The Immaculate Conception Error

[Cassian]

valiant,

What a small idea about salvation you have. Justification is certainly an aspect of salvation, but it is only the commencement. Salvation involves the deliverance of the whole man.

Which is eternal life. Salvation of the whole man is not something that most Protestants understand because of their acceptance of Anselm's theory where salvation is deliverance from the wrath of God or hell.

Christ did not give life to all men. He OFFERED life to all men. Only those who believe and experience that life will be saved.

Which disagrees with scripture. From Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22, I Cor 15:52-54. I would imagine then that you do not believe in hell or that unbelievrrs go to hell. Life here is not eternal life. You have the two confused or at least conflated.

Christ gave life to all men so that He could offer eternal life to those that see and believe.

And is appropriated only by those who believe in Him for salvation.

Life is given to all men, and forgiveness of sin is only given to those who believe and confess those sins.

Nowhere in Scripture is salvation depicted as universal. Scripture is quite clear on the fact that the majority will perish. Only those who come to Christ for salvation will be saved.

That is because you are not using the correct scriptural definition of salvation. Christ saved us by His love, mercy and grace. He saved all men. All men suffered the result of Adam's sin, death, so all men are restored to life. That is what Christ did and man has nothing to do with it. The atonement was between Christ and God.

However, eternal life is what is offered to man individually.That is salvation from immaturity. Man becoming like Christ, working toward perfection IN Christ. It is the purpose of our existence, it was the requirement of Adam and it is still the same for us.

And committed to US the ministry of reconciliation. If all the world was reconciled there would be no need of a ministry of reconciliation. All that means (and it is a wonderful all) is that Jesus Christ has made reconciliation available to all if they will receive it. You greatly ERR.

Two different uses of the word reconciliation. One is between God and Christ, the other is between Christ and man. If the world was not reconciled through Christ, then we are all still going to perish, die and cease to exist. Read very carefully the import of Christ's resurrection in I Cor 15:12-22 with emphasis on vs 17. If what you say was true, then we are all still under the condemnation of death through Adam and Christ accomplished nothing. Your theology makes Him only a good teacher not a Savior.

LOL and ignore ALL the others? That is what you heretics do. But now at last the truth about you is laid bare. YOU ARE A UNIVERSALIST. No wonder you will not accept that we are all born sinners.

when in doubt make false assertions. Never can tell, it might work, but your ignorance is showing.

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Through His death He has opened up the possibility of salvation for the whole world. God has been propitiated for the world's sin. That is why He can allow us to live. But that propitiation does not apply to us INDIVIDUALLY unless we receive it. Remember that John went on to say, 'HE WHO HAS THE SON HAS LIFE, HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE SON DOES NOT HAVE LIFE.
Again he says, 'we know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brotherhood'. THUS OTHERS HAD NOT PASSED FROM DEATH TO LIFE. Indeed he calls them 'children of the Devil'.

You are very confused on the definition of Life and eternal life and the difference. Your whole theology ignores the fall as scripture details it then also the salvation from that fall.

As to Heb 2.9 Jesus did taste death for every man. But it is only as each one appropriates that death for himself through faith that he is saved. As he said, 'how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?'

How ironic. You claim I am a Universalist, yet, per scripture your statement above would be Universalism since all men apparently appropristed life through faith and thus will be raised in the last day. So, again, I need to assume hell does not exist in your theology. You do not believe in the resurrection of all the dead, only believers. How are unbelievers judged if they are not raised?

Faith does not give life, that is clearly what I Cor 15:17 is stating. It is all about the Resurrection of Christ. It is Christ that gave life to all men, defeated death, the power of Satan, Heb 2:14. Your conflation of terms makes your theology other than scriptural. Your theology is a direct denial of the Incarnation of Christ.

You need to restudy scripture without the obvious blinders and false bias regarding the atonement, salvation, difference between Life and Eternal life. Your theology has no thread of connection from the fall to salvation from that fall, and God's purpose in creating man, and the consummation of all things which is the end result of His resurrection.

