Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

[fredrock]

TNT,

I am sorry that you have such a low view of the authenticity of the book of Romans and 2 Peter.

It is hard for me to respond to your objections. I suppose that if one wanted to, they could object to even Christ coming in the flesh since there are those who deny that he did.

In the end you will have to decide for yourself if they can be trusted, though there seemed to have been no disagreement in there authorship for the first 1000 years or so, be it Roman Catholic or Protestant.

In His Service,
Fredrock

 

[TNT]

fredrock:

TNT,

I am sorry that you have such a low view of the authenticity of the book of Romans and 2 Peter.

It is hard for me to respond to your objections. I suppose that if one wanted to, they could object to even Christ coming in the flesh since there are those who deny that he did.

In the end you will have to decide for yourself if they can be trusted, though there seemed to have been no disagreement in there authorship for the first 1000 years or so, be it Roman Catholic or Protestant.

In His Service,
Fredrock

Fredrock, it is not just me regarding a doubt. The doubt was there from the beginning, then somebody at a meeting stepped in and threw it in. Why should I believe them, and not those of the 2nd century?
From BIBLE.ORG:
2 Peter and the New Testament Canon

The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation.

2 Peter was recognized as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century, (WHO CALLED THESE MEETINGS, AND WHAT AUTHORITY DID THEY HAVE TO DECIDE? See what I am saying, FredRock?) and this is the more significant because these Councils rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement, because they were not of apostolic origin. . . At the Reformation it was regarded as second-class Scripture by Luther, rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with hesitancy by Calvin. (Tells me that things were not as agreeable as you proposed.)
Bauckham speculates the reason for the hesitancy of 2 Peter’s acceptance is that:

Quite probably the churches which originally received it, knowing it not to be Peter’s own work, would not have granted it the same status in their own use as they did, e.g., to the Pauline letters . . . Whatever the reasons for its lack of wide use in the second century, this seems to have contributed to its very slow progress toward general acceptance into the canon.

The early church (What Church was that anyway? Did it have a name?) hesitated to accept 2 Peter possibly because Peter’s name was used in many Gnostic writings, and both Peter and Jude allude to Enoch, an apocryphal book.

In the end you will have to decide for yourself if they can be trusted

What difference would it make whether you OR I decide? How would that make it objectively true or false? Niether of us has any authority on this matter, do we?
Here’s a good site well layed out on all the controversy about the 27 final books as well as those that didn’t make the cut.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Fredrock:wave:

Missed your post until today.

posted by Fredrock #135
The holy scriptures are clear how sin was transfered from Adam to all the human race. You can read all about this in the letter to the Romans chapter 5 beginning in verse 12**.**

The Catholic Church has always taught about original sin. All have sinned is referring to personal sin.

I personally do not see how it detracts from Mary to include her in the fall.

It detracts from Christ to include her in personal sin and original sin. There are some great threads about Mary and the Ark of the convenant. this is from CA library. here: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

from CA library
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

posted by Fredrock
Even if she was able to keep the whole moral law, the reality is that she would still not be justified in the sight of God based on the performance of the law, Romans 3:20 "By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Catholics are not saying Mary was justified by the Law.

posted by Fredrock
I do not agree that one must have knowledge that what they are doing is sinfull for it to be come sin to them. While it is true that the bible says in Romans 7:7 “I would not have known sin except through the law.” It is clear that Paul is teaching that It is because God wants to arouse us to our sinful nature that the law came in the first place, so in affect it would lead us like a school master to seek the forgivness of Christ.

posted by Fredrock
As for your other points about the mentally handicapped and infants, they are included in Adam’s race and are to be included in what Paul said in** Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”**

So an infant can sin? The context here is the phrase All have sinned. The argument is since All have sinned, Mary must have personally sinned. But is an infant included in “all”?

An infant has personal sin? Name one.

Finally, no, Jesus did not sin. Nor did He have the curse of Adam applied to Him as He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not subject to original sin. And no, He did not fall short, but gave His life freely for the ransom of many once for all time and has sat down at the right hand of God to the praise of His glory.

Never thought he did sin, but as Jesus was fully human, doesn’t that fall under All have sinned according to your interpretation? If not, why?

And by the way, I seem to be wording things poorly lately. People are misunderstanding what I mean and are taking offense when none is meant, even my explantion of what I meant is going awry . Please, give me the benefit of the doubt if you read something as uncharitable. I am just trying to engage in dialogue and this forum sometimes is easy to mistake a person’s intentions.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[fredrock]

Maria,

You said, "Please, give me the benefit of the doubt if you read something as uncharitable. I am just trying to engage in dialogue and this forum sometimes is easy to mistake a person’s intentions."

