Could Mary have sinned?

[Jzyehoshua]

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.

But we become righteous only after repenting. The need for all of us to repent is clear:

Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

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 nature goes along with our mortal flesh,but is it 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.

You mistakenly assume that the flesh is where cleanness lies. Jesus showed otherwise:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

[graceandglory]

How many young girls live to be her age without sinning? Had this been true, the Scriptures would have told us.

Mary was the young girl who realized she was different when she sang,***
"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.*** Luke 1:46-49

To believe such a thing is putting a great deal of faith in people and not paying attention to Scripture when it says otherwise.

You absolutely cannot prove from Scripture that Mary was sinful. If it could be done, then Catholicism would have fallen a long time ago. However, all of Scripture supports Mary’s preservation from sin, even if it doesn’t come right out and say it. Just like the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church of which it can be said,
"Upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

 

[anthony022071]

But we become righteous only after repenting. The need for all of us to repent is clear:

Repenting is the first step in becoming righteous. After repentance comes reformation – following the commandments.

You mistakenly assume that the flesh is where cleanness lies. Jesus showed otherwise:

No,I don’t make that assumption. I said that our nature is inherited along with the flesh,but they are not the same thing. Christ’s human nature was pure because Mary’s human nature was pure,and his human nature was inherited by way of the flesh. But if we say that Mary’s nature was not pure,then Christ’s human nature was not pure,and there was contradiction between the nature he inherited from Mary and the nature he inherited from God.

 

[guanophore]

You mistakenly assume that the flesh is where cleanness lies. Jesus showed otherwise:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

You are mixing apples and oranges. In sin we are conceived (most of us ). We inherit the stain of original sin at the moment of conception.

The sins and uncleanness that Jesus is speaking about are personal sins (breaking of the law).

Mary was not inclined to break the law because she did not suffer concupiscense.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

So… All must NOT mean All, then?

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

OS, I’ve been thinking about this post since I read it, and I think I see your dilemma. I think you are going about it the wrong way. Mary is often a major stumbling block to understanding the Catholic Faith, and to me it’s ridiculous, because Mary is not the central aspect to our Faith.

To me it’s like trying to figure out how a car runs by looking at the tires - not that Mary is important, mind you, but she’s not the central focus of our faith and it’s differences with yours.

To understand the Church, you must start with the central role of the Church - to bring sinners to Salvation. The Church’s two main ways of doing that are through the Mass and through the Sacraments (yes, the Eucharist at Mass is a sacrament, but that’s a minor technicality). Yes, evangelizing to the Masses is also important, but since it’s the protestant church’s role as well, I don’t see a main difference to make note of, so I’m going to ignore it.

If you focus on the Church’s roles in these, then you’ll get a better picture of the Church. After that, you’ll begin to better understand Mary and the Communion of the Saints. This has been the way many Christians have come to understand the Church. And in understanding it, they come to believe.

You mention Scott Hahn’s apology on this subject. I think that’s the trap he is falling into. He’s trying to explain something to someone who doesn’t understand the Church, and yet keep it as simple as possible. This doesn’t generally work.

What I understand about Marian Devotion is, if you look at Catholics that venerate Mary more than others, you will often find that these are the most Christ-like people in the Church. They are the ones that live the Beatitudes more than any other group. There are exceptions to this, of course there are always exceptions to generalities, but over-all this is a very accurate analysis of people devoted to Mary.

Take John Paul II, for instance. Most Protestants who know him, the Billy Grahams and what not, really admired him and his Spirituality. They thought of him as a great servant of Christ’s. JPII was one of those people who would be considered very devoted to Mary. Those detractors of this practice of his never knew the man and only belittled themselves with their ridicule, IMO.

So, my advice to you. If you want to understand the Church’s devotion to Mary, you’ll first have to understand the Church. You will never understand the Church by first trying to understand Marian Devotion.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Alright, so ultimately to wrap this all up in a nutshell, the reason Catholics are convinced Mary had to have been sinless is they don’t see how Christ could’ve been sinless without Mary being sinless, right?

However, I’m going to ask an odd question here… what if Jesus DID have a sin nature as transmitted through Adam, according to the human flesh? The Bible says Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are (Hebrews 4:15), so how would that be possible if He had no inclination to sin?

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Rather, what if He CHOSE not to sin and submit to that sin nature of the flesh through the power of the Holy Spirit which gives every Christian believer the same ability to overcome their sinful tendencies according to their sin nature?

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

In fact, if Jesus did not have any inclination to sin through a human sin nature, He would not be the great High Priest spoken of in Hebrews 4:15 for He wouldn’t have been tempted in all ways like we are. His victory over sin would’ve been a shallow one if not suffering the same weakness and temptation we do. I see His greatness in His choosing not to surrender to the temptations of this sinful human nature.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

In verse 17 it says “in all things” it behoved him to be made like us. If He had no sin nature, He would not be like us, but the Bible says the only difference between us and Him was that He did not sin, not that He had no sin nature giving Him inclination to sin.

As Christians, we have that same power to avoid sin by walking in God’s Spirit. We are no longer under bondage to our sin nature. I believe Jesus did not sin not because He was not tempted to sin, but rather because He walked so greatly in the Spirit that He did not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

And once that same Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost and the way of salvation became available, every Christian through faith in Jesus could gain the same power to choose not to sin at any given time, rather than being in bondage any longer to their old sin nature which has been crucified through our new life in Christ.

 

[sodak]

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!

Where is THAT in the Bible? That’s your interpretation. All means all. As previously stated, no exceptions. Otherwise, you are adding to the Bible.

Alright, so ultimately to wrap this all up in a nutshell, the reason Catholics are convinced Mary had to have been sinless is they don’t see how Christ could’ve been sinless without Mary being sinless, right?

Wrong. Christ’s perfection and sinlessness didn’t depend upon Mary.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Where is THAT in the Bible? That’s your interpretation. All means all. As previously stated, no exceptions. Otherwise, you are adding to the Bible.

It’s simply analyzing according to the rules of English grammar. No “interpretation” necessary. Look at the following sentence:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Could any possible exceptions to the rule of “all have sinned” exist based upon this sentence? Yes, because it is contrasting two sides, God, and all others.

God can not come short of His own glory, therefore He is the only exception. Jesus claimed to be God and man, therefore He was a potential exception who could be a sinless human being.

Again, look at this sentence:

“There is none good but one, that is, God.”

Pretty straightforward. The only one good is God. That leaves out everyone else, including humans. The only way this sentence could be grammatically correct and truthful, and a human being could be good, is if the human being was God.

In both cases, Mary can not be sinless or good unless she is God, which to my knowledge she never claimed to be.

I could present these sentences to any English teacher and I am sure they would reach the same conclusions. It’s not a matter of interpretation, but of simple grammatical structure.

 

[davidv]

Alright, so ultimately to wrap this all up in a nutshell, the reason Catholics are convinced Mary had to have been sinless is they don’t see how Christ could’ve been sinless without Mary being sinless, right?

Wrong.
I am convinced of Mary’s sinlessness is because it is a fact that has always been taught by the Church.

Mary did not have to be sinless. But, it was fitting that she was.

I am perfectly capable of seeing how Christ could have been sinless without Mary being so. But, it didn’t happen that way.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Wrong.
I am convinced of Mary’s sinlessness is because it is a fact that has always been taught by the Church.

Mary did not have to be sinless. But, it was fitting that she was.

I am perfectly capable of seeing how Christ could have been sinless without Mary being so. But, it didn’t happen that way.

Alright then, at least you are honest. We will disagree because your trust is in the Catholic Church, and my trust is in the Bible.

 

[davidv]

Alright then, at least you are honest. We will disagree because your trust is in the Catholic Church, and my trust is in the Bible.

Pretty persuptuous of you to determine who I trust.

I trust Christ and His body the Church.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Pretty persuptuous of you to determine who I trust.

I trust Christ and His body the Church.

And I trust God and His promises as revealed in His Word.

Jesus said Heaven and earth would pass away, but His words will not pass away. Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Hebrew equivalent of our grammar marks to fail from the Old Testament Law. All through the New Testament it is said such and such things had to be done so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Jesus said it is those who hear His words and keep them that love Him.

Not only were God’s words divinely inspired, but they were divinely preserved.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella;3310329]
Where does Luke say Mary was sinless? Its not in 1:28 since the word used for “favored” one does not mean sinless all her life or has anything to do with sin.

Do you find it troubling that this ‘ex cathedra’ has only been used once? It seems so many disputes could be settled in the catholic church if this was used more often.

For doctrines to develop properly and reflect the will of Christ they must be truly and explicitedly grounded in the Scriptures. Unless this principle is adhered to anything could be said to be a doctrine under the guise its “implicit”.

Protestant scholars who translate the angel’s greeting “highly favoured” have deliberately created a false and misleading distinction to reflect Protestant theology as opposed to Catholic. The angel Gabriel uses the term ‘kecharitomene’. The root of this word is ‘charis’, which means grace or kindness. The prefix ‘ke’ means that grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix ‘mene’ indicates that Mary was the recipient of this grace. ‘Charis’ may also be translated as “favour”, so “Rejoice, highly favoured one” could be a conceivable translation. But this would only be acceptable if the word ‘charis’ were used meaning “favour” in other parts of the New Testament. But this doesn’t happen anywhere in Scripture. Even some Bibles which translate ‘charis’ as “favour” in Luke 1, 28 translate it as “grace” everywhere else. The discrepancy is misleading because in the NT the word “grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “favour”. Grace is a gift from God that saves us from sin and its effects. So the Protestant translation is wrong. The correct translation is the one we get from St. Jerome and is contained in the Latin Vulgate: “full of grace” (gratia). St. Jerome is true to Luke’s intended use of the word ‘charis’ (grace) which means the same everywhere else in the NT.

These Protestant scholars ignore the connection between the angel Gabriel’s salutation and Mary’s Magnificat. Luke intended that these two passages be taken in context with each other. That is why we find these two passages linked together in his gospel.

And Mary said, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
{Luke 1, 46}

It is important to note that Mary does not say: “I glorify the Lord,” but rather “My soul glorifies the Lord.” Luke is telling us that Mary’s soul was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace, which was acknowledged by the angel Gabriel. A soul which has fallen from grace does not glorify God. And if Mary were sinful, Luke would not have penned these words. This constant state of grace could only have begun at the moment Mary’s soul was created by God. Further, Luke uses the simple present tense to signify a permanent state, not an instant of time. “Now” encompasses Mary’s entire earthly existence, for the verse tells us that Mary is “now” saved, not “will be saved”. This could not be said of someone who was ever inclined to sin or still was. :nope:

In the Magnificat, Luke is citing Isaiah 51, 10: ‘I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns himself with her jewels.’

Luke clearly understood that Mary was already saved and counted among the righteous before the time of the Annunciation. Her redemption was already secured by the merits of Christ’s death on the Cross. So Mary could not have been equated with the rest of sinful humanity which still has to hope to achieve its salvation by winning the race, as Paul puts it. Luke saw Mary as sinless. Meanwhile, Mary was redeemed by her son like the rest of us, but she won her redemption the moment her soul was fashioned by God and infused with sanctifying grace. Once she was born, she remained sinless by her own free will with the help of God’s grace. Finally, the NT treats grace as the “antitode to sin”. (See the Epistle to the Romans). So Mary could not have ever sinned while in a perpetual state of grace.

Luke expresses his understanding of Mary’s sinlessness in the words of Jesus himself, who further defines the meaning of “blessed” expressed by the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth earlier in the narrative (cf. Luke 1, 28; 1, 42). Again, Luke intends these verses to be taken in context with each other as part of a whole picture: But he said, “Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11, 27). Jesus spoke these words alluding to his mother, since the woman in the crowd drew his attention to her by declaring her blessed for having conceived and borne the Messiah. Mary was blessed indeed for having been granted the favour of being the “mother of our Lord”. But Jesus considered his mother even more blessed because of her sinlessness: keeping the word of God. What Jesus says expresses what Luke and his church believed about Mary, for she is related with blessedness in other parts of the gospel. Still, the dictum of our Lord applies to all Christians, but in a secondary context.

An ‘ex-cathedra’ pronouncement is only made once, because it is infallible. What is infallible is irrevocable.

The Marian doctrines were properly and truthfully developed over time as were the Christological or Trinitarian doctrines.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

And I trust God and His promises as revealed in His Word.

Jesus said Heaven and earth would pass away, but His words will not pass away. Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Hebrew equivalent of our grammar marks to fail from the Old Testament Law.

You trust in God and his promises as revealed in your private and unauthoritative interpretation of his Word.

Your citation of Matthew is contextually warped and reshaped to fit what you want to believe.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[sodak]

Not only were God’s words divinely inspired, but they were divinely preserved.

Only by the Catholic Church. There are MANY different versions of the Bible floating around with bad translations and substantive differences. They cannot all be right.

It’s amazing that you are willing to take the Bible, which the Church gave us, then completely disregard the Church itself.

 

[Lampo]

I’ve heard it stated like this:

Suppose I write a book. Someone reads that books and then comes to me and begins to tell me what I wrote about. Then I say, “I"m sorry, that’s not at ALL what I meant!” The reader responds, “Yes it is. When I read your book, that is what I got out of it, so that MUST be what you meant.”

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Protestant scholars who translate the angel’s greeting “highly favoured” have deliberately created a false and misleading distinction to reflect Protestant theology as opposed to Catholic. The angel Gabriel uses the term ‘kecharitomene’. The root of this word is ‘charis’, which means grace or kindness. The prefix ‘ke’ means that grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix ‘mene’ indicates that Mary was the recipient of this grace. ‘Charis’ may also be translated as “favour”, so “Rejoice, highly favoured one” could be a conceivable translation. But this would only be acceptable if the word ‘charis’ were used meaning “favour” in other parts of the New Testament. But this doesn’t happen anywhere in Scripture. Even some Bibles which translate ‘charis’ as “favour” in Luke 1, 28 translate it as “grace” everywhere else. The discrepancy is misleading because in the NT the word “grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “favour”. Grace is a gift from God that saves us from sin and its effects. So the Protestant translation is wrong. The correct translation is the one we get from St. Jerome and is contained in the Latin Vulgate: “full of grace” (gratia). St. Jerome is true to Luke’s intended use of the word ‘charis’ (grace) which means the same everywhere else in the NT.

These Protestant scholars ignore the connection between the angel Gabriel’s salutation and Mary’s Magnificat. Luke intended that these two passages be taken in context with each other. That is why we find these two passages linked together in his gospel.

And Mary said, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
{Luke 1, 46}

It is important to note that Mary does not say: “I glorify the Lord,” but rather “My soul glorifies the Lord.” Luke is telling us that Mary’s soul was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace, which was acknowledged by the angel Gabriel. A soul which has fallen from grace does not glorify God. And if Mary were sinful, Luke would not have penned these words. This constant state of grace could only have begun at the moment Mary’s soul was created by God. Further, Luke uses the simple present tense to signify a permanent state, not an instant of time. “Now” encompasses Mary’s entire earthly existence, for the verse tells us that Mary is “now” saved, not “will be saved”. This could not be said of someone who was ever inclined to sin or still was. :nope:

In the Magnificat, Luke is citing Isaiah 51, 10: ‘I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns himself with her jewels.’