You are a very long way from understanding scripture as it has always been understood from the beginning.

 

[valiant]

Valiant said - What a small idea about salvation you have. Justification is certainly an aspect of salvation, but it is only the commencement. Salvation involves the deliverance of the whole man.

valiant,

Which is eternal life.

There are two aspects of eternal life. Eternal life which we enjoy now having received life from Christ (John 5.24; 10.27; 1 John 5.12-13) and the future eternal life which is the life of the everlasting kingdom when we will be holy and without blemish.

Salvation of the whole man is not something that most Protestants understand because of their acceptance of Anselm's theory where salvation is deliverance from the wrath of God or hell.

LOL since when did Protestants follow Anselm? I suspect that Protestants understand a lot more than you do. You appear wrong on every point.

Christ did not give life to all men. He OFFERED life to all men. Only those who believe and experience that life will be saved.

Which disagrees with scripture. From Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22, I Cor 15:52-54.

you mean it disagrees with the way you distort Scripture? None of those Scriptures say what you want them to say.

Romans 5.18 merely says that through His obedience Christ has offered all men justification of life. It has 'come to' all of them as a free offer. 1 Cor 15 simply says that because Christ rose all who are His will one day rise. Notice that Paul differentiates 'those who are Christ's' from those who are not

1 Cor 15.52-54 is spoken of WE (Christians) and applies only to US.

 

[fordman]

Let's look at one or two shall we? I won't go through them all because my time is valuable, not to be wasted on this nonsense.



Wisdom 11.7 was talking about the children slain by the Egyptians in the time of Moses. So how is it a prophecy of what happened at Bethlehem?



But Sirach 29.11 says, 'bestow your treasures according to the commandments of the Most High.' It is NOTHING LIKE Matt 6.19-20. So you are LYING.



Tobit's statement is found in Greek philosophers and was also made by Hillel. It was ONLY Jesus Who made it a positive statement of action.


Sirach is saying that the fruit shows what husbandry has been carried out. That is very different from 'by their fruits you will know them.'




I wonder where Judith got it from? Try Numbers 27.17. So Jesus was citing Numbers (as Judith was as well)



Who both got it from Psalm 115.15. Besides we have no evidence that Jesus had read the Book of Tobit.





Jesus referred to the R EAL wisdom of Solomon, not to the title of a book, as the verses in question make clear. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
.


there is no similarity at all between the three accounts. you are just showing your desperation.



Funny and I thought it was from Daniel which Jesus actually STATED.



LOL they are nothing at all like each other. all Maccabees says is that the brothers fled into the mountains for refuge. that was the natural place to go

I think I have wasted enough time on this nonsense!!!

[FONT=Arial, serif]Ha...ha..Nonsence huh? Whom or what is your authority to come to theseconclusions Valleyant? Are we supposed to take your personalopinions/interpretations of Scripture as infalliable, absolute, andwithout error?? Now thats nonsence! Now if you are to say the HolySpirit is your authority, I'd have to wonder how many othernon-Catholics on this site agree with your interpretation ofScripture 100%? My guess would be not to many. I'd be willing to bettheir interpretation (also supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit)differ's from yours. Which brings up the next question, who'sinspiration of the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret Scripture isinfalliable, absolute and without error, and who's is not? [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]Valleyant, until you can prove that your opinions/interpretations ofthese passages (or any other for that matter) are absolute andwithout error, thats all they are, your personalopinions/interpretations, nothing more. However, as I stated before,all is not lost. with your personal opinions/interpretations alongwith "three and six", you may be able to get yourself anorder of fish and chips at Piccadilly Circus. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, serif]PaxChristi[/FONT]

 

[valiant]

Ha...ha..Nonsence huh? Whom or what is your authority to come to theseconclusions Valleyant? Are we supposed to take your personalopinions/interpretations of Scripture as infalliable, absolute, andwithout error?? Now thats nonsence! Now if you are to say the HolySpirit is your authority, I'd have to wonder how many othernon-Catholics on this site agree with your interpretation ofScripture 100%? My guess would be not to many. I'd be willing to bettheir interpretation (also supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit)differ's from yours. Which brings up the next question, who'sinspiration of the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret Scripture isinfalliable, absolute and without error, and who's is not?


