Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
But he’s not just God. He’s God and Man.
Why didn’t he inherit a fallen human nature like the rest of us, which he would work to overcome?
“how could she be without sin?”
The same way that God made Adam and Eve without sin. Christ kept Mary from sin at her immaculate conception so that she, as his mother, could pass on a perfect human nature, like Adam and Eve had so many years ago.
My point was . . .
that the criticism the RC was lobbing at Proddys . . . was
AT LEAST
AS
VALID
lobbed against the RCC.
Period.
The Holy Spirit can work through someone to ensure perfect transmission. That certainly doesn’t mean (1) He is necessarily doing so through the Pope/Vatican, (2) that every word out of the Catholic heirarchy is from the Holy Spirit, or, (3) that they the exclusive outlet for such work.
People can also say, and genuinely believe, that the Holy Spirit is working through them when He isn’t. The source of the doctrine which says that the Spirit doctrinally works through the Catholic heirarchy is ... the Catholic heirarchy. To me ... that’s not good enough.
SnakeDoc
>> That’s because Christ never had a beginning. You folks *do* teach that Christ is Eternal?<<
His God side never had a beginning but His human side certainly did. You do believe that He was both fully human and fully God do you not?
Looks like you bailed on us.
Must mean you are reading “Bondage of the Will” by Luther. Keep at, my FRiend, there is great wisdom in there.
And yet, you take the Bible to be the true Word of God because those who published it said it was?
>>So you are arguing that oral tradition is preserved in the Word?<<
As did Irenaeus, Yes I do. The Catholic Church today has fallen far from their original positions.
That’s a good question. Sorry I missed replying to it, I had to head out. Why then?
Let’s go back a bit further, the First Council of Nicaea. In 325, which proclaimed the nature of Christ’s divinity. Why did they wait close to 300 years to have this council? Wouldn’t it have been pertinent to establish this doctrine right away?
It was meant to address the heresies at the time which revolved around Arian and his denial of Christ’s divinity. It’s not as if Christ’s divinity wasn’t proclaimed right from the very beginning, but that until then, it had been unchallenged.
The same is true of purgatory. Purgatory has always been understood to be as such, it just wasn’t proclaimed until Trent and Florence, when the doctrine was challenged by the Protestants, in the same way as Arius challenged the nature of Christ’s divinity.
The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. So it would appear that you are confirming their doctrine.
Sure do. And he cannot get a sinless human nature from God, does he?
Then he wouldn’t be fully man.
Not exactly.
The Bible has externally and internally verifiable information that lends credence to the account, and that it was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit. For instance, the archaelogicially and historically verifiable existence of people and places mentioned therein; the synchronization of purpose, message and events in accounts written by different authors over centuries of time; eyewitness accounts of miracles, and events; the fulfillment of prophecies from one author in centuries-earlier writings of another; the change in writing style between authors; etc., etc.
There are independent reasons to believe the voracity of the Bible, even if those reasons are not ironclad. The rest is faith.
SnakeDoc
The Catholic Church has it wrong about Mary. So too, did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, apparently. At least as they're quoted here. Have I got that right?
So answer me the following questions.
1) When did "the reformers" (I use the term loosely to mean anyone from the 16th century onwards) start to get it right about Mary and who was the person who "saw the light", if not the three individuals (Luther et al.,) here mentioned?
2) How do we know that you........or anyone for that matter, is right about Mary whereas Luther et al., were wrong?
Bear in mind that you've already told me that "men are errant". That presumably includes you, too.
It's most amusing seeing you pour cold water on Luther but really, you have no alternative, do you? Faced with the glaring inconsistency between your own position and the words of the reformers, you can either admit that modern day Protestantism has completely wandered off the reservation with regard to Marian theology, or you can stubbornly maintain your own position and insist that Luther had it wrong.
Of course, if one goes with the latter, the obvious question which might pop into one's mind is "what else was he wrong about?" but that's for you to wrestle with.
“The Holy Spirit can work through someone to ensure perfect transmission. That certainly doesn’t mean
(1) He is necessarily doing so through the Pope/Vatican,”
The vast majority of Popes haven’t made infalliable proclamations. So you are in line with what the Church teaches here.
“(2) that every word out of the Catholic heirarchy is from the Holy Spirit”
Also true, and this is why infalliability is limited to the Pope, and limited to matters of faith and morals, and limited to the explicit proclaimations, as was cited earlier in the thread. Everything else is fair game.
“(3) that they the exclusive outlet for such work.”
Where do they claim exclusivity? Catholics make the claim that the Pope believes X, and everyone else should believe X. Non-Catholics claim that just because the Pope believes X, doesn’t mean they should believe X.
Non-Catholics don’t claim infalliability. Ever. There’s a very good reason why they don’t, and we’ve touched on some of these reasons. However, to one looking on the outside of both, you really have to ask the question. Why don’t protestants affirm Luther’s infalliability? Because they don’t agree with him on all points so they would rather follow themselves.
As for following the heirarchy, the oldest NT manuscripts are the codex vaticanus and the codex sinaiticus. So you are using what the Pope says is true when you affirm sola scriptura. ;) Not to mention the endless Vulgates published over a millenium which formed the basis for the earliest modern translations.
So it’s pick your poison.
I have no problem believing that God was more than capable of making sure his teachings were portrayed accurately.
God Bless
>>Then he wouldn’t be fully man.<<
By jove, then I think we are on to something here! If He Got his God nature from being God, then He must have gotten his fully human nature from a fully human ie sinfull nature, mother. That would mean that Mary could not have been without sin or Jesus would not have been able to carry our sin for us!
>>The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative<<
Other then the Bible does teach that the traditions were then written down in Scripture. Sola Scriptura
If Christ got a fully sinful human nature, from his fully sinful mother then how could he be without sin?
Not possible.
As for the Atonement, recall the “Passover Lamb without blemish”? Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless. Else the whole kit’n’kaboodle doesn’t work.
Actually, I don’t think anyone believes in Sola Scriptura. You do believe in the Trinity, don’t you?
There are independent reasons to believe the voracity of the Bible, even if those reasons are not ironclad. The rest is faith.
While it is certainly not my intention to argue against the Bible, my point is that there is simply no way to verify/proove that it is, in fact, the Inspired Word of God. Independent reasons or not.
To modify your closing that "the rest is faith", I would say that it is all faith. I can appreciate that your path is not with the Catholic Church - but in no way does that mean those who do choose that path are following an errant faith.
We do not believe in the existence of purgatory because there is no evidence for it in Scripture. The Bible speaks only of two destinations for those who die—heaven and hell.
Jesus promised the thief on the cross, who certainly had not led an exemplary life, that he would be with him in Paradise immediately.
There is no need for purgatory. A person who has faith in Christ has complete forgiveness of sins. There is no more debt to be paid. A person who does not have faith in Christ has no forgiveness of sins. No amount of time in purgatory could ever pay for his or her sins.
By rejecting the completeness of Christ’s payment for sins, this doctrine robs Christians of the comfort they should have at the time of their own death or the death of a Christian loved one.
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.