But the Mother of God is the only perfect creature, and death had no hold on her.  That makes her very unique.  You might be surprised to know that The Mystical City of God is also grounded in Scripture. I suggest you read it before you completely discount it, especially,  the account of her Coronation as Queen of Heaven. I especially like the part when Almighty God says: “Nothing do we wish to concede to man that does not pass through her hands.”  I can believe it. I have pity for those who don’t. I do wonder if Scot Hahn does – I have respect for him and his work.

Isn’t the woman in Revelation primarily a symbol of Israel and only a symbol of Mary in some derivative sense?

Bob writes: “But the Mother of God is the only perfect creature, and death had no hold on her.”
By itself the sentence is logical, but I wonder about your premise.
The bible does say, “For the wages of sin is death.” Ro 6:23, Douay
But Jesus, said his close friend, was perfect but he died. “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Pet 2:21; and if a man’s closest associate doesn’t know of any “guile”, then he had none!
Yet he died.
Others, considered “righteous” by God but not perfect, also died. All this, of course, matches our personal experienc of life and death.
So: my question is, Where do we find that a second person- Mary- was also perfect?

Yan:

It’s not either/or.  The Woman in Revelation is an image of Mary, who is the Virgin Daugher of Zion *and* the type of the Church.

Doug:

Catholics believe that, by the grace of Christ, Mary was preserved from all sin, both original and actual.  The doctrine is reflected (though not explicitly attested) in the title “Kecharitomene” (Full of Grace) with which the angel greets her.  Some Catholics think she died before her Assumption.  Others don’t.  All agree that she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly existence.

Mark, I’m aware of the RCC view of Mary. However, your statement “It’s also, I was surprised to discover, rooted in Scripture” would carry more weight with me IF you cited at least one scripture that mentions Mary by name, and as a “special” ruler in Heaven or on the earth now.
The Bathsheba reasoning is about yet another human, imperfect creature- who died BTW- with no reference to the mother of Jesus. Several people in heaven besides Mary wear crowns, according to the Revelator; why does not the Church put them in the same position as Mary? Paul’s only specific reference to her is that Jesus was “born of a woman”. All else you refer to applies to himself and other saints equally.
I’m aware of Jeremiah’s Queen, but I don’t “take the notion of Mary as a Queen as “baptized paganism.” It’s simply a form of false worship to so elevate humans to that status [per Jeremiah] or to worship a figure in the stars as a god/goddess. Has Jehovah changed, for Catholics only?
One scripture that can be applied to the Mary that local Catholics wor…. sorry, venerate is from Ps 115/116: “The idols of the Gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not. They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat.” There must be 3 - 4 parades every year where “Mary” is displayed this way.

Mark writes: “Catholics believe that, by the grace of Christ, Mary was preserved from all sin”. That’s true, but Bible writers do not so believe. The “Kecharitomene” is an appropriate statement to the woman under the circumstances, although Jesus replied to another woman that there were more “blessed” than his mother.
And: “Some Catholics think she died before her Assumption. Others don’t. All agree that she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly existence.” It seems to me that’s a serious difference, like, say, between life and death. Doesn’t such a disagreement mean the fagots will be a’crackling? Just asking.

Don’t lie, Doug.  You’re not “just asking”.  In fact, you’re not asking at all.  You are, due to your Protestant prejudices, perfectly certain.  You are playing the Semi-Permeable Membrane Game.  When Scripture is oblique about something you believe, you say “It doesn’t say I *can’t* believe that.”  When it is oblique about something your human tradition says you shouldn’t believe, you suddenly turn around and say, “Where does Scripture say I must believe that?”  All you have is your mixture of fragments of Sacred Tradition, mixed with your flavor of Protestant or post-Protestan human tradition to go on when reading Scripture.  As a Catholic I stick with apostolic tradition and don’t elevate rubbish like sola scriptura to apostolic tradition.

Doug: I disagree with your idea that Jesus said other women were more blessed than His mother.  What he DID say was that those who did his Father’s will were blessed, the context of His statement implying that this was more important than a particular standing in this life. When you look at the facts,  Mary did God’s will perfectly: Let it be done unto me according to Your Word.  Jesus’ statement, taken this way,  points out that Mary is blessed not merely by relationship (as in “we’re Jews so we are special”—though being God’s mother is pretty special in and of itself, as is being a Jew) but because of her actions in trusting God and fully doing His will.  Two interpretations of the same scripture, each perfectly logical given the text.  There remains only to choose which one you accept as accurate.  You may disagree with the Catholic interpretation, but that and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s.  I would merely like to point out that Mark is right: Marian doctrines are completely Biblical.  You just don’t agree with the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.  Fair enough, but it means that a challenge to these doctrines as “unBiblical” is just disingenuous.  Feel free to argue about interpretation, but you simply cannot dismiss the Church’s position as “unBiblical.”  It’s just not yours.

As for the Assumption of the Blessed Mother: this is an example of the Church not defining things that do not need to be defined and for which there is room for difference among the faithful.  Mary’s Immaculate Conception would indicate that she should be freed from the ravages of death (wages of sin is death and all that); on the other hand, her role in salvation history would indicate that she might well have undergone death as her son did, sharing thereby His suffering more perfectly (and a sword will pierce your heart also…).  Two equally good possibilities—but the essential fact of the Assumption is not made different regardless of which view you subscribe to. Either way, she resides in Heaven in a glorified body, just as we all hope to one of these days when time gives way to eternity.

I believe that the official doctrine states that she was preserved from the stain of original sin, not that she was sinless.  If Mary died before her assumption, the implication would be that she was not sinless, at least in the sense that she never committed sin.  There is no doubt in my mind that Mary had sin inside her, which she had to overcome, as all people do.

Preserved from all stain of original sin *means* “sinless”.  The doctrine means that Mary has no sin in her whatsoever.  By grace, of course.

The information is contained in the City of God which I believe,and find consoling, but you don’t have to believe private revelation.  My only intent during Mark’s comments about the mysteries of the Rosary, was to show the information about the Holy Family that was available in this document. If I have encouraged anyone to read or examine it, my quest is complete.  At least I venture a guess that no one can say they have never heard of it. Many of the words I have been accused of using were the words contained in the approbations and the book instead of personal opinions. If I offended anyone, I do apologize. That was not my intent. I have no quarrel with Mark. We come from periods in Catholic Church history that have marked differences, There are errors after the council that were not there before the council. I have total confidence only in the doctrinal councils of Trent and Vatican I.

Unfortunately, ‘St. Bob’, your immature *forced-feeding* approach here over the last few weeks has been totally wrong and very ineffective if you really wanted to stir-up some *good* and *healthy* interest in Mary of Agreda.  And… if you are as old as you claim, and truly devoted to Our Lady… you should know better.

