Another thought on the sinlessness of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snarflemike

Guest
(no idea if this is the best forum for this question, but I don’t see a better one)

This thought popped into my head the other day. I’ve seen plenty of arguments on why it would be right and fitting for God to have preserved Mary from original sin, and for her to have lived a sinless life. But I have never run into this argument:

It was also right and fitting for Mary to have been sinless because sin affects our free will, it diminishes our ability to make perfectly free choices, and God desired that Mary’s choice to become the mother of The Word Incarnate (one of the two most important choices in all of human history, I think it is safe to say) should be a perfectly free choice, unencumbered by any of the effects of sin.

Thoughts?
 
snarflemike said:
This thought popped into my head the other day. I’ve seen plenty of arguments on why it would be right and fitting for God to have preserved Mary from original sin, and for her to have lived a sinless life. But I have never run into this argument:

It was also right and fitting for Mary to have been sinless because sin affects our free will, it diminishes our ability to make perfectly free choices, and God desired that Mary’s choice to become the mother of The Word Incarnate (one of the two most important choices in all of human history, I think it is safe to say) should be a perfectly free choice, unencumbered by any of the effects of sin.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I have wondered, now and then, what would have happened if Mary had said “no”. Following the OP’s reasoning, she always had free will, and free will can say “yes” or it can say “no”. Would it have been a sin for her to say “no”, if she had done so, not for any sinful reason, but out of fear or diffidence (it is no sin to be afraid or to be diffident) — “I can’t handle something like that”, “I’m scared, please don’t make me do that”, and so on.

And where would that leave us?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I have wondered, now and then, what would have happened if Mary had said “no”. Following the OP’s reasoning, she always had free will, and free will can say “yes” or it can say “no”.
Click to expand...
God has free will & He could choose not to love us, but that would betray who He is. Because He is the Eternal Father, Lamb of God, Breath of Life He can’t not love you. But He still has free will.

I agree with snarflemike, it is right & fitting that the Mother of God is Sinless from conception to assumption. That her “yes” come from a pure heart lends to being right & fitting.

But a pure heart can not say no to God any more than God can not love us. Free will intact.
 
It is my understanding that God, who is outside of time, knows in advance the choices we will make…so He knew she would say “yes”.
 
Mary couldn’t say “no”, her purpose in salvation history was laid out from the time of Adam and Eve, at the very least. She did exercise her free will, but her “yes” was already predestined in a sense because God knows all and therefore the prophecies of Scripture referring to her were already written and had to be fulfilled in that way, because it was the Word of God, and God’s Word does not come back unfulfilled. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that Mary had to be sinless in order to exercise her free will in the way God had planned though. There were other important people in Scripture who made choices which were critical to the salvation plan too, were they sinless? Of course not.
 
jmgi1957 said:
I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that Mary had to be sinless in order to exercise her free will in the way God had planned though. There were other important people in Scripture who made choices which were critical to the salvation plan too, were they sinless? Of course not.
Click to expand...
She did not have to be sinless to make her choice, but she had to be sinless to be able to conceive and carry the pure Son of God.
 
theorangeandblue said:
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Click to expand...
Good grief. Take a newborn baby that only lives for minutes after being born. What sin has that baby committed? And don’t try to invoke Original Sin, because the text clearly states “HAVE sinned”.
 
Fully correct he knows everyone better than we actually know ourselves… Two great examples…

John 1:43 Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael.
John 13:36 Jesus Foretells Peter’s Denial.
 
theorangeandblue said:
The Virgin Mary wasn’t sinless like everyone else Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior. Mary sinned she was human.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3:23
Click to expand...
You misunderstand Romans 3:23. Paul was not saying “all humans” have sinned. The context of ch. 2 and 3 concern Jews among the “nations” - “Gentiles”, “Greeks”. Paul insisted, persons of all nations and “even” Jews have sinned! The Jews are not sinless, even though they are chosen by God and were given the Law! All men, Jews and Greeks/Gentiles have sinned.

And again here:
Rom 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.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 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.
Rom 2:15 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
Click to expand...
Paul insists Jews and Gentiles can and do sin; Jews and Gentiles can be righteous. What matters: being true or being false to God, whether Jew or Gentile.

This same point is brought forward again in vs 3:23 - 3:30:
Rom 3:23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
…
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
Click to expand...
Thus the point: all nations/all groups of people (including the Jews) contain both sinners and the righteous, and the same Savior is Savior of all and for all, Jesus Christ.

Paul obviously cannot be speaking of all individual human beings - that was not his point - since Jesus who was “a man” (as well as God Himself, the Son) did not ever sin (I’m sure you agree). Hence Mary was not established “a sinner” by Paul in Romans 3:23.

