simonthezealot
have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Scripture please? was it not Lucifers PRIDE that got him tossed?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scripture please? was it not Lucifers PRIDE that got him tossed?The angels in heaven are without sin,
Scripture please? was it not Lucifers PRIDE that got him tossed?
I supplied ample Scriptural evidence that the usage of "all" does not in general refer to every individual (because there are exceptions), but is rather making a generic statement about groups.I always, when I read Romans, I think that Paul really believed he made it clear that all have sinned. Looks like he wasn't so clear after all. [/ironic]
It's the same argument and the same premise. Kings says that for there is no one who does not sin, Romans says that all have sinned.Again, my argument was based on Kings, not Romans.
Besides Jesus Christ, who is the only truly born of the Father, who is sinless Himself, who else is sinless? What candidate do you propose that could reach God's sinlessness?Both are making general statements about mankind, not referring to specific individuals, and one can find exceptions to the "no one" in Scripture.
The angels in heaven are sinless. Sinlessness does not equate to Deity.Besides Jesus Christ, who is the only truly born of the Father, who is sinless Himself, who else is sinless? What candidate do you propose that could reach God's sinlessness?
Again i asked for scripture NOT your opinion...Originally Posted by narnia59
The angels in heaven are without sin,Yes, and that's why he's no longer in heaven -- his sin.
The angels in heaven are without sin. Last time I checked, that doesn't include Lucifer.
So are you proposing that:
1) Lucifer is still in heaven
2) There are no angels left in heaven because they all sinned
3) There are angels in heaven who have sinned
Because as far as I can tell if you disagree with my statement that the angels in heaven are without sin, those are pretty much your only choices.
Nope, no desire to read through Aquinas tonightAgain i asked for scripture NOT your opinion...
Take a read at Aquinas if you'd like.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The malice of the angels with regard to sin (Prima Pars, Q. 63)
Thank you. I know we have a lot of differences, but I couldn't fathom how our understanding of the angles in heaven being sinless was one. I thought I was going crazy.I missed the in heaven part, i thought you were saying all angels were sinless...This clearly is not the case. My misunderstanding..
So does your understanding of what I was saying about the angels in heaven mean that you can be in agreement with my assertion that 'sinlessness' is not an attribute reserved only for God?The rightful location for those who rebelled.
2 Peter 2:4 For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
So does your understanding of what I was saying about the angels in heaven mean that you can be in agreement with my assertion that 'sinlessness' is not an attribute reserved only for God?
## Apples & oranges.Its common to hear non-Catholics point to Romans 3:23 (for all have sinned and fallen sort of the glory of God) as evidence that Mary must have sinned.
But Romans 3:23 arises from Romans 3:10-18, where Paul quotes Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, 53 and 140, and Isaiah 59. All of these passages specifically refer to those who are evil, boastful, foolish, greedy, violent, and wicked the violent devise evil in their hearts, no fool turns to God, the greedy spurn God, no fool is righteous, etc., etc.
Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, and 140 contrast these evildoers with the righteous so there ARE those who are righteous, those who do not devise evil in their hearts, who do turn to God, etc. etc.
So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.
Furthermore, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" doesn't demand a universal meaning, in the same way as "everyone in town showed up for the parade" doesn't mean that every single individual in every house turned out.
## Actually, that is not so. It may be what some apologists think.Such phrases can (and often do) have a general meaning, and the Catholic position is that it does here.
## See Romans 5 & the CCC.In fact there are many people who not only have not sinned but who cannot sin, among them infants and the mentally infirm. Such people do not have the mental capacity required to make an act of the will to reject God.
## Which is true. That is the point the Apostle is making.If this is not true, if in fact these passages mean that every single person without exception has sinned,
## Not by the Rabbinic methods of exegesis used here.then it must also be true
## Which is true - nobody does. Our holiest deeds & words & thoughts are unclean compared to the awful Purity & Holiness & Goodness of God. The Saints are very clear about this.that without exception no person brings suit justly, no person pleads truthfully, every person is quick to shed innocent blood, etc., as also described in the passages from the Psalms and Isaiah. In short, it must be true that absolutely no one does what is right, ever!
## What is that compared to the Holiness of God ? Abstaining from evil =//= Holiness. One might as well compare the light of a fire-fly with the heat of the sun at its core - but the sun at its most glorious is as black as the pit of Hell, compared to the Brightness of God.But that conclusion flatly contradicts scripture, which explicitly speaks of righteous men who walk with God: Job, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, those mentioned in Psalm 14, Zechariah and Elizabeth, and so on.
It also flatly contradicts actual experience, because the world is full of people who more often than not choose to do good when offered the opportunity to do evil...
##hopefully some of us are among them.
