What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So then you must believe that babies have sinned. You must believe those who born severely mentally handicapped have also sinned. I mean you did say you believe scripture as written, and that scripture says "ALL" have sinned, so "ALL" have sinned. Those are your words. And then we have Lk. 1:6. Scripture says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were both “righteous” before God, “walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Again, as you said "Scripture says.... All have sinned, so ALL have sinned." as an absolute, so it must be your belief that they, in fact, did not walk in "ALL" the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless? So, is Scripture wrong here?

All people are born with the sin nature, the inborn propensity to sin. A newborn however has not yet committed any sins. There is a difference between the sin nature and committed sins.
Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children. Only God knows when a person becomes accountable. Which is why David knew that he would see his son again.
2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."


So you agree there are exceptions.

Exceptions to the sin nature? No
Exception to actively sinning? Yes. Obviously an embryo can't sin, but once they have been born and grow, they will sin. They sin because of the inbuilt sin nature passed on from Adam.

I will always agree with Scripture, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error.....correct?

You may disagree with my reading of scripture, but what you are claiming is not scripture.


Again, I will always believe in the Word of God, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error. And let's not forget, you did say, "Obviously Enoch and Elijah are special cases. This is God's world, he can do a miracle if he so chooses." Which I take you to mean there are exceptions, and Mary very well could be one of those exceptions.

She certainly could be -if there was any scripture on it. But you are not taking this position because of scripture. You take this stance because your church teaches it, true or false?
Which is completely your prerogative to do so, you are free to listen and believe your church, but it's quite far fetched to think other people should agree with your church.

I'm sorry, you may be an adherent to the unbiblical belief that all we need to know as a sole rule of faith can be found in the Bible, but I will not be held to your man- made, un-biblical theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

So according to you believing the Bible is unbiblical.
Yet also according to you "I will always agree with Scripture"

I'm sorry Coffee4u, but to contend that the Bible being silent about something means it didn't happen, or that it isn't worthy of belief by Christians, is just a bad argument. That's is known as an argument from silence, and arguments of this type are very weak. Think about it, for you to accept this premise that if it's not in the Bible then it didn't happen, well then you could also make an argument that Jesus never went to the bathroom, because nowhere in the bible does it ever say he did, so that must mean He never did. Sorry, but that's bad logic as well as a bad argumentation methodology.

I believe God tells us everything that we need to know. Something as important as a person being sinless or never dying he would have told us plainly in his word if such a thing occurred because it far too important to not be mentioned. Jesus using the bathroom is not an important detail.

"I will not be held to your man- made, un-biblical theological doctrine"
If your doctrine about Mary came from a man, then you yourself are using man made doctrine. Or are you claiming God came down and told someone this?

That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe in universal salvation
And I told you what I believe.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


I actually had to go google what you meant by 'universal salvation' as it is not a term I know of or use.
from the Wiki
"In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God."
So the answer to that would be no.

You know coffee4u, I probably should have asked you this right up front, but is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

You are the one claiming something not me.

I am fallible just as you and all other men and women are, which is precisely why I only believe scripture. Your church leaders are men, they are as fallible as anyone else.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I'm sorry, but that's not how my Bible reads Jn.1:1. (The new American bible, second edition) It reads as Jn.1:1; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Even the Protestant KJV bible reads Jn. 1:1 as..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word 'flesh' is in neither, that's something you added.

Of course I didn't add it. It's John 1:14 not John 1:1

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

New Kings James version.

John 1:14 (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJ)

Adding would go against my own beliefs.


Which is probably the only thing we will agree on.

Again, an argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error. Remember coffee4u, arguments of this type are very weak.

And your view of Mary is from silence, the silence of scripture.

Bible verse that says this please?
I already showed you 2 verses on this.
There is a difference between a man seeking for God in his human strength which is not truly seeking God at all and the man that God has called, who is seeking God with his spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

What does this have to do with Mary? This reply is getting too long and confusing with answers such as "yes".


I take it you believe all people seek after God since you keep questioning this?
I don't know the RC position on this.

I'm sorry, but your own Protestant version of the Bible (KJV) does not read 1 Cor. 2:14 this way. It reads...."But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
What version do you use?

For personal use most times I use the New Kings James but I like to have a few versions to compare. When I post I take the verse from offline and most times I use the verse at the top of the page for ease of use, so it may vary. If you would rather the King James I can use that.

I hate to keep sounding like a broken record Coffee4u.........but again, another argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error.

From silence, as is your position on Mary.
Don't you think you have taken up enough text and space repeating that? You are making replying here too long and unwieldy and I am about done. I don't have all day for this.

How about I use your strategy of silence. Show me in Scripture where it says that Mary personally sinned? Good luck! ;)

Have a Blessed Day!

I already showed it.
Romans 3:23

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


You are the one claiming that Mary is the exception, so it is on you to prove this claim. What is your proof that she is the exception to that verse? If all you can do is point at your church and say "They say so" How is that an argument?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oops...Sorry for messing up on the quote feature Coffee4u. Hope you can separate my words from yours

I think so but it's getting too long and too confusing since I have to find your post to know what some of your answers were referring back to.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
All people are born with the sin nature, the inborn propensity to sin. A newborn however has not yet committed any sins. There is a difference between the sin nature and committed sins.
Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children. Only God knows when a person becomes accountable. Which is why David knew that he would see his son again.
2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Thank you coffee4u for your response. However as I asked before, is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? A yes or no would suffice.

