Could Mary have sinned?

[Truthstalker]

TS, Can you explain all the coincidences between the text given in Samuel and Luke? Is it coincidence or “God-incidence”?

This article by Steve Ray has a comprehensive discussion on typology wrt Mary as the Ark. Amazing “coincidences” and pretty compelling…

Typology, metaphor, reality versus symbolism and other things of similar nature are things I approach with deep suspicion and caution - especially when something is “found” in Scripture that is not a spelled-out main theme of Scripture, whether at the hands of a third-century bishop or a twentieth century televangelist… Somebody said let the main thing be the main thing and subordinate things be subordinate. “Jesus is Lord” is a main thing, something I have trouble with both because of Who He is and because of who i am. Things He is big on, like “This is my body” give me enough trouble. Digging through Scripture for hidden meanings and connections raises little flags. If you work at it, you can develop all kinds of conspiracy theories and read all kinds of things into the text. Now someone is thinking this is an argument against Sola Scriptura. Actually it could equally be an argument for the mistaken adoption of human thought as divine Tradition. Hey! That’s another thing we haven’t hit on this thread! Is Tradition valid? That and the Second coming, And, oh yeah, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation and free will and eternal security. Let’s push
all the buttons, shall we? This thread still has some room to go.

I read church history and the writings of the ECF and others respectfully. This is part of the heritage of the whole church (Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and others). We can learn much from those who went before. However, they were not always right (wind does not cause earthquakes, for example, as you might learn from Aquinas). Nor do I put what they say on par with Scripture. But they do help me understand what Scripture might be saying.

That being said, I haven’t given much thought to the Eve/Mary typology. I have some basic theological and philosophical ground to cover before I attempt to tackle it, and there are some other questions that come before it.

Mary is significant theologically because key doctrines do come into play when discussing her. Obedience. Grace. Faith. Free will. Suffering. Election. Humility. Sacrificial love. Interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. She was the perfect disciple in many many ways. One of the reasons this thread does wander all over the place is that discussion of Mary does involve so many doctrines.

 

[Truthstalker]

Exactly. They were Graced with Christ, which is the only way to be an enemy of Satan, and not his slave.

The Catholic Church teaches that if one is to receive these Graces, one must be without sin. Either their sins have been forgiven or they are immaculate…

Mary was graced since conception.

This morning I was thinking about forensic justification and the angelic pronouncement to Mary. I think it was an old view (as in before 1854) of some that when the angel said kecharitomene, he was pronouncing grace as then present, a grace that would make it seem, or make it happen, then, that Mary had never sinned. She might have sinned, but it no longer had any power or stain on her. Since that past had been obliterated, we don’t know (aside from papal pronouncements that we evaluate from differing perspectives and assign varying values to) whether she did. I think this is one alternative to the IC that was discarded. Why, I don’t know. Maybe too Protestant in approach.

Has anybody actually read that papal pronouncement? Seems like some of that info should show up on this thread.

 

[MariaG]

, huge storm in my area. I expect to lose power anytime. In order to not “lose” my place, since I have already read all and caught up, although not in depth, I am “marking” my spot so I can respond. I need to shut off the computer now

Talk to you all again soon:wave:

What did the Ark carry? The Word of God.

.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

What ever the church teaches, and what ever the dogma is relating to Mary’s sinlessness, I accept and believe completely. I believe she was made a pure vessel for our Lord and that Jesus would not have been conceived in a person not of grace.

 

[Truthstalker]

What ever the church teaches, and what ever the dogma is relating to Mary’s sinlessness, I accept and believe completely. I believe she was made a pure vessel for our Lord and that Jesus would not have been conceived in a person not of grace.

You believe whatever the Church teaches because you believe the Church teaches correctly. The Church teaches that it teaches correctly, but here the argument is circular: how do you know it is correct in teaching you that it is correct?

That aside, why would Jesus not have been conceived in a person “not of grace”? And what does “not of grace” mean? By one definition she was “of grace”, that God had removed every stain and defect from her. The argument is more when that happened, at one end at the conception and the other at the Annunciation, that whether it happened. Jesus being born human to a sinful human mother would have been a miracle in itself. Somehow God could have strained out the sin in the conception of Christ. But the Catholic Church probably has strong reasons for the stance it takes. I would like to hear those reasons.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3155450]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The aposltes (still sinners) were able to resist and be at enimity with the grace of Christ.
NotWorthy
Exactly. They were Graced with Christ, which is the only way to be an enemy of Satan, and not his slave.

So we agree a person does not need to be immaculately concieved or kept from sinning to be a enmity with satan?

The Catholic Church teaches that if one is to receive these Graces, one must be without sin. Either their sins have been forgiven or they are immaculate…

Is this an apostolic doctrine?

Mary was graced since conception.

So it is claimed but not supported by any Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

What ever the church teaches, and what ever the dogma is relating to Mary’s sinlessness, I accept and believe completely. I believe she was made a pure vessel for our Lord and that Jesus would not have been conceived in a person not of grace.

You can believe it but no one in the NT ever taught it either. In other words the early Christians never beleived it.

 

[Teen4Christ]

The short answer, yes.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

You believe whatever the Church teaches because you believe the Church teaches correctly. The Church teaches that it teaches correctly, but here the argument is circular: how do you know it is correct in teaching you that it is correct?

I don’t know that dogma is circulus in probando as far as logic is concerned. I accept that dogma is true not out of knowledge, but faith. Faith that it is eternal, yet not circular, because the Holy Spirit is the source of the dogma. Now of course I would be fearful of saying that the church leans on Petitio Principii as the basis for her dogma. Instead I would think that it is based on divine revelation from the Holy Spirit Himself, and therefore in the Trinity alone does the church find justification.

I apologize for quoting wikipedia, but it does have its moments: “Thomas Aquinas, Roman Catholic, who believed in two types of revelation from God: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation occurs through observation of the created order. Such observations can logically lead to important conclusions, such as the existence of God.” Unless the church disagrees, I don’t see why general revelation and special revelation can’t be a factor in dogma. I suppose this raises the question, is dogma a mere process leading to circular perpetual motion, or a divine revelation from God Eternal and as such it boggles the mind that we just have to take a deep breath in awe and choose faith? Dogma is from the Holy Spirit, not because the church says so, but because it is true what she says, and undoubtedly within the church there is evidence to bear witness.

You can believe it but no one in the NT ever taught it either. In other words the early Christians never beleived it.

1- That’s not true. Early Christians did believe.See link 1.
2- What kind of Catholic is allowed to reject dogma?
3- Sola Scriptura isn’t scriptural…

 

[justasking4]

La-Petite-Fleur;3156591]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You can believe it but no one in the NT ever taught it either. In other words the early Christians never beleived it.
La-Petite-Fleur
1- That’s not true. Early Christians did believe.See link 1.

These are just quotes from individuals and i don’t know the contexts where these quotes are found.
Who is to say they represent what the early Christians taught?
Secondly are you aware that some of works that are cited were from works that were considered false by the church?
Third, what writer in the NT thought Mary never sinned?

2- What kind of Catholic is allowed to reject dogma?

One that thinks deeply and compares catholic teachings with the Scriptures.

3- Sola Scriptura isn’t scriptural…

What does this have to do with “Could Mary have sinned?”

 

[EphelDuath]

Third, what writer in the NT thought Mary never sinned?

We keep going in circles. Luke’s obvious comparison of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, plus the “Hail, full of grace” is significant proof of Mary’s sinlessness.

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3156758]
Quote:
Third, what writer in the NT thought Mary never sinned?
EphelDuath
We keep going in circles. Luke’s obvious comparison of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant,

Not so. You are reading into the text what is not there. We know this because no one in the NT makes such a connection.

plus the “Hail, full of grace” is significant proof of Mary’s sinlessness.

Look this phrase up in a greek and lexicon and you will find no such meaning for her being sinless.

 

[guanophore]

Who is to say they represent what the early Christians taught?

