All have sinned?

[Alive_Again]

Kepha said...

You also appear to to mock original sin yet I noticed protestants on here are so eager to make the claim that sin = corrupt flesh in the 'all have sinned' verse and not personal sin at all. Your flesh remains corrupt even after you believe and are baptized. So you're still a sinner since corrupt flesh = sin?

Let me first say that I would never make a mockery of sin of any kind. If I use the term "original sin" (it's not in the Bible), I say it for the benefit of Catholics who relate to it as such.

For whatever "kind" of sin mentioned in Romans 3, it's clear that "all" sinned. Call it whatever you want. There are a number of places in the New Testament that relate to our fallen "flesh" nature as a result of the sin of Adam. As I recall, Catholics refer to this as "original sin", right? Of course people individually sin. That is the result of your fallen flesh nature. The carnal mind cannot please God. You have to live according to your reborn/divine nature in order to not sin. In order to not sin, you must repent and be reborn into the Kingdom of God, and walk in the light. That included Mary.

I also found it interesting you quoted Romans to say there were no righteous yet read on to discover there were righteous. Contridiction or yet another example to what the OP was saying originally with even his own verse. I'll take the latter.

It's clear that Enoch pleased God. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Lot and the others were saved because God doesn't destroy the righteous with sinners.

If you want to understand righteousness. It's relative to the covenant God has for you. If you fulfill the demands of the covenant, you receive righteousness (are in right standing) with God.

As New Covenant believers, righteousness is imputed to you when you believe God by receiving Jesus as your Lord and savior. You fulfill righteousness when you hearken to His voice to do His Word. When God says in Romans 3 there is none righteous, He's talking about the nature of man. The blood of bulls in the old covenant didn't relieve your conscience. He wanted man to take on the nature of God inwardly, and to walk out His laws as they are written in his heart. The old way didn't allow that.

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
Romans 8:20-21

Your flesh remains corrupt even after you believe and are baptized. So you're still a sinner since corrupt flesh = sin?

If you're walking in the light, you don't sin. You're free from the bondage of sin. You've escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. You have a choice you didn't have previously. If you walk in the flesh, you'll sin.

 

[Kepha]

For whatever "kind" of sin mentioned in Romans 3, it's clear that "all" sinned. Call it whatever you want.

You cannot just call it whatever you want nor can you 'assume' that ALL means ALL when the same word in other areas of the Bible as pointed out, cant only means 'many'. And Infants or babies who have died in the womb have NEVER committed a personal sin. So you can rule that one out of being in the 'whatever kind of sin' mentioned in Romans was.

There are a number of places in the New Testament that relate to our fallen "flesh" nature as a result of the sin of Adam.

Only a consequence of the sin of Adam but it doesn't necessarily mean one has committed a sin because of it.

As I recall, Catholics refer to this as "original sin", right?

No, Original sin has nothing to do with our fallen nature 'inclined' to want to sin as Paul pointed out was His own problem He was dealing with, even when He walked in Righteousness.

It's clear that Enoch pleased God. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Lot and the others were saved because God doesn't destroy the righteous with sinners.
If you want to understand righteousness. It's relative to the covenant God has for you. If you fulfill the demands of the covenant, you receive righteousness (are in right standing) with God.

You missed my point. I'm telling you that what may look like everyone isn't everyone or you likewise have to say that 'every Gentile' not under any Covenant, before the Crucifixion of Christ had never seeked after God and who's mouths were full of cursing and bitterness with no fear of God in their eyes which just isn't true. Are Atheists of today all liars and have venom of asps is under their lips? So what is it. We can allow for hyperboles in one area but not a few lines after with the 'All have sinned' verse?

In Genesis, Mary is the Woman who had the 'same' enmity toward the serpent as Christ had which in His human nature there was zero inclinations. The 'entire' Bible from cover to cover says things in it that can either be neglected or embraced. And it tells me She was never included in the 'All have sinned' verse of having a fallen nature unless one wishes to point from it, the extension only, from the first part, the need for Christ's redemptive Sacrifice which was absolutely necessary for Her and all the OT Saints before Her.

 

[Alive_Again]

You cannot just call it whatever you want nor can you 'assume' that ALL means ALL when the same word in other areas of the Bible as pointed out, cant only means 'many'.

You're pointing back to contexts of other scriptures referring to different subjects. In Romans 3, we're speaking of all mankind. They used the word "all" so many times, it's incredible that you want to believe that it doesn't mean all.

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
Romans 3:19

Are you going to say that "all the world" doesn't mean that? Furthermore, Mary was under the Law. Mary was part of a covenant where sacrifices were made for the sins of the people. She was included and the sacrifices were for her sins as well as other Jews.

Remember, the context of this chapter is the fallen inward nature of man. No one is exempt.

...let God be true, but every man a liar Romans 3
...we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin Romans 3
...there is none righteous, no, not one Romans 3
...there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God Romans 3
...they are all gone out of the way Romans 3
...there is none that doeth good, Romans 3
...no, not one Romans 3
...that every mouth may be stopped Romans 3
...all the world may become guilty before God Romans 3
...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God Romans 3

If you find "exemptions" to this, you could argue against any scripture. Paul was speaking to the Romans. You could say that you're not a Roman, so it doesn't apply to you. In reality, the scripture locates each one of us.

And Infants or babies who have died in the womb have NEVER committed a personal sin. So you can rule that one out of being in the 'whatever kind of sin' mentioned in Romans was.

All babies are born with a nature that is estranged from God by means of the sin of Adam. Babies don't know what they're doing. God won't send them to Hell if they die. But they have a sin nature, nonetheless. Haven't you noticed that little children are capable of deception? They're entirely self centered, and often disobedient as well. Of course we can relate to that as adults. Jesus didn't make us like Adam in the atonement. We are given a new heart and are now capable of walking in the light of the Spirit. Even we cannot escape the fact that we have to deny our flesh nature (which will still get into sin if we let it) and walk according to our regenerate spirits in order not to sin. That goes for Mary as well. When she was born again, she had to choose to walk in the light along with the rest of the church. She also sinned since her rebirth. John tells us that we all sin. This is because we have 2 natures and we must learn to walk in the Spirit and deny ourselves. Jesus is the door and to go in, is not a one time thing. We must abide in Him, just like Mary had to do.

(I previously posted...) There are a number of places in the New Testament that relate to our fallen "flesh" nature as a result of the sin of Adam.

Only a consequence of the sin of Adam but it doesn't necessarily mean one has committed a sin because of it.

Adam/man broke fellowship with God in the garden. His very nature became contrary to God. It became subject to vanity. It needed laws to curb sin. The Law pointed out that man was sinful. So we can fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law by walking in the Spirit and not sin at all. If we walk in the flesh, we're subject ot vanity again and the Law of sin and death.

You missed my point. I'm telling you that what may look like everyone isn't everyone...
...before the Crucifixion of Christ had never seeked after God and who's mouths were full of cursing and bitterness with no fear of God in their eyes which just isn't true.

Really? God says it is true. Although David sought after God in the Psalms, he himself prophesied of the sinful nature of man that does not fulfill the righteous requirement of God in man's seeking. Consequently, they don't "seek after God". Every man comes short of the glory of God. We must receive the righteousness that God requires as a gift, because our sin nature falls short.

<Are Atheists of today all liars and have venom of asps is under their lips?

That is the nature of man, not just atheists. Atheists are blind and are incapable (like all natural men) of pleasing God with their tongue, in the manner He requires. As it is said in James, no man can control the tongue (it's full of sin!). Only in Christ can we bridle the tongue. The righteousness of God -- It's a tall order and it's absolutely impossible for any natural man to fulfill. You have to receive a new nature and walk in it, or you fall short of the grace of God.

The 'entire' Bible from cover to cover says things in it that can either be neglected or embraced.

&#8220;Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?"
Mark 12:24

&#8220;I will worship toward Thy holy temple,and praise Thy name for Thy lovingkindness and for Thy truth: for Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name.&#8221;
Psalms 138:2

"We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:19-21

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
1 Thess 2:13

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever."
Isaiah 40:8

&#8220;Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.&#8221;
Romans 3:4

<And it tells me She was never included in the 'All have sinned' verse of having a fallen nature...

"It" tells you that? As you know, you were told this by man, or man in the church. You received this as truth. The scripture is plain about ALL MANKIND. You must choose what to believe. It's not likely to change whether or not you follow after Christ, but your choice to lay aside the Word of God to justify a doctrine that was given to you, and obviously contrary to scripture is an indicator that you're open to deception.

Also, the Holy Spirit confirms the Word with signs following. He Himself ministers of the truth of the Word. It would be good for you to enter into prayer about this, humbly.

 

[Kepha]

You're pointing back to contexts of other scriptures referring to different subjects.

I'm pointing back to the word itself where the definition doesn't have to be as rigorous as you're making it. You can suggest all you want that the number of times it's quoted makes a difference and one can say 'all' till he's blue in the face, but when understood with both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, each and every time it's said, ALL have had been touched by Original Sin except Mother Mary. One at first glance could even then suggest that it include Christ, since He was fully man as well. But we know of course the difference here don't we after reading further and within the entire context of the Gospel. So likewise, Catholics also know the difference here regarding the Mother of God.

