Jeronie Frias: “Jesus and Mary were sinless…” whose teaching is this that Mary is sinless?
BFHU: This is taught by the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
JF:There’s no verse anywhere else in the Scriptures that says Mary is sinless.
Are you aware that you are clinging to a Protestant tradition? There is no verse in Sacred Scripture that says all religious truth must be found explicitly in Scripture.
So we all believe in things that are not in Scripture. Your belief in Sola Scriptura was begun about 500 years ago. And it never would have taken hold if it was not begun after the printing press was invented which made Bibles more available and reading became more common. Before that most people were dependant upon the oral teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
However the Catholic Church has believed in the sinlessness of Mary since the beginning. Even Martin Luther believed in Mary’s sinlessness see my post HERE
JF: In fact she callled out to her God, her ‘Savior’.
And He certainly was her savior click HERE
JF:Why do you consider Mary as sinless?
Please see this post HERE
JF:Why do you equate Mary to Jesus?
We absolutely do not equate Mary with or to Jesus. Jesus is Divine. Mary is a mere human. Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature, Jesus and Mary were also conceived and born without a sin nature. Adam and Eve sinned. Jesus and Mary did not sin. That does not make her divine. She is fully human exactly as God intended all mankind to be. But due to the sin of our first parents, mankind is fallen.
JF:(Jesus) has shed His blood for man’s salvation? Certainly it’s not Mary.
Not sure what you mean by, Certainly it’s not Mary.
If you mean “Mary did not shed her blood for man’s salvation” …that is true of course.
Filed under: immaculate conception, Mary
I think this is a false teaching.. The bible is quite clear that all men have SINNED and fallen short of God’s glory.
Romans 3:23
Jesus said himself
Luke 7:28
I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Mary was born of woman and John was greater than her.
I am interested in your response to this.
Brandon,
This appears to be false teaching to you and many Protestants because of what you have been taught. But for 1500 years all Christians believed in Mary’s immaculate conception, even Martin Luther!!!
The Christians who gave us the cannon of scripture, the Christians who were martyred for their faith during the infancy of the Christianity, the same Church who defended the Doctrine of the Trinity against the heretics, these all believed and taught the immaculate conception of Mary.
How is it logical, that 2000 years later you are so certain that what the Church has always believed is false teaching? By what or who’s authority is this change to the beliefs or our ancient Church thrown out?
As for “all have sinned”. This is a generalization not an absolute statement or else we would be unable to claim sinlessness for Jesus. He was a man. So, since we both agree that Jesus is an exception, then exceptions are possible and therefore there could logically also be an exception for Mary.
Regarding the Luke 7:28 passage Jesus was also born of woman. Would you also assert that John is greater than Jesus?
Dear bfhu,
Greetings in the name of Christ. Please think about these things:
Romans 3:23 says “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” The reason Jesus is exempt from this is because He is God. He is the one in whom comparison everyone else has fallen short of. Everyone, everyone, has fallen short of the eternal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Paul did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, and neither did any of the other epistle writers. Why would God the Holy Spirit, author of the Bible, allow something so important to be left out of the New Testament. Why, in the epistles, would Paul never outline devotion to Mary as an essential and available part of the Christian faith?
I think part of your argument rests on the fact that the church teaches this. Does that make it true? Is the church infallible? The lessons we can take away from the epistles is that churches are made of people, and people make mistakes. Most of the epistles are Paul correcting churches – churches he had overseen and started! – from false doctrines they had fallen into very quickly. These people had the Apostles and the churches still suffered from ignorance of the Bible and “adding” on to the gospel they had received.
Is their one true church of Christ? A church, like the old song, is the people. It’s the people, their bibles, and Jesus as High Priest. So, in a way, every generation brings a new church. But that’s besides the point. If the church has developed a sinful tradition of raising Mary to a high position, attaching sinlessness to her, and calling her the Queen of Heaven, asking HER to pray for sinners (looking to Mary for salvation) – these qualities are too similar to the real qualities of Jesus Christ – He was sinless, He is the King of Heaven and Earth, He alone calls sinners to God, and He alone is our mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). God has provided everything!
Why pray to Mary, or venerate her, when we can pray to Jesus, and truly worship Him? Please, do not object simply because the church teaches differently. Prayerfully search your heart, read the Bible, and ask for the truth that God is ready to share.
