Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2623402]The Deutrocanonical Books / Septuagint have always been part of the Christian canon of Scripture for over 2,000 yrs.

It depends what you mean by “always been part of the Christian caon.” It is true they were part of it but those apocphra books were not considered inspired-inerrant as the others were. They had a “secondary” status. It was not until the reformation time that they were “upgraded” by the catholic church.

Did the Jews accepted Jesus Christ? Well, the majority of them rejected Jesus as Messiah… I rather go with the Early Christian Church than a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Who did God chose to bring His revelation into the world? It was to the Jews. This can be seen in Romans 3:1-3 where Paul writes:
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

As you can see that even though the Jews were a stubborn and rebellious people He still used them to bring the Christ into the world.

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2622740]Funnily enough, those who spoke of ‘the communion of saints’ and taught the saints being ‘alive’ in Heaven, and who prayed to those in heaven, etc. did so in the earliest years of the church and throughout to the present. . .

Since this belief is not found in the scriptures all this proves is that unbilical practices and beliefs crept into the church at an early stage. In fact the scriptures predicted that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many with their teachings. When you look at these teachings they can be difficult to spot since there is usually a mixture of truth and error and it sounds so reasonable but in reality it decieves.

While those who DENIED the saints being’ alive’ in Heaven, insisted that they were ‘dead’ or ‘asleep’, and that no one SHOULD pray to anyone but God alone. . .

That’s exactly what the scriptures do teach.

Have only been doing so for the past 500 years. . .DENYING 1500 years’ worth of the practice of teaching that is both from Scripture and from Sacred Tradition, neither contradicting the other.

Thats not true. Praying to the saints and Mary is a denial of the scriptures that we are only to pray to the one true God directly. It is a denial of the scriptures to claim that Mary never sinned when they do teach all have sinned and fall short.

 

[justasking4]

In my research on this topic i came across this. Is this a prayer you would pray?

Hail Holy Queen. It’s the most commonly recited prayer in praise of Mary, after the Hail Mary itself, and was composed at the end of the eleventh century. It generally reads like this (there are several variants):

“Hail holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

 

[stranger_1991]

All you are doing here is expressing your opinion and not a fact. The question is not if God could do these things to Mary but did He? If He did, then where is the proof? Its not in scripture. Without that you must speculate and speculations are not facts of truth.

Just because someone proclaims something about what God can do does not mean He did. There is no proof that Mary was without sin. You won’t find such statements in the NT that comes even close to saying that about her.

Hi justasking4,

No, the scriptures don’t explicitly state that Mary was sinless. If you did a word search on ‘Mary was sinless’ then you would come up empty handed. By the same token if you did a word search on ‘trinity’ you would also come up empty handed.

There are two sources of information about Mary which form the composite picture arising out of scripture:

1. direct texts that mention Mary
2. texts applicable to saints are applicable to Mary.

Let this cut both ways and well will see.

That Mary was/is blessed. . .

Psalm 32:2
How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

Matthew 5:8
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Luke 1:48
"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

From these we can state. . .

Mary was blessed.
Blessed are the pure in heart.
Therefore Mary was pure in heart.

You can argue that ‘pure in heart does not equate with sinless’ and introduce degrees of purity of heart, thus attempting to nullify the argument presented. But can you disagree with the statement: being sinless cannot exist without purity of heart?

This is a weighted arguement - how much are you willing to concede when presented with such reasoning?

blessing:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh yes, just. I pray the “Hail Holy Queen” every day when I complete my daily rosary. What a beautiful prayer for our heavenly Mother who is always waiting to guide us to Jesus, and to show Him to us, and us to Him.

And you still have not managed to explain how these ‘false’ practices existed for some 1500 years, when other demonstrably false practices such as Gnostisism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Manicheanism, Iconoclassicism, Albigensianism etc. were summarily dealt with. By your logic, ‘the gates of hell’ prevailed against the Church almost immediately (before Scripture was even made canon), and prevailed for 1500 years until some ‘enlightened’ person cherry picked Scripture and found, Oh horror!, priests being called “Father” (even though St. Paul calls himself a ‘father’ as well), Christ’s words regarding His Body and Blood taken LITERALLY (imagine! no matter how often He says it, and people murmur about how hard a teaching it is to accept, if people actually BELIEVE this they’ll have to turn Catholic because the REFORMERS insist it’s ‘only’ bread and wine’), and, even more, concepts that were not explictly written down in the Bible, such as “Father, Son, and Spirit are three Divine Persons in One God”, actually believed, when there was NO Scriptural passage that actually SAID exactly that.