Are you going to say that "all the world" doesn't mean that?

The way you keep insisting for it's definition, then yes, I'm going to tell you that.

Furthermore, Mary was under the Law. Mary was part of a covenant where sacrifices were made for the sins of the people. She was included and the sacrifices were for her sins as well as other Jews.

Christ, like Mary was under the law, and His appearance of Baptism could easily have been mistaken as a sign that He sinned. And like Mary, the appearance of offering sacrifices could be a sign that She sinned. Some advise to you. Don't put too much stake into appearances as they can be deceiving to the untrained eye.

Remember, the context of this chapter is the fallen inward nature of man. No one is exempt.

...let God be true, but every man a liar Romans 3
...we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin Romans 3
...there is none righteous, no, not one Romans 3
...there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God Romans 3
...they are all gone out of the way Romans 3
...there is none that doeth good, Romans 3
...no, not one Romans 3
...that every mouth may be stopped Romans 3
...all the world may become guilty before God Romans 3
...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God Romans 3

The context of the chapter is dealing with the Grace of God saving mankind who was put wrong by the sin of Adam and in our own fallen capacity, can lie, decieve, steal etc. Not that 'every man' had commited these sins. Paul plucked these out of the Psalms as a way to show as a whole, the different sins of man and how it infected the entire human race. But to say 'All' men who do not have faith in Christ are liars is utter nonsense.

As the Catholic scholar Estius puts it:

These crimes, enumerated by the apostle, are not mentioned as if found in each individual, but some of this black catalogue of crimes were found in one man; some in another; yet so that all had become infected with sin and iniquity, all had deserted the path of virtue. There was none just, none found, who feared or sought after God.

Mother Mary was also saved by the very same Salvic Graces of the Cross, and because we say the sin itself didn't spot Her soul, the principle of Salvation is the same and Romans remains true.

If you find "exemptions" to this, you could argue against any scripture.

There are no "exemptions' when one understands both the Wrtten and Oral Word of God bringing Romans into context and not try to throw it all into a box with missing truths as you are attempting.

All babies are born with a nature that is estranged from God by means of the sin of Adam. Babies don't know what they're doing. God won't send them to Hell if they die. But they have a sin nature, nonetheless. Haven't you noticed that little children are capable of deception? They're entirely self centered, and often disobedient as well.

I was talking about personal sin, not Original sin or even a sin nature brought about because of Original sin.
Little babies aren't 'capable' of deception. They have no personal sin which was my argument.

Romans 9 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil.

That goes for Mary as well. When she was born again, she had to choose to walk in the light along with the rest of the church. She also sinned since her rebirth. John tells us that we all sin. This is because we have 2 natures and we must learn to walk in the Spirit and deny ourselves. Jesus is the door and to go in, is not a one time thing. We must abide in Him, just like Mary had to do.

Incorrect. In Luke, Mary was called by name 'Kecharitomene' which in the Greek indicates a perfection of grace. This does not sound at all like one who is under the bondage of sin in need of His Redemptive Graces at that moment in time. It sounds to me like it's already happened before the death of Christ. And of course She continuedto walk in righteousness with faith in Her Son Jesus Chirst till She passed on to Heaven.

<Are Atheists of today all liars and have venom of asps is under their lips?
That is the nature of man, not just atheists. Atheists are blind and are incapable (like all natural men) of pleasing God with their tongue, in the manner He requires.

Romans 3 is stating all of these sins together. Non seeking liars whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. It's very clear that 'all' Atheist do not commit these literal sins. And that's my point. Romans is telling us how worthless we are without the Grace of Christ Jesus working in us through faith. But, every 'good' action from an Atheist is still done so by the Grace of God. It means they are obeying another type of Grace (Catholics call it 'Actual Grace). Pleasing God unto Salvation is another matter since that deals with us allowing His Sanctifying Grace to work in our souls through faith.

As it is said in James, no man can control the tongue (it's full of sin!).

'No man' is similar to the 'all' verse yet there are many very polite and reserved Buddhists monks who can control their tongues over loud mouth 'saved' Christians in todays' world. But again, it's still a type of Grace that helps us conquer this.

"It" tells you that? As you know, you were told this by man, or man in the church.

Agreed, men of the Church had told me this. The same men who told me my Bible was the Inspired Word of God. Who told you? Who told you that your interpretation is the correct one. Yourself? Your pastor?

You must choose what to believe. It's not likely to change whether or not you follow after Christ, but your choice to lay aside the Word of God to justify a doctrine that was given to you, and obviously contrary to scripture is an indicator that you're open to deception.

Are you the infallible interpreter of Scripture? If not, do not stand on a soap box and attempt to preach to me what the Word of God is saying please. You've no authority but your own.
And if I were not Catholic, I'd be Agnostic since I'd know if there were a God, He would not leave us as orphans when leading us into 'all' truths just as your 'Bible alone' theory is designed to do.

Also, the Holy Spirit confirms the Word with signs following. He Himself ministers of the truth of the Word. It would be good for you to enter into prayer about this, humbly.

lol what arrogance to sit there and tell me how in this instance, 'you' alone have a direct line to the Holy Spirit doing your interpreting for you. Sorry, but I do not have itching ears for your doctrine of sola Scripture attempting to lay waste to the special privilege of Grace that was set aside for the Mother of God before Her Conception.

 

[Alive_Again]

...but when understood with both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, each and every time it's said, ALL have had been touched by Original Sin except Mother Mary.

That's the "key" or rather the lock. The tradition, with you heralding in the face of Romans, that "ALL" is not rigorous in it's meaning.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:4

"...for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"
Romans 3:9

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

"...every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God".
Romans 3:19

<So likewise, Catholics also know the difference here regarding the Mother of God.

This has nothing to do with the Word of God. You "know" the difference that the Word doesn't mean what it's saying about all sinning; the whole world being guilty.

...when one understands both the Wrtten and Oral Word of God bringing Romans into context and not try to throw it all into a box with missing truths as you are attempting.

There are no missing truths. It's the "truths" you are trying to insert. The "truths" that attempt to contradict what it really says. It really does say that.

And like Mary, the appearance of offering sacrifices could be a sign that She sinned. Some advise to you. Don't put too much stake into appearances as they can be deceiving to the untrained eye.

Sadly, this sounds like the deceiver himself.

...because we say the sin itself didn't spot Her soul, the principle of Salvation is the same and Romans remains true.

You're adding to the Word.

"...let God be true, but every man a liar"
Romans 3:4

Little babies aren't 'capable' of deception. They have no personal sin which was my argument.

Babies have a very limited awareness. They are very self centered. This is all the more apparent after they get a few months old. They will get angry when they don't get their way. They learn to deceive very early. They'll do things they know are wrong. A little later they'll lie about the food they were to eat. They'll steal a cookie and then lie about it. We all did it. I'm sure Mary did it too. No slight to her really. It's the nature of man. He's a sinner and on his own merits, his righteousness is as filthy rags. He/she needs Jesus to free us from the bondage of sin. That freedom only comes from yielding to the Holy Spirit. Even as a NT believer, if you walk according to your flesh, you'll sin. If you walk in the Spirit, you won't. There's no independent status of not being a sinner. Every believer deals with the same scenario. Peter, John, Paul, they were all in the same boat.

Romans 9 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil.

I guess when they're not born yet, they don't sin!

In Luke, Mary was called by name 'Kecharitomene' which in the Greek indicates a perfection of grace.

I assume this is the "full of grace" scripture. This is certainly adding to the Word since it wasn't too many lines after that that she acknowledge needing a savior. Only sinners need a savior. The only believers with the Holy Spirit in the Old Covenant were the priest, prophet, and king. She was none of these. Even John the Baptist needed Jesus to baptize him. There is another passage than the one you quoted indicating that he was the greatest born of women. That means everyone.

But, every 'good' action from an Atheist is still done so by the Grace of God. It means they are obeying another type of Grace (Catholics call it 'Actual Grace). Pleasing God unto Salvation is another matter since that deals with us allowing His Sanctifying Grace to work in our souls through faith.

Atheists walk carnally like every other natural man. They cannot please God. The carnal mind is emnity with God. Christians who walk carnally cannot please God. The only way to please God is to yield to the Holy Spirit. This enables the divine nature to flow through us and defeat sin. If you're walking carnally, your words are corrupt.

'No man' is similar to the 'all' verse yet there are many very polite and reserved Buddhists monks who can control their tongues over loud mouth 'saved' Christians in todays' world. But again, it's still a type of Grace that helps us conquer this.

You misunderstand the covenant. You're a branch absolutely incapable of seeking after God in the manner and of the righteousness that He wants and requires. You are incapable of bridling your tongue. As a branch connected to the vine, when Jesus is your Lord, you yield to the divine nature. Any disconnect and your fruit becomes the works of the flesh. James said that no man can tame the tongue. But you have an answer for "no man" "any" and "all" that amounts to an exception to the Word of God.

The same men who told me my Bible was the Inspired Word of God. Who told you?

