Question for Protestants

23,994 Views | 531 Replies | Last: 29 days ago by dermdoc
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:


Quote:

If the Bible doesn't mention it, I chalk that up as extra-Biblical and not worthy of being made into doctrine.

What if the doctrine is older than the canon?


It isn't. The canon only formalized what we already had in written scripture. We had the gospels written basically one generation after Christ. Before that, obviously oral communication was used as the early church was established.

Edit - probably didn't think that through entirely but doctrine was established during Christ's life on earth and as the church was formed with the first hand apostles. First with oral spoken instructions and then with the written scriptures we have today. I don't consider anything after that to be authoritative regarding our doctrine. If a "church father" in 80 AD came up with some theory that wasn't substantiated by the authors of scripture, we shouldn't be using it, in my opinion.

In our example, if church father Bob who lived in 80AD says Mary had a painless birth which proved her sinless life and none of the writers of scripture backed that up, it isn't something to run with. I suppose there was a time in the early centuries where they could maybe not be sure what was scripture and what wasn't, but the canon is what we now use for the official authority and at that time things may have needed to be reformed to align with scripture only.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

No, the Bible is our basis for doctrine. If it wasn't mentioned, we don't use other sources as doctrine.


Would you please tell me where the word "trinity" or the hypostatic union is found in scripture?
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:


Quote:

If the Bible doesn't mention it, I chalk that up as extra-Biblical and not worthy of being made into doctrine.

What if the doctrine is older than the canon?


Quote:

The reason the NT epistles were included in the Canon is due to their first hand apostleship and collaboration across other first hand apostles.
Where's that in the bible?

Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter in the canon?


Or the shepherd of hermas. Located in the muratonian fragment and codex sinaiticus
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Revelation was written in 96
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Which don't?


I'd say in the sense the phrase is used here, Anglicans don't by comparison. We live largely outside litigious Protestantism.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

It isn't. The canon only formalized what we already had in written scripture. We had the gospels written basically one generation after Christ. Before that, obviously oral communication was used as the early church was established.

Edit - probably didn't think that through entirely but doctrine was established during Christ's life on earth and as the church was formed with the first hand apostles.

I agree that the doctrine, the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the Apostles, i.e., "the faith" was given once for all to the saints. The problem is you don't know what the content of that teaching is. Scripture only gives us the limited words of 8 principal authors.

Does anywhere in the scriptures say that the books of the NT contain the entirety of the teaching of the Apostles?

Quote:

First with oral spoken instructions and then with the written scriptures we have today. I don't consider anything after that to be authoritative regarding our doctrine. If a "church father" in 80 AD came up with some theory that wasn't substantiated by the authors of scripture, we shouldn't be using it, in my opinion.

In our example, if church father Bob who lived in 80AD says Mary had a painless birth which proved her sinless life and none of the writers of scripture backed that up, it isn't something to run with. I suppose there was a time in the early centuries where they could maybe not be sure what was scripture and what wasn't, but the canon is what we now use for the official authority and at that time things may have needed to be reformed to align with scripture only.
Please give me chapter and verse where this approach to teaching is given in the scriptures.

Also - regarding the bold - does that mean that Christians in the early centuries were not and could not have been practicing and believing in sola scriptura?

You also didn't address this ---
Quote:

Quote:
The reason the NT epistles were included in the Canon is due to their first hand apostleship and collaboration across other first hand apostles.
Where's that in the bible?

Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter in the canon?

goatchze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Which don't?


Anglicans and those from that background, such as Methodists, are examples. I imagine if you dig down, many other older protestant denominations don't as well, though I am not an expert on denominations like the Lutherans. It's a common problem with terms; you have to truly know how the person using the term is defining it.

The term "prima scriptura" is often used to contrast "sola scriptura", especially in US churches where the distinction needs to be clear. This is the term preferred by Methodists for that very reason. But sometimes sola scriptura is still used, but with a meaning different from most evangelicals.

The real difference is whether scripture is regulative or normative in principle, which is what this whole Mary discussion hangs on.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was thinking anglicans but wasn't sure if they claimed sola scripture. Thanks
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

No, the Bible is our basis for doctrine. If it wasn't mentioned, we don't use other sources as doctrine.