Imagine! In a world where few could read, for 1500 years the Word of God was assaulted with heresies which are still coming back (given new names, perhaps, as we see plenty of people STILL arguing that Mary is ‘only’ the mother of the ‘human’ Jesus; that God is NOT a Trinity, that ‘flesh’ is evil and only ‘spirit’ is good; that Christ was just a ‘good person’, that ‘statues’ = graven images = no-nos; that there is ‘secret’ knowledge or Bible codes or ‘special’ teaching that only a few know is the REAL truth; and of course, the perennial favorite, that ‘special interests hijacked’ the REAL gospel/story, and that especially that darn old Catholic Church is corrupt and the REAL church is the Baptists, or the Mormons, or some ‘Bible only’ group tracing itself back through some ‘trail of blood’ to the apostles.)

I guess you’d say that there wasn’t really meant to be a Church, just assorted individuals who would somehow ‘retain’ the ‘real’ truth, and somehow pass it on. . .sometimes with gaps of centuries. . .to ‘new’ assorted people who, despite any guarantee of authority other than their own personal assertation that “The Spirit moves me”, claim authority.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

 

[justasking4]

[stranger 1991;2627730]Hi justasking4,

No, the scriptures don’t explicitly state that Mary was sinless. If you did a word search on ‘Mary was sinless’ then you would come up empty handed. By the same token if you did a word search on ‘trinity’ you would also come up empty handed.

Mary’s sinlessness is a different issue than the Trinity. I could do a word search on all kinds of people in the scriptures and come up empty handed also that they are sinners. What we need to look at are the explicit statements in scripture that clearly tells us all men are sinners. Thats what we need to consider foremost in this disscusion on Mary being without sin.

There are two sources of information about Mary which form the composite picture arising out of scripture:

1. direct texts that mention Mary

1. texts applicable to saints are applicable to Mary.

Let this cut both ways and well will see.

That Mary was/is blessed. . .

Psalm 32:2
How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

Matthew 5:8
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Luke 1:48
"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

From these we can state. . .

Mary was blessed.
Blessed are the pure in heart.
Therefore Mary was pure in heart.

If you look at these passages in context (except Luke 1:48) this would apply to anyone who pursue godliness. The Luke passage applies specifically to Mary because of what God was going to do through her.

You can argue that ‘pure in heart does not equate with sinless’ and introduce degrees of purity of heart, thus attempting to nullify the argument presented. But can you disagree with the statement: being sinless cannot exist without purity of heart?

Yes. Being pure in heart does not mean a person is without sin. To be “pure in heart” means to be free from the pollution and guilt of sin. It does not mean to be without sin as Christ was.

This is a weighted arguement - how much are you willing to concede when presented with such reasoning?

Its an interesting argument but it does have some weaknesses that cannot be overcome without ignoring other passages of scripture.

blessing:

 

[justasking4]

Oh yes, just. I pray the “Hail Holy Queen” every day when I complete my daily rosary. What a beautiful prayer for our heavenly Mother who is always waiting to guide us to Jesus, and to show Him to us, and us to Him.

And you still have not managed to explain how these ‘false’ practices existed for some 1500 years, when other demonstrably false practices such as Gnostisism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Manicheanism, Iconoclassicism, Albigensianism etc. were summarily dealt with. By your logic, ‘the gates of hell’ prevailed against the Church almost immediately (before Scripture was even made canon), and prevailed for 1500 years until some ‘enlightened’ person cherry picked Scripture and found, Oh horror!, priests being called “Father” (even though St. Paul calls himself a ‘father’ as well), Christ’s words regarding His Body and Blood taken LITERALLY (imagine! no matter how often He says it, and people murmur about how hard a teaching it is to accept, if people actually BELIEVE this they’ll have to turn Catholic because the REFORMERS insist it’s ‘only’ bread and wine’), and, even more, concepts that were not explictly written down in the Bible, such as “Father, Son, and Spirit are three Divine Persons in One God”, actually believed, when there was NO Scriptural passage that actually SAID exactly that.

