I think he's equating "perish" with hell. We are, however, free from "the law" of Moses by the Sacrifice of Jesus.
So you agree we have a fallen nature? Did I say He wasn't fully human? If I did, it was a mistake. He was 100% man, yet 100% God. He was tempted yet did not sin.
Yes. I agree we have a fallen nature through inheriting Original Sin. How did Jesus not inherit Original Sin?
He inherited a sinful nature in that He could be tempted, yet not sin. As christians we can be tempted and not sin, yet we still have a sinful nature. Once again this is my belief, I believe in Total Depravity.
I don't believe the idea that Jesus inherited a sinful nature is in line with Calvinist theology. If this is what you believe--how did this man Jesus avoid sin? It's contrary to "Total Depravity" (that is, if Jesus is believed to be fully man).
I don't know how He avoided sin, If I knew that, I would market the formula!!! Remember an arminian actually coined calvin's stance as total depravity, but I'll stick with it. If Jesus was born with "total depravity....I don't know. Can we stick deut 29:29 here?
I think what you are seeing is the problem with the belief in "total depravity" and the lack of belief in the immaculate conception.
I'll answer your question with a question. Does being quoted in the New Testament equal canonicity? Do you see where that thinking is headed?
Kmisho, people can be guilty of rejecting the internal witness of Christ. Creation itself testifies of God so that men are without excuse. Read Romans chapter 1 to flesh this out.
It would be interesting to know what Calvin himself thought of this since he taught that the sin nature is all encroaching. It seems like he would support the immaculate conception as the only way to circumvent the transfer of original sin. Of course, Calvin also believed that Mary was ever-virgin, something that his followers fully reject.
True. I was looking at it like he was saying if one never hears of Jesus, one can't reject Him, so it would be better not to tell them. But you make a good point that even if they don't know His Name, they can know him in their hearts--or reject him in their hearts.
Interesting that you would say that! We know he accepted her title as "Mother of God," and her "Perpetual Virginity." In what he says about Mary as the Mother of God, he comes very close to recognizing it!
You can save your advice for another. Though Im sure its 'well meaning'. I asked for a quote, because I do not see anything in those pages that says what you say it does. If you can find a quote in those pages, please show it. First you might check p.102 top of right column and see what subject matter you are in. Pages 102-104 deal with the New Testament canon. If I am not mistaken, we are discussing Roman Catholic Apocrypha. And that is only in the Old Testament. Unless you want to try and say Roman Catholics should included the New Testament apocrypha as well. Is that it? Im sure you will have to discuss that with your Church leaders. I for one am glad they did not include New Testament Apocrypha. Quantrill
Total Depravity was never used by Calvin, only his detrators. I use it to help me remember the acronym. I can't think of a better word, or words, to describe the concept in Romans 3:9-18. I do believe in the immaculate conception, just not perpetual virginity. I know that goes against Calvin, but once again he's a man, and definetly fallible. So we've been questioning my thoughts on the sin nature of Christ, what are yours?
It's at the bottom of page 103 and goes on to page 104 as I said in the first place. Ah-HA! Exactly. The Protestant acceptance of the NT based on Hippo is interesting, since that SAME COUNCIL also stated the OT books you (and Metzger) call "apocryphal" are part of the official canon! Hmmmm....curious, isn't it, that the Protestants accept the NT canon, but not the OT canon... Can you explain that? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Are you asking if I think the "None is righteous, no, not one;" of verse 10 includes Jesus? No, not at all--and I also don't think it includes Mary, either. Let me tell you why: #1 Paul is talking about the necessity of "the law"--meaning the Mosaic Law--in salvation history. With the Incarnation of Jesus (occurring in the womb of Mary), the Mosaic Law becomes moot since Salvation is through Jesus. #2 Mary was preserved from Original Sin at her conception by the Grace of God (thus Mary is greeted by the angel Gabriel with "Hail Mary, full of grace!~ or as some interpretations render it "highly favored one"). Mary did not bear the attraction to sin that comes with being born with a nature warped by OS and by perfect obedience (called her "fiat"--her "yes" to God's will) she was the perfect vessel to give birth to the "New Adam" and she remained without sin her whole life. #3 Mary was the first one "saved" by Jesus--She was not "under the law"--Jesus was born without Original Sin, and therefore not "under the law." Paul was referring specifically to Jews, but by extension everyone, arguing that what matters is a "circumcised" heart of obedience to God--not the Mosaic Law. Perfect obedience--exactly what was demonstrated by Jesus, and by Mary's fiat.
