Do you consider this a "proof" text against Mary's sinlessness

[MarcoPolo]

This is for Protestants and any Catholics who would like to chime in on the peculiarities of his comments. This morning I was listening to John MacArthur (God bless him ) again and he said the following, starting with a quote from Luke chapter 1, he said: "…verse 47, ‘and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.’ Mary is the savior of nobody. Mary needs a savior. And she says ‘God is my Savior. He is the One Who delivers me from sin.’ Mary while being the best of sinners, if there is such a thing, the noblest of young maidens, the most beautiful of virgins, Mary must have been the finest of young girls in every way, but Mary needed a Savior…she was a sinner."Full audio file here (this part is between 14:00-15:00).

So what do you think? Is this a “proof” text that Mary was a sinner as Mr. MacArthur has asserted?

 

[sandusky]

This is for Protestants and any Catholics who would like to chime in on the peculiarities of his comments. This morning I was listening to John MacArthur (God bless him ) again and he said the following, starting with a quote from Luke chapter 1, he said: "…verse 47, ‘and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.’ Mary is the savior of nobody. Mary needs a savior. And she says ‘God is my Savior. He is the One Who delivers me from sin.’ Mary while being the best of sinners, if there is such a thing, the noblest of young maidens, the most beautiful of virgins, Mary must have been the finest of young girls in every way, but Mary needed a Savior…she was a sinner."Full audio file here (this part is between 14:00-15:00).

So what do you think? Is this a “proof” text that Mary was a sinner as Mr. MacArthur has asserted?

That’s one of them.

 

[PaulDupre]

Yes, she needed a savior. And no, she never sinned.

Here is the Catholic answer to this question.

Paul

 

[Pjs2ejs]

My friend’s infant son who passed away needed Jesus as a savior but he never sinned.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That’s one of them.

So not that verse alone is the end of it.

 

[flyersfan1088]

He was my Saviour over 1,960 years before I was born and could commit my first sin. He was Mary’s Saviour before her birth too. Salvation is outside of time. No, that isn’t in the Bible, just showing that verse does not make Mary a sinner.

 

[water]

Many non-Catholics misunderstand this part. Yes, she needs a Savior. It spells out plainly in the Scriptures!

How the Savior saved her is what non-Catholic couldn’t think of.

 

[sandusky]

Pjs2ejs:

My friend’s infant son who passed away needed Jesus as a savior but he never sinned.

The apostle says:**Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—**Your Council of Trent confirms that (click here)**2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men
   in whom [Adam] all [men] have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Mary while being the best of sinners, if there is such a thing, the noblest of young maidens, the most beautiful of virgins, Mary must have been the finest of young girls in every way…

How dare MacArthur refer to Mary in such a way. None of these things that he claims Mary as being are written word for word in the Scriptures. This is nothing but traditions of men used to twist the true word of God. Its idolatrous what MacArthur is doing here…

Sarcasm off

God bless

 

[sandusky]

PaulDupre:

Yes, she needed a savior. And no, she never sinned.

From your link:

Had God done nothing at the point of conception, she would have inherited it. God used the graces Christ would win for humanity on the cross and saved her from all stain of sin from the moment of her conception.

Other than your tradition, what proof do you offer to support that specific claim?

 

[water]

The apostle says:Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Obviously “all” does not include everybody or else Jesus who enters this world will be one of them.

Romans 3:10: As it is written: There is not any man just.

but then,
Luke 1:6:
And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

How contradicting could this be if the word “all” really means “all” and “not any man” meaning “no one”?

 

[tm30]

From your link:Other than your tradition, what proof do you offer to support that specific claim?

You will never be convinced because you do not believe in the authority of Tradition, only the Bible, which, (ding ding ding!) sprang from Tradition, not Scriptural mandate. Tradition demanded continuity and so men put pen to parchment and recorded the Gospels under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, compiled the letters of Paul and James and Peter, and threw out whatever gospels and letters were spurious. Since Scripture does not demand a Bible, the Bible is unscriptural. Nowhere does Christ command anyone to write anything down, only to “listen”, and therefore, fthe New Testament itself fails the test of exclusive authority you assign to Scripture alone.

Once it’s understood that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand like body and soul, understanding is a simple act of assent to 2000 years of teaching.

 

[sandusky]

You will never be convinced because you do not believe in the authority of Tradition, only the Bible, which, (ding ding ding!) sprang from Tradition, not Scriptural mandate. Tradition demanded continuity and so men put pen to parchment and recorded the Gospels under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, compiled the letters of Paul and James and Peter, and threw out whatever gospels and letters were spurious. Since Scripture does not demand a Bible, the Bible is unscriptural. Nowhere does Christ command anyone to write anything down, only to “listen”, and therefore, fthe New Testament itself fails the test of exclusive authority you assign to Scripture alone.

Once it’s understood that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand like body and soul, understanding is a simple act of assent to 2000 years of teaching.

That’s a no. Thank you.

 

[sandusky]

water:

Obviously “all” does not include everybody or else Jesus who enters this world will be one of them.

Romans 3:10: As it is written: There is not any man just.

but then,
Luke 1:6:
And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

How contradicting could this be if the word “all” really means “all” and “not any man” meaning “no one”?

Again, the Council of Trent applies the teaching of the apostle in Rom 5:12 to infants
(click here). Read the sections I’ve posted:**2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men
   in whom [Adam] all [men] have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**

 

[Ginger2]

Being a sinner and sinning are not the same thing.

All are born into a fallen state. But not all have actually engaged in a sinful act.

So the issue at hand is really, “Was Mary born without the stain of original sin?”

The verse we should be discussing is Gal 3:22

“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I wouldn’t consider it a proof text. I believe Mary was saved when she was conceived. I heard many Catholic Apologists use this story to explain.

A man goes towards a quick sand and falls into it. A man came by and drop a rope and help him out of the pit. A woman was unware of the quicksand but before she got step in, the man warn her not to go any further. She was saved prior to falling into the quick sand.

Sin is the quick sand, the man is mankind. The woman is Mary. As far as Mary committing any actual sin, that is absent in the Scripture. In Scripture, she was obedient to God’s will. Mary did say, “Be it done unto me according to your will.” or at Cana. “Do whatever he tells you.”

I don’t see any disobedience of Mary in Scripture at all. What I do read this that she is a good and faithful servant of God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How dare MacArthur refer to Mary in such a way. None of these things that he claims Mary as being are written word for word in the Scriptures. This is nothing but traditions of men used to twist the true word of God. Its idolatrous what MacArthur is doing here…

Sarcasm off

God bless

That’s one of the peculiarities of his quote I “hinted” at in my OP! Good job!!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men
in whom [Adam] all [men] have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins

Good homework! But I don’t follow why you posted this. Because the Council of Trent uses the word “all” in the same way Paul does?

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Good homework! But I don’t follow why you posted this. Because the Council of Trent uses the word “all” in the same way Paul does?

In response to post #4. Everyone sins in Adam; IOW everyone is born a sinner; one does not become a sinner at the time of the commission of his first personal sin.

Even though Trent excludes Mary, biblically, Rom 5:12 applies to her as well.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In response to post #4. Everyone sins in Adam; IOW everyone is born a sinner; one does not become a sinner at the time of the commission of his first personal sin.

Even though Trent excludes Mary, biblically, Rom 5:12 applies to her as well.

Adam and Eve were born without original sin, don’t they count? The NT fulfillment of Adam was Jesus…who was the fulfillment of Eve??

Hint: it’s a woman who is clothed with the sun. That’s a powerful metaphor if you understand what “light” means in Scripture. Couple that with Mary being “kecharitome” in Luke. That’s why for centuries and centuries no one rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception (you know the idea dates back well before it was defined, right?), not even Luther.

Anyway, I know you disagree. But carry on!