RCC has changed concerning the bible

[balshan]

Agreed. Absolutely correct. But that isn't the question and never has been,

If it is so simple, why all the Protestant sects?

It is the question. It is the only question.
Why so many RC sects?

 

[balshan]

Everything. You keep posting that if Mary didn't sin, she didn't need a redeemer. I keep telling you that the reason Mary never sinned was because she was redeemed. It was redemption that kept her from sinning. Because of her unique calling in salvation history, God gave her a unique Grace to enable her to fulfill that calling. That Grace was the IC.

Of course not. I am suggesting that perhaps the word "all" should be understood in a relative sense, not an absolute sense. In the second place, I am also suggesting that the principle being asserted in the passage is not undermined by the IC since the IC was a Grace from Christ, not something Mary had on her own.

No they aren't at all the same. Who says Mary needed a perfect understanding of Christ's work in order to be sinless?

How and why would that be sinful? Because she is "stopping the work of redemption?" In order for her to be sinning in the passage, she would have had to know she was attempting to stop the work of redemption, and she would have intended to do so.

There is nothing in the passage that suggests she is intending to stop the work or redemption. Instead, what is suggested is that she is being a good mother, showing concern for her son who she thinks is out of his mind. It is not a sin to love your son and show concern for him when you think he is out of his mind.

Perfect in what sense? I am sure for the nuns, perfection and sinlessness were synonymous. I think they are two distinct things.

How am I playing word games?

Who said it didn't? I asked why the testimony of the Church is not evidence for what the apostles said or did. I did not say the Scriptures do not matter.

Put another way: why does Scripture have to teach something before a Christian can believe it? Why isn't the testimony of the Church to be accepted?

So? Again, why does that matter? Why DOES Scripture need to teach this?

I do not agree with you at all. It is just your opinion. It is not backed by scripture.

Never said Mary needed a perfect understanding, that is your bringing something into my post that wasn't there at all.

Yep she was asking Jesus to stop obeying His father, disobedience is sin. Really if you look at it without RC Mary blinkers on, she is tempting Jesus to not go through what He knows He will suffer.

Oh give us a break, you are doing the RC word games with words like all not meaning all and dead needing defining. Give us all a break.

You implied it didn't matter by your question post 32:

Why does it matter whether Scripture has formal and explicit examples of the apostles or anyone else praying to Mary after she died?

Again implying God's word does not matter. Because scripture is God's word on how He wants us to live. It is important. Any add ons are against the commandments. Especially praying to the dead.

 

[Nondenom40]

How do you think she would have been sinless, then? If Christ did not save her from sin from the first moment of her conception, how would she have been sinless? No one can be sinless unless they are first saved.

I wasn't going there. At the same time, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that "all" is used in a relative sense. Many times when peoples say "all" they do not literally mean "all" in the sense of "no exceptions."

In the second place, since Catholics are asserting that Mary, like every other human that ever existed needed to be redeemed, the spirit of the passage is not violated. All are under the power of sin and death without Christ. Without Christ, Mary would have sinned like all of us.

Then it looks like on this point we have a problem of semantics.

What if we just said that Mary intercedes for us? In other words, what if Catholics meant by "mediation" what Protestants meant by "intercession?"

How do you think she would have been sinless, then?

She wasn't.

No one can be sinless unless they are first saved.

Those who are sin free don't need saved. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost; Luke 19:10. Was mary lost?

At the same time, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that "all" is used in a relative sense. Many times when peoples say "all" they do not literally mean "all" in the sense of "no exceptions."

And sometimes they do. Like here in Romans 3.

Then it looks like on this point we have a problem of semantics.

Its not semantics. These are real words with real definitions.

What if we just said that Mary intercedes for us?

Thats another issue altogether. We don't pray to dead people.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

She wasn't.



Those who are sin free don't need saved. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost; Luke 19:10. Was mary lost?

ALL are lost without Christ.

That's another issue altogether. We don't pray to dead people.

Neither do we.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

ALL are lost without Christ.

Neither do we.

Yes you do. Alive in Christ and dead in the natural world.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Catholics do not disagree that all Tradition should align with God's Word.

The question is: WHO determines what does or does not align with God's Word? Who is authorized to give the definitive declaration that "X position aligns" or "Y position does not align" with God's Word?

Gods Word determines it. Its that simple

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Gods Word determines it. Its that simple

No, it isn't that simple, because what God's Word teaches is what is in dispute. If it was that simple, we would not have a bunch of competing Protestant sects all disagreeing over what God's Word says.

So WHO arbitrates what the Word of God does or does not say when believers disagree?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Yes you do. Alive in Christ and dead in the natural world.

How many bodies of Christ are there? One or more than one?

If there is only one Body of Christ, and if death does not separate one from the body, if one is joined to the body, on what basis do you maintain that there is an impenetrable wall of separation between believers in heaven and believers on earth?

 

[balshan]

No, it isn't that simple, because what God's Word teaches is what is in dispute.

So WHO arbitrates what the Word of God does or does not say when believers disagree?

Why can they not debate a topic? For a start you do not accept add ons as that is against God's word therefore that negates RC PV, Ic and assumption doctrines. Easy.

You confirm it with other verses. I had good advice once do not make up doctrine on one verse alone. It should be supported by other verses. So that negates the real presence. Other verses support it being symbolic.

 

[balshan]

I am posting this in a few thread where Mary is coming up.

Let us just look at what is important about Mary and Jesus and not the fries or add ons. The Virgin Birth is pivotal for Christianity, without it we are in trouble. I mean if Mary was not a virgin at Jesus' conception, any one could be the father. Without it doubts are thrown onto who Jesus is and what was His purpose was. It is necessary for the faith.

The Virgin Birth fulfills prophecy about the coming Messiah and it is clear who Jesus' father is. It is scriptural.

The IC, Mary being sinless, the PV are unnecessary adds on, that do not fulfil prophecy and are total unnecessary to the Christian faith. They add nothing to who Jesus is and why He came. They are not in scripture and are totally unnecessary. One has to ask why the RCC is so determined to hold on to these myths that come from the PEJ - are very unreliable source. It cannot even get the place of the meeting with the wise kings right and that is clearly written in scripture (as a friend pointed out).

Let us just stick to scripture and what is necessary for our faith.

By the way Romish this is one way to debate with the need for an unreliable authority of the RCC. What is important to know.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Why can they not debate a topic? For a start you do not accept add ons as that is against God's word therefore that negates RC PV, Ic and assumption doctrines. Easy.

Those aren't "add on's."

Who determines what are or are not "add on's" anyway?

You confirm it with other verses. I had good advice once do not make up doctrine on one verse alone.

Really? What is the scriptural basis for that rule? Where does Scripture tell us how many verses need to teach a doctrine before we can accept the doctrine? If God says it in only one verse, why isn't that sufficient?

It should be supported by other verses.

Where does Scripture teach that one verse is not sufficient?

So that negates the real presence.

How? Where does Scripture state that one verse is not sufficient? In any case, Catholics have several verses.

Other verses support it being symbolic.

In your opinion.

 

[Theo1689]

Those aren't "add on's."

Who determines what are or are not "add on's" anyway?

If it's not in the Bible, it's an "add-on".

Really? What is the scriptural basis for that rule? Where does Scripture tell us how many verses need to teach a doctrine before we can accept the doctrine? If God says it in only one verse, why isn't that sufficient?

As a general rule, God gives us plenty of Scriptures for each doctrine. For instance, there's at least 8 or 10 passages which teach the deity of Christ, even though the JW's deny them all.

For instance, there's a good 15-20 passages which teach monotheism, even though Mormons deny them all.

So when you quote ONE single verse about Jesus building his church on Peter's confession of Jesus being the Christ, and you want to TWIST that into:
- Peter's the head of the church;
- infallible ex cathedra announcements;
- succession of prophets;
- bishop of bishops;
- etc.

... then we're going to point out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Where does Scripture teach that one verse is not sufficient?

Theoretically, God only needs to say something once for it to be true. But in practice, God tends to repeat Himself to make sure we get it.

How? Where does Scripture state that one verse is not sufficient? In any case, Catholics have several verses.

... that you project your false doctrines into, yes.

 

[dingoling.]

All you have accomplished is to elevate RCC uninspired unwritten Tradition above God's inspired written word; how you ask?
None of what you stated is found in Scripture.

This is RCC forum and not a sola scriptura forum.

 

[PeanutGallery]

All you have accomplished is to elevate RCC uninspired unwritten Tradition above God's inspired written word; how you ask?
None of what you stated is found in Scripture.

This is RCC forum and not a sola scriptura forum.

Elevating uninspired unwritten Tradition above God's inspired written word is off-topic in this forum?

 

[mica]

romishpopishorganist said:
Catholics do not disagree that all Tradition should align with God's Word.

but they don't care that it doesn't, they believe it anyway.

The question is: WHO determines what does or does not align with God's Word? Who is authorized to give the definitive declaration that "X position aligns" or "Y position does not align" with God's Word?

believers who read, study and understand scripture, and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. so not a catholic.

Gods Word determines it. Its that simple

catholics know little to nothing of what scripture does say. the rcc has trained you not to know it.

 

[balshan]

Those aren't "add on's."

Who determines what are or are not "add on's" anyway?

Really? What is the scriptural basis for that rule? Where does Scripture tell us how many verses need to teach a doctrine before we can accept the doctrine? If God says it in only one verse, why isn't that sufficient?

Where does Scripture teach that one verse is not sufficient?

How? Where does Scripture state that one verse is not sufficient? In any case, Catholics have several verses.

In your opinion.

They are add ons, they are not in scripture.
Scripture is clear and you have to do the RC twisting of scripture to insert those add ons and they still don't fit into scripture. They all come from the PEJ which is false writings.

It is a good rule, the OT is often confirmed in the NT for a start. I never gave a figure I just said more than once. If it is repeated it stops the false assumptions made by RCs. It helps to stops verses being taken out of context.

Where does scripture state that one verse is sufficient? No RCs don't and it shows.

So really you don't want to have some rules set for discussions. You want to be able to add to scripture and go beyond scripture. You want to be able to take verses out of context. And you want sola scriptura.

 

[balshan]

This is RCC forum and not a sola scriptura forum.

Your traditions are just false man made myths. You have proven you have no understanding of sola scriptura and I find it is RCs who want to divert to it as a topic.