Sola Scriptura

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And yet you included no differences in the actual meaning of the word. For example, the first definition is simply “just”. Context would indicate that in some cases the word simply means “just” or “impartial” where in others we can clearly understand it to mean “righteous” as in the righteousness of Christ. Demanding the same meaning in all cases is naive.

I'm not demanding the same meaning in both cases; that's not my point. My point is that anti-Catholic Church commenters' use of Romans 3:10 to suggest that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is somehow "unscriptural" is equally naive. One can't simply grab a verse which seems to suit one's purposes, and then throw it against the wall in the hopes that it'll stick! If "proper interpretation" can prevent contradiction between these apparent "proof texts of Scripture", then proper interpretation can prevent a contradiction between, say, Romans 3:10 and the dogma of the Sinlessness of (and the Immaculate Conception of) the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Moreover, this highlights a fatal flaw in "sola Scriptura"; I see a great deal of NCC "scrambling" to find interpretations which resolve the apparent contradiction... and I don't fault you--I agree that there is no contradiction, but I think so because I assert that Romans 3:10 is speaking about humanity in its GENERAL nature (i.e. humanity is, in its essence, fallen and deserving of nothing but damnation), not in specific cases--but these "interpretations" all go "beyond what is written" (as any interpretation HAS to do, at least to some extent). In other words, you're using non-sola-Scriptura approaches to try to defend sola Scriptura... and that simply won't do.

(As an illustration: think of Hebrews 9:27: "And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment [...]". This describes the EXPECTED outcome of any human life, due to the appointment/decree of God; it is not "proven false" simply because Enoch and Elijah went to God without dying, nor are the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah disproven because of Hebrews 9:27! Just so, with Romans 3:10; it is not proven false because of the sinlessness of Mary--who is sinless by the sheer gift of God--any more than the sinlessness of Mary is disproven by Romans 3:10!)

Think of it this way: if Romans 3:10 says that "none are righteous", you've already admitted that the word "righteous" (Gk: "dikaios") could mean many different things. Given no other context, it could theoretically mean that "no one deserves salvation in his own right" (which is absolutely true, by virtue of the fact that salvation is a free gift from God), or it could mean that "no one is sinless" (which you'd need to prove).

The frustrating thing about these discussions is the way that people can "go off the rails" and make pure assumptions (often while accusing the opponent of the very same thing). For example: NCC's sometimes assume AUTOMATICALLY (without any apparent deliberation) that "Mary = sinless" logically implies "Mary = goddess"... which is as illogical as it is bizarre. Another bizarre and illogical canard thrown about would be the idea of "Mary = sinless" = "Mary doesn't need a savior", or even "Mary = sinless" = "Mary is sinless BY HER OWN POWER"... which are both equally bizarre, and are utter straw men (i.e. the Catholic Church does not, and never did, teach anything of the sort. If you find something contrary in the Catechism, I'll be happy to admit my error.).

Let me be clear: the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was PRESERVED (passive voice, indicating that the agent is someone other than Mary) from all stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. The doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary states that the Blessed Virgin was given sufficient grace BY GOD (not on her own power--that accusation is made up of whole cloth) to remain sinless for her entire life.

If you're going to attach Catholic doctrine, attack the REAL ones... and not simply straw men which are cobbled together with disparate quotes from random Catholic authors of varying degrees of qualification.

Oh dear, I do so hope you aren't comparing sacred, Divinely-inspired Scripture with man made dogmas and doctrines.

:) No fear. I'm not comparing sacred, Divinely-inspired Scripture (i.e. the 73-book, full Bible) with man made dogmas and doctrines (e.g. sola Scriptura, "once-saved-always-saved", sola fide, etc.).

Are you trying to be cagey, or what? A simple “yes” or “no” would help immensely...

People are not damned to hell for not being Christian. People are already damned to hell and it's accepting Christ that saves them from going where they belong.

Well... all right, but that leaves loads of unanswered questions (e.g. "Can someone "accept Christ" implicitly, by accepting the Law written on their hearts by Jesus, even if they're innocently ignorant of Him, personally?).

They already deserve hell.