While many teachers told me this. Ultimately, it was the Holy Spirit, my teacher that confirmed to that His Word is the final authority. He ministers life in the Word. He is clear about the fallen nature of man. Jesus didn't come to "clear us" of our sin consequences or make us better people. We are altogether unreliable. He came to live through us and to allow us to fellowship with Him in His holiness on His level only when we yield to Him. There's no amount of personal goodness on anyone's part to make that happen. You have to receive this as a little child, or you don't enter in.

As I previously mentioned...

...your choice to lay aside the Word of God to justify a doctrine that was given to you, and obviously contrary to scripture is an indicator that you're open to deception.

Are you the infallible interpreter of Scripture? If not, do not stand on a soap box and attempt to preach to me what the Word of God is saying please.

No, certainly not. You have made statements that reflect that you can take or leave whatever you feel to be truth. To preach the Word is what we're called to do. Contrary to the opinion of some, we don't have to be infallible to do this.

The 'entire' Bible from cover to cover says things in it that can either be neglected or embraced.

You have attempted to indicate that all doesn't mean all and that "the whole world" doens't necessarily mean the whole world. My "authority" is to humbly tell you that God's Word is true and that you can't neglect any of it. You will be accountable for it (just like me).

As I previously mentioned... Are you going to say that "all the world" doesn't mean that?

The way you keep insisting for it's definition, then yes, I'm going to tell you that.

So if I insist that the Word is true and that the Holy Spirit confirms that the Word is true, it's not arrogant. That's what He does. He leads us into all truth. He confirms the Word with signs following.

...He would not leave us as orphans when leading us into 'all' truths just as your 'Bible alone' theory is designed to do.

It's not the Bible alone. Jesus said He would not leave us orphans, He would come to us. The Holy Spirit is the teacher and He witnesses to the truth.

lol what arrogance to sit there and tell me how in this instance, 'you' alone have a direct line to the Holy Spirit doing your interpreting for you.

I have never said this. You have indicated that you go "beyond" scripture in your "understanding". This is certainly deception. I run into Christians all of the time who are deceived. They may act like regular Christians until you approach their "stronghold" where the enemy has successfully encamped and successfully caused you to hold to a "truth" that goes beyond what scripture clearly indicates.

...attempting to lay waste to the special privilege of Grace that was set aside for the Mother of God before Her Conception.

As you know, Jesus was eternal and in the beginning. The Father and the Holy Spirit were right there also. (Mary was not.)

The use of the term "sola scriptura" itself indicates that you accept "revelation" beyond the Word of God. Anything the Holy Spirit ministers, agrees with the Word. It's given in simplicity so that a child could understand.

The whole "elevation" of Mary beyond that of a natural woman who received Jesus her savior, and had to learn to walk in the Spirit like everyone else is that "revelation" beyond the Word. You want to make her "perfect in grace", sinless, a perpetual virgin (even though marriage isn't consumated in Jewish culture until Joseph "knew" her.
Then she gets taken into Heaven something instead of dying, now she hears prayer as though she's has God's attributes, gives "graces" as though she has powers, "intercedes" for us before God, as though the high priestly ministry of Jesus wasn't enough, or needs supplementing. Do you not see this as the part that "exceeds" scripture when you say "sola"? Is it really arrogant to point out (while you'r busy loling) that the Holy Spirit can and does point out that you cannot go beyond the Word of God? Every "revelation" has to agree with the Word or it is deception.

Let's keep her in the place of honor God gave her and don't put her in the role of an idol. That is the enemies doing. God won't share His glory with another.

To summarize, then doesn't Romans 3:23 really mean what it says? All have sinned. The whole of mankind. Why do you resist and give in to the urge to add something (or rather detract) to that?

 

[Kepha]

<So likewise, Catholics also know the difference here regarding the Mother of God.

This has nothing to do with the Word of God.You "know" the difference that the Word doesn't mean what it's saying about all sinning; the whole world being guilty.

I take the complete (Oral and Written) Word of God into consideration. You do not.

There are no missing truths. It's the "truths" you are trying to insert. The "truths" that attempt to contradict what it really says. It really does say that.

No, my truths contradict what YOU are saying it says.

Babies have a very limited awareness. They are very self centered. This is all the more apparent after they get a few months old.

It's the nature of a Baby's survival. To call a human being who can't think for himself selfish is crazy talk. May I ask how Christ acted as a newborn Baby?

They will get angry when they don't get their way. They learn to deceive very early.

They do not have the full capacity to understand their wrongs. And newborns do not deceive at that time are able to learn to deceive.

They'll do things they know are wrong.

Let me get this straight. Are you telling me that a 3 year old baby needs to accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour and repent of his sins that he KNEW were wrong even when he didn't have the full capacity of his judgment?

I guess when they're not born yet, they don't sin!

Which shows that there are times in our life cycle when we are incapable of personal sins.

I assume this is the "full of grace" scripture. This is certainly adding to the Word since it wasn't too many lines after that that she acknowledge needing a savior. Only sinners need a savior.

And there is your problem and why you can't comprehend how Romans can still apply to Mother Mary if we say She never sinned.
I've stated many times now how Christ redeemed Her because She belonged to a fallen human race. She was saved under special circumstances before the sin of Adam even touched Her Soul.

There is another passage than the one you quoted indicating that he was the greatest born of women. That means everyone.

Even greater than Christ who was born of a woman? Interesting. And don't feed me more Scripture to say Christ wasn't included. It's like another of those 'All' verses where it doesn't apply to Christ because 'we know' better. Well Catholics know better as well regarding Mother Mary and any verse such as Genesis or Luke or even Revelations for that matter that's thrown at you, you will reject because it's just far too implicit for you to grasp. That's another problem with sola Scripture. If it's too implicit, it's not important nor will you come to know the truth of it. Kind of says alot about your little doctrine doesnt it.

Of course in reality John The Baptist was the greatest prophet born of a woman.

Atheists walk carnally like every other natural man. They cannot please God. The carnal mind is emnity with God. Christians who walk carnally cannot please God. The only way to please God is to yield to the Holy Spirit. This enables the divine nature to flow through us and defeat sin. If you're walking carnally, your words are corrupt.

Atheists can show acts of kindness and mercy like many other Christians. Are you saying God has NOTHING to do with this? Don't be silly. It may not be Saving Grace that removed the stain of original sin, working through acts of charity but it's still Grace nonetheless and the acts themselves are not 'bad' or 'evil'.

James said that no man can tame the tongue. But you have an answer for "no man" "any" and "all" that amounts to an exception to the Word of God.

As I said before, many non Christian men have learned to tame their tongues over 'good' Christian men. So James' point is the nature of a fallen man and He used 'no man' as a way to get that point across where we are all in need of Grace. The Blessed Virgin Mary needs God's Graces as well and without it, the sin of Adam would have touched her soul, the inclination to sin would have existed and She would literally have sinned no doubt. No contradiction to the context of Salvation to any with Faith acting through works of love.

While many teachers told me this. Ultimately, it was the Holy Spirit, my teacher that confirmed to that His Word is the final authority.

You just claimed to be your own Pope. I was waiting for that answer actuallly.

He ministers life in the Word. He is clear about the fallen nature of man.

I agree.

Jesus didn't come to "clear us" of our sin consequences or make us better people.

Of course He desires to make us better people by giving us the Graces we need.

There's no amount of personal goodness on anyone's part to make that happen.

Agreed. Since goodness can only be from God and not of our own merit. We are only to embrace and accept any of His Graces that come our way and allow them to work through us.

You have attempted to indicate that all doesn't mean all and that "the whole world" doens't necessarily mean the whole world. My "authority" is to humbly tell you that God's Word is true and that you can't neglect any of it. You will be accountable for it (just like me).

Your interpretation of God's word is not true if you wish to include Mother Mary with the rest of us as having a sinful nature. Genisis 3:15 says otherwise. Luke says otherwise. You just can't 'get' how God chose to save Her while still being born from the seed of Adam.

So if I insist that the Word is true and that the Holy Spirit confirms that the Word is true, it's not arrogant.

How are you certain your 'carnal sinful' mind isn't directing you this time? You sin yes? Where's your assurance you're not sinning this time? Short answer: You have none so long as you take it upon yourself to read a 2000 year old book with both implicit and explicit passages that only YOU decide which are the necessary ones and which are not. As you love to state, the human race is a fallen one and one that desires to do things not of God and you have zero assurance you're not feeding your desire here and now since you have in the past as a 'Christian'.

It's not the Bible alone. Jesus said He would not leave us orphans, He would come to us. The Holy Spirit is the teacher and He witnesses to the truth.

Agreed. And the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and not a bunch of individuals independently working with their Bibles preaching contradicting doctrines of men to one another.

As you know, Jesus was eternal and in the beginning. The Father and the Holy Spirit were right there also. (Mary was not.)

Agreed.

Anything the Holy Spirit ministers, agrees with the Word. It's given in simplicity so that a child could understand.

Obviously with the amount of scholars over the past 2000 years doing your work for you, this is simply not true.

You want to make her "perfect in grace", sinless, a perpetual virgin (even though marriage isn't consumated in Jewish culture until Joseph "knew" her.

And now you're attempting to lead into the old 'until' verse word where I in turn will say 'until' doesn't according to other verses, doesn't always mean that it's an action leading up to, then stopping at a certain event.

