Could Mary have sinned?

[NotWorthy]

Then I am sure it would be a simple matter for you to quote the Scripture where God said so???

I was assuming it would be a simple matter for you to read the previous 45 pages.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I was assuming it would be a simple matter for you to read the previous 45 pages.

Again, you’re dodging because it isn’t in the previous 45 pages…

 

[graceandglory]

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

One more thought. I can’t believe I never saw this before!
The GLORY of GOD was dwelling in Mary’s womb!!!

Did she fall short of the glory of God?

No! ** The glory of God was in her—completely God and completely man! **

That is the proof you are looking for. It’s right there in that very verse!

"Hail Mary, FULL OF GRACE! The LORD IS WITH YOU! Blessed are you among women!
Luke 1:28, 42

Or, are you suggesting that God was in her, 100% God, except for His glory? That’s ridiculous. He was fully God, and fully Man.

 

[davidv]

Again, you’re dodging because it isn’t in the previous 45 pages…

Not at all. If you cannot find it, its not for lack of presentation.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Places in the Bible showing God alone is good and without sin:

1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2 Chronicles 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

Psalms 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

Psalms 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[guanophore]

Can you imagine someone claimging something that is not in the
Bible? Would you do that?

well, I would do it because I know that not all Revelation is confined to the Bible. What is puzzling is that people who believe the opposite claim doctrines that are not in the Bible. For example, that there are no righteous people!

 

[Lampo]

Can you imagine someone claimging something that is not in the
Bible?

Yes I can imagine it. I’ve seen it with false doctrines such as OSAS, sola scriptura and sola fide.

Would you do that?

No. I am Catholic and know that nothing the Church teaches contradicts Scripture and nothing within Scripture contradicts the teachings of the Church.

 

[sodak]

**Absolutely…the Bible tells us “all” have sinned and that includes Mary and everyone else. **

I agree, the verses are quite clear. All means all. No exceptions whatsoever.

Now which sin did Jesus commit?

 

[Old_Scholar]

The dogma of the IC proclaims that what we receive throught baptism, Mary received at the first moment of her conception. With the help of God’s grace, she remained free of all personal sin as well.

The Bible does not use the words, “Immaculate Conception,” but it does show that Mary was uniquely blessed by God because she was the Mother of Jesus. Some modern Scripture scholars assert that the popular translation of Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:28, “Hail, full of grace,” is more accurate than recent renderings like “Greeting, favored one.” The Greek *kecharitomene *implies a plenitude of grace that is both singular and permanent. This understanding that Mary was “full of grace” led early Christians to realize that Mary had been conceived without sin.

As early as the fourth century, theologians began to teach that Mary had been kept free of all sin by God because she was to be the Mother of Jesus Christ. by the seventh century, there was a liturgical observance proclaiming Mary’s freedom from sin. However, there was much debate among theologians about how mMary could be free of original sin since the Bible teaches that salvation comes from Christ. Int he thirteenth century, the Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus taught that Mary was preserved from all sin by the foreseen merits of Christ. God is not limited by time, and so Mary could be preserved from original sin by Christ just as those who lived and died in Old Testament times were, in the final analysis, redeemed by him.

Jesus is truly God, and is uniquely holy by reason of his divinity. Mary is human, and is holy by the grace and merits of her son. Jesus is free of original sin because he is God. Mary was kept free of original sin by the grace of Jesus. She was conceived by her parents in the normal way, but from the moment of her conception she existed in a state of union with God. She was granted the dind of grace and holiness which would have belonged to all human beings had there been no original sin.

It is also Catholic dogma that Mary remained free from personal sin throughout her life (CCC 493). She was not immune to the problems of living in a world touched by sin. She had to cooperate with God’s grace, and she had to cope with evil, above all the unjust murder of her son on the cross. Mary was tempted as we are. But she did not sin. She dooperated with God’s grace, and in this she is a model for us. When we are tempted to think that sin cannot be defeated, Mary witnesses to the fact that the grace of Christ can conquer the powers of hell.