I hope you’re not foolish enough to think that you are the only one posting here who has ever read all four volumes of the ‘Mystical City of God’ cover-to-cover.

Trust me, my friend… you’re not.

In Rabbinic literature the Messiah is constantly referred to as the “Son of David”. In psalm 45 When this psalm says “I speak of the things which I have made touching the king ” or “the nations will praise you for ever and ever,” the Rabbis perceive the Messiah.  In Psalm 45, which is a prophesy of the Messiah’s reign, verse 9 reads, “At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir” (ASV). The queen is then addressed directly; she is clearly present at the ceremony. So Scripture indicates that the Messiah will have a queen by His side. In verse 18 the queen is told, “I will make your name memorable through all generations”. Which corresponds to Luke 1:48, where the Holy Spirit causes Mary to prophesy, “From now on all generations will call me blessed”. Mary is the Queen who will be remembered and called blessed by all generations! She is the one of whom this psalm prophetically speaks.

The “stain” of original sin is a manifestation of something that already exists: it’s why we need a Savior to begin with.

For those who are interested in Catholic defense and explanation of Mary’s special role wihin the Catholic faith, I highly recommend reading St. Louis de Montfort’s The Secret of Mary and The Secret of the Rosary.  These books will not necessarily settle the issue of Biblical precedent for Marian devotion, but it does illustrate how it fits in with Catholic Tradition. I apologize if this is a little off topic.

Eric:

And the point of the dogma—honest—is that Mary was preserved by the grace of God from ever contracting original sin and never committed any sin in her life.  That’s what the dogma means.

Cat: I second your recommendation for reading the Secret of Mary and the Secret of the Rosary.  I also recommend Consecration to her Immaculate Heart and enrollment in the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.  Ed: your snide comments apparently reflect your true nature. I never claimed to be the only one who has read all four volumes from cover to cover.  What did you learn or believe after reading all four volumes?
Our Lady has shown me many favors since I converted to the Catholic Church in 1949 including an elocution directing me to Our Lady of The Pillar Church in Saragossa, Spain when I was on reflex there as a B-47 crew member with SAC in 1960. This is the first church in the world dedicsted to Mary and was built by St. James in 40 A.D. shortly before his martyrdom.  It gets its name from a pillar that was fashioned by Mary’s host of angels while transporting Mary to be there for the dedication. An angel is posted at the door to protect the Church until the end of time. I don’t really care what you think or believe.

It’s fine to honor Mary as Queen of Heaven and ask her to pray along with us for causes, so long as she is not a distraction from worship of God or becomes the object of worship (honor and worship are not one in the same - otherwise I’d be worshipping presidents or notable or heroic persons in history when honoring them - many folks can’t grasp that we acknowledge there is a difference). Unfortunately, we Catholics need to be honest in that there are those Catholics who do get carried away with it to the point where she becomes central, and at that point, it does become idolatrous. This is actually against church teaching to do so, and at this point the clergy and others within the Catholic community need to remind people that Mary is a creature of God who worships Him along with us, and that worship must remain Christ-centered. Just because I honor and love people doesn’t make that worship, unless that honor and love supersedes the love of God Himself.

Tony: Mary’s role is to lead us to Jesus. If you have to fall back on the trite Protestant scandalous charge that Catholics worship Mary. your arguments have no validity. Can you point out even one idolatrous Catholics of which you speak? What do you mean we Catholics. You obviously know almost nothing about Catholic teaching.  Mary is the only perfect creature.  That puts her above all other humans, by God’s choice, and the easiest way to lose salvation is by maligning His Mother. Caveat emptor.

Bob—where do u get the idea Mary is to lead people to Christ? Did she do that in the gospels? While were at it, where does it say in the NT that Mary was perfect?

Mark,

I don’t think that is what the dogmatic statement says. Such an interpretation would run contrary to my catechesis as a cradle Catholic. It was my understanding that Jesus was the only completely sinless human person to have ever lived. What you’re saying has not been given to me by Faith; nothing on the matter of either Jesus’ or Mary’s lifelong sinlessness has. Scripture is also fairly silent on the matter. I think this is deliberate.

It seems to me that what is important to realize in the complimentary nature of the sinlessness of both Jesus and Mary. Scripture notes this as well, even if not explicitly. We see it most clearly in the case of Jesus, and his victory over sin after his 40 day tribulation. The same must be true of Mary, who Gabriel calls “blessed” and “full” of grace. Nobody gets blessed like that without conquering sin. So I believe that it is only the “stain” of original sin, and everyone inherits original sin at birth, that Mary was preserved from. Otherwise the blessings would not be blessings, and the honor due worthless.

Many protestants adopt the view that Mary did nothing to earn her salvation because they don’t draw the right distinction between blessing and grace. Saying that Mary was preserved from both sin and its manifestation only encourages such an understanding.

There is nothing in the NT that comes even close to stating Mary was sinless. The angel’ greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28 is not a claim she was without sin. In fact the greeting has nothing to do with sin at all but with her being favored by God to bring Christ into the world.

Fred,

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, she’s the new Eve.  How can an a new vessel; the Ark; Mary, possibly contain the Trinity if it is impure and stained with sin?

Before you carelessly answer that question, please remember that THRICE HOLY IS THE LORD OUR GOD, then please watch this short video, it may help you understand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHVMuskiWs

Fred: Do you remember this? “But there are many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself,I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25. Fortunately one thing Jesus did that is written was to build His Church, and give it authority over the Scriptures.  That Church teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived, that death had no hold on her because of original sin, and in fact remained sinless. Take your problem up with Jesus.

Not quite.  The Church teaches that she was immaculately conceived.  It is, as I have already made clear, silent on the question of whether she died.  It is true, however, that whether or not she died, she was certainly assumed into heaven, according to the Church.  Catholics can believe or not believe she died.

Eric:

Here is the Church’s teaching:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.“132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

I’m not clear what you are saying.

Dimas- checked out the video. Lots of isogesis in that piece. Since Mary and Eve are parallel, are you willing to acknowledge that Mary also had other biological children because Eve also did?
Are you also aware that the greeting that the angel gave Mary i.e. “hail favored one” does not mean she was without sin? In fact there are a number of church fathers who wrote that she had indeed sinned.

Mark Shea - loved the OSV article, chuckled the whole way through, great tone and writing style.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/9676/How-to-respond-when-other-faithful-hurt-you.aspx

Sorry LH, I know and believe none of those things.

Sorry, I should have more correctly said, I don’t know or believe any of those things.

Mark,
How was Pope Pius IX over 1800 years after Mary know that she was “from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”????

There is nothing in Scripture that comes even close to saying this.

Mary did not have to die – She chose to die in imitation of her Son.  That certainly makes logical sense to me, and I am aware of approbations that permit me to believe that. Whatever anyone else believes has no impact on me.