Imagine! In a world where few could read, for 1500 years the Word of God was assaulted with heresies which are still coming back (given new names, perhaps, as we see plenty of people STILL arguing that Mary is ‘only’ the mother of the ‘human’ Jesus; that God is NOT a Trinity, that ‘flesh’ is evil and only ‘spirit’ is good; that Christ was just a ‘good person’, that ‘statues’ = graven images = no-nos; that there is ‘secret’ knowledge or Bible codes or ‘special’ teaching that only a few know is the REAL truth; and of course, the perennial favorite, that ‘special interests hijacked’ the REAL gospel/story, and that especially that darn old Catholic Church is corrupt and the REAL church is the Baptists, or the Mormons, or some ‘Bible only’ group tracing itself back through some ‘trail of blood’ to the apostles.)

I guess you’d say that there wasn’t really meant to be a Church, just assorted individuals who would somehow ‘retain’ the ‘real’ truth, and somehow pass it on. . .sometimes with gaps of centuries. . .to ‘new’ assorted people who, despite any guarantee of authority other than their own personal assertation that “The Spirit moves me”, claim authority.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Are you saying then that all that your church has taught and believed and practiced has always been the truth? Has there rever been a catholic leader in the past 2000 years who has never spoken falsely?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Are you saying then that all that your church has taught and believed and practiced has always been the truth? Has there rever been a catholic leader in the past 2000 years who has never spoken falsely?

Yes in faith and morals. They have always been true. The Catholic Church teachings have always been consistent especially when it comes to teaching of morals.

If had not been for the Catholic Church, your Bible would look a lot different than it is today.

 

[NotWorthy]

It depends what you mean by “always been part of the Christian caon.” It is true they were part of it but those apocphra books were not considered inspired-inerrant as the others were. They had a “secondary” status. It was not until the reformation time that they were “upgraded” by the catholic church.

I"ve never heard this before. Can you provide proof of this?

Who did God chose to bring His revelation into the world? It was to the Jews. This can be seen in Romans 3:1-3 where Paul writes:
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

As you can see that even though the Jews were a stubborn and rebellious people He still used them to bring the Christ into the world.

I’ve started a thread on this. I think the Jews that removed the Deuterocanonicals from Scripture showed a distinct bias in their interpretations, even changing Scriptures to point others away from Christ. I’m not sure if I would trust the findings of this council.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are you saying then that all that your church has taught and believed and practiced has always been the truth? Has there rever been a catholic leader in the past 2000 years who has never spoken falsely?

Two vastly different questions.

1. All matters regarding faith and morals (dogma, if you will) are and have been the truth. Outside that–even one of the apostles ‘fell’. Certainly any given individual can ‘fall’. . .but not the Church. Even a Pope who lives a ‘bad’ life has never ‘changed’ the teaching of the Church regarding what is morally wrong, dogmatically speaking.
2. See #1. Infallibility is NOT impeccability, and I know you know the difference as you have been told this SEVERAL times. Speaking falsely (even something as ‘innocent’ as misprouncing a person’s name, as Pope Leo once called Cardinal Gibbons (hard g) Cardinal Jibbons (soft g) --does not mean the pope is not ‘infallible’)

 

[justasking4]

Since many people try to justify Mary as being queen of heaven with the OT, its important to look at other passages that goes against that claim. If one wants to claim that Mary is foreshadowed in David and Bathseba then I can also claim that this passage in Jeremiah is a direct warning against this doctrine of the queenship of Mary. There is no doubt there is a strong correlation with this passage and the marian doctrines.