Valleyant, until you can prove that your opinions/interpretations ofthese passages (or any other for that matter) are absolute andwithout error, thats all they are, your personalopinions/interpretations, nothing more. However, as I stated before,all is not lost. with your personal opinions/interpretations alongwith "three and six", you may be able to get yourself anorder of fish and chips at Piccadilly Circus.


PaxChristi

Am I to gather that you have gone quite mad? It seems so to me.

The Roman Catholic churches so called revelations from the Holy Spirit are so ridiculous that they are excluded even from even being seen as possibly tenable. They are the proof of a still decadent church. I would rather trust anyone but them.

But you see you misunderstand how the Holy Spirit works. He applies to individuals individual Scriptures. Thus His applications are many and variable.

This idea that God needs to be bound by a rigid list of doctrines is Satanic. God is above and beyond that. Your problem is that your God is too small. You forget that we are not dealing with some tiny god under the control of the Roman Catholic church. We are dealing with the living God Who reveals Himself to individuals through revelation. There are in fact very few doctrines which are central to being a Christian, and we are all agreed on those..

 

[Cassian]

Valiant,

There are two aspects of eternal life. Eternal life which we enjoy now having received life from Christ (John 5.24; 10.27; 1 John 5.12-13) and the future eternal life which is the life of the everlasting kingdom when we will be holy and without blemish.

which does not make the distinction between Life and eternal life. All you are stating is that our membership is both present tense and future.

LOL since when did Protestants follow Anselm? I suspect that Protestants understand a lot more than you do. You appear wrong on every point.

You should do a study of Anselm's theory of atonement. It is stated quite consistantly within all theologies of protestantism. Protestants should understand their own theologies better than I, but you have yet to show that any Protestant interpretation of scripture as it was always understood from the beginning.

you mean it disagrees with the way you distort Scripture? None of those Scriptures say what you want them to say.

but all you have is another assertion. Present the scriptures that clearly explain Christ did not become man, that Christ did not rise from the dead. What text can you produce that denies Rom 5:18, or I Cor 15: 12-22, or II Cor 5:18-19, or Col 1:15-20, or John 6:39 or Acts 24:15, or Rev 20:13.

The point is that you cannot show any evidence that what I have stated is not true.

Romans 5.18 merely says that through His obedience Christ has offered all men justification of life.

the word "offer" is no where to be found in that text or context. It is not found in I Cor 15:12-22 either. It is not found in Heb 2:9 or II Tim 1:10 either.

I think that is called twisting or adding to scripture to fit a false view.

It has 'come to' all of them as a free offer.

not found there or anywhere else in scripture either. More twisting.

1 Cor 15 simply says that because Christ rose all who are His will one day rise. Notice that Paul differentiates 'those who are Christ's' from those who are not

If you like that then unbelievers, who the text says are part of "all the dead" will not be raised. Thus if the dead are not raised, then neither did Christ arise from the dead. You have eliminated Christ as Savior and relegated Him to a mere human being who died.

1 Cor 15.52-54 is spoken of WE (Christians) and applies only to US.

Nice twist again. The whole chapter is referencing mankind. It only separates believer in the negative in verse 18. The resurrection is the last day is ALL THE DEAD. We, being part of humanity, will ALL BE CHANGED, WILL BECOME IMMORTAL AN INCORRJUPTIBLE.

You have rejected the teaching of scripture but you still have not addressed your problem within your own theology of how unbelievers then will be resurrected, judged and that hell exists.

Instead of trying to refute both scripture and historical facts, why not attempt to at least explain what you believe even if it is not scriptural.

 

[Magenta]

Ha...ha..Nonsence huh? Valleyant

Valleyant

PaxChristi

Yes, you pax Christi at the end of your posts is nonsense given your attitude. Are you still perpetrating and perpetuating a pretense of not being derogatory?

