Why do other Christian faiths not Honor Mother their Salvation in the same way as Catholics do?

JoeT

Because they don't believe" mother is their "salvation."

Do Catholics believe that Mary is their salvation?

Let me explain my question. Catholics express their faith in God as being Three Persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, "consubstantial [homoousios] to the Father". That is to say that the Three Persons of the Trinity are one substance. The long and Short is we have one God. Further, the Catholic faith holds that Christ is One Person subsisting in two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature hypostatically joined [perfectly joined], not conjoined (there is a big difference between conjoined and perfectly joined).

It can be said that Mary gave birth to the 'Person' of Christ, who received her flesh and whose blood is unique to the contribution of the Holy Spirit who 'overshadowed' Mary. Thus, it can be said that the blood of Eternal Life literally flowed through Christ's veins. If Mary were God's presence destroys corruption. Logically, unless Mary was Immaculately conceived the flesh would have inherited Adam's sin the blood would have been tainted. Furthermore, unless Mary was Immaculate, she could not have born the blood of Christ.

Why don't all Christians honor Mary as the Mother of God, the Mother of your Salvation? And having literally encompassed God within her womb not have remain Virgin (sinless). Could we not view Mary as a type of ark? If we view Mary in any other way it seems to me that Christ is born a man and 'transforms' into Divinity or a God wearing a 'man' suite.

JoeT

Because they don't believe" mother is their "salvation."

Do Catholics believe that Mary is their salvation?

I didn't say Mother salvation, I said Mother of your Salvation; Is Christ not your Saviour?

Logically, unless Mary was Immaculately conceived the flesh would have inherited Adam's sin the blood would have been tainted. Furthermore, unless Mary was Immaculate, she could not have born the blood of Christ.
With God all things are possible. He caused Jesus to be immaculately conceived in sinful Mary's womb. Mary didn't have to be sinless. It's called a miracle.

You said "Why do other Christian faiths not Honor Mother their Salvation in the same way as Catholics do?"

Mother their salvation sounds like shorthand.

And my religious beliefs have nothing to do with this thread.

You have an amazing number of threads about Mary - why? Have you no other religious interest?

With God all things are possible. He caused Jesus to be immaculately conceived in sinful Mary's womb. Mary didn't have to be sinless. It's called a miracle.

This sounds like God climbed into a fetus. I can agree that in God all things are possible, but this is a matter of an accomplished fact in our reality, "he Word was made flesh".

JoeT.

This sounds like God climbed into a fetus. I can agree that in God all things are possible, but this is a matter of an accomplished fact in our reality, "he Word was made flesh".

JoeT.
My point is that Jesus (not Mary) was conceived without sin. Mary's sinful condition didn't matter.

You said "Why do other Christian faiths not Honor Mother their Salvation in the same way as Catholics do?"

Mother their salvation sounds like shorthand.It wasn't meant as shorthand. It was meant to distinguish between the way Catholics honor Mary and the way other do not.


And my religious beliefs have nothing to do with this thread.How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?


You have an amazing number of threads about Mary - why? Have you no other religious interest?
Its been a couple of years since I've posted. What do you suppose the significance in the number of threads concerning the Mother of God?

JoeT

My point is that Jesus (not Mary) was conceived without sin. Mary's sinful condition didn't matter.

Then he would have been born with the stain of Adam and would not have been the Perfect Lamb for the atonement of sins.

JoeT

Then he would have been born with the stain of Adam and would not have been the Perfect Lamb for the atonement of sins.

JoeT
No, God did a miracle and Jesus was conceived sinless. He didn't have to go back a generation to Mary, but cut to the chase and made only Jesus sinless.

No, God did a miracle and Jesus was conceived sinless. He didn't have to go back a generation to Mary, but cut to the chase and made only Jesus sinless.

God doesn't have to go anywhere. Time can be thought of as a succession from 'before' to 'after'. Time exists within eternity therefore St. Thomas Aquinas explains eternity can be throughout of as not having either beginning or end. Or, eternity has no succession at all. As God exists in eternity He exists in all time simultaneously. Thus, God didn't 'go back', He was there at both event simultaneously. We however, existing in the natural world, experience the same events as a succession.

It was in this way that Christ was her Saviour as well. Which by the way makes Mary the First Catholic Christian.

JoeT

God caused Jesus to be conceived without sin in a sinful Mary.

The Catholic Church isn't mentioned until Ignatius of Antioch around 110.

Maybe I should have added at least in one or another of my posts that one species can produce offspring of a higher species. Assuming that a turtle is of a lower species than a rabbit, turtles cannot give birth to rabbits. Likewise rabbits cannot give birth to man. Thus, it is impossible for an old Eve to give birth to a New Adam. So to speak, they are two different species.

Men after the fall of Adam lack 'original justice' which is an enlightened knowledge of God and fortitude and the strength and fortitude to reason in a way that moves love and hatred, desire and aversion, joy and sadness toward God's good (concupiscence). A lack of original justice is the stain inherited from Adam known as original sin. (Cf. Romans 5:19)

Therefore, the Immaculate Conception was God re-establishing His original justice in Mary at the moment of her conception, her salvation. In giving birth to Christ her offspring was of the species of Adam before the fall. Thus, we hear Scripture refer to Christ as the New Adam as the "Savior of the human race" giving us a means to be re-born as inheritors of the Flesh and Blood of the New Adam.

JoeT

Thus, it is impossible for an old Eve to give birth to a New Adam.
Of course, it's possible. We are talking about a God who is omnipotent. He could have simply said "Poof" and made a full-grown Jesus appear, but for some reason He decided to do it the way He did, having a sinful human be the mother of His Son Jesus. And that makes it all the more real and engaging for us, that a person just like us could become the mother of the Savior.