Jeremiah 44

15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,
16 “As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!
17 “But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
18 “But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine.”
19 “And,” said the women, “when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”
20 Then Jeremiah said to all the people, to the men and women—even to all the people who were giving him such an answer—saying,
21 “As for the smoking sacrifices that you burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your forefathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them and did not all this come into His mind?
22 “So the LORD was no longer able to endure it, because of the evil of your deeds, because of the abominations which you have committed; thus your land has become a ruin, an object of horror and a curse, without an inhabitant, as it is this day.
23 “Because you have burned sacrifices and have sinned against the LORD and not obeyed the voice of the LORD or walked in His law, His statutes or His testimonies, therefore this calamity has befallen you, as it has this day.”

 

[justasking4]

Two vastly different questions.

1. All matters regarding faith and morals (dogma, if you will) are and have been the truth. Outside that–even one of the apostles ‘fell’. Certainly any given individual can ‘fall’. . .but not the Church. Even a Pope who lives a ‘bad’ life has never ‘changed’ the teaching of the Church regarding what is morally wrong, dogmatically speaking.
2. See #1. Infallibility is NOT impeccability, and I know you know the difference as you have been told this SEVERAL times. Speaking falsely (even something as ‘innocent’ as misprouncing a person’s name, as Pope Leo once called Cardinal Gibbons (hard g) Cardinal Jibbons (soft g) --does not mean the pope is not ‘infallible’)

I could say alot about this but it would be off topic.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2628189]Yes in faith and morals. They have always been true. The Catholic Church teachings have always been consistent especially when it comes to teaching of morals.

I wish i had some leeway to respond to this but i don’t want to get off topic.

If had not been for the Catholic Church, your Bible would look a lot different than it is today.

Are you saying the catholic church deternined what the canon would be or was it the Spirit of Christ working through the church that determined the canon?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2628199]I"ve never heard this before. Can you provide proof of this?

There are a number of works on this issue you can check out. One reference that i have is Apocrypha by Roger Beckwith.
There is quite a complex history related to this topic.
You can also look at the Trent in why they made the declaration in regards to them at that council.

I’ve started a thread on this. I think the Jews that removed the Deuterocanonicals from Scripture showed a distinct bias in their interpretations, even changing Scriptures to point others away from Christ. I’m not sure if I would trust the findings of this council.

 

[FrankLawrence]

When dialoguing with someone who was raised to believe “Sola-Scriptura,” before making any other points, we need to tear Sola-Scriptura apart. The disagreements with Justasking aren’t rooted in the Marian doctrines, but it the authority of the Church vs. Scripture alone. We can not debunk Sola-Scriptura with historical facts, no matter how clearly documented, because the Sola-Scriptura believer will merely say, “Where is that in the Bible?” So, we need to use the Bible itself to debunk Sola-Scriptura. Let’s ask some questions?

1. What is the pillar and bulwark of truth? Sola-Scriptura says, “The Bible.” The Bible says, “The Church of the Living God!” 1 Timothy 3:15
2. Is Scripture crystal clear, concise, and self-explanatory, to the point where anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth can clearly understand the Scriptures on their own? Sola-Scriptura says, “Yes.” The Bible says, “There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin.” (part of 2 Peter 3:16.)
3. By what authority does the Catholic Church speak? Sola-Scriptura says, “The Catholic Church has no authority. We trust the Scriptures alone.” The Bible has Jesus, who is God. saying, “Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatever you declare loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Matthew 16art of 17, all of 18-19.) The Bible also says, “When He comes, however, being the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth.” (John 16:13.)
4. Are we to trust in God, or lean on our own understanding? Sola-Scriptura says, “I will NOT trust the one and only Church that God established and granted authority to, but instead will rely on my own understanding of the Bible.” The Bible says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
   So, there is not even one verse of Scripture that supports Sola-Scriptura. Yet, four passages of Scripture (at least) flat out contradict the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura.
   As Catholics, we need to lovingly understand, however, that many Protestants have this doctrine so aggressively drilled into their heads from the time that they are young children, that they have blindly accepted it as truth, and would have to realign their entire thought process and center of theology to get over this hurdle. It is as Scripture says, “In times past there were false prophets among God’s people, and among you also there will be false teachers who will smuggle in pernicious heresies…Through them, the true way will be made subject to contempt.” (2 Peter 2:1-2) So, how can we distinguish truth from heresy? Sola-Scriptura says, “Trust your own interpretation of the Bible.” The Bible, however, has another answer as I mentioned above. It is found in 1 Timothy 3:15. I pray that the all will allow the Holy Spirit to lead them home to the “Pillar and bulwark of truth.”

 

[stranger_1991]

Mary’s sinlessness is a different issue than the Trinity. I could do a word search on all kinds of people in the scriptures and come up empty handed also that they are sinners. What we need to look at are the explicit statements in scripture that clearly tells us all men are sinners. Thats what we need to consider foremost in this disscusion on Mary being without sin.

If you look at these passages in context (except Luke 1:48) this would apply to anyone who pursue godliness. The Luke passage applies specifically to Mary because of what God was going to do through her.

Yes. Being pure in heart does not mean a person is without sin. To be “pure in heart” means to be free from the pollution and guilt of sin. It does not mean to be without sin as Christ was.

Its an interesting argument but it does have some weaknesses that cannot be overcome without ignoring other passages of scripture.

blessing:

Hi justasking4,

Let us examine the general objections arising from the following verses:

1. Romans 3:22-24 NASB
   22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

• 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, *
  24 *being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; *

1. 1 John 1:7-9 NASB
   but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
   *8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. *
   9 *If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. *

Our discussion concerns ‘Mary as she is found in the scriptures’. Do either passage in their immediate context speak about redemption? You cannot simply say that ‘all men are sinners’ and leave ALL men in that predicament. For starters, that text renders all men in Adam, but it does not leave all men there - some are actually redeemed in Christ. I appreciate that this is an ongoing point of dispute between us.

You said: Yes. Being pure in heart does not mean a person is without sin. To be “pure in heart” means to be free from the pollution and guilt of sin. It does not mean to be without sin as Christ was.

To be pure in heart means exactly that- pure in heart. What you offer is a lesser standard - I want to raise the bar. The very aim of God is to present you pure and blameless before the Father! So Mary’s sinlessness was derived from and was the same as Christ’s.

Let’s look at Psalm 51:

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You [a]are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
9Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
13Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.

The above is about as good a definition as you will find of a redeemed ‘pure heart’. This description is a little more than freedom from *some aspects *of sin don’t you think?

 

[NotWorthy]

There are a number of works on this issue you can check out. One reference that i have is Apocrypha by Roger Beckwith.
There is quite a complex history related to this topic.
You can also look at the Trent in why they made the declaration in regards to them at that council.

The way I understand it is (and you can correct my fallacies):
*In the late 4th century, a local Synod (of Rome?) and two councils - Hippo and Carthage all came up with the same OT canon. They included the Deuterocanonicals as full Inspired Scripture. For the next 11 centuries, the Church accepted (though not as dogma) this Canon as Scripture. Although there was some dissent, the most notable being St. Jerome, it was only minor dissent for the most part.

That is, until the Reformation. As with most other Dogma’s (the Immaculate Conception being one exception), the Church didn’t officially declare something infallibly unless She had to settle a dispute that couldn’t settle itself. It seems that the official binding declarations is actually a last resort of the Church’s, rather than an oft-used way to throw Rome’s weight around.

The Council of Trent did not treat the OT Canon any differently (giving any books any more or less weight) than Hippo and Carthage.*

Now, does Mr. Beckwith agree with that?

BTW, where do the Protestant Bibles get their OT Canons from? By whose authority were they selected?

 

[justasking4]

stranger 1991;2629392]Hi justasking4,

Let us examine the general objections arising from the following verses:

1. Romans 3:22-24 NASB
   22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

• 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, *
  24 *being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; *

1. 1 John 1:7-9 NASB
   but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
   *8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. *
   9 *If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. *

Our discussion concerns ‘Mary as she is found in the scriptures’. Do either passage in their immediate context speak about redemption?

In a way yes. Only the redeemed are justified and forgiven.

You cannot simply say that ‘all men are sinners’ and leave ALL men in that predicament. For starters, that text renders all men in Adam, but it does not leave all men there - some are actually redeemed in Christ. I appreciate that this is an ongoing point of dispute between us.