Would you please tell me where the word "trinity" or the hypostatic union is found in scripture?
The actual word "trinity" is not called out in scripture. However to align to my earlier point, the church organizes concepts, doctrine, creeds and confessions all with the guidance of scripture itself. If the early church ran with this concept of the trinity and there was not substantial scripture to back up those claims, then it would obviously be in error.

Quote:

The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term, and we are not using biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a biblical doctrine in such unbiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view.
B.B. Warfield
"The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OK. And the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos also lies in scripture in solution. Actually stronger since it is called out in prophecy.

Who does the "crystallization" from the "solvent"?

And - who decides what is scripture to be crystallized?
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Quo Vadis? said:

10andBOUNCE said:

No, the Bible is our basis for doctrine. If it wasn't mentioned, we don't use other sources as doctrine.


Would you please tell me where the word "trinity" or the hypostatic union is found in scripture?
The actual word "trinity" is not called out in scripture. However to align to my earlier point, the church organizes concepts, doctrine, creeds and confessions all with the guidance of scripture itself. If the early church ran with this concept of the trinity and there was not substantial scripture to back up those claims, then it would obviously be in error.

Quote:

The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term, and we are not using biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a biblical doctrine in such unbiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view.
B.B. Warfield
"The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity"



That's all fine, to be clear Tertullian is the first person to describe the economy of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as a trinity but I more wanted to dig into how they arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity. How did they come to the understanding that there are three co-equal co-eternal persons of one substance but distinct in subsistence?

Also, please remember the hypostatic union.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:


Quote:

It isn't. The canon only formalized what we already had in written scripture. We had the gospels written basically one generation after Christ. Before that, obviously oral communication was used as the early church was established.

Edit - probably didn't think that through entirely but doctrine was established during Christ's life on earth and as the church was formed with the first hand apostles.

I agree that the doctrine, the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the Apostles, i.e., "the faith" was given once for all to the saints. The problem is you don't know what the content of that teaching is. Scripture only gives us the limited words of 8 principal authors.

Does anywhere in the scriptures say that the books of the NT contain the entirety of the teaching of the Apostles?

Quote:

First with oral spoken instructions and then with the written scriptures we have today. I don't consider anything after that to be authoritative regarding our doctrine. If a "church father" in 80 AD came up with some theory that wasn't substantiated by the authors of scripture, we shouldn't be using it, in my opinion.

In our example, if church father Bob who lived in 80AD says Mary had a painless birth which proved her sinless life and none of the writers of scripture backed that up, it isn't something to run with. I suppose there was a time in the early centuries where they could maybe not be sure what was scripture and what wasn't, but the canon is what we now use for the official authority and at that time things may have needed to be reformed to align with scripture only.
Please give me chapter and verse where this approach to teaching is given in the scriptures.

Also - regarding the bold - does that mean that Christians in the early centuries were not and could not have been practicing and believing in sola scriptura?

You also didn't address this ---
Quote:

Quote:
The reason the NT epistles were included in the Canon is due to their first hand apostleship and collaboration across other first hand apostles.
Where's that in the bible?

Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter in the canon?


Sorry, getting busy with some stuff so may not be able to spend a ton of time but do appreciate the conversation as always.

One major issue with the Gospel of Thomas is that there are only 3 Greek Manuscripts of it versus the 4 NT Gospels which have thousands of documented copies. This means that immediately the early church understood those to be authoritative and began copying it for its use and dissemination. Peter wasn't even discovered until 1945 in Egypt.

I have not read them personally, but I have also heard they portray a quite different version of Jesus as the 4 NT gospels as well as some different storylines such as an account of the resurrection and the cross floating out of the tomb. I also understand that Peter and Thomas was written far later than the others and also not written by an apostle or anyone that was in direct contact with an apostle.

In general, they just do not pass the test of what was used to discern what was the true word of God.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who did that test? Who is "the early church" that understood these things? And what were they testing the scriptures against?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.


AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

I only find one quite attributing sin to Mary, and it doesn't have a citation (#8). That's very convenient, as all the quotes with citations are comments on her error (not sin) regarding her losing Jesus as a child and not knowing that she should seek him in the temple. He is clearly positioning this as an attack on the infallibility of the Church. It is abundantly clear that he is saying that Mary is so much better than all of us, but even she made a mistake (not sin) when she lost Jesus. Maybe I read it too quickly. Do you see any attribution of sin to her outside of #8?

