Posted on 11/05/2009 5:25:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
SO anyways, as close as his views remained to the Catholic Church, you can sense his views pointed to a trend among Christians to bring the centrality of the faith back to Christ and away from the Maryolatry that dominated the Middle Ages. It wouldn’t be until much later that Reformers such as Calvin would take their challenges against Roman dogma further through deeper expositions of Scripture from their original texts and languages.
Also, Luther was not revolutionary because of his views for or against the Catholic version of Mary. Luther was revolutionary for re-establishing the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He derided the papacy referring to the pope as the Antichrist, he held to the supreme authority of Scripture, and he diminished the myth of Purgatory—which was the cornerstone on which the Catholic system functioned.
I am not sure why I feel compelled to make a point of saying this but I will make it anyway: I believe that there will be many believers in heaven who have followed the Catholic faith. It is an unquestionable teaching of the Church that Mary lived a life without sin and that she remained a virgin, despite being married to Joseph. That, however, is a teaching of the Church and is not found in scripture. Catholics, under penalty of of losing their immortal souls, must adhere to these teachings.
While I can respect the reverence for authority, I can only believe in the inerrant word of God. There are no other authorities. There are no other sources. There are no extra-biblical teachings that can add to the Truth of God's word. It is the only the word of God. It is His only message to us. It is sufficient and it is final.
The Church holds the Holy family up as an example of marriage for us to follow. Mary and Joseph had a real marriage, which most assuredly included a normal physical relationship and probably children. Why emulate a fake, hollow, unconsumated relationship? Mary was a virgin only until she gave birth to our Savior. She and Joseph would have been sinning had they withheld the normal and completely natural aspects of a true marriage. The Torah is quite explicit on marriage and the sexual aspects of those who are married. To neglect these things are in fact grounds for divorce in Judaism.
No part of Mary's genetic makeup was given to Jesus. Not one cell, not one chromosome. He was fully God and fully God's child. He was fully human by virtue of the fact that he took on flesh and blood. Here, then, lies a mystery, but it a mystery which faith demands we accept. Mary, at the tender of age of about 12-14 years of age, was “blessed among women” because she said YES to God's request. “Be it done according to Thy will.” These are the words of a young girl whose heart was so turned to God's will that she accepted without question the burden of being an unwed mother at time when death by stoning was the punishment. Blessed she was indeed. She had to know that God would carry her through an unbelievable trial and preserve her for the delivery of the most important life to have ever been born. She recognized her need of a savior in a more profound way than we can imagine. Scripture tells us she was warned in advance that a “sword would pierce her own heart” as a result of her obedience.
So, should we reverence the person of Mary? No, not the person but rather, the obedient spirit of Mary. I think she would find it strange if we did otherwise. She was remarkably humble and indeed to be emulated in many ways. What trials and heartache she suffered after saying yes to God! Her soul magnified God and her life sets an example for us to do the same. I believe she would encourage us to look always in obedience to God and to recognize the gift of salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, not through her own life. She was blessed not because she was perfect but because she was made perfect by her savior.
She was given the grace to watch her little boy grow in His earthly life in wisdom and and strength. She was blessed because at the end, she would see this most precious child, the boy she had raised, suffer the death He was to born to suffer on a cross.
How, we must ask, did she endure this horror? The only answer is that God gave her the grace and that was sufficient. For us, that poses another mystery of faith, but faith demands we must accept it.
No, Mary was not without sin while she lived on earth, otherwise we never would never have needed the sacrifice of God's only son. Mary's life of perfection would have satisfied the debt. To believe she was perfect is folly and makes a mockery of the agony and atonement of Christ.
You wrote:
“Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.”
But that isn’t what the two quotes in question say. Neither one of them says Calvin DID NOT believe her perpetual virginity. He criticized what was put forward as evidence of it, but did not deny it there. We have to work with the evidence we have. Do you have evidence that actually says what you are claiming? So far you have not provided it.
“I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture.”