I agree. Only those who are redeemed in Christ.

You said: Yes. Being pure in heart does not mean a person is without sin. To be “pure in heart” means to be free from the pollution and guilt of sin. It does not mean to be without sin as Christ was.

To be pure in heart means exactly that- pure in heart. What you offer is a lesser standard - I want to raise the bar. The very aim of God is to present you pure and blameless before the Father! So Mary’s sinlessness was derived from and was the same as Christ’s.

The claim–“So Mary’s sinlessness was derived from and was the same as Christ’s” is not scriptural. The scriptures never speak of her in this manner.

Let’s look at Psalm 51:

1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You [a]are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
9Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
13Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.

The above is about as good a definition as you will find of a redeemed ‘pure heart’. This description is a little more than freedom from *some aspects *of sin don’t you think?

I don’t think of this psalm as one who is “pure in heart” but one who is a sinner in need of cleansing. This psalm by David shows us that he was a sinner in need of forgiveness.

If it were true that Mary was sinless she would never say this about herself.

 

[stranger_1991]

The claim–“So Mary’s sinlessness was derived from and was the same as Christ’s” is not scriptural. The scriptures never speak of her in this manner.

How about we use ‘partake of the Divine nature’ to replace ‘sinlessness’? Is that scriptural enough? That is saying the same thing. Since the Divine nature is sinless. The expression is from:

2 Peter 1:4
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

I don’t think of this psalm as one who is “pure in heart” but one who is a sinner in need of cleansing. This psalm by David shows us that he was a sinner in need of forgiveness.

What was David before he sinned? Look at what David wanted to get back to! Look at what David knew about his heart! When David’s prayer was answered I have every confidence that God forgave him and cleansed his heart, every confidence. But IF God did not grant David his desires THEN yes I agree David then and thereafter was not pure in heart. We are not talking about just theoretical possibilities but an actual work of God in the heart of a believer.

If it were true that Mary was sinless she would never say this about herself.

Again we can only talk about Mary as she is found in the scriptures and from what is applicable to all believers. . . David’s life is covered in great detail. I am using him as an example to show what God can do to make a heart pure. After all David was a man after God’s own heart. David reflected back God’s own nature to God. This is what I think the Divine image and likeness is all about - a partaking of the Divine nature. This is all that Mary did ‘according to the word of the Lord’. There is nothing far fetched here.

blessings

 

[justasking4]

stranger 1991;2632055]How about we use ‘partake of the Divine nature’ to replace ‘sinlessness’? Is that scriptural enough? That is saying the same thing. Since the Divine nature is sinless. The expression is from:

2 Peter 1:4
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

When you look at who Peter is writing to you would find its all believers. This passage has to do with those who are in Christ. If being “partakers of the divine nature” means being without sin or incapable of sinning then this would apply to all believers. We know that no writer ever taught that christians would be incapable of sinning.

What was David before he sinned? Look at what David wanted to get back to! Look at what David knew about his heart! When David’s prayer was answered I have every confidence that God forgave him and cleansed his heart, every confidence. But IF God did not grant David his desires THEN yes I agree David then and thereafter was not pure in heart. We are not talking about just theoretical possibilities but an actual work of God in the heart of a believer.

Even though David desired a completely pure heart that was never acheived in his life. That’s why God provides forgiveness for those who do acknowledge their sins. No man can acheive absolutely purity of heart in this life becasue we are fallen. However God has made a provision for us in Christ that we may be forgiven.

Again we can only talk about Mary as she is found in the scriptures and from what is applicable to all believers. .

.
I agree. However the catholic church goes far outside the boundaries of scripture with many of its claims about her.

David’s life is covered in great detail. I am using him as an example to show what God can do to make a heart pure. After all David was a man after God’s own heart. David reflected back God’s own nature to God. This is what I think the Divine image and likeness is all about - a partaking of the Divine nature. This is all that Mary did ‘according to the word of the Lord’. There is nothing far fetched here.

blessings

These are good examples. However the catholic church goes far beyond this with the claim that Mary never sinned or was kept from sin. This is something that the scriptures never teach about her. It has tried to put her in special class that is beyond human and into some kind of goddess.