Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[pegleg]

That's right, just like the rest of us. Because there was no immaculate conception.

You are free to believe whatever you want. I agree to disagree.

[pseudo-justin]

I am curious why you deny this grace to the very Mother of God, Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

Old Reggie pulls out the old verse, answered a million times over:

Romans 3: [23] since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Obviously, the all does not apply to Jesus Christ. Therefore, even you, Old Reggie, admit an exception to the subject term 'all' here. Are there any other exceptions? Yes, Mary. Why do we think so? Because her proper name is "full of grace", as the angel names her in LK 1:28. (Catholics please note that the Scriptural expression is not Hail Mary... but simply "Hail, full of grace". DO not confuse the prayer's form with the Scripture's) Can you tell me anyone else whose proper name is kecharitomene? You know how significant proper names are in Scripture don't you? Proper names, more than any sort of description, reveals a person's identity and character. That is why name changes are so important, and even the name "jeshua" is a perfect summary of Christ's life, person, and mission. Do you know that the grammar of the Greek term kecharitomene implies both intensity and complete duration? A different term is used when speaking of Stephen (Acts 6:8), and it is not used as a proper name but adjectivally. Mary is the women whose very name is full of grace. Why did the Greek speaking Christians begin to honor Mary as sinless but not Stephen? Because they knew there was a differnce in the meaning of the Greek between these two passages. If the Greeks did not get confused over it, why raise confusion where there is none?

I have provided Scripture which states clearly all have sinned. I urge you not to insist that ALL means ALL otherwise Christ has sinned too. Let us agree instead that the supposition of "all" here is exceptive -- we often use the term “all” when we mutually understand that there are exceptions and what they are. Nobody gets confused, that is the way language works.

Now, I have a question for you. Notice, please, that in the Old Testament, whenever an angel encounters a human, the human salutes the angel saying "Hail", the human always defers respectfully the the angelic. But in the encounter between Mary and the angel, the angel salutes the human saying "Hail". Why the reversal in who gives honor to who? Why, instead of the human saluting the angel, do we suddenly have an angel saluting a human? This is NOT meant to be any sort of proof, it is just meant to show that the Catholic doctrines afford greater explanatory power of the innumerable details of Scripture than does Protestant downsizing...

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ443.HTM


<>Difference between Mary and Stephen re this passage<>

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM

<> Luther, Calvin etc believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary<>

[Catholicguy]

. While debate continued among Catholic theologians, the Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky stated, "I do not see any irresoluble conflict between the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the full humanity and freedom of Mary as of the same race as Eve."

<> Have you folks excommunicated this fella?<>

[Catholicguy]

http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/mary03.htm

<> Lutheran Pastor on the Immaculate Conception<>

[RnMomof7]

Yes she did , because she was a sinner, as are we all , and could not save herself

[RnMomof7]

Hail Mary, full of grace

Catholic prayer NOT a direct greek scriptural rendering

Youngs literal translation

And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;'

[RnMomof7]

I take it you mean Paul means an absolute all. Because if you translate like that it would also include Jesus Christ, He being a true man as well as true God, good angels who never sinned, miscarried children, aborted babies, newborns, and severely retarded or brain-damaged persons, who do not have sufficient knowledge to commit actual sin.

No peg because Scripture interprets scripture

There is no scripture indicating Mary was sinless.. Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[pegleg]

No peg because Scripture interprets scripture.

Then what are we doing here? -:)

Please see pseudo-justin’s post #322.

[SoothingDave]

Youngs literal translation

So this "Young" guy is like your pope then? Whatever he says, you believe?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

urge you not to insist that ALL means ALL otherwise Christ has sinned too. Let us agree instead that the supposition of "all" here is exceptive -- we often use the term “all” when we mutually understand that there are exceptions and what they are. Nobody gets confused, that is the way language works.

ALL means ALL unless, that is, you don't believe Jesus was/is God. If you don't believe in the Trinity I won't argue with you.
=======================================================================================

Now, I have a question for you. Notice, please, that in the Old Testament, whenever an angel encounters a human, the human salutes the angel saying "Hail", the human always defers respectfully the the angelic.

Old Testament citations please. Of course, in the New Testament Jesus says "hail" to the women. Do you suppose he was deferring respectfully to the women? Matthew 28:9. Of course not. He was merely greeting them.

[pseudo-justin]

You have not even begun to address the questions I raised. You summarized them into two that I did not even ask. Why don't we go to the third point I raised, I called it a "vicious circle". How should I get out of the vicious circle?

Also, you say I check myself my comparing my interpretations with (a) other scripture, (b) other interpretations. If my interpretation is seriously different, then I need some clear and compelling reason for disagreeing. It sounds simple enough of a method, but it is in fact seriously deficient for the following reasons:

1.) You are fallible.

2.) You are limited in your intellectual capacities.

