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

[Church_Militant]

Nothing Paul says suggests that the tradition the Thessalonians received from him is infallibly preserved anywhere except in scripture.

In your opinion and particular denominational theology… But then there are quite a few errors in n-C theology that began in the so called reformation and have cascaded down from their initial errors.

The point of Paul’s remarks are antithetical to your tradition,

IMO. Paul does not encourage the Thessalonians to receive any tradition by second or third hand reports, or those confabulated out of whole cloth in the distant future, but, to receive only as infallible truth that which they heard in his presence, and from his own lips.This is wishful thinking on your part. The fact is that there are quite a few places where the New Testament indicates that Our Lord and the apostles drew infallible beliefs from oral and traditional sources.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

IMO, you’re not doing what Paul instructed.

Well, the same could be asserted to you with regard to the fact that you require everything that you believe to come from the pages of the Bible when the Bible itself nowhere teaches that.

 

[mercygate]

They were Catholic, and, obviously, they were concerned with more important things such as the abuses of the papacy, so on, so forth.

The reformation traditions retained the Marian dogmas long after they separated from the Church, just as they retained the tradition of infant baptism.

Where there are abuses, they do not invalidate the truth that is being abused and they are NEVER more important than the truth being abused.

 

[Church_Militant]

They were Catholic, and, obviously, they were concerned with more important things such as the abuses of the papacy, so on, so forth.

Yeah… right. I have to disagree.
My Reformation Theory

 

[Church_Militant]

The reformation traditions retained the Marian dogmas long after they separated from the Church, just as they retained the tradition of infant baptism.

Where there are abuses, they do not invalidate

the truth that is being abused and they are NEVER more important than the truth being abused.

Well said!

 

[mercygate]

Yeah… right. I have to disagree.
My Reformation Theory

I have read your Reformation Theory and concur entirely. Far from being merely a personal theory, it is the only way the separated groups could hope to maintain any credibility.

Even today, among those Lutherans who, looking back at the great respect their founder had for sacramental confession, have attempted to re-institute the practice, the claim is that absolution is effected BY THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have been following this thread from the beginning, and I would like to know why emeraldisle won’t–or can’t–answer bookgirl’s questions from post #782.

Here they are:

So, again, Emerald, please show me where the sripture says the word “Trinity”, where it lists a table of contents for the Old or New Testament (or where the Old listsl it’s own, for that matter), or, here’s the biggie, where it says anything HAS to be in it in the first place?

I’m especially interested in an answer to the last one because I don’t see any Biblical support whatsoever for emeraldisle’s criterea (that is, that something has to be spelled out in the Bible in order for it to be worthy of belief).

After all, what am I to think of his (her?) refusal to answer these questions, even though they’ve been asked more than once?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

IMO, you’re not doing what Paul instructed.

your opinion doesn’t carry any more weight than anyone elses. But your authority to speak on such things is drawn only from what you are capable of understanding from one source from God which you limit to your own understanding.

 

[guanophore]

Nothing Paul says suggests that the tradition the Thessalonians received from him is infallibly preserved anywhere except in scripture.

Basically what you are saying is that God was not able to preserve the preached words, and that it did not go forth to accomplish the purpose He intended. Was He too weak? Was He indifferent to His Word? He did not watch over it to perform it.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Paul is not making a “suggestion” here about preserving the Word. On the contrary, the Word is authenticated in the life of believers, which is what Sacred Tradition is all about.

What you are saying is that the letter written upon the human heart is not as authentic as that letter written in Scripture, and that is not Scriptural!

2 Cor 3:1-3
2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

The point of Paul’s remarks are antithetical to your tradition, IMO. Paul does not encourage the Thessalonians to receive any tradition by second or third hand reports, or those confabulated out of whole cloth in the distant future, but, to receive only as infallible truth that which they heard in his presence, and from his own lips.

IMO, you’re not doing what Paul instructed.

This indicates that you don’t believe God can really write the gospel on the heart of a person, and preserve His word in the life and faith of mankind. I think it is a failure to trust in God. What is puzzling is that you seem to believe that God will cause an individual believer to persevere unto glorification, but the do not believe He can protect and transmit his Word through them.

 

[JoeyWarren]

It will be interesting to see how Sandusky rebuttals against post 841.