LH:

You began with an accusatory question for which you obviously have zero interest in an answer.  As is the custom with dishonest people such as yourself, you now shift to a different accusatory “question” with no interest in what I will say.  Since you have no interest, I have no interest in wasting time writing further.  If you want to actually know about the sources of Marian doctrine and how it is all quite compatible with Scripture, then you need to read Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Mary: Mother of the Son.  The are quite inexpensive and any person who is sincere will go and get them to inform himself.

LH,

Pope Pius knew it because it had been passed down since the beginning through Sacred Traditon.  He didn’t just pull it out of thin air.  And 1800 is not the first time it was heard of…unlike say, sola scriptura, Faith Alone or OSAS…now THOSE never existed until the 1500’s.  The idea of the Immaculate Conception was believed from the beginning.

As for Mary having more children because Eve did.  Mary and Eve are not the same person.  Mary wasn’t made out of wood either, yet the Ark of the Covenant is a type of her.  Eve was a type of Mary.  A foreshadowing.  She wasn’t the reincarnation of Eve.  Eve was the first mother of all of us.  She blew it.  Mary is the NEW mother of all of us.  Eve was born without sin, but eventually fell.  Mary was born without sin and remained sinless till her death/assumption.  All of humanity came from Eve.  All of the New Humanity came from Mary.  Eve married a man named Adam.  Mary married a man named Joseph.  We aren’t concerned with the differences, only the parts that are presaged with Eve and fulfilled with Mary.

Mk—- there is no sacred tradition that has any basis in historical facts that shows how Mary was conceived. It is pulled out of thin air. Pius took this unfounded belief and made it an article of faith for catholics and to deny it will condemn you. 
If your church is going to compare Eve and Mary then it must include as much all the things that they share in common. Eve had other children just as the gospels tell us Mary did via her own womb. Matthew 12:47
Mary was also a sinner and acknowledge this in Luke 1:47.

The bible never mentions or hints at Mary being a type of ark. Jesus actually is a better fit as a type of ark.  Nor does the bible claim that Mary is the mother of us all or that “All of the New Humanity came from Mary.” You are making things up when you write this.

Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven is not apostolic teaching. The apostles also never said a word about Mary’s perpetual virginity or immaculate conception or assumption. The only way you could know these things are true is by revelation, and they haven’t been revealed. To affirm these things is to claim a knowledge the apostles didn’t have.

Good point Everett. We can only know by what it is written. There are no writings by any apostle that claim what the Catholic church teaches about Mary.

We can only know by what is written?  Really?  And where is THAT written. 

So tired of the same old, silly, circular arguments.  Man did Mark ever hit the nail on the head with him permeable membrane article!

Pius took this unfounded belief and made it an article of faith for catholics and to deny it will condemn you.

Um…no.  He didn’t.  What he did was confirm a long held belief.  Unlike Luther and his ilk, who really DID pull SS, OSAS and SF out of thin air.  Talk about man made tradition!  lol

The thing is, you guys come on here with the exact same talking points time after time after time…never anything new.  It’s like you’re “Stepford protestants” or something.  Do you guys ever think?  Ever read our responses?  I swear, the more I debate with you guys, the more I am convinced you’re a cult and need to be deprogrammed. It’s kind of scary.

The reason I know so much about Protestantism, is because I ASKED questions and READ the answers.  I went to Protestants themselves.  I didn’t go to their websites and start blasting away at what I THINK they believe, but rather asked tons of questions, read tons of Protestant literature, and tons more stuff by ex-protestants who are able to explain the differences in our theology.  You guys make stuff up, create straw men and NEVER ask questions that you actually want answered.  What’s up with that???

I asked Mark a simple question on how Pius knew about how Mary was conceived. He did not answer it nor have you. No one knows how she was conceived because the only records we have of her is what is found in the NT and they do not even hint at her conception. It is disingenuous to claim to know something without any facts. This is the very thing that the cults do with their claims. Their leaders make claims without any facts to support it. No catholic today would tolerate such a thing in other areas of knowledge such as history and science but they will when it comes to what their church tells them what to believe. Go figure…

I asked Mark a simple question on how Pius knew about how Mary was conceived. He did not answer it nor have you.

LH:  You are a liar.  Liars for Jesus are bad witnesses.  I told you, “If you want to actually know about the sources of Marian doctrine and how it is all quite compatible with Scripture, then you need to read Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Mary: Mother of the Son.”  Just because you are too lazy, stupid, bigoted, close-minded, and dishonest to educate yourself when I answer your question does not mean that I did not try to answer your question.  It merely means that you were not asking any questions—simply making accusations disgused as question.  The reason you do that is because you are lazy, stupid, bigoted, close-minded, and dishonest.  Repent of that.

LH,

Yes.  I did answer your question & Mark gave you a couple of different sources.  The internet is FULL of resources.  You however made a ridiculous statement and base your ENTIRE accusation on it.  It MUST be written or it ain’t truth?  And where is THAT written.  Your premise is messed up, therefore your arguments are baseless. 

The thing is, no one would mind engaging in a conversation with you if we thought for one minute that you were simply playing games.  But we have all been here and done this so many times before that I for one, simply will not put in the energy. 

And you’re dead wrong about our behavior being cultish.  We don’t/haven’t just accepted what the Church teaches without question.  Unlike you, we have asked a billion questions and sought the answers.  We know why the Church teaches as she does.  We don’t just spit out talking points and quote the same 25 Scripture Passages over and over and over.  You guys on the other hand are like clones of one another.  And 90% of what you espouse is lifted word for word from anti-catholic sites.  Just once, I’d like to meet a Protestant on here, that thinks for himself, that says something new…Just once, I’d like to meet a Protestant on here that is sincere and honest.  Instead I keep bumping into well rehearsed zombies who spew out robotic responses and show no visible signs of life.  If you won’t look up Mark’s books at least look up the word “conversation”.  When you’re ready to be honest, let me know.

Keep in mind that for the VAST amount of human history the ONLY way things were known was because they were passed down orally.  People knew things because they were passed from a reliable source (an AUTHORITY…kind of like the Church and her Magesterium), and they guarded that knowledge carefully and passed it on with great accuracy BECAUSE they knew that was the only way it would be preserved..  The demand that things be written to be somehow reliable is relatively new (starting when books and printing and literacy became more accessible to the common man…let me thin, somewhere wound the time of the Enlightenment and reformation).  The Church antedates that and maintains tradition in the way humankind has for most of its collective life.  Remember Paul talks about keeping fast to traditions received whether written or oral.  THAT is how the Church knows.  You may choose not to accept it but you cannot in any sort of intellectual integrity say that it is either unfounded or unBiblical.  Disagree if you wish—say you don’t accept it—but have the honesty to admit that Marian doctrine is not made up out of thin air.

