[CynicalBear]

>>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.

[paladinan]

[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...

[paladinan]

[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...