3.) You are sinful, as am I, with a tendency to rationalize.

4.) You need to have your mind continuously renewed by grace

5.) You need to constantly develop your own thinking

6.) You are confronted with a text that has the following properties

a. Written in a foreign language

b. In a foreign culture,

c. with foreign presuppositions

d. with foreign narrative habits

e. with foreign interpretative habits

f. having prima facie internal inconsistencies

g. Susceptible to multiple, conflicting interpretations

h. Having disputed canons, translations, and original wording

i. Proposing mysteries that surpass perfect comprehension

j. About the things most difficult of all to understand clearly

k. That has been thought about continuously by millions of people

l. Each of whom has had personally nuanced readings

7.) You have limited time for study and prayer over the texts.

8.) It is impossible for you to read every argument, counterargument, objection and reply that has ever been offered in interpretative conflicts.

9.) It is impossible for you to read MOST of what has been written about the Scriptures. You could hardly read all of Augustine, nonetheless Chrysostom, Leo, Gregory, etc. We have not even begun to talk about modern commentaries.

10.) It is impossible for you to master all the relevant theology and philosophy.

Given facts 1 – 10, how much confidence should anyone have in the method by way of which you arrive at your understanding of what Scripture means? And how in the world do you ever expect to secure unity of doctrine among Christians with such a method?

Furthermore,how would you answer a fellow Protestant minister who aregued this way: Either your understanding of Scripture is normative for other Christians or it is not normative for other Christians. If it is, then you are setting yourself up as an authority over the text. You are attributing to yourself the same authority that the Catholic Church attributes to herself. But if your understanding of Scripture is not normative for other Christians, then why should I consider myself beholden to your judgment that I am putting forward a non-Scriptural or anti-Scriptural teaching. It is not as if your understanding of Scripture, or anyone else's is NORMATIVE FOR ME. So why shouldn't I go on proposing my interpretation of Scripture as the true one, despite the fact that you think it is heretical?

[OLD REGGIE]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ443.HTM

<>Difference between Mary and Stephen re this passage<>

"Catholics, it must be understood, are only arguing that the Immaculate Conception is harmonious with Scripture and matters of Greek language and grammar. I don't accept sola Scriptura, and I don't believe that all doctrines have to be proven, whole and entire, and explicitly from Scripture (neither do Protestants, in the final analysis, when it comes to sola Scriptura itself, and the canon of the NT). I have never denied that there is a speculative, deductive element to the doctrine (just as there is with the Trinity and many other Christian doctrines)."

In all seriousness, did you read this word for word? If so, were you impressed?

[SoothingDave]

In all seriousness, did you read this word for word? If so, were you impressed?

It seems you do not want to contemplate grace, yet you somehow manage to understand being full of it.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

It seems you do not want to contemplate grace, yet you somehow manage to understand being full of it.

Did you read the article word for word? If so, were you impressed?

[pseudo-justin]

Old Reggie, You do not seem to understand the problem you have by citing this text from Romans:

1. all have sinned

2. Jesus did not sin

I believe that both 1 and 2 are true. I take it that you also believe that both 1 and 2 are true. Now, unless we can come up with an interpretation of 1 such that 1 does not imply

3. Jesus sinned

then both you and I are committed to believing a contradiction. My solution is to say that 1 is true provided that the term "all" be taken with at least one exception. For suppose we mean "all without exception". If all without exception have sinned, then Jesus Christ has sinned. But we agree that Jesus Christ has not sinned. Therefore, it is not the case that all without exception have sinned. Rather, all, with at least one exception, have sinned. Get it?

Let us do it a different way. What do you say to an atheist who charges that the Bible contains the following contradiction about Jesus Christ:

a.Rom 3:23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Therefore, all humans have sinned.

b.Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.Therefore, some human has not sinned.

Therefore, all humans have sinned and some human has not sinned.

Therefore, this Bible of yours is a load of crap.

[SoothingDave]

Did you read the article word for word? If so, were you impressed?

I actually did. More or less. I tailed off a bit near the end.

The article tends to lay out the idea well enough. That the IC is consistent with Scripture, or at least is not inconsistent with it. And that someone who accepts only doctrine that is explicit in Scripture will never be satisfied with this.

Actually, I was expecting someone to come in with an "A HA! So you admit that the doctrine is not found in scripture!"

It is hinted at, but even accepting that "full of grace" means without sin, there is nothing in Scripture which says this was from Mary's conception, only that at that point when she was addressed she was full of grace.

It always, always, as always, comes down to a question of authority. Which infallible man do you trust, the old Polish guy in Rome, or yourself?

SD

[SoothingDave]

It seems you do not want to contemplate grace, yet you somehow manage to understand being full of it.

BTW, that was a deliberate softball pitched your way. I thought you might have some fun with it. :-)

SD

[Quester]

Perhaps with the aid of the Holy Spirit ?

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you.

26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: