My Beefs With The Rcc

[StColette]

lol I was asking the same question. Hope I didn't scare Icthus away with my long posts

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Romans 3:23 - "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

How do you interpret this? It cannot possibly mean that literally everyone has sinned. What about a child below the age of reason? How is it possible for a toddler to sin?[/quote]

Quite simply - he has original sin imputed to him.

[color=blue][u]12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because [b]all sinned[/b]-- [/u]13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, [b]even over those who did not sin by breaking a command[/b], as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. [/color]

As for how I interpret Rom 3:23, I interpret it as you suggested above,w ith one caveat. All, except for Jesus Christ, the righteous one, have sinned.

Also, the age of reason is a heresy.

Psalm 51:5

[color=blue]Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. [/color]

Clearly David says that he was sinful from the time he was conceived, there was never a time when he was not.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]What is your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 and Matthew 12:32?[/quote]

[color=blue]18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[4] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. [/color]

My interpretation of the passage is this: The imprisoned spirits were not in any 'purgatory' but rather in Abrahams's bosom, what the Hebrews called Sheol, where the dead went before the coming of the Messiah.

[color=blue]He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. [/color]

I don't see how this supports purgatory. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age (pre-return of Christ) or in the age to come (post-return of Christ). I agree with this. What's your point?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 5 2004, 12:22 AM'] [b]Isaiah 6:7[/b] He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "[b]now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged[/b]."


[/quote]
How the heck does this support purgatory? It says our sins our purged - and they are purged by Jesus' atonement, when we are justified by faith!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 4 2004, 04:13 PM'] “and thus [u]all[/u] Israel will be saved,…” (Rom 11:26)

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with [u]all[/u] knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” (Rom 15:14)


Romans 3:23 - "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
[/quote]
[quote]“and thus [u]all[/u]  Israel will be saved,…”  (Rom 11:26)[/quote]

Of course, if you'd used this in context, you'd have seen that St. Paul is speaking of the NEW Israel, the Church. Of course, in this sense, ALL Israel will be saved!

[quote]“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with [u]all[/u]  knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” (Rom 15:14)[/quote] 'All knowledge' is a figure of speech here, in my estimation. They evidently had a sound knowledge of the Scripture, which is sufficent to equip them for every good work, which in St. Paul's mind probably amounted to 'all' knowledge.

[quote]Did you know that Paul in Romans 3:23 is quoting Psalm 14 and in this context it is referring to those geniuses who say in their heart, “There is not God”. Unless Paul is quoting scripture out of context this is the context that he is using in Romans 3:23. [/quote] Since Rom 3:23 is one of the principle proof texts for original sin, do you want to say that only atheists have original sin?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]I think Mr. Kreeft is simply engaging in a bit of ecumenical sophistry, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.[/quote] Which is exactly, it would seem, what the Pope did in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 12 2004, 07:57 PM'] How the heck does this support purgatory? It says our sins our purged - and they are purged by Jesus' atonement, when we are justified by faith! [/quote]
Read the links I posted and you'll learn how.


[url="http://www.ianpaisley.net"]http://www.ianpaisley.net[/url] <- I cover it fully.

Purgatory takes does not take away from what Jesus did.

[color=red] be nice [/color]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/last_things.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/last_things.asp[/url]


Purgatory means to purge bro.

You are letting people who delight and are proud of their division take you down a road that can only lead to atheism.

You really need to remember things you learn. Every attack they tell you can be easily refuted. Then when they're refuted they move on the next subject and you forget about the one you just covered. If you would remember them, you would see that they contradict themselves.

Put your money where your mouth is... take the challenge that I have posted on the board if they are so right.... those that believe things that were not taught until 1517 AD. Those that think that the Church established by Christ lost it's way... that would mean that there is no God.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 13, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 12 2004, 06:07 PM'] Which is exactly, it would seem, what the Pope did in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. [/quote]
Agreed. By the way, did you see my debate challenge? It's a bit buried by now, but I'll bump it for you.

[conservativecatholic]

[color=blue][b]
11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.

12 Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:

13 Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Corinthians 3:11-15[/b][/color]

It seems to me that Purgatory is explained right here before your eyes. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the the suffering souls and not the testing of works.