As you stated above..."Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children." it seems you are making exceptions for babies and the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the capacity to commit sin. Well, if there are exceptions to "all," for babies and others, then that means "all" is not an absolute, and there could be other exceptions as well...like Mary, Right?

Exceptions to the sin nature? No

I believe all are born with the stain of Original sin except for Mary.

Exception to actively sinning? Yes.

So you're admitting there "are' exceptions. Thank you.

Obviously an embryo can't sin, but once they have been born and grow, they will sin.

So you are saying when a child is growing before the age of reason, and a person that was born severly mentally handicapped and have been incapacitated their entire life wil sin? Hmmmm...

They sin because of the inbuilt sin nature passed on from Adam.

Sorry coffee4u, but there is a problem with that. There is a difference in being created in a state of sin, in the flesh - outside of covenant with God - as we all are when we are born and before we are baptized, and "having" sinned. "Having" sinned implies that one has committed personal sin. Romans 3:23 says that "all HAVE sinned." Babies have not sinned. The mentally handicapped have not sinned. They may be in a state of original sin, but they, personally, HAVE NOT sinned.

You may disagree with my reading of scripture, but what you are claiming is not scripture.

No, what I said was that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, and personal interpretation of Scripture that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? As for doing so, and not being being Scripture, I am pretty sure your fallible, personal interpretation and opinions of Scripture are not scriptural. Would you not agree?

She certainly could be -if there was any scripture on it.

Again, a weak argument from silence,

But you are not taking this position because of scripture. You take this stance because your church teaches it, true or false? Which is completely your prerogative to do so, you are free to listen and believe your church, but it's quite far fetched to think other people should agree with your church.

Far fetched? I think not, for I believe what Jesus and Scripture says:

"The Truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Ephesians 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption." (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
"Matthew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to The Church; and if he refuses to listen even to The Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
"Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
So Coffee4u, could you tell me what you believe what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth is? Do you believe it to be the Bible?

And I told you what I believe.

And being that you admitted to be fallible, your interpretation/opinion and belief of Scripture could be in error....Right?

You are the one claiming something not me.

?? All I asked was ...." is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?"

I am fallible just as you and all other men and women are, which is precisely why I only believe scripture.

So when you give your personal interpretation/opinions of Scripture within this forum, they are non-authoritive and could be in error..... Right?

Your church leaders are men, they are as fallible as anyone else.

This article from Catholicanswers.com could possibly clear up your misunderstanding of infallibility:

The Catholic Church does indeed claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture. Doesn't it make sense that the Church founded by Jesus Christ would claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture? In response to your questions, I would ask you: Who says that God is the one true God? God. Does that make His claim somehow illegitimate? Oh, sure, there are others making the claim that they are the authentic interpreters of Scripture, but doesn't that also make sense that there would be impostors who wish to usurp the authority of the one true Church of Christ by claiming that authority for themselves? The difference is, the Catholic Church has the witness of history on its side. When did the Jehovah's Witnesses get started? Was it 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Are there Jehovah's Witnesses temples in the Promised Land dating back to the early centuries? No. In Rome? No. Anywhere in the Middle East? No. The Jehovah's Witnesses have, in fact, no witnesses. The Mormons? Again, no witnesses. Did they start 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Did anyone else see the angel Joseph Smith claims to have seen? No. What about those gold tablets? No. Any evidence of those two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed on this continent 2000 years ago that supposedly annihilated themselves in an epic battle somewhere in what is now the state of New York? No. Archeologists can find arrowheads and pottery from small 10,000-year old Indian villages, yet not a single shred of evidence for either of these two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed just 2000 years ago. History tells us that Joseph Smith's claims hold no credibility whatsoever. The same holds for all the other pretenders to the throne. For all of them, they have no witnesses to bear out their claims. But, what about the Catholic Church? What witnesses does she have? Plenty. The witness of the Early Church Fathers, most of whom were bishops in the Catholic Church. They were not bishops in the Baptist church, or the Presbyterian Church of America, or the Mormon church, or the Lutheran church, or the Anglican church, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The witness of history. Historians of all creeds and of no creed will tell you that the papacy can be traced back 2000 years. That the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ around the year 30 A.D. That the line of the Bishops’ authority can be traced to the Apostles. Was it the monks of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that preserved and copied the Scriptures in their monasteries over the centuries? No. The Mormon monks? No. The monks of any of the "non-denominational" churches? No. It was the monks of the Catholic Church that did so. Which church is it whose witness we rely upon for the canon of Scripture - to know that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant Word of God? The Mormon church? No. The Evangelical church? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses? No. The witness of miracles. No church, that I am aware of, claims the existence of ongoing miracles - miracles that have eluded scientific explanation even to this day - other than the Catholic Church.

