• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Featured What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by Daniel Marsh, Aug 29, 2020.

  1. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,705
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    whenever God speaks, we should listen, and not listen with our silly biases.
     
  2. Hmm

    Hmm Rapture Threat Level: ORANGE

    +653
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    No need to get personal. It's a judgement call. Your bias tells you that Mariology can be deduced from pretty much a single word whereas mine tells me that that is not a rational position.
     
  3. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,705
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    no one is getting personal.
    scripture is not a judgement call. To believe that is to believe a lie.
    not at all. It can be deduced from the teachings of the Church (which Jesus have authority to teach).
    thank you for your non Authoritative opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  4. Hmm

    Hmm Rapture Threat Level: ORANGE

    +653
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    Calling someone silly is not personal lol?

    We are supposed to use discernment when we interpret scripture.

    We were talking about scripture and know you throw the viewpoint of your church into it as if that clinches the matter?

    Unfortunately there is no such thing as an authoritative opinion about God. We can only try to understand things the best we can.

    This is getting very silly indeed tbh.
     
  5. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,103
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Where is this theory found in Scripture that original sin is passed down biologically from the father? Is it a DNA thing? Is it a gene? You speak as if it is a fact somehow that a mother does not pass sin on to her children. Do you really think Romans 5 is scientifically verifiable through the science of genetics?
     
  6. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,103
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Considering Protestants argue all sorts of things, like how and when to baptize, and on and on, it's obvious that Scripture isn't crystal clear. You would think if baptism was important it would be a lot clearer than it is in Scripture. Let that settle for a few seconds.

    Which is why we rely on the cumulative experience of the faithful over the centuries. We have engaged with the faith once delivered to the apostles and some of it actually gets clearer over time. For example, it took the contemplations of Duns Scotus to get to the point of seeing how Mary could be immaculate from the moment of her conception. We had always, in every generation, called her blessed, but we didn't have it figured out in all of the details. We mulled that over a few more centuries and then the pope polled all of the bishops and there was agreement. Theology is not just some guy who picks up a Bible and it all makes sense to him. Cause the guy next to him does the same thing and comes up with different answers. Theology is done on one's knees, and ever so slowly, always retaining the original teaching of the apostles and rarely ever going an inch beyond, cautiously.
     
  7. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,959
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Where on earth did this silly idea come from, that our fallen nature is only passed on from the male?

    You do understand that it was actually Eve who sinned first, don't you?
     
  8. Hmm

    Hmm Rapture Threat Level: ORANGE

    +653
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    Well, if you're going to make it a Protestant vs Catholic matter there's no debate to be had is there? It can only be debated on its merits.
     
  9. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,705
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    I said "our", not "yours"
    no,.you said judgement call, like it isnt clear. Now you use "discernment". Please make up your mind.
    I threw in the opinion of Christ's Church. That should clinch it, but as you have stated, people use their fallible, non authoritative judgement to interpret scripture in many different ways.
    I believe scripture, "He who hears you hear Me" There is an authority, I know protestantism doesnt allow for it.
    you are free to turn the conversation from silly.
     
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +28,890
    Anglican
    Married
    And he had two complete natures, human and divine. That is true of no other human.

    Because God cannot know sin, Jesus Christ could not have inherited sin any more than he could commit sin.

     
  11. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,103
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    No. I'm not making it into a Protestant vs Catholic thing. I pointed out that we would like Scripture to be clear on things that even people using the Bible alone cannot agree on. And that is because the Bible often does not have the clarity we would all want. So it works better to be very conservative in our approach, contemplating over generations, and only very slowly making advances in our cumulative understanding. We want to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we can maybe see a tiny bit farther than they did.
     
  12. Hmm

    Hmm Rapture Threat Level: ORANGE

    +653
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    I agree. Isaac Newton put it like this in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

    While that sounds like it should be true I don't think it always is. Sometimes we have to abandon an idea or way of thinking if a better one comes along. This happens in science all the time. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, for example, did not cumulatively build on Newton's laws of gravity, it completely overthrew it. This doesn't mean that Newton's laws are wrong but just that they are limited to objects of everyday size and speed such as aeroplanes or rockets.

    I think churches should learn from this humiliy of science and sometimes be prepared to take a second look at something and admit that it got it wrong. Otherwise a whole body of dogma can only grow over time and become more unwieldy and wrong in places. Religion isn't science but it is still subject to learning from scholarship and discerned revelation.

    i agree with this. There seems to be different views on almost every issue you can think of even, or especially, on the fundamental questions such as Do we have free will? or What is salvation? It's hard to see the different denominations/churches ever finding agreement on these big questions unfortunately.
     
