coffee4u
Well-Known Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 5,005
- 2,817
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So then you must believe that babies have sinned. You must believe those who born severely mentally handicapped have also sinned. I mean you did say you believe scripture as written, and that scripture says "ALL" have sinned, so "ALL" have sinned. Those are your words. And then we have Lk. 1:6. Scripture says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were both “righteous” before God, “walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Again, as you said "Scripture says.... All have sinned, so ALL have sinned." as an absolute, so it must be your belief that they, in fact, did not walk in "ALL" the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless? So, is Scripture wrong here?
All people are born with the sin nature, the inborn propensity to sin. A newborn however has not yet committed any sins. There is a difference between the sin nature and committed sins.
Babies have not rejected Christ and are covered by Christ. This includes the mentally handicapped, the unborn and children. Only God knows when a person becomes accountable. Which is why David knew that he would see his son again.
2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
So you agree there are exceptions.
Exceptions to the sin nature? No
Exception to actively sinning? Yes. Obviously an embryo can't sin, but once they have been born and grow, they will sin. They sin because of the inbuilt sin nature passed on from Adam.
I will always agree with Scripture, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error.....correct?
You may disagree with my reading of scripture, but what you are claiming is not scripture.
Again, I will always believe in the Word of God, but will not always agree with your fallible, non-authoritative opinion or personal interpretation of God's Word, which is subject to error. And let's not forget, you did say, "Obviously Enoch and Elijah are special cases. This is God's world, he can do a miracle if he so chooses." Which I take you to mean there are exceptions, and Mary very well could be one of those exceptions.
She certainly could be -if there was any scripture on it. But you are not taking this position because of scripture. You take this stance because your church teaches it, true or false?
Which is completely your prerogative to do so, you are free to listen and believe your church, but it's quite far fetched to think other people should agree with your church.
I'm sorry, you may be an adherent to the unbiblical belief that all we need to know as a sole rule of faith can be found in the Bible, but I will not be held to your man- made, un-biblical theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
So according to you believing the Bible is unbiblical.
Yet also according to you "I will always agree with Scripture"
I'm sorry Coffee4u, but to contend that the Bible being silent about something means it didn't happen, or that it isn't worthy of belief by Christians, is just a bad argument. That's is known as an argument from silence, and arguments of this type are very weak. Think about it, for you to accept this premise that if it's not in the Bible then it didn't happen, well then you could also make an argument that Jesus never went to the bathroom, because nowhere in the bible does it ever say he did, so that must mean He never did. Sorry, but that's bad logic as well as a bad argumentation methodology.
I believe God tells us everything that we need to know. Something as important as a person being sinless or never dying he would have told us plainly in his word if such a thing occurred because it far too important to not be mentioned. Jesus using the bathroom is not an important detail.
"I will not be held to your man- made, un-biblical theological doctrine"
If your doctrine about Mary came from a man, then you yourself are using man made doctrine. Or are you claiming God came down and told someone this?
And I told you what I believe.That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe in universal salvation
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I actually had to go google what you meant by 'universal salvation' as it is not a term I know of or use.
from the Wiki
"In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God."
So the answer to that would be no.
You know coffee4u, I probably should have asked you this right up front, but is it fair to say that everything you have said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, are the words of a fallible person who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yourself?
You are the one claiming something not me.
I am fallible just as you and all other men and women are, which is precisely why I only believe scripture. Your church leaders are men, they are as fallible as anyone else.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I'm sorry, but that's not how my Bible reads Jn.1:1. (The new American bible, second edition) It reads as Jn.1:1; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Even the Protestant KJV bible reads Jn. 1:1 as..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word 'flesh' is in neither, that's something you added.
Of course I didn't add it. It's John 1:14 not John 1:1
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
New Kings James version.
John 1:14 (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJ)
Adding would go against my own beliefs.
Which is probably the only thing we will agree on.
Again, an argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error. Remember coffee4u, arguments of this type are very weak.
And your view of Mary is from silence, the silence of scripture.
I already showed you 2 verses on this.Bible verse that says this please?
There is a difference between a man seeking for God in his human strength which is not truly seeking God at all and the man that God has called, who is seeking God with his spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
What does this have to do with Mary? This reply is getting too long and confusing with answers such as "yes".
I take it you believe all people seek after God since you keep questioning this?
I don't know the RC position on this.
I'm sorry, but your own Protestant version of the Bible (KJV) does not read 1 Cor. 2:14 this way. It reads...."But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
What version do you use?
For personal use most times I use the New Kings James but I like to have a few versions to compare. When I post I take the verse from offline and most times I use the verse at the top of the page for ease of use, so it may vary. If you would rather the King James I can use that.
I hate to keep sounding like a broken record Coffee4u.........but again, another argument from silence, followed by your personal/non-authoritative and fallible opinion that is subject to error.
From silence, as is your position on Mary.
Don't you think you have taken up enough text and space repeating that? You are making replying here too long and unwieldy and I am about done. I don't have all day for this.
How about I use your strategy of silence. Show me in Scripture where it says that Mary personally sinned? Good luck!
Have a Blessed Day!
I already showed it.
Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
You are the one claiming that Mary is the exception, so it is on you to prove this claim. What is your proof that she is the exception to that verse? If all you can do is point at your church and say "They say so" How is that an argument?
Last edited:
Upvote
0