Forum Post on The Bible and Salvation (2)

The Bible and Salvation

(cont'd from page one.


Schneiddog,

You say that you haven't overlooked my arguments. I'm still waiting for a refutation of my argument based on Deuteronomy 23.

It appears that you are seriously confused about the Immaculate Conception. Mary did in fact need a savior. The grace that preserved her from original sim came directly from Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

Maru needed a savior because it was Jesus Christ that saved her from the stain of original sin.

When Jesus is saving someone, that person still has a sinful nature because of the effects (not the stain) of original sin. That is why Christians still have a fallen human nature.

And that brings me right back to my argument from Deuteronomy 23 and my argument from theology.

Mary was "asved" from inherenting a sinful human nature by God's grace. To answer you question, Mary never had a sinful nature, that is what the Immaculate Conception is all about.

Yet you still say, "... there is no biblical teaching for the churches postion." Well, I consider Deuteronomy 23 very biblical.

You finish your posting by going off track and throwing out other Catholic/Protestant issues. I'd love to discuss those other issues, but for now, let's stay on the topic.

I'm still waiting for a refutation of my arguments.

Your younger brother in Christ,

autoexec.batman


It isn't fair for you to assume that my heart is hard. I have been listening to you. You assume because I don't agree with you I have a hard heart, I could say the same of you. You have to understand that many people from this forum have been addressing me, also and there has been contradictions in what people here have been telling me. One says Mary was a sinner, the other says she was not. Can you understand my frustration? The truth is there is a pharasee's heart in all of us, that is our sinful nature. I don't expect you guys to be perfect, I don't even expect you to believe me. But no one has convinced me here of anything, maybe that some are sincere, and some are not. I do appreciate your time though, and I sincerely hope that you that you will seek God in all truth. If you think you already are, you never will. None of us understands completly, and those who think they do are destined to fall. I'm sure you know this and i want you to know I am praying for you and I want you to do the same for me.
Sincerely, Adam


I can see how you can make the assumption that Mary was sinnles using Dueteronomy 23, but your arrgument is just that, an assumption. You see God can't be tarnished by sin in any way. You are assuming he can. ie. by being born from a sinner. Besides, you only have an arguement, not a biblical teaching. Where in the bible does it even imply that Mary was perfect. 1 kings 8:46 Their is no man who does not sin. The bible never exludes anyone from sin. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All means all mankind.


Finally, we are getting back to where we should have been all along: comparing and critiquing our evidences.

Now, you state that my argument is an assumption. Perhaps I wasn't 100% clear in my presentation of my argument. Here is what I hope is a clearer presentation of it:

1.Deuteronomy 23 states that a Jew must be cleansed and free of all generational sin before entering the Temple.
2.Mary is much more than the Temple because she carried inside of her divinity itself.
3.The situation of Mary and Jesus is analogous to a Jew and the Temple.
4.The generational sin of Deuteronomy 23 is analogous to original sim in it's transmission and consequences (exclusion from the prescence of God).
5.Therefore, Mary must have been free fron the stain of original sin.
6.Original sin is transmitted when a human being is conceived.
7.Therefore, in order for #1,#2, and #3 to be all true, Mary must have been immaculately conceived.

You said that this argument is based on assumption. What then have I assumed?

I agree with you completely that God can't be tarnishe by sin in any way. But that isn't the point of my argument from theology. Let me format that argument too more clearly:

1.Jesus Christ was sinless
2.Jesus Christ was both 100% divine and 100% human
3.His two natures were in complete harmony with one another.
4.Number 3 would be impossible if His human nature was a fallen one.
5.His divinity He always had as the second person of the Holy Trinity.
6.His humanity He got entirely from Mary.
7.Therefore, for #2, #3, and #6 to be all true, Mary's humanity had to be unfallen.
8.Fallen humanity is a consequence of original sin
9.Original sin is imparted to a human being upon conception.
10.In order for #7, #8, and #9 to be true, Mary had to have been immaculately conceived.

You said in reference to my argument from Deuteronomy 23 is that all I have is an argument and not biblical teaching. Read Acts 15. One of the ways we determine what is biblical teaching is biblical arguments.

You cited a scripture verse that, from your point of view, prove that everyone who ever lived sinned. That is 99.9999999999999% true. However, I can think of two exceptions that you and I can agree upon: Jesus Christ and children below the age of reason.