  13. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,103
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    On this I half agree. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we still need to be looking in the right direction. It is unhelpful to stand on the shoulders of giants and be looking in the wrong direction. What we need is a long faithfulness in the right direction.

    You may be surprised that I am a proponent of 'ecclesia semper reformanda'. And that the Catholic Church is actually for it too. The issue for me is whether changes are made with a hermenutic of rupture or one of continuity. Any reform contains a bit of rupture. That is inherent. But it should be a reform that points us back to a particular trajectory we were already on. And this is how it has to differ from Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. For in science we delve into unknowns at every turn and we operate on guesses until better guesses come along. The faith differs in that we have Jesus teaching his disciples, choosing apostles who would teach their successors who would teach their successors. While not everything is figured out, everything that the apostles knew was golden. Everything their early successors knew was argent. So we want to see where they stood and see who stood on their shoulders and where they stood. The term for that is 'ressourcement' and it is a going back to sources in the Bible and the Church Fathers. It can be done with a hermeneutic of continuity allowing the Church to reform, to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to look around but point in the right direction again.

    The contemporary best well known example of this way of thinking is pope emeritus Benedict XVI. He didn't dump the past. But he wasn't static either. He went back to earlier sources, and we know those sources were on track because we know Jesus was on track. Not everything, especially the newest things, are on track. Particularly it is the newest things where time has not tested them, where we will need to change, to get back on track. It's only after a few hundred years that things even begin to clarify.

    What does this have to do with Mary? The idea that Mary was a sinner is actually a new idea. We should look carefully at the Fathers to see what they thought of it. In that we might see how we got to where we are. The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics. What is the common ground? What are their sources? Does that all make sense? What is the entire history? Are current ideas in concert with the older ones, the oldest ones, or a rupture?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +4,387
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The Eastern Orthodox do not teach that Mary never sinned. They don’t actually have a definitive doctrine as to how Mary was without sin when Jesus was incarnated. They believe that it is possible that her sins were cleansed before Jesus’ incarnation.
     
  15. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,959
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    We are happy that you agree with us, yet you always push a negative view of the Orthodox Church. You want to present us as haters of Catholicism when in fact we are lovers of truth.
     
  16. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    746
    +228
    Catholic
    Private
    I realize that you gave web sites for definitions of "exegetial fallacies" and "word-study fallacies" from fallible, non-authoritative people, but that's not what I asked for. You stated on post #409 that the posters understanding of Lk.1:46-55 was in error:

    What I did ask, and the question still stands, is...... By what authority do you have to say that this posters understanding, meaning or belief of this Scripture passage, or any other Scripture passage is in error?

    Well, let's see. Say another poster and yourself were having a discussion about a certain Scripture passage, and were in disagreement on what the meaning of this passage is, but both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit in your beliefs of said passage meaning. Would you stand by your belief that your interpretation/belief of this passage is true and without error, and the other posters interpretation/belief is in error? If so, by who's or what authority would you make this determination?

    Have a Blessed Day!
     
  17. Neostarwcc

    Neostarwcc We are saved purely by the work and grace of God. Supporter

    +2,860
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    Yes, but Adam and Eve weren't completely sinless and were not created with a sin nature. Nobody knows exactly why they sinned and the answer would differ between Christian to Christian, it was either a freewill choice that Adam and Eve made or a freewill choice that God foreordained to happen. Either or you cannot make the argument that Mary was sinless off of Adam and Eve because Adam and Eve were created they weren't born. They were created without a sin nature yet sinned. Every human being born after them aside from Christ sinned.

    Christ still could have sinned, it probably was possible. But if he did he would have lost his status as God and all of humanity would have been without hope.
     
  18. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    746
    +228
    Catholic
    Private
    So what you are saying then, that it is your belief, the word "all" here to mean absolutely everyone who has ever lived or ever will live, with exception of Jesus? Right? And is it also your belief when Scripture say's 'all'....... that it absolutely means "all?"


    Have a Blessed Day!
     
  19. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    746
    +228
    Catholic
    Private

    Yes, you are correct. With that being said, Could I ask you the same thong I asked Coffee4u?

    Is it your belief, the word "all" here to mean absolutely everyone who has ever lived or ever will live, with exception of Jesus? Right? And is it also your belief when Scripture say's 'all'....... that it absolutely means "all?"


    Have a Blessed Day!
     
  20. Hmm

    Hmm Rapture Threat Level: ORANGE

    +653
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    Yes, that does make sense. You explained the value of tradition very well. There's always going to be discussion about what constitutes a "rupture" I guess. For example, I regard the concept of an "elect" a rupture too far but some people seem to take to it - they can't help it I suppose!
     
Loading...