Here are the Augustinian and Ambrosian quotes (along with other, more vague references to Mary as the new Eve)
https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin

ETA: bearing the child without pain is a reference to her sinlessness. The pain of child bearing comes through Eve's sin. So Mary's painless child birth is noted to show she was not sharing in Eve's sin

I had a feeling you'd go to that one Augustine quote because that's really all there is.

It in fact does not say Mary was sinless. He makes the case that out of respect of Jesus he's not going to comment on Mary specifically.

However, and unfortunately for you, there are other writings of Augustine:

For example: https://ccel.org/ccel/s/schaff/npnf105/cache/npnf105.pdf Page 225

On Merits and Forgiveness chapter 47:

Quote:

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins.

On Merits and Forgiveness chapter 57:

Quote:

Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins.

There are more of course, that show that Augustine while making an exception not to make a judgement of Mary in that one quote, clearly never makes a further exception for her.

So no, your one quote does not prove anything other than Augustine did not want to comment further on her specifically.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Thats a humongous document. I'll look through this later to see if maybe I find anything that changes my mind. As for the way you presented it, I'm not convinced.

1. You ignored Ambrose
2. He just removed her from conversation out of respect for Jesus? So he doesn't have the same respect for the apostles? He notes that she must have had some abundance of grace for the overcoming of sin that no one else had. Why not give a bit more of a nod to the men that Jesus founded the Church on. Why were they not noted for being so abundantly blessed in grace to help the world know about how sin was defeated? In my opinion, this is really reading what you want to into a fairly clear line.
3. You quote from chapter 47 conveniently leaves out Eve in the story of how sin came into the world. "By one man" sin entered the world. And now, when considering humans since, never could it be "said that he had no sin at all" it appears to me this is obviously a generalization, and likely proof texting on your part, but I may be wrong and I will read it in context.
4. The last paragraph will also be one I will search for context on. I could clip "one alone is there who was born without sin" or I can read all of the other qualifiers listed to describe Jesus that Mary would not have.


I'm not just tossing out your post as a whole, but those are my initial qualms. I'll read more when I have time.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:



Thats a humongous document. I'll look through this later to see if maybe I find anything that changes my mind. As for the way you presented it, I'm not convinced.

1. You ignored Ambrose
2. He just removed her from conversation out of respect for Jesus? So he doesn't have the same respect for the apostles? He notes that she must have had some abundance of grace for the overcoming of sin that no one else had. Why not give a bit more of a nod to the men that Jesus founded the Church on. Why were they not noted for being so abundantly blessed in grace to help the world know about how sin was defeated? In my opinion, this is really reading what you want to into a fairly clear line.
3. You quote from chapter 47 conveniently leaves out Eve in the story of how sin came into the world. "By one man" sin entered the world. And now, when considering humans since, never could it be "said that he had no sin at all" it appears to me this is obviously a generalization, and likely proof texting on your part, but I may be wrong and I will read it in context.
4. The last paragraph will also be one I will search for context on. I could clip "one alone is there who was born without sin" or I can read all of the other qualifiers listed to describe Jesus that Mary would not have.


I'm not just tossing out your post as a whole, but those are my initial qualms. I'll read more when I have time.

Yeah...maybe instead of hunting out websites that cherry pick quotes you should actually read the Church Fathers....You might be surprised by what you find.

I do find it ironic, you accuse me of "quote clipping" when all you seemingly do is hunt websites.

But go ahead, what I pasted is the start of Chapter 57.

In fact, Here's the whole chapter...

Quote:


Chapter 57 [XXXV.]Turn to Neither Hand. Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. "Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left."640 For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one's sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. "God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,"641 even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; "but the ways on the left hand are perverse,"642 in friendship with sins. Of such inflexibility were those youths of twenty years,643 who foretokened in figure God's new people; they entered the land of promise; they, it is said, turned neither to the right hand nor to the left.644 Now this age of twenty is not to be compared with the age of children's innocence, but if I mistake not, this number is the shadow and echo of a mystery. For the Old Testament has its excellence in the five books of Moses, while the New Testament is most refulgent in the authority of the four Gospels. These numbers, when multiplied together, reach to the number twenty: four times five, or five times four, are twenty. Such a people (as I have already said), instructed in the kingdom of heaven by the two Testamentsthe Old and the Newturning neither to the right hand, in a proud assumption of righteousness, nor to the left hand, in a reckless delight in sin, shall enter into the land of promise, where we shall have no longer either to pray that sins may be forgiven to us, or to fear that they may be punished in us, having been freed from them all by that Redeemer, who, not being "sold under sin,"645 "hath redeemed Israel out of all his iniquities,"646 whether committed in the actual life, or derived from the original transgression.