Will he have a clever comeback or will he just ?

 

[sandusky]

Yeah… right. I have to disagree.
My Reformation Theory

Also your blog; try getting a reputable blog to publish it.

 

[sandusky]

your opinion doesn’t carry any more weight than anyone elses. But your authority to speak on such things is drawn only from what you are capable of understanding from one source from God which you limit to your own understanding.

Ditto.

 

[sandusky]

Basically what you are saying is that God was not able to preserve the preached words, and that it did not go forth to accomplish the purpose He intended. Was He too weak? Was He indifferent to His Word? He did not watch over it to perform it.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Paul is not making a “suggestion” here about preserving the Word. On the contrary, the Word is authenticated in the life of believers, which is what Sacred Tradition is all about.

What you are saying is that the letter written upon the human heart is not as authentic as that letter written in Scripture, and that is not Scriptural!

2 Cor 3:1-3
2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

This indicates that you don’t believe God can really write the gospel on the heart of a person, and preserve His word in the life and faith of mankind. I think it is a failure to trust in God. What is puzzling is that you seem to believe that God will cause an individual believer to persevere unto glorification, but the do not believe He can protect and transmit his Word through them.

guanophore, this post is a prime example of why I rarely respond to you anymore.

Clairvoyance is simply not your calling.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

It will be interesting to see how Sandusky rebuttals against post 841.

Will he have a clever comeback or will he just ?

That is amazing, your right…

personal attacks and smiley faces… That’s not how Paul taught believers to defend their faith in the bible. Does this new defense come from another source. It must!

Truth and Christ Church have prevailed over personal understanding and opinion, again.

 

[sandusky]

The reformation traditions retained the Marian dogmas long after they separated from the Church, just as they retained the tradition of infant baptism.

That falls under the rubric of the un-development of doctrine.

The traditions you mention developed over a period of more than a millennium, so it’s not surprising that those, and other traditions were not dealt with in a day.

However, once the fetters of Rome were cast off, diligent study of the scripture and church history ensued, and the issues mentioned above, as well as other issues, were addressed and brought into harmony with the Scripture.

mercygate:

Where there are abuses, they do not invalidate the truth that is being abused and they are NEVER more important than the truth being abused.

Answered above.

 

[JoeyWarren]

That is amazing, your right…

personal attacks and smiley faces… That’s not how Paul taught believers to defend their faith in the bible. Does this new defense come from another source. It must!

Truth and Christ Church have prevailed over personal understanding and opinion, again.

I’ve been debating and watching Sandusky for over 2 years now. 2 years ago, this month we got suspended. Sandusky is not here to learn and never was here to learn. Sandusky is very predicatable and he will say I am as well.

A little logical deduction will tell people why he is really here. IMHO, his sole purpose here is to cause doubt since he has no true desire to learn. His profile gives evidence to this: “Ex-Catholic for 40 years by the grace of God” It is interesting that he left the Faith at age 17…

 

[JoeyWarren]

I think Sandusky’s time would be better spent in places like BaptistBoard.com debating the slew of Seventh Day Adventists who claim all of us are of us(anybody not of Seventh Day persuasion) are of the Apostate church.

 

[CentralFLJames]

guanophore, this post is a prime example of why I rarely respond to you anymore.

Clairvoyance is simply not your calling.

I wouldn’t call your late resignation taken just a single move from checkmate as a glowing example of clairvoyance either.

James

 

[mercygate]

That falls under the rubric of the un-development of doctrine.

The traditions you mention developed over a period of more than a millennium, so it’s not surprising that those, and other traditions were not dealt with in a day.

However, once the fetters of Rome were cast off, diligent study of the scripture and church history ensued, and the issues mentioned above, as well as other issues, were addressed and brought into harmony with the Scripture.

Answered above.

To quote the inimitable rhetoric of sandusky:

 

[sandusky]

I wouldn’t call your late resignation taken just a single move from checkmate as a glowing example of clairvoyance either.

James

Did you just wake up, James? You sound a bit confused, IMO.

 

[Enoch]

So at what point did the protestants give up their strong Marian devotions/beliefs, and why?

The founders of their faiths certainly believed the Marian dogmas. When did this become a problem?

Martin Luther
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

*{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} *

**
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) **
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

*{“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25} *