Immaculate Conception???

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Does not 1 John 1:8 say that if we have no sin we deceive ourselves?

Answer: Well, what is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at it's immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 moves verse 8 (which is present tense) into a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned at some point in their life (Regardless of whether they are an OSAS believer or a Conditional Salvationist). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,

"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin,
we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."
(1 John 1:8 NET).​

In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their sins are paid for: Past, present, and future by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,162
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Pious opinions of the middle ages is really where the belief began. Pious opinions don't make truth.
Middle ages? The fourth century is not 'middle ages' for most people.
The fact is Rome created a dogma out of thin air in 1854 and then demanded everyone believe it under pain of mortal sin. Whether it was believed by people hundreds of years prior is irrelevant. You don't find the doctrine in Scripture or the first centuries of church history because no one believed it.
There is scant evidence of all sorts of things in the Church before the fourth century, and the argument from silence in that period is a risky one because the evidence is so limited for all sorts of things. The argument from silence that the Immaculate Conception was not believed because there is no evidence it was believed is shaky. You were not there to know one way or the other.
Rome appeals to history but the problem is she never goes back far enough. That's why your scholars are mostly liberal because they see the same problems that I do. There is a serious problem when your apologetics ministries like Catholic Answers are far more faithful than your scholars.
Are you grinding an axe?
Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη or Hail, Greetings to grace bestowed, the angelic greeting. Hardly a mouthful but your tradition forces meaning where none exists.
Oh, there is meaning there. You dismiss it too easily because it won't fit your narrative. It speaks of an overwhelming grace completely bestowed, a fullness.
Where in the text does it say that? She sang the Magnificat After her meeting with Gabriel. Your statement is pure eisegesis.
Of course Mary sang the Magnificat AFTER her meeting with Gabriel. The text says she was saved, doesn't say she was saved during or after meeting Gabriel, and one can still be saved from falling as much as one can be saved after falling. The text does not say that, but it should be obvious it's possible to be saved either way.
That's hardly an appropriate analogy. The earliest christians believed and taught the Holy Trinity because they experienced God as Trinity. The did not teach the Immaculate conception. Furthermore I can prove the Holy Trinity from scripture. You cannot say the same for the Immaculate conception.
Actually, Arius made a great case from Scripture alone for his position. The Trinitarian position needed definition from the Church beyond what the test of Scripture had, because Scripture did not have a systematic answer that actually said the Son was one in being with the Father. There was a tradition of such a belief, but not a text for it until Nicea. My analogy is not acceptable to you but it is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for Mary and the Immaculate Conception:

Catholic.com says this about it.

"The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings."​

According to AskaCatholic.com, their website says,

""Question: I used to be a Catholic and it always bothered me
that Catholics claimed that Mary was sinless.
Where is that exactly found in the Bible?
Answer: The Scriptural basis, though not needed, is found in Luke 1:28 that says:
"And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
This is usually translated in Catholic Bibles as — "Hail, Full of Grace the Lord is with you.""​

In other words, Catholics believe Mary was not conceived with Original Sin and
that she did not sin.

However, I believe the Bible teaches "Original Sin."

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
(Psalms 51:5).

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2:3).

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15).

"the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 8:21).

"Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward." (Job 5:7).

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Romans 5:12).

"For as in Adam all die," (1 Corinthians 15:22).

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23).

Mary was no exception. All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God (including Mary). She was born into sin and needed a Savior (Just like everyone else). If not, then God could have made us without sin like Mary. God could have killed all of us faithful ones as babies and there would have been no need for God the Father to send a Savior. But all are under sin according to Romans 5:12. Mary did not pass down the sin of Adam unto Jesus because sin is passed down by the male seed. Seeing Mary was born a virgin, she did not pass down her sin (given to her by her parents) to Jesus.

Jesus was the only one who was holy, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;" (Hebrews 7:26).

Mary is not included in Hebrews 7:26.


Sources Used:
Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers
Where is Mary's sinlessness and if she was sinlessness, why couldn't she have die on the Cross?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: amariselle
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mary said,
"And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:47).

People who were not born with the sin of Adam and who have never sinned do not need a Savior.

Paul says,
" for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21).

" For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die." (Galatians 2:21).

Mary could not keep the Law on her own without being born again by accepting Jesus as her Savior.

Side Note:

Please take note that I believe we are saved by God's grace + obedience to the commands of Jesus and His followers (i.e. the NT commands). Paul here is refuting the idea or concept that a person can obey God's laws alone as a means of salvation (that does not include God's grace). The only way a person can live holy and righteous is if they are born again spiritually by accepting Jesus as their Savior and they have the Spirit living in them helping them to overcome their sin.

Jesus says,
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." (Romans 13:14).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The world receives salvation through Mary. Only her suffering is included in prophecy united with the stripes of her divine Son. Whatever else you think about her it shouldn't stop you from being grateful for her singular role in your salvation. Like the Father, she gave her only begotten Son for our Salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The world receives salvation through Mary. Only her suffering is included in prophecy united with the stripes of her divine Son. Whatever else you think about her it shouldn't stop you from being grateful for her singular role in your salvation. Like the Father, she gave her only begotten Son for our Salvation.

Uh, no. We do not receive salvation through Mary. Jesus is the only way. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Mary said she rejoiced in God her savior. So she needed God to save her. She was not a co-Savior. No such verse in the Bible ever says that or even hints at that idea.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Uh, no. We do not receive salvation through Mary. Jesus is the only way. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Mary said she rejoiced in God her savior. So she needed God to save her. She was not a co-Savior. No such verse in the Bible ever says that or even hints at that idea.
Jason, you should not be so impulsive. There is a sublime knowing Our Savior as God that you should keep conscious of. We don't receive salvation through Jesus. Jesus is salvation. He didn't come to be Our savior, He came as Our Savior. The world receives Him through Mary. No way around that. God chose a Virgin to prepare a body for Him and God chose to enter into earthly life through her and in her maternal care. I think it's amazing that God would stoop so low to be with us.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No such verse in the Bible ever says that or even hints at that idea.
Are you a member of His Body? Did His Body suffer on the cross? would you follow Jesus all the way to the cross? That is drinking the cup of His suffering. Continue that line of biblical truth about the Body of Christ. You get a part in Christ's life of redemption. Jesus gave great value to human suffering it's the most precious gift to know their can be joy in suffering. The Romans wrote this peculiarity about Christians....The Christians rejoice when persecuted for the opportunity to forgive knowing forgiveness adds power to their prayer. Well, their Roman neighbors saw it like that but the Christians rejoiced to suffer with their Lord and participate in His redemption. Think the first Martyr St Stephen and the young man Saul. As for the first Christian she participated with her own heart and His was on loan from her. Flesh of her flesh bone of her bone. Heart of her heart. Something about that Simeon understood.

Luke 2

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Middle ages? The fourth century is not 'middle ages' for most people.
Prove the Immaculate Conception was taught in the fourth century.
There is scant evidence of all sorts of things in the Church before the fourth century, and the argument from silence in that period is a risky one because the evidence is so limited for all sorts of things.
The thing is I can prove the doctrine of the Trinity was taught long before the fourth century. So can you prove the doctrine from the fourth century? The closest you came was the quote from Augustine who is later fourth century and gives some of the most thorough treatment of the doctrine of Original Sin. The problem there was his answer was really a non-answer.
Are you grinding an axe?
Am I wrong?

Oh, there is meaning there. You dismiss it too easily because it won't fit your narrative. It speaks of an overwhelming grace completely bestowed, a fullness.
Um, no. Its a greeting that is showing God's favor. What lexicon states the sense of overwhelming? I have four and none of them state what you state.
Of course Mary sang the Magnificat AFTER her meeting with Gabriel. The text says she was saved, doesn't say she was saved during or after meeting Gabriel, and one can still be saved from falling as much as one can be saved after falling. The text does not say that, but it should be obvious it's possible to be saved either way.
The problem here is she gives praise to God her Saviour after her meeting not before. One interpretation follows the other does not.

Actually, Arius made a great case from Scripture alone for his position. The Trinitarian position needed definition from the Church beyond what the test of Scripture had, because Scripture did not have a systematic answer that actually said the Son was one in being with the Father.

That flies in the face of what we know from history. First, Constantine convoked the council, not the pope. He also presided over the proceedings and the Rome if I recall had only sent a small delegation. Second, the definition you like so much was later to be denied even by the Pope Liberius when he signed an Arianized creed. Therefore Athanasius was not wrong when he stated he was against the world. In fact as he recounts almost all the bishops were in fact Arian. So how did Athanasius argue for the doctrine of the Trinity?, the same as the council fathers by using a sound exegesis from scripture.

Of course you still can't tell me how modern Rome can appeal to this council when according to her they by denying the Immaculate conception are manifest heretics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

The problem with people like you who believe in legalism and only perfect Christians get to heaven think that everyone who disagrees believes in OSAS. I have never stated that I believe in OSAS.