God bless, I hope this is thought-provoking. I write to you not as a Catholic or a Protestant, but as a brother in Christ.
Nathan
Hello. Is this not the exact reason that people came to America to get away from the Catholic church? As for your comment about being unable to claim sinlessness for Jesus, that is completely unfounded because it states expressly in Scripture that Jesus is one with the Father, yet completely human. God is perfect. Therefore, Jesus is the one perfect man because He is God.
Pilgrims came to escape persecution. I did not make a comment that Jesus was NOT sinless. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Jesus was sinless.
That’s very a very irresponsible thing to say. The first pilgrims were mainly puritans who left because they were persecuted by the Protestant Church of England. Catholic pilgrims would follow to avoid persecution by Protestants in Europe.
Well, if you say that is true…. {But for 1500 years all Christians believed in Mary’s immaculate conception, even Martin Luther!!! } then isn’t also true that ” for almost 2000 years, all Christians/nonbelievers, believed that the EARTH not the sun, was the center of the solar system/universe???” And well, we ALL know how that theory turned out… which brings me to this conclusion:
Immaculate Conception = a THEORY
Jesus = The Way, The Truth and The Life.
Unless you point to a single line in scripture that specifically says “Mary was without sin” then all you have is a theory, plain and simple, not truth, just a THEORY.
Jesse,
I reject your assertion that unless something is found specifically in scripture it is nothing more than a THEORY.
And for this reason:
There is not a single scripture that defines the Holy Trinity.
There is not a single scripture that lists the books that should be in the Bible.
And for Protestants:
There is not a single scripture that says the Bible and only the Bible contains all religious Truth–The doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
There is not a single scripture that says salvation is by Faith alone.
You have fallen for the Protestant habit of hypocrisy; which is to apply a standard to the Catholic Church (in order to prove she is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself) but never apply that same standard to Protestant beliefs. Both Catholics and Protestants have doctrines and beliefs that CAN NOT BE FOUND EXPLICITLY IN SCRIPTURE. Therefore, one must decide who to trust: The Catholic Church which defined the doctrine of the Trinity and canonized the New Testament, founded by Jesus on Peter and the Blessed Apostles 2000 years ago or one the the thousands of Protestant denominations founded by various men , a mere 40 (Chuck Smith-Calvary Chapels) to 500 years ago Martin Luther.
first of all for this generalization you are talking about is not generalization if it were it would say in the bible in general all have sinned when it clearly states that all have sinned an fallen short jesus is the only exception for he is the son of god and since all scripture is god inspired 2 timothy 3;16 and can not lie no were in the bible does it say that mary jesus mother was sinless but it does say 1 peter 2;21-22 this is all scriptural if it not in the holy bible then you are only assuming that Mary was sinless unless it is in the bible it is not scripturaly True Therfore it is a lie you are being told to keep you from the truth because the devil is the father of lies if its not in the bible as teaching it is False this is why protestant and catholic cant get along because of this and other lies i urge you friend to read the bible for yourself if its not in it its not true doctrine . We need to stop this fighting and get are heads together and unite catholic and protestant under one flag jesus christ because he is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but by him john14.6 because what happens when the enemy attacks he divides an conquers and this is what the devil has done so we need to unite and overthrow the ruler of this world satan.Amen Brother if anyone would like too exchange email or info or want to chat here is my email stuarty2981@gmail.com
Dear Roy,
All, as in absolutely all, have not sinned. We all have a fallen nature but it just is not true that an infant can actually, willfully sin. Jesus was fully man and He did not sin. So we have an exception…many exceptions if you count all babies….so there is no reason to be so sure that Mary did sin, except b/c Protestants are always Protest-ing the Catholic Church.
All Scripture is inspired. No doubt about it. But neither this verse nor any other verses in scripture support the recent doctrinal invention known as Sola Scriptura.
Protestants are always trying to tell Catholics that their beliefs are not in Scripture but this preeminent, Protestant, foundational belief is NO WHERE to be found in Scripture, either. So it is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.
It is perfectly logical for Mary to have been a Virgin and to have been Immaculate at her conception. Why? She was to be the God-bearer. God the Son could not have been conceived in a sinful womb. She had to have been without original sin just like Eve was before the fall. Mary, by her acceptance, became the new Eve.