Yes, and no. Let me ask, then: are infants (and mentally-impaired adults, such as those with Down's Syndrome) damned to hell if they die before reaching the age where they can "accept Christ"? I'm not asking this as a "gotcha" or thetorical device; I really need to know your views (since I can't assume they're identical with anyone else--not even with the beliefs of the other sola-Scriptura believers on this board).

Catholics seem to have this problem with understanding human nature and divine judgment.

That sounds like a criticism... but it's far too vague to address. Anyone could say the same about anyone else.

So yes, people who have never heard are going to hell, but not because God damns them, but because that it the penalty for the sin they commit. They're headed there anyway until they're kept from it.

Now... can you show me where it say that (explicitly) in Scripture?

So, just to be clear: you believe that someone who has never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, and who dies (even without having committed serious personal sin), is consigned to eternal hell?

That's pretty clearly laid out in Scripture.

Of course, the counterpart provided by Catholicism is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church, stated right here in the CCC.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

So Catholics being aghast at the thought that non-Catholics believe that those who never heard of Christ are damned are basically in the same position themselves, since their church teaches that salvation is through it only and nobody outside of it can be saved.

One can't simply grab a verse which seems to suit one's purposes, and then throw it against the wall in the hopes that it'll stick!

And that's EXACTLY the methodology used by the RCC to support the doctrines of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, her assumption, declaring her *Queen of Heaven*, praying to her, and virtually all the extraneous stuff about her that the Catholic church has added to Scriptural account over the years.

>>My point is that anti-Catholic Church commenters' use of Romans 3:10 to suggest that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is somehow "unscriptural" is equally naive.<<

I agree and you have never seen me use it. Christ is the only man who ever walked this earth that was sinless. Many places in scripture we are told that Jesus was sinless. Not once is that said of Mary.

>>One can't simply grab a verse which seems to suit one's purposes, and then throw it against the wall in the hopes that it'll stick!<<

Oh that's funny right there. One only look at "on this rock" to see that. Evidence that Mary was not sinless is not based on one verse.

>>In other words, you're using non-sola-Scriptura approaches to try to defend sola Scriptura... and that simply won't do.<<

No, I don't. Scripture will always be sufficient and does give explanation within itself.

>>it is not "proven false" simply because Enoch and Elijah went to God without dying, nor are the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah disproven because of Hebrews 9:27!<<

Enoch and Elijah have not died yet. Who are the two witnesses in Revelation? I would submit they are Enoch and Elijah.

>>Mary--who is sinless by the sheer gift of God-<<

Prove it.

>>The doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary states that the Blessed Virgin was given sufficient grace BY GOD<<

Once again, prove it.

Cagey? Scripture isn’t enough?

So Catholics being aghast at the thought that non-Catholics believe that those who never heard of Christ are damned are basically in the same position themselves, since their church teaches that salvation is through it only and nobody outside of it can be saved.

How can you say that, after you, yourself, quoted the Catechism which flatly denies what you say, here? You need to handle Catholic doctrine as it IS, not as you'd otherwise IMAGINE it to be.

Getting an explicit “yes” or “no” would help my understanding of your interpretation of those Scriptures. Would it help if I said “please”?

As an aside: I’m a math teacher, and there are plenty of times when I’ll make an answer explicit to students, even when I find the answer to be “self-evident”. Think of me (at least for an instant) as a student needing help, and can you please answer with a simple “yes” or “no”?

And that's EXACTLY the methodology used by the RCC to support the doctrines of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, her assumption, declaring her *Queen of Heaven*, praying to her, and virtually all the extraneous stuff about her that the Catholic church has added to Scriptural account over the years.

*Ahem...*

"The frustrating thing about these discussions is the way that people can "go off the rails" and make pure assumptions (often while accusing the opponent of the very same thing)."

[paladinan]
My point is that anti-Catholic Church commenters' use of Romans 3:10 to suggest that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is somehow "unscriptural" is equally naive.

[CynicalBear]
I agree and you have never seen me use it.

(!) All right... color me surprised, and I stand corrected. So you *don't* think that Romans 3:10 is a proof against the sinlessness of Mary? Just being clear, here...