Now the part that I quoted is absolutely nonsense fallacy. Present tense can state go something that means we fail at the present term but does not mean literally THIS SECOND. If you claim that you never ever sin, the bible calls you a liar. So stop lying and pretending to be perfect because I know full well you arent..
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MountainPine

Biblical Vegan
Feb 11, 2016
54
13
Texas
Visit site
✟9,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Bible describes other people as being righteous other than Jesus.

[Gen 6:9 KJV] 9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

[Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:3) KJV] 6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

[Job 34:5-6 KJV] 5 For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment. 6 Should I lie against my right? my wound [is] incurable without transgression.

[Eze 14:13-14 KJV] 13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it: 14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

[Psa 1:5-6 KJV] 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

[Mat 13:43 KJV] 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Jas 5:16 KJV] 16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

[Psa 14:5 KJV] 5 There were they in great fear: for God [is] in the generation of the righteous.

[Rev 14:1-5 KJV] 1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.


Also, I don't understand the logic behind using 1 John 1:8 to debunk what John said in chapter 3. That is highly unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The Bible describes other people as being righteous other than Jesus.

[Gen 6:9 KJV] 9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

[Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:3) KJV] 6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

[Job 34:5-6 KJV] 5 For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment. 6 Should I lie against my right? my wound [is] incurable without transgression.

[Eze 14:13-14 KJV] 13 Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it: 14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

[Psa 1:5-6 KJV] 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

[Mat 13:43 KJV] 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Jas 5:16 KJV] 16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

[Psa 14:5 KJV] 5 There were they in great fear: for God [is] in the generation of the righteous.

[Rev 14:1-5 KJV] 1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.


Also, I don't understand the logic behind using 1 John 1:8 to debunk what John said in chapter 3. That is highly unreasonable.
Genesis 15:6 "And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith."

It's always been about faith and not deeds.

Psalm 51:17 "The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God."

Teaching legalism is just as dangerous as teaching OSAS.
 
Upvote 0

MountainPine

Biblical Vegan
Feb 11, 2016
54
13
Texas
Visit site
✟9,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Teaching legalism is just as dangerous as teaching OSAS.

No legalism taught on my part! I don't know how quoting Psalm 51:17 is relevant to anything I said.

Just so you know, faith is defined as obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9), and deeds are the product of obedience. Do you disagree with James?

[Jam 2:23-24 KJV] And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You've also completely missed the point of what I was saying. You attempted to refute ALL of the scripture I posted by accusing me of taking one of them out of context. This indicates that you don't believe in the Bible at all but only cherry-pick the passages that you agree with. That is legalism.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,162
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Prove the Immaculate Conception was taught in the fourth century.
Did that once but you blew it off. So some more quotes from the Fathers for you to blow off:

"Thus also the demonstration makes the matter clear to us. Since the Savior of the world, with the purpose of saving the race of men, was born of the immaculate and virgin Mary." Hyppolytus

"The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life." Athanasius (On the Incarnation of the Word 8).

"You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" Ephraem the Syrian (Nisibene Hymns 27:8).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim (Hymns on the Nativity 15:23).

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30).
That flies in the face of what we know from history. First, Constantine convoked the council, not the pope. He also presided over the proceedings and the Rome if I recall had only sent a small delegation. Second, the definition you like so much was later to be denied even by the Pope Liberius when he signed an Arianized creed. Therefore Athanasius was not wrong when he stated he was against the world. In fact as he recounts almost all the bishops were in fact Arian. So how did Athanasius argue for the doctrine of the Trinity?, the same as the council fathers by using a sound exegesis from scripture.
Yes, Constantine called the council of Nicea. A well known fact. What has that to do with what I said?

The bishop of Rome sent Hosius from Spain to represent him, and you can find out his role in the council from the still extant records of the council if you want to.

Pope Liberius signed something many years later but it isn't clear what exactly he signed. When you can produce the signed letter we can talk. Until then it was Liberius signing something under duress that he probably shouldn't have signed. But we don't know quite what it was.

Most of the bishops, not all but most, were Arian, before and even after the council of Nicea. Athanasius argued for the consubstaniality of the Father and the Son (not for the Trinity, which was at the council of Constantinople) based on the tradition of the grandparents of Alexandria who knew that Jesus Christ was God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, of the same stuff as the Father. They new what Arius was saying was fishy and they would go out into the desert on Sundays to hear the Liturgy from the hermits rather than hear more of this Arianism from the Arian appointed priests in the city. Arius had great Scriptural arguments against the Father and the Son being consubstantial, twisted arguments, but very compelling nonetheless. It was tradition that trumped twisted Arian Scriptural exigesis.
Of course you still can't tell me how modern Rome can appeal to this council when according to her they by denying the Immaculate conception are manifest heretics.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. But it matters not. You clearly said that the Immaculate Conception was invented in 1854. Now you say that it might have been some pious practice from a few centuries before, in the middle ages. But it's established in the fourth century and has even earlier evidences.
 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No legalism taught on my part! I don't know how quoting Psalm 51:17 is relevant to anything I said.