Then she gets taken into Heaven something instead of dying, now she hears prayer as though she's has God's attributes, gives "graces" as though she has powers, "intercedes" for us before God, as though the high priestly ministry of Jesus wasn't enough, or needs supplementing. Do you not see this as the part that "exceeds" scripture when you say "sola"? Is it really arrogant to point out (while you'r busy loling) that the Holy Spirit can and does point out that you cannot go beyond the Word of God? Every "revelation" has to agree with the Word or it is deception.

What a terrible understanding of Catholic Doctrine to the point where it's comical relief now.

Let's keep her in the place of honor God gave her and don't put her in the role of an idol. That is the enemies doing. God won't share His glory with another.

Fortunately we don't, but thanks for caring.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If the Virgin Mary never sinned does that mean she didn't need repentance and thus never repented?

I believe that Mary was sinless but was she made sinless (through repentance, grace, etc) or did she never in her entire life sin? Personally I would say that I don't know one way or the other. I wouldn't "accuse" her of having ever sinned yet I certainly wouldn't say categorically "she never sinned in her entire life" either. Some fathers seem to suggest the later but I tend to see that as a pious opinion and not a statement of dogma or even doctrine. It doesn't seem to be something directly taught by the apostles because none of the earliest Church Fathers seem to mention it. The Bible doesn't say "she never sinned" either.

 

[Alive_Again]

I take the complete (Oral and Written) Word of God into consideration. You do not.

When the "oral" traditions contradict the Word, I cannot. But you will.

No, my truths contradict what YOU are saying it says.

Your "truths" are adding to the Word. Since we know that subsequent "revelation" cannot contradict the Word, it is obvious they both cannot be right. I choose the Word.

It's the nature of a Baby's survival. To call a human being who can't think for himself selfish is crazy talk. May I ask how Christ acted as a newborn Baby?

I suppose it's pointless to talk about babies. They have needs and there is nothing wrong with that. The point was that from the womb, they have a sin nature. This becomes very evident when they get a little older. We have no way of knowing what Jesus did as we have never seen a good example of a sinless child. God does not hold little children accountable, since they don't really understand what they do. They do eventually grasp some level of right and wrong and transgress that.

Let me get this straight. Are you telling me that a 3 year old baby needs to accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour and repent of his sins that he KNEW were wrong even when he didn't have the full capacity of his judgment?

As I said, God doesn't hold them accountable. But as soon as they reach that age of accountability, according to their culture, they absolutely do need to receive Jesus as Lord and savior.

And there is your problem and why you can't comprehend how Romans can still apply to Mother Mary if we say She never sinned.

The whole thing with Romans 3 is that everyone sinned. Romans 3:23 said that all have sinned and they fall short of the glory of God, to which you want to add to this (and that is my "problem"). Reading the chapter includeds Jews and Gentiles which according to the Jewish perspective means everyone. The whole world is guilty. Make one thing clear: You are the one adding to it, not me.

Even greater than Christ who was born of a woman? Interesting. And don't feed me more Scripture to say Christ wasn't included. It's like another of those 'All' verses where it doesn't apply to Christ because 'we know' better.

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matt 11:11

Jesus was of the kingdom and was greater (far greater), just like you and I. The context was that kingdom people are greater. This includes Jesus. It's all about the context.

...you will reject because it's just far too implicit for you to grasp.

The Word is given for our understanding. It's not to be rejected and added to. Although anything about Mary has nothing to do with whether or not you or I will obey God's plan for our lives. It does indicate that you're willing to compromise the Word as your final authority. The Holy Spirit has indicated to rely on the Word.

If it's too implicit, it's not important nor will you come to know the truth of it. Kind of says alot about your little doctrine doesnt it.

My little doctrine is to receive the Word as a little child. The Lord has never let me down in taking Him at His Word.

Atheists can show acts of kindness and mercy like many other Christians. Are you saying God has NOTHING to do with this? Don't be silly.

Anyone can show mercy and natural love. Even sacrificial love. If you're not walking in the Spirit, it's all carnal. It's darkness.

As I said before, many non Christian men have learned to tame their tongues over 'good' Christian men.

But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
James 3:8

Your adding to the Word again. The natural man cannot speak in the righteousness that God requires in the New Covenant.

<...the sin of Adam would have touched her soul

You think that somehow someone can by the grace of God, walk in the Spirit without being "in Christ" (in unity with His Spirit). Being "in Christ" didn't happen until after the resurrection. Even those in the New Covenant must walk with Jesus as their Lord, in Him, to walk in the Spirit and receive righteousness. All of the 12 apostles and Paul all had to walk in the Spirit. No one was given a free pass. The only door to God was through Jesus. You don't get in another way. But you think that Mary was the one case where you didn't have to receive righteousness as a gift through Jesus.

You just claimed to be your own Pope. I was waiting for that answer actuallly.

If you mean that Jesus is the Head of the church that I belong to, absolutely. I get my instruction directly from God as a member of the New Covenant Church. We're to receive the Word prophetically as a light in a dark place. It's not of private interpretation. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth.

Of course He desires to make us better people by giving us the Graces we need.

This is where you misunderstand the covenant. You cannot be a better person. You can only yield to Him living through you. You can only take on the nature of the vine. If you move outside of the Holy Spirit's promptings you bear fruit of the flesh. If you seem to be a "better person" it's only because God is bearing fruit of His life through you. It's not about you or I. It's about Him.

Genisis 3:15 says otherwise. Luke says otherwise. You just can't 'get' how God chose to save Her while still being born from the seed of Adam.

You assume this is about Mary in Genesis. It does not say so.

"So if I insist that the Word is true and that the Holy Spirit confirms that the Word is true, it's not arrogant."

How are you certain your 'carnal sinful' mind isn't directing you this time? You sin yes? Where's your assurance you're not sinning this time?

I came from a wonderful meeting tonight and have the peace of God. The Holy Spirit is not convicting me of sin. I'm walking by faith. He's promised to be my guide. I'm not walking carnally either. Jesus is Lord.

Short answer: You have none so long as you take it upon yourself to read a 2000 year old book with both implicit and explicit passages that only YOU decide which are the necessary ones and which are not.

Although man can and does get his mitts involved in scripture (obviously here). The Holy Spirit is the best teacher that ever existed and He ministers truth from this 2000 year old book. It's not for me to decide. When He showed me that everyone falls short of the glory of God due to sin that meant everyone. The passages are all necessary.

As you love to state, the human race is a fallen one and one that desires to do things not of God and you have zero assurance you're not feeding your desire here and now since you have in the past as a 'Christian'.

As I have said, I'm in the peace of God. I have no other motive than to stand by the Word and agree with it. Yea and amen.

Agreed. And the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and not a bunch of individuals independently working with their Bibles

I'm part of the church. I'm not working independently. You forget. You're the one adding to the Word, not me.

What a terrible understanding of Catholic Doctrine to the point where it's comical relief now.

Really? Let's go ahead and break it out line upon line. I've known Catholics my whole life. I've talked to priests, attended parochial school, listened to nuns, attended "CCD" classes. I heard it Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II. There's not one part of this that I haven't heard many times.

1) Then she gets taken into Heaven something instead of dying
2) She hears prayer as though she's has God's attributes
3) Gives "graces" as though she has powers
4) Intercedes" for us before God, as though the high priestly ministry of Jesus wasn't enough, or needs supplementing.

Everything we need in the covenant was accomplished by Jesus n the atonement. He ever lives to make intercession for us. There is no other name under Heaven whereby we must be saved. If you're seeking the grace of God through Mary, you're looking to another name.

Mary cannot hear your prayer. She is not God.

If you look at the statements made by the "apparitions" they contradict scripture. Mary is not holding back the arm of Jesus. That is the doctrine of demons. We already know you believe she was taken into Heaven (even though there is a tomb for her in Jerusalem).

Every bit of this is adding to the Word and to be condemned.

 

[Kepha]

When the "oral" traditions contradict the Word, I cannot. But you will.

Translation: When the oral traditions contradict "my interpretation", I cannot.

As I said, God doesn't hold them accountable. But as soon as they reach that age of accountability, according to their culture, they absolutely do need to receive Jesus as Lord and savior.

Agreed.

The whole thing with Romans 3 is that everyone sinned. Romans 3:23 said that all have sinned and they fall short of the glory of God, to which you want to add to this (and that is my "problem"). Reading the chapter includeds Jews and Gentiles which according to the Jewish perspective means everyone. The whole world is guilty. Make one thing clear: You are the one adding to it, not me.

Let me try to explain this way. If one reads the Catechism on Original Sin and it's consequences you will see that it notes "All MEN" have sinned and it repeats that the whole human race is in Adam quite a few times. Now if one were to look at this apart from the teachings from Sacred Tradition, it will look as if we are acknowledging that there are no exceptions here because of the wording through out this passage how all men are implicated in Adam's sin. But the reality is, we do understand that here is one exception being the Mother of God. And it's ONLY because She is belonging to the sinful human race as to why She was saved, but saved in such a unique way, where Original Sin was never permitted to touch Her Soul. Basically, I'm showing this part from the Catechism, to help you understand that just because the word All is there or words similar to All, it doesn't mean it to be used the strictest definition possible yet can be fully understood what the Church or Paul is trying to convey.