If you'd like to discuss this topic of infallibilty further, start a new thread on it.
As far as 2Tim. 3:16-17 . I am not sure why you posted it here. But my guess is that like most Protestants, you believe it to be the premise of Sola Scriptura. But does this passage teach Sola Scriptura? The answer is no, that's not what Paul said. But here is the biggest reason why these passages do not support Sola Scriptura. Paul simply does not attribute to Scripture those things contained in the doctrine of Sola Scripture. He does not say the Scriptures are the sole source of Christian faith, he doesn’t say they are sufficient on their own to deliver the entirety of God’s revelation, and he doesn’t tell you to be suspicious of any doctrine not found explicitly in the inspired text.

Of course I didn't add it. It's John 1:14 not John 1:1

Okay, must have been a type error, for this is what you said on post #534:

He became flesh for us: John 1:1 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Unregenerate man does not seek after God on his own.
Again, these are your own fallible and non-authoritive words, words not found explicity in Scripture, even 1 Cor. 2:14.

If this is your case for Mary never dying and never sinning you have not made a case at all because you have quoted no scripture stating either of those two things. There is clearly scripture on Enoch and Elijah, so show me the clear scripture stating that Mary did not die and the scripture saying she did not sin.

Again, I am not an adherent to the un-biblical doctine of Sola Scriptura/ bible Alone, you are, so please do not try and hold me to your limitations. So please show a passage from Scripture that says she (Mary) "personally" sinned.

I believe scripture as written.
Romans 3:23: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
It says All have sinned, so ALL have sinned.

Again, let's be clear....So when you say that in Rom.3:23 where it says "ALL" have sinned, you are saying that "ALL" is an absolute, that absolutely "ALL" have sinned. That's what you are saying this passage means....Right?

Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up. Now, with that being said, let's look again at Rom. 3:11 where it says that "no one" seeks for God. So, if you believe that "all" in Rom 3:23 is an absolute, then you must believe that "no one" in Rom 3:11 must also be an absolute. So, every believer who says Rom 3:23 means everyone, without exception, has sinned, cannot be seeking God in his or her life because Rom 3:11, according to their methodology of interpreting Scripture, says that absolutely "no one" is seeking God.

So, tell me Coffee4u, either you are not seeking God in your life, or the Bible is lying...at least, that's what we have to think due to your position of "all" meaning absolutely "all" in your interpretation of Rom. 3:23. The only other possibility Coffee4u, is that the words, "no one," are not being used in an absolute sense. And, if they are not being used in an absolute sense, then it can be argued that the word "all" in 3:23, is also not being used in an absolute sense. Which shoot a huge hole in your argument about Mary.

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So then you must believe that babies have sinned. You must believe those who born severely mentally handicapped have also sinned. I mean you did say you believe scripture as written, and that scripture says "ALL" have sinned, so "ALL" have sinned. Those are your words. And then we have Lk. 1:6. Scripture says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were both “righteous” before God, “walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Again, as you said "Scripture says.... All have sinned, so ALL have sinned." as an absolute, so it must be your belief that they, in fact, did not walk in "ALL" the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless? So, is Scripture wrong here?



So you agree there are exceptions.



I will always agree with Scripture, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error.....correct?



Again, I will always believe in the Word of God, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error. And let's not forget, you did say, "Obviously Enoch and Elijah are special cases. This is God's world, he can do a miracle if he so chooses." Which I take you to mean there are exceptions, and Mary very well could be one of those exceptions.



I'm sorry, you may be an adherent to the unbiblical belief that all we need to know as a sole rule of faith can be found in the Bible, but I will not be held to your man- made, un-biblical theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura.



I'm sorry Coffee4u, but to contend that the Bible being silent about something means it didn't happen, or that it isn't worthy of belief by Christians, is just a bad argument. That's is known as an argument from silence, and arguments of this type are very weak. Think about it, for you to accept this premise that if it's not in the Bible then it didn't happen, well then you could also make an argument that Jesus never went to the bathroom, because nowhere in the bible does it ever say he did, so that must mean He never did. Sorry, but that's bad logic as well as a bad argumentation methodology.



That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe in universal salvation



You know coffee4u, I probably should have asked you this right up front, but is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? I ask this because you rest many of your argumentative points of yours, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion...... the Word of coffee4u, so to speak. Would you also agree that your words outside of quoting Scripture directly is nothing more than your fallible opinion? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do in many cases, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?



I'm sorry, but here again, these words are nothing more than your personal fallible, and non-authoritative opinion that has zero authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself.



I'm sorry, but that's not how my Bible reads Jn.1:1. (The new American bible, second edition) It reads as Jn.1:1; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Even the Protestant KJV bible reads Jn. 1:1 as..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word 'flesh' is in neither, that's something you added.



Yes



Again, an argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error. Remember coffee4u, arguments of this type are very weak.



Bible verse that says this please?



I'm sorry, but your own Protestant version of the Bible (KJV) does not read 1 Cor. 2:14 this way. It reads...."But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
What version do you use?



I hate to keep sounding like a broken record Coffee4u.........but again, another argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error.



How about I use your strategy of silence. Show me in Scripture where it says that Mary personally sinned? Good luck! ;)

Have a Blessed Day!

Who took my Coffee?