We know which writings are consistent with what the Apostles taught because they are both consistent with the Sacred Tradition. What has been handed down from the Apostles has been infallibly preserved.

Secondly are you aware that some of works that are cited were from works that were considered false by the church?

No, ja4, this is just more of you bearing false witness against Catholicsm. The Church did not accept some of the books and letters and inspired, so they were not contained within the canon. It does not mean they had no value, or there was no truth in them. To say they are “false” is a smokescreen on your part to avoid the fact that they contain teachings that are consistent with what the Catholic Church says is Apostolic, and what it proclaims presently.

 

[Deana]

Don’t forget, Deana. There are others on these threads that have the exact same questions as JA4, but are not inclined to post. I hesitate to call them lurkers, because that’s such a negative image (what is a better term for people who read the threads but don’t post?). Those people are the reasons you must not give up talking to JA4, for many of them may not be as obstinate as you feel that JA4 is.

You are so right! It’s as if I was giving up too soon. Thank you for the adcivce. oxoxoxoxox

 

[NotWorthy]

You believe whatever the Church teaches because you believe the Church teaches correctly. The Church teaches that it teaches correctly, but here the argument is circular: how do you know it is correct in teaching you that it is correct?

So is the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura. So is God saying, 'I am the Lord thy God…". It’s all about faith.

That aside, why would Jesus not have been conceived in a person “not of grace”? And what does “not of grace” mean? By one definition she was “of grace”, that God had removed every stain and defect from her. The argument is more when that happened, at one end at the conception and the other at the Annunciation, that whether it happened. Jesus being born human to a sinful human mother would have been a miracle in itself. Somehow God could have strained out the sin in the conception of Christ. But the Catholic Church probably has strong reasons for the stance it takes. I would like to hear those reasons.

Well, Catholics teach that God dwells within us only when we’re in a state of Grace.

Couldn’t our teaching on Mary being without sin while Jesus was within her womb sort of pre-figure the teaching of our graced state?

I know we don’t draw one teaching from the other, but it does go hand in hand, IMO.

 

[Truthstalker]

So is the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura. So is God saying, 'I am the Lord thy God…". It’s all about faith.

And faith is based on what? You can believe in what is true or believe falsely.

Well, Catholics teach that God dwells within us only when we’re in a state of Grace.

Couldn’t our teaching on Mary being without sin while Jesus was within her womb sort of pre-figure the teaching of our graced state?

I know we don’t draw one teaching from the other, but it does go hand in hand, IMO.

What seems to me to be a profound weakness of Catholic theology is the idea of an oversensitive and easily broken state of grace. The blood of Christ covers sin (justification) before it is taken away (sanctification), using Protestant terminology for what Catholics use the term justification to cover both justification and sanctification. When initially/forensically justified, one no longer has sin in the eyes of God from a legal viewpoint, although He knows better than you do what you are doing, thinking and wanting. From what I gather, most Catholics most of the time are in a state of mortal sin. I did a poll on CAF a while ago in which most of the CAF Catholics stated they commit mortal sins much more than they can possibly go to Confession. God declaring your sins forgiven, once and for all, is much cleaner and He then works all the time, not just when you are in a state of grace that is conditioned on you. Instead it is conditioned on Him.

 

[EphelDuath]

Look this phrase up in a greek and lexicon and you will find no such meaning for her being sinless.

“Full of grace” leaves no room for sin. I have looked it up. The only other time the word kecharitomene is used in the Bible is referring to God.

We know this because no one in the NT makes such a connection.

Untrue. Luke is so specific in Mary’s journey that there is absolutely no way it was a coincidental comparison to the journey of the Ark.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2830/arkyn8.jpg

From here: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5sb1.asp

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3158170]“Full of grace” leaves no room for sin. I have looked it up. The only other time the word kecharitomene is used in the Bible is referring to God.

Here is a definition by a greek scholar–χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitóō there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai (5483), to give grace, to remit, forgive.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary.
As you can see there is no mention of sin.
What greek lexicon are you using?