The doctrine of the IC is not found explicitly in the Bible, but it is consistent with Bible teaching. Matthew, Luke, and John, guided by the Holy Spirit, saw Mary as the first among believers and as one specially blessed by God. The Holy Spirit led these authors to develop a direction toward a better appreciation of Mary and of her role in God’s plan. The Church followed the lines of development set by the NT when it proclaimed the dogma of the IC. We can be confident, therefore, that the Church was guided by the same Holy Spirit who led the evangelists. We have every reason for believing that it is God’s will that Christ’s Mother be honored as Mary, conceived without sin.

(Christ’s Mother & Ours, Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, C.M.)

**You see, that’s the problem. You say that with the help of God’s grace Mary remained free of all personal sin as well. How do you know that? What revelation did God give to you about that?

Then you say the Bible doesn’t use certain words and then go on to give what speculation has brought to the belief. What led Christians to believe Mary had been conceived without sin? Some belief of what might have been meant by what someone said???

Then you say that it was the fourth century before theologians discovered that Mary had been kept free from all sin by God. Then 300 years later it was further decided.

Why wouldn’t God have told us all about that in Scripture since the Scripture was given to us in order to give us the truth? Why did so many people for so long have to debate the issue and then a majority decide that Mary had not sinned? Was it because many wanted to Believe God and others wanted to believe their own thoughts?

You see, what happened is that someone said Mary must have been born without sin and then theologians kept searching to prove that by Scripture and did the best they could, as it was not in Scripture, by finding something that could vaguely be said to “maybe” refer to the question.

Then when it was decided that she was born without sin, it became necessary to believe that she remained sinless for the rest of her life. Another search began and finally someone found a vague Scripture that maybe could be interpreted to indicate the possibility that the belief was true.

This is like Christ calling Peter a rock. So vague, yet an entire faith was built upon it.

I read everything you say faithfully in order to know what you believe and why but I find it very difficult to go so far against what the Bible teaches us.

I earnestly want to know more about the Catholic belief but am not getting much information. It all seems to be based on what someone thinks or what someone wants it to be. Even when Tradition is mentioned, no Tradition is ever quoted. Just referred to as if using the word explains everything. It is very confusing to get at the truth even when trying so hard.**

 

[NotWorthy]

Again, you’re dodging because it isn’t in the previous 45 pages…

Here, rather than cutting and pasting huge articles like you’ve tended to do in the past, I’ll just post the link.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

I agree, the verses are quite clear. All means all. No exceptions whatsoever.

Now which sin did Jesus commit?

Jesus did not commit any sins.

 

[graceandglory]

I agree, the verses are quite clear. All means all. No exceptions whatsoever.

Now which sin did Jesus commit?

Then you must apply that to every scripture that says “all.”
Using your own extra-biblical reasoning.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I agree, the verses are quite clear. All means all. No exceptions whatsoever.

Now which sin did Jesus commit?

No exceptions are necessary for God. We are told He was perfect.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Jesus did not commit any sins.

Oh, and Sodak? Before you say it, I can see you trying to bait

The verse in context says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

You’re trying to get others to admit to exceptions, but there can be only one exception to that verse, and you know why?

Because to be an exception, a person would have to BE God

Jesus is the only exception because He can’t fall short of God’s Glory, since He IS God

 

[sodak]

I am trying to prove a point. If I lifted the verse containing “all” in it without a good understanding of how to put that into context with the Bible in total, a person could come up with a very dangerous heresy.

That’s the whole point!

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Oh, and Sodak? Before you say it, I can see you trying to bait

The verse in context says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

You’re trying to get others to admit to exceptions, but there can be only one exception to that verse, and you know why?

Because to be an exception, a person would have to BE God

Jesus is the only exception because He can’t fall short of God’s Glory, since He IS God

Thus in using phrases like that, God was extremely clever. He made it so the only possible exceptions to the rules of those guilty before Him… could be Him! Since all are guilty before God, the only one excepted… is God!

Jesus is the only one to have been both human and God, and thus could be the only possible exception to the rules against humans being sinless… Thus He could be the only sinless sacrifice on behalf of the human race.

God is incredible!

 

[Lampo]

**

Why wouldn’t God have told us all about that in Scripture since the Scripture was given to us in order to give us the truth? /B]**

I don’t know why God did it that way. Scripture does give us truth and the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth. In fact, it is the pillar and bullwark of truth. Just keep in mind, Scripture wasn’t meant to be the sole rule of faith and the doctrine of sola scriptura is un-biblical.

 

[graceandglory]

The GLORY of GOD was dwelling in Mary’s womb!!!

Did she fall short of the glory of God?

No! ** The glory of God was in her—completely God and completely man! **

That is the proof you are looking for. It’s right there in that very verse!

"Hail Mary, FULL OF GRACE! The LORD IS WITH YOU! Blessed are you among women!
Luke 1:28, 42

What exactly IS the Glory of God? I find it most interesting that when doing a simple websearch for the term “The Glory of the Lord” the first item to come up was by Hans Urs Von Balthasar, perhaps the greatest modern Catholic theologian. But, I thought I’d look for a prominent protestant to give us a definition of “the Glory of the Lord.” (for the sake of this discussion)

This is from one of John MacArthur’s Christmas messages titled, “The Glory of the Lord.”

I want you to take your Bible with me and turn to that chapter,** Isaiah chapter 40**. As we prepare our hearts for making this Christmas season most meaningful,** I want us to focus on this very phrase in verse 5**, "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed." Now if you know me at all, you know that the glory of God and the glory of the Lord is a tremendously important and urgent theme in my own teaching ministry. I speak of it often because the Bible speaks of it often. And you might think that perhaps we’re forcing this very, very beloved theme on to the issue of Christmas, but that is not the case at all, for the word of Isaiah in chapter 40 verse 5, “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed” is in fact the Christmas story. It is the Christmas message. The birth of Christ was the revelation of the glory of the Lord.****/B]…just as Isaiah had promised.

Mary did not fall short of the Glory of God.

If you think she did, show me a scripture where it says that Mary sinned and fell short of the glory of God.

Don’t you think that if God wanted to make sure we knew she was a sinner, He would have let us know?

 

[guanophore]

You see, that’s the problem. You say that with the help of God’s grace Mary remained free of all personal sin as well. How do you know that? What revelation did God give to you about that?

None that you can accept.

**
Then you say the Bible doesn’t use certain words and then go on to give what speculation has brought to the belief. What led Christians to believe Mary had been conceived without sin? Some belief of what might have been meant by what someone said???**

The same Spirit that led the Church to canonize the scripture, to define the Trinity, and to fight the heresies.

Then you say that it was the fourth century before theologians discovered that Mary had been kept free from all sin by God. Then 300 years later it was further decided.

Why is this a problem? You accept the canon, which was defined at the same time?

** Why wouldn’t God have told us all about that in Scripture since the Scripture was given to us in order to give us the truth? Why did so many people for so long have to debate the issue and then a majority decide that Mary had not sinned? Was it because many wanted to Believe God and others wanted to believe their own thoughts?
**

They were not ready to hear it yet.

John 16:12-15
12 "I have yet many things to say to you, **but you cannot bear them now. **13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

** You see, what happened is that someone said Mary must have been born without sin and then theologians kept searching to prove that by Scripture and did the best they could, as it was not in Scripture, by finding something that could vaguely be said to “maybe” refer to the question. **

This is not a problem for those of us who believe what Jesus said above.

** Then when it was decided that she was born without sin, it became necessary to believe that she remained sinless for the rest of her life. Another search began and finally someone found a vague Scripture that maybe could be interpreted to indicate the possibility that the belief was true.**

This is not how it happened, but I think that does not matter, because you recognize no authority outside of scripture.

**
This is like Christ calling Peter a rock. So vague, yet an entire faith was built upon it.**

It was not vague to those who were present, and was not vague for 1500 years…

Are you saying that Jesus did not intend to build His Church?

** I read everything you say faithfully in order to know what you believe and why but I find it very difficult to go so far against what the Bible teaches us.**

Keep in mind that the Bible doesn’t teach. People teach. You have been taught to understand scripture in a certain way, and you can learn other ways. If you really are sincere, then you will eventually come to learn that nothing in the Catholic faith “goes against” the Bible. It is just not limited to the Bible.

** I earnestly want to know more about the Catholic belief but am not getting much information. **

Could be because you are so hostile and oppositional? It is hard to learn about things when you have a mindset against it. I have the same trouble with math.

** It all seems to be based on what someone thinks or what someone wants it to be. Even when Tradition is mentioned, no Tradition is ever quoted. Just referred to as if using the word explains everything. It is very confusing to get at the truth even when trying so hard.**

Personally, I don’ t think it is possible to do so unless one is open to the existence of the thing one approaches. If you already are convinced there is no such thing as Sacred Tradition, then I don’t think you will learn much. This is a form of intractible research bias.

 

[anthony022071]

Paul is trying to show that all mankind is under the guilt of sin. It is a burden because of the government and dominion of sin. Man is enslaved to it and will work wickedness. The Old Testament often describes the corrupt and depraved state of all men until grace restrains them or changes them. He is describing multitudes who call themselves Christians. They didn’t fear God and where there is no fear of God, no good works can be found.

When Paul says “all have sinned” he means that until they receive Grace and become righteous then they are doomed. After they receive Grace and become righteous, they have free will and whether they sin or not is up to them but it is highly unlikely that man can live without sin. It is in his nature.

After all, Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous.

Christ said that he came to call sinners. If he did not come to save the righteous,then we are all in big trouble. That would defeat the purpose of his grace,by which men are helped to become righteous.

As far as Mary not sinning after the birth of Jesus, I feel certain she was filled with grace and sinned no more than anyone else in her position. But to say she lived the rest of her life without sin would be a speculation as we have no indication that anyone but Christ was able to do that.

That is not what the Fathers of the Church thought,who developed the Christian doctrines we have inherited. They said she was without sin,stainless,pure.

Even evil thoughts were considered sin. In the same situation, it is inconceivable that Mary had not sinned when selected to bear our Lord.

It isn’t inconceivable,because nothing is impossible with God,and because if Jesus was born from a woman tainted with sin,then he himself would have inherited her fallen nature. And so he would not have been a "last Adam,a life-giving spirit,but like the “first Adam”,who had a fallen nature.

Would God have selected a woman with a fallen nature to bear a son with an unfallen nature? What would have been the point in Christ inheriting Mary’s mortal flesh if she had a fallen nature to go along with her mortal flesh? We inherit our fallen nature from the that of our parents by way of their flesh. Christ inherited his unfallen nature from that of Mary by way of her flesh. Our fallen nature is inherited along with our mortal flesh,but they are not the same thing. We are mortal not because we have inherited Adam’s guilt,but because we were all in Adam,in his flesh,his seed,when he sinned. Adam became mortal when he sinned,and we are of his flesh,of his seed,and therefore of his nature. But Adam’s guilt is not our guilt. Guilt is personal,and we did not exist as persons when Adam sinned.

How many young girls live to be her age without sinning? Had this been true, the Scriptures would have told us. To believe such a thing is putting a great deal of faith in people and not paying attention to Scripture when it says otherwise.

Scripture was written by people,and the books of the Bible were
chosen by people in the Catholic Church. Scripture does not do its own interpreting,and there is no mention of the principle of sola scriptura,or that everything pertaining to the faith of the Church is contained in scripture.

See also post 591.