And there is no Scriptural backing for Mary as sinless (and why stop with her? Wouldn't her mother and all the women in that line have to be sinless?). The Immaculate Conception is Catholic Church teaching/tradition and has never been adopted by Protestants.

Of course, it's possible. We are talking about a God who is omnipotent. He could have simply said "Poof" and made a full-grown Jesus appear, but for some reason He decided to do it the way He did, having a sinful human be the mother of His Son Jesus. And that makes it all the more real and engaging for us, that a person just like us could become the mother of the Savior.

And there is no Scriptural backing for Mary as sinless (and why stop with her? wouldn't her mother and all the women in that line have to be sinless?). The Immaculate Conception is Catholic Church teaching/tradition and has never been adopted by Protestants.

Wouldn't a 'poof-ed' god be a created god? I don't think the Jews would have fallen for a 'poof-ing' god. I'm not even a Jew and I don't fall for it.

There doesn't have to be Scriptural 'evidence' because it is Mary through whom we see the Real Presence of Christ. Mary's person is a singularity in eternity through whom our salvation proceeds to us. St. Bernardine explained how we go through Mary to find the Reality of Chris; "as no line proceeds from the centre of a circle which does not pass through its circumference; thus no grace comes to us from Jesus, who is the centre of every good, that does not pass through Mary, who encompassed him after she had received him in her womb." [St. Liguori, The Glories of Mary]

JoeT

Wouldn't a 'poof-ed' god be a created god? I don't think the Jews would have fallen for a 'poof-ing' god. I'm not even a Jew and I don't fall for it.
That might be why He didn't do it that way.

That might be why He didn't do it that way.

Are you saying that Christ is a god-creature created by God? I don't get your meaning.

JoeT

Are you saying that Christ is a god-creature created by God? I don't get your meaning.

JoeT
Huh? No, I am not saying that at all! I go with the Nicene Creed. Begotten, not made.

Huh? No, I am not saying that at all! I go with the Nicene Creed. Begotten, not made.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. It seemed you were suggesting something else.

JoeT

There are several flaws in your reasoning. For starters, Mary didn't need to be sinless because the "stain of Adam" is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus had a human mother but a divine father. It's that simple.

Why don't you answer WG's question about Mary's mother? Why only Mary? And if God could do that with Mary, why bother? He could just do the miracle with Jesus, which of course is exactly what he did.

You admit there's no scriptural evidence, then appeal to some "saint" from centuries later for authority. That doesn't work for non-Catholics because we don't elevate church tradition to the level of Scripture the way the Catholic church does. Ever hear the phrase "sola scriptura"? It was the basis of a little ruckus back in the 1500's.

And Aquinas was wrong when he said there's time in eternity. The eternity in which God dwells, by definition, is outside of time and not subject to it.

So in answer to your question, why don't we honor "mother of salvation"? Because there's no such thing. Mary called herself a handmaid, basically an indentured servant. That's how we see her, which is to say, we see her the same way she saw herself: a supremely privileged individual who followed God's will. That's it.

"Its been a couple of years since I've posted. What do you suppose the significance in the number of threads concerning the Mother of God? "


If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked you.

'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...

Joy, see any other thread OP has started. It all comes down to the same thing.

You answer and you are the one being questioned.

There are several flaws in your reasoning. For starters, Mary didn't need to be sinless because the "stain of Adam" is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus had a human mother but a divine father. It's that simple.

Why don't you answer WG's question about Mary's mother? Why only Mary? And if God could do that with Mary, why bother? He could just do the miracle with Jesus, which of course is exactly what he did.

You admit there's no scriptural evidence, then appeal to some "saint" from centuries later for authority. That doesn't work for non-Catholics because we don't elevate church tradition to the level of Scripture the way the Catholic church does. Ever hear the phrase "sola scriptura"? It was the basis of a little ruckus back in the 1500's.

And Aquinas was wrong when he said there's time in eternity. The eternity in which God dwells, by definition, is outside of time and not subject to it.

So in answer to your question, why don't we honor "mother of salvation"? Because there's no such thing. Mary called herself a handmaid, basically an indentured servant. That's how we see her, which is to say, we see her the same way she saw herself: a supremely privileged individual who followed God's will. That's it.

Actually, the woman contributes flesh, only. The blood is made by the organisms of the fetus and never mingles with the mother's blood. The mother can have one blood type and the child another. The blood, on the other hand, is the life force.The father contributes DNA and the start of life triggering the growth of the embryonic cells.

Original sin is not contributed by the father because original sin is the absence of original justice. What one doesn't have can't be given. Original sin is not transferred by the parents in the same sense as a virus might be inherited or male pattern baldness. Rather original sin is a condition of being heir to Adam and Eve after the fall, that is being a member of the human race.

That's why we read in scripture "Word was made flesh," not 'blood', or not 'flesh and blood'. It is the flesh of the New Adam, with the presence of 'original justice' that was born by Mary. [St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Richard Regan, "On Evil". pg. 164 - available on the internet (free)]. While Mary provided the flesh, the first cause of life force of Christ is the Holy Spirit who contributed His sperm. Thus, Christ being God/man had the flesh of the New Adam and the life force of the Eternal Spirit. A condition we can receive through redemption found in Baptism, we become 'born again' anew person.

JoeT

'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...

One, the Catholic Church.

JoeT

"Its been a couple of years since I've posted. What do you suppose the significance in the number of threads concerning the Mother of God? "


If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked you.