"Sinned (hrmarton). Constative second aorist active indicative of amartanw as in Romans 5:12 . This tense gathers up the whole race into one statement (a timeless aorist). And fall short (kai usterountai). Present middle indicative of usterew, to be ustero (comparative) too late, continued action, still fall short. It is followed by the ablative case as here, the case of separation." Romans 3:23 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

I understand the parts that I highlighted to mean, that one must actively sin. Am I wrong and why am I wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think so but it's getting too long and too confusing since I have to find your post to know what some of your answers were referring back to.



2 Samuel 19:19
And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart.

Psalm 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Romans 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Romans 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Romans 4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

James 2:23
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.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you coffee4u for your response. However as I asked before, is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? A yes or no would suffice.

As you stated above..."Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children." it seems you are making exceptions for babies and the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the capacity to commit sin. Well, if there are exceptions to "all," for babies and others, then that means "all" is not an absolute, and there could be other exceptions as well...like Mary, Right?



I believe all are born with the stain of Original sin except for Mary.



So you're admitting there "are' exceptions. Thank you.



So you are saying when a child is growing before the age of reason, and a person that was born severly mentally handicapped and have been incapacitated their entire life wil sin? Hmmmm...



Sorry coffee4u, but there is a problem with that. There is a difference in being created in a state of sin, in the flesh - outside of covenant with God - as we all are when we are born and before we are baptized, and "having" sinned. "Having" sinned implies that one has committed personal sin. Romans 3:23 says that "all HAVE sinned." Babies have not sinned. The mentally handicapped have not sinned. They may be in a state of original sin, but they, personally, HAVE NOT sinned.



No, what I said was that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, and personal interpretation of Scripture that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? As for doing so, and not being being Scripture, I am pretty sure your fallible, personal interpretation and opinions of Scripture are not scriptural. Would you not agree?



Again, a weak argument from silence,



Far fetched? I think not, for I believe what Jesus and Scripture says:

"The Truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Ephesians 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption." (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
"Matthew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to The Church; and if he refuses to listen even to The Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
"Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
So Coffee4u, could you tell me what you believe what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth is? Do you believe it to be the Bible?



And being that you admitted to be fallible, your interpretation/opinion and belief of Scripture could be in error....Right?



?? All I asked was ...." is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?"



So when you give your personal interpretation/opinions of Scripture within this forum, they are non-authoritive and could be in error..... Right?



This article from Catholicanswers.com could possibly clear up your misunderstanding of infallibility:



If you'd like to discuss this topic of infallibilty further, start a new thread on it.
As far as 2Tim. 3:16-17 . I am not sure why you posted it here. But my guess is that like most Protestants, you believe it to be the premise of Sola Scriptura. But does this passage teach Sola Scriptura? The answer is no, that's not what Paul said. But here is the biggest reason why these passages do not support Sola Scriptura. Paul simply does not attribute to Scripture those things contained in the doctrine of Sola Scripture. He does not say the Scriptures are the sole source of Christian faith, he doesn’t say they are sufficient on their own to deliver the entirety of God’s revelation, and he doesn’t tell you to be suspicious of any doctrine not found explicitly in the inspired text.



Okay, must have been a type error, for this is what you said on post #534:



Again, these are your own fallible and non-authoritive words, words not found explicity in Scripture, even 1 Cor. 2:14.



Again, I am not an adherent to the un-biblical doctine of Sola Scriptura/ bible Alone, you are, so please do not try and hold me to your limitations. So please show a passage from Scripture that says she (Mary) "personally" sinned.



Again, let's be clear....So when you say that in Rom.3:23 where it says "ALL" have sinned, you are saying that "ALL" is an absolute, that absolutely "ALL" have sinned. That's what you are saying this passage means....Right?

Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up. Now, with that being said, let's look again at Rom. 3:11 where it says that "no one" seeks for God. So, if you believe that "all" in Rom 3:23 is an absolute, then you must believe that "no one" in Rom 3:11 must also be an absolute. So, every believer who says Rom 3:23 means everyone, without exception, has sinned, cannot be seeking God in his or her life because Rom 3:11, according to their methodology of interpreting Scripture, says that absolutely "no one" is seeking God.

So, tell me Coffee4u, either you are not seeking God in your life, or the Bible is lying...at least, that's what we have to think due to your position of "all" meaning absolutely "all" in your interpretation of Rom. 3:23. The only other possibility Coffee4u, is that the words, "no one," are not being used in an absolute sense. And, if they are not being used in an absolute sense, then it can be argued that the word "all" in 3:23, is also not being used in an absolute sense. Which shoot a huge hole in your argument about Mary.

Have a Blessed Day!

early Church Fathers were taught by the Apostles, thus they are closer to the meaning of Scripture than we are. They are authoritative as historical theology.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you coffee4u for your response. However as I asked before, is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? A yes or no would suffice.

As you stated above..."Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children." it seems you are making exceptions for babies and the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the capacity to commit sin. Well, if there are exceptions to "all," for babies and others, then that means "all" is not an absolute, and there could be other exceptions as well...like Mary, Right?



I believe all are born with the stain of Original sin except for Mary.



So you're admitting there "are' exceptions. Thank you.



So you are saying when a child is growing before the age of reason, and a person that was born severly mentally handicapped and have been incapacitated their entire life wil sin? Hmmmm...