Your comment on Eve shows how much you're stretching. Eve was formed before the fall in the garden. That does not mean she didn't sin (as we know she did). So while she may have been formed before sin entered teh world, she fell. Nobody is excluded.


AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can we define what a church father means?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.


Catholicism's calling gospel-believing Christ followers heretics is disgusting.

The reformation happened for a reason….
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgPrognosticator said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.


Catholicism's calling gospel-believing Christ followers heretics is disgusting.

The reformation happened for a reason….


I think you missed my point. And I did not call anyone a heretic. I said such beliefs were heretical in my opinion. Trying to point out that if it all comes down to each man and his Bible, which is inevitably where Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura must go, then on what basis can anyone say what is or is not dogma and doctrine? One man's dogma is another man's heresy.

Whether someone is a heretic is another matter entirely. I certainly don't know anyone's mind well enough to know if they are a heretic.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Broad category of influential theologians and writers, generally all are considered saints, going from the time of the apostles up to the time of St John of Damascus who is considered the last church father.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



No, God gave us a church enlightened by the Holy Spirit to discern which among the numerous epistles, letters, journals, and stories were God-breathed, and then empowered the same church with the proper hermeneutic to convey the orthodoxy to the sheep.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:



Thats a humongous document. I'll look through this later to see if maybe I find anything that changes my mind. As for the way you presented it, I'm not convinced.

1. You ignored Ambrose
2. He just removed her from conversation out of respect for Jesus? So he doesn't have the same respect for the apostles? He notes that she must have had some abundance of grace for the overcoming of sin that no one else had. Why not give a bit more of a nod to the men that Jesus founded the Church on. Why were they not noted for being so abundantly blessed in grace to help the world know about how sin was defeated? In my opinion, this is really reading what you want to into a fairly clear line.
3. You quote from chapter 47 conveniently leaves out Eve in the story of how sin came into the world. "By one man" sin entered the world. And now, when considering humans since, never could it be "said that he had no sin at all" it appears to me this is obviously a generalization, and likely proof texting on your part, but I may be wrong and I will read it in context.
4. The last paragraph will also be one I will search for context on. I could clip "one alone is there who was born without sin" or I can read all of the other qualifiers listed to describe Jesus that Mary would not have.


I'm not just tossing out your post as a whole, but those are my initial qualms. I'll read more when I have time.

Yeah...maybe instead of hunting out websites that cherry pick quotes you should actually read the Church Fathers....You might be surprised by what you find.

I do find it ironic, you accuse me of "quote clipping" when all you seemingly do is hunt websites.

But go ahead, what I pasted is the start of Chapter 57.

In fact, Here's the whole chapter...

Quote:


Chapter 57 [XXXV.]Turn to Neither Hand. Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. "Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left."640 For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one's sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. "God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,"641 even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; "but the ways on the left hand are perverse,"642 in friendship with sins. Of such inflexibility were those youths of twenty years,643 who foretokened in figure God's new people; they entered the land of promise; they, it is said, turned neither to the right hand nor to the left.644 Now this age of twenty is not to be compared with the age of children's innocence, but if I mistake not, this number is the shadow and echo of a mystery. For the Old Testament has its excellence in the five books of Moses, while the New Testament is most refulgent in the authority of the four Gospels. These numbers, when multiplied together, reach to the number twenty: four times five, or five times four, are twenty. Such a people (as I have already said), instructed in the kingdom of heaven by the two Testamentsthe Old and the Newturning neither to the right hand, in a proud assumption of righteousness, nor to the left hand, in a reckless delight in sin, shall enter into the land of promise, where we shall have no longer either to pray that sins may be forgiven to us, or to fear that they may be punished in us, having been freed from them all by that Redeemer, who, not being "sold under sin,"645 "hath redeemed Israel out of all his iniquities,"646 whether committed in the actual life, or derived from the original transgression.