Zwingli was a Reformer and you denied the Reformers supported Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Zwingli was extremely important and influential in his day. If you don’t even know much about him, how can you speak about what the Reformers believed? Also, Luther was NOT a devout Catholic for some years before his apostasy. His own admissions show that he was a psychologically tortured man who had given up the proper practice of his faith years before his apostasy. It seems he invented Protestantism to ease his conscience.
“He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile.”
He did maintain many Catholic practices in his new sect, but that’s completely irrelevant. He was a Reformer. He maintained a belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. You denied that the Reformers did so. Doesn’t this mean you were inaccurate?
“He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.”
That’s your view. On this point - Mary’s sinlessness - is that what we actually see in Luther’s writings?
“In **1532** he preached:”
That’s 15 years AFTER the Reformation began...and notice he is still maintaining Mary’s sinlessness (”Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood”)
“In **1534**”
And the 1534 statement in no way denies the 1532 statement on the issue of Mary’s sinlessness. The 1534 says nothing about Mary’s sinlessness, and it certainly doesn’t deny it.
This is the second time you have posted quotes that don’t say what you claim they say. Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?
“Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.”
There’s no evolution of views there on Mary’s sinlessness.
Also, citing a notoriously flawed anti-Catholic website is probably not a good idea. MOst anti-Catholics simply don’t do their homework.
You wrote:
“SO anyways, as close as his views remained to the Catholic Church, you can sense his views pointed to a trend among Christians to bring the centrality of the faith back to Christ and away from the Maryolatry that dominated the Middle Ages.”
That’s a lot of wishful thinking on your part and it isn’t backed up by the evidence in the least. 1) His views varied wildly. In some (such as on the Trinity) he remained close to the orthodox Catholic teaching. On salvation he invented a novel doctrine never before expressed in the history of Christianity. 2) Christianity was always focused on Christ including in the Middle Ages. 3) If you’re going to make erroneous statement about what “Mariolatry” is, I suggest you learn to spell it correctly. At least that way someone might think you actually know what you’re talking about.
“It wouldn’t be until much later that Reformers such as Calvin would take their challenges against Roman dogma further through deeper expositions of Scripture from their original texts and languages.”
And yet you have failed to show that Calvin believed what you have claimed. Why is that?
“Also, Luther was not revolutionary because of his views for or against the Catholic version of Mary. Luther was revolutionary for re-establishing the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity: the doctrine of justification by faith alone.”
Which is not supported by the Bible in any way and is even denied by it in James 2. Luther knew this and contemplated destroying the book to hide his shame. And that’s your inventor of Sola scriptura? A man who would burn Biblical books to cover up his own unbiblical views? Lovely.
“He derided the papacy referring to the pope as the Antichrist,”
Yes, he did. And now his followers admit he was wrong.
“he held to the supreme authority of Scripture,”
Only his view of it. And he cut books from the Bible that diagreed with him. So much for supreme authority.
“and he diminished the myth of Purgatory—which was the cornerstone on which the Catholic system functioned.”
What? Cornerstone? You seem to know even less about the Catholic faith than you do about the Reformers.
1) You were wrong about what the Reformers believed on Mary’s sinlessness.
2) You admitted you know little about one of the most influential of the early Reformers.
3)You posted four quotes - none of which actually say or show what you claimed they showed.
4) You incorrectly characterize beliefs of Christians in the Middle Ages.
5) You can’t even spell Mariolatry but seem to assume it existed.
6) You talk about Purgatory in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously regarding to its standing in the Catholic faith.
In this debate, your worst enemy is your apparent lack of knowledge about the issues you are discussing.
Vladimir, I think it’s great and vital that everyone, like you, digs as deeply as possible into the history of Christendom—but I hope people do so with as healthy a skepticism and with as little bias as possible. Even I, as an ex-Catholic, will admit that the Reformation had flaws and that some of my own favorite theologians were not without error or mistakes in judgment particularly with regard to some of the physical, vengeful actions taken against Catholics. By the same token, I will give Catholics credit where it’s due in terms of the contributions some of its members have made to important developments in theological thought—St. Augustine for example , who was among Calvin’s greatest influences, or THomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory.
* As for the Catholic system being based on purgatory: Yes. It was. You are denying plain history to say otherwise. I went to Catholic school my whole life and even as a committed Opus Dei, traditionalist Catholic, I had to admit that the period of papal indulgence scandals—which involved forcing even the poorest of people to pay money to the Church in exchange for a false remission of sins or less time in Purgatory—when in fact the money was paying for corrupt popes’ own luxurious lifestyles and massive buildling projects—was one of the most shameful dents in Roman Church Abuse History.
That being said, Purgatory is not a myth simply because of how its been used by Rome to take advantage of people. It’s a myth because it is blatantly unBiblical and completely contradicts Christ’s most basic and clearest teachings on eternal judgment as laid out in the Gospels. It is arguably the most dangerous doctrine Rome teaches and is a worse deviation from the Word than any teaching it may have on Mary.
The desperate efforts I observed Catholics (some who are notable Ex-Protestants) making to defend Purgatory on Biblical grounds was the last straw before my permanent departure from Rome. As basic and elementary as this sounds, my thought was simple: “Jesus wanted to save souls. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. He always talked about two paths. Two roads. Two ways. To destinations. In matters of eternal judgment, Jesus would not dare leave anything vague. He would have mentioned Purgatory plain and clear, considering the weight of the matter with regard to the state of our souls and our eternal destination.”
* John Calvin did establish very clearly that he thought the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was unfounded. He merely challenged the idea that she had as many children as some had overestimated, not that she did not have other children at all:
^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”
You wrote:
“Vladimir, I think it’s great and vital that everyone, like you, digs as deeply as possible into the history of Christendom—but I hope people do so with as healthy a skepticism and with as little bias as possible.”
Either Calvin said what you claimed or he didn’t. He didn’t. My skepticism, therefore, is with you and not with Calvin’s quotes.
“Even I, as an ex-Catholic, will admit that the Reformation had flaws and that some of my own favorite theologians were not without error or mistakes in judgment particularly with regard to some of the physical, vengeful actions taken against Catholics. By the same token, I will give Catholics credit where it’s due in terms of the contributions some of its members have made to important developments in theological thought—St. Augustine for example , who was among Calvin’s greatest influences, or THomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory.”
I understand, although I think your statement is inherently illogical. If St. Augustine is worthy of your respect, and Calvin’s, and yet he was a Catholic, as you admit, then where was Reformed theology? Doesn’t that just lend credence to the idea that Protestant thought was not the original Christianity?
*”As for the Catholic system being based on purgatory: Yes. It was.”
No, it was not.
“You are denying plain history to say otherwise.”
No, I am not denying history in the least - and history I know very well.
“I went to Catholic school my whole life and even as a committed Opus Dei, traditionalist Catholic, I had to admit that the period of papal indulgence scandals—which involved forcing even the poorest of people to pay money to the Church in exchange for a false remission of sins or less time in Purgatory—when in fact the money was paying for corrupt popes’ own luxurious lifestyles and massive buildling projects—was one of the most shameful dents in Roman Church Abuse History.”
The above statement contains the following errors:
1) Your experiences tell us nothing about Catholic theology for no matter how Catholic you claim to have been, I neither have any proof of those claims, nor do I see any reason to believe them because of your errors.
2) No one was EVER forced to buy an indulgence.
3) Donations were made for indulgences of a certain kind. They were never to be sold and any such sales violated canon law.
4) If someone was poor, he could receive the indulgence without a donation of any kind - as is expressly shown in the authorization letter to Johann Tetzel from Archbishop Albrecht. In other words, if someone could not make a donation, he got the indulgence anyway.
“That being said, Purgatory is not a myth simply because of how its been used by Rome to take advantage of people.”
There is no way to take advantage of people with Purgatory. Logically it is not anymore possible to take advantage of people with Purgatory than it is anything else. Notice how you do not document a single case of the Church actually taking advantage of anyone in this regard? No one?!
“It’s a myth because it is blatantly unBiblical and completely contradicts Christ’s most basic and clearest teachings on eternal judgment as laid out in the Gospels.”
Completely incorrect. The existence of Purgatory in no way effects eternal judgment. Since it cannot effect eternal judgment in any way, shape or form it cannot contradict Christ’s teachings about the same.
“It is arguably the most dangerous doctrine Rome teaches and is a worse deviation from the Word than any teaching it may have on Mary.”
It is not in the least dangerous, nor do you even attempt to demonstrate how it is so. Gee, I wonder why?
“The desperate efforts I observed Catholics (some who are notable Ex-Protestants) making to defend Purgatory on Biblical grounds was the last straw before my permanent departure from Rome.”
Your claimed “departure from Rome” may have happened for many reasons, but I don’t care what they are in this regard. I have no reason to believe you are a reasonable judge of these things.
“As basic and elementary as this sounds, my thought was simple: “Jesus wanted to save souls. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. He always talked about two paths. Two roads. Two ways. To destinations. In matters of eternal judgment, Jesus would not dare leave anything vague. He would have mentioned Purgatory plain and clear, considering the weight of the matter with regard to the state of our souls and our eternal destination.””
Jesus sent the Church to teach. Jesus did not teach about many things clearly. He never once taught clearly about the Trinity, nor did He ever use that word. He never once taught clearly about the later inspiration of scripture. He used parables not to make sure everyone understood, but because he knew many people would NOT understand.
“John Calvin did establish very clearly that he thought the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was unfounded.”
Show me the text that says that. I would not find it shocking that he did such a thing, but so far you have utterly failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for it.
“He merely challenged the idea that she had as many children as some had overestimated, not that she did not have other children at all:”
You post the same quote again, and it still doesn’t say what you claim. No where in the quote does Calvin say Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was UNTRUE.
Example. You cite:
Calvin: “that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd.”
He is saying the vow idea is absurd. He is NOT saying that she was a perpetual virgin.
You wrote:
“Vladimir, the two biggest forces drawing me away from the Catholic Church was 1) The anti-papist legacy of the founding of America forced me to study the Protestant Reformation on a deeper level, which ultimately led me to read the Bible for myself.”
Claiming that your apostasy came in admiration of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the nation’s founding fathers does not bolster your claims about Calvin. It doesn’t even put your apostasy in a good light. It just makes you sound like you chose the sentiments of dead men over the living Christ and His Church. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion.” ~ SAMUEL ADAMS
And of course Adams was wrong. Protestants did not open the Bible to all. Luther tried, but then realized ever “plowboy” came to believe he was just as right in his interpretations as Luther himself. It is indeed strange that you don’t view faith through the eyes of Christianity, no, instead, you view it through the eyes of an 18th century Boston merchant. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“2) Catholic apologetic books by respected Ex-Protestants such as Scott Hahn: I thought the arguments were incredibly weak and frankly, I was turned off by the excuses and details Catholics had to give to explain away why Roman doctrines so blatantly contradict teachings even a child can understand from opening up a Bible and reading things in context.”
And yet if there were such contradictions that even a “child can understand” than why is it men who know scripture so much better than you see no such contradictions? And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“I ALSO REALIZED that what attracts people (and what was attracting me) to Rome has a LOT to do with the theological weaknesses and failures of modern American Evangelicalism than it has to do with Biblical truth.”
No. People have always been attracted to orthodox Christianity. What is happening now is that the weaknesses in Evangelicalism - which are always present in all Protestants sects - have become more apparent. The weaknesses were always there. It’s just now the bigotry, the irrational Protestant hatred of truth, hatred of orthodox Christianity, has lessened to the point where people actually fairly investigate the Catholic faith. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“The BIBLE *IS* profound, the faith Christ and his disciplies practiced was rigorous, consuming, and radically transformational.”
And Protestantism never was, never will be, and never can - at least for very long. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“American Evangelicalism on the other hand has more to do with the Republican Party platform,...”
And your evangelicalism apparently has more to do with Samuel Adams! And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
“...Christmas trees, and conformity to our shallow materialistic culture than it does with the written Word of God and a bloody cross.”
Our shallow culture is a product of Protestantism and Protestant influenced tendencies. It was inevitable. And none of that in any way offers a single shred of evidence for your claims about Calvin.
As Pope Pius X wrote in Pascendi:
“Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.”
Prove you claim about Calvin. You were wrong about ‘Reformers’ in general. At least try to prove your claim about Calvin.
None of this is in the Bible. And being sanctified has nothing to do with never sinning. Even John the Baptist sinned. Being sanctified is being set apart by The LORD for His purpose. It does not mean that one cannot nor will never sin. Also, if Christ could save us from sinning before we ever did even one sin why would he not do it for each of us?
Rom 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ((Emphasis mine.)) Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of God; ((Emphasis mine to show that the sins were past and therefore had been committed. Not kept from ever being committed,))
John in the Bible clearly says that for anyone to say that they have not sinned is a lie. He did not say except Mary the mother of Jesus our LORD whom Christ had given to his care at the time of His death.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
The word for brother here is ἀδελφός Which means brother. In this context it does not mean the broader term for brother which can be used as we do meaning someone who belongs to the same group such as "brothers in arms". If you want to say as in the Bible that someone is a cousin or a kinsman rather than a brother with the same mother or father or mother and father you would use the word συγγενής. This word is used for the word cousin, kinfolks and kinsmen, ect. If the relatives of Jesus spoken of in Mark 6:3 were merely cousins or kinfolks the word συγγενής would have been used but it was not. The word ἀδελφός was used which means that they really were Jesus' brothers.
Below are just a few examples of when the word συγγενής is used in the Bible in the place of the word for cousin, kin, kinsmen etc.
Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own KIN, and in his own house.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy COUSIN Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luk 1:58 And her neighbours and her COUSIN heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
Luk 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] KINSFOLK and acquaintance.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my KINSMEN according to the flesh:
Now here are examples of when the word ἀδελφός is used which is the word for brother when used with specific names to denote a relationship. The same word for brother in the verses listed below is the same word in Greek that is used to denote the relationship that Christ had to his brothers in Mark 6:3. If you look carefully at these examples you will see that Jesus did have brothers. I hope that you will at least.
Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER;
Mar 1:19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his BROTHER, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
Mar 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the BROTHER of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
Mar 5:37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the BROTHER of James.
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the BROTHER of John with the sword.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's BROTHER.
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and BROTHER of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:
Also, the word sisters in the Greek which is used in Mark 6:3 can be shown over and over in the Bible to mean sister as we know it and not just generalized female "kin".
You wrote:
“None of this is in the Bible.”
There’s nothing in the Bible that says it has to be.
“And being sanctified has nothing to do with never sinning.”
Sure it does.
“Even John the Baptist sinned.”
So you say. Where does it say that in the Bible (I’m sure you won’t mind be held to your own sectarian standards).
“Being sanctified is being set apart by The LORD for His purpose.”
No, it’s more than that. The very word means being made holy, not just being made separate.
“It does not mean that one cannot nor will never sin. Also, if Christ could save us from sinning before we ever did even one sin why would he not do it for each of us?”
For the same reason why God the Father allowed us to Fall in Eden.
“John in the Bible clearly says that for anyone to say that they have not sinned is a lie. He did not say except Mary the mother of Jesus our LORD whom Christ had given to his care at the time of His death.”
He didn’t have to say anything about Mary since his point was not about Mary.
You might want to read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Sorry, but you have no idea of what you’re talking about. This has been posted many times before in different threads: http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002fea2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
His point was that ALL have sinned. If there was such a prominant member of The Church who had not sinned it would have been well known and the exception would have been made. ALL means exactly what it says, all.
He would needed to have said something to the effect of "All have sinned except Mary the mother of Jesus." At that time if Mary were always sinless it would have been noted as the well known exception to the rule.
Also, when returning arguments I would appreciate it if Catholics, as much as possible, would endeavor to put their beliefs into their own words rather than sending one to a long page of indoctrination.
You wrote:
“Do the word research for yourself.”
Already have. I have all the usual standard works, consulted the works of experts, and read what history had to offer on the subject. The Catholic point of view is completely in agreement with the orthodox viewpoint on this.
You wrote:
“His point was that ALL have sinned. If there was such a prominant member of The Church who had not sinned it would have been well known and the exception would have been made.”
That’s an assumption on your part. The Trinity was understood but not discussed in any detail at all in scripture. St. Matthew’s gospel is inspired. Nowhere does scripture say so.
“ALL means exactly what it says, all.”
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2005/10/mary_and_romans.html
“He would needed to have said something to the effect of “All have sinned except Mary the mother of Jesus.””
That’s your assumption. We make no such demands of the inspired authors.
“At that time if Mary were always sinless it would have been noted as the well known exception to the rule.”
I see no reason at all why it would be. I can, in fact, see several reasons why it would not be.
“Also, when returning arguments I would appreciate it if Catholics, as much as possible, would endeavor to put their beliefs into their own words rather than sending one to a long page of indoctrination.”
I think someone genuinely interested in truth does not care if it is presented in an article or a post. Truth is truth.
But if you can't put it into your own words you don't own it. I can go to many sites full of doctrine by Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Scientologist and vast amounts of others. For them their pages of doctrines given out by their leaders are "truth". They may not understand it all or ever really processed it in their own minds but non the less they are sure it is truth because someone or religious institute that they trust told them it was.
If you process what your written doctrines are and compare them carefully to real Scripture you can begin to see if they really are truth and not just something you have chosen, for whatever reasons, to accept as truth. If you are going to convince me that something you believe is truth give an informed, intelligent and convincing argument from your own heart, mind and Bible knowledge. Then if you will, have your religious doctrine site as a backup for the the things you believe. The Bible is the the resource that all other doctrine must line up with and not contradict. Argue your points from The Bible if you wish to win a Christian over to your beliefs.
Millions of people are fooled by many doctrines and religious leaders. If you cannot defend your doctrine from Scripture, for yourself, do you realize that you may one of the deceived.
You wrote:
“But if you can’t put it into your own words you don’t own it.”
Truth is truth. Scripture, for instance, is truth, but already written. Must I put scripture into my own written words to know the truth and live it out?
“I can go to many sites full of doctrine by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Scientologist and vast amounts of others.”
And taht would make perfect sense if you were talking to a JW, or Mormon or CScientist, or Scientologist. You’re not.
“For them their pages of doctrines given out by their leaders are “truth”. They may not understand it all or ever really processed it in their own minds but non the less they are sure it is truth because someone or religious institute that they trust told them it was.”
Again, we’re back to scripture. How good is your Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? I am willing to bet you’re far from the polyglot necessary to read the scriptures in the original languages. Thus, you are dependent on your sect leaders or scholars for scriptural translations. So aren’t you essentially in the same boat as all the groups you mentioned? Didn’t this thought EVER occur to you before?
“If you process what your written doctrines are and compare them carefully to real Scripture you can begin to see if they really are truth and not just something you have chosen, for whatever reasons, to accept as truth.”
Again, when was the last time you read “real Scripture”? Seriously when did you last read scriptures in Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic. How can you know you have it right when you are completely dependent on others for all of your knowledge?
“If you are going to convince me that something you believe is truth give an informed, intelligent and convincing argument from your own heart, mind and Bible knowledge.”
No. I will give the truth in whatever form I find it most convenient. I am not worried about convincing you because I have no reason to believe that your heart or mind are open. I will simply state the truth or link you to it. If you are to decree that you will not interest yourself in the truth because you don’t believe I made it personal enough than you are making the mistake of thinking it’s all about you. The truth is Christ, not you. The truth exists whether you believe in it or not.
“Then if you will, have your religious doctrine site as a backup for the the things you believe. The Bible is the the resource that all other doctrine must line up with and not contradict.”
Yet, you can’t even read the Bible right? All you can do is read translation, right? So you can’t be absolutely sure your even getting the real deal there and not sectarian views instead.
“Argue your points from The Bible if you wish to win a Christian over to your beliefs.”
Arguing with anyone who makes excuses as to why he will not recognize truth - even resorting to sola scriptura when scripture no where supports sola scriptura - just confirms that you are not interested in the truth.
“Millions of people are fooled by many doctrines and religious leaders. If you cannot defend your doctrine from Scripture, for yourself, do you realize that you may one of the deceived.”
I am not one of the deceived. Do you realize you have deceived yourself? Again, tell me the last time you read the Bible for yourself in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
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.