 

[Cassian]

Am I to gather that you have gone quite mad? It seems so to me.

The Roman Catholic churches so called revelations from the Holy Spirit are so ridiculous that they are excluded even from even being seen as possibly tenable. They are the proof of a still decadent church. I would rather trust anyone but them.

But you see you misunderstand how the Holy Spirit works. He applies to individuals individual Scriptures. Thus His applications are many and variable.

This idea that God needs to be bound by a rigid list of doctrines is Satanic. God is above and beyond that. Your problem is that your God is too small. You forget that we are not dealing with some tiny god under the control of the Roman Catholic church. We are dealing with the living God Who reveals Himself to individuals through revelation. There are in fact very few doctrines which are central to being a Christian, and we are all agreed on those..

Then why object to Roman Catholicism or any other sola scriptura derived view, even Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. If the Holy Spirit gives multiple views of salvation, then who are you to object to any other view. Nice warm, fuzzy, humanistic view that would be very psychologically pleasing to most men.

Hardly the Gospel as witnessed through the scriptures however.

 

[valiant]

Then why object to Roman Catholicism or any other sola scriptura derived view, even Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. If the Holy Spirit gives multiple views of salvation, then who are you to object to any other view. Nice warm, fuzzy, humanistic view that would be very psychologically pleasing to most men.

Hardly the Gospel as witnessed through the scriptures however.

you should keep quiet. Then we might not realise what a fool you are.

 

[Cassian]

you should keep quiet. Then we might not realise what a fool you are.

I think this statement fits your previous one very well.

 

[KenAllan]

Lets reason together. No error you say fordman?

Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

You fordman insist that what we show you in the Scriptures has to be free of any error. We have shown you and others that everybody is a sinner that nobody is righteous and this also includes Mary.

But yet your interpretation of the Scriptures is full of errors, like Mary being born without sin.

Its you fordman who are interpreting the Scriptures with error. Therefore what you say fordman is ONLY your personal opinion!

Its you fordman who misinterprets the Scriptures according to the god of this World.

The authority here IS from God fordman.

Matthew 15:8-9 (ESV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
[SUP]9 [/SUP] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

In Vain you Worship God fordman because you teach the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate conception! Mary's Immaculate conception is from the commandments of men, not from God!

Its you fordman who is totally wrong in what you preach.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

you should keep quiet. Then we might not realise what a fool you are.

I think this statement fits your previous one very well.

Yes it sums you up nicely

 

[KenAllan]

Its the fool who says no to God to follow Mary!

 

[onlinebuddy]

if it has conscience as a basic ability that is enough to condemn it.

Nope! A child does have a conscience (no doubt about it), but God does not count their sin against them till they reach a certain age, which only God knows. This is evident from Deut 1:39.

The above statement indicates that you seem to be bent on condemning children(although you won't openly say it) because it favors your false doctrine of OS. Salvation of children is deliberately put aside as a grey area by you, when the Bible clearly indicates that children are innocent. The moment you agree that children are innocent, it would destroy your false doctrine of OS.

 

[onlinebuddy]

The conscience either develops or grows weak as a result of a person's understanding of Godly truths.
sooooo?

So....the point I am making is that God gives us the basic ability to know good and evil. Our actions can either develop that ability, or destroy it.

Nothing happens automatically. No one's sin get imputed to anyone just by design, or automatically. We are responsible and accountable for the condition of our own hearts. We need to own up, and not blame someone else!

 

[onlinebuddy]

The conscience requires understanding, which babies and handicapped persons do not possess.

how can you possibly know what conscience 'requires'?

What is the purpose of conscience, if we do not understand what it requires????? Only the wicked (which you identify with) do not know what their consciences require, because they are not in line with the Word of God. Therefore they are more in tune with the flesh, and submit to its desires as in Romans 7.

BTW, my point was that people with mental disabilities may neither fully understand or choose, the way we can. Why even argue about this obvious fact? ...unless one wants to twist the truth in one's favor.