By the grace of Christ, I will endeavor to give every person including you the benefit of a doubt when talking about such a sensitive subject.

Maria,
I am not sure why you seek a distinction between original sin and sins of commission.

The view of Scripture is that because of the fallen nature of man he does nothing but sin. Even the good that he appears to do is done out of improper motives.

No human has kept the law of God in total. This includes Mary.

Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, everyone to his own way, And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Romans 3:9 "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. (10) As it is written: **There is none righteous, no, not one. **(11) There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. (12) They have all turned aside… (19) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be come guilty before God.

Galations 3:19 "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made… (22) But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Galations 4:4 “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son,** born of a women**, born under the law.”

Now of this special grace that you say that Mary had that kept her from sinning or from the curse of Adam, (Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” the Scriptures are silent of this doctrine. But of Christ John writes:

1 John 1:8** If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves**, and the truth is not in us… (10) If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

1 John 3:5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.

What is said of Mary in Scripture is little, but some insight can be gained into how she viewed herself in the Magnificat:

Luke 1:47 "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
Luke 1:54 " He has helped His servant Israel, in rememberance of His mercy.

Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS,** for He shall save His people from their sins.**

Mary viewed herself rightly **as part of the people of God and in need of His devine mercy. **That she recognized God as her savior is important to take note of.

Look closely as to what Jesus is saving His people from, (their sins) that is why Mary called God is her Savior.

My prayer is that you will consider these passages of Scripture. I write these things not to detract from Mary what is properly owed to her. But to correct what is in my view, and many others, an improper devotion that lessens the gratitude that is owed and the worship that only rightly belongs to Christ.

I am convinced beyond all doubt that the Reformation was necessary. And while I understand the Roman Catholic desire to elevate the church traditions to a level equal or above Scripture. I cannot honestly say that an argument from the Fathers really persuades me more than what is in the Canon of Scripture. I say this in love and with a sincere desire to know the mind of Roman Catholics and I hope that you will permit me to continue posting in spite of my strong opposition to argumentation that is not found in the Bible.

In His Service,
Fredrock

 

[Church_Militant]

fredrock says:

I write these things not to detract from Mary what is properly owed to her. But to correct what is in my view, and many others, an improper devotion that lessens the gratitude that is owed and the worship that only rightly belongs to Christ.

I am convinced beyond all doubt that the Reformation was necessary. And while I understand the Roman Catholic desire to elevate the church traditions to a level equal or above Scripture. I cannot honestly say that an argument from the Fathers really persuades me more than what is in the Canon of Scripture.* I say this in love and with a sincere desire to know the mind of Roman Catholics and I hope that you will permit me to continue posting in spite of my strong opposition to argumentation that is not found in the Bible*.

The highlighted and underlined statements just show how very little you really know and understand of what we Catholics really believe.

You have zero real understanding of Catholic Marian devotion or that we do not elevate her to divine status. Our devotion and love for the Blessed Virgin is all Christocentric and in no way detracts from the real and devout worship of God by Catholics.

It becomes more and more difficult to get across to guys like you who think you know all about the Catholic faith when in fact you know only that which someone has told you about us or that you have read in biased literature.

Your arguments from Sola Scriptura are invalid since Sola Scriptura itself is an unBiblical belief that did not exist until after your so-called “reformation”. Your understanding of Sacred Tradition is biased and uninformed…though as with all these concepts, you will assert that you fully understand them all.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Gracie2004]

Not having read all of the posts in this thread, I hope I am not repeating someone else here.

Anyone who thinks we give Mary the same type of worship we give to Christ needs to understand the difference. There are three types of worship. Dulia, HyperDulia and Latria. Dulia is the type of veneration given to angels. HyperDulia is the type of veneration given to Our Lady and Saints. Latria is ADORATION and is reserved ONLY for God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit. To say to a Catholic that we worship Mary is to say to that Catholic that he/she is adoring Mary…Not so…we venerate Mary for her holiness, we venerate Mary for her Fiat to God. We do not, however, worship her. She is not a divine being.

The concept and doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in line with that type of veneration. And does nothing to take away from the worship of our Lord and Savior, Christ, the second person in the Holy Trinity.

Gracie

 

[fredrock]

Church Militant:

fredrock says:

The highlighted and underlined statements just show how very little you really know and understand of what we Catholics really believe.

You have zero real understanding of Catholic Marian devotion or that we do not elevate her to divine status. Our devotion and love for the Blessed Virgin is all Christocentric and in no way detracts from the real and devout worship of God by Catholics.

**It becomes more and more difficult to get across to guys like you who think you know all about the Catholic faith when in fact you know only that which someone has told you about us or that you have read in biased literature. **

Your arguments from Sola Scriptura are invalid since Sola Scriptura itself is an unBiblical belief that did not exist until after your so-called “reformation”. Your understanding of Sacred Tradition is biased and uninformed…though as with all these concepts, you will assert that you fully understand them all.
Pax vobiscum,

Hi,

Why the anger?

What I know and have read about the devotion to Mary, I have read right hear on these forums since the Pope died. The only bias I know of is the two to three days I heard on TV of how the Pope loved Mary. What of Christ! I wondered?

This I heard over and over and over and over. This caused me to want to find out more of the mind of Roman Catholics as I stated in my post. I have much greater issues with Romanism than the devotion to Mary, but this I see is a great error too.

In the many post you make there is a lot of beating at your chest, but you never answer the Scriptures. It is because you do not value them. You said sola scriptura is all wrong. What of the verses that were given? If Roman Catholicism denys them outright then they do not posess the truth.

I do not expect the blind to see unless the Lord give them sight.

A last point. You used the term Christocentric, and that is a big word with a lot of meaning. I am afraid that you do not posess that word either for it was the REFORMERS who taught that it was CHRIST ALONE by grace alone through faith alone.

In His Service,
Fredrock

 

[MariaG]

Hi Fredrock,

Sorry it took me a few days.

A last point. You used the term Christocentric, and that is a big word with a lot of meaning. I am afraid that you do not posess that word either for it was the REFORMERS who taught that it was CHRIST ALONE by grace alone through faith alone.

Faith alone is unbiblical. The only place in the Bible that talks of faith alone, it explicitly says

:bible1: James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

You posted alot of Scripture using the words all and no man. This is to prove that Mary could not have been immaculately conceived nor lead a sinless life.

But you did not tell me what sin an infant has? A baby who is miscarried or aborted? What sin do they have?

You also keep talking about Mary and the law. But Christian belief is that through faith and baptism, a person is freed from original sin and personal sin, throught the Grace of Jesus Christ. Mary was simply the first person to whom God gave this gift.

Mary was saved through Christ. Your other Scripture then is to point to Mary as needing a savior. Catholics agree and teach this. Mary was the first follower of Christ. Catholic teaching does not put Mary above Christ.

My prayer is that you will consider these passages of Scripture. I write these things not to detract from Mary what is properly owed to her. But to correct what is in my view, and many others, an improper devotion that lessens the gratitude that is owed and the worship that only rightly belongs to Christ.

Your view is wrong. Devotion does not equal worship. (See definitions in previous post). Your view is that it lessens the gratitude owed to Christ? So you can read my heart and see what is happening?

Marian Devotion only draws a person closer to Christ. The more a person understands and loves Mary, the closer they draw to and worship Christ. As a person who came from the Protestant Churches, to the Catholic Church, I can 100% attest to this truth.

I say this in love and with a sincere desire to know the mind of Roman Catholics and I hope that you will permit me to continue posting in spite of my strong opposition to argumentation that is not found in the Bible.

I hope you can stay also. I love to show my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ where we “find it in the Bible”. We can completely get into more Scripture. The Immaculate conception is scriptural. But so this does not become a Scripture slinging match, let’s stick to the ones you quoted first.

You claim all and no one in the Scripture quoted leaves absolutely “no one” out. So what sin does an infant have? And as Christ is fully human, what sin did He have?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Church_Militant]

What I know and have read about the devotion to Mary, I have read right hear on these forums since the Pope died. The only bias I know of is the two to three days I heard on TV of how the Pope loved Mary. What of Christ! I wondered?

So you go find your ex-Catholic wife and pastor (who, if they had known what Catholics really believe and had known their faith as they should have would never have left the church anyway.) and just happen to have a conveniently anti-Catholic article that you can link to your posts before you ever ask us the first question? C’mon…none of us just toppled off the turnip truck this morning. You believe what they tell you…okay. But the language in your posts shows that you’ve schooled yourself in a/C literature. People who come here sincerely wanting to know don’t use terminology like “Romanism”. They call us just what we are- Catholics.

