Posted on 04/14/2011 9:21:51 AM PDT by marshmallow
AS WELL AS
ignoring Holy Spirit’s attempts to lead them into all truth about The Word and life in Christ.
Scripture and the sayings of the Church Fathers are NOT co-equal.
Some of the Fathers' saying were good...some not inspired at all.
However, Scripture is ALWAYS inspired. Therefore, when a Father says something contradictory to Scripture it needs to be thrown out.
INDEED.
Incredible.
Rom 3:23 KJV - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ahhhh......but we do know this.
It's to be understood in the light of tradition [see Church Fathers above]and in concert with the rest of Scripture.
First of all, the angel Gabriel greeted Mary as "full of grace". One who has sinned is not "full of grace". Ever. Secondly, we know that a new born baby which dies in its mother's arms has not "sinned" in the sense in which St. Paul is speaking. Neither did Jesus "sin".
Thus the word "all" as used by St. Paul is meant as a generalized term for humanity as a whole.
The word "all" can have different meanings in Greek as it does in English.
There are examples elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV reads, "being filled with all unrighteousness.....,". Other versions of the Bible use ".....every kind of wickedness...."
Again, in the same book, Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26). However, we know that many will not be saved. Also, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally as this would make us like God.
Scripture must be understood in its entirety.
Which is why the Church Fathers are so important. They give us a window into the authentic meaning of Scripture.
Did Jesus sin?
Do people who have mental defects sin?
Here is where non Catholics chide Catholics for saying “all” doesn’t mean “all”.
Well, either the statements from Romans you posted are indeed a form if hyperbole, or else you and all the others who simply (seemingly) LOVE to go to those verses are claiming not only do people who are severely mentally retarded commit sin, but Jesus Christ Himself was a sinner.
After all, either “all” means “all” or it doesn’t. < /sarc>
Furthermore, your assertion that Scripture, which is directly inspired by God, can somehow not trump the traditions of men, who are by their very being fallible creatures, is ludicrous in the extreme and shows your own unthinking adherence to a dogma that is not Biblical.
Furthermore, you insist that Scripture divorced from tradition breeds division within Christendom, yet you do err in your understanding of Scripture. Christendom, by it's very nature, cannot be weakened or fractured due to it's central focus upon Jesus Christ, who is God in the Flesh. The same God who caused Paul to say this in Ephesians;
Eph 4:1-7 KJV - [1] I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, [2] With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [3] Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all. [7] But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.also told James that;
[17] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. - Jam 1:17 KJV.
For you to insist that Christendom can be fractured and weakened by the actions of mankind is insane and gives a fallen creature much more credit than he's due.
Christendom, composed of those believers who place their trust in Jesus Christ and HIM ALONE, has never weakened. They are the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said;
[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Mat 16:16-18 KJV
And while I'm at it, let's remind folks what Christ Himself said about traditions.
[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. [2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. [4] And [when they come] from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? [6] He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [10] For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: [11] But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. [12] And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. - Mar 7:1-13 KJV
See post # 64.
No, get it straight.
Paul wrote the words. Just like the evangelists wrote the Gospels.
Interpretation and as a result of that understanding (or lack thereof) always comes from the reader, not the author, when the author is no longer with us.
That's true for any document.
That's why one man reads the US Constitution to mean one thing and another man understands it to mean something different. As a result of this, we have appointed a body of men to rule on what it actually means.
It's the same for Scripture.
And unlike the US Supreme Court, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infallible in this matter.
She had no original sin because of the merits of Jesus her Savior.
More Roman Catholic tradition disguised as part of the Gospel.
Jesus had no sin because the sin nature which is passed down from Adam was not passed down to Christ. That is why it’s so important that Mary had known no man when Christ was conceived. That fact was the proof that the sin nature had not been passed down to Christ.
That sin nature is what prevents us from being capable of being sinless, and it’s absence is what allowed Christ to become the perfect, sinless atonement in our place.
Did somebody force you to read this thread and get exposed to dogma?
Catholicism and Mormon are very different. Starting with the Christology of those respective faiths.
All I see in post #64 is a post of errors.
Only Christ was sinless, and only because did not inherit the sin nature as all other men do. Children who die before reaching the point where they can accept or reject Christ are judged by God according to His wisdom but even if they are cast into hell, which I don’t think is the case, God is justified in doing so because of our fallen nature.
I would bring up the point that the Bible itself answers the question.... The fact she and Joseph were angry at the young Jesus forbeing in the temple for days without them knowing it, shows Mary was not perfect and sinless ...(1) If, in fact, we look to the Bible for answers, "angry" is not in the Bible. 'Being angry' is an extra-scriptural interpretation of this passage. I'll grant you 'astonished' and 'anxious' (NIV), but not angry.
(2) For argument's sake, even if 'angry,' what makes anger per se a sin? Was not Jesus 'angry' -- in the extra-biblical sense, of course -- when he 'cleansed the temple'? If so, can only divine persons be 'angry'?
... she would have known exactly where he was because she would have been sinless and perfect and understood this being that way
3) I'm curious about equating sinlessness and omniscience. Is ignorance sinful?
God bless.
The misunderstanding arises from the older meaning of the verb "to pray" - it originally meant simply to ask. When we "pray" to a saint (or to the Blessed Virgin), we are not worshiping that saint - we are simply asking him or her to join us in praying to Jesus.
At the end of the Rosary, the final prayer makes this quite clear:
"Pray for us, holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ."
"Let us pray [i.e. we haven't been praying in the newer sense before].
"O God, who by the life, death, and resurrection of thine only begotten Son, hath gained for us the fruits of everlasting life: grant that we, in meditating upon the mysteries of the holy Rosary, may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise; through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."
It's that time thing again. The great saints in heaven stand outside time, and they can be asked to pray with us and for us, just as we might ask a particularly righteous friend on earth to join us in prayer.
How is it provocative to show what the fathers of the early Church believed? Just becuase your sect decided to jettison 1500 years of Christian belief regarding Mary does not mean all share in that error.
Orthodox and Catholic rightly give Theotokos the honor that is due to her and hold fast to the constant teaching that she was without sin.
Now since the Orthodox do not have the same belief regarding Original Sin they do not believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception but they do believe she was without personal sin. The matter of the Blessed Virgin and ancestral sin I am not qualified to comment on.
"It's the usual muddle about times, Pole."
- C.S. Lewis
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.