Just so you know, faith is defined as obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9), and deeds are the product of obedience. Do you disagree with James?

[Jam 2:23-24 KJV] And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You've also completely missed the point of what I was saying. You attempted to refute ALL of the scripture I posted by accusing me of taking one of them out of context. This indicates that you don't believe in the Bible at all but only cherry-pick the passages that you agree with. That is legalism.

Ironically your quote is out of context since the author is simply indicating that deeds are the result of genuine faith, not the other way around. You simply said earlier that only a handful of people were righteous because they were perfect with their deeds. I refuted that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MountainPine

Biblical Vegan
Feb 11, 2016
54
13
Texas
Visit site
✟9,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ironically your quote is out of context since the author is simply indicating that deeds are the result of genuine faith, not the other way around. You simply said earlier that only a handful of people were righteous because they were perfect with their deeds. I refuted that.

You did not refute anything. You are arguing with the Bible, not me. Go read the passages again, especially Ezekiel 14:14, and I never implied that deeds alone saves anyone; however, you seem to hold the position that faith alone saves people, which isn't correct either (James 2:17).

I was simply pointing out that there were others who were righteous before God besides Jesus, like Job. I was talking about righteousness, not faith. It was you who turned this into a faith vs works argument.

FYI, the 18th and 33rd chapters in Ezekiel clearly state that God demands righteousness, which is the theme of those chapters. So don't try to tell me I'm taking anything out of context. Read it for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Jason, you should not be so impulsive. There is a sublime knowing Our Savior as God that you should keep conscious of. We don't receive salvation through Jesus. Jesus is salvation. He didn't come to be Our savior, He came as Our Savior. The world receives Him through Mary. No way around that. God chose a Virgin to prepare a body for Him and God chose to enter into earthly life through her and in her maternal care. I think it's amazing that God would stoop so low to be with us.

Please show me verses that say we that we receive Jesus through Mary please.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you a member of His Body? Did His Body suffer on the cross? would you follow Jesus all the way to the cross? That is drinking the cup of His suffering. Continue that line of biblical truth about the Body of Christ. You get a part in Christ's life of redemption. Jesus gave great value to human suffering it's the most precious gift to know their can be joy in suffering. The Romans wrote this peculiarity about Christians....The Christians rejoice when persecuted for the opportunity to forgive knowing forgiveness adds power to their prayer. Well, their Roman neighbors saw it like that but the Christians rejoiced to suffer with their Lord and participate in His redemption. Think the first Martyr St Stephen and the young man Saul. As for the first Christian she participated with her own heart and His was on loan from her. Flesh of her flesh bone of her bone. Heart of her heart. Something about that Simeon understood.

Luke 2

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

This passage speaks of nothing about how we receive Jesus through Mary.
 
Upvote 0

Invalidusername

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2018
1,373
662
Battle Creek
✟70,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You did not refute anything. You are arguing with the Bible, not me. Go read the passages again, especially Ezekiel 14:14, and I never implied that deeds alone saves anyone; however, you seem to hold the position that faith alone saves people, which isn't correct either (James 2:17).

I was simply pointing out that there were others who were righteous before God besides Jesus, like Job. I was talking about righteousness, not faith. It was you who turned this into a faith vs works argument.

FYI, the 18th and 33rd chapters in Ezekiel clearly state that God demands righteousness, which is the theme of those chapters. So don't try to tell me I'm taking anything out of context. Read it for yourself.

1 John 5:12 "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."

It's that simple. Works come as a result of our faith. Not the other way around. There is no "He has the Son and worked hard has life." or "He who has the Son but doesn't work very hard doesn't have life."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MountainPine

Biblical Vegan
Feb 11, 2016
54
13
Texas
Visit site
✟9,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Works come as a result of our faith.

I never said it didn't. All I doing was pointing out that Jesus was not the only righteous man in history, and you changed the subject by "refuting" what "I said" about Abraham; twisting my point into a faith vs. works argument, when all I did was quote passages of scripture without any commentary.

Obviously, the Son represents the Word of God, in which Noah, Daniel, Job (Ezekiel 14:14), Abraham, Elijah and Enoch had. The Bible even records Enoch and Elijah being taken into Heaven like Jesus was (2 Kings 2:11, Hebrews 11:5).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0