I had trouble with all that for a long time, being raised a Southern Baptist, but now I see and experience the fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ and the Church he founded. He said the Gates of Hell would not prevail and they haven’t and the Church has been through some rough times.
Churches that were founded 1400-1500 years after the Catholic Church, meaning universal, have only this to stand on; they were mad, upset, chose to follow someone else and broke away or saw political and economic gain. Was Luther wrong in condeming abuses? Absolutely, but even he had no intention to leave the Catholic Church, but got caught up in a political malestrom and succumbed to political and economic pressure. People, now, are putting their own personal interpretations above the authority of Christ’s own Church, the tradition and teaching authority carried own from the apostles. It’s still, over 2000years later, ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH folks. Please take a close, educated and unbiased look. Read David Currie’s book Born Fundamentalist,Born Again Catholic or Scott Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home before you answer.
It is grace to Mary that she bears Jesus. She bears Jesus because she is God-fearer not sinless.
It is a grace to Mary that she was created without sin in order to bear the second person of the Holy Triniy.
In this way she was made perfecly Holy in order to contain that which is All Holy—God Incarnate…a great mystery.
I’ve read a lot of apostolic fathers, and I’ve never come across any reference to an “immaculate conception” for centuries after the gospels were written. The doctrine of “original sin” as you understand it wasn’t even defined until St. Augustine, so no one defined a doctrine that said that Mary was exempt from “original sin” before then. How could they? The concept of “original sin” didn’t exist.
You’re dishonest when you say that all Christians believed in the immaculate conception prior to the Reformation. Catholics are always claiming that their doctrines have always existed in the Church, and were merely “defined” at some point in time by the Vatican, but that isn’t so. I’ve just proven it in regards to the immaculate conception.
Your posts regarding the nature of the Church as “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic” and “sola scriptura” are also flawed. There wasn’t “one church” until the Reformation. Are you not aware of the Coptic Church, the Syrian-Jacobite Church, the Mar Thomas Church of India, the Assyrian Church of the East, or the various Orthodox bodies? All of these Churches date back to the early Christian centuries – the claim of the Orthodox Church is arguably better than the claim of the Roman Catholic Church, since the Orthodox Church has maintained the earlier form of the Nicene Creed and has made fewer doctrinal innovations from the early Christian era. The Church was fractured into pieces long before Luther or Calvin step foot on the scene. You’re just being obtuse or hoping that poorly-educated Protestants won’t notice your over-simplification of Church history.
I agree that the gospel was originally transmitted via oral teaching. Does that mean that the church can proclaim teachings that aren’t in the Bible? If that were so, then why did the church fathers label the Bible the “canon,” which means the MEASURE, and why did they limit the canon to the writings of the apostolic era? They clearly believed that the Church had no authority to innovate new doctrines, and that the writings of the apostles were authoritative. (Note – you’ll claim that the Nicene fathers already believed many Catholic doctrines, but this is largely false. “Priests” were just understood as presbyters back then, since the word is literally just a contraction of “presbyter,” and the word “priest” hadn’t yet acquired its shamanistic connotations. The fact that the church had “priests” doesn’t mean they believed what you believe – that’s just linguistic slight of hand.) If they understood the Bible as authoritative, then the doctrines of the church certainly can’t contradict the Bible. There have been times when people have speculated about doctrines and failed to notice how their speculations conflicted with scripture, but that doesn’t mean that scripture is not authoritative over these speculations.
If your theory regarding scripture were true, there never would have been a “canon” in the first place. Christian scriptures would resemble the scriptural traditions of Mahayana Buddhism, which has a sprawling library of books that can always be added to, and includes many books from later spiritual masters besides the Buddha. There would be no “Bible.” Writings like the Clementine Epistles, Shepherd of Hermas, St. Augustine’s City of God, Justin Martyr’s apologetic series, and others would stand beside Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as full scripture.
I’m glad you find the RCC a more congenial spiritual home than the SBC. But I think you’ve jumped out of the frying pan in the deep fryer! If you were dissatisfied with the dogmatism, illogical teachings, and anti-intellectualism of the Southern Baptists, you aren’t going to find anything better in the RCC. For a while, you’re going to be fascinated by the deft semantic games that Catholic theologians play, the effortless way they equivocate the definitions of words to reach these elaborate and over-wrought doctrinal conclusions…you’ll be dazzled by the merger of religious and ethnic traditions, which gives you a church with a history of cuisine, artistry, and architecture that probably seems rich and fascinating compared to your Southern Baptist roots…but eventually, you’re going to realize the truth. The truth is this – no one can take your to Jesus or give you a relationship with God through Christ but YOU. All any church can do is point you to the door. The sooner you realize this, the better. Then you’ll stop trying to get right with God through religious organizations like the SBC or the RCC and start being open to God wherever you are right now. When you understand that, you’ll see how silly you’ve been.
Amen. Interesting he did not reply to this post… Do you have a blog or anything related to religion I can read? Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I never said I was dissatisfied with the SBC churches, I wasn’t. I had no intention of returning to the Catholic Church after a 40 year absence, but God had other plans for me and all my Baptist friends KNOW without ANY DOUBT that it was the movement of the Holy Spirit in my life that called me back. They affirm that call in my life. I have letters from them attesting to that fact. We still pray together and pray for each other, Yes, I do ask Mary and all the Saints to intercede for me, my family and my friends in prayer, just like I ask my family and my friends to do for me and others. My Baptist friends email me with their prayer requests and I do pray for them and send my prayer requests to them.
I have a more deeply personal relationship with Jesus Christ, now, than I ever have had. I am more open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit than I have ever been. I’m very sorry if I struck a nerve, which I must have done for you to repsond in such a mean spirited manner , calling me silly and to comment on my own personal realationship with Jesus Christ when you don’t know me. All you know of me is how inartfully I may express myself. Pax Christi
Actually, the immaculate conception was not believed for 1500 years. Read historical texts. The Catholic Church we see now did not form until the 7th or 8ith century, the same time the papacy formed. From around 1100 to 1500 AD a majority of priests had never read the bible, including Martin Luther. The Reformation had early beginnings in the 12th century with John Wycliffe and John Huss but they were burned for “Heresy.” The idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin did not come about until the 4th century with a handful of monks who abhored sex and saw it as evil. Augustine and another monk argued vehemently over whether or not Jesus’ brothers were from Mary and Joseph or from Joseph in a previous marriage. Protestantism is a very innacurate term that should not be applied to all non-catholic denominations. The catholic church itself is divided and has been for over a thousand years. Eastern Orthodox is actually older than the Roman Catholic Church. Read history people and you will discover truths.
Yay! I like your response. Do you have any books you would recommend on the history of churches? Or the history of catholicism? It is all very interesting to me.
If you say that Mary is sinless, do you also believe she is a mediator for you to God?
Dear Amanda,
Mary intercedes for us to her Son. In that way she is a mediator. But all of us are mediators also who pray for our friends and loved ones.
Again… provide ACTUAL scripture to support your THEORY that Mary is any way, shape or form a mediator between us and Jesus?
To “mediate” is by definition: ” to form a connecting link between”.
That is Jesus’ role, to be that connecting link between man/woman/child and God. Jesus specifically states this…
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” -John 14:6
Jesus also dimisses Mary as being His mother:
And his mother and His brothers came, and standing outside they sent to Him and called Him. And a crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are outside, seeking You.”
Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?”
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” -Mark 3: 31-35
His family even (mother and brother’s) even thought he was crazy, so obviously, how could Mary be sinless if she herself denied her Son’s deity:
And when His family heard it, they went out to seize Him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” -Mark 3:21
Clearly Jesus’s family includes His mother and brothers, for it states in verse 31 that ” And His mother and His bothers came…”
By claiming He was crazy, they denied his deity and therefore, sinned. And if you claim Mary was “sinless” well, that clearly provides the truth…
And just so that you are not deceived, here is more evidence to prove the fact that Mary is not to be worshiped in any way, shape or form…
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
-Exodus 20: 4-6
Please, if you chose Catholicism, fine, for EVERY church/denomination has their flaws…BUT please no the difference between honor and just plain idolatry….
“Soli Deo Gloria”, my friend
Dear Jesse,
You have asked me to “provide ACTUAL scripture to support the THEORY that Mary is any way, shape or form a mediator between us and Jesus?”
I will be happy to discuss this further when you “provide ACTUAL scripture to support your THEORY that” it is necessary for any Christian belief to be found explicitly in Scripture.
That was somewhat of a typical response. Wouldn’t the appropriate thing to do have been to go ahead and show her, especially since it may have strengthened her faith or lead her to trust what you are saying is true? Anyway, I like her, believe you are incorrect about Mary being a mediator. 1 Timothy 2:15 is rather blatant that Jesus is our only mediator.
I feel as though if God were going to leave something for us (like a guide) on how to reach everlasting life through Him (aka the Bible), He would have been sure to get all the important ‘need to know’ info in there. If we needed Mary to mediate, that seems pretty important.. And there are several opportunities where it would have been appropriate for Jesus to mention the importance of Mary (should it really have been that important) yet the Bible is silent on that issue? What about Luke 11:27, 28?
Also 1 Cor 4:6.
Quote:
“I will be happy to discuss this further when you “provide ACTUAL scripture to support your THEORY that” it is necessary for any Christian belief to be found explicitly in Scripture.”
Response:
[1 Timothy 2:5]
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
scriptures speaking against the…”Queen of Heaven”. There are strong warnings against this practice…so why then does the RCC choose to call Mary this title?
Jer 7:18
Jer 44:17-25
I find it disturbing that the RCC chooses to cross the boundaries God has set in His word…even if creative theological arguments are used to justify the tradition, it is at the very least flirting with the commandment against these actions…and are we not supposed to “avoid even the appearance of evil”? Why is tradition held up as more important to maintain than simply “pursuing sanctification” for His Glory alone?
Dear Jag,
We do not cross any boundaries in God’s Word. Jesus IS the one Mediator between God and Man. He too is the mediator between God and Mary. She prays for us and God answers her prayers and ours through Jesus and then through Mary just like He does when your mom or pastor or the prayer chain at church prays for you. If our asking Mary to pray for us crosses scripture then so does asking any other human to pray for you as well as prayer chains, prayer groups.
Your question regarding the passages in Jeremiah that speak against the Queen of Heaven is a very good one. But it is easily answered. It could not have been speaking about Mary since Jeremiah lived long before Mary was born. The “Queen of Heaven” refers to to idolatrous worship of Astoreth. The fact that the phrase was used for an idol 700 years before the birth of Mary does not make our calling her the Queen of Heaven equivalent to idolatry. There were many pagan stories about the Son of some God come down to men. That does not make the Incarnation of God the Son, pagan.
God is our King; Mary is the Queen. God is our Father; Mary is our Mother. In the eyes of Protestants, with a deep hunger to excoriate the Catholic Church, these titles suggest that we believe that God and Mary are equal. But we do not. Mary was a mere human, blessed by the power of God to be born without a fallen, sin nature, just like Adam and Eve. Unlike them, she never gave in to temptation. Therefore she is the only mere human to resist sin her whole life. That makes her unique and blessed. Jesus made her our mother from the cross and Rev. 12 refers to her as our mother.
Mary is the Queen Mother of her son the King of Heaven. Protestants have a Heveanly Father without a Heavenly mother and a King of Heaven without a Queen of Heaven. Because the Catholic Church has the Fullness of Faith, we have both.
The Catholic Church is against idolatry and the Catholic Church respects Mary. And the Catholic Church believes no one comes to the father except through Jesus. Mary just intercedes for us and prays for us.
I think these two sentences contradict themselves?
“And the Catholic Church believes no one comes to the father except through Jesus. Mary just intercedes for us and prays for us.”
Why would she intercede for us if no one comes to the father except through Jesus Christ?
Nowhere is it written in the Bible that the Bible must be our ONLY AUTHORITY!
Matthew 28:19-20 is known as the Great Commission. Here, Jesus tells the apostles to baptize and teach what He taught them. Jesus did NOT instruct the Church to go and write a book. Jesus Himself NEVER wrote a book. Jesus would have been the most logical one to do so IF this is what He intended; to build a church based on a book. The Church is built by teaching others through preaching the teachings of Jesus. Faith comes from what is preached (Romans 10:17). The Church existed BEFORE the Bible. The Church has authority (Luke 10:16 and 3rd John 1:9). For the Church, BOTH the Bible and the Tradition are authoritative (2nd Thessalonians 2:15 & 1st Corinthians 11:2). Nowhere is it written in the Bible that the Bible must be our ONLY AUTHORITY! In fact, the Bible teaches us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1st Timothy 3:15).
Contrary to what many non-Catholics believe, ALL traditions are NOT condemned in the Bible. Apostle Paul even says to shun those who do not follow the Traditions which have been passed on to them. (2nd Thessalonians 3:6) See also 2nd Thessalonians 2:15. John 21:25 “there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
the Bible is the only book we need.
ANSWER : One cannot find the method or ceremony of marriage in the Bible. The marriage ceremony is a tradition which has been passed down through generations’ relatively unchanged beginning with the Church. Other Protestant churches simulate it. (2nd Thessalonians 2:15 our faith must be based on “traditions and letters”.)
Is the Bible Alone enough? Is the bible self explanatory? (in Acts 8:30-31) Philip asked a man, “do you understand what you are reading?” the man replied, “how can I, UNLESS SOMEONE GUIDES ME?” and the man invited Philip. (In 2nd Peter 1:20) scripture’s prophecy is NOT a matter of one’s own interpretation. [These verses imply a teaching authority in the Church]. The Bible does NOT tell us what books should be included in the Bible and what books should not be included in the Bible. It should be noted that the inventor of the printing press – Johannes Gutenberg is a Catholic, and that the First Book he printed is a Catholic Bible (1455AD) containing the 73 books. Chronologically, later in the history, after 1455AD, the Protestants deleted 7 books from the Old Testament.
for the Protestants, the Bible ALONE is the pillar of truth.
For the Catholic, the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (see 1st Timothy 3:15). We are NOT to interpret the Bible in isolation but with the Church (2nd Peter 3:16; 2nd Peter 1:20 & Acts 8:31 “someone guides me”.)
“Can a Protestant believe that the Church fell into grievous error before the ink was dry on the last pages of the New Testament? Can a Protestant believe that such a fallen Church was able to hand on an INFALLIBLE New Testament or come to correct conclusions about the Trinity?” For Protestants, the Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of truth. They need to reform and/or establish a new church/ churches.
Many people are surprised by the Truth that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1st Timothy 3:15)! Let us pray the words of our Lord Jesus: There will be ONE FLOCK and ONE SHEPHERD (John 10:16). Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church
I just want to point out…. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ” 2 Timothy 3;16.
Jesus said that one of the reasons that the Sadducees were in error concerning the resurrection is because they did not know the Scriptures……..Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? Mark 12:24
Over 60 verses in the bible you will find Jesus saying, ” it is written” pointing to scripture and to support the teachings
Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. Jesus and the apostles quote from, or allude to the Old Testament hundreds of time. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions…….
The pharisees said… “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” Matthew 15:2
Jesus rebukes them, He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
Matthew 15:3
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
Matthew 15:9
Finally,
“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. ”
yes one can not find a single passage or verse that says scripture ALONE but, at the same time repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles, turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.
Dear Dana,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with all the scripture quoted above!!!
The Catholic Church and all Catholics revere Sacred Scripture as the infallible word of God. What I am just trying to make Protestants aware of, is that their doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not found or supported by any Scripture. And yet they are constantly demanding that Catholics support everything they believe with scripture. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
All Christians follow and wish to obey Scripture. Please reread your response. You seem to take it for granted that Catholics ignore scripture. We don’t. We cover the whole Bible every three years in our liturgy. But so many Protestants, and I used to be one of them, assume that just because the Catholic Church does not kowtow to Protestant interpretations of Scripture, that this must mean Catholics disregard scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite all the thousands of Protestant denominations, directly counter to Jesus’ desire that we all be one, Protestants are in denial that scriptures need to be interpreted. It is a myth that scripture interprets scripture. Protestants know that the different denominations are usually due to different interpretations of scripture and yet refuse to believe that the Catholic Church has an interpretation that differs. It is kind of weird. BTW, even if the Catholic Church wanted to kowtow to a Protestant interpretation of scripture, which denomination should it choose????
It is just so much better to stick with what we have always and everywhere believed.