404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matt 11:11

Jesus was of the kingdom and was greater (far greater), just like you and I. The context was that kingdom people are greater. This includes Jesus. It's all about the context.

Jesus was born of a woman. That's the part I'm focusing on as you are regarding Mary. Your mistake is in you are only holding to what you've personally been taught or personally interpreted "ANOTHER" source and using this, to understand the meaning of the one you mentioned. I likewise will say that the truth taught by the Church that Mary is greater than John helps me to know it's not talking about Her as well. So like you, I'm using ANOTHER source. Your context is what you is using the Bible only as you interpret. My context is both the teachings of Sacred Scripture and Tradition and this always helps me to better understand a verse or passage from Scripture, so long as I don't go outside those bounds.

The Word is given for our understanding. It's not to be rejected and added to.

The Word of God is Christ who is the living breathing truth for all humanity. You dismantle this truth by trying to make Him fit on a piece of paper written in a different tongue and culture.

My little doctrine is to receive the Word as a little child. The Lord has never let me down in taking Him at His Word.

That's what you all say yet you're not guaranteed any certainty that you will not corrupt and twist your interpretations to suit your needs since you don't believe you are infallibility but you do believe in your sinful nature inclined to want to sin.

You think that somehow someone can by the grace of God, walk in the Spirit without being "in Christ" (in unity with His Spirit). Being "in Christ" didn't happen until after the resurrection.

The Blood of the Cross can be conferred at any time God wishes since it's not confined to time. It extends from the time of Adam till the end of the world and can be applied to any creature God wishes before or after.

Even those in the New Covenant must walk with Jesus as their Lord, in Him, to walk in the Spirit and receive righteousness. All of the 12 apostles and Paul all had to walk in the Spirit. No one was given a free pass.

Of course Mother Mary had to continue to walk in the Spirit. We never said She didn't.

The only door to God was through Jesus. You don't get in another way. But you think that Mary was the one case where you didn't have to receive righteousness as a gift through Jesus.

No I don't think that at all and you know I don't.

I get my instruction directly from God as a member of the New Covenant Church. We're to receive the Word prophetically as a light in a dark place. It's not of private interpretation. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth.

Then why not make a Church and call it "The Church of Alive Again In Christ". You can then straighten out all your other protestant brethren on issues you feel they've erred in and they will agree because you're guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is where you misunderstand the covenant. You cannot be a better person. You can only yield to Him living through you. You can only take on the nature of the vine. If you move outside of the Holy Spirit's promptings you bear fruit of the flesh. If you seem to be a "better person" it's only because God is bearing fruit of His life through you. It's not about you or I. It's about Him.

So Christ's act of Mercy on us All isn't to make us better as He works through us? Interesting.

You assume this is about Mary in Genesis. It does not say so.

The Holy Spirit tells me it does.

Really? Let's go ahead and break it out line upon line. I've known Catholics my whole life. I've talked to priests, attended parochial school, listened to nuns, attended "CCD" classes. I heard it Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II. There's not one part of this that I haven't heard many times.

1) Then she gets taken into Heaven something instead of dying

Your first mistake. The Dogma is "At the end of Her earthly life, she was Assumed into Heaven". We don't say whether She died but my opinion is She did. It would only be right His Mother also participated in physical death as Her Son did.

2) She hears prayer as though she's has God's attributes

All Her abilities are from God and through God. Nothing is done on Her own.

3) Gives "graces" as though she has powers

God is the initiator of His Graces and He chooses to allow them to flow through His Mother first.

4) Intercedes" for us before God, as though the high priestly ministry of Jesus wasn't enough, or needs supplementing.

As does your protestant brethren everytime they pray for a fellow Christian.

Everything we need in the covenant was accomplished by Jesus n the atonement. He ever lives to make intercession for us. There is no other name under Heaven whereby we must be saved.

Amen Amen!

If you're seeking the grace of God through Mary, you're looking to another name.

I was seeking the Grace of God through my friend the other day when I asked him to pray for me as well. My bad.

Mary cannot hear your prayer. She is not God.

You set limits to God's ability. HERESY!!!

If you look at the statements made by the "apparitions" they contradict scripture. Mary is not holding back the arm of Jesus. That is the doctrine of demons. We already know you believe she was taken into Heaven (even though there is a tomb for her in Jerusalem).

My two favourite Apparitions are from Lourdes and Fatima but boy, if only I could be Blessed like that. Awesome stuff.

Every bit of this is adding to the Word and to be condemned.

Says you.

 

[Alive_Again]

Then why not make a Church and call it "The Church of Alive Again In Christ". You can then straighten out all your other protestant brethren on issues you feel they've erred in...

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant. Are these not words invented by Catholics? The church is the church. Whoever receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior is the church. There are no "segments" in the spiritual church. Everyone who obeys the Holy Spirit is in equal status with God without respecter of persons.

This whole discussion is whether or not Romans 3:23 infers that Mary had sinned. Whether the "ALL" meant "ALL". Whether or not it were a figure of speech or something along those lines. In other words, "Did it mean what it said?" My adherence that the Word means what it says (in context).

If not, do not stand on a soap box and attempt to preach to me what the Word of God is saying please. You've no authority but your own.

I have pointed out that God has exalted His Word above His name. It's forever settled. It's not being taken out of context as it is plain and encompasses all...

every man a liar (it says it!), both Jews and Gentiles...all under sin; none righteous, no, not one; none that understandeth, there is none...all gone out of the way...none that doeth good...every mouth may be stopped, ...all the world may become guilty before God...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

I'm pointing back to the word itself where the definition doesn't have to be as rigorous as you're making it.

I'm not making the definition. The Word is what it says. It went out of its way to make sure it was inclusive.

The 'entire' Bible from cover to cover says things in it that can either be neglected or embraced. And it tells me She was never included in the 'All have sinned' verse...

This is one of the parts you're neglecting. There's more too...

...what arrogance to sit there and tell me how in this instance, 'you' alone have a direct line to the Holy Spirit doing your interpreting for you.

This is basic Christianity. It is not arrogant to say that long ago the Holy Spirit made this plain. Just by coincidence it was just as the Word said it was. Everyone sinned. Everyone needed a redeemer. Your catechism acknowledges that everyone needs a redeemer, but it ADDS this little exception clause as to why the sinful effects of the fall of man didn't touch Mary.

...I take the complete (Oral and Written) Word of God into consideration. You do not.
...There are no "exemptions' when one understands both the Wrtten and Oral Word of God bringing Romans into context
...and not try to throw it all into a box with missing truths as you are attempting.

And I'm the one being arrogant?

And the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and not a bunch of individuals independently working with their Bibles preaching contradicting doctrines of men to one another.

Contradicting doctrines of men. That's a great description. I'm not an independent either. Jesus is Lord.

No, my truths contradict what YOU are saying it says.

My "interpretation" is what it really says (how it reads). Just plain as day. It's of no private interpretation. I don't feel it means this. How many times does it say all? All of Israel? All of mankind.

...You cannot just call it whatever you want nor can you 'assume' that ALL means ALL when the same word in other areas of the Bible as pointed out, cant only means 'many'.
...Now if one were to look at this apart from the teachings from Sacred Tradition
...it will look as if we are acknowledging that there are no exceptions
...the reality is, we do understand that here is one exception being the Mother of God.
...saved in such a unique way, where Original Sin was never permitted to touch Her Soul.
...to help you understand that just because the word All is there or words similar to All, it doesn't mean it to be used the strictest definition possible
...That's another problem with sola Scripture. If it's too implicit, it's not important nor will you come to know the truth of it.
...Kind of says alot about your little doctrine doesnt it.

every man a liar (it says it!), both Jews and Gentiles...all under sin; none righteous, no, not one; none that understandeth, there is none...all gone out of the way...none that doeth good...every mouth may be stopped, ...all the world may become guilty before God...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

If I were changing or adding to, you would have a point. I can't assume that the scripture means what it says? I can! How are we supposed to overcome and be justified in our sayings when we are judged, if we can't take it at face value (within the context given)?

...one can say 'all' till he's blue in the face, but when understood with both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition,
...He would not leave us as orphans when leading us into 'all' truths just as your 'Bible alone' theory is designed to do.
...each and every time it's said, ALL have had been touched by Original Sin except Mother Mary.

You sound like you were left as an orphan. As though you doubt His ministry for today.

You go on to contradict the Word again. It states that all men are deceivers. Their mouths spew poison. Men cannot control their tongues.

.

..But to say 'All' men who do not have faith in Christ are liars is utter nonsense.
...Non seeking liars whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. It's very clear that 'all' Atheist do not commit these literal sins
...Are Atheists of today all liars and have venom of asps is under their lips? So what is it.
...'No man' is similar to the 'all' verse yet there are many very polite and reserved Buddhists monks who can control their tongues over loud mouth 'saved' Christians in todays' world.

Polite Buddhists cannot speak righteousness. They are of their father the devil. He is the father of all lies. The same goes for atheists.

...I also found it interesting you quoted Romans to say there were no righteous yet read on to discover there were righteous.

The righteousness that God requires is His righteousness. It has to be received as a gift. Certain men were in right standing with God based on what He asked them to do. The kind of seeking, speaking, and doing righteousness that fellowships with God is His righteousness. No amount of goodness or well behavedness will cut it. It's filthy rags. The righteousness of men are filthy rags. Joshua pleased God, but his righteousness were as rags.