Thanks for you response,

your brother in Christ,

autoexec.batman


Do you believe we inherited a sinful nature from Adam and Eve?


Adam, I am responding on this thread because the part of my response which you didn't understand is about salvation. My responses tend to be of the emotional rather than academic type. When I read your statement (paraphrasing-I can't cut and paste) that we play no part in our salvation which is strictly a gift, I could only think but what thanks have we for the Giver. It was that simple.
It was not so much that I was saying you aren't humble; as I was marvelling at how we should all be humbled by the most precious Gift that we are offered by our Lord. It is certainly not something to be taken for granted.
That was pretty much it. I'll lay low now, as you have plenty of others on the forum keeping you busy.
God Bless, Kelly


Schneiddog,

Back to the basics we go. I see where this is going, and to tell you the truth, I'm glad. By starting off with the very basics of the gospel which we both believe (the good news about Jesus) and then progressing toward those specific things that separate us, we can discuss this and other doctrines more intelligently and in-depth than in an apologetic exchange (don't give me wrong, they definitely have a context in which to be engaged).

With that said, I will answer your question. Yes, I do believe that we all inhereted a sinful nature from Adam and Eve. By that I mean that the human race is deprived of oringinal holiness and justice. I do not believe in the "total depravity of man" doctrine. I don't believe human nature has been totally corrupted. Lastly, that sinful nature includes an inclination to sin, known as "concupiscence". That last statement was what you were probably most interested in.

If you have a copy of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, all the above is stated in Paragraph 405.

Your brother in Christ,

autoexec.batman


Adam, (I hope that is correct, :) )

I don't know if anyone has posted this already or not, but here is St. Thomas Aquinas' biblical formulation for the sinlessness of Mary.

(Summa Theologiae III:27:4):

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: '(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.' Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): 'Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,' etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: 'The glory of children are their fathers': and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): 'What concord hath Christ with Belial?' Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the 'Divine Wisdom' (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): 'Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.'

"We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: 'Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,' etc. "

Hope that clarifies why the Church holds the sinlessness of Mary, a very biblical argument.


I understand the church's view. But the bible never says she was worthy of anything, but blessed. Still Mary being sinnless goes against Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.


I'm only going to make a couple of points than I am going to get out of this discussion because I don't have the time it takes to respond to posts.

First, I think that St. Thomas has shown that scripture does prove that Mary remained sinless, though not of her own accord, only through the grace of God. And as others have said, Jesus did not sin, therefore the "all" does not apply to Him, there are exceptions.

Gabriel's greeting to Mary, in many translations, reads "Hail, full of grace". Full means totally full, not partially full. She is totally full of God's grace and therefore He has preserved her from sin. God so filled her with His graces as to guide her through a sinless life.

And, I humbly submit that if you cannot atleast contemplate the teachings as put forth by St. Thomas, which obviously you did not since your reply demonstrates that no time for serious thought was allowed, that no one will be able to truly converse with you in a manner of open discourse for obviously your end is totally closed. And I for one wouldn't even attempt to think I could present theology more accurately than him.


I have defineltly contemplated everything I have read here. You said Jesus didn't sin, the reason for that was Jesus was God. Mary was a human anly therfore she sinned.


I would like to ask you about Dt.23. If you do not mind. I was following your posts and I began reading it. I did not find what you were saying about Mary in there, under the covenant.

It seems to me and my friend, that that scripture applied to bastard children. So that would not apply to everyone. Would you mind discussing this under a new thread under Scripture?

I'll create one there, if you would not mind.


This is a repeat on a previous post of mine. Since you ignored it the first time, maybe a second time around will make it past your prejudices.

Let's look at the verse you quoted.

Romans 3:23 .... "All have sinned ...."; we view Mary and Jesus as exceptions to this. The word "all" (pas in Greek) does not always means "every single one without exception." Some common examples .... "all Israel will be saved," (Romans 11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. Romans 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV) ... but we know they don't know every single thing without exception. 1 Cor 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" .... but we know every single person on earth without exception won't be "made alive".

Hundreds of similar examples can be brought forth. "All" doesn't always mean everyone and everything with no exceptions.


Funny, I was just browsing a page yesterday which highlighted at least 2 dozen examples of the conflicting way the word "ALL" is used in Holy Scripture..wish I had bookmarked it.

In any event, Adam, that point can be easily made; there are 4,692 instances where the word "all" appears in the bible. Do you claim here that the meaning is exclusively the same each & every time?

Roni


Adam,

You contradict yourself. You say that only God can make the determination of people's salavation, but you go on to say that the Church has damaged people's final destiny. How can that be.

Now, as for your citation of verses that "prove" Jesus is God, I whole heartedly agree with you. I believe as the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught, for 2,000 years, that Jesus is God. However, there are thousands - maybe millions - who would take issue with how you interpret those verses. They can put their own spin on it. I'm not going to go into all the defenses that I've heard...lest they be taken as my own - and the Church's - position. I just want to make you aware that the Bible alone falls apart, because each person can take their own SUBJECTIVE opinion of what a particular verse or passage means. With no means to settle this dispute except one's own self, there is no guarantee that truth will absolutely be found.

I want you to take some time and actually think about what we're saying here....don't just try to answer everyone's responses to you so that they are answered, but try to UNDERSTAND the position, and the spirituality behind it.

There really is alot that even the Catholic does not see or realize about his/her own Church....so, what are we to think about the person who views the Church merely from the outside?

Instead of saying..."I don't see that!"...ASK.."Where can I find that?" Trust me, it makes a world of difference in understanding where someone is coming from. I've struggled to find out where many Protestants I speak to on the 'net are "coming from", and have done so by listening - not merely to their words - but the meaning gathered from those words.

Unless you gather the MEANING, we will continue to have just arguments here, and no progress. If you just want to have arguments...I suggest you cease and desist now, because those on this forum, and those who come to read this forum will not be swayed - they are informed, and seek deeper answers. IF you are interested in true progress to understanding, then, by all means, continue...with a mind and heart that seeks to understand.

I pray that you will remain here, and seek to understand.

God bless, Matt


The word all might not always mean all, but the only reason Jesus wasn't included in that is that he was God. That verse was talking about all of us and does not exclude Mary.


Schneiddog,

Using that kind of logic, infants and children below the age of reason aren't excluded either. That causes a dilemma since the Bible clearly states that intent and knowledge of the sinful nature of an act are necessary for a sin to have been committed.

May the grace and presence of the Holy Trinity be with you all,

Autoexec.batman


Where does the bible state that "knowledge and intent of an act are necessary for sin to have been commited'?


I don't want to sound rude, but you are assuming that I am not seeking the "deeper" meaning. That is not the truth. The truth is I have been listening and trying to understand your churches position. Some things I have heard have been good, others bad. Please don't assume that just because other people haven't tried to understand your arguments that that means I haven't. You are right in saying that it is easy for people to come up with esoteric interperations of scripture. So, how do you know the catholic church hasn't done that? In case there has been any offense, let me reaffirm that I believe that any one who trusts in the Lord alone for salvation will be saved. And I believe I have communicated with people on this forum who trust him, alone for salvation.


No, I don't claim the word all means the same thing every time, but if you read it in contextwith the bible taeaching on mankinds falleness." there is none righteous, no not one". Romans3:10. Obviously this cant include Jesus, considering he was God. But it does include Mary.Romans 3:9


I don't want to sound rude, but you are assuming that I am not seeking the "deeper" meaning. That is not the truth. The truth is I have been listening and trying to understand your churches position.

Adam, I am very glad of that. I love to be wrong in that respect. I guess I was just taking a different tone from some of your messages to others. In any case, I'm glad to see that the tone of the messages seems to have changed.

I know that, for me, I get weary sometimes, discussing and defending the same things over and over again; and, at times, it seems that non-Catholic Christians have listened too much to what others who have a particular adgenda have said about the Church. When someone says, the Catholic Church is not a biblical church, I can't help but take some offense in that. I think that the first question that needs to be answered is "What is the Bible?" That is something I think this thread has been established to address.

It is certainly honorable and worthy of praise that non-Catholic Christians accept the Bible as the written, inspired word of God. And I, along with the Church, would not hold a contrary position. Indeed, the Church has called the Bible "our most sacred family heirloom." And have further exclaimed that "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." We must not take those words lightly.

However, I don't believe that God has abandoned us to our own skills and logic in discovering His Will for us solely through the Scriptures. He has given us a further gift to guide us to Him, which is the Church. Further, "He hath set some in the Church, first apostles...." (cf. 1 Cor 12) He has given certain gifts to men, and divided them accordingly, as the Spirit sees fit... and all are for the whole body, which is the Church.

