Posted on 06/19/2009 10:03:34 PM PDT by dangus
Yes it DOES!
(MY mistake in calling you a MORMON was due to the fact you can spin BETTER than one!)
'Just' and 'righteous' does NOT equate to SINLESSness; no matter what 'authority' says so.
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.
For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of ‘79.
There is nothing unreasonable about the gospel’s demand for a commitment to Christ also requiring a corresponding commitment to the Catholic Church which He founded beginning with Peter, the rock.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=307597
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/immacula.PDF
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq41.html
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.
For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of ‘79.
There is nothing unreasonable about the gospel’s demand for a commitment to Christ also requiring a corresponding commitment to the Catholic Church which He founded beginning with Peter, the rock.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=307597
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/immacula.PDF
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq41.html
“What about them? 1) Can you first prove they are even genuine? I ask that because they appear to cited only on anti-Catholic websites as far as I can see. Imagine that. and 2) What about them specifically?”
They are totally consistent with what your church teaches, that being your priests are alleged to have some elevated status (power) in general, and are able to order Christ down from Heaven and render him on the altar. “the real presence” Specifically, they are not true, there are no other Christs.
If Peter was there, and was being hunted, a single mention of his name in a letter wouldn’t have given him away, when those who allegedly
hunted him could have just found him with his church ?? I think it really means he wasn’t there !
“In Romans 15:20, St. Paul said he would not build on “another man’s foundation.” Yet in the same letter to the Romans he writes to a Church already founded “whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.” Romans 1: 8. Many Protestants used to recognize this as a veiled reference to Peter. The Protestant, BJ Kidd, for instance, wrote: “Rome, in short, was ‘another man’s foundation.’ No allusion to the ‘other man’ by name is wanted. The Romans knew well enough whom he meant. Who, then, was the ‘other man’? The evidence is early and threefold in favor of St. Peter.” History of the Church p. 52.”
So by Paul not mentioning Peter at ALL, it really means Peter was there ????
A church already founded - no mention of Peter again.
Not building on another man’s foundation simply meant he wanted to go where the Gospel had not been spread. If it doesn’t say who the man is, it doesn’t prove it’s Peter.
You, by default have to believe it was Peter, otherwise the whole system falls.
Paul doesn’t mention anything about Peter or Rome in his letters to Timothy in instructing him with advice in church matters. If Peter was the first pope, you think that would warrant some mention by Paul to Timothy, don’t ya think ? There was no “if you help with sound doctrine, see our brother Peter”. so, It’s another time Peter was not mentioned.
“Also, St. Peter ended his first letter this way, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so does my son Mark.” Early Christians called pagan Rome Babylon.”
But since Rome ISN’T mentioned, there is NO evidence that he was using the term Babylon to figuratively to refer to Rome.
“And as usual, you’re wrong. Let me show you how. 1) This is what you ACTUALLY wrote: “Add to that, these “priests” allegedly have the power to bring Jesus down from Heaven to become a peice of bread ??”
“Notice what you said? You said the priest makes Jesus become “a peice of bread”.
My mistake, Jesus doesn’t become a piece of bread, the bread becomes Jesus. All this hocus pocus stuff can’t be done anyway.
There is still no way that any priest, can do the following !
“when the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, and places Him upon our altar to be OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM for the sins of man. : the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar AS THE ETERNAL VICTIM for the sins of man - NOT ONCE BUT A THOUSAND TIMES! The priest speaks and lo Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s commands.’”
“No one is trying to sacrifice the living God-man Jesus again. How could anyone even try?
So you’re saying it’s not a real sacrifice ?
“I clearly denied that anyone was trying to make Jesus into bread. Now, you’re trying to say two different things. 1) Your emphasizing the idea of Jesus coming down to the altar - as if I ever disputed God’s power to do such a thing or the priest’s power in that regard. 2) You’re also making the completely RIDICULOUS claim that this means Jesus was being sacrificed over and over again, which is not only impossible, but, naturally is not what we teach or believe.”
I’m not making the Rev O’brien’s claims, HE IS - with the approval of your church.
1.”The priest speaks and lo Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s commands.” “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS”
2. “he reaches up into the heavens, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, and places Him upon our altar to be OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM for the sins of man. : the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar AS THE ETERNAL VICTIM for the sins of man - NOT ONCE BUT A THOUSAND TIMES!”
You say it’s Gods power by which he comes down from Heaven, your church says otherwise.
You say Jesus is not being sacrificed over and over, well, the Rev O’Brien seems to think so.
“No. No orders given. God acts as He wills. It is His promise to His people to always be with them in the breaking of the Bread.”
