Posted on 04/14/2011 9:21:51 AM PDT by marshmallow
I’m thinking this one has at least 500 posts in it, if not more. Put me down for 500 posts by Sunday morning, say 10:00 AM.
That same writing, which was breathed by God Himself, is read and understood by us but interpreted by the Holy Spirit, who authored the original document…The Holy Spirit, not the Church, is infallible…
Would the infallible Holy Spirit interpret the same scripture in very different ways?
If you and I say the Holy spirit interprets a particular passage in different ways, which is then to become the Christian faith?
Is it now? Have you ever attended a Pentecostal snake service? I have.
Pentecostals don't worship snakes and you full well know it. Next time, try an attack that's at least somewhat rooted in reality.
Here's what I full well know: no Catholics worship Mary. I also know that the regard for Mary goes back right to Apostolic times, including the early Church Fathers. I know that the Eucharistic celebration goes back to the Apostolic Fathers as well. I know that the Gospel and Acts writer Luke wrote the first icon of Mary. I know that the Septuagint was the OT of choice of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the Church to this day. I know that those who reject the Church given full authority by Christ differ from Simon Magus, those who rejected Jesus after being told about eating His body and drinking His blood, those who create or listen to another gospel not told to them by the Church and those who attack the Church incessantly and with the vilest untruths, only in degree and tactics, but not in motivation.
In dealing with those who spurn the Church, especially those who were of the Faith and then rejected it, I have normally seen at least 4 of the 7 deadly sins indulged in, and sometimes all seven. I shall list them for you:
Pride. Envy. Gluttony. Lust. Anger. Greed. Sloth.
To take this to the impersonal, I will say that I think that Martin Luther only showed six. Calvin, arguably five. I don't think that Calvin indulged in either gluttony or sloth. But he more than made up for it in the remainder...
There is a difference between personal sin, which is what I was talking about, and the sin inherited from Adam (original sin).
Actually its good you can now see that the passage in Romans is better understood as not referring to personal sin, but rather the collective sin of Adam. I believe marshmallow was trying to make that point to you before. At any rate, from this understanding you now seem to posess, it’s quite simple for you to find agreement with the Church on this point. To whit:
Yes Mary needed a Savior like all of us, but he Original Sin was never allowed to affect her. So, even if one is a rigid absolutist when it comes to Rom 3:23 et al, one can still agree with the Church. (so long as one does not confuse that sin with personal sin, as so many critics of Mary do while gleefully posting references such as Rom 3:23)
Now, if for example you and I disagree upon the interpretation of Scripture, that means one of three possible things has happened.
1. You have incorrectly interpreted Scripture. 2. I have incorrectly interpreted Scripture. 3. We both have incorrectly interpreted Scripture.
The way we solve this issue is, as Scripture instructs, to interpret Scripture with Scripture. Whichever of our ideas agrees with the rest of Scripture is the one which is right. Tradition has no place here.
No you're not. Not unless he's on the phone to you.
You.......that's right ......you, are reading Scripture and filtering its words through your mind. Just as when you read any document.
What is understood, is the work of your intellect. That's where the Church Fathers come in. They don't replace Scripture. They help to shed light on it. Instead of our own feeble minds, we have the help of these holy men.
St. Peter himself says (regarding some of St. Paul's letters)......
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 2Peter 3: 15-16
Hard to be understood!
Look for enlightenment amongst those men who immediately followed the Apostles.
That's the cloud of witnesses who are ready to intercede on our behalf. Because we are all members of the family of Christ, we can ask the Blessed Virgin, or St. Padre Pio, or St. Paul, or St. Therese, to pray for us. The prayers of a righteous man (or woman - the Greek says "a righteous (one)") avail much. How much more so one who is already a saint?
Only when dealing with men.
Did you sleep through debate class or are you just this intellectually stunted?
Nope, I just consider the opponent.
Can you not make a clear, concise attack on the points or are you just relegated to using talking points.
What points are you making? I only see a mindless regurgitation of 150 year old antiCatholic screeds. Were there actual points in there?
Alinsky, is that you? I didn't know we had such a liberal great amongst us here.
The company you look like you are keeping represents the finest minds ever to come crawling out of the unelectrified swamps forgotten even by the revenooers.
The way we solve this issue is, as Scripture instructs, to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
But how do we do this? We cannot put Scripture, or the Holy Spirit, on the witness stand.
Do we reason it out or does the Holy Spirit interpret?
So, in other words, you can’t find any Christians claiming sinlessness for Mary until nearly 400 years after the fact?
I'm going to call your bluff here. Time, date and location or it didn't happen. I, personally, have grown up around Pentecostals and even snake-handlers and I know, from 30 years of personal experience, that you're lying about Pentecostals worshiping snakes.
The rest of your post is, frankly, Roman Catholic claptrap unfit for lining a birdcage. I never said that we, as Christians, shouldn't call Mary blessed, just that she wasn't sinless. Your little screed about Simon Magus, Calvin and Martin Luther matter little to me as well, since I'm not a Calvinist, Luthernist or any other type of traditional Reformed Protestant. If you actually did know as much as you claim to know about Pentecostals and other Fundamentalists like myself, you'd know we reject Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant doctrines equally if they don't line up with Scriptures.
So until you come back with something more than that, I'm finished with you. You've proven that you have no clue as to what you're talking about and debating you is, literally, throwing pearls before swine.
Somewhere along the line, after the Reformation, the Saints in Heaven portion of the Communion of Saints (as in the creeds) became lost among some Christian churches.
The new variations include the dead are asleep, or the Saints in Heaven are not in communion or can't hear, etc. As long as this difference remains, even after agreeing on the meaning of pray and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, there will still be a divide.
thank you both for your posts.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I see it like this. If you and I disagree but honestly approach the Holy Spirit with the matter and allow Him to straighten us out, He will do so and there will be no disunity. If we still disagree, then we need to go back to my earlier logic tree and see where we were in error. This is why I see good things, as well as error, in all denominations. We've all fallen short, it's our nature.
There are over 117 different versions of Jesus and only one of them is correct. ;) It’s the Catholic version.
I’m not making it personal, I’m challenging his account of events. Logic dictates that those who bring an accusation hold the burden of proof in the matter. He’s provided no proof, therefore his accusations are false until such a time as he provides that proof. There are clearly visible falsehoods in his testimony and I’ve challenged him on those grounds.
Oh, you are mistaken. It is a general truth that protestantism causes and perpetuates socialism and Communism.
Were you thinking of this?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
I understand it very well. Nothing in those passages means that Christ would have had inherited a sin nature had he not been born of a virgin. Jesus is, was and always shall be God.
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.