Christ is the only man who ever walked this earth that was sinless.

Are you forgetting Adam and Eve? Before the fall, they were both absolutely sinless... and Eve was brought into being without original sin. It isn't as if the Blessed Virgin was the first to ever have that happen to her, you know... and it shows that God doesn't find such a work impossible.

Many places in scripture we are told that Jesus was sinless. Not once is that said of Mary.

Surely you're familiar with the "fallacious appeal to silence"? If the Bible doesn't mention [x], then that says nothing about the truth or falsity of [x], whatsoever! Now, if the Bible were to say, explicitly, that Mary DID sin, THEN you'd have a rock-solid case. But that's nowhere to be found in Scripture.

To be continued... must dash...

I believe what scripture says paladinan. When Christ said “no one comes to the Father but by me” and given the other scriptures I have given, which there are more, it would seem rather clear. I’ll let scripture speak.

All right... you *are* being cagey, then, and you don’t want to commit to saying “yes” or “no”, yourself? I’m honestly not trying to be difficult, here; I’m just trying to prevent any future episodes where, if I say that “CynicalBear believes that all who’ve never been exposed to the Gospel and accepted Jesus are damned”, you might come back with the rather exasperating reply of “I never said that! Tell me where I said that! Quote me! Show me which comment!” I really, honestly don’t know why you’re so averse to answering a simple question like this with a “yes” or “no”.

Honestly! Sometimes, in discussions like this, people want the luxury of dropping innuendos and insinuations, while leaving themselves an “escape hatch” if things go sour. It’s a bit like the following:

A) “All men are mortal, and Socrates was a man.”

B) “So you’re saying that Socrates was mortal, then?”

A) “I didn’t say that! Show me where I said that! Stop putting words in my mouth!”

(Hint: if one say things, one also “owns” everything which can be logically deduced from them... whether that’s socially/rhetorically convenient, or not.)

Let me put it this way: so long as you, and all other members of this forum, are okay with (and won’t object to) me saying that “CynicalBear thinks those who, through no fault of their own, were never exposed to the Gospel go to hell if they die in that state”, then I won’t complain about your answer in the least. But if you ARE reserving that “right of complaint” for yourself (perhaps in the hopes of invoking a “mind-reading” charge against me in the future), then I’ll need to ask that you abide by the spirit of the rules of this forum (e.g. against “mind-reading”), and please clarify.

A single-word comment would take care of it; it wouldn’t take long.

So, just to be clear: you believe that someone who has never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, and who dies (even without having committed serious personal sin), is consigned to eternal hell?

You are pressing for a yes or no commitment to your specific formulation. But the formulation is flawed, and parts of it may be agreeable and others not so much. As an attorney I have to advise clients on how to make sure they give the answer they really want to give, and often that means they must press through the details of the question, rather than give a simple yes or no answer.

Just one example from the question as you have provided it. You have embedded an assumption (via your expression "serious personal sin") that some sins are so serious they would cost a person their salvation, even if they were invincibly ignorant, whereas other sins are light enough to warrant different treatment in judgment. We can't be 100% sure that is your meaning, but it is a reasonable first reading. Speaking for myself, I believe Scripture teaches all sin is rebellion against God. Every ounce of it is both serious and personal. The least contamination is sufficient to justify permanent separation from God. Were there any least sin not accounted for under the blood of Jesus, that person will not inherit eternal life. Sin is death. We either believe Jesus on this or we don't. I know it is unpleasant to contemplate, and I have been tempted many times to universalism. But the words are what they are, and that is why it is perhaps better not to go beyond what is written in attempting to answer your question. We cannot presume to know more about it than what is revealed in Scripture. That is what we are responsible for.

Peace,

SR

[paladinan]
One can't simply grab a verse which seems to suit one's purposes, and then throw it against the wall in the hopes that it'll stick!

[CynicalBear]
Oh that's funny right there. One only look at "on this rock" to see that.

Do tell?

Evidence that Mary was not sinless is not based on one verse.

