Posted on 12/08/2021 2:19:08 PM PST by MurphsLaw
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The scriptures referenced in my reply to you answers your question sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction and for training..
It is also written, All have sinned and fall short of His Glory.
Yes, or no. If you please.
I am pleased to use scripture..
It’s the offensive sword that a believer has..
The bible says that God provided both Adam and Eve clothes from animal skins to clothe them.
A sign of an atoning animal sacrifice that was needed to atone for their transgressions..
Had they no sin, no animal skin and blood atonement would have been needed.
And had they not sinned, they would not have died that day.
To our knowledge, no one on earth has lived longer than 1 day.
Adam lived 930 years.
Because 1 day is as a 1,000 years, Adam did indeed die that day.
Just as God promised..
(genesis 2:17)
For in that day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
Were you heading towards Adam and his responsibilities and his Headship?
No.
What "premise of the doctrine" do you think "infers" (I believe you mean "implies") that? Jesus is a divine person , with a divine will which is perfectly in agreement with his human will. He was incapable of sin. Nothing in the dogma of the IC claims that Mary was incapable of sin.
Nothing in Scripture teaches that original sin is some sort of disease transmitted exclusively by fathers to their children. That may be your understanding, but the Bible doesn't require it.
Our understanding is that it's more like a failure to transmit grace and other gifts which, had the fall not occurred, would have been transmitted in the natural process of childbearing.
I don't understand why that's even controversial.
You don't believe your own Catechism?
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. Catechism of the Catholic Church
Duns Scotus was a guy. Oh, you play for the other team, got it.
C'mon! You don't really believe that, do you? There are a great many things we agree on.
Speaking as a former Catholic, now an Evangelical Protestant, can you please explain to me: Why would I reject the Catholic dogma about Mary's sinlessness if it were truly a divinely-revealed truth? We hold probably 90% of the same beliefs as Catholics and the Orthodox do. Why is it some Catholics insist it is because of a hatred of Mary and the Catholic church that "Protestants" disagree with them about the IC? I deeply admire, respect and love Mary and her courage and faith are a wonderful example for us all. I'm looking forward to getting to know her in Heaven.
All irrelevant to the lie that has been posted.
God saved her from falling into Original Sin & helping her avoid sin throughout her life. Thus God is her Savior.
These dogmas don’t appear out of thin air, btw. “New dogmas” are items the Church has always believed in, BUT were declared dogmas only after they came under attack by others.
Even the Orthodox Church has said virtually the same thing, but stopped a millimeter short of explicitly declaring it, but the language is all there.
Newman's condescension and condemnation are pretty blatant in the ending paragraph of the OP:
I've yet to see a Religion Forum thread - and I've been here since 2006 - on the subject of the Immaculate Conception that remained respectful. That's too bad.
No thanks to the protestants.
So we should just ignore the Scripture that states ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? If Mary had to be conceived without sin in order to be the bearer of Jesus who had “no connection whatever, at any time, to sin.”, then why didn’t Mary’s mother also have to be conceived without sin? And her mother and her mother’s mother, etc.? Is it inconceivable that Jesus - who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin - could have been born of a regular human woman and remained sinless? He IS God with us. It’s not “shortchanging” Mary, it’s being consistent with Divine revelation.
Please speak for yourself, not "the majority of Catholics", because you don't.
I mention serpent seed as a symbol.
It’s a biological process though in the natural, but has a spiritual theme too.
Man’s sperm looks like a serpent.
Females egg looks earth like
Sperm is cast to the egg. And Conception occurs.
The bible appears to have 3 people that were not conceived that way.
Adam, dust from the ground
Eve, formed from the rib
Christ, Conceived of the Holy Spirit
Human flesh was to be eternal.
No corruption.
Until sin.
Then, the wages of sin is that human flesh is no longer eternal.
It’s got a shelf life..
All humanity has that flesh.
That flesh is sinful.
That’s the same flesh Mary had.
That’s the same flesh Christ had.
Christ now has Glorified, immortal, never to decay flesh after His death,burial and resurrection. He truly is First Fruits of all of those who have fallen asleep.
He is now also the High Priest
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.
His Holy Divinity is incapable of being tempted. God can’t be tempted.For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”
So what was tempted?
It’s got to be His flesh was tempted.
The same flesh we all receive.
But again, with one thing different..
Our fathers seed vs. His Father’s Holy Spirit
That’s what I was trying to explain..
Christ either came in the flesh or not.
You may not feel like that’s what’s being discussed in John’s warning about Antichrist.
I read it differently.
And what’s really odd, is that it isn’t even a doctrine about Christ.
It’s about His Mother.
Who is not Divine.
It’s a confusing doctrine that travels down a path that I see as teaching that Mary and Christ were not born with the same sinful human flesh nature..
And if by itself, it wouldn’t be as alarming , but it is a doctrine that focused on Mary like the 15 Promises that this same Immaculately Conceived Mary was declaring.
And testing those 15 promises with scripture, and they are certainly not scriptural.
I look for the Immaculate Conception and there is one there.
Christ.
Conceived of the Holy Spirit
Mary.
Not so much.
I wouldn’t be the first to call the Papacy Antichrist.
It doesn’t help itself with Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mary’s 15 promises, false goddess frigg day as a substitute for Passover.
They set themselves to be at odds with the scriptures.
The scriptures is the only place for Truth.
His Word is Truth..
I don’t see Immaculate Conception of Mary in scripture.
I don’t see the 15 Promises of Mary in scripture.
I don’t see false goddess frigg day in scripture.
It’s almost like Christ’s prediction came true.
There were going to be False Christ’s.
And Paul warns about another Jesus and another gospel.
There may be another Mary added in.
Take care in this wilderness
I don't understand why that's even controversial.
What I don’t understand is, if this is such an all-important belief that Christians must accept, why God didn’t see fit to include it in His sacred word? I can show you in multiple places in Scripture that Jesus IS Almighty God incarnate (in the flesh) and He was sinless so that He could be the perfect, spotless sacrifice for the sins of the world. There’ zip about Mary being that. I would think it shouldn’t take twelve centuries for the church to finally get around to defining that dogma. Did Jesus teach His Apostles to believe it? Did the Apostles believe it? Did they teach others to believe it? No. That’s why I disagree with it. It has nothing to do with dishonoring Mary.
And what “lie” are you accusing me of?
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.