Amen Wills!

Willis,
When “ Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135”
he went beyond Scripture because the bible does not tell us anything about her conception. He just speculated without any facts. There is no oral tradition that has lasted for over 2000 years to support this assertion. There is no such thing as an oral tradition that has been passed down for the past 200 years not to mention 2000 years.
  It is unfounded because you have no proof for this. Think about this: who could have known that Mary was “preserved immune from all stain of original sin”?  Her parents? How would they know? Mary? She admits that she has need of a Savior in Luke 1:47. This means she is aware of sin in her life.  Jesus? He does not teach she was without sin either. The apostles? Nothing in their writings about this.
If anyone needs to be honest it’s the catholic church that promotes this without any support from Scripture. Scripture does not make an exception for Mary in any way that she did not sin. The idea for this kind of thing actually comes from a condemned work from around the 5th century.

In I Corinthians 4:6, we are admonished not to “exceed what is written.”  Sola Scriptura did not begin with Luther; it began with Paul.  In Jude 3, we are exhorteted “to contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints.”  The Marian doctrines are not a part of the faith once for all delivered to us, and very much exceed what is written.

If you wish to duel with scripture you must also account for holding fast to traditions delivered ORALLY as above and for John’s reflection that Jesus said many more things, so many that all the books in the world could not hold them—but which the Apostles heard.  Again, feel free to disagree with the Church but please cease from arguing that her position is unBiblical.  It is simply different from yours.  Hers goes back 2000 years.  Yours to Luther at best, perhaps only to yourself.  I prefer to listen to the Church, for recall also that Jesus said to the Apostles—to whom we trace Sacred Tradition: He who hears you hears me.

It is true that Jesus taught many other things that were not recorded i.e. written down. The apostles and some of the disciples would have known of the these things. However, we don’t know what these things were because they were not written down or if they were, they were lost. To say that these things exist in oral form after 2000 years is absurd.  Either way don’t know what these things were and neither does your church.

The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT.

So do we believe what is written in Scripture only or do we believe the teachings of men who do not have the facts to back up their claims?

Keep in mind the majority if Christians over time and the majority today accept Apostolic tradition. The Oritestant interpretation of Sola Scriptura is really quite new.

Everett,

What a shock!  Imagine my surprise when I saw that you had quoted one of “THE 25 Scripture Passages” (and out of context yet!).  Seriously, you guys have to get new material.  Show me where Paul or ANY apostle or anyone at all in the early church practiced SS, SF or OSAS…and do it without quoting Scripture out of context!  I double dog dare you!

So do we believe what is written in Scripture only or do we believe the teachings of men who do not have the facts to back up their claims?

You don’t seem to have a problem believing Luther and Calvin!  I’d say these were men who didn’t have the facts to back up their claims.  Never saw “Luther, you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church” written in Scripture.  Heck, I’m pretty sure the apostles never even met Luther or Calvin!  ;)

Never used Luther or Calvin to refute the idea that Mary was conceived without sin.  I think even you are beginning to see the problems with this. If we take your route of believing something without any facts then we would have to believe Mormonism is true too.

Mark,

What I am saying is that Mary was subject to original sin just as everyone else. In the Catholic Church there are two kinds of sin: mortal and veinial. Original sin is/was mortal sin: recall that it resulted in Adam and Eve’s fall from grace. That fall was brought about by testing from satan whom we associate with sin. So all undergo the same kind of test. For a sin to be mortal, one of the conditions is that we have to know what we are contemplating is wrong. If we don’t know something is wrong and do it, we might still be sinning, but because we hadn’t concieved otherwise, we wouldn’t be liable for it. Knowing that something is wrong doesn’t neceasarily mean that one knows what is right as well.

Do you understand now?

Eric:  You haven’t got the foggiest idea about salvation. How would you expect Mark to understand you now or ever?

What I am saying is that Mary was subject to original sin just as everyone else. In the Catholic Church there are two kinds of sin: mortal and veinial. Original sin is/was mortal sin: recall that it resulted in Adam and Eve’s fall from grace. That fall was brought about by testing from satan whom we associate with sin. So all undergo the same kind of test. For a sin to be mortal, one of the conditions is that we have to know what we are contemplating is wrong. If we don’t know something is wrong and do it, we might still be sinning, but because we hadn’t concieved otherwise, we wouldn’t be liable for it. Knowing that something is wrong doesn’t neceasarily mean that one knows what is right as well.

Do you understand now?

No, I’m afraid I don’t.  In don’t think you understand what original sin is.  Nor what the Church means when she says Mary was preserved from all sin both original and actual.  It’s true that mortal sin requires grave matter, freedom and sufficient knowledge.  But I don’t see what that has to do with Mary.

Eric- you understand original sin perfectly. Its Mark and the Catholic church that doesn’t. Mary was conceived by 2 fallen human beings who both inherited the sin of Adam. See Romans 5:12. If the biblical writers don’t mention anything about Mary being sinless what makes you think that a man 1800 years after she lived would know?

If the biblical writers don’t mention anything about Mary being sinless what makes you think that a man 1800 years after she lived would know?

If the biblical writers don’t mention anything about Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura or Once Saved Always Saved, what makes you think that men 1500 years after she lived would know?</i>

LH,

Do you understand that we would engage you in a heartbeat if we thought you were honest and sincere?  But since we have already given you a number of answers, which you ignore, and you insist on repeating the same questions as if we had not addressed them, we can only conclude that you are not interested in Truth, and therefore fore-go any further explanations?

At least three times now we have explained that the Church believed in Mary’s sinlessness for hundreds and hundreds of years before this belief was declared as Dogma in 1800.  Yet you persist in insisting that the first time it was ever mentioned was in 1800.  Dishonest.  That’s what you are.  You have no interest in our answers, only in accusations.

You have also failed to show where ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME before Luther believed in OSAS, SF or SS. 

Now try to follow this.  You claim that if it isn’t WRITTEN in Scripture, then we cannot be sure that it is indeed true. That is the ENTIRE PREMISE of you argument with the CC.  How can we possibly discuss how are beliefs are right or wrong until YOU prove that your premise is correct?

So here is what you need to do if you want your defense to hold ANY weight.  Show us WHERE IT IS WRITTEN that it MUST BE WRITTEN…then we can move on.  Until then, you have made a defining statement and have nothing to back it up.  Why on earth should we waste time arguing with you about whether or not the belief that Mary was written anywhere when you have not shown that it MUST be written somewhere???

