okay, so what I meant is, are those who DO have ears to hear, in other words want to believe in Jesus and are looking for instruction, able to pick it up and read it themselves and able to understand?

You’re changing the question a bit here. The Lord’s words certainly lead to the conclusion that they would be able to; wouldn’t you agree?

Look, if an unbeliever can pick up, read, understand, and reject the gospel through his own reading, why wouldn’t one foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified, by God, by that same God not be unabled to understand what He intends for them to understand (1 Cor 2:14ff;
1 Jn 2:27)?

(I think too many people have been convinced by others that they’ll get everything wrong, but there’s only one way that can happen).

As far as instruction goes, everyone can use that (Acts 8:27ff); that’s the business of the church, and the reason God sends men gifted in teaching (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11).

 

[bookgirl32]

You’re changing the question a bit here. The Lord’s words certainly lead to the conclusion that they would be able to; wouldn’t you agree?

No, I don’t agree with that.

Look, if an unbeliever can pick up, read, understand, and reject the gospel through his own reading, why wouldn’t one foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified, by God, by that same God not be unabled to understand what He intends for them to understand (1 Cor 2:14ff;
1 Jn 2:27)?

So are you coming at this from a sort of Calvanist standpoint?

(I think too many people have been convinced by others that they’ll get everything wrong, but there’s only one way that can happen).

Yes, by not believing God’s authority.

As far as instruction goes, everyone can use that (Acts 8:27ff); that’s the business of the church, and the reason God sends men gifted in teaching (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11).

That’s my point here. In order to argue what the actual message is, you keep using original languages to do so. Why is there a need for that, if God has protected the Scriptures as a source of revelation by themselves that anyone truly searching can intepret?

 

[justasking4]

You are comparing apples and oranges. JA4 can speculate on Andrew being sinless. But JA4 is fallible. The Church is free to define what The Holy Spirit reveals because it has the authority and the assurances of Jesus that it may do so confidently.

It’s a difference in authority and pedigree. You have neither.

James

Why is my example considered speculation? Answer: there is no evidence at all for it. Apply this same method to Mary being sinless. The argument from authority would not make something true if there is no evidence for the claim.
Secondly, where and to whom did the Holy Spirit reveal this to?

 

[justasking4]

Well, I’m glad to see that you have so much trust in what the Catholic Church chose for the canon.

I also don’t understand why the faith didn’t disappear within a generation or two after Jesus rose from the dead with no Bibles around for everyone to sit on their couches and read. .

There has always been the OT books and various writings of the fathers etc coupled with the books and letters of the NT since the very beginning.

 

[sandusky]

bookgirl32:

No, I don’t agree with that.

Why?

bookgirl32:

So are you coming at this from a sort of Calvanist standpoint?

A definite Calvinist view.

bookgirl32:

Yes, by not believing God’s authority.

By that, you mean the Roman Catholic Church, correct?

bookgirl32:

Yes, by not believing God’s authority.

By that, you mean the Roman Catholic Church, correct?

bookgirl32:

That’s my point here. In order to argue what the actual message is, you keep using original languages to do so. Why is there a need for that, if God has protected the Scriptures as a source of revelation by themselves that anyone truly searching can intepret?

Some want to know more, and be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, of what it is they believe.

Are you critical of those in the Roman Catholic Church who study the original languages to argue what the actual message is, or, are you critical only of non-RCs for that?

 

[Jennifer123]

Why is my example considered speculation? Answer: there is no evidence at all for it. Apply this same method to Mary being sinless. The argument from authority would not make something true if there is no evidence for the claim.
Secondly, where and to whom did the Holy Spirit reveal this to?

Hi justasking-

I’m just wondering if you realize that Jesus Himself didn’t teach from Holy Scripture (as we have today in the Bible), neither did the Apostles, nor the leaders of the Church after them.

How did Christianity survive for so long without authoritative Scripture when there were many people who were even then preaching their own version of “Gospel truth”, and various powerful people who wished to squash the movement.

It’s rhetorical but I was wondering if you have ever considered it? Thanks.

 

[bookgirl32]

A definite Calvinist view.

I’m going to hijack my own post a little here. And this is an honest question: Do you think a Calvanist viewpoint of sola scriptura is different than a non-Calvanist viewpoint? I’m guessing that it does. So in order to really understand where you’re coming from with SS, I’d first have to understand your beliefs about predestination, would you care to start another thread?

My previous post was referring to a non-Calvanist interpretation of sola scriptura, so I don’t know if it would make much difference to you.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Look, if an unbeliever can pick up, read, understand, and reject the gospel through his own reading, why wouldn’t one foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified, by God, by that same God not be unabled to understand what He intends for them to understand (1 Cor 2:14ff; 1 Jn 2:27)?

(I think too many people have been convinced by others that they’ll get everything wrong, but there’s only one way that can happen).

As far as instruction goes, everyone can use that (Acts 8:27ff); that’s the business of the church, and the reason God sends men gifted in teaching (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11).

There is no predestiny - God calls all to be saved. Just because God knows in His omniscience who will respond does not mean that any of us is predestined. Our salvation is fully our own choice.

Rephrase that question and ask ‘why is it then that famous Protestants who had picked up their bibles, read it over and over from cover to cover and been convinced of their salvation inexplicably over time come to realize they read it all wrong and converted to Catholicism’? The reason is because they were open to Gods universal grace and because they became enlightened and consciously chose the most spiritually rational path to salvation - the one that actually leads to Jesus’ teachings and not to the teachings of men.

Here area few examples of famous Protestant converts:
Scott Hahn Protestant Minister
G. K. Chesterton
Fr Allan Hawkins
Sr Ronda Marie Chervin
Fr. John Corapi (a regular on EWTN)
Fr Graham Leonard, an Anglican Bishop of London

More here: catholic-pages.com/dir/converts.asp

James

 

[justasking4]

Hi justasking-

I’m just wondering if you realize that Jesus Himself didn’t teach from Holy Scripture (as we have today in the Bible), neither did the Apostles, nor the leaders of the Church after them.

How did Christianity survive for so long without authoritative Scripture when there were many people who were even then preaching their own version of “Gospel truth”, and various powerful people who wished to squash the movement.

It’s rhetorical but I was wondering if you have ever considered it? Thanks.

You ask some good questions. Jesus and His apostles quoted and in fact used the OT to support their teachings in many cases.
i could go on but i don’t want to derail this thread.

 

[Jennifer123]

You ask some good questions. Jesus and His apostles quoted and in fact used the OT to support their teachings in many cases.
i could go on but i don’t want to derail this thread.

Okay, thank you. I don’t want to derail either - though I am guilty of it pretty often I must admit .

I’m interested in the bolded part. In the OT are you familiar with the Ark of the Covenant?

Edit - I assume you know about the Ark, but I meant have you read about the treatment and meaning surrounding the Ark. Sorry.

 

[bcm6987]

Hey CentralFLJames,
While I agree (almost) totally with your post, there is one thing you are mistaken about. Father Corapi was born into a Roman Catholic family, left the Faith while he was living life as a “pagan”, and came back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. He never was a protestant. Unless you are referring to his time as a self-professed “pagan”. Not that I’m comparing our separated brothers and sisters with pagans, no that is not my point at all, just that Father Corapi was “separated” from Christ’s true Church on earth.
BC Moore

 

[bookgirl32]

I’ve already answered your question from the Scripture, see the following;

.

Actually, EI, how do you know that 2 Tim 3:16-17 actually is scripture?