Additionally, we know that the Church is a Divine entity. Men are joined to that entity, but it remains, nevertheless, Divine; and therefore protected by the Spirit. We can, therefore, look at the Traditional (big 'T') interpretations and explanations that have been present for nearly 2,000 years, in order to reconcile our personal beliefs with those of the Apostles and those who learned directly from them. We do not hold that any of these are necessarily individually infallible, but, they all come together to form and present a preserved teaching Tradition that is available for us to learn from - allowing us to gain a deeper understanding of the divine mysteries of God, that we may not be led to on our own.

This is how the Bible and Tradition work together, to provide a full and solid revelation. Some of the "later developed" doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church are the result of development of understanding. The seeking of deeper meaning and devotion to the Word. It is a devotion that looks beyond the words, to the deeper sense of what those words mean. This is where Tradition and Scripture come together and form a fuller profession of Faith.

So, how do you know the catholic church hasn't done that [come up with their own interpretation]?

As I stated above, I believe that the Tradition of the Church (of which Scripture is a part; though exalted above every other Tradition [cf. 2 Thess 2:15]) is available throughout history, and we can see, even in the canonization of Scripture, the development toward a deeper understanding. I believe this deeper understanding is available through the Spirit, promised by Christ Jesus to "lead you into all truth." The Spirit does not merely lead the individual, but leads the Church as a whole. Because of this, the Church is protected further, by the Spirit. There will not be a "new revelation" which contradicts that which has been previously proclaimed for all the faithful to adhere to. However, there can be 'deeper revelation' that further explains those things which may have only been previously hinted at.

...I believe that any one who trusts in the Lord alone for salvation will be saved. And I believe I have communicated with people on this forum who trust him, alone for salvation.

I believe that this is something that the Church very much teaches, and has for it's 2,000 year existence on earth. Where we might find disagreement - though maybe not - is on the issue of what "trust" entails. But, I think that's an issue that we took up on another thread.

God bless, Matt


Do you think Adam & Eve were created by God with Original Sin?


No, they were created in his image. Then they chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and set humanity under the curse.


Schneiddog,

One verse that teaches this is James 4:17:

"So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin."

Your brother in Christ,

autoexec.batman


We all sin daily. Alot of the things we do or attitudes we have are sin, but we don't even realize it.


Peace be to you and all through the grace and presence of the Holy Trinity,

I agree, since sin is rebellion against God (or simply falling short of His standard), sin is and act that must include the intent to (knowing full well that a particular thought or act is against God's will). That's the point I tried to communicate.

But you are right in a sense, sometimes it's a sin to not know better. That is a willful disregard for God's law, and thus a sin by definition.

Your brother in Christ,

autoexec.batman


Scripture is something that needs to be lived out. Jesus put great emphasis on this, even summing up the entire Jewish Bible of his day--"the Law and the Prophets"--in the two commandments of loving God and loving neighbor. Isn't there still today the danger of studying Scripture without living it out, or living out only selected passages (as some Pharisees did in Jesus' day) and forgetting the most important, liberating norms? Faith without works: dead.


We were born under the curse of sin, inheriting a sinful nature.


You are exactly right captain4,

Becoming a "bookish" Christian is a real danger. That's why we must pray to the Holy Trinity for the grace to make us radical followers of Jesus Christ. We should also pray for our young ones. The devil plays for keeps.

autoexec.batman


I agree 100%. What I was trying to do on that earlier posting of mine was to go more in-depth as to what that exactly means.

May the grace and presence of the Holy Trinity be with you,

autoexec.batman


Are you willing, then, to argue that someone who has never been exposed to christianity has no chance of salvation?


As far as the Bible teaches, "he who has the Son has life, he who does not have the son does not have life". Thats all I know from scriprure. I just trust God with the rest.


You said:

As far as the Bible teaches, "he who has the Son has life, he who does not have the son does not have life". Thats all I know from scriprure. I just trust God with the rest.

Of course we must all trust in God & His infinite mercy.

Adam, do you need the bible for salvation?


You need Jesus for savaltion, the bible tells us that.


So you don't need the Bible for salvation?


Do you need the **book** for salvation?

Peace,

Roni


Go back to the: Justification or Bible Apologetics, or Mary Pages.