Your talking about the New Testament. We are discussing the Aprocrypha that is part of Roman Catholocism. That is Old Testament only. In other words, p. 103-104 dont pertain to it. The Old Testament canon was already set by the Jews of Israel. The Old Testament apocrypha were rejected by the Jews of Israel. Rejected by Jerome who translated the Septuigent into Latin. Yet the Roman Church, 29 years after Luthor, at the council of Trent , decreed the Aprocrypha as authoritative Scripture. Only because they needed it to fight the Protestants. It makes no sense that you do not acknowledge your mistake. Quantrill
You just proved you are not referring to the book because it specifically SAYS "Old Testament apocrypha" there... Here ya go, honey.... [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Bible-Companions/dp/0195046455"]Amazon.com: The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford Companions) (978019504645: Bruce M. Metzger, Michael David Coogan: Books[/ame] (click on "Look Inside" and then put "Hippo" in the search box and go to 103-104). Should I wait for you to acknowledge YOUR mistake? ....we'll see...
In it's beginning there was absolutely no scripture, or at least no New Testament. There where no formal documents on the Christian Faith. All you had where the teachings of Jesus that he had preached to the Apostles and others. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, d and behold I am with you always to the close of the age."- Matthew 28:19-20 Tradition was needed for the Apostles to spread the Gospel. Tradition was also needed to know what scriptures where valid and which where not.
The Scripture is Romans 2:[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. This leads into The discussion you cited in Romans 3. The context is clear that he is talking to Jews who want to exclude Gentiles. YOU cited it in an earlier post. Both the greeting of Mary by Gabrial (Luke 2) and the also in Romans, though a little further on in Chapter 5, Paul states that Adam was a "type" of Christ testify to this reading. Further, in 1Cor.15 [21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death. .......... [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. The Romans stuff above explains it, I think.
Faith and morals and the teaching of the Apostles does not change. Fashion and practice can change with culture, but the Truth doesn't change. Why do you think the Church gets such guff for being "out of touch" with the contracepting anti-life secular culture?
Thesis: The attempt of the CC to represent itself as a keeper of tradition is, speaking by catholic language, at least questionable; speaking by Luther’s language it is retard. Proof : 1. Luther and Co (Philipp Melanchthon , intellectual leader) were Catholics and keepers of the tradition. It started as a theological discourse of men with men within the CC, not anything which had been unheard of. Luther and Co were professors of theology and keepers of the tradition. These arê the points nailed by Luther: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html This is the current official claim of the CC regarding the matter of indulgences. “’In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man…..And, as God's forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were. “’ C-cs can twist it as they want, but the truth is that Luther’s claims are rooted in real failures of those men who are claimed by C-s to be the keepers. You cannot know what would be the present and the next failure you are following during your short life. You cannot shift the blame on those who’ve deceived you because you have the word of G-d to follow. (quoting John) 2. You cannot claim that the oral tradition is infallible when even written documents had been rejected as questionable and not included, for the reason that if you are not sure, you better skip it (Occam's theological argument widely known as rasor). Then, however brilliant Aquinas was he still was a fat man. Interpretations of a fat man the CC claims as Apostolic traditions can be questioned. 3. Eastern Orthodox may claim to be more traditional or at least no less traditional, yet they don’t have indulgences. Russian Orthodox has beatifully existed without indulgences; thus the concept itself is questionable not only by Protestants. Thus we don't know who is the real keeper and traditionalist and who has screwed up. SCHOLIUM ( Let’s say indulgence appeals to a relief of fear of punishment but ’’ Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.’’ A Xn is not driven by fear of punishement or death, because the latter can as well drive an atheist or a murderer and can be experienced/understood by an atheist. A Xn is driven by the experience of perfect love. If a Xn can think of any “fear” it is only “fear” of loosing this experience of love, like a sane man would fear to become a mental retard more than death.)