All you have done is claim that, using YOUR logic, it should stand to reason that it MUST be written, because how else can we be sure.  But that is just as dubious a claim as ours are, IF being written is the deciding factor on all matters of Truth.  Where is it written that it MUST be written????

you understand original sin perfectly. Its Mark and the Catholic church that doesn’t. Mary was conceived by 2 fallen human beings who both inherited the sin of Adam

Not only don’t you understand original sin, you don’t understand Baptism either.  You don’t understand what Jesus did on the Cross.  If you truly understood, then you would have no problem understanding how Mary could be born without sin.  The problem is that you don’t believe sin can be removed. You think it can only be covered up.  The only person that was born without sin BY HIS OWN MERIT is Jesus.  But ALL of us become sinless at Baptism…because we receive His GRACE through this sacrament.  Baptism is salvific.  Because Jesus is salvific.  Jesus’ grace is transmitted THROUGH Baptism.  That is the ordinary, physical means of tranmission.  It is a sacrament.  The INVISIBLE, being made VISIBLE through the PHYSICAL.  Mary was given Jesus’ Grace without the action of Baptism.  She was saved THROUGH Jesus in an EXTRAordinary way.  She was SAVED at CONCEPTION.  Just as OUR sin was REMOVED at Baptism through Grace, hers was removed through Grace without the benefit of Baptism, but still through Jesus.  ALL baptized people are rendered sinless at Baptism.  When Scripture says no man is sinless, it means by his own hand.  But with God all things are possible and we are made sinless through the saving action of Baptism.  NOT through Faith alone.  BAPTISM saves.  Jesus saves THROUGH Baptism.

My own grandson (3 weeks old) was baptized yesterday.  Until he reaches the age of reason and can of his own free will commit a sin, HE will remain sinless.  Baptism saved him.  He didn’t declare his belief, as he is not able to speak.  Yet he is sinless.  Because of the ACTION of Baptism.  He is as sinless as Jesus Himself.  And will remain that way until the time that he sins again.  Then he can take advantage of the SACRAMENT (the invisible being made visible through the physical) of Confession and become sinless once again.  At the moment of his Baptism, little John Augustine was FULL OF GRACE…Sanctifying Grace…just as Mary was at her conception.  Only Mary was so FILLED with Grace, (actual Grace AND Sanctifying Grace) that she was able to say no to sin her entire life.  God gave her enough Grace, which she FULLY cooperated with, so that she was able to overcome ALL temptations.  Full of Grace.  Just like my grandson.  Not because she was “good”.  Not because she was “strong”.  Not because she “willed” it.  But because she was FILLED with Grace, and she ACCEPTED it.  Her cooperation with Grace is what kept her sinless.  And she received that initial sanctifying Grace, supernaturally at her conception.

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’  Acts 22:16

Washed away.  At Baptism.  Through HIS name.  Through His Grace.  Why shouldn’t Mary’s sin have been “washed away”?  Why couldn’t Jesus take her sin away in an extraordinary way?  Why do you limit God?

Mk- If the NT says nothing about the way Mary was conceived how is it possible for anyone to know how she was conceived?  Claiming its sacred tradition is not an answer because there is no substance to it. Just because something was believed for a long time does not mean it’s true. What is dishonest is to say this has always been believed by the church when its not found in the New Testament nor the writings of the early church.
Who, outside of the NT first mentions how and when she was conceived? (keep in mind this is a question and not an accusation).
This topic is not about OSAS, SF or SS. Why do u keep bringing this up?
I never claimed –“ You claim that if it isn’t WRITTEN in Scripture, then we cannot be sure that it is indeed true.” What I said is that if it’s not in Scripture it’s not apostolic nor biblical. It is a doctrine of men and it’s not true because it denies what Jesus and the apostles taught that all men are born in sin.
What we are seeing is that you have no grounds to believe that Mary was conceived without sin. You have no evidence for this. That’s why it’s only speculation and hearsay. What is truly tragic is that u must believe this doctrine or be condemned. No wonder u want to defend it as being true.

Mk- When your grandson was baptized, did he call on the name of the Lord as this passage you quote commands?

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’  Acts 22:16

Mk—you ask—“Why shouldn’t Mary’s sin have been “washed away”?  Why couldn’t Jesus take her sin away in an extraordinary way?  Why do you limit God?”

The burden of proof is on you to show that God did take her sin away in an extraordinary way. Its going to take more than just saying its a sacred tradition that God did indeed do this. Where is the proof?????

</i>What is dishonest is to say this has always been believed by the church when its not found in the New Testament nor the writings of the early church.</i>

But that is where you are wrong.  Augustine, who is one of the fathers of the “early Church” speaks of Mary’s sinlessness.  It’s not a matter of “It’s been believed for a long time….etc.”, if it were, then Hinduism would be true.  It is a matter of the Church holding a singular Authority to bind and loose, an authority given to Her by Jesus and passed down and respected throughout Church History until the 1500’s.  Our “Church” is NOT man made.  The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus instituted during His earthly Life.  Lutheranism (and all of it’s offshoots) were instituted by men, and men alone.  When the Church speaks in her Authority, it is Jesus Himself who is speaking.  To deny or reject the Church is to deny and reject Jesus Himself. 

Ironically, Luther, who got so many things wrong, got this one right.  He too, believed, because he had been taught by his Church, the Catholic Church, that Mary was without sin…

Here is what Augustine says:

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42).

And here is what Luther said:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. J. Pelikan. Concordia: St. Louis, Volume 4, 694)</B>

<i>This topic is not about OSAS, SF or SS. Why do u keep bringing this up?
I never claimed –“ You claim that if it isn’t WRITTEN in Scripture, then we cannot be sure that it is indeed true.” What I said is that if it’s not in Scripture it’s not apostolic nor biblical.

The subject is topical because you have made the claim that if it is not in Scripture it is neither apostolic nor biblical, yet you believe a man, Luther, who proclaimed beliefs that are neither apostolic nor scriptural.  It seems a little dishonest to keep saying that we have no leg to stand on because our Dogma on Mary was not proclaimed until the 1800 and that they are neither scriptural nor apostolic, yet believe in dogmas yourself, that are not only neither scriptural nor apostolic, but are explicitly refuted in Scripture, condemned by the Church and made by men who were NEVER GIVEN THE AUTHORITY to proclaim them.  It is hypocritical on your part.  The Popes, through Peter, were given a unique Authority over all of Christians by Christ Himself.  Luther was not.  That is why I keep bringing them up.

Now is when you do the “Protestant Circle Dance” and say that just because someone in the Early Church says it, that doesn’t mean it is what the apostles believed, even tho you asked me to show you where the early Church believed it.  Then when I point out your 2-step dodge, you’ll change the subject or quote Scripture out of context.  Please, renew my Faith in Protestants and prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is on you to show that God did take her sin away in an extraordinary way. Its going to take more than just saying its a sacred tradition that God did indeed do this. Where is the proof?????