Sorry coffee4u, but there is a problem with that. There is a difference in being created in a state of sin, in the flesh - outside of covenant with God - as we all are when we are born and before we are baptized, and "having" sinned. "Having" sinned implies that one has committed personal sin. Romans 3:23 says that "all HAVE sinned." Babies have not sinned. The mentally handicapped have not sinned. They may be in a state of original sin, but they, personally, HAVE NOT sinned.



No, what I said was that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, and personal interpretation of Scripture that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? As for doing so, and not being being Scripture, I am pretty sure your fallible, personal interpretation and opinions of Scripture are not scriptural. Would you not agree?



Again, a weak argument from silence,



Far fetched? I think not, for I believe what Jesus and Scripture says:

"The Truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Ephesians 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption." (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
"Matthew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to The Church; and if he refuses to listen even to The Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
"Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
So Coffee4u, could you tell me what you believe what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth is? Do you believe it to be the Bible?



And being that you admitted to be fallible, your interpretation/opinion and belief of Scripture could be in error....Right?



?? All I asked was ...." is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?"



So when you give your personal interpretation/opinions of Scripture within this forum, they are non-authoritive and could be in error..... Right?



This article from Catholicanswers.com could possibly clear up your misunderstanding of infallibility:



If you'd like to discuss this topic of infallibilty further, start a new thread on it.
As far as 2Tim. 3:16-17 . I am not sure why you posted it here. But my guess is that like most Protestants, you believe it to be the premise of Sola Scriptura. But does this passage teach Sola Scriptura? The answer is no, that's not what Paul said. But here is the biggest reason why these passages do not support Sola Scriptura. Paul simply does not attribute to Scripture those things contained in the doctrine of Sola Scripture. He does not say the Scriptures are the sole source of Christian faith, he doesn’t say they are sufficient on their own to deliver the entirety of God’s revelation, and he doesn’t tell you to be suspicious of any doctrine not found explicitly in the inspired text.



Okay, must have been a type error, for this is what you said on post #534:



Again, these are your own fallible and non-authoritive words, words not found explicity in Scripture, even 1 Cor. 2:14.



Again, I am not an adherent to the un-biblical doctine of Sola Scriptura/ bible Alone, you are, so please do not try and hold me to your limitations. So please show a passage from Scripture that says she (Mary) "personally" sinned.



Again, let's be clear....So when you say that in Rom.3:23 where it says "ALL" have sinned, you are saying that "ALL" is an absolute, that absolutely "ALL" have sinned. That's what you are saying this passage means....Right?

Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up. Now, with that being said, let's look again at Rom. 3:11 where it says that "no one" seeks for God. So, if you believe that "all" in Rom 3:23 is an absolute, then you must believe that "no one" in Rom 3:11 must also be an absolute. So, every believer who says Rom 3:23 means everyone, without exception, has sinned, cannot be seeking God in his or her life because Rom 3:11, according to their methodology of interpreting Scripture, says that absolutely "no one" is seeking God.

So, tell me Coffee4u, either you are not seeking God in your life, or the Bible is lying...at least, that's what we have to think due to your position of "all" meaning absolutely "all" in your interpretation of Rom. 3:23. The only other possibility Coffee4u, is that the words, "no one," are not being used in an absolute sense. And, if they are not being used in an absolute sense, then it can be argued that the word "all" in 3:23, is also not being used in an absolute sense. Which shoot a huge hole in your argument about Mary.

Have a Blessed Day!

As I said before this is getting far too long to reply too and you just made it longer again. I am not wading through all of that.

You keep saying
"your own fallible and non-authoritive words, words not found explicity in Scripture"

I'm not the one making claims outside of scripture, you are.
Mary never sinned -where is the scripture saying so?
Mary never died -where is the scripture saying so?

Are you going to answer the question as to where you get those claims from? Is it not from your church? Who makes up your church? Men.
Do you honestly think these men are God?
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
2 Samuel 19:19
And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart.

Psalm 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Romans 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Romans 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Romans 4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

James 2:23
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.

Sorry but I don't understand your post or what you are trying to get at.

Mary was born long after God gave the law.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
As I said before this is getting far too long to reply too and you just made it longer again. I am not wading through all of that.

Yeah, I get it, some of my questions are very difficult for adherents of the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura to answer. How about just answering the yes or no question I have asked you in nearly every post but seems you have ignored instead?

"Is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? A yes or no would suffice."

Do this and I will answer the questions you put forth to me and the end of your post.

Have a Blessed Day!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
early Church Fathers were taught by the Apostles, thus they are closer to the meaning of Scripture than we are. They are authoritative as historical theology.

And what Church was it that these ECF belong too. Hint, it sure wasn't any Protestant church, for they didn't come into existence until the mid 16th century. ;)


Have a Blessed Day!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
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

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, I get it, some of my questions are very difficult for adherents of the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura to answer. How about just answering the yes or no question I have asked you in nearly every post but seems you have ignored instead?

"Is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you have no authority, outside of your fallible opinion, to declare me wrong? A yes or no would suffice."

Do this and I will answer the questions you put forth to me and the end of your post.

Have a Blessed Day!

You keep saying the "unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura"
You are again making a claim.
How is it unbiblical?

"Is it fair to say that everything you post here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?

Vested in myself? I don't vest anything in myself, only in scripture. I already said that I am a fallible imperfect person as is every single person ever born. As are you, as are the men from your church. We are back to for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Only God is infallible.

So I ask again, do you believe the men inside your church are God? Because that is all I am left with.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,936.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Has anyone yet deduced that our sin nature is transmitted through the male chromosomes? Mary (God bless her soul) would have gotten her sin nature through her father, whereas Jesus had no such issues, His chromosomes were "pre-fall".. so, where Adam brought sin into the world Jesus was able to restore or reconcile man to God. He did what Adam did not.

That's what I've deduced anyway.. Mary had an original sin nature, but she's not the one to pass it on, that comes from the male of the species. For Jesus, that was God in the flesh and the second Adam.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Has anyone yet deduced that our sin nature is transmitted through the male chromosomes? Mary (God bless her soul) would have gotten her sin nature through her father, whereas Jesus had no such issues, His chromosomes were "pre-fall".. so, where Adam brought sin into the world Jesus was able to restore or reconcile man to God. He did what Adam did not.

That's what I've deduced anyway.. Mary had an original sin nature, but she's not the one to pass it on, that comes from the male of the species. For Jesus, that was God in the flesh and the second Adam.

That is similar to what I believe. That somehow the father passes down the sin nature to his children. I don't know if it is literally through the chromosomes or something more spiritual in nature. I don't know about pre fall chromosomes either. We don't have clear verses saying either of those two things.

I do agree with "Mary had an original sin nature, but she's not the one to pass it on, that comes from the male of the species. For Jesus, that was God in the flesh and the second Adam."
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,936.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is similar to what I believe. That somehow the father passes down the sin nature to his children. I don't know if it is literally through the chromosomes or something more spiritual in nature. I don't know about pre fall chromosomes either. We don't have clear verses saying either of those two things.

I do agree with "Mary had an original sin nature, but she's not the one to pass it on, that comes from the male of the species. For Jesus, that was God in the flesh and the second Adam."

Yeah some of what I think your right doesn't come from scripture (aka pre-fall chromosomes) as that's just basic modern science thinking included...

But yeah, you and I agree on the matter... its the only way it seems to work, that its passed from father to children..
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
John 9
Good News Translation

9 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been born blind. 2 His disciples asked him, “Teacher, whose sin caused him to be born blind? Was it his own or his parents' sin?”

3 Jesus answered, “His blindness has nothing to do with his sins or his parents' sins. He is blind so that God's power might be seen at work in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me; night is coming when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light for the world.”

“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:5).”

“A good soul fell to my lot, or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).”

“The soul is imperishable and immortal. Emanating from t he finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell (Josephus, JW 2.8.11).”

“All souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth (2 Enoch 23).”

Romans 5:12 does fit the possibility that one is born innocent of sin, bout born into an environment of corruption.

"An explicit statement of the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul is found in the Apocrypha: "All souls are prepared before the foundation of the world" (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxiii. 5); and according to II Esd. iv. 35 et seq. the number of the righteous who are to come into the world is foreordained from the beginning. All souls are, therefore, preexistent, although the number of those which are to become incorporated is not determined at the very first. As a matter of fact, there are souls of different quality. Solomon says (Wisdom viii. 19 et seq., R. V.): "Now I was a child of parts, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled." The body returns to earth when its possessor "is required to render back the soul which was lent him" (ib. xv. 8, R. V.). The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch xxx. 2-3 (Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," ii. 423) distinguishes between righteous and common souls in the following passage, which describes the Messianic period and which is characteristic of the concept of preexistence: "The storehouses in which the foreordained number of souls is kept shall be opened, and the souls shall go forth, and the many souls shall appear all at once, as a host with one mind. And the first shall rejoice, and the last shall not be sad."

SOUL - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

If the above speculations are true, then everyone is born without a sin nature. The sin nature comes into being when we commit our first sin on earth.
 
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

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You keep saying the "unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura"
You are again making a claim.
How is it unbiblical?

Since you are a believer of Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) please show me one single verse from the Bible where Jesus, the apostles, or prophets say or write that the Bible alone is all we need or is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. And please, if you are about to post 2Tim. 3:16-17 , in post # 543 I have shown you how these verses don't actually say the bible alone is sufficient at all.

Vested in myself? I don't vest anything in myself, only in scripture.

So you agree to be a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of of quoting Scripture directly.

I already said that I am a fallible imperfect person as is every single person ever born.
Which means...your personal opinion and interpretation of Scripture could be in error....Correct?

As are you, as are the men from your church.

Well, I know that I am, but we have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16).

We are back to for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Again, Romans 3:23. As I feel we have already established, you do not have the authority to tell me what that passage or any other passage of Scripture means, and that I should believe your interpretation. Right? So, I believe your interpretation is wrong. I also think we have already established that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, and this interpretation of yours could be wrong. Right? And, if it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation? Besides, I already showed on post #543 where "all" does not absolutely mean "all.'

Only God is infallible.

In the teachings of faith and morals? Please show verse or verses from the bible that says this.

So I ask again, do you believe the men inside your church are God?

Of course not. To suggest it is...... quite frankly insulting

Because that is all I am left with.

You would be wrong...... You have the Scriptures!

According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7).

Have a Blessed Day!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since you are a believer of Sola Scriptura (the bible alone) please show me one single verse from the Bible where Jesus, the apostles, or prophets say or write that the Bible alone is all we need or is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. And please, if you are about to post 2Tim. 3:16-17 , in post # 543 I have shown you how these verses don't actually say the bible alone is sufficient at all.



So you agree to be a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of of quoting Scripture directly.


Which means...your personal opinion and interpretation of Scripture could be in error....Correct?



Well, I know that I am, but we have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16).



Again, Romans 3:23. As I feel we have already established, you do not have the authority to tell me what that passage or any other passage of Scripture means, and that I should believe your interpretation. Right? So, I believe your interpretation is wrong. I also think we have already established that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, and this interpretation of yours could be wrong. Right? And, if it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation? Besides, I already showed on post #543 where "all" does not absolutely mean "all.'



In the teachings of faith and morals? Please show verse or verses from the bible that says this.



Of course not. To suggest it is...... quite frankly insulting



You would be wrong...... You have the Scriptures!

According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7).

Have a Blessed Day!

I have figured out the fundamental difference.

I believe the church, the Bride of Christ to be all born again believers. All those saved by Christs blood.
John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Which is why I have that verse as my signature. Whosoever.

I believe the Bible to be God's breathed word and as such God tells us what we need to know through it.

Anything it doesn't teach is adding to it.
Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I believe the foundation of the church to be Christ and Christ alone.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.


You believe the church to be the Roman Catholic church and you believe that the priests and clergy actually to be speaking in place of God.

I do not believe that. I view the men of your church, the priests, your founding fathers to be men, just like yourself.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I believe we are all equal.


The teacher is the Holy Spirit not any person.
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

I think I shall end it here. There is no need for us to argue since we will never agree.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I have figured out the fundamental difference.

I believe the church, the Bride of Christ to be all born again believers.

Yes, through my Baptism I was saved just as the bible says i 1 Peter 3:20-21, and that it is through Baptism, water and the Spirit, that I are "born again," just as the Bible says in John 3:5.

All those saved by Christs blood. John 3:16

With all due respect Coffee4u, but these words are not the words of John 3:16. Your own KJV of the bible reads as follows: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) Again, from the KJV of the bible: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6)

I believe the Bible to be God's breathed word and as such God tells us what we need to know through it.

And yet the bible also says...."There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Anything it doesn't teach is adding to it.

Concerning Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I agree.

I believe the foundation of the church to be Christ and Christ alone.
1 Corinthians 3:11, For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

In the Bible, Foundations and cornerstones of the Church are mentioned mor than once. In 1 Corinthians 3, Christ is the foundation of the local Church. In 1 Peter 2, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. In Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation. In Revelation 21, the foundation is the Twelve. And in Matthew 16, the rock is Peter.

You believe the church to be the Roman Catholic church and you believe that the priests and clergy actually to be speaking in place of God.

Actually Coffee4u, The Roman Catholic Church is only one of many Rites within the Holy Catholic Church. In case you didn't know.

Could I ask you something Coffee4u? Do you own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (CCC) If not, you really should. I think that all non-Catholics (and so-called former Catholics, they get the Church's teachings wrong more that never been Catholics!) who believe they have the authority to tell us Catholics what our Church does or does not teaches should study the CCC first, to get their facts straight. It would save a lot of us Catholics from rolling our eyes while leaning back in our chairs saying....."Oh brother, here we go again! :)

Anyhoo, the ministry of the ordained priest is not in conflict or competition with the sole mediatorship of Christ, because the priest does not claim anything of his own apart from Christ. He is Christ’s priest. The priest “depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood” (CCC 1551). He acts in persona Christi. The priest does not stand in Jesus’ way, but acts as His instrument. The Church teaches that “In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth.” (CCC 1548)

I do not believe that. I view the men of your church, the priests, your founding fathers to be men, just like yourself.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Wait....but there is more! Really you might say! "Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus established a ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptized?" We as Catholics answer with a confident and firm “Amen.”
In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.“
Remember, as Catholics, we are not saying that the apostles (and their successors) forgive sins by their own power. The power by which they absolve sins is the very power of Jesus Christ. The priests are simply the agents in persona Christi who exercise that power to which they have access because it resides in their soul by virtue of their ordination.
I could give you many other examples from scripture ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptized established by Jesus but my post may be getting to long so I'll just post the Chapter/ verse of a couple more. Lk. 22:19; Matt. 12:5; Rom. 15:15-16 to name a few.

I believe we are all equal.