 

[onlinebuddy]

One has to know (or possess knowledge and understanding of) the good that they ought to do (James 4:17) in order for their consciences to be considered as violated.

how can you possibly deny that they do know?

How can you possibly believe that they (children) do know? If you read the Bible, you will see that God treated children differently, because He considered them not to know the difference between good and evil[Deut 1:39].

Some are implying that babies and the handicapped are doomed. However, they won't say it openly, because they will be smoked for it! This attitude becomes obvious because they pounce on anyone who believes that babies are innocent (without sin) and saved (or safe).

In order to support their false belief of OS, they make babies to be the most wicked creatures on earth, and yet they claim that these "wicked creatures" are safe! This is the irony: they say babies "wicked" and yet "safe," when the Bible says that the wicked are doomed!

Psalms 58 talks about the wicked that will be annihilated and avenged by God, yet proponents of the doctrine of Original Sin say it is babies who are being referred to in the chapter.
So according to them, babies are "wicked" and yet "not guilty" and therefore are "safe." Absurd! Thus they pervert the very basic logic that the Bible offers.

 

[onlinebuddy]

The same can be true of an adult in whom the Word of God is planted. If he does not understand the Word that was sown in his heart, it will be snatched away by the evil one[Mt 13:19]. That's why understanding is important. [Prov 4:7]

you have destroyed your own case. You have greed that conscience without understanding condemns.

My case is as strong as ever! You are twisting my words in order to declare yourself the winner! Conscience without understanding does not condemn, as babies have consciences, but lack understanding. So God will treat them differently, as he did in Deut 1:39. Why are you so bent on condemning?

 

[onlinebuddy]

A child has no knowledge of good or evil[Deut 1:39].

Of course it has. the 'little ones' God was speaking of were up to 20 lol .

Just proves my point. Even if there were 19 year old youngsters, God treated them differently from the remaining adults.

It was merely saying that they were not old enough to judge that particular situation as to whether to enter the land

You are wrong!
Read Deut 1:39 again.
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
What God means is clear, and is different from what you twist it to be.

 

[onlinebuddy]

Although they have the basic knowledge to know right from wrong, they do not know enough for sin to be imputed to(counted against) them by God.

I am amazed that you have such confident knowledge about something that no one else with any sense would be dogmatic about. Do you tell God what to do?

I don't know for sure, what happens to babies. But this I know: that God has treats children differently, as he did in Deut 1:39.
I am not dogmatic about it, because whether or not babies are saved does not affect my destiny. Whether or not babies are "wicked," does not affect my destiny.

However, it affects your core beliefs. If you accept the truth, that babies are not wicked, it would make your doctrine of Original Sin crumble. Therefore you somehow try to make a failed attempt to prove that babies are wicked, that too by using a few poetic verses that are not consistent with scripture. So you are the one who dogmatic about the fact that babies are wicked.

 

[onlinebuddy]

Therefore God did not impute (consider, count, reckon) sin to them in Deut 1:39, and let them enter the promised land. So who are we to call them wicked?

THey died didn't they? LOL

They died later, because of Adam's sin, due to which mortality came to all men. Although they may have been teenagers, God did not count them as wicked, and allowed them to pass over into the promised land. However, you are bent on calling children wicked. The wicked are punishable, and this view is consistent in scripture.

There was only ONE sin He did not account to them.

You are again unnecessarily bringing up the sin of Adam. Adam's sin is not at all in the picture here, but you will drag it into every scene. No wonder it has affected the way you view the truth!

It was the individual sin of rebellion that stopped the other adults from crossing over to the promised land. The young children and teenagers, had no doubt committed other personal willful sin. They may even have been participating with their parents in their idolatry and rebellion. However, they lacked understanding of the gravity of the situation. They were therefore excused and allowed to enter the promised land, and God did not put them under any obligation of his commands. We see that God treated them differently, and with grace.

Nobody is asking you to make a judgment about the salvation of little children. If you have experienced grace, at least treat children with kindness.