No.  The burden of proof is on you.  This is what the Church has always believed.  It has been handed down as Sacred Tradition from the beginning.  You are the one that adheres to a new Theology, that of Protestantism and it is you who needs to show why the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years.  You wouldn’t question Sacred Tradition any more than you would question Scripture if you believed what has been believed for 2,000 years…that is that Revelation comes from three EQUAL sources, none of which can be questioned, all of which work together…Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Authority of Church Teaching.  It is only in the last 500 years that you and other protestants have thrown out 2/3’s of what Jesus constructed. 

So the burden is yours.

Here is a link to what many of the Early Fathers had to say on the subject. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1783100/posts

Mk—how can u say in regards to Mary being without sin —“This is what the Church has always believed.  It has been handed down as Sacred Tradition from the beginning.” when the nt never alludes or teaches such a thing? For something to be believed from the beginning it must be in the nt. Its also not in early church councils either. So this shows it was not believed by the church since the beginning and has not always believed it.

LH,

Because you, not the Catholic Church, believe that only Scripture contains inerrant inspired revelation.  We believe that Sacred Tradition cannot (it would actually be impossible) CONTRADICT Scripture.  But that it doesn’t have to be IN Scripture.  The Trinity is not in Scripture, and it wasn’t defined for 100 years.  Does this mean that the Apostles didn’t believe in it?  Jesus left us with a LOT of info…both written and unwritten.  To know what the Church believed(s) we look to the formation of the Church.  We look to the writings of the early fathers.  We look to the ACTIONS of the early fathers and the early Church.  We look at extra biblical material.  If the Fathers were writing about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Sinlessness from 155AD on, then that is a pretty good indication that it is what they believed.  It wasn’t a “big deal” tho…it wasn’t being contested…has NEVER been contested until the last few hundred years.  Papal declarations are often made in response to contentions.  When someone challenges a belief, councils are called and declarations are made.  This in NO WAY means it is a new belief, only that it is a challenged belief.  THEN when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra on the matter, it is a closed book.  No more discussion to be had.  Deny it and you divorce yourself from Christ’s Church…which is what you have done. 

So we have Scripture which implies and does not contradict the doctrine, the Early Church Fathers speaking of it, and the definitive Dogma declared from “The Chair” (so called after the seat of Moses…a position of Authority).

This is why the Onus is on you.  In claiming that Mary was not sinless, you are rejecting 2/3’s of the Church that Jesus instituted.  It’s that simple.

Ironically, the very Scripture that you embrace, is because of Sacred Tradition and Papal Authority, the 2/3’s that you reject.  So the ONLY authority that you accept wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the other two.  Think about that.

Mk- When your grandson was baptized, did he call on the name of the Lord as this passage you quote commands?

He had GodParents/Parents who spoke for him…and the priest, obviously called on Jesus’ name as we do every single time we make the sign of the Cross…In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

Have you ever witnessed a Catholic Baptism? 

Matthew 28:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

A baptism that doesn’t invoke the trinity is not a valid Baptism.  If you were to enter the Catholic Church it would first have to be ascertained whether or not you were Baptized, and then determined whether the Baptism was valid (Trinitarian) If not you would have to be Baptized the correct way.  If you have been baptized validly, then you cannot be baptized again.  There would be no point, as Baptism is a one time deal.  You don’t get baptized every time you enter a new Church.  You aren’t entering a “denomination” you are entering a family.  Once is more than enough.

Mk—where in Acts 22:16 or any verses on baptism, does it say that someone else can speak for another person before they are baptized?

yes i have seen a catholic baptism.

You did not show that Mary was sinless in your answer to my question. There is nothing in the nt that shows she was sinless.

A church father does not speak for the entire church nor is this an indicator what the entire church believed at the time about Mary. Its only his opinion and his opinion is not inerrant.

LH,

We’re done.  I had high hopes that you would read what I took the time to write.  Either you have chosen not to or you cannot read.  I will not answer another questions until you show me where it says that something MUST be written in the New Testament. 

You guys are so transparent.  It’s like a rehearsed play.  Every single time I enter into conversation with one of you I hope against hope that you will be honest, intelligent and thoughtful…and every single blasted time, you play the same games.  Done.  Finis. All done.

Eric- you understand original sin perfectly. Its Mark and the Catholic church that doesn’t. Mary was conceived by 2 fallen human beings who both inherited the sin of Adam. See Romans 5:12. If the biblical writers don’t mention anything about Mary being sinless what makes you think that a man 1800 years after she lived would know?

Oh, I cannot resist:  IF the Bible does not expressly indicate SS, SF (and it doesn’t) and the rest of Protestant anchors, and it is totally out of step with what the Church in continuity taught for so long…WHAT makes you think a man 1500 years later would know?

HMMMM?

Mk,                                              Sola Scriptura is in Scripture-I Corinthians 4:6. And ,again,we are expressly told to “earnestly contend for the faith ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints,” which precludes using what you call sacred tradition in an authoritative manner.  How can a church call itself apostolic and teach things the apostles never even heard of. Catholics give more authority to the fathers than the apostles.
  Sola fide is not in Scripture; that’s Luther’s invention.  Twice in Romans and twice more in Galations Paul does mention salvation by faith; Luther added sola.  His fellow reformers called him on it, and, as far as I know, Luther’s German Bible is the only translation that adds sola.  Once saved always saved is also not in Scripture, and for that reason, should not be in the Church. But how can a Catholic complain about what is not in Scripture?  Much of what the Catholic church teaches is not found in Scripture or in the pre-Nicene Church. The immaculate conception got a late start and was rejected by many, including Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux.   

Mk,
” Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.  DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REBUKE YOU, AND YOU BE FOUND A LIAR.”  Proverbs 30:5,6
  “To the law and to the testimony. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  Isaiah 8:20

“I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written,* so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.”

First, He could only have been speaking of the Old Testament.  Second, this is not about the New Testament being the only source of inerrant truth.  This is about new Christians not speculating and spreading their own ideas.  It’s actually an argument for the Authority of the Church.  Paul is saying don’t go beyond the OT and what you are being taught by him…Check with authority before you pass anything along.  He certainly isn’t talking about the NT as it didn’t exist. 

As for adding to Scripture…the teaching authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition do not ADD anything to Scripture.  Where in Scripture do you find “The Gospel according to Pope so and so”?  Nothing in Catholic Teaching CONTRADICTS Scripture.  Again, where is the Trinity in Scripture?  Did you add words to Scripture when you proclaimed the Trinity?  The word Trinity is not in Scripture, so you’d have to “add” it, no?

How many times does it have to be said that the catholic church does indeed CONTRADICT Scripture? The claim that Mary was without sin is a CONTRADICTION of Romans 3:9, 23 and 5:12.

The word Trinity is not in Scripture but the doctrine is because there are passages that support it. There are no passages in Scripture that can be used to support the doctrine that Mary was without sin.

mk,
Your explanation of I Corinthians 4:6 didn’t make a bit of sense to me; it has nothing to with the Old Testament.  Neither the word trinity nor the concept is in Scripture.  God of God, light of light, God of very God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal are found in the creeds of men, not the word of God.  The word “trinity” has been the most divisive single word in history, and it’s nothing more than a theological speculation, a very dogmatic guess about something no one understands, and no one is required to understand. The nature of Christ and the relationship of the Father. Son, and Spirit have nothing to do with our salvation or our sanctification.  The apostles knew no more about the trinity than they knew about the Marian doctrines, but you and the Catholic Church know more than the apostles.  It is written, “But when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into ALL truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”(John 16:13)  Although the Catholic Church would never say this expressly, implicitly they would have us believe that the Spirit of truth did, in fact not lead the apostles into “all truth,” so we have their traditions to compensate for what He withheld.

Everett,
Are you a Jehovah Witness or something like that? Your last post to Mk is full of errors.

LH,
No, I’m not a Jehovah Witness or something like that.  You may describe me as an apostate Protestant.  I think Martin Luther is arguably the biggest hypocrite in the history of the Church.  While we repeatedly read of justification by faith, we never read of justification by faith alone; that is exceeding what is written.  What Luther meant by sola scriptura was sola what Luther said it meant.  Luther had no tolerance for anyone who disagreed with anything he said, especially fellow reformers.  His tract addressed to the German nobility of 1525 against the peasants led to the deaths of 100,000 of his countryman, and pretty much ended the Reformation in Germany.  At the end of his life, he boasted that the blood of those peasants was on his hands. He was a vicious anti-Semite who said the synagogues of the Jews should be razed and all of their literature should be taken from them. He believed the state shouild support the church.  The only one who even comes close to Luther in verbally abusing adversaries is Thomas More.  It is written,“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is worthless.”(James 1:26)  Luther’s religion was worthless.
  Now, would you please list my “many errors.”

“What Luther meant by sola scriptura was sola what Luther said it meant.

Now, would you please list my ‘many errors.’”

And the win for the most un-self-aware comment on the Internet goes to Everett.

Mark, LH, et al,
Again, please list my errors.

Everett—

Here are some of your errors—“Neither the word trinity nor the concept is in Scripture.  God of God, light of light, God of very God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal are found in the creeds of men, not the word of God.  The word “trinity” has been the most divisive single word in history, and it’s nothing more than a theological speculation, a very dogmatic guess about something no one understands, and no one is required to understand. The nature of Christ and the relationship of the Father. Son, and Spirit have nothing to do with our salvation or our sanctification.  The apostles knew no more about the trinity”…

It is true that the word Trinity is not in Scripture but the concept is. Here are few attributes that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit share together as deity:
The Father is God but it is Christ and the Holy Spirit that people have problems with. If it can be established that the Son and the Holy Spirit also possess the attributes of deity then we have the Trinity.
Jesus is referred to as God in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1:2-3,8. These are just some of the ways Christ is described in Scripture. I could have used a lot more to show His deity.
The Holy Spirit is also referred to as God in Job 33:4,  Acts 5:3-4. Is referred to as Creator in Genesis 1:2 and is eternal in Hebrews 9:14.
When we put all these characteristics together we have the Trinity. 3 persons in one God.
You are also in error to believe that “The nature of Christ and the relationship of the Father. Son, and Spirit have nothing to do with our salvation or our sanctification..” The Father and the Holy Spirit were involved in the ministry of Christ since the beginning.  Just read the gospels and you will find many many examples of the interplay between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can see this for example in Matthew 3:13-17. See also Romans 8.
Unless you believe that Christ is God and died for your sins and rose again you do not possess salvation. See Romans 10:9-10. 

Everett,
Justification by faith alone is not what the reformers meant. Rather justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. See Romans 5:1, 8:1 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

If Luther’ religion was worthless what should I think about what you believe?  Who follows what you believe and what good have they done for mankind?

LH,
  You haven’t given a single verse to prove the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal. You haven’t given a single verse to prove Christ is God of God, light of light, very God of very God.  That is the trinity, and neither the word trinity nor the concept of trinity is found in the Church until the third century.  How do you explain that?  Oral tradition?  Moreover, neither Romans 5:1, 8:1, or Ephesians 2:8,9 use the word “alone”, except in Luther’s German translation.  Like Luther, you add to Scripture. Romans 10:9,10 says nothing about Christ being God.  Apparently, you don’t know enough about the Reformation or Luther to know how little you know about the Reformation or Luther.  If you are right about Luther, then James was wrong.  What else in Scripture do you not believe?
  This is what I believe:  Jesus Christ was Emanuel; God with us. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.  With Thomas, I look at Jesus Christ and say,“My Lord and my God.”  To this I will add nothing, certainly not your trinity heresy.

Everett,
I’m confused. If the Father is God and the Son and Holy Spirit are also do you believe there are 3 gods and not one? After all, the Scripture calls all three God.
What is the definition of the Trinity?

Everett,
  Romans 5:1, 8:1, or Ephesians 2:8,9 do not use the word alone but it is implied. No one can add to what Christ did on the cross to gain Christians salvation.

Here is what Romans 10:9-10- says—
“9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [g]resulting in salvation.”

To call Jesus is Lord (verse 10) is to call Him God. Lord is one of the names-titles for God.

I don’t need to defend the actions of Luther or any church that may be out of the will of God. Luther, like any man is capable of being wrong and doing evil. The only One who is not is the Lord Jesus. He is the standard of the Truth.

When you deny the Trinitarian doctrine you are denying the Scripture.

LH,
  The definition of the trinity is given above; it’s the standard definition used by the Church since the Council of Nicea in 325. You can find it in the Nicene Creed.  You cannot find it in Scripture; in fact, you cannot even use the words of Scripture to discuss the trinity.  It is pure speculation, and you never find Christ or the apostles or the prophets speculating about anything.  And it wasn’t taught in the Church before the third century.  It is no more apostolic than the Marian doctrines.  It is not a part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  In Deutoronomy 29:29, Moses wrote,“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.”  The trinity is not revealed truth, and God has not revealed tne nature or natures of Christ or the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit.  I believe what is written; that is required, but neither I nor anyone else understands these things, and we’re not required to understand.  I will not discuss it with you or anyone else, because all we can do is guess, and if I don’t agree withyour guess, then I’m a heretic.
  This is what I believe.  “For we maintaiin that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law…Therefore, having been justifed by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and beieve in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with mouth he confesses, resulting is salvation…Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, since by the law no flesh will be justified…Therefore, the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith…For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not as the result of works, so that no one may may boast.” Amen.  I’ve nothing to add to the words of Paul.
  “And so we,having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or our wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith , whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory forever and forever.  Amen”.  I Clement 32:4.  Clement was a bishop in the church in Rome in the first century.  Had he written the same thing is the sixteenth century, he would have called a heretic by the church of Rome.
” What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?  Can that faith save him?  If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them,‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ and yet you not give them what is necessary for the body, what use is that?  Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.  But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works:‘Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”  James was not a Lutheran.  Not surprisingly, Luther considered James’s epistle “an epistle of straw.”