This is the only thread I started with the 'Mother of God' that I started. Are you sensitive to the topic?

JoeT

As JudyKayTee observed, "You answer and you are the one being questioned."
You start with a question but you already have the answers (your answers) ready.
You belong on a blog site of your own.

At least I learned a few things today. I've always been unclear about the reasons for the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, chalking it up all to such absurdity as fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A sad state for Christianity.

As JudyKayTee observed, "You answer and you are the one being questioned."
You start with a question but you already have the answers (your answers) ready.
You belong on a blog site of your own.

At least I learned a few things today. I've always been unclear about the reasons for the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, chalking it up all to such absurdity as fighting over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A sad state for Christianity.

I don't recall asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I have an opinion about Catholicism but my question concerned 'other' faiths (I don't think I mentioned 'Protestantism' directly. Instead some of the responses seemed to address their dislikes and opinions of Catholicism; at least that's the way I took it.


How do you answer the question? I don't believe you ever said.



JoeT

Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv View Post
'How many different TRUE religions do you think there are?'
Oh no, not this question...
One, the Catholic Church.

Nothing like assuming what you're trying to prove, eh? That's called circular reasoning, in case you're wondering. And there are plenty of us who disagree with you.

Actually, the woman contributes flesh, only. The blood is made by the organisms of the fetus and never mingles with the mother's blood. The mother can have one blood type and the child another. The blood, on the other hand, is the life force.The father contributes DNA and the start of life triggering the growth of the embryonic cells.

Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.


Original sin is not contributed by the father because original sin is the absence of original justice. What one doesn't have can't be given. Original sin is not transferred by the parents in the same sense as a virus might be inherited or male pattern baldness. Rather original sin is a condition of being heir to Adam and Eve after the fall, that is being a member of the human race.

Again I have to say: seriously? I never mentioned "original sin" because as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing. It's a Catholic invention that has no basis in the Bible, and I see no reason to buy it. You referred to the "stain of Adam." As Romans 5 tells us, in Adam all die. That's what this "stain" is. Not some speculative "original sin" that's separate from everything else; that's so much theological straw-grasping. It was through Adam that we were born fallible. Not Adam and Eve, just Adam. That's why Jesus could be sinless without Mary having to be anything special, because that "taint" comes through Adam, i.e. the father. Jesus didn't have a human father. QED. There's no need for Mary's human sinfulness to enter into it at all.


That's why we read in scripture "Word was made flesh," not 'blood', or not 'flesh and blood'. It is the flesh of the New Adam, with the presence of 'original justice' that was born by Mary. [St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Richard Regan, "On Evil". pg. 164 - available on the internet (free)]. While Mary provided the flesh, the first cause of life force of Christ is the Holy Spirit who contributed His sperm. Thus, Christ being God/man had the flesh of the New Adam and the life force of the Eternal Spirit.

This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."

And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.

Oh, and as for the whole "word made flesh" as opposed to "flesh and blood"? Have you ever read Luke 24:39? They're all perfectly good Greek figures of speech, and they all mean the same thing.

I don't recall asking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. I have an opinion about Catholicism but my question concerned 'other' faiths (I don't think I mentioned 'Protestantism' directly. Instead some of the responses seemed to address their dislikes and opinions of Catholicism; at least that's the way I took it.

How do you answer the question? I don't believe you ever said.

JoeT

I said SUCH AS angels dancing, one of the standard examples for absurd arguments. I am a novice in regard to what all the differences are among all religions, including within Christianity. And that's why I didn't answer your title question.

Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.It has to do with identifying the Real Christ by looking at His mother's new species of humanity who bore a new species of Adam.


Again I have to say: seriously? I never mentioned "original sin" because as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing. It's a Catholic invention that has no basis in the Bible, and I see no reason to buy it. You referred to the "stain of Adam." As Romans 5 tells us, in Adam all die. That's what this "stain" is. Not some speculative "original sin" that's separate from everything else; that's so much theological straw-grasping. It was through Adam that we were born fallible. Not Adam and Eve, just Adam. That's why Jesus could be sinless without Mary having to be anything special, because that "taint" comes through Adam, i.e. the father. Jesus didn't have a human father. QED. There's no need for Mary's human sinfulness to enter into it at all.
Roman 5 teaches that sin entered the world which by extension brought death. It is explicit in Romans 5:12, ". . . sin entered into this world, and by sin death" The first cause of death is sin. Death didn't enter the world and cause sin. If we don't include Eve in the equation how do we get from Adam to you? Obviously, the natural laws require Eve. Sin isn't transmitted through bodily like a genetic defect, rather it is transmitted generationally. Sin transmitted by genetic material could be done away with by creating an antibody, an anti-sin serum.

John Eck writes of the lack of original justice:


Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

At one time Adam and Eve communed with God, Adam spoke to God and God spoke to Adam, like Moses, they spoke "face to face". Adam having freewill was one with God (oneness such expressed in John 6:57 and John 17:21-22). "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good." God did not, and does not, make evil. Expulsion from Eden is God's justice for original sin was done through a privation of abiding in God and God abiding in us.

The transmission isn't through the blood, it is not physically inheritance. That's because we bear the fault of sin as a member of the community of humans:


"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

That is to say, if we were members of a kingdom and the king unjustly makes war against the emperor and loses. The entire kingdom suffers a just retribution of atonement and contrition. The small children of the kingdom who were incapable of making war have an atonement levied against them, as well as a contrite attitude toward the emperor or they are expelled. Quod Erat Faciendum


This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."

And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.I've shown otherwise.