Untrue. Luke is so specific in Mary’s journey that there is absolutely no way it was a coincidental comparison to the journey of the Ark.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2830/arkyn8.jpg

From here: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5sb1.asp
People read into the scriptures all kinds of things. Did any writer of the NT make the speciifc connection you are? In other words do any mention that she is an ark “type” for Christ? If so, can you give me the verse-passage?

 

[EphelDuath]

People read into the scriptures all kinds of things. Did any writer of the NT make the speciifc connection you are?

This is hopeless. You’re saying that Luke accidentally made all of these connections? Are you saying that such a heavy implication can’t be taken as fact because Luke didn’t spoon feed the conclusion to you?

Hey, no NT author explicitly said that God is a Trinity. I guess holding such a belief is heretical and reading into the text.

 

[Good_Fella]

Just because your church declares something to be “infallibly” true does not mean it so. When we look at the scriptures for Mary being immaculately concieved and did not sin we find that the Scriptures never teach such a thing.Are you saying that Genesis 3:15 implies the immaculate conception of Mary?

I’m afraid Holy Scripture refutes your claim that the Church does not teach infallibly. Observe the following passages from Isaiah, of the Immanuel prophecies and the New Zion:

A highway will be there, called the holy way; No one unclean may pass over it, nor fools go astray on it. (35,8)

All your sons will be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children. In justice shall you be established, far from the fear of oppression, where destruction cannot come near you. Should there be any attack, it shall not be of my making; whoever attacks shall fall before you…No weapon fashioned against you shall prevail; every tongue you shall prove false that launches an accusation against you. This is the lot of the servants of the Lord, their vindication from me, says the Lord.
(54, 13-17)

The prophecy alludes to the Church (“the holy way”) where sons will be taught by the Lord through his Spirit of truth and will not err in matters of faith and morals. The charism of infallibilty means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit. Supernaturally the Church cannot err, for she has been founded by Christ himself on the apostles and is being built by the Lord. This is why Jesus promised his apostles that he would send them the Paraclete - the Helper - to guide the Church in all truth in essential matters of faith and morals pertaining to our salvation.

In Acts, the early Church is identified as the “way” where fools will not err within her, as foretold in Isaiah 35, 8:

“But this I do admit to you, that according to the ‘Way’, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written in the prophets.” ( Acts 24, 14; cf. 9,2; 22,4)

Paul calls the Church the bride of Christ ( 2 Cor 11, 2; Eph 5, 24-32). Once the Jews received the Torah, it was the obligation and custom of Jewish husbands to cherish, honour, support, and maintain their wives faithfully. Jesus would not forsake his bride. :nope: He would be true to his vow to maintain and protect her until the end of the age. :yup:

Of the extant writings of the early Church Fathers, Irenaeus is the first to speak of the infallibilty of the Catholic Church:

“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.”
‘Against Heresies, 3:24’ (A.D. 180)

The Catholic claim to infallibilty, as expressed by the early Church Fathers, who succeeded the Apostles, is supported by Scripture. In the words of Jesus Christ, who is faithfully espoused to his bride, the “Way” and has promised to remain with her always:

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14, 16-17)

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth…and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
(John 16, 12-13)

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’,of Pope Pius lX (1854), belongs to what is understood by the Church as a development of doctrine. The first extant writing on this doctrine by an early Church Father is by Hyppolytus (ante A.D. 235). ‘The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’ (Dei Verbum 8).

“I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.” (Genesis 3, 15)

God is not putting enmity only between the woman’s seed (Jesus) and Satan, but also between the woman and Satan. Both Mary and Jesus are in enmity with Satan and his offspring (original sin). Christ, being sinless (1Jn 3, 5) is obviously in enmity with Satan and his seed. So if Mary is also in enmity with Satan, then she too must have been sinless throughout her entire life and in enmity with his seed: original sin. If Mary had committed a sin, then she could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Genesis 3,15. The reason why we commit sin is because we have inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. We were born with an inclination to sin. As Mary was sinless, according to the prophecy of Genesis 3, 15 , she must have been preserved from original sin. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella