Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
click here to read article
What part of "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" do you have a problem with? All means all. All men and all women. Are you playing a game? All. We get our sin nature through both our parents. Christ preserved Mary from sin, He saved her before she was born, thus she was fully human, without stain of sin; so He could be born Son of God, fully human and fully God. Why is that so hard to understand?
If it were not possible for Jesus to be carried inside a sinful human because of contamination of sin when He Himself was God Himself, then how could a human such as Mary be carried in her sinful mother's womb without contamination of sin from HER mother?
Mary didn't need to be sinless to carry Jesus any more than Mary's mother had to be sinless to carry Mary, if Mary were to be born without sin as the Catholics say.
If Mary's sinful mother could carry Mary without contaminating her,a mere human, with sin, then a sinful Mary could carry God Incarnate without contaminating HIM with sin.
OK, back to this question....Can the Almighty exist as a developing fetus, with umbilical cord exchanging blood and nutrients, inside a sinful mother?
How almighty is a god who can be contaminated by contact with a sinful person?
I'm sorry your God is so weak that He can't handle that.
Sin is not transferred by contact with sinful people. If that were the case, Mary herself could not have been born sinless. Even if she had been and Jesus had been born sinless for that reason, and physical contact with sin is what transferred sin, then when He started His ministry and touched sinful people to heal them, He ought to have contracted sin through that physical contact.
Sin cannot contaminate Jesus or He would not have remained pure when He bore the sins of the world and took the penalty for them. But Jesus' teaching is that it is not what is outside a man which defiles him. It's what comes from the heart.
Matthew 15:10-20 10And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." 12Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." 15But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." 16And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."
How do you reconcile this:
“But SCRIPTURE clearly says that the sin nature comes through the man.” Your post 6877
“Sin is not transferred by contact with sinful people.” Your post 6882.
You contradict yourself.
Well, at least she's got SOME Scripture to support her position, which is far better than the none that the Catholics have to support the sinlessness of Mary.
Basic Christianity 101? Let me remind you that Jewishness is matrilinear. Sin nature passed through the father? There is no evidence that it is exclusive. Is there anything that you guys get right about Christianity?
Genesis 22:17-18 17I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
Genesis 26:3-5 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
Galatians 3:7-9 7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Just where do you get that Jewishness is matrilineal? Which genealogies in the Bible support that?
Scripture reference please.She still needed her Savior, Christ was her Savior as He is ours.
If she never sinned, she didn't need a savior.
Eh, no. A bishop is a bishop and remains a bishop till he dies, not unlike any royalty. Appointment and removal of bishops to dioceses is a complex and collegial process, which is not to the sole discretion of the Pope. He certainly cannot remove a bishop at will -- I wish he removed quite a few, in this country, by the way.
Bishop is not a job, -- bishops do not get hired or fired.
Moving on to the rest of your adjacent post(s)
When did the Greek Church, if they have done so yet, adopt an English language Bible?
Why would a Greek Church need any English Bible? In case you misspoke, the official translation of the Latin Catholic Churches everywhere is St. Jerome's Latin. Douay happens to be a word-for-word that. For the use of the Bible in the Holy Liturgy there is a committee in each language group deciding on that. In English, at least, in the US, the translation is, most unfortunately, NAB Catholic edition. But that does not make it "official". Every one is free to use whichever translation suits him best. NAB has one advantage, it is easy to understand by ear, and that is the compelling reason it was chosen for Bible readings from the Ambo.
I don’t contradict myself at all.
Sin comes from within, from the heart as Jesus taught.
It is not transmitted like a disease. It’s inherent in us as humans with a human sinful father.
“Mary was preserved from that by Christ Jesus, her Savior, before she was born.”
Again, all I ask for is a Scriptural citation, not a repetition of a claim. If it’s true, show me in Scripture; I might be more convinced.
“It appears that you (plural) are simply playing gotcha, forgetting that we Catholics are not limited as you are to Holy Scripture, but also have Holy Tradition to guide us.”
If the “gotcha” refers to the inability to provide actual, inspired, scriptural support, then, well —
And it shows. As for “Holy Tradition” — nothing “holy” about it. So, if that is considered a limitation, praise God Almighty for that limitation; I thank Him that I am limited to Him and Him alone for my salvation, my existence, and my future! I thank Him that He is all I need.
And THAT is in Scripture.
Sadly, it does seem to be a fruitless discussion; but we persist hoping that The Lord will open the eyes blinded by “Holy Tradition” and awaken hearts and minds to Him and Him alone.
You realize that before the Magnificat prayer got into St. Luke's gospel, St. Luke had to find out from somebody what did the prayer say?
Further, that the Magnificat and the fact that Mary adopted John, and a few others, are in the scripture does not mean that the only thing Sts Luke and John knew about her is wholly contained in the scriptures that they wrote. St. John, in fact, writes that he did not write down everything Chirst did -- what makes you think in the case of Mary all he knew were the Wedding at Cana?