Oh, and as for the whole "word made flesh" as opposed to "flesh and blood"? Have you ever read Luke 24:39? They're all perfectly good Greek figures of speech, and they all mean the same thing.In the cited passage of Luke is found the Person of Christ risen. The same body hung on the Cross with the same Divine Soul, the Second Person of the Trinity who is wholly God and wholly man, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity the Real Christ.

Joe,

Because Mary was a mere woman who needed to be saved too. There is NO verse in the bible that suggests we worship her. There is no verse in the bible that suggests she had any part in salvation. Salvation is OF the Lord. He did it all.

We honor her because the Lord chose her to be Jesus mother. That is special but other than that... she was just another woman. And NO the Lord had no stain of Adam. He is fully God, and fully man. What I find interesting is you want to reason this out that somehow because she was a sinner that the Lord Jesus would be stained. Hey! His Father is GOD. What you need to reason out is how in the world Mary was anything more than a sinner in need of salvation. God is no respecter of persons. He can't zap her and make her special. If he could have done that for her he could have done that for all of us and Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Seriously? What does this have to do with anything? In terms of what I said, it's meaningless. I have no idea what your point is.
It has to do with identifying the Real Christ by looking at His mother's new species of humanity who bore a new species of Adam.


I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What is "the Real Christ" and why do we need to identify him? He told us who he was. He told us it was real and proved it by the resurrection. And this "new species of Adam" is plainly unbiblical. There is not a single passage that ever calls Jesus a new Adam. If you disagree, show me.



Quote:
This whole thing collapses in on itself when we realize one simple fact: there is no such thing as a "new Adam."
Quote:
And "original justice" is just as unbiblical as "original sin." Which is to say, there's no such thing. It's another Catholic invention that the rest of us reject. You are welcome to keep throwing your Catholic talking points at us, but very few are going to buy them.

I've shown otherwise.

Where? I've seen a lot of speculative theology and a handful of quotes from Catholic theologians of centuries later. That shows nothing. You have not "shown otherwise." You have said otherwise, nothing more. There's a huge difference.

To answer your original question: we reject the Catholic ideas about Mary because we reject Catholic tradition. We reject the authority of the centralized Church structure, we reject the authority of any Pope or council, and we reject the idea that anything besides faith in the risen Christ is required for salvation. You're welcome to embrace your Catholic views if you want to, and as a patriotic American I will support your right to do so as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. But if you're going to ask a question like this one, you've got to be prepared for the answer. That means doing a little thinking outside the Catholic box yourself, if you really want to understand us.

According to Martin Luther, humans are the Old and New Adam.

From his Large Catechism:

"Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man [the new Adam], both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness."

From his Small Catechism:

"What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

And this "new species of Adam" is plainly unbiblical. there is not a single passage that ever calls Jesus a new Adam. If you disagree, show me.
What about 1 Corinthians 15:45 (English Revised Version), "So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

According to Martin Luther, humans are the Old and New Adam.

From his Large Catechism:

"Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man [the new Adam], both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness."

From his Small Catechism:

"What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever."

I agree with your understanding of men being of the Old Adam and 'reborn' as the New Adam in Baptism. Luther is recalling parts of his Catholic teaching regarding the identity of Christ. Christ is, as you rightly pointed out in your next post, the Adam that became a living Spirit. However, only one Baptism is made, to be re-baptized is to re-crucify Christ a second time.

JoeT

I agree with your understanding of men being of the Old Adam and 'reborn' as the New Adam in Baptism. Luther is recalling parts of his Catholic teaching regarding the identity of Christ. Christ is, as you rightly pointed out in your next post, the Adam that became a living Spirit. However, only one Baptism is made, to be re-baptized is to re-crucify Christ a second time.

JoeT

Joe I don't know where you got that idea from, biblically those who had undergone John's baptism were rebaptised. Baptism is a ritual acknowledgement of redemption and rebirth, are you suggesting that I re-crucified Christ when I underwent full immersion baptism even though I had been "baptised" as a child. Adam did not become a living spirit by being baptised but by being faithful to the father's plan and giving his life for us. We become that living spirit when we accept Christ, baptism is a public confirmation, quite literally the; " if you admit me before men I will admit you before my Father who is in heaven"

Joe,

Because Mary was a mere woman who needed to be saved too. There is NO verse in the bible that suggests we worship her. There is no verse in the bible that suggests she had any part in salvation. Salvation is OF the Lord. He did it all.

We honor her because the Lord chose her to be Jesus mother. That is special but other than that...she was just another woman. And NO the Lord had no stain of Adam. He is fully God, and fully man. What i find interesting is you want to reason this out that somehow because she was a sinner that the Lord Jesus would be stained. Hey! His Father is GOD. What you need to reason out is how in the world Mary was anything more than a sinner in need of salvation. God is no respecter of persons. He can't zap her and make her special. If he could have done that for her he could have done that for all of us and Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

You must have Catholicism confused with some other faith, Catholics do not worship Mary as one worships God. And you are very correct to point out that there is no Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that suggest we do so. The grace of Salvation is caused by, and given freely in love by God to all the faithful.

You seem to contradict yourself saying Mary is mere woman, yet it is said you honor her. What attributes is it you honor? There are no Scriptural indications she was a good housewife; she even misplaced her only child.

I know that you and I listen to and read the opinions of differing groups. Even still there are renown within your community that hold Mary above the opinion described as 'mere'. I once met the late Dr. Adrian Rogers who aired a program where he said, "Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth because he could not be corrupted by original sin of Adam." (CHRI Radio, Dec 23, 2006). Why would the former president of the SBC suggest that Christ "had to be born through a virgin" if she was 'mere' woman. And, why would Adrian Rogers suggest that the Person of Christ was protected from the corruption of original sin? I believe Adrian Rogers was a Southern Baptist preacher.

Then there is Luther who said


"... so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin ... And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin." (Martin Luther's Works, vol 4, pg 694)
And:


"God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, " (ibid. vol 52, pg 39)
And:

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." (Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)

Are these praises being sung of 'mere' woman, one whose soul is cleansed of original sin, who formed the Body of Christ, and who was 'filled by grace and devoid of 'all evil'?

Catholics teach that Mary did indeed need the hand of God for her salvation, just as you and I need the salvific graces. If Mary was anything else but free of sin there would have been an enmity between her and her Son. The Word of God made stone (the Decalogue) was placed in the purest of Arks Exodus 25:10-22. Why then would you expect the Word made Flesh to be any less pure?

What about 1 Corinthians 15:45 (English Revised Version), "So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.

I once met the late Dr. Adrian Rogers who aired a program where he said, "Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth because he could not be corrupted by original sin of Adam." (CHRI Radio, Dec 23, 2006). Why would the former president of the SBC suggest that Christ "had to be born through a virgin" if she was 'mere' woman. And, why would Adrian Rogers suggest that the Person of Christ was protected from the corruption of original sin?

I already answered this: because sin passes through the human father. Hence, Jesus had to be born of a virgin, i.e. have no human father, so He wasn't tainted by sin. When I said this, you argued. Now you are favorably quoting someone who said the very same thing. Interesting.

Joe I don't know where you got that idea from, biblically those who had undergone John's baptism were rebaptized. I don't believe I mentioned John's baptism.


Baptism is a ritual acknowledgement of redemption and rebirth, are you suggesting that I re-crucified Christ when I underwent full immersion baptism even though I had been "baptized" as a child.
Yes.


Adam did not become a living spirit by being baptized but by being faithful to the father's plan and giving his life for us.
Adam, was created without original sin, the removal of which is a part of the efficacy of Baptism. Baptism is not simply ritual. We are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit becoming born again as new men like the first Adam before the fall.

We become that living spirit when we accept Christ, baptism is a public confirmation, quite literally the; "if you admit me before men I will admit you before my Father who is in heaven"
We receive the Holy Spirit in our first Baptism, what spirit might you be receiving in the second baptism?

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.[Hebrews 6:4-6]

JoeT

Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.

And which Adam do you suppose St. Paul was discussing that was life-giving?

JoeT

I already answered this: because sin passes through the human father. Hence, Jesus had to be born of a virgin, i.e. have no human father, so He wasn't tainted by sin. When I said this, you argued. Now you are favorably quoting someone who said the very same thing. Interesting.

What do you suppose kept the animosity of sinful corrupted flesh received from Mary and the purity of Spirit? Such a man would become insane from the torture received from his own body. Then what do you do with the Jew's objections whose prophecies say the Messiah must be a pure lamb, sinless. Having sinful flesh confounds the problem doesn't it?

JoeT

What do you suppose kept the animosity of sinful corrupted flesh received from Mary and the purity of Spirit? Such a man would become insane from the torture received from his own body. Then what do you do with the Jew's objections whose prophecies say the Messiah must be a pure lamb, sinless. Having sinful flesh confounds the problem doesn't it?

No, because flesh isn't sinful. It's weak and subject to decay, but it's not sinful. That's another huge Catholic mistake for which there is no biblical basis, and it has done worlds of harm throughout the centuries, especially to women.

The sinful nature, or simply "sin" as Paul often calls it, DWELLS in the mortal body, but is something separate from it. There is nothing inherently sinful about the body or the flesh. The Bible knows no distinction between "original" sin and regular old "sin." That's yet another religious construct that somebody made up and the church adopted. You like to talk about things like original sin and what baptism does to it as if these are established facts, but they're not. If Jesus didn't have "original" sin, why was he baptized? What was the point? He didn't have any "original" sin to wash away, so why? He said it was to "fulfill all righteousness." What does that mean? Well, since we agree that Jesus was sinless, it sure doesn't seem to mean that baptism washes away any kind of sin.

Jesus didn't have the kind of internal conflict that you so fancifully describe because he didn't have a sinful nature. The sin/sinful nature is passed through the father; in Adam we all die. There's a reason why it doesn't say "in Adam and Eve we all die," because generationally speaking, Eve has nothing to do with it. It's handed down paternally. Since Jesus had no human father, He had no sin/sinful nature. One again, QED.

And there's still no reason to see anything miraculous or special about Mary. She obeyed. That's enough for me.

And which Adam do you suppose St. Paul was discussing that was life-giving?

*stare in awe as he completely misses the point*

No, because flesh isn't sinful. It's weak and subject to decay, but it's not sinful. That's another huge Catholic mistake for which there is no biblical basis, and it has done worlds of harm throughout the centuries, especially to women.

The sinful nature, or simply "sin" as Paul often calls it, DWELLS in the mortal body, but is something separate from it. There is nothing inherently sinful about the body or the flesh. The Bible knows no distinction between "original" sin and regular old "sin." That's yet another religious construct that somebody made up and the church adopted. You like to talk about things like original sin and what baptism does to it as if these are established facts, but they're not. If Jesus didn't have "original" sin, why was he baptized? What was the point? He didn't have any "original" sin to wash away, so why? He said it was to "fulfill all righteousness." What does that mean? Well, since we agree that Jesus was sinless, it sure doesn't seem to mean that baptism washes away any kind of sin.

Jesus didn't have the kind of internal conflict that you so fancifully describe because he didn't have a sinful nature. The sin/sinful nature is passed through the father; in Adam we all die. There's a reason why it doesn't say "in Adam and Eve we all die," because generationally speaking, Eve has nothing to do with it. It's handed down paternally. Since Jesus had no human father, He had no sin/sinful nature. One again, QED.

And there's still no reason to see anything miraculous or special about Mary. She obeyed. That's enough for me.

'Sinful flesh' is the privation we have as heirs of Adam, unable to reason in the lower passions for the love of God, a lust or concupiscence. And we know that sin causes death which we've shown in Romans as you might recall, ". . . sin entered into this world, and by sin death" Romans 5:12. Sin corrupts the flesh which corrupts the soul resulting in eternal death of 'person', that is both body and soul.

"I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would."[Galatians 5:16,17]

St. Paul adderess sinful flesh directely saying, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh" [Romans 8:3]
If there is no original sin, no original justice then explain why an eternal soul should die, why the body dies when those of us of the clan of Adam all exhibit these traits? Yet, Adam was made for eternity before being deprived of God's presence.

JoeT

"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh..."

In Greek that is "homoioma"... to represent or resemble... it doesn't mean to BE sinful flesh... only to be in resemblance of it.

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"

JoeT

Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."
I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"

That's not the question. See my first sentence.

"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh..."

In Greek that is "homoioma"...to represent or resemble...it doesn't mean to BE sinful flesh...only to be in resemblance of it.

Agreed, the "likeness of sinful flesh" was the description of Christ, Divinity who appeared as man, something the Father would have found demeaning for His son. [Cf. Romans 8:3] ST. John Chrysostom lays out the glorious victory of Christ's who in human flesh had defeated sin. Three marvels were evident to St. John;


One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it [flesh] too. On Romans, homily 13

To do this Christ was a New Adam, born of the Immaculate Virgin's flesh, sinless,

JoeT

Grumpy Joe,

I honor my mother and she is a mere woman but she is special to me because she is my mother. Therefore I honor Mary because she was CHOSEN to be the Lord Jesus earthy mother. It isn't rocket science and I didn't contradict myself..

God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her. Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.

Grumpy Joe,

I honor my mother and she is a mere woman but she is special to me because she is my mother. Therefore I honor Mary because she was CHOSEN to be the Lord Jesus earthy mother. It isn't rocket science and I didn't contradict myself.I didn't suggest it was rocket science, however I did give you an alternative which in harmony with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.


God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her. I don't think we are talking about 'any Jewish' woman or what God 'could have done'. Instead we are discussing what God did do, and a figure that literally had God within her and brought Him forward for your Salvation.


Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.

What every day, any ol' woman had an angel from God sent to them? What spiritually common person was hailed 'full of grace' and 'blessed among women'? What everyday 12 to 14 year old child girl is told they will have a child without ever knowing a man? What liar, thief, common and uncommon sinner is told all these things by God?

Dave,

Not to hijack the thread but I can't reply to you because your mailbox is too full. Just saying

Grumpy Joe,

I will ponder on what you said to me and have a reply for you.

Oops. Fixed.

I didn't suggest it was rocket science, however I did give you an alternative which in harmony with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Tradition is not "Sacred." Tradition is tradition, nothing more. That's part of your problem.

Tradition is not "Sacred." Tradition is tradition, nothing more. That's part of your problem.

The OP doesn't cover the topic of the sacredness of Tradition. Truth, that Truth which is convertible with God and is immutable, doesn't change with time, person, location, or church affiliation. Sacred Tradition maintains God's Word within His Truth. While you might be bound between book covers please don't project your bindings onto a grounded infallible rule of faith, i.e Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church together existing in the Body of Christ.

JoeT

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first cause of every sin is first a voluntary act of the will which is moved by the soul. Sin subjects the soul to the flesh in turn controlling the flesh whereby the will becomes weakened unable maintain power over lusts of the flesh: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, so that you do not do the things you wish to do.” [Galatians 5:17]. Sinful flesh then is not actual flesh but our lusts which corrupt the flesh.

Grumpy Joe,

I will ponder on what you said to me and have a reply for you.

Grumpy Joe will patiently wait. I don't see that he has any choice!

JoeT

The OP doesn't cover the topic of the sacredness of Tradition.

I never said it did.


Truth, that Truth which is convertible with God and is immutable, doesn't change with time, person, location, or church affiliation. Sacred Tradition maintains God's Word within His Truth.

Here's where we part company. There is no such thing as "Sacred Tradition." That's my whole point. You believe it exists because your church tells you it does, and that's fine. But you cannot come at a question such as this, asking people that you know, or should know, don't accept your "Sacred Tradition," and expect us to answer your questions from within your own framework. When you say things like this:


While you might be bound between book covers please don't project your bindings onto a grounded infallible rule of faith, i.e Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church together existing in the Body of Christ.

I have never seen a shred of evidence that all this combination of Scripture, tradition and the Catholic church is anything resembling "infallible," in fact, church history points to just the opposite. But again, you assume that all these things constitute "a grounded infallible rule of faith" and then ask us why we don't buy part of that tradition, when you have to be aware that we don't accept church tradition as infallible or binding. That's no a valid method of discussing. If you really want to know why we don't accept Catholic teaching about Mary, you are going to have to come over to our side and take an honest look from our perspective. Otherwise, you're never going to grasp the answers you get. You call me "bound between book covers," but you're bound by much more than I am. I can look at any church's tradition and find the problems with it, take the good and toss out the bad. Why? I already answered that: because tradition is tradition, nothing more. There's nothing infallible about tradition, and frankly, I would think that the way the Catholic church has reversed itself on so many topics over the centuries would make that clear.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first cause of every sin is first a voluntary act of the will which is moved by the soul. Sin subjects the soul to the flesh in turn controlling the flesh whereby the will becomes weakened unable maintain power over lusts of the flesh: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, so that you do not do the things you wish to do.” [Galatians 5:17]. Sinful flesh then is not actual flesh but our lusts which corrupt the flesh.

Still nothing to do with what I said. You're talking theology, I'm talking language. Do you believe the word "flesh" in Romans 7 and 8 is literal? Yes or no? I'm not asking about Saint Whoever or Church Father Whatever. I'm asking about your take on a particular word. Yes or no?

Still nothing to do with what I said. You're talking theology, I'm talking language. Do you believe the word "flesh" in Romans 7 and 8 is literal? Yes or no? I'm not asking about Saint Whoever or Church Father Whatever. I'm asking about your take on a particular word. Yes or no?

I'll quote myself.


St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first cause of every sin is first a voluntary act of the will which is moved by the soul. Sin subjects the soul to the flesh in turn controlling the flesh whereby the will becomes weakened unable maintain power over lusts of the flesh: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, so that you do not do the things you wish to do.” [Galatians 5:17]. Sinful flesh then is not actual flesh but our lusts which corrupt the flesh.

A two-paragraph dissertation does not constitute a "yes" or "no" answer, but thank you anyway. So you agree that the physical body in and of itself is not evil?

Mary was blessed above women but she was not born of a virgin. She is not to be the mediator of our prayers.

As far as I know, nobody actually says she was born of a virgin. They say she was born without the Catholic-based idea of "original sin."

Don't know how that is possible, the curse was for all mankind. Mary was a most favoured and blessed woman, but she has been elevated to a position of goddess and this is not what God intended. Jesus is our salvation, there is none other

A good question would be what verse do Catholics use to think Mary was born without original sin? AND... if that was possible why didn't the Lord do it for everyone?

Exactly, if they're going make these claims... the proof is on them, not us.

A good question would be what verse do Catholics use to think Mary was born without original sin? AND...if that was possible why didn't the Lord do it for everyone?

To my knowledge, they don't use verses. They use tradition. That's part of the problem: Catholicism elevates church tradition to a level of authority that is essentially equal to the Bible, so when they appeal to their saints and Fathers and popes and clerics and priests and Levites and all that, as far as they know they're citing people with just as much authority as Paul or John. The average non-Catholic looks at that and says "Why are you quoting those guys?" That's why we so often end up talking right past each other. Some of us - me, for example - understand this and try to explain our view of church history and tradition vs the Bible, but most lay Catholics have trouble grasping it because they've had the opposite pounded into their heads from birth.

And your second question is an excellent one!

I... but most lay Catholics have trouble grasping it because they've had the opposite pounded into their heads from birth.

I'm very disappointed, dwashbur, to see you using this kind of language about how "most lay Catholics" believe. I'm sure, with some justice, the same could be said how you acquired your beliefs.

But, like yourself, many Catholics believe what they believe because of thoughtful, sincere, (and often scholarly), examinations of their faith. Would that you had given the benefit of the doubt instead of such a scurrilous comment.

To my knowledge, they don't use verses. They use tradition.
I'm one of the 'they' so I can respond quite emphatically that the rule of faith used by Catholics is the sole and infallible rule of faith. It includes Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together combined with the Catholic Church. Neither Tradition, or Scripture, or the Church stand alone; all three principles are in harmony with each other and teach through the office of the Magisterium.


That's part of the problem: Catholicism elevates church tradition to a level of authority that is essentially equal to the Bible, so when they appeal to their saints and Fathers and popes and clerics and priests and Levites and all that, as far as they know they're citing people with just as much authority as Paul or John.

Tradition holds no authority in and of itself. What Sacred Tradition does do is to maintain and guard Sacred Scripture from error and to enlighten and guide the Holy Church in those things the Holy Spirit wishes to reveal to the Church. It is joined in this task by the Popes, the Bishops, the Doctors of the Church and the council of Bishops. Combined with the Church the Magisterium authenticates Scriptures. Tradition is that chain of truth from Christ to present day. Without Tradition we have no way to validate that the witness of Scripture are in fact sacred. Christ taught the Jews an indisputable New Tradition of His own, As did the Apostles.

Faith locked into a book becomes a dead faith. Catholicism is a living faith still alive teaching those truths revealed to her. On the other hand the other sole and infallible rule of faith fails itself. Sola Scriptura ignores the conflicts with right reasoning in faith. The theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura is neither theologically practical nor doctrinally supported within Sacred Scripture:


Sola Scriptura is not formulated within scripture itself. St. Jude suggests that the faith is handed to you through the Bishops, (Saints). A tradition of Christ's word passed to the faithful through the Church.

When alone, without Tradition, and the Church, Scripture Alone is subject to very fallible individual judgment failing among order in faith, i.e. Scripture Alone is anarchy of doctrine.

Textual meaning of the words and phrases as understood today are not the same as the author wrote them.

Conflicting beliefs of any one philosophy supported by Scripture cannot be resolved textually.

Scripture in and of itself cannot remove its own ambiguity and contradictions making it insufficient in and of itself. Without the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture resides in an "epistemological vacuum " (Patrick Madrid) needing the Church for both validity as well as context.

Scripture didn't exist in biblical format for 400 years. The original books and letters of the New Testament were not written for nearly 60 years after the crucifixion and remained in various private collections for nearly 400 years separately. As such their validity and context of Scripture is subject to the Catholic Church. That has maintained it intact, accurately and within the context of faith.