Really - “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS”
You’re really digging this ceiling watch thing ? Have at it !
You wrote:
“They are totally consistent with what your church teaches, that being your priests are alleged to have some elevated status (power) in general, and are able to order Christ down from Heaven and render him on the altar. “the real presence” Specifically, they are not true, there are no other Christs.”
In other words, you have no proof at all that the anti-Catholic sites you relied on actually posted genuine quotes? Right.
Ceiling. Watch.
“If Peter was there, and was being hunted, a single mention of his name in a letter wouldn’t have given him away, when those who allegedly hunted him could have just found him with his church ?? I think it really means he wasn’t there !”
All history stands against you and so does scripture as I posted. And yes, one mention could give him away.
Ceiling. Watch.
“So by Paul not mentioning Peter at ALL, it really means Peter was there ????”
No. By Paul admitting that someone else already established the Church there and all early Christian writers agreeing it was Peter - and Peter himself saying he was in ‘Babylon’ which was a codeword for Rome - it means Peter was there.
Ceiling. Watch.
“A church already founded - no mention of Peter again.”
Except by Peter himself. You’re rather conveniently forgetting that. Imagine that.
“Not building on another man’s foundation simply meant he wanted to go where the Gospel had not been spread.”
He was going to go to Rome in any case. And all early Christians agree Peter was in Rome.
“If it doesn’t say who the man is, it doesn’t prove it’s Peter.”
And yet all early Christians agree Peter was in Rome. Really, only anti-Catholics insist he wasn’t. Even many Protestants agree he was in Rome!
Ceiling. Watch.
“You, by default have to believe it was Peter, otherwise the whole system falls.”
No. The HISTORY proves Peter was in Rome. And no system falls according to my beliefs. The Church remains regardless of my beliefs.
“Paul doesn’t mention anything about Peter or Rome in his letters to Timothy in instructing him with advice in church matters. If Peter was the first pope, you think that would warrant some mention by Paul to Timothy, don’t ya think ?”
Not in writing, no. I am not a Protestant sectarian. I do not believe in false 16th century doctrines like sola scriptura. Thus, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that St. Paul does not mention the first pope to Timothy. We know St. Paul stayed often for months and years in certain places. He could have just as easily - as he himself mentions - told Timothy or others about Peter in person by word of mouth.
“There was no “if you help with sound doctrine, see our brother Peter”. so, It’s another time Peter was not mentioned.”
He didn’t have to be mentioned in writing. No letter of St. Paul’s was ever written as a complete guide to the Christian faith.
Ceiling. Watch.
“But since Rome ISN’T mentioned, there is NO evidence that he was using the term Babylon to figuratively to refer to Rome.”
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence. 1) We have all early Christians agreeing that that’s what he was doing. 2) We have all early Christians agreeing Peter was in Rome. 3) We have plenty of Biblical scholarship - including that of Protestants - which shows it was the consistent understanding of early Christians.
Ceiling. Watch.
“My mistake, Jesus doesn’t become a piece of bread, the bread becomes Jesus. All this hocus pocus stuff can’t be done anyway.”
With the power of God it most certainly is possible and it does happen. And it is your mistake. Remember, you’re the only one to have made a mistake on doctrine here. I have made none about Protestants - ever. You attack Catholic doctrine, however, even though you can’t get it right. What does that tell us?
“There is still no way that any priest, can do the following !”
On his own no, but through the power of God given to him, yes he can. There’s no way Peter could have healed a man with his shadow, but he did.
“So you’re saying it’s not a real sacrifice ?”
It’s a re-presentation of a real sacrifice.
I wrote: “I clearly denied that anyone was trying to make Jesus into bread. Now, you’re trying to say two different things. 1) Your emphasizing the idea of Jesus coming down to the altar - as if I ever disputed God’s power to do such a thing or the priest’s power in that regard. 2) You’re also making the completely RIDICULOUS claim that this means Jesus was being sacrificed over and over again, which is not only impossible, but, naturally is not what we teach or believe.”
“I’m not making the Rev O’brien’s claims, HE IS - with the approval of your church.”
I never disputed what O’Brien said. What you did - and you’re still trying to do it - is conflated more than one issue or idea and attacked Catholic doctrine based on that conflation. You made the ridiculous mistake claiming Jesus becomes bread. You insisted - without any evidence at all - that Catholics believe Jesus is re-sacrificed again and again and you did that by COMPLETELY MISUSING O’Brien’s quote. No where - EVER - does O’Brien suggest Jesus is re-sacrificed again and again. Yet that’s what you claimed his words said. Also, it is clear enough from O’Brien’s own book, on page 306, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the PERPETUATION of the singular sacrifice on Golgotha. You conveniently left that out too. Imagine that.