All right: on what IS it based, then? And if you want your argument to remain coherent, it'll have to be dependent on "Scripture alone" (and you'll have to clarify exactly what YOU mean by "sola Scriptura"--and not simply offer it as "self-evident and obvious", since the term seems to have 100 shades of meaning when asking 100 different non-Catholics).

[paladinan]
In other words, you're using non-sola-Scriptura approaches to try to defend sola Scriptura... and that simply won't do.

[CynicalBear]
No, I don't. Scripture will always be sufficient and does give explanation within itself.

Now, you MUST know that this statement is far too vague to be of much use! For instance:

a) "sufficient" for WHAT?
b) "sufficient" ALONE?
c) "sufficient" in a way which any human can access and use?
d) etc.

e) "give explanation" for WHAT?
f) how complete an explanation?
g) Is the explanation guaranteed of infallible interpretation by you? By anyone?

You hope to establish the principle of "sola Scriptura"... and unless the Bible provably teaches that idea, you're done. This isn't my doing; it's your doing, in the fact that you're trying to argue that idea. It's simple logic.

[paladinan]
it is not "proven false" simply because Enoch and Elijah went to God without dying, nor are the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah disproven because of Hebrews 9:27!

[CynicalBear]
Enoch and Elijah have not died yet. Who are the two witnesses in Revelation? I would submit they are Enoch and Elijah.

Let me anticipate your own demand, below: prove it. From Scripture alone.

[paladinan]
Mary--who is sinless by the sheer gift of God

[CynicalBear]
Prove it.

From a 30-second internet search...

Note the deafening silence from the rest of the Christian world, when these pronouncements were made? If you had been alive (and an author of influence) at the time, you would not have ceased decrying every last word of these, right? So... this suggests that the early Christians were not of the same mind as you, on this topic (and many others). The sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin was portrayed as an already-known idea by these Church Fathers, and no clamor of "Hey! That's heresy! That's unbiblical! You're not following sola Scriptura!" erupted on the scene. Suspicious, yes?

[paladinan]
The doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary states that the Blessed Virgin was given sufficient grace BY GOD

[CynicalBear]
Once again, prove it.

Who ELSE could have given her such a gift (as that of sinlessness), but God? She certainly didn't give it to HERSELF...

CB: Many places in scripture we are told that Jesus was sinless. Not once is that said of Mary.

PL: Surely you're familiar with the "fallacious appeal to silence"? If the Bible doesn't mention [x], then that says nothing about the truth or falsity of [x], whatsoever!

This is an unwarranted shifting of the burden of proof. "Arguments from silence" are not necessarily invalid if they are used to counter positive assertions which inherently require positive evidence to be proved true. If you tell me the Moon is made of green cheese, just below the rocky surface, I am well within my rights to demand evidence of your position. If you cannot provide said evidence, I am not obligated to accept your proposition.

Similarly, Sola Scriptura does not propose that everything that can be known or is true is found in Scripture. That is a straw man. Rather, we say that what God included in Scripture is everything we need to believe to have faith in Jesus, and to live a God-pleasing life. Other things may or may not be true. But if they are not in Scripture, they are not essential to becoming and living as good Christians. Is Mary sinless? The Holy Spirit has included in Scripture testimony which suggest she was under sin, like every other human born of fallen Adam and Eve, and therefore needed a Savior, as all sons and daughters of fallen Adam do. The Holy Spirit has excluded any information suggesting she was without sin. Jesus has been declared to be without sin, so there is no further burden of proof with Him. The case is closed. But with Mary, the presumption of the shared condition of being fallen imposes a burden of proof on the positive assertion that she is sinless. If you do not meet your burden of proof, that is not our burden to meet. Your case is not proved, and we can safely ignore your proposition.

Peace,

SR

>>Are you forgetting Adam and Eve?<<

Seriously? We have to even mention that as if no one realizes the difference?

>>If the Bible doesn't mention [x], then that says nothing about the truth or falsity of [x], whatsoever! Now, if the Bible were to say, explicitly, that Mary DID sin, THEN you'd have a rock-solid case. But that's nowhere to be found in Scripture.<<

Well, make up your own religion then. Mormons did it, Muslims did it, and Catholics did it.

Scripture says that all are subject to sin.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The Greek word translated "concluded" there means "made subject to". It says "all". And yes that would include Christ since He took on Himself the sins of us all.

Now, if Mary never sinned who's sins did she take on herself and have to die for?

Hi, SR,

You are pressing for a yes or no commitment to your specific formulation.

I am... but for two main reasons: (1) I need clarity about his position, in order to proceed safely with the conversation (see my comment at #655), and (2) he presented his answer in such a way that one could reasonably conclude, "Hm. Since he offers the same answer repeatedly with no further explanations, he either thinks his answer is sufficiently clear as it is (which his other comments about "Scripture being enough" support), or he doesn't care to be clear, for whatever reason (i.e. he's being cagey)."

Beyond this: just for the record, I would be *more than happy* for him to offer an alternate formulation of the question, so long as I can get a clear answer to the general question, "Do you believe that those who are innocently ignorant of the explicit Gospel--i.e. those who did not, and could not, freely choose to REJECT the explicit Gospel--are damned if they die in that state." More on that, below.

But the formulation is flawed, and parts of it may be agreeable and others not so much. As an attorney I have to advise clients on how to make sure they give the answer they really want to give, and often that means they must press through the details of the question, rather than give a simple yes or no answer.

I understand... and I don't have a problem with that, so long as I get SOME clarity. No judge on earth would (save in the case of the 5th Amendment) give a witness permission to refuse all questions on the grounds that the questions were not perfect; I'm exploring his idea that "believing on Jesus is required for Salvation", which would logically imply that those who do NOT "believe on Jesus" are NOT saved... and some other forum members have said as much. I wanted to see whether CynicalBear included himself in that "camp", or not, before I proceeded with the discussion on that track.

Just one example from the question as you have provided it. You have embedded an assumption (via your expression "serious personal sin") that some sins are so serious they would cost a person their salvation, even if they were invincibly ignorant, whereas other sins are light enough to warrant different treatment in judgment.

I did, and I'll address that in a moment; but just as an aside: I was only trying to isolate the "cause" of damnation in the scenario (i.e. is the lack of being exposed to the Gospel--and the subsequent failure to "believe on Jesus"--sufficient reason for damnation ON ITS OWN, or would the person ALSO need to commit some sort of additional, intentional crime against the natural law [e.g. murder, rape, etc.] in order to be damned?).

We can't be 100% sure that is your meaning, but it is a reasonable first reading.

It is... and you're correct, in this instance. :)

Speaking for myself, I believe Scripture teaches all sin is rebellion against God.

Absolutely, it is.

Every ounce of it is both serious and personal.

Depending on what you mean by "serious", that's absolutely true. There's no such thing as a "trivial" sin, or a sin which doesn't wound the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The least contamination is sufficient to justify permanent separation from God.

Yes, and no. Yes, in the general sense (i.e. without Divine Mercy and its mitigation of our sins--"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"--even the tiniest sin incurs an infinite debt which no human can possibly pay. No, in the sense that God's particular dispensation allows for sins to be "mortal" and "non-mortal" (the Church nicknames those with the word "venial")--sins which directly lead to spiritual death, and sins which (though they "wound" the spirit and predispose one to commit more serious sins) do NOT directly lead to spiritual death:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 John 5:16-17)

Now, I've heard quibbles aplenty from non-Catholics, on this point (I used to be on the Hannity forum, and... goodness, did we go 'round and 'round on this!), but it's undeniable that the Sacred text makes a distinction between "mortal" (deadly) and "not mortal" (not deadly), and the text also assures us that there exist examples of EACH (i.e. one of them isn't simply an empty set).

Were there any least sin not accounted for under the blood of Jesus, that person will not inherit eternal life.

That's the point: unless St. John is simply lying (or mistaken), here... and, by association, the Holy Spirit who included this as Scripture would need to be lying or mistaken, here, which is unthinkable... then Jesus must have made some provision by which His Blood is applied to sins in such a way as to segregate mortal from venial sins. The existence of the category of "venial sins" (or even "forgivable" mortal sins) is due solely to the Mercy of Jesus Christ.