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matt 11:11

...Even greater than Christ who was born of a woman? Interesting. And don't feed me more Scripture to say Christ wasn't included.
...It's like another of those 'All' verses where it doesn't apply to Christ because 'we know' better.

Your understanding went right outside the scripture. You added Mary as being the greater and the wholesome Words of Jesus said it was John.

...Your mistake is in you are only holding to what you've personally been taught or personally interpreted...
...the truth taught by the Church that Mary is greater than John helps me to know it's not talking about Her as well.
...Your context is what you is using the Bible only as you interpret.
...My context is both the teachings of Sacred Scripture and Tradition
...this always helps me to better understand a verse or passage from Scripture

"The truth taught by the church..." When "revelation" goes outside of scripture it is deception. It may seem like I'm being a "butt" to point this out, but it is true!

...The Blood of the Cross can be conferred at any time God wishes since it's not confined to time.
...It extends from the time of Adam till the end of the world and can be applied to any creature God wishes before or after.

While it's true God can forgive sins through Jesus before He died. If God could have redeemed mankind without Jesus dying He would have.
Would you have sent your son if there were any other way?

 

[Kepha]

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant. Are these not words invented by Catholics?

You're an offspring of the protestant movement against the Church making you a protestant. If the label fits, wear it.

The church is the church. Whoever receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior is the church. There are no "segments" in the spiritual church. Everyone who obeys the Holy Spirit is in equal status with God without respecter of persons.

The early Church had a structure to it with the Apostles, Priests, Deacons and Bishops. Yours does not and aren't even close to being one in the same. If there were disagreements, they were settled like at the Council of Jerusalem. Who settles yours with your protestant brethren. You?

This whole discussion is whether or not Romans 3:23 infers that Mary had sinned. Whether the "ALL" meant "ALL". Whether or not it were a figure of speech or something along those lines. In other words, "Did it mean what it said?" My adherence that the Word means what it says (in context).

I'll repeat this again since it seems you're still not getting it. We know the word for 'All' doesn't mean 'All' in other areas of Scripture. If it means every human being that walked the earth then it likewise applies to Jesus. If you choose to read 'other verses' to clarify that Jesus isn't included, then I will likewise read 'other verses' to show that Mother Mary wasn't as well such as having constant enmity toward Satan, She was Full of Grace, She is the new Ark, and one of the figures regarding the Woman of Revelation. And because you feel these verses are too implicit to understand, then that's your fault for believing the Written Word is all you need to come to understand the 'COMPLETE' Revelation as it was given. Also, no matter how much one repeats it, it doesn't add strength to the definition anymore than the 'All' repeated many times over in the CCC did. The simple truth is that everybody needed to be saved from Original Sin, including Mother Mary.

And another thing. Our physical death as well as our spiritual, is a consequence of the sin of Adam. Yet not EVERYBODY (Enoch and Elijah)experienced a physical death thereby proving that ALL people were not affected equally. They would have just as Mother Mary would have contracted original sin, but they didn't nor did She.

I have pointed out that God has exalted His Word above His name. It's forever settled. It's not being taken out of context as it is plain and encompasses all...

Show me where God has exalted His 'Written Word only' above His name.

every man a liar (it says it!), both Jews and Gentiles...all under sin; none righteous, no, not one; none that understandeth, there is none...all gone out of the way...none that doeth good...every mouth may be stopped, ...all the world may become guilty before God...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

Yes, wonderful snippets from the Psalms regarding 'actual' sinful men as a way to show us how everybody (including Mother Mary) are dependent on the Sacrafice of Jesus.

This is basic Christianity. It is not arrogant to say that long ago the Holy Spirit made this plain.

No friend. It's only 'basic' 500 year old protestant doctrine. And your arrogance comes from seriously believing that the Holy Spirit is working through only you in this debate in such a manner, where you can't misinterpret your doctrines even after acknowledging that you have a sinful flesh who doesn't want to listen to God.

Just by coincidence it was just as the Word said it was. Everyone sinned. Everyone needed a redeemer. Your catechism acknowledges that everyone needs a redeemer, but it ADDS this little exception clause as to why the sinful effects of the fall of man didn't touch Mary.

Mm-hmm. But the exception clause wasn't there was it, yet the 'All have sinned' line still made sense to us.

Contradicting doctrines of men. That's a great description. I'm not an independent either. Jesus is Lord.

Whatever you say Papa.

My "interpretation" is what it really says (how it reads). Just plain as day. It's of no private interpretation. I don't feel it means this. How many times does it say all? All of Israel? All of mankind.

Translation: My interpretation is what it's really saying after I interpret.

If I were changing or adding to, you would have a point.

You have. By starting off with the faulty premise of sola Scripture.

You sound like you were left as an orphan.

Trust me,I know better than to think such a foolish thing.

Polite Buddhists cannot speak righteousness. They are of their father the devil. He is the father of all lies. The same goes for atheists.

If a non believer who died before the the Gospel spread to him, does many works of charity, it's not satan's doing. Because in reality, this truth is still a Grace given to him by God and only invincible ignorance may save him if he is still a non believer at the time of his death.

The righteousness that God requires is His righteousness. It has to be received as a gift. Certain men were in right standing with God based on what He asked them to do. The kind of seeking, speaking, and doing righteousness that fellowships with God is His righteousness. No amount of goodness or well behavedness will cut it. It's filthy rags. The righteousness of men are filthy rags. Joshua pleased God, but his righteousness were as rags.

Sounds like you're an advocate for 'Saved by Faith through Works of Charity'. That's very Catholic of you.

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matt 11:11

Read it in context. The mention of Him going to see a Prophet was brought up and Jesus concurred. So the Prophets were the subject of His teaching where the Prophet John the Baptist, was the greatest of them all.

8 So what are you gonna do? Someone dressed in fine clothes? People who wear fine clothing are in royal palaces.
9 Then why leave? To see a prophet? Yes, I said, and more than a prophet.
10 This is to whom it is written: 'Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you. "
11 Amen, I say that among those (Prophets) born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Your understanding went right outside the scripture. You added Mary as being the greater and the wholesome Words of Jesus said it was John.

And you said Jesus who was born of a woman was greater.

"The truth taught by the church..." When "revelation" goes outside of scripture it is deception. It may seem like I'm being a "butt" to point this out, but it is true!

'Goes outside of Scripture' is a tricky phrase. First you have to interpret correctly to know it's going outside. And you do not have the authority to tell me you're right. Sorry.

While it's true God can forgive sins through Jesus before He died. If God could have redeemed mankind without Jesus dying He would have.

Placing limits on God again eh. Tsk tsk.

Would you have sent your son if there were any other way?

If I was of infinite love and wanted to show my human creations just how much, I most certainly would.

 

[Alive_Again]

You're an offspring of the protestant movement against the Church making you a protestant. If the label fits, wear it.

I'm sure this will be difficult for you to understand, because of your tradition. In God's sight, there are no Catholics or Protestants. He has His sheep, who are born into His kingdom. Those who walk in love by His Spirit, please HIm. There are no Catholic or Protestant sections in Heaven. God doesn't choose or prefer one over another. Whoever believes and obeys Him, is accepted by Him without reservation. Your insistence that I am a "protestant" is a continuance that there are distinctions in the sight of God. While there may be here on Earth, due to the short sited-ness of man, it is not so with God. That means I am as much in right standing with God as anyone else in this Earth. God does not withhold from me.

His covenant means that He Himself leads the church, not man. He promises to provide guidance to every one of His sheep. I take communion, receive forgiveness of sins, lay hands on the sick, speak with new tongues, prophesy words from the throne to His people (as He chooses to manifest and directs). He wants to do this through ALL of his people (including you). Have you ever experienced that?

While there are some mysteries in the Word of God, He has and does give illumination to the Word.

The early Church had a structure to it with the Apostles, Priests, Deacons and Bishops. Yours does not and aren't even close to being one in the same. If there were disagreements, they were settled like at the Council of Jerusalem. Who settles yours with your protestant brethren. You?

You've left some offices out. You don't believe the church has prophets either. I know some Catholic prophets. But they are "hidden" in charismatic circles. If they spoke out freely, they would be censored. There are apostles too. Surprise, suprise! Churches recognize pastors and teachers because you can "work" these offices seemingly without an anointing. You can't fake apostles and prophets. Wer'e not talking about just waving the holy water, incense, and chrism. Evangelists perform signs and wonders too. My pastor is also an evangelist. He has led over 5 million people to Christ (not to the church, to the Lord.

The Lord has apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors at work on the Earth today, just like He did when the church was formed. They minister under an anointing. The words that they speak under that anointing minister life and the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth in them. It is very real. Regarding sin and righteousness, it was made plain that all sinned, just like the Word indicates.

More importantly, the New Covenant righteousness is received as a gift. Every member of the church comes to Him as a sinner. In spite of whatever good works that were done by any person at any point in time, they come to Him as a sinner. Mary came to Him as a sinner, not a saint. These are among the foundational precepts of the church. Every baby Christian receives these as truth from anointed teaching, and they are witnessed to by the Holy Spirit.