And if you believe “they are justified by his grace as a gift” (Rom 3:24), then you can agree that God could give Mary that gift of saving faith at the instant of her conception in the womb of her mother, and thus be born “immaculate”, as the Church teaches.
 
snarflemike said:
(no idea if this is the best forum for this question, but I don’t see a better one)

This thought popped into my head the other day. I’ve seen plenty of arguments on why it would be right and fitting for God to have preserved Mary from original sin, and for her to have lived a sinless life. But I have never run into this argument:

It was also right and fitting for Mary to have been sinless because sin affects our free will, it diminishes our ability to make perfectly free choices, and God desired that Mary’s choice to become the mother of The Word Incarnate (one of the two most important choices in all of human history, I think it is safe to say) should be a perfectly free choice, unencumbered by any of the effects of sin.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I have seen this presented by Hans Urs Von Balthazar. I think it’s a good argument.
 
theorangeandblue said:
Mary was human and knew the difference between right and wrong also as a human we are born into sin. Also Mary was like 18 when she had Jesus meaning that is like being sinless for 17 years nobody can accomplish that because we are human.
Click to expand...
No one, except by the grace of God. You write as if we believe Mary did it by herself.
 
theorangeandblue said:
Mary was human and knew the difference between right and wrong also as a human we are born into sin. Also Mary was like 18 when she had Jesus meaning that is like being sinless for 17 years nobody can accomplish that because we are human. Jesus the Son of God who is also God lived a sinless life to be the perfect sacrifice for us.
Click to expand...
Jewish practice of the times held that couples be engaged at a young age, meaning usually between 12 and 15 for females. Even if we assume the upper range, we’re still looking at (according to the apocrypha) her being married to Joseph when he was in his mid-80’s or older. Note also that once Joseph was told Mary was already pregnant prior to their marriage, his first reaction was to take her to some backwater town and dump her; it took threats from the angel Gabriel to dissuade him from doing so.

Really, the Immaculate Conception is the only thing that separates the story from being a potentially exciting episode of COPS.

(I won’t even go into the COPS-worthy issue of three strange random dudes showing up at Joseph’s door bringing expensive gifts for baby and mama :D)
 
Love is perfect in it’s respect for freedom.
And so in regards to Mary’s freedom to say yes or no:
She had the freedom to do so. She could have said no as regards her capabilities and her freedom from coercion.

And at the same time (that key Catholic phrase)…

God knows wills and permits all things, and knows all things outside time.
The fact that God “knows” something will happen in time does not mean he forces it on someone.

The only thing that really matters is that Mary said yes, and speculation to the contrary is unfruitful. Her “yes” is what is fruitful.
Does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
goout said:
The fact that God “knows” something will happen in time does not mean he forces it on someone.
Click to expand...
But then we get into the whole question of Free Will versus Predestination. If Mary were, from the beginning, set up to to be the Mother of God how could she have had the choice to say ‘no’? Or are we to believe that Mary, by luck of the draw, happened to have led a sinless life and thus was God’s choice? Even then, could she have said ‘no’ and walked away without prejudice?
 
John_the_Blind said:
40.png
goout:
The fact that God “knows” something will happen in time does not mean he forces it on someone.
Click to expand...
But then we get into the whole question of Free Will versus Predestination. If Mary were, from the beginning, set up to to be the Mother of God how could she have had the choice to say ‘no’? Or are we to believe that Mary, by luck of the draw, happened to have led a sinless life and thus was God’s choice? Even then, could she have said ‘no’ and walked away without prejudice?
Click to expand...
God knows what we will choose by our own agency. So Mary had the capacity in her agency to say “no” but God knew/knows she’d use that agency to say “yes.” And he perfected her ability to say “yes” to the Incarnation without any reservation due to sin by gracing her from her conception.
 
Last edited:
Also, Catholics do not believe there is a conflict between free will and predestination. There is no “versus” between them.
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
John_the_Blind:
40.png
goout:
The fact that God “knows” something will happen in time does not mean he forces it on someone.
Click to expand...
But then we get into the whole question of Free Will versus Predestination. If Mary were, from the beginning, set up to to be the Mother of God how could she have had the choice to say ‘no’? Or are we to believe that Mary, by luck of the draw, happened to have led a sinless life and thus was God’s choice? Even then, could she have said ‘no’ and walked away without prejudice?
Click to expand...
God knows what we will choose by our own agency. So Mary had the capacity in her agency to say “no” but God knew she’d use that agency to say “yes.” And he perfected her ability to say “yes” to the Incarnation without any reservation due to sin by gracing her from her conception.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s true, but you can’t make a false connection between the unique Marian grace and coercion. Not that you are doing that, but that connection is drawn very frequently. That’s why I made the point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top