Your comment on Eve shows how much you're stretching. Eve was formed before the fall in the garden. That does not mean she didn't sin (as we know she did). So while she may have been formed before sin entered teh world, she fell. Nobody is excluded.






I've read the fathers. I'll always read it in context, with a page or two before and after what line i think are most powerful. If you want to say that i am only qualified to comment if ive read every page of every church father, I hope you hold yourself to the same standard.

It's abundantly clear to me that chapter 57 is exhorting all of us to belief in Jesus and to both avoid sin, and not be overly scrupulous, lest we believe we can earn our way to Heaven. None of this (and I mean none of it) has to do with Mary. I can not see how one could possibly elevate this to some sort of equal standing to what he
Specifically wrote about Mary. "Mary is ……." =\= "all men are….."

Brush away the Eve point all you want. He gives specific deference to Mary. If you want to use a passage where he can't even acknowledge there was a woman beside Adam as an equivalent, be my guest. But you're going to have to show me how a specific deference can be somehow negated by such a vague reference that the actual originator of sin is not named.

And you still have not shown me where Luther disavowed his belief that Mary was sinless at least 12 years prior to his death. I would love to see how he changed his views on this topic while the Bible didn't change at all. I
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.

Lets not overlook the fact you just dropped your number by 99%, which is absolutely significant.

Your "truth" like your estimation of denominations is also wrong and nonsensical.

Of course my doctrine is built on others. No Protestant, who is honest, doesn't. That's not problematic in the least. The difference is that I have scriptural support for my arguments and as that is the only place we find God's Word, I find quite a bit of comfort in that.

But here's another truth. Your arguments and Quo Vadis? are no different than an atheists. That "should" concern you. Arguing that Scripture contradicts itself is simply an atheists argument. It's also hugely problematic for you, and why Rome in the end is "Sola Ecclesia." Because if the Scriptures are fallible and contradict themselves, then how can you trust anything it says? You can no longer make arguments for Peter because that could simply be wrong.

What you argue is the best way to create atheists and that "should" scare you and supports of this. I hope you are open enough to see that.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgPrognosticator said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.


Catholicism's calling gospel-believing Christ followers heretics is disgusting.

The reformation happened for a reason….


I think you missed my point. And I did not call anyone a heretic. I said such beliefs were heretical in my opinion. Trying to point out that if it all comes down to each man and his Bible, which is inevitably where Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura must go, then on what basis can anyone say what is or is not dogma and doctrine? One man's dogma is another man's heresy.

Whether someone is a heretic is another matter entirely. I certainly don't know anyone's mind well enough to know if they are a heretic.



Making these claims shows you have no idea what Sola Scriptura is...which in itself is pretty sad.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:



Thats a humongous document. I'll look through this later to see if maybe I find anything that changes my mind. As for the way you presented it, I'm not convinced.

1. You ignored Ambrose
2. He just removed her from conversation out of respect for Jesus? So he doesn't have the same respect for the apostles? He notes that she must have had some abundance of grace for the overcoming of sin that no one else had. Why not give a bit more of a nod to the men that Jesus founded the Church on. Why were they not noted for being so abundantly blessed in grace to help the world know about how sin was defeated? In my opinion, this is really reading what you want to into a fairly clear line.
3. You quote from chapter 47 conveniently leaves out Eve in the story of how sin came into the world. "By one man" sin entered the world. And now, when considering humans since, never could it be "said that he had no sin at all" it appears to me this is obviously a generalization, and likely proof texting on your part, but I may be wrong and I will read it in context.
4. The last paragraph will also be one I will search for context on. I could clip "one alone is there who was born without sin" or I can read all of the other qualifiers listed to describe Jesus that Mary would not have.


I'm not just tossing out your post as a whole, but those are my initial qualms. I'll read more when I have time.

Yeah...maybe instead of hunting out websites that cherry pick quotes you should actually read the Church Fathers....You might be surprised by what you find.

I do find it ironic, you accuse me of "quote clipping" when all you seemingly do is hunt websites.

But go ahead, what I pasted is the start of Chapter 57.

In fact, Here's the whole chapter...

Quote:


Chapter 57 [XXXV.]Turn to Neither Hand. Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without faltering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. "Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left."640 For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one's sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. "God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,"641 even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; "but the ways on the left hand are perverse,"642 in friendship with sins. Of such inflexibility were those youths of twenty years,643 who foretokened in figure God's new people; they entered the land of promise; they, it is said, turned neither to the right hand nor to the left.644 Now this age of twenty is not to be compared with the age of children's innocence, but if I mistake not, this number is the shadow and echo of a mystery. For the Old Testament has its excellence in the five books of Moses, while the New Testament is most refulgent in the authority of the four Gospels. These numbers, when multiplied together, reach to the number twenty: four times five, or five times four, are twenty. Such a people (as I have already said), instructed in the kingdom of heaven by the two Testamentsthe Old and the Newturning neither to the right hand, in a proud assumption of righteousness, nor to the left hand, in a reckless delight in sin, shall enter into the land of promise, where we shall have no longer either to pray that sins may be forgiven to us, or to fear that they may be punished in us, having been freed from them all by that Redeemer, who, not being "sold under sin,"645 "hath redeemed Israel out of all his iniquities,"646 whether committed in the actual life, or derived from the original transgression.


Your comment on Eve shows how much you're stretching. Eve was formed before the fall in the garden. That does not mean she didn't sin (as we know she did). So while she may have been formed before sin entered teh world, she fell. Nobody is excluded.






I've read the fathers. I'll always read it in context, with a page or two before and after what line i think are most powerful. If you want to say that i am only qualified to comment if ive read every page of every church father, I hope you hold yourself to the same standard.

It's abundantly clear to me that chapter 57 is exhorting all of us to belief in Jesus and to both avoid sin, and not be overly scrupulous, lest we believe we can earn our way to Heaven. None of this (and I mean none of it) has to do with Mary. I can not see how one could possibly elevate this to some sort of equal standing to what he
Specifically wrote about Mary. "Mary is ……." =\= "all men are….."

Brush away the Eve point all you want. He gives specific deference to Mary. If you want to use a passage where he can't even acknowledge there was a woman beside Adam as an equivalent, be my guest. But you're going to have to show me how a specific deference can be somehow negated by such a vague reference that the actual originator of sin is not named.

And you still have not shown me where Luther disavowed his belief that Mary was sinless at least 12 years prior to his death. I would love to see how he changed his views on this topic while the Bible didn't change at all. I

Giving deference to Eve does not equate to a claim she was sinless.

Everyone should give deference to Eve. She is clearly set aside in the Scriptures and should be honored for what she did.

But Augustine does not make an affirmative statement about her that I've seen, and he only equates Jesus or really God as being sinless. Your sources do not change that.

Btw...on Ambrose...most of the quotes you tried to use only talk of her virginity. Ambrose rights a whole book documenting the virginity of different women and what we can take away from that. It has nothing to do with sinlessness, and she's not the only woman used as an example. So again, a strikeout on your part.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jesus walked the earth over 2,000 years ago, and yet less than 500 years ago the Catholic church was executing its "sheep" for partaking in evangelistic Bible-based practices. There were strict laws against Bible printing, ostensibly because of fears that "the Bible would be misinterpreted".

Yet, here we are in 2024 and there are STILL people that believe I am unable to read the Bible and discern for myself what it means.

Utterly unbelievable.

Jesus came to establish the New Covenant. The curtain was torn. There is NO human barrier to your faith or your relationship with your savior. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not have YOUR interest at heart. They are lies from the pit of hell. Ones that Jesus himself would be repulsed by.

Take up your cross and follow HIM, not the pope….or any other man.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.

Lets not overlook the fact you just dropped your number by 99%, which is absolutely significant.

Your "truth" like your estimation of denominations is also wrong and nonsensical.

Of course my doctrine is built on others. No Protestant, who is honest, doesn't. That's not problematic in the least. The difference is that I have scriptural support for my arguments and as that is the only place we find God's Word, I find quite a bit of comfort in that.

But here's another truth. Your arguments and Quo Vadis? are no different than an atheists. That "should" concern you. Arguing that Scripture contradicts itself is simply an atheists argument. It's also hugely problematic for you, and why Rome in the end is "Sola Ecclesia." Because if the Scriptures are fallible and contradict themselves, then how can you trust anything it says? You can no longer make arguments for Peter because that could simply be wrong.

What you argue is the best way to create atheists and that "should" scare you and supports of this. I hope you are open enough to see that.

You can't resort to a scripture that didn't come with a table of contents and doesn't interpret itself without resorting to your personal opinion. There's no way around it.