Luke clearly understood that Mary was already saved and counted among the righteous before the time of the Annunciation. Her redemption was already secured by the merits of Christ’s death on the Cross. So Mary could not have been equated with the rest of sinful humanity which still has to hope to achieve its salvation by winning the race, as Paul puts it. Luke saw Mary as sinless. Meanwhile, Mary was redeemed by her son like the rest of us, but she won her redemption the moment her soul was fashioned by God and infused with sanctifying grace. Once she was born, she remained sinless by her own free will with the help of God’s grace. Finally, the NT treats grace as the “antitode to sin”. (See the Epistle to the Romans). So Mary could not have ever sinned while in a perpetual state of grace.

Luke expresses his understanding of Mary’s sinlessness in the words of Jesus himself, who further defines the meaning of “blessed” expressed by the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth earlier in the narrative (cf. Luke 1, 28; 1, 42). Again, Luke intends these verses to be taken in context with each other as part of a whole picture: But he said, “Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11, 27). Jesus spoke these words alluding to his mother, since the woman in the crowd drew his attention to her by declaring her blessed for having conceived and borne the Messiah. Mary was blessed indeed for having been granted the favour of being the “mother of our Lord”. But Jesus considered his mother even more blessed because of her sinlessness: keeping the word of God. What Jesus says expresses what Luke and his church believed about Mary, for she is related with blessedness in other parts of the gospel. Still, the dictum of our Lord applies to all Christians, but in a secondary context.

An ‘ex-cathedra’ pronouncement is only made once, because it is infallible. What is infallible is irrevocable.

The Marian doctrines were properly and truthfully developed over time as were the Christological or Trinitarian doctrines.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

That same word charitoo from the Greek is used also in Ephesians to refer to all Christian believers, who as said in 1:7 are stated to have “forgiveness of sins”. I take it that applies to Mary too, then?

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace , wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved .
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood , the forgiveness of sins , according to the riches of his grace ;

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her , and said , Hail , thou that art highly favoured , the Lord is with thee : blessed art thou among women .

 

[Jzyehoshua]

What you’re trying to do is draw out from nothing something through the use of Hebrew grammar rules so obscure that most readers won’t know for sure whether you’re right or wrong even if an expert were to refute you.

That’s use of interpretation whereby you seek to refute over a dozen other passages clearly showing God alone is good and sinless.

Isn’t it hypocritical of you to deny Sola Scriptura so you can reject a dozen passages that are very clear in their statements, but then attempt to go to such ridiculous lengths focusing on elaborate grammar rules for a word as though now suddenly the exact tenses of a word matter to you so you can keep your own tradition?

 

[guanophore]

Alright, so ultimately to wrap this all up in a nutshell, the reason Catholics are convinced Mary had to have been sinless is they don’t see how Christ could’ve been sinless without Mary being sinless, right?

Absolutely not. The two things have nothing to do with each other. We believe that she was immaculately concieved (preserved from original sin) so that she would have untainted flesh to nurture our Lord.

Being preserved from original sin, she did not have the tendency to sin as the rest of us do (read Rom 7), so did not struggle against the inclination. Her heart was inclinded toward God at all times, and she made choices accordingly.

However, I’m going to ask an odd question here… what if Jesus DID have a sin nature as transmitted through Adam, according to the human flesh? The Bible says Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are (Hebrews 4:15), so how would that be possible if He had no inclination to sin?

He was tempted externally (by things outside Himself). Being God, he never had any desire to do other than what God wants. Human beings, in our sin nature, are turned against the law of God. there are some good threads on this, if you search “Jesus tempted”

Rather, what if He CHOSE not to sin and submit to that sin nature of the flesh through the power of the Holy Spirit which gives every Christian believer the same ability to overcome their sinful tendencies according to their sin nature?

I am sure that He did choose not to sin. The stories of His temptation tell us that, and the agony in the garden.

Baptism frees us from bondage, so that we are able to choose the good. It washes away original sin. However, the effects of that sin remain, and we are still inclined toward the flesh, and against God.

I understand your reasoning here, but this heresy was addressed very early in the church.

Good thing we have the Apostolic Teaching to flesh these things out!

I agree that God has given us this power to overcome sin. However, we will struggle in a way He did not, as described in Rom. 7