Everyone has sinned, and has a propensity to sin as they walk in the natural. Adam died the day he sinned. He took on a nature contrary to God's will. Every man after that did the same thing. Even Enoch and Elijah, although their testimony pleased God. Even today as believers, the only time you do not sin, is when you're yielding to the Holy Spirit in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. There is not now nor has there every been a suspension of that state. Jesus, Fathered by God Himself, was the only exception. The Word points to the natural man as a deceiver and a corrupt spring from his tongue. His righteousness as filthy rags. Yet you allow a provision for Mary as an exception. You even speak of atheists as having hope, even though the Word states that outside of the covenant, we are without hope and without God. They have hope that they can repent.

He who is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (who was greater than a prophet -- the greatest born of women, even though they came to see a prophet). You've insisted that to say that if this is true would mean Jesus was included. Do you not think that Jesus was greater than the least in the kingdom?

We know the word for 'All' doesn't mean 'All' in other areas of Scripture.

And because you feel these verses are too implicit to understand, then that's your fault for believing the Written Word is all you need to come to understand the 'COMPLETE' Revelation as it was given

I understand well enough. Your implicitness is added. You think the logos is all we need. The Holy Spirit is right here giving the rhema Word to the church. We receive guidance from the Holy Spirit, just like the Book of Acts.

You've spun some good tales regarding my reception of this truth, as clearly indicated right there in the Word. The whole point of the OP was that Romans 3:23 (supposedly) couldn't prove that Mary sinned.Within the understanding of Romans 3, inclusive evidence has been provided. You point to uses of the word outside of the context we are speaking of. Your resort to additional "revelation" though it seemingly adds to what is said, in reality takes away from the authority of scripture. Although you are sincere, as many are, I know that God hates this. There is never a place to add to scripture and reduce the simple truth as given in the scripture.

No friend. It's only 'basic' 500 year old protestant doctrine. And your arrogance comes from seriously believing that the Holy Spirit is working through only you in this debate in such a manner,

I'd like to extend that to you, but you're contradicting the Word. I'm not twisting it. You're turning it around and then blaming me because I trust what the Bible says.

One of the first things the Holy Spirit did after I was baptized in the Holy Spirit was make sure I understood His Word was true. One of my favorite experiences of my entire life (a month or two ago) when I was on this Forum, when I said that when the Word says something, you can take it to the bank. He pulled back the veil for a moment and acknowledged me. (Not really me, but His Word.) Let me tell you. God hears us right here and now and stands behind His Word as it is set forth! That's why this all seems so basic and to have to argue for the simplicity of the Word as it is written (to a Christian) seems so ridiculous.

Mm-hmm. But the exception clause wasn't there was it, yet the 'All have sinned' line still made sense to us.

It makes no sense at all! Both Jews and Gentiles. The whole world. All of mankind. Tell me all means something different somewhere else. I tell you here it means ALL. Even in a human court of law, this would be obvious.

...when one understands both the Wrtten and Oral Word of God bringing Romans into context and not try to throw it all into a box with missing truths as you are attempting.
The 'entire' Bible from cover to cover says things in it that can either be neglected or embraced.

&#8220;Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?"
Mark 12:24

..attempting to lay waste to the special privilege of Grace that was set aside for the Mother of God before Her Conception.
...If it's too implicit, it's not important nor will you come to know the truth of it. Kind of says alot about your little doctrine doesnt it.
...Now if one were to look at this apart from the teachings from Sacred Tradition
...it will look as if we are acknowledging that there are no exceptions
...the reality is, we do understand that here is one exception being the Mother of God.

You have already admitted that just taking the Word by itself it looks like there are no exceptions. That is the whole point of the scripture. The point that you tack on something or someone else to the "understanding" does not win the argument about Romans 3:23 indicating Mary had sinned.

Sounds like you're an advocate for 'Saved by Faith through Works of Charity'. That's very Catholic of you.

If you cannot receive total righteousness by faith first, you cannot do the works of righteousness or fulfill righteousness. You'll be working for your salvation.

And the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and not a bunch of individuals independently working with their Bibles preaching contradicting doctrines of men to one another.

You've insulted what you consider "protestant" churches like their some kind of wildcats operating without authority and without guidance from the Holy Spirit.

You may hold to your ceremony and tradition, building your service around the taking of communion. We have communion too.

The Holy Spirit manifests in the church and He is preparing His people for His eminent return. He is preparing His people for the work of ministry. This is more than some "obligation". He is preparing His people for warfare. God is real and didn't change one bit since the first century. Surely you recognize that part of your catechism is to acknowledge that the apostles, prophets, and signs and wonders ceased after the era of the Book of Acts. They did not. If you could trade your current manifestation of God to resemble the Book of Acts, would you not leap at the opportunity to experience God in a tangible way, as they did?

She is the new Ark

Although you can't receive this, and your conscience is clear, and God suffers long. God has indicated that He considers much of the behavior some of the church has toward Mary to be idolatry. He will not share His glory with another. Saying amen to this and then praying to her are not equitable acts. If you want God to move in your services, keep your eyes on the throne and be a do'er of the Word. Don't be tempted to veer your prayers by seeking God's grace through saints who are no longer in the race on this Earth. They cannot hear your prayers. You can ask prayer from saints on the Earth. They can hear you. Even then, your prayer is to God.

There's going to come a day on this Earth where these things will be more clear and people will have to choose between reality and religion. We'll still have doctrinal differences, but God wants to move as a fountain of living water, and cannot do so freely in dry form.

God provided everything for you already. To try and receive this from anywhere else than from Jesus our High Priest at the throne of God does not please God. We also know about God does not hear you because of the multiplicity of your words. Saying amen to this and then reciting the same prayer over and over is not an equitable act.

God loves Catholics so much, He leaps at the opportunity to move when He is allowed. (The same for others too!) Go to a charismatic Mass. Many times, people can hardly stand up for the power manifested. This by the way, should be a typical service where the Holy Spirit is free to move. Where space is given Him outside of the usual form.

If not, do not stand on a soap box and attempt to preach to me what the Word of God is saying please. You've no authority but your own.

He expects me to preach the good news. Why is it that I have to "argue" for the Word of God just as it is only with Catholics. Usually only unbelievers balk at the Word. Jesus said that He would confirm the preaching of His Word with signs following.

This has turned into a profession of how tradition "completes" the "understanding" of the Word by adding to it. My whole contention, in its simplest form is to take the Word of God as it is. I have heard God say that MANY times since the 80s.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant.

You are Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Assyrian or Eastern Orthodox, then?

 

[chilehed]

That's the "key" or rather the lock. The tradition, with you heralding in the face of Romans, that "ALL" is not rigorous in it's meaning. ...

So then it really is your contention that every time the word all is used in Sacred Scripture, it means "every instance without exception"?

 

[chilehed]

If the Virgin Mary never sinned does that mean she didn't need repentance and thus never repented?

I believe that Mary was sinless but was she made sinless (through repentance, grace, etc) or did she never in her entire life sin? Personally I would say that I don't know one way or the other. I wouldn't "accuse" her of having ever sinned yet I certainly wouldn't say categorically "she never sinned in her entire life" either. Some fathers seem to suggest the later but I tend to see that as a pious opinion and not a statement of dogma or even doctrine. It doesn't seem to be something directly taught by the apostles because none of the earliest Church Fathers seem to mention it. The Bible doesn't say "she never sinned" either.

It is NOT the purpose of this thread to demonstrate that Mary was sinless.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that Romans 3:23 can't reasonably be taken as proof that she wasn't. To do so requires one to rip the passage completely out of context, arbitrarily force the most restrictive meaning of the word "all", set oneself up as one's own Pope, and place onself in the position of calling Jesus a liar (or at least an ignoramus). Alive Again has been demonstrating this quite well without my interference.

 

[Alive_Again]

So then it really is your contention that every time the word all is used in Sacred Scripture, it means "every instance without exception"?

I don't have any idea what other scripture you're referring to. It is obvious from the context of Romans 3, that all is inclusive.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that Romans 3:23 can't reasonably be taken as proof that she wasn't. To do so requires one to rip the passage completely out of context, arbitrarily force the most restrictive meaning of the word "all", set oneself up as one's own Pope, and place onself in the position of calling Jesus a liar (or at least an ignoramus). Alive Again has been demonstrating this quite well without my interference.

It went so far to ensure that an understanding of all of humanity was being referred to, to "force the most restrictive meaning" is really turning the tables upside down. Rather, to say that "all" is NOT inclusive as repeatedly indicated is being unnecessarily restrictive.

As far as setting oneself up as some kind of "Pope", that is ridiculous. I would never seek man as head of the Church. Israel asked for a king. They rejected God as their king and chose a man. They got oppression as a result. The ways of God were perverted at the governmental level.

We now have a religious system in place (which God still endeavors to work through) where it is thought that miracles, apostles, prophets, etc. are "over". This is the surest sign of deception. It is the fruits of the church that bear witness to the Father being in us.

and place onself in the position of calling Jesus a liar (or at least an ignoramus).

There's a scripture about those who twist truth. The Word is true. If you feel adhering to the plain truth of scripture, and witnessed by the Holy Spirit, is calling Jesus a liar, you have serious problems.