## Rom.3.23 applies to Mary too - it must. The CCC makes no exception for her, but speaks of the "universality" of sin. It does not follow that she committed personal sins. But she needed a Saviour as much as any serial killer does. We all do.So the idea that Mary must have sinned based on passages such as Romans 3:23 falls flat on its own face.
Your response is very confused. You object strenuously to my assertion that Romans 3:23 does not imply that Mary must have sinned, and even claim that the Apostle was making the point that every single individual eithout exception has sinned.. but then you say that it does not follow from Romans 3:23 that Mary sinned....Rom.3.23 applies to Mary too - it must. The CCC makes no exception for her, but speaks of the "universality" of sin. It does not follow that she committed personal sins....
It’s common to hear non-Catholics point to Romans 3:23 (“for all have sinned and fallen sort of the glory of God”as evidence that Mary must have sinned.
But Romans 3:23 arises from Romans 3:10-18, where Paul quotes Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, 53 and 140, and Isaiah 59. All of these passages specifically refer to those who are evil, boastful, foolish, greedy, violent, and wicked – the violent devise evil in their hearts, no fool turns to God, the greedy spurn God, no fool is righteous, etc., etc.
Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, and 140 contrast these evildoers with the righteous – so there ARE those who are righteous, those who do not devise evil in their hearts, who do turn to God, etc. etc.
So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.
Furthermore, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" doesn't demand a universal meaning, in the same way as "everyone in town showed up for the parade" doesn't mean that every single individual in every house turned out. Such phrases can (and often do) have a general meaning, and the Catholic position is that it does here. In fact there are many people who not only have not sinned but who cannot sin, among them infants and the mentally infirm. Such people do not have the mental capacity required to make an act of the will to reject God.
If this is not true, if in fact these passages mean that every single person without exception has sinned, then it must also be true that without exception no person brings suit justly, no person pleads truthfully, every person is quick to shed innocent blood, etc., as also described in the passages from the Psalms and Isaiah. In short, it must be true that absolutely no one does what is right, ever! But that conclusion flatly contradicts scripture, which explicitly speaks of righteous men who walk with God: Job, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, those mentioned in Psalm 14, Zechariah and Elizabeth, and so on. It also flatly contradicts actual experience, because the world is full of people who more often than not choose to do good when offered the opportunity to do evil... hopefully some of us are among them.
So the idea that Mary must have sinned based on passages such as Romans 3:23 falls flat on its own face.
You choose to completely ignore the OP, which is essentially an admission that you have no rational rebuttal.So we have the Bible's depiction of Mary as a sinner and Catholicism's Unbiblical opinions of Mary as sinless and the Bible as inaccurate...
You completely ignore the topic of the thread, which I take as an admission that you have no coherent rebuttal.<So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.
Even in the new covenant, the born again Christian has 2 natures. The inner divine nature and the flesh nature. The flesh nature is sinful and carnal and cannot please God. The two are opposed to each other (Romans). The Christians must choose to walk in the Spirit in order to express the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. It's not a free pass.
Even John states that if we don't acknowledge that we sin we lie against the truth.
If Mary was born as a born again Christian (which we know that she wasn't), she would still have to walk only in the Spirit. John stated to not sin was impossible, so as a new covenant Christian, a sinless person outside of Christ is impossible.
John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman, but the least in the new covenant is greater than he. Not of your own works that is so, but because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If we're greater than all before Jesus, and we still have to walk in the Spirit to express that, and that by the grace of God. You would saying that by Mary's own goodness she was sinless, and that she was greater than John the Baptist.
Mary herself rejoiced in God her savior. She acknowledged needing a savior.
I don't understand the need to exalt Mary? People want to maintain her virginity, as though virginity is a desired status. That is only for single people. Paul stated that if you "hold out" or deny your spouse you're defrauding them, because that is their only legal sexual outlet. The sexual union is good in the sight of God, and He instituted it, to go with marriage. It's required to consummate the marriage. She knew Joseph after Jesus was born in the same way that she didn't "know" a man before Jesus was conceived.
Mary cannot hear our prayers, because she is not God. How can she answer them if she cannot hear them? Jesus is our great high priest. Why seek another name for grace, when there is no other name given whereby we must be saved?
If by virtue of God's covenant we can come boldly to the throne of grace and actually obtain mercy why would you look anywhere else for help?
Would it not be better to honor her by seeing her for what she was, the mother of Jesus, who's suffered so that the sins of many would be laid bare. She was greatly rewarded for her suffering. Adding godlike abilities does not honor her, in spite of the intent of so many well meaning.
Jesus performed many miracles and gave the anointing to His disciples. On Pentecost the church received the anointing. If Jesus were here, would you trudge on off to Fatima to seek a healing, or would you go to Jesus? Jesus said it was better that He go so that the Holy Spirit would come. If we can't have healing, why is that better? We can! Jesus paid the penalty with His stripes for our healing. We only need the same faith He required when He walked the earth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?