So do I

The teacher is the Holy Spirit not any person.
John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Spirit and the Church
737 The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission henceforth brings Christ's faithful to share in his communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit prepares men and goes out to them with his grace, in order to draw them to Christ. The Spirit manifests the risen Lord to them, recalls his word to them and opens their minds to the understanding of his Death and Resurrection. He makes present the mystery of Christ, supremely in the Eucharist, in order to reconcile them, to bring them into communion with God, that they may "bear much fruit."132

738 Thus the Church's mission is not an addition to that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but is its sacrament: in her whole being and in all her members, the Church is sent to announce, bear witness, make present, and spread the mystery of the communion of the Holy Trinity (the topic of the next article):
All of us who have received one and the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, are in a sense blended together with one another and with God. For if Christ, together with the Father's and his own Spirit, comes to dwell in each of us, though we are many, still the Spirit is one and undivided. He binds together the spirits of each and every one of us, . . . and makes all appear as one in him. For just as the power of Christ's sacred flesh unites those in whom it dwells into one body, I think that in the same way the one and undivided Spirit of God, who dwells in all, leads all into spiritual unity.133

739 Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church's sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. (This will be the topic of Part Two of the Catechism.)

740 These "mighty works of God," offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)

741 "The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes with sighs too deep for words."134 The Holy Spirit, the artisan of God's works, is the master of prayer. (This will be the topic of Part Four.)

I think I shall end it here. There is no need for us to argue since we will never agree.

Sorry to hear it. I actually didn't think we were arguing.

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, through my Baptism I was saved just as the bible says i 1 Peter 3:20-21, and that it is through Baptism, water and the Spirit, that I are "born again," just as the Bible says in John 3:5.



With all due respect Coffee4u, but these words are not the words of John 3:16. Your own KJV of the bible reads as follows: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) Again, from the KJV of the bible: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6)



And yet the bible also says...."There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)



Concerning Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I agree.



In the Bible, Foundations and cornerstones of the Church are mentioned mor than once. In 1 Corinthians 3, Christ is the foundation of the local Church. In 1 Peter 2, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church. In Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation. In Revelation 21, the foundation is the Twelve. And in Matthew 16, the rock is Peter.



Actually Coffee4u, The Roman Catholic Church is only one of many Rites within the Holy Catholic Church. In case you didn't know.

Could I ask you something Coffee4u? Do you own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (CCC) If not, you really should. I think that all non-Catholics (and so-called former Catholics, they get the Church's teachings wrong more that never been Catholics!) who believe they have the authority to tell us Catholics what our Church does or does not teaches should study the CCC first, to get their facts straight. It would save a lot of us Catholics from rolling our eyes while leaning back in our chairs saying....."Oh brother, here we go again! :)

Anyhoo, the ministry of the ordained priest is not in conflict or competition with the sole mediatorship of Christ, because the priest does not claim anything of his own apart from Christ. He is Christ’s priest. The priest “depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood” (CCC 1551). He acts in persona Christi. The priest does not stand in Jesus’ way, but acts as His instrument. The Church teaches that “In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth.” (CCC 1548)



Wait....but there is more! Really you might say! "Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus established a ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptized?" We as Catholics answer with a confident and firm “Amen.”
In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.“
Remember, as Catholics, we are not saying that the apostles (and their successors) forgive sins by their own power. The power by which they absolve sins is the very power of Jesus Christ. The priests are simply the agents in persona Christi who exercise that power to which they have access because it resides in their soul by virtue of their ordination.
I could give you many other examples from scripture ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptized established by Jesus but my post may be getting to long so I'll just post the Chapter/ verse of a couple more. Lk. 22:19; Matt. 12:5; Rom. 15:15-16 to name a few.



So do I



From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Spirit and the Church
737 The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission henceforth brings Christ's faithful to share in his communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit prepares men and goes out to them with his grace, in order to draw them to Christ. The Spirit manifests the risen Lord to them, recalls his word to them and opens their minds to the understanding of his Death and Resurrection. He makes present the mystery of Christ, supremely in the Eucharist, in order to reconcile them, to bring them into communion with God, that they may "bear much fruit."132

738 Thus the Church's mission is not an addition to that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but is its sacrament: in her whole being and in all her members, the Church is sent to announce, bear witness, make present, and spread the mystery of the communion of the Holy Trinity (the topic of the next article):
All of us who have received one and the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, are in a sense blended together with one another and with God. For if Christ, together with the Father's and his own Spirit, comes to dwell in each of us, though we are many, still the Spirit is one and undivided. He binds together the spirits of each and every one of us, . . . and makes all appear as one in him. For just as the power of Christ's sacred flesh unites those in whom it dwells into one body, I think that in the same way the one and undivided Spirit of God, who dwells in all, leads all into spiritual unity.133

739 Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church's sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. (This will be the topic of Part Two of the Catechism.)

740 These "mighty works of God," offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)

741 "The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes with sighs too deep for words."134 The Holy Spirit, the artisan of God's works, is the master of prayer. (This will be the topic of Part Four.)



Sorry to hear it. I actually didn't think we were arguing.

Have a Blessed Day!

Could I ask you something Coffee4u? Do you own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

No I don't.

Sorry to hear it. I actually didn't think we were arguing.

Well that's good. :)
 
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

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
No I don't.

Okay. Do you not agree then, as a non-Catholic, it would behoove you to read what the Catholic Church actually teaches of any certain belief in the Catechism of the Catholic Church before commenting on it? I mean, surely you wouldn't want to put any incorrect posts of what the Church actually teaches, right?

Also, please take note how the Catechism is labeled as "the Catechism of the Catholic Church," not the The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. You can also read the Catechism online. Just be sure you get the official version. The Vatican has an online version I go to often.



Well that's good. :)

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0