Ceiling. Watch.
“You say it’s Gods power by which he comes down from Heaven, your church says otherwise.”
No, the Church says EXACTLY what I have been saying. The priest has no authority or power except for that imparted to him by God through his ordination through Apostolic Succession which was created by God Himself. O’Brien - who you supposedly have read - discusses this in chapter 11. Strange how you didn’t mention that.
“You say Jesus is not being sacrificed over and over, well, the Rev O’Brien seems to think so.”
Nope. As I already shows in this post, he doesn’t. Again, look at pages 304 and 306. Are you sure you read this book there, buddy?
Even other anti-Catholics can get this right regarding O’Brien:
As noted elsewhere, according to Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism,
“...The Church insists that the Mass is the continuation and re-presentation of the sacrifice
of Calvary.”7 Emphasizing it is not a recrucifixion of Christ where Christ suffers and dies
again, he cites John A. O’Brien who says, “The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the
sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that it offers anew to God the Victim of Calvary... and
applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the Cross to individual human souls.”8 http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC3W0103.pdf
So, they apparently didn’t even read O’Brien’s book, which you imply you read, but they know its import better than you do. Imagine that.
Ceiling. Watch.
“Really - “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS””
Here is what the priest says:
Who in the same night that he was betrayed,
took bread and gave you thanks;
he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying,
Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you;
do this in remembrance of me.
In the same way, after supper
he took the cup and gave you thanks;
he gave it to them, saying,
Drink this, all of you;
this is my blood of the new covenant,
which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,
Do this as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me.
So, the priest is following JESUS’ commands.
“You’re really digging this ceiling watch thing ? Have at it !”
It’s better than making mistakes and railing against what you don’t know...or pretending to have read books you apparently didn’t.
Ceiling. Watch.
Even if you CANNOT use Rmns 3:23 to DISprove she was sinless; what Scripture do you have to prove that she WAS sinless?
Or is it going to be more words of men?
Which is ONCE a year...
Acts 2:46
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...
They clearly were doing it more often than once a year.
You wrote:
“Lots of words from men, trying to say that the BIBLE is in error.”
Show me where they say the Bible is in error. Can you do that?
“Even if you CANNOT use Rmns 3:23 to DISprove she was sinless; what Scripture do you have to prove that she WAS sinless?”
First answer my question put to you. Do you have the courage to answer that question?
“Or is it going to be more words of men?”
Again, answer my question put to you. Can you do that?
I’d really like to see you make your points without bring a dick about it !
You wrote:
“I’d really like to see you make your points without bring a dick about it !”
I just wanted to post your words in case your post is deleted. (Mind you this website - as much as I love it - has a long history of deleting Catholic posters’ inappropriate comments while leaving anti-Catholics’ comments stand.)
And this is supposed to be COMMUNION??
You wrote:
“And this is supposed to be COMMUNION??”
Answer my question please.
You wrote:
“All have sinned and come short of the Glory of GOD.”
That in no way answered my question: “Show me where they say the Bible is in error. Can you do that?”
Can you show me WHERE they claimed the Bible was in error? Can you do it or not?
“All have sinned and come short of the Glory of GOD.”
Men: "All does NOT mean 'all'. "
You wrote:
“Men: “All does NOT mean ‘all’.”
I didn’t ask you for an example of someone interpreting scripture. I asked you “WHERE they claimed the Bible was in error? Can you do it or not?”
An interpretation of a verse is not in itself a claim that the verse is in error.
If that were the case, then if you say that Jesus did not mean we would consume His flesh in John 6, you are actually NOT interpreting the scriptures but claiming John 6 is in error. And let’s face it, you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. You would interpret it only symbolically, right? That means you must believe the Bible is in error. After all - according to your logic - John 6 says “eat my flesh”.
Now, once again, I ask you to show me where they said the Bible is in error? Can you?
Sure it is!
When a bunch of words are spun to say that ALL does not mean ALL; then the CLAIM IS MADE that the Book is in Error.
Word games and sematic differences ain't getting the job done.
The Bereans's did NOT refer to what other folks thought about what Paul was teaching; they looked it up in SCRIPTURE for themselves.
I do the same.
Sorry; but I am not buying your private interpretation of it.
And neither does the REST of Protestantism.
Study to show thyself approved; RIGHTLY dividing the Word of God.
HE picked up the bread and said, "THIS is my flesh."
So - was Jesus speaking symbolically or did HE somehow yank the bread off of HIS body?
Oh???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.