Mark,
  /what did you mean by my “un-self aware”-comment?

Everett,
Simple question for you: Is the Father God? Is the Holy Spirit God?

Yes or No?

LH,
Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit called God?

Everett,
The Holy Spirit is called God in
Genesis 1:2; Acts 5:3-4

Mark Shea said:

No, I’m afraid I don’t.  In don’t think you understand what original sin is.  Nor what the Church means when she says Mary was preserved from all sin both original and actual.  It’s true that mortal sin requires grave matter, freedom and sufficient knowledge.  But I don’t see what that has to do with Mary.

Mark,

What do you think I believe original sin is?  Original sin would fall in the RCC’s catagory of mortal sin: sin that causes death.  You can assume this to be true due to the fact that it was the cause of Adam and Eve’s fall; it was the sin of Adam and Eve that the church calls original sin.  Sin, or error, can be handed down through generations and affect one regardless of one’s personal response to sin.  I believe there is a distinction to be made between being preserved from “sin” and the “stain of sin”.  Namely, it is important to realize that “sin” (or satan) is present in everyone and thus is capable of influencing everyone - that includes Jesus and Mary.  The “stain of sin” is a manifestation of sin and would represent a failure to overcome sin.  The grace one gets to realize what sin is does not necessarily empower one to realize the good, and this is where I draw a distinction between the responses to sin exemplified by Mary and Jesus.

LH,
  In Genesis 1:2, we read of the “Spirit of God”, not God the Spirit.  We often read of God the Father but never God the Son or God the Spirit.  In Acts 5:3,4, a reasonable inference is that Peter was equating the Holy Spirit to God, but I’ve never disputed that.  In the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Father, Son, and Spirit are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, and Christ was God of God, light of light, very God of very God.  That’s the trinity, and it’s not in Sripture.  The Son certainly appears subordinate to the Father.  In John 20:21, we read “Jesus said to them, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent me, I also send you.’”  You don’t send equals.  And the Spirit appears to be subordinate to the Son. “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me (John 15:26).  Moreover, the fact that Christ was “begotten” means, by definition, there was a time when He didn’t exist.  Lastly, in speaking to the elders of the church in Ephesus, Paul said, “I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you publicly and from house to house…For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God,” (Acts 20:20,27)and he didn’t teach the trinity.  No apostle did.

To LH and Everett: “Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit called God?
... The Holy Spirit is called God in Genesis 1:2; Acts 5:3-4”

Gen 1:2 Douay: And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
“the spirit OF God”; like “Son OF God” it means something Jehovah has not what he is. “The car of Ralph” does not mean “Ralph the car.” I’m a schoolteacher; I expect 5th-graders, anyhow, to know the difference in plain English. And, before you reply, No, “God the Son” is NOT in scripture.
Acts: 5:1-4 ibid.: But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, and by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: Ananias, why has Satan tempted your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to you? And after it was sold, was it not in your power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.
Please notice the sequence of events: (1)Ananias and Saphira conspired to sell something but not to reveal the full price. (2)Ananias approached the apostles and Peter with the cheapened “gift”. (Cf. Malachi 3 for Jehovah’s view of the matter.) (3)Peter (suddenly able to read minds?) says, ‘You lied to me!’ No ... wait ... he says, ‘You lied to God’ THEREFORE PETER IS GOD!!!! Call the Vatican! Stop the presses! New theology at hand!
Or, perhaps the Vatican would prefer this: Peter, anointed by Jehovah to be an apostle, has the use of the spirit of God (see Gen 1:2) to detect frauds; he does so, and we’ve all learned a valuable lesson about greed and proper service to God Jehovah and his Son, our Lord Jesus.
Except that some of you, somehow, have learned about the Trinity, which was never under discussion by the apostles.

Doug,
  You left something out of the sequence.  Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and in that he lied to God.  Peter also said he hadn’t lied to men.

Everett, nothing “left out”. I merely used the part I wanted to use to “prove” that Peter is God; learned that from Catholics. Aren’t you proud of me? :-)
Ananias told a lie TO Peter and the apostles, who are mentioned in the passage. (Nowhere do we read that Ananias entered looking for ‘God the Holy Spirit’.) So the statement, “You have not lied to men, but to God” is either erroneous (not possible, we agree) or must be taken in another way which doesn’t violate scripture or the rules of plain language. (See Gen 1:2) That is same way I outlined in my reply: “Peter, anointed by Jehovah to be an apostle, has the use of the spirit OF God (see Gen 1:2) to detect frauds; he does so, and we’ve all learned a valuable lesson about greed and proper service to Jehovah God and his Son, our Lord Jesus.”

Mark, I lost track of ‘Posted by Mark P Shea on Monday, Jul 23, 2012 4:36 PM (EST)’
I was in fact, “just asking”. Over the centuries the fagots have crackled for lesser “offenses” against magisterium.
Life and death- to me and to God- are polar opposites. If Mary was dead at her assumption, she was not alive, and the opposite view CANNOT be held by other Catholics. They are mutually exclusive. Further, if she was dead, then why was a corpse (unclean, by Law) taken up to Jehovah’s cleansed Heaven? (Lev 5:2; Rev 12;7) (The Bible’s simple explanation of Mary’s end** is that she indeed died ‘after the manner of men’, and was resurrected to Heaven at some later time. (Cf. John 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24) Her resurrection, as Paul says of all like her and him, will be to a spirit, incorruptible body.
** Does it say, “Mary then died” at some point? No, neither does it say that of many other anointed Christians who did die, as we know. We can assume (!) that she died likewise, unless scripture tells us that she was special in some way, outside of being the natural mother of the Messiah. Men have said such special things; scripture does not.

Doug,
  Your statement doesn’t make a bit of sense to me.

Could Mary have been raptured into heaven?  Would that mean the rapture has already taken place?  Who’s going to break the news to the protestants?

Posted by Everett Doug, Your statement doesn’t make a bit of sense to me.

I know. It furnishes a way of understanding a Bible passage that (1) is in line with the rest of the Bible, (2) teaches something useful about godly behavior, and (3) goes against the RCC teaching of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine.
It’s (3) that’s the deal-killer. :-)

Doug,
The deal killer is to deny the biblical basis for the Trinity.