[Mad Dawg]

It is a matter of concern when (1) someone says and repeats that the ONLY place pleres charitos is used in the Greek NT is in John
and (2) then says that, well, yes there is the use in Acts, but that's different — so “only” doesn't mean, um, only,
and THEN (3) dismisses one of the primary points of the original post and of our side's approach to the question as “word games”.

I guess there is more than one way in which people use "only" and "save".

Sometimes people get buck fever. The lust for a win overpowers reason and the love of truth.

I am happy to let the doctrine be neither proved by Scripture nor contrary to it. I don't need to win. IHS has already won for both of us. There is something amiss when someone who professes faith in the victory of Christ bobbles the opportunity to admit an error. And, of course that bobbling, especially if it's habitual, makes useful conversation difficult.

ICXC
NIKA

[conservativegramma]

It is a matter of concern when (1) someone says and repeats that the ONLY place pleres charitos is used in the Greek NT is in John and (2) then says that, well, yes there is the use in Acts, but that's different

#1 - John 1:14 is the only place in Scripture where pleres charitos could be understood to mean without sin, since it refers to Christ, and not to Mary.

#2 Acts 6:8 is a different definition of pleres charitos unless you want to make Stephen sinless as you've done with Mary. Is that your contention? Because if you're going to be consistent that 'full of grace' = without sin then you must equally apply this same definition to Stephen. To be consistent of course. So either 'full of grace' means 'without sin' and ALL of them partake of this sinless character: Christ, Mary, AND STEPHEN or the RCC interpretation and definition of 'full of grace' is wrong. You can't have it both ways here.

And the above still doesn't solve the RCC problem that pleres charitos wasn't used in Luke 1:28 no matter how you spin it. Cheer up, maybe a new papal decree will clear all this up for you by declaring Stephen sinless along with Mary. That should be interesting.

(BTW: I agree with you that pleres charitos is the same definition in both passages where it is used. It means what it says which is merely full of grace, it is not a reference to sinlessness as the RCC would maintain. And if its not a reference to sinlessness in John 1:14 or Acts 6:8 then neither can it be used to imply such in Luke 1:28. It is not I who is having a problem with these passages as I am not the one going into the realm of absurdity by trying to twist Luke 1:28 into some heretical prooftext of the 'immaculate incarnation' of Mary).

I am happy to let the doctrine be neither proved by Scripture nor contrary to it.

The Scriptures ARE contrary to it - that's the problem. Many of the early fathers wrote opinions contrary to it for that matter as well. Most within in the RCC are blind to this truth because they are afraid to question the magisterium. You and I both know that within the RCC the magisterium and its decrees are more authoritative and final than the Scriptures themselves so its not surprising you would be 'happy'with whatever their decree is. Those of us who hold that the Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority aren't so 'happy' with the false decrees of the magisterium and will refute the position of the RCC over and over again.

If you want to be a part of the pelagian heresy no one is stopping you. It is a 'matter of concern' when one particular group begins to adopt heresy, twists the clear text of Scripture to support such heresy, and then proclaim it is 'doctrine' when it clearly is not.