The average non-Catholic looks at that and says "Why are you quoting those guys?" That's why we so often end up talking right past each other. Some of us - me, for example - understand this and try to explain our view of church history and tradition vs the Bible, but most lay Catholics have trouble grasping it because they've had the opposite pounded into their heads from birth.

This didn't seem appropriate enough to be worthy of a response.




And your second question is an excellent one!

I'll answer for you which verses show that Mary is Immaculate and is the Mother of your Redemption. Every place we find Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity then you are obliged by faith to believe that the Blessed Mary must be Immaculate and the mother of God as an imperative to Christianity (beyond papal decree). As you know, the Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit; three Persons in a perfect unity as one essence of God. Christ is One Person with two natures perfectly joined, God/Man. Christ to be in one hypostases of one essence of God (the uncreated and the creator of all) and yet born of woman, i.e. man – wholly God and wholly man, God/man. The prophecies of the Old Testament tell of God's plan that the Messiah is God (uncreated) born of woman (creature). Thus, according to God's revealed plan Christ is wholly the perfectly God, and perfectly a whole man born of a new creature who is the new Eve – sinless, i.e. the Immaculate Mary; i.e. the Ark of the New Covenant. It was out of man that woman was created, it was out of woman that the whole man was born.

"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (et Verbum caro factum est); a term that came to be known as the incarnation by the first century Church Fathers. The incarnation is understood as a perfect hypostatic union of God and man, body and Spirit, not a conjoining of two parts, rather a perfect union where the essence is homogeneous. The begotten Son is the Person, body and Spirit as every human is body and spirit, this man however, is the Personification of His Word, The Second Person of the Trinity who is the essence of God the Father and the same essence of the Holy Spirit.

If this Person is only the essence of Word is Jesus Christ you've removed the essence of man, as if partitioning or cleaving God into a Divine part and discarding the man part. Where such a conditioned is allowed the Passion would be meaningless – the passion would be of little consequence to an omnipotent being and of little sacrifice.

Therefore we find Mary at the very beginning of the new man being the Blessed Virgin Mary as Immaculate, or as the mother of God, or as the mother of your redemption, is to deny Christ as God/man thereby fails to acknowledge Him as Theandros. In effect it becomes blasphemous against God by accrediting His great works to another. Consequently, true faith makes the improbable conclusion obligatory; bringing us to a Woman with child, who is the perfect union of both God and man. Mary literally and metaphorically full of grace, mother of God, mother of your redemption, and as Christ is King Mary is Queen Mother of heaven.

JoeT

I'm very disappointed, dwashbur, to see you using this kind of language about how "most lay Catholics" believe. I'm sure, with some justice, the same could be said how you acquired your beliefs.

But, like yourself, many Catholics believe what they believe because of thoughtful, sincere, (and often scholarly), examinations of their faith. Would that you had given the benefit of the doubt instead of such a scurrilous comment.

You are correct. At the very least, I expressed myself quite poorly.

There can be no proof just opinion. The catholics don't believe in sola scripture because it invalidates some of their beliefs particularly those associated with Mary as I have said before we are asked to believe in Jesus and his atoneing sacrifice God never said Mary is your salvation

There can be no proof just opinion. the catholics don't believe in sola scripture because it invalidates some of their beliefs particularly those associated with Mary as I have said before we are asked to believe in Jesus and his atoning sacrifice God never said Mary is your salvation

Proof of what, an objective truth? Let's look at sola scriptura. The primarily reason that sola scriptura is a false doctrine is its absence from scripture. We know that the Holy Spirit guides and teaches to move closer to Christ instructing an objective truth (one truth). The tenet holders of sola scriptura have a cacophony of 'one truths'; how can this be coming from a single infallible source?

We do not live in the same social and cultural environment as did the writers of the Scripture. Words have changed since the first century, i.e. the language and in meaning. Thus it can be said, textual meaning of the words and phrases used in Scripture as understood today are not the same as the author wrote them. The doctrine of sola scriptura is doctrine of man not found in scripture as illustrated:


Scriptures cannot be cross-examined to explain simplest of philosophical views, e.g faith & works vs. faith alone. Thus it can be said that conflicting beliefs of any one philosophy supported by Scripture cannot be resolved textually. Two infallible doctrinal truths on the same matter cannot exist. One is true the other is false.

Scripture does not definitively determine the origins, nature and limits of man's knowledge. Thus, contained within Scriptures themselves are ambiguities within which there is no self contained and cannot remove its own ambiguity or contradictions making it insufficient in and of itself. Without the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture resides in an "epistemological vacuum " (Patrick Madrid) needing the Church for both validity as well as context.

History is clear; Scripture was not canonized until the Nicene Council of 365. Before then any number of books were used as 'Sacred Scripture', some of which were heretical. Thus, Scripture didn't exist in biblical format for nearly 400 years. The original books and letters of the New Testament were not written for nearly 60 years after the crucifixion. As such the validity and context of Scripture is subject to the Catholic Church. Further if sola scriptura were self sufficient it would contain an index of canon.

A faith that relies strictly on knowledge alone as faith alone is a dead faith. [cf. James 2:17 sqq] This is because our knowledge is moved by our own passions which cannot be trusted. Therefore, read within a vacuum, i.e. alone, Scripture becomes subject to very fallible judgments of individual.

Sola Scriptura is not formulated within scripture itself. Can you provide us with verse validating the concept of Sola Scriptura using Sola Scriptura - it hasn't been done by anybody yet
.

However, the sole and infallible rule of faith does exist in the Catholic Church in a few primary principles, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together and in harmony along with the Catholic Church.

Show where Sola Scriptura is the sole and infallible source of doctrinal truth using the principles of Sola Scriptura.

JoeT