Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
Paul was guilty of inadvertent sin.
Paul may call himself "blameless" under The Law, and he appeared to be so to himself at the time. He sent innocent men and women to their deaths. The Law says "Thou shalt not kill." And also "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The Law says to not persecute the weak and lowly. Paul did all of those things. But he did so because The Law also permits, even demands, the death of blasphemers. Before his eyes were opened by grace, Paul considered Christians to be blasphemers, sentenced to die under The Law. Only once he understood that they were, in fact, preaching the Truth did he realize that he had done wrong.
His sin was inadvertent.
The Old Testament tells us all about inadvertent or unintentional sins, done without even knowing one has committed them, and gives perscriptions for atonement for them. By contrast, it does not spell out any very clear way to atone for intentional sin.
Anyway, the Catholics have done away with the concept of inadvertent or unintentional sin (despite the fact that it is quite explicit in the Bible), and categorizes only "original sin" contracted at conception by being a descendant of Adam and Eve, and "actual sin", which is to say, intentional sin. I believe that Orthodoxy holds similar views.
I will let the Protestants speak for themselves: is there inadvertent or unintentional sin in Protestant belief?
"I Tim 3:16-17. Summary: States the bible is sufficient for everything you need, makes one complete, no mention of oral tradition."
Wrong on several counts:
1) The text you mean to refer to is 2 Tim, not 1 Tim.
2) Nowhere does it mention "sufficient", rather it says "ophelimos" which means "useful"
3) If you read it in context, Paul is talking about the Scriptures which Timothy knew "from infancy", so of course he is referring to the OT here - the NT hadn't been written in Timothy's infancy. That you would try and claim "sufficiency" from this text is spurious; that you would claim it for the OT alone is just un-Christian.
1 Timothy, which you cited incorrectly, does indeed reveal what is the pillar and ground of the truth:
3,15 "..ekklesia theou zoontos, stylos kai edraioma tes aletheias."
"the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Typological formulations are not exact. They are suggestive.
In any case, if we're in agreement about the Church being the bride of Christ, then I wonder which marriage is it, in which the bride *does not take the mother of her husband as her own*. The last words of Christ on the cross to St. John--significantly not named but called "the disciple whom Jesus loved"—give Mary to that disciple.
If Jesus loves you, and I submit that He does, then it is to you that He gives His own mother. If you can't accept the more "advanced" Marian doctrines, that's one thing, but to refuse even the concept of Mary as your mother-in-law is to do violence to the very idea of the Bride of Christ.
"Even Christ Died yet he was sinless"
He didn't commit any sins himself, but every sin ever committed in the past and every sin that ever will be committed was imputed to Him- "He became sin for us", "He bore our sins", etc
***Blameless = sinless; unless one wishes to adopt the position that there are sins that carry with them no blame.***
Blameless may also mean a person who seeks forgivness for their sins as soon as they stumble.
Paul says that because of Christ's death on our behalf and by the power of God WE can alos be presented blameless to God on judgement day...
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,"
- Col 1
If anything is clear from the above verse it is that blamelessness does not mean "sinless". The people described, while guilty of evil deeds, can still be considered "holy and blameless" through the death of Christ on their behalf.
Question for Catholics- what do you call Joseph? Mary's "husband"? Can't be, if the marriage was never consummated. So there was a plan for marriage, but Mary called it off after the birth of Jesus, realizing she couldn't fulfill the marriage contract? Mary and Joseph then lived together, unmarried, to raise Jesus?
Just wondering.
"By the same token, Blessed Mary was born mortal -- yet the Church in the West holds that she never died."
That is not true. We hold that she died, but that she did not suffer the corruption of the grave.
"The consequence of the original sin is dying, not sinning."
It is more than just dying the natural death, it is the loss of grace as well which leads to the second death.
"If anything, I would say that it is more likely Mary chose not to sin."
We would agree with this but say that it was due to grace that she was able to choose not to sin.
Thanks very much for pointing out my typo. What it amounts to is that you deny 2 tim 3:16 speaks to the sufficiency of all scripture, which I affirm, and that you affirm the Tradition of the church as being authoritative, which I deny. I can see that further discussion is useless because our points of view are so radically different.
"48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."
How do you read and interpret these verses? Do you agree with my assertion?"
This is not sin - this is ignorance born of the finite human condition. Not to know something which was beyond her ability to know, can hardly be described as sinful.
We do not pretend that she was anything other than fully human.
"If she were made sinless from the moment of her conception, her holiness wouldn't be the supreme example of her humanity."
Eve was sinless from the moment of her conception/creation - are you saying that her humanity was somehow deficient because of this?
The contrast between Eve and Mary surely lies in the fact that both were sinless yet one disobeyed, and the other had to undo the knot of the earlier disobedience by her faith and obedience?
***If you read it in context, Paul is talking about the Scriptures which Timothy knew "from infancy", so of course he is referring to the OT here - the NT hadn't been written in Timothy's infancy. That you would try and claim "sufficiency" from this text is spurious; that you would claim it for the OT alone is just un-Christian***
Incorrect. Paul, in 2 Tim also the teachings of Jesus as "scripture". Care to see a reference?
"For example, what does "omoosios tou Patri" mean in English?"
Not the same as "omoiosios tou Patri"!
;)
It's always a dichotomy. Catholics never study the bible and people who do, don't become Catholics.
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction, or that I know what the "Augustinian constuct" of original sin is.
I think that original sin is the condemnation to death, "the way of all flesh", and that one of the "ways of flesh" is a tendency for the flesh to lead the immortal spirit into acts of corruption (actual sin or intentional sin).
So, to put it in broad life terms, the debt for original, contracted sin is paid for by physical death. Original sin does not carry with it the sense of moral blame: it is simply a fact, and a mystery. After death, the soul faces the consequences of its intentional sins, unless those sins are forgiven by grace.
I really don't know what Augustine had to say on the matter, but that's my belief. Did he differ?
***And as members of the Church we are espoused to Christ. Do you not believe that Mary is a member of the Church?***
I do believe it. But you cannot Biblically prove that she is any sort of archtypal "New Eve". At least not in any way distinct from here membership in the true "Bride of Christ" the Church.
***so shall your sons marry you,****
Clearly allegorical - Jerusalem and Jews. Now check this out...
" 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
" 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
" 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
You don't marry your mother. Marrying your mother is lumped together with the abominations of homosexuality and bestiality and is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for use as a metaphor to describe Jesus relationship to Mary. 1st century readers would have vomitted in response to reading such an allegation. Such an offense was worth of death.
Mary was married to Joseph.
Jesus remained unmarried all his life so that it might be understood that his true bride was the Church, (and by Church I mean all who put their faith in Christ and are saved by his grace.)
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.