Can you be "full of grace" temporarily? If not, was St. Stephen sinless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bohm_Bawerk

Guest
One piece of scriptural evidence for the sinless state of the Virgin Mary was that she was “. . . ]full of grace” (Luke 1:28). Of course, as you know, it’s impossible to commit a sin if you are full of grace - it is by grace that we manage to avoid sin.

Given, was St. Stephen sinless, for Scripture says: “Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (Acts 6:8)? Is it possible to be “full of grace” for a brief point in time? Why, or why not, and what evidence is there to support your view?

Thanks.
 
philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

^^^ This is a good article to read.

Actually, “full of grace” is a modern English translation of the greek. The greek of Luke 1:28 uses “Kecharitomene” which is explained in the above article whereas the rendering of Acts 6:8 is completely different (I wish I was a greek expert).

A person can be full of grace temporarily, but our fallen nature is such that it “leaks” out the grace continuously, so to speak. Mary didn’t have a fallen human nature. Also, in Stephen’s case, he wasn’t full of grace from birth, so it cannot be concluded that he was sinless. It could be possible that he committed no sin after he was full of grace and truth. In Mary’s case, she was full of grace from conception, and as the term “Kecharitomene” indicates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”
 
Note also that Mary was filled with God’s grace from conception. Only she has that privilege. St. Stephen received the graces of God at Pentecost together with the other Apostles and Disciples who were there.
 
WesleyF said:
Mary didn’t have a fallen human nature.
Click to expand...
Can you quantify on what you mean? The way I understand it, its bordering on heresy. Of course maybe its just my interpretation on your statement and it now what you are trying to say. Because Jesus inherited humanity through Mary. Jesus has to receive our fallen human nature, the one that dies, so that He may perfect it. This is why Jesus needed to become human. If Mary and Jesus are of a different human nature than ourselves, then Jesus does not share our nature, therefore He didn’t save us by dying on the cross.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Can you quantify on what you mean? The way I understand it, its bordering on heresy. Of course maybe its just my interpretation on your statement and it now what you are trying to say. Because Jesus inherited humanity through Mary. Jesus has to receive our fallen human nature, the one that dies, so that He may perfect it. This is why Jesus needed to become human. If Mary and Jesus are of a different human nature than ourselves, then Jesus does not share our nature, therefore He didn’t save us by dying on the cross.
Click to expand...
If Jesus needed to receive a sinful nature, then Mary is not immaculate - not full of grace. God does not create sin, but rather destroys it. Mary was conceived without sin, as was Jesus. He took our sins upon him, but only after His public ministry began.

By a singular grace, Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin. Remember that Jesus did not have to - could not inherit a sinful nature. Sin could not co-habitate with the perfection of His divinity. God does not abide within a sinful vessel, neither in the hypostatic union, nor in the immaculate womb.

Saint Paul wrote that “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthinas 5:21).
 
First, both verses are written by the same author. Therefore, any difference in language use has higher import. The Latin vulgate uses different word order to describe Mary’s state and Stephen’s state:

Luke 1:28 “et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus”

Acts 6:8 “Stephanus autem plenus gratia et fortitudine faciebat prodigia et signa magna in populo”

A Greek scholar may correct me, but it appears that Mary is filled with grace as a state of being, whereas Steven was filled with grace at that moment, and for the purpose of his martyrdom. The scripture seems to reflect this, since it associates his state of grace directly with that which he spoke.

By way of analogy: It is as if Stephen made an act of perfect contrition, whereas Mary had no need to make such an act.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Can you quantify on what you mean? The way I understand it, its bordering on heresy. Of course maybe its just my interpretation on your statement and it now what you are trying to say. Because Jesus inherited humanity through Mary. Jesus has to receive our fallen human nature, the one that dies, so that He may perfect it. This is why Jesus needed to become human. If Mary and Jesus are of a different human nature than ourselves, then Jesus does not share our nature, therefore He didn’t save us by dying on the cross.
Click to expand...
Jesus shared our human nature in all aspects except sin, and that includes original sin. Jesus redeemed us on the cross becuase he is the perfect sacrifice, the unblemished Lamb of God. All the previous passover lambs did not accomplish what Jesus did because Jesus himself - fully man but without sin, and fully God - made himself the passover lamb.

Mary did not inherit original sin either. Mary was born without original sin - immaculate - and preserved from all stain of sin subsequently. This isn’t heresy. On the contrary, it is dogma. Pope Pius IX defined Mary’s Immaculate Conception - born without the stain of original sin - in the papal bull titled Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.

-Tim-
 
po18guy said:
If Jesus needed to receive a sinful nature, then Mary is not immaculate - not full of grace. God does not create sin, but rather destroys it. Mary was conceived without sin, as was Jesus. He took our sins upon him, but only after His public ministry began.

By a singular grace, Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin. Remember that Jesus did not have to - could not inherit a sinful nature. Sin could not co-habitate with the perfection of His divinity. God does not abide within a sinful vessel, neither in the hypostatic union, nor in the immaculate womb.

Saint Paul wrote that “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthinas 5:21).
Click to expand...
Not sinful nature but the fallen nature of man. Jesus had to be born of this world in the state the world was in because He needed to perfect the nature of man through His own resurrection. If Mary was anything other than any of us, then Jesus did not share our humanity.
 
TimothyH said:
Jesus shared our human nature in all aspects except sin, and that includes original sin. Jesus redeemed us on the cross becuase he is the perfect sacrifice, the unblemished Lamb of God. All the previous passover lambs did not accomplish what Jesus did because Jesus himself - fully man but without sin, and fully God - made himself the passover lamb.

Mary did not inherit original sin either. Mary was born without original sin - immaculate - and preserved from all stain of sin subsequently. This isn’t heresy. On the contrary, it is dogma. Pope Pius IX defined Mary’s Immaculate Conception - born without the stain of original sin - in the papal bull titled Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Pure and immaculate doesn’t mean she’s of a different human nature. That is what I am asking about. Mary could not sin because she is filled with God’s grace, not because she has a different human nature than we have. Again, if she has a different human nature, then Christ has a different human nature, then they are apart from us and thus Christ’s sacrifice would not have saved us because he had a human body of a different nature then ours. Christ needs our same exact nature because it is that nature that He is redeeming. He perfected what was imperfected by Adam and Eve.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Pure and immaculate doesn’t mean she’s of a different human nature. That is what I am asking about. Mary could not sin because she is filled with God’s grace, not because she has a different human nature than we have. Again, if she has a different human nature, then Christ has a different human nature, then they are apart from us and thus Christ’s sacrifice would not have saved us because he had a human body of a different nature then ours. Christ needs our same exact nature because it is that nature that He is redeeming. He perfected what was imperfected by Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
I’m not following your line of reasoning. So, both Christ and Mary had fallen human natures?
 
po18guy said:
I’m not following your line of reasoning. So, both Christ and Mary had fallen human natures?
Click to expand...
Eastern Christians tend to use different terminology than we do as regards original sin and the nature of man. I think this confusion is more a matter of linguistics than anything else.

Constantine, we believe that Christ was fully human, as was Mary, but that they were human in accordance with man before the fall, not after. This is because the fall represents a blemish on the nature of man… not an integral aspect of human nature, but a fault in it (similar to a cracked tea pot vs a whole one, they are both tea pots of the same nature, but one is not broken).
 
ConstantineTG said:
Can you quantify on what you mean? The way I understand it, its bordering on heresy. Of course maybe its just my interpretation on your statement and it now what you are trying to say. Because Jesus inherited humanity through Mary. Jesus has to receive our fallen human nature, the one that dies, so that He may perfect it. This is why Jesus needed to become human. If Mary and Jesus are of a different human nature than ourselves, then Jesus does not share our nature, therefore He didn’t save us by dying on the cross.
Click to expand...
What I mean by “fallen” human nature is a nature that has concupiscence - the tendency to sin. Jesus’ human nature didn’t have such a tendency, neither did Mary’s.
 
promethius said:
Eastern Christians tend to use different terminology than we do as regards original sin and the nature of man. I think this confusion is more a matter of linguistics than anything else.

Constantine, we believe that Christ was fully human, as was Mary, but that they were human in accordance with man before the fall, not after. This is because the fall represents a blemish on the nature of man… not an integral aspect of human nature, but a fault in it (similar to a cracked tea pot vs a whole one, they are both tea pots of the same nature, but one is not broken).
Click to expand...
You are right, my apologies if I in my mind the terminologies have blurred somewhat between East and West. What I’m saying is that Mary is fully human like us in every aspect. But being filled by God’s grace at the very moment of her existence, she is preserved from all sin until her dormition. But like us she is still human because she still passed from this world. Like Christ too, who passed from this world. Adam and Eve, had they not sinned, would not have passed from this world. Death is a consequence of sin, so Mary and Jesus has this human nature that exists in this consequence, but not bearing of course the sin itself. This is where East and West diverge, that is why the East doesn’t believe in Original Sin because of this complication. If death is a consequence of Original Sin, why did Mary and Jesus die is they did not inherit it?

I think an excellent teaching on this that unifies East and West understanding is Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
 
promethius said:
Eastern Christians tend to use different terminology than we do as regards original sin and the nature of man. I think this confusion is more a matter of linguistics than anything else.

Constantine, we believe that Christ was fully human, as was Mary, but that they were human in accordance with man before the fall, not after. This is because the fall represents a blemish on the nature of man… not an integral aspect of human nature, but a fault in it (similar to a cracked tea pot vs a whole one, they are both tea pots of the same nature, but one is not broken).
Click to expand...
Thanks for that! It was reminiscent fo the linguistic differences we experience with our Protestant brothers and sister.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
One piece of scriptural evidence for the sinless state of the Virgin Mary was that she was “. . . ]full of grace” (Luke 1:28). Of course, as you know, it’s impossible to commit a sin if you are full of grace - it is by grace that we manage to avoid sin.

Given, was St. Stephen sinless, for Scripture says: “Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (Acts 6:8)? Is it possible to be “full of grace” for a brief point in time? Why, or why not, and what evidence is there to support your view?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I probably shouldn’t comment on this because I don’t know enough, but if you will look up both these verses in the Greek it is clear that the words are completely different. I don’t kow why but “full of grace” tranalates more than one Greek word.
 
If you read through the book of Acts looking for cases where people were full of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, Spirit poored upon — all of these refer to a case were the Holy Spirit enables one by his prescense in their life to fullfill or do an act of faith. In Stephens case that filling was for the purpose of giving his life up for Jesus in death. Often the filling gave Christians the power or strength to witness to others, a few times the filling gave them the gift of tongues or healing or prophecy. So, yes it was a special filling that was for a specific event or strength to deal with that event. Aside: Eph 1:6 does use the same word for ‘full of grace’ as the gospel writer does.

Ephesians 5:15-21
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

15 Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk—not as unwise people but as wise— 16 making the most of the time, [a] because the days are evil. 17 So don’t be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 And don’t get drunk with wine, which [leads to] reckless actions, but be filled with the Spirit: 19 speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,
Code: 
singing and making music to the Lord in your heart,

20 giving thanks always for everything

to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

21 submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.
 
po18guy said:
First, both verses are written by the same author. Therefore, any difference in language use has higher import. The Latin vulgate uses different word order to describe Mary’s state and Stephen’s state:

Luke 1:28 “et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus”

Acts 6:8 “Stephanus autem plenus gratia et fortitudine faciebat prodigia et signa magna in populo”

A Greek scholar may correct me, but it appears that Mary is filled with grace as a state of being, whereas Steven was filled with grace at that moment, and for the purpose of his martyrdom. The scripture seems to reflect this, since it associates his state of grace directly with that which he spoke.

By way of analogy: It is as if Stephen made an act of perfect contrition, whereas Mary had no need to make such an act.
Click to expand...
At just a bare literal glance, I believe the Latin conveys two different meanings.

In the case referring to Our Lady, I believe that the plena describes what kind of grace Our Lady has. She has the full kind. I think we render that in English as “full of grace” because that best describes how we visualize the singular privilege given to Our Lady. Grace-full or graceful has a different sense in English which would cloud the privilege of the Immaculate Conception.

In the case referring to St. Stephen, I believe it is first and foremost saying that he was full or satisfied and that the word gratia describes what kind of fullness he had. “Gracefullness” doesn’t quite describe the correct sense. So, it is once again rendered in English as full of grace, but in a different sense than that given to Our Lady.

I didn’t look at this very long, so please excuse any error.

– Nicole
 
St Stephen was filled with grace.

I think that fullness was made visible in how the events leading up to Stephen’s death unfolded like the events that lead to Jesus’ death.
I think ‘full of grace’ meant that Stephen’s death experience was so united to Christ that it perfected him. He was being St Stephen before his earthly life ended.
Mary entered life in that state.:twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top