[Winchester]

So one of your beeves with the Catholic church is that her apologists (not, so far as I know, an order in our Church) contradict each other?

Now, I'm going to skip the torso in favor of the achille's heel: how is this a beef with the Church, that her members in their personal explanations contradict each other? Is this unique to the Catholic plebeian?

[ladybug]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 4 2004, 03:34 PM'] I meant: Syncretistic lies such as the Immaculate Conception, flatly contradicted by Romans 3:23, and purgatory.

What I meant by saying that Rome has horribly mangled the Gospel is that she has mixed our works with Christ's righteousness and sayin that this mishmash of works-righteousness, combined with a few sacraments, will save us, rather than Faith in Christ and His cross. [/quote]

[b]Heb 10:26-27
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (NIV)[/b]

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

my invitation is still open for a one-on-one debate on the Immaculate Conception and how it relates to Rom 3:23. let me know if you would like to accept this offer.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Winchester]

bump

[CatholicAndFanatical]

*crickets*

[CatholicAndFanatical]

this is for the Immaculate Conception argument:


The Lord says that He "knew" Jeremias before he was formed in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say, of predestination: but He says that He "sanctified" him, not before formation, but before he "came forth out of the womb," etc. As to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John the Baptist there was not the spirit of life when there was already the Spirit of grace, by spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul, but the air which we breathe out [respiratus]. Or it may be said that in him as yet there was not the spirit of life, that is the soul, as to its manifest and complete operations.


If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"--(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written Wis. 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.

Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful."

Scripture Support
Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome everence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the "woman" that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary's offspring are those who keep God's commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary's offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

also, why is it so hard for someone to believe that God cannot make someone be born sinless?

Look at Adam and Eve, they were sinless before the fall.


Christ is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve - both sinless just like the beginning

not rocket science.

[Circle_Master]

3 comments...

1) Stop posting every time 'fire' comes up in Scripture to support purgatory. Use some research to figure out what the passage is speaking of first.

2) Romans 3:23 could allow a sinless woman, and in fact I'm not sure any Scripture *flatly* says without a doubt that Mary could have been sinless. Unfortunately however, I see no reason to believe she was sinless and so I choose to believe she was normal just like everyone else and "blessed among women" because of her role that was chosen.

3) Why am I always the enemy here? I am a student of Scripture and history and yet am always treated as an anti-Catholic. Some of you guys I remember fondly and I could even laugh at Ironmonk, yet I post and even after holding myself above reproach for months of constant intense debate you still question my integrity and motivations. I am not a Catholic Church because evidence points me away from that position, not because I am an anti-Catholic. I wish posts operated more on here like they do in theological journals. At least when you read those you can feel humor and scholarship instead of emotional lashing.

[Circle_Master]

And I am feeling frisky at the moment. If you want to debate the Immaculate Conception from Scripture make a separate thread and I'll see about putting a response together. I can tell you right now that on quite a few levels your first post is a bit weak.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:16 AM'] So one of your beeves with the Catholic church is that her apologists (not, so far as I know, an order in our Church) contradict each other?

Now, I'm going to skip the torso in favor of the achille's heel: how is this a beef with the Church, that her members in their personal explanations contradict each other? Is this unique to the Catholic plebeian? [/quote]
Well, the example that I gave specifically mentioned Peter Kreeft, who in turn mentioned an official Papal document, the "[i]Joint Declaration[/i]..." which essentially said the Reformation was a big misunderstanding and that Romanists and Lutherans teach the same thing about justification.

As for debating, I simply haven't the time for it at the moment. Wait till I get a bike (which should be soon), I'll be able to get here from work much faster.

By the way, is there any chance I could get that non-Catholic label changed when I find a new church (Probably Anglican, since as far as I can tell they maintain Reformed doctrine while remaining true to the Ancient Church in Liturgical matters and Ecclesiology)

Edited July 13, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jul 12 2004, 09:37 PM'] Agreed. [/quote]
So, you're saying what the Pope said in the Joint Declaration was wrong? Wouldn't this make you a heretic, in Catholic Church standards, for disobeying the Pope?