This whole "mess" is about adding to scripture. The scripture is plain. So finger point about sola scriptura all you want. It is given for instruction in righteousness.

Alive Again has been demonstrating this quite well without my interference

I truly wish that I could say that you have any part in the truth. You argue against the Word to demonstrate a doctrine unsupported by scripture. You point outside of the context of Romans 3 to support some claim about how words don't always mean what they say elsewhere. Romans 3 is very plain. Rather than argue about it being true, why don't you consider what it says about all being under sin. Repent, and let God be true, and leave behind your role (in what could have been a search for truth) and ended up being a devil's advocate of "Hath God said?" -- It (He) did not really say! I assure you, He did.

 

[Kepha]

I don't have any idea what other scripture you're referring to. It is obvious from the context of Romans 3, that all is inclusive.

It's obvious to you as I said before. Fortunately, you're not the sole interpreter of Scripture for ALL Christians........as I've said before.

It went so far to ensure that an understanding of all of humanity was being referred to, to "force the most restrictive meaning" is really turning the tables upside down. Rather, to say that "all" is NOT inclusive as repeatedly indicated is being unnecessarily restrictive.

So did the CCC yet we understood it perfectly in context with the ORAL teachings regarding Mother Mary.

As far as setting oneself up as some kind of "Pope", that is ridiculous. I would never seek man as head of the Church.

You seek yourself as the visible authority of the Word of God which you even said "A child could understand." How foolish you now look, when day in and day out, we see protestants from many Churches debating on this easily understood Word.

We now have a religious system in place (which God still endeavors to work through) where it is thought that miracles, apostles, prophets, etc. are "over". This is the surest sign of deception. It is the fruits of the church that bear witness to the Father being in us.

Nonsense. Jesus said Men will come and preach 'another faith'. If you protestants can't get a handle of your own doctrines, how will you know 'which faith' is contrary to 'true' Doctrine to be able to discern truth and not just because you have itching ears. Answer: You don't.

This whole "mess" is about adding to scripture. The scripture is plain. So finger point about sola scriptura all you want. It is given for instruction in righteousness.

Again, ONLY plain to YOU!!!!

And you add to Scripture everytime you preach sola Scripture. So point the finger at yourself first. You sadly start with a faulty premise then continue build on top of it without ever looking back.

I truly wish that I could say that you have any part in the truth. You argue against the Word to demonstrate a doctrine unsupported by scripture. You point outside of the context of Romans 3 to support some claim about how words don't always mean what they say elsewhere.

Here's the part you're still missing. Other texts indicates that the WORD itself doesn't always include every human being. Now take the word ALL (with varying definitions) from Romans 3 in context with the ORAL WORD and we again, JUST LIKE IN THE CATECHISM, understand that ALL HAVE SINNED DOESN'T MEAN MARY HAS SINNED.

Your sole problem as I've stated before, is that you are arguing from a box that you've personally created and are calling the Word of God.

Catholics on here continually have the unfortunate privilege of watching protestants time and time again, give themselves the honor, without the title of a Pope for all of Christianity.

 

[Alive_Again]

So did the CCC yet we understood it perfectly in context with the ORAL teachings regarding Mother Mary.

You seek yourself as the visible authority of the Word of God which you even said "A child could understand."

How foolish you now look, when day in and day out, we see protestants from many Churches debating on this easily understood Word.

It's not about protestants and catholics. It's about Christians and God's Word.

As I previously stated: We now have a religious system in place (which God still endeavors to work through) where it is thought that miracles, apostles, prophets, etc. are "over". This is the surest sign of deception. It is the fruits of the church that bear witness to the Father being in us.

Nonsense. Jesus said Men will come and preach 'another faith'.

So you're saying that you have apostles, prophets, and miracles in your church? You're saying that Jesus still operates the same in the church today?

Are you saying to say that it continues today in your church? To say that it does is "another faith"?

If you protestants can't get a handle of your own doctrines, how will you know 'which faith' is contrary to 'true' Doctrine to be able to discern truth and not just because you have itching ears. Answer: You don't.

Again, ONLY plain to YOU!!!!

That's the sad part.

And you add to Scripture everytime you preach sola Scripture.

I'm reading it as it is written.

You sadly start with a faulty premise then continue build on top of it without ever looking back.

The premise is that it says all of mankind. The whole world. I receive the Word as a message from My Father. I take it as a little child. Strangely, that is how you take the oral part of this. Because as you've said before, it looks like it means everybody just looking at the scripture (for good reason).

Here's the part you're still missing.
Other texts indicates that the WORD itself doesn't always include every human being.
Now take the word ALL (with varying definitions) from Romans 3 in context with the ORAL WORD and we again,
JUST LIKE IN THE CATECHISM, understand that ALL HAVE SINNED DOESN'T MEAN MARY HAS SINNED.

In the context of Romans 3, it means everybody. There's no need to point to somewhere else in a context that is not talking about what Romans 3 is.

Your sole problem as I've stated before, is that you are arguing from a box that you've personally created and are calling the Word of God.

I'm just reading it straight. I see that as long as your heart condition is the way it is, you are not going to accept what is written. I could have another line that scecifically said: Every human being every born of women and you would take that apart. It's really quite irrelevant what is written because somewhere else "in the Bible" it doesn't really mean what it says. Plus, you've got your ORAL thing, and that carries more power than the "box" that I call the Word.

Catholics on here continually have the unfortunate privilege of watching protestants time and time again, give themselves the honor, without the title of a Pope for all of Christianity.

I'm telling you, I'm not a protestant, I'm a Christian. I'm not looking for a title. I'm not adding to the Word either, I'm receiving it. Although others receive their belief about Mary for the traditions "handed down", and won't likely be dissuaded otherwise, regardless of the scripture. Even they must see that your argument doesn't hold water. I'm the one who's not adding anything. Other people would at least admit that it reads as it does, and prefer to lean on the interpretation provided for them, as they trust in their leadership. At least that is honest. You're actually lying and saying that I'm adding to the Word. (Do you know where liars go?) That I'm trying to be a Pope, taking honor for myself, and everything else you've hurled at me because I accept the plain truth. It's a religious spirit. It was the religious who killed Jesus. You would be wise to distance yourself from that Phariseeic persuasion.

So what we've really learned:

...Now if one were to look at this apart from the teachings from Sacred Tradition
...it will look as if we are acknowledging that there are no exceptions

That's what it looks like.

• We know that your church doesn't believe in signs and wonders, miracles, apostles and prophets today. That ended.
• The Word says that the Holy Spirit confirms the Word with signs following
• He doesn't confirm tradition.
• Many non Catholic churches as you would call them, do experience ALL of these things.
• God speaks today just like He did in the Book of Acts. His sheep hear His voice.
• You say we can't get a handle on our own "doctrines" --- When we believe the Word of God like it is written.
• The Holy Spirit confirms the Word. He does everything Jesus said that He would when He said that it was better that He go.

So...

You're angry at me for daring to believe the Word as it is written -- against tradition (of which you know the Word says you make the Word of no effect because of tradition)
You say I look foolish for daring to take God at His Word. I take that as an honor.

Very sad because Jesus is likely coming back in this generation. He's coming for the victorious church. Those who aren't ready won't be making the journey.

Instead of taking opposing positions, we need to do'ers of the Word and leading a lost world to Jesus (not the church).
Giving them the Word, not tradition.

 

[chilehed]

So then it really is your contention that every time the word all is used in Sacred Scripture, it means "every instance without exception"?

I don't have any idea what other scripture you're referring to.

That would be a "no", then.

...I truly wish that I could say that you have any part in the truth....

You take it upon yourself to judge the state of my soul.

So then you deny even the theoretical possibility that you could be in error in this matter? You believe that your understanding of the meaning of Scripture on this point is guaranteed by the Holy Sprit to be without error? And that my understanding, which is based on the Sacred Scripture which we have in common, is thus guaranteed to be wrong?

 

[Alive_Again]

You take it upon yourself to judge the state of my soul.

No. The fruit of your adamant rejection of the Word is abundantly evident. We judge the fruits. I truly wish it were not true. Time and again you manifest everything we are warned about in scripture about others coming and preaching another gospel. Preaching another word.

So then you deny even the theoretical possibility that you could be in error in this matter? You believe that your understanding of the meaning of Scripture on this point is guaranteed by the Holy Sprit to be without error? And that my understanding, which is based on the Sacred Scripture which we have in common, is thus guaranteed to be wrong?

If this were a discussion on evidence for the flood or something the Lord has not shed light on, I would be open. In the nursery of the Holy Spirit, He made this one quite plain. It's not complicated. Everybody sinned. Everyone has a nature contrary to the righteousness of God, even if they fulfilled what He asked of them. Everyone, even today, has a carnal mind they have to turn from and become leavened with the Spirit of God to please God. To deny this, would be to deny every the best teacher in the world has shown. It's a lesson learned everyday, because even the most filled and fruitful saints today step in carnality from time to time. Every day, I face the same thing. All have sinned...

It's nothing personal. Your vehement rejection of the scripture in favor of reasonings that exalt itself above the Word are the very things we take authority over as words from the enemy. It will keep you preferring the church over the Word of the Head, Jesus.