What of Christ? We’ve already answered that…and if you’d read all the posts on this thread before you jumped in here you’d already know that all Marian devotion is because of Christ and points us to Christ

I have much greater issues with Romanism

than the devotion to Mary, but this I see is a great error too Quite frankly, why should we care what you see as “a great error”? This thread and the ma(name removed by moderator)age tracts and articles more than sufficiently address your “isues”. What don’t you get?

In the many post you make there is a lot of beating at your chest, but you never answer the Scriptures. It is because you do not value them.

Look, you haven’t seen “chest beating” yet…all you’ve seen is some people who don’t appreciate your tone when you imply that JPII was less than he was when he has just passed away. Are you that insensitive to the feelings of others? Where is your “Christian” compassion? That man was one of my personal heroes. He did more for Christianity on his worst day than most people will on their best one. He led a life of personal holiness and faith in Jesus Christ and because of that faith he spoke out on justice issues that no one else seemed to care about. You may not agree with our theology, but if a tree is judged by it’s fruit, then JPII was a whole orchard of holiness and standing up for what is right.

Please don’t try to tell us that we have to answer your interpretation of the scriptures. This thread in particular has many examples of scripture to back up my OP…the historical and traditional statements on here are simply to show that others from the early church (and even the so-called “pillars of the reformation”) shared those beliefs. But most modern “Christians” either don’t know that, or if they do don’t wanna talk about it because it means that all the subsequent Protestant religions have departed from what they were founded on. Catholics have all the scriptures and they are inspired…but there are insights in the ECF and other historical sources that show what the ECF said they mean. That helps us be sure that we are understanding them correctly.

You said sola scriptura is all wrong. What of the verses that were given? If Roman Catholicism denys them outright then they do not posess the truth.

It is. It’s a new wind of doctrine that has only existed since 1517 and was formulated by a dissident priest who edited books out of the Bible and even changed passages of the NT to support his theology. The Catholic Church has never and will never deny the inspired nature of the Bible. We will never tell anyone that the Bible alone is the deposit of Faith…because it’s not.

I do not expect the blind to see unless the Lord give them sight.

Amen! I feel the very same way about you.

A last point. You used the term Christocentric, and that is a big word with a lot of meaning. I am afraid that you do not posess that word either for it was the REFORMERS who taught that it was CHRIST ALONE by grace alone through faith alone

."Christocentric

\Chris"to*cen"tric, a. [Christ + centric.] Making Christ the center, about whom all things are grouped, as in religion or history; tending toward Christ, as the central object of thought or emotion. " There’s the definition of the term I used…your statement shows that you don’t know what it means. It nowhere implies that it should be Christ alone. Just that He is the center. Marian devotion is…

I really don’t much care what the reformers taught…I spent over 34 years wasting my time among people who said they followed the reformers and then when I actually looked into what they had taught me, I discovered that they were wrong and that the Catholic Church has indeed been teaching the fullness of truth all along. I’ll never go back.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

fredrock:

Hi,

Why the anger?

What I know and have read about the devotion to Mary, I have read right hear on these forums since the Pope died. The only bias I know of is the two to three days I heard on TV of how the Pope loved Mary. What of Christ! I wondered?

This I heard over and over and over and over. This caused me to want to find out more of the mind of Roman Catholics as I stated in my post. I have much greater issues with Romanism than the devotion to Mary, but this I see is a great error too.

In the many post you make there is a lot of beating at your chest, but you never answer the Scriptures. It is because you do not value them. You said sola scriptura is all wrong. What of the verses that were given? If Roman Catholicism denys them outright then they do not posess the truth.

I do not expect the blind to see unless the Lord give them sight.

A last point. You used the term Christocentric, and that is a big word with a lot of meaning. I am afraid that you do not posess that word either for it was the REFORMERS who taught that it was CHRIST ALONE by grace alone through faith alone.

In His Service,
Fredrock

The difference here is apparently you mock God’s gifts,His Saints and Prophets.By the way ROMANISM is a term meant to offend and I do NOT appreciate it!

 

[MGEISING]

She had to be sinless to be the Ark of the Covernant.

 

[Genesis315]

In Gen. 3:15 (woohoo!) God puts the same enmity between Jesus (the seed) and evil and between Mary (the woman)and evil. Since we know Jesus never sinned, we can say that it’s total and perfect enmity. Since Mary has this same perfect enmity between herself and evil, it follows that she also did not sin.

 

[Church_Militant]

MGEISING:

She had to be sinless to be the Ark of the New Covernant.

