Posted on 12/11/2006 6:29:15 AM PST by xzins
Great question. I'd like to see a one-sentence answer, not 500 lines of theological meanderings from some other web site
-A8
Because to be disposed toward evil is to be less than fully human; it is to be broken, fallen, diseased. If "feeling the predisposition towards evil" were essential to being human, then why not actually *doing* evil as well?
-A8
We are to pray to God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, all three equal and separate persons of the holy Trinity.
We are distinctly cautioned not to pray to anyone else. No one. No Mary, not to saints, not to wooden statues, not to gold and silver idols.
"Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods." -- Psalm 97:7
"Confounded."
I have a duty to warn others in my Faith. That was a duty I accepted when I was Confirmed.
-A8
He is sovereign enough to assume Bill Clinton into heaven before the Last Day, but we have no evidence of it and it is written no where in Scripture.
Therefore, I do not believe either supposition.
Just for reference...
Pelagianism
Pelagius was a British biblical scholar and theologian who lived in Rome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He stressed the human ability to fulfill the commands of God, and thus man's full responsibility for his own salvation. The role of Jesus is viewed as only "setting a good example" and divine grace has no place.
This teaching was opposed by St. Augustine, the leading figure in the North African Church at that time. While Pelagius, in his claims that humans can (alone) do what God requires, had emphasized the freedom of human will and the ability to control one's motives and actions under the guidance of God's law, Augustine insisted that no one can control his or her own motivation and that person requires the assistance of God's grace if he or she is to will and to do good. Only with the help of divine grace can an individual overcome the force of sin and live rightly before God.
Pelagius was excommunicated in 417 by Pope Innocent I, and his views were condemned by a series of Church councils. The issues of human freedom (human works; fight of faith) and divine grace, however, have remained central topics of debate throughout the history of Christian theology.
I'll say it again: free-will. You have a choice. So did Christ.
Why?
Yes. I do not believe that we can save ourselves, however.
if we are not born with the flawed human nature which was the result of the original sin pray tell what do we need saving from?
The myriad of sins we make and will make of our own volition.
correct, no one is disputing that.
But in an earlier post you said:
No man walked the earth without the stain of Adam's Original Sin but Jesus Christ.
Then you went on to post twice that God uses Baptism "when and where he pleases, to wash sinners from the filth and guilt of their sins"
Can we then agree that Baptism does wash away sin, including original sin? Anyone who is baptised had (at least temporarily) the stain of sin washed away. That is all the concept of the immaculate conception is saying. That by an act of God, original sin was washed from Mary. Simply put, she was pre-baptised. This shouldn't be that difficult of a concept for you if you agree with the quote you posted in #220.
If you deny original sin, then what do you think about the following verses:
"For if the many died by the trespass of the one man" (Rom 5:15)
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man" (Rom 5:17)
"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Rom 5:18)
"For as in Adam all die" (1 Cor 15:22)
-A8
Actually, as I suspected, the very quote you used to support your assertion that Origen believed the origin of Mary's perpetual virginity was "spurious" was taken out of context. I found the context:
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248])."
At the Last Supper, Jesus established the New Covenant Sacrifice. The reformers falsified scripture in Malachias in denial of that Biblical Truth and fifteeen hundred plus years of practice and they stole your right to Worship of God as the God-Man Himself Commanded we Worship God.
I am afraid the personal opinions of an expriest do not cancel out the Bible and fifteen hundred plus years of orthopraxis.
Only a protestant reading into the Bible his protestant oral Tradition (exegesis) can miss seeing the Sacrifice of the Mass all throughout the New Testament.
In any event, I know I am not going to convince you. I just have a duty to speak the truth to you and let the Holy Spirt do His work. I wish you no evil nor do I have any enmity towards you. I do think of you as a brother in Christ. I just want you and all who read these words to come to the fullness of Christ and Woship God as God Himself Taught and Commanded us to Worship Him.
A much superior answer to what I expected, thank you! (The Orthodox are all so well-spoken, don't you know.)
Of course, now I am very curious what OT prophecy referring to our Lord's virgin mother may only be fulfilled by her remaining a virgin for her entire life? Could she not have consummated her marriage to Joseph after giving birth to our Lord?
but if we are not pre-disposed to sin because of this flawed nature then it is possible to go through life and CHOOSE never to sin, thus not needing saving.
The latter issue, not at all.
The former issue: Mary was set aside and sanctified for a particular role, that of bearing the Son of God in the flesh. That made her literally more holy than the Ark of the Covenant, because the Ark didn't contain God himself, but only symbols of his authority. If the Ark was so holy that for anyone other than an authorized priest to touch it meant death ... you can draw your own conclusions.
If you married a girl who was already pregnant through divine intervention with God Incarnate, and her status was confirmed to you by an angel in a dream, what would you do? :-0
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.