Protestants attempt to interpret scripture, unhinged from 2000 years of Christianity, and use a doctrine of Scripture alone, invented by Martin Luther, a mere 500 years ago, to try to prove that the Catholic Faith and practice are heretical and/or contradict scripture. They think they are simply adhering to scripture when, in fact, they adhering to their own or another teacher’s private interpretation of Scripture.
We uphold Scripture just as much as Protestants. We just uphold the historical interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic Church and our beliefs and doctrine have been the same since the founding of our Church by Jesus Christ. Why should we change our doctrine just because a man in the 1500′s decided we should?
As I have said many times before, The Catholic Faith does not contradict anything in Scripture; it merely contradicts Protestant interpretation of scripture.
A random thought, I don’t know the Bible that well yet as I am new to my relationship with our Lord, but even if the Bible doesn’t say anything about ‘sola scriptura,’ (even tho it was actually introduced by Augustine in the 5th century) it is safe to follow the scriptures where it is a lot less safe to follow the scriptures + something else… (Hence Mormonism & a multitude of other cults). And doesn’t Paul talk about not changing the Gospel and what Jesus teaches i think in galations? And I think the Bible also has a verse about not adding to or taking from the Bible (in deuteronomy, proverbs & in revelations/apocolype). Also I think there is a line about not putting faith in man (aka the Pope)(mentioned in a few Psalms), or calling anyone father on earth (also the pope – literally & figuratively)(Mt. 23:9). And I’m sure there is a place in Acts (17:10) where they are teaching and the Bereans send them away so they can search the scriptures to verify what was being taught and the connotations given in those scriptures are very positive of the Bereans for doing their research. So if they hadn’t found it in scriptures, they wouldn’t have believed.
Also, I’ve read that the beginnings of praying to Mary started with Constantine. They were trying to convert pagans but it was their tradition to have both a male & female and so, to appease the Pagans and successfully convert them, they introduced the veneration of Mary. It wasn’t until 431 AD that that became an official doctrine of the ‘church’. Another thought, catholicism became very political with the conversion of Rome and we all know how politics/politicians can be.. But I guess no one here is denying the corruption of the church (I hope not anyway).
I feel like if it’s not biblical, then I can’t trust it. I know I can trust and rely on the Bible and if anyone tells me to do otherwise then they may be laying a heavier burden on me than what Jesus intended. In 2 Th 2:15, it says by oral tradition OR by the epistles. And nowadays, I’d rather trust what is written before I trust any person’s mouth. Also 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, talking about how it is by through the word of the Gospel that we will be saved.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into protestantism & catholicism and catholicism does not make any biblical sense. For my reasons previously mentioned, but also since it didn’t officially start until 312AD and the reason they called it catholic was because that word meant universal– it was for everyone, jew or gentile. So I rely on the Bible to figure out what the church was really like during those 312 years before ‘catholicism’ and I speculate it looked a lot like ‘protestantism.’
“The Catholic Faith does not contradict anything in Scripture”
how about IDOLATRY…?
“You shall not make for yourself a CARVED IMAGE, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not BOW DOWN to them or SERVE them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
-Exodus 20: 4-6
Look at your Churches… There’s a lot of statue of Saints, Mary etc. that almost all of Catholics kneel upon it and even worship it like a God…. =P
My response you your question and comment is
–>Another Protestant Tradition:Catholics Worship Idols
go and continue worshiping your godly images and let’s see how far you will go…
“But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, IDOL WORSHIPERS, and all liars–their fate is in the FIERY LAKE OF BURNING SULFUR. This is the SECOND DEATH.”
Revelation 21:8
HAHAHAHA!!! =P
see yah, idol worshipers! XDDD
Do unto others what you wish done unto you! So you cast the first stone so you as well are destined for Hell. We have statues representing Heaven and so do the Jews in their Temple because God commanded to build such for Religious purposes. Read the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem under Solomon and you will see. Jesus didn’t seek to end the Jewish Covenant he came to fulfill it. You would know nothing of God, Jesus or anything if the Catholic Martyrs hadn’t kept the Faith alive and converted the Romans. What you do to the least of my brothers you do to me so you condemn do you and judge when you aren’t perfect? You aren’t my judge by Jesus is. So Sister in Christ I forgive you because you know not what you are doing! Peace be with you.