Yes, that is true. At the Last Supper Jesus celebrated a Mass in reverse: rather than bringing His sacrifice to us across time AFTER it occurred, as He does at each contemporary Mass, He brought His sacrifice across time to the Apostles BEFORE it occurred.
“Just where do you get that Jewishness is matrilineal? Which genealogies in the Bible support that?”
There are no genealogies in support of the idea. It comes from the interpretations of Deut. 7:1-5 made by Orthodox Jews.
But those verses are God’s command to remove certain peoples from the Promised Land and form no marriages with them. It says NOTHING about inheriting anything from anyone.
In short, “ Let me remind you that Jewishness is matrilinear.”, is a Talmudic invention.
The Holy Scripture is inerrant as written by the original authors at the time they wrote them with the intention they wrote them, for the audience they intended. This does not mean our understanding of the scripture today is inerrant, but we have tools to approximate it by referring to the interpretation we can glean from the Fathers of the Church.
Reading the scripture according to the Protestant charlatan-a-day is virtually guaranteed to be false since they assume their own interpretative authority in the light of, at the oldest, traditions of 15c, which is after any cultural continuity with the Apostolic times was long lost.
And we should also consider,
"How shall we neglect so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3),
by so great a love (Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us": (1Jn. 4:10),
at so great a cost ("He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,..: Rm. 8:32),
to save so great a multitude" (for God so loved the world..": Jn. 3:16)
through so great a grace ("to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness": Rm. 4:5),
with so great a forgiveness ("having forgiven you all trespasses": Col. 2:13),
and so great a sanctification, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:" 2 Thessalonians 2:13) ,
and so great a deliverance, ("Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" Colossians 1:13),
to so great expectation ("But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. " 1 Corinthians 2:9),
and so great a realization (And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new." "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him. Rev. 2:4,5; 22:3),
for so great an eternity... ("And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. " John 10:28; "and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1Thes. 4:17)
"And we have seen
and do testify
that the Father
sent the Son
to be the Saviour
of the world. " (1 John 4:14)
You might be edified by the Creation to Consummation poem also. To God be the glory. Amen
That is such a strange belief. Sin doesn't come from both parents, but ONLY the father? Makes no sense, since both are equally sinners. However, it seems like a convenient belief for a cult that insists that Mary didn't need to be preserved from all stain of sin to be the Mother of God. No wonder.
The further away from the Scriptures your speculations drift, the more fantastical they become. And I might add, the more amusing.
“He brought His sacrifice across time to the Apostles BEFORE it occurred.”
Jewishness has been matrilinear for millennnia; the exact origins of that are unclear, and have several biblical references. A discussion of this can be found at:
That site refers to the same verses in Deut. that I did and in addition to the incident in Ezra when the Israelites sent the foreign wives and their children away.
NOTHING in either place speaks to Jewishness being matrilinear. In fact the history of the nation is just the opposite per Moses taking a wife from Midian and all of his descendants are counted as part of the nation.
Again it is an invention of Talmudic interpretation.
The primary diference in this context is the Church is given authority by Christ.
Not the individual member, but the Apostolic Church. We see this in Acts in the first council and following councils and continuously throughout the history of the Church.
A question and illustrative example, when an Calvinist and a non-Calvinist disagree, how do they take it to the church?
When you and I disagree about the meaning of scripture, which of our views is the Christian view?
And, finally, do you say, credo: in One Holy and Apostolic Church?
If so, what does it mean to you? What did it mean when it was decided in Council?
Yes, I believe the "church" was given authority by Jesus, but the question should be to whom was meant by the church and how long was this authority to remain with them?
In the first century, there were apostles who along with designated disciples started local churches. They ensured that there were leaders who were grounded in the faith. We see that even from the first, there were challenges to the orthodox faith. I believe the Holy Scriptures - the Bible - was given as the authority and from when it was first being written, it gradually substituted for the apostolic authority once the individual apostles died. Their founded churches then proceeded to send out evangelists who, in turn led people to Christ, trained their leaders and established new local churches. So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith". Certainly the early councils had a place while the Scriptures were being written and circulated and their proclamations were circulated throughout the regions as well.
There have been and will continue to be disagreement with certain stances on doctrine, but we have the Bible as our guide and authority on matters critical to the faith. A Calvinist has come to certain conclusions about some things that I differ with, but not all Calvinists believe all the teachings of Calvin on all things and some even go way past what Calvin even dreamed of in some areas (hyper-Calvinism). Regardless, we still agree on the major tenets of the Christian faith and that is what really matters. Certainly you can concede that not everything a Christian can think or believe in the minor areas is in black and white in Scripture and I think as long as we "get" the important stuff right, we will be able to get along just fine. There should be liberty on the nonessential.
Finally, when I have said the Apostles' Creed, I understand that "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" means the universal body of believers in Christ that ARE one in him and the teachings of the Apostles are still being taught and believed - the Bible is the way we know that.
Actually, I'm done trying to explain this. That you cannot see my point about "spin" after numerous attempts to explain only proves that maybe you can't or won't see it, I don't know, only you can answer it. But I'm done wasting both our time on it. Thanks for the sparring.