My arguments are nothing like what an atheist would argue. My argument is that Jesus established an apostolic church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and he gave Peter the keys and the authority to bind and loose and he gave all the apostles and their successors the great commission and gave them the divine authority to forgive or retain sins. That divinely protected and guided church gave us the same canon of the Bible that you base your entire religion upon, although some fallible person decided to remove 7 of the books because they didn't like them. By what authority was that done?

I know you don't believe or agree with any of that and that's your right. The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that your system has no way to infallibly determine anything beyond each person's subjective opinion. By what authority can any Protestant judge the validity of any other Christian's beliefs, dogmatic/doctrinal or otherwise? Other than resorting to their personal opinion, which is all you can do, they can't. Sola Scriptura can't get you there because it ultimately comes down to each person and their Bible and how that person interprets what he reads or is told.

That's fine. You do you . I'm not really interested in trying to persuade you.

FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgPrognosticator said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

Quo Vadis? said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgPrognosticator said:

Faithful Ag said:

AgPrognosticator said:

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.
The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.



Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.


Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.


Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.


What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?


I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

So you're contention is that Scripture is contradictory?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul clearly excludes Jesus, and only Jesus from claims that everyone has sinned.

Or said differently, Paul sees that God cannot sin, but all else have...Mary included.





Of course scripture is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of this thread, a literalist read through will have you thinking that salvation is a one time instantaneous sealing that cannot be undone, and another that is a process that can be derailed.

This is why the proper hermeneutic is needed to understand scripture, and why an authority is needed to provide such hermeneutic.


Wait...So your position is that God gave us His Word, but made it sufficiently confusing such that we mere mortals can't understand it?

That's a bold claim



10,000+ Protestant denominations are screaming evidence of the "unperspicacity " of scripture.

Nobody and I mean nobody takes serious the claims of "10,000 Protestant denominations."

Going to need to make a better argument than that.



Yeah, you're wrong. But let's reduce that to 100. The point is no less significant.

Here's the truth that you won't accept:

You have no way to define dogma or doctrine without resorting to your or someone else's personal opinion.

My personal opinion is most of what you believe is heretical. Prove me wrong without relying on someone's personal opinion.


Catholicism's calling gospel-believing Christ followers heretics is disgusting.

The reformation happened for a reason….


I think you missed my point. And I did not call anyone a heretic. I said such beliefs were heretical in my opinion. Trying to point out that if it all comes down to each man and his Bible, which is inevitably where Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura must go, then on what basis can anyone say what is or is not dogma and doctrine? One man's dogma is another man's heresy.

Whether someone is a heretic is another matter entirely. I certainly don't know anyone's mind well enough to know if they are a heretic.



Making these claims shows you have no idea what Sola Scriptura is...which in itself is pretty sad.

NM. Not worth continuing.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgPrognosticator said:

Jesus walked the earth over 2,000 years ago, and yet less than 500 years ago the Catholic church was executing its "sheep" for partaking in evangelistic Bible-based practices. There were strict laws against Bible printing, ostensibly because of fears that "the Bible would be misinterpreted".

Yet, here we are in 2024 and there are STILL people that believe I am unable to read the Bible and discern for myself what it means.

Utterly unbelievable.

Jesus came to establish the New Covenant. The curtain was torn. There is NO human barrier to your faith or your relationship with your savior. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not have YOUR interest at heart. They are lies from the pit of hell. Ones that Jesus himself would be repulsed by.

Take up your cross and follow HIM, not the pope….or any other man.


I get where you're coming from. I used to believe similar back in my evangelical days, and it seems simple enough. The main issue is that it's not historically accurate. Prior to the printing press, bibles would cost over a year's salary for most folks. In addition, literacy rates are estimated to be in the single digits. Even the most generous historians are guessing 20%. So "just me and my Bible" just wasn't a reality for the early church.

Even after the printing press, literacy rates are estimated to be in the low 20s. Outside of two countries (England and Switzerland) no one cracks 50% literacy rates until the 1900s. We live in an incredibly blessed time where we can affordable own and have the ability to read our bibles, but it has skewed the way we actually received the faith. Seeing just how many splinters and denominational fighting since this idea became mainstream proves to me it was never meant to be simply "a man and his Bible" who will rely on his limited experience here on earth versus the experience of 2000 years of church teaching.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.