The Immaculate Conception

ahhh; so says dingoling;

dingoling. said:
Maybe it is like:

nCCs - a person is justified by faith alone and not by works

Scripture - a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
-------------------end quote

Proverbs 9:1​
Wisdom hath builded her house,​
she hath hewn out her seven pillars:​

dingoling;
how many times is it now ???
oh yes, ---- 47 times now you have read the scriptures;
and you have never read
Wisdom is justified by her children;

Proverbs 6:​
20 My son, keep thy father's commandment,​
and forsake not the law of thy mother:"​

as Paul says

Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is the mother of us all.
 
Maybe it is like:

nCCs - a person is justified by faith alone and not by works

Scripture - a person is justified by works and not by faith alone


Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’


13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The pharisee did all kinds of "churchy" acts, and yet it was the tax collector who was justified before God, NOT the pharisee. The tax collector simply recognized he was a sinner in need of a savior. Jesus didn't say, "because the tax collector went and did rcc sacraments and rituals he was justified, but that the tax collector was justified for simply believing and trusting God to be merciful to him.

When the bible speaks of works, it is NOT speaking of rcc rituals. But love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are the works that testify of a person's faith. No person who does not believe God exists can see in you, actions of the rcc sacraments in you. A person who is "born again" produces works of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Not as the world gives, but as God gives.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


There are NO instructions in Scripture anywhere to do rcc rituals for salvation or put lock, stock, and barrel in an institution. If there were, the apostles would have told the jailer so, but they only told him.

Acts 16:31
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved,


They did not direct him to use the means of grace, to pray, or to continue to seek for salvation. They did not advise him to delay, or to wait for the mercy of God. They told him to believe in Jesus, with the assurance that he should find peace.
 
Last edited:
That is not true. The NT writings were added to scripture. Where did the church get the authority to add the NT writings to scripture?
The NT writings ARE scripture, the New Covenant, that fulfilled the Old Covenant, and penned under inspiration of the HS by either eyewitnesses to Jesus and His ministry and resurrection, or close associates of them. The extra-Biblical doctrines your church has been promulgating for centuries do not come under either category. They came hundreds of years after the last apostolic witness had died. Many, if not most, of your extra-Biblical teachings contradict what is already in Scripture, both OT and NT. Therefore, they cannot be from God.
 
Maybe it is like:

nCCs - a person is justified by faith alone and not by works

Yep--"For it is by grace you are saved; through faith--and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT OF GOD--and NOT BY WORKS, so no one may boast."
Scripture - a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
"This is the work of God: that you believe on Him Whom God has sent."
 
More subjective whims and opinions again.

People managed to be saved for 1500 years before Marty Luther came along too. Thus, if "People managed to be saved without belief in the IC" refutes the need for the IC, then the fact that people were saved for 1500 years before Luther came along with his incessant whining about stuff, demonstrates that there is no need for Luther.

More subjective whims and opinions.

Who said it did? What Catholic argued that kecheritomehney should be translated "sinless?"

Yeah--here it is an adjective. In Luke it is a name. Big difference. It is one thing to be described as "Bonnie, graced with grace." Quite another to be greeted "Hail Graced with favor."

What does this have to do with anything?

Edit



And if Mary was just another Tom, Dick, Harry, and their bozo brother believer I would agree. Mary is NOT just another believer. That is what no Protestant seems to get.
Addendum--No one said we need Luther in order to be saved. No one has stated that we need to believe in Luther in order to be saved. Can you show us where anyone wrote that on here?

But YOUR church declares that believing in johnny-come-lately dogmas like the 4 Marian dogmas is necessary for salvation--doesn't it?

So, again--how were people saved for hundreds of years prior to your church declaring these 4 Marian doctrines as dogmas that must be believed? When these 4 dogmas were not taught? Like in the first century? What did Paul tell the Phililppian jailer, when he asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Did Paul say "believe in the 4 Marian dogmas, and you will be saved,, you and your household"?

What did he say, romish?

Oh, and what "whining" did Luther do? Declaring the truth of God's holy word and the true Gospel found therein is "whining"? Refusing to back down from that truth and follow a corrupt Pope and his flunkies is "whining"? Is that what Peter did, in Acts, when the Sanhedrin told him to stop preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead, when he declared "It is better to obey God than man"? Because that is what Luther did--he obeyed God rather than man, didn't he?
 
The NT writings ARE scripture, the New Covenant, that fulfilled the Old Covenant, and penned under inspiration of the HS by either eyewitnesses to Jesus and His ministry and resurrection, or close associates of them. The extra-Biblical doctrines your church has been promulgating for centuries do not come under either category. They came hundreds of years after the last apostolic witness had died. Many, if not most, of your extra-Biblical teachings contradict what is already in Scripture, both OT and NT. Therefore, they cannot be from God.
The tired argument that the n.t. is somehow an addon to scripture is tantamount to saying God didn't write it. If its the belief that God is the author of His words, His canon then He can add whatever He wants whenever He wants.
 
Addendum--No one said we need Luther in order to be saved. No one has stated that we need to believe in Luther in order to be saved. Can you show us where anyone wrote that on here?

But YOUR church declares that believing in johnny-come-lately dogmas like the 4 Marian dogmas is necessary for salvation--doesn't it?

So, again--how were people saved for hundreds of years prior to your church declaring these 4 Marian doctrines as dogmas that must be believed? When these 4 dogmas were not taught? Like in the first century? What did Paul tell the Phililppian jailer, when he asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Did Paul say "believe in the 4 Marian dogmas, and you will be saved,, you and your household"?

What did he say, romish?

Oh, and what "whining" did Luther do? Declaring the truth of God's holy word and the true Gospel found therein is "whining"? Refusing to back down from that truth and follow a corrupt Pope and his flunkies is "whining"? Is that what Peter did, in Acts, when the Sanhedrin told him to stop preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead, when he declared "It is better to obey God than man"? Because that is what Luther did--he obeyed God rather than man, didn't he?
Its called moving the goalposts of salvation. Just one more, in a long line of indicators that the rcc is a false church. God doesn't move the goalposts, satan does.
 
More subjective whims and opinions again.

People managed to be saved for 1500 years before Marty Luther came along too. Thus, if "People managed to be saved without belief in the IC" refutes the need for the IC, then the fact that people were saved for 1500 years before Luther came along with his incessant whining about stuff, demonstrates that there is no need for Luther.

More subjective whims and opinions.

Who said it did? What Catholic argued that kecheritomehney should be translated "sinless?"

Yeah--here it is an adjective. In Luke it is a name. Big difference. It is one thing to be described as "Bonnie, graced with grace." Quite another to be greeted "Hail Graced with favor."

What does this have to do with anything?

Edit



And if Mary was just another Tom, Dick, Harry, and their bozo brother believer I would agree. Mary is NOT just another believer. That is what no Protestant seems to get.
Who said it did? What Catholic argued that kecheritomehney should be translated "sinless?"

You mean kecharitomene? Or charitoo for the simplified/lexical version. And plenty of catholics do that very thing here. How many catholics have made the silly, unbiblical argument that to be full of grace is to have no room for sin? Its a gross mistranslation of the word.
 
The tired argument that the n.t. is somehow an addon to scripture is tantamount to saying God didn't write it. If its the belief that God is the author of His words, His canon then He can add whatever He wants whenever He wants.
This is most certainly true. God's words are God's words, OT or NT!
 
You mean kecharitomene? Or charitoo for the simplified/lexical version. And plenty of catholics do that very thing here. How many catholics have made the silly, unbiblical argument that to be full of grace is to have no room for sin? Its a gross mistranslation of the word.
Catholics did just that when I was on these boards back in the mid-2000's. I may have saved an example or 2. I would need to check.
 
The tired argument that the n.t. is somehow an addon to scripture is tantamount to saying God didn't write it. If its the belief that God is the author of His words, His canon then He can add whatever He wants whenever He wants.
I totally agree, it means then that the RCC made a mistake saying the NT is scripture. They cannot have it both ways.

Peter was very clear about the writings of Paul and Paul was very clear about the writings of Luke. The verses proving this statement have been provided by myself and others over and over again. The OT predicts the NT, the NT finalises the OT.
 
The tired argument that the n.t. is somehow an addon to scripture is tantamount to saying God didn't write it. If its the belief that God is the author of His words, His canon then He can add whatever He wants whenever He wants.
It is his church. He can add whatever teachings he wants whenever he wants.
 
Yes, but they would not contradict what He has already inspired His people to write.
You are so right. God is not a God of confusion. He would never contradict Himself. There is only one who does that sort of thing and that is the deceiver and men can be fooled by him.
 
You mean kecharitomene?
Yes. That is exactly what I mean.
Or charitoo for the simplified/lexical version. And plenty of Catholics do that very thing here. How many Catholics have made the silly, unbiblical argument that to be full of grace is to have no room for sin? Its a gross mistranslation of the word.
A gross mistranslation of the word, is it? Perhaps you can tell me how someone can be highly favored without simultaneously being highly (full) of Grace?

My point? Graced, favored, gifted, graced with grace, they mean the same thing. Favor, gift, grace, those are all words that mean the same thing.

Thus, translate the passage however you want---it doesn't help your argument.
 
Yes. That is exactly what I mean.

A gross mistranslation of the word, is it? Perhaps you can tell me how someone can be highly favored without simultaneously being highly (full) of Grace?

My point? Graced, favored, gifted, graced with grace, they mean the same thing. Favor, gift, grace, those are all words that mean the same thing.

Thus, translate the passage however you want---it doesn't help your argument.
Perhaps you can tell me how someone can be highly favored without simultaneously being highly (full) of Grace?

Because its not what the word means. There is another completely different term in n.t. greek for 'full of grace' and its not this. Your opinion not withstanding. Using logic like this isn't how greek grammarians define thousands of years old greek words. I think their standard is a bit higher than yours.

My point? Graced, favored, gifted, graced with grace, they mean the same thing. Favor, gift, grace, those are all words that mean the same thing.

Graced with grace? Never heard that one before. A little redundant isn't it? But your point should have been; graced, favored are words that mean the same thing. What they don't mean is full of grace. That should have been your point. If you were true to the text i mean.
 
Back
Top