 

[Church_Militant]

Genesis315:

In Gen. 3:15 (woohoo!) God puts the same enmity between Jesus (the seed) and evil and between Mary (the woman)and evil. Since we know Jesus never sinned, we can say that it’s total and perfect enmity. Since Mary has this same perfect enmity between herself and evil, it follows that she also did not sin.

Well said G3:15.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Church Militant:

I believe that the non-Catholic contention that Mary could not have lived without sinning is the result of a serious lack of faith, since all the scriptures point to God’s command to live a holy life and avoid sin.
Leviticus 11 :44 For I am the Lord your God: be holy because I am holy.
Leviticus 11 :46 You shall be holy, because I am holy.
1 Peter 1 :16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 20 :26 You shall be holy unto me, because I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine.
Leviticus 19 :2 Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy.

It makes no sense whatever for God to command us to do the impossible when the Word of God clearly says that “with God all things are possible”. Our holy lives (or lack thereof) are the direct result of our cooperation with the superabundant grace that is the gift of God. If Our Lady was indeed “full of grace” then isn’t it unbelief to say that she did not lead a sinless life? (Luke1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.)

The New Testament nowhere gives us any example of Mary’s sin and calls Joseph and many others “righteous” because they obeyed God and cooperated with His grace in their lives. It is clearly not their own works that have merited their salvation, but their works are the result of their full cooperation with the God’s graces so that their salvation is a tremendous example of the overwhelming power of the grace that God gives us to do his will. (James 2 :18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
James 2 :20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2 :22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
James 2 :26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.)

Is it not unbelief that causes us to fall? That unbelief is why we sin…we fail to believe that God’s grace is sufficient for us, then do not cooperate with that grace and as a result fall (flat on our spiritual faces).
Romans 3 :23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
Romans 5 :12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Also…there is no distinction made between Original sin and actual sin…newborns are without actual sin until the age of reason…Adam and Eve were sinless prior to the fall. Jesus…we know was also sinless.

St. Paul’s letter to the Romans is making a de facto statement about man’s nature and unbelief in general. I don’t think it is a literal statement. This is not salvation by works at all, but our cooperation with the free gift of grace from God.

Any light you can shed on this?
Pax vobiscum,

This just makes good sense. Otherwise God is telling us to do something that we are incapable of doing even with His grace. Logically then our falls are as much the result of our direct choices as our cooperation with grace is.

That means that Mary is the best example of this principle and so, worthy of our imitation.

 

[BlackKnight]

2Rollin'Stoned:

This just makes good sense. Otherwise God is telling us to do something that we are incapable of doing even with His grace. Logically then our falls are as much the result of our direct choices as our cooperation with grace is.

That means that Mary is the best example of this principle and so, worthy of our imitation.

I have to agree! If it cannot be done in cooperation with the grace of God then why would He command it and promise us the grace to live it? That just makes absolutely no sense to me. It smacks of a God that plays games with His people and that certainly isn’t the Jesus that I see in the Gospels.

 

[raymonde]

Why do you think that God, in the Old Testament, and when sacrifices were to be made, that the sacrifies had to be white or of one color, no blemishes? No blemishes is the key word! Please, do not confuse today 2005, with the Times of God and the Holy Mother of God’s time. Mary came from a God-fearing Christian family. God choose her because He knew She would be strong, She believed in God, and did not fear her fate! She did not argue! She obeyed, always! What strength, what a strong faith She had/has! I admire her, we should all admire her!

His Mercy Endures Forever.

May God bless.

raymonde

 

[Church_Militant]

raymonde:

Why do you think that God, in the Old Testament, and when sacrifices were to be made, that the sacrifies had to be white or of one color, no blemishes? No blemishes is the key word! Please, do not confuse today 2005, with the Times of God and the Holy Mother of God’s time. Mary came from a God-fearing Christian family. God choose her because He knew She would be strong, She believed in God, and did not fear her fate! She did not argue! She obeyed, always! What strength, what a strong faith She had/has! I admire her, we should all admire her!

His Mercy Endures Forever.

May God bless.

raymonde

This is a very good point Raymonde. Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[MariaG]

Well, that took longer than I thought. 17 post and suspended.

Talk to you later Fredrock.

 

[Church_Militant]

MariaG:

Well, that took longer than I thought. 17 post and suspended.

Talk to you later Fredrock.

Boy! Wasn’t he a real charitable ball of fun!
Anyway, Mary is a better topic.