Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds good but then of course theres the BIBLE?

Romans-5-12
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin, death; and so death passed upon all men”.

Romans-5:19
Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, “for as by the disobedience of one man many [all mankind] were made sinners”

So how are you NOT guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin…of Course Biblically speaking? 🤷

Pehaps theres more clearer Biblical verse I’m unaware of?
I’m missing the bit where it says we are guilty of their sin.

Sin and death entered the world through them, and we live with the consequences, but we hold no guilt about that particular sin.
 
From a Catholic perspective in relation to “time” the Immaculate Conception makes common sense.

For one If God wills, God can save anyone at anytime. For example infants can be saved after birth, any criminal during the course of life can be saved, including senior citizens and those on a death bed can be saved.

John the baptist was saved in his Mother’s womb.

Mary was saved in her conception. Thus the Immaculate Conception. From this saving grace that filled her full of grace since her conception. Mary is to conceive from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit in her fleshly womb the divine infant Jesus.

According to the Orthodox here, and I ask for clarification; Mary was saved from her “fiat” her faith expressed from her will “yes” to God’s Word?

This Orthodox view sounds very new and protestant. Because protestants believe that in order to be saved “all one needs to do is believe and confess Jesus is Lord”. Is this the Orthodox position of Mary’s fiat that saved her and made her immaculate in order to conceive God?

Catholics believe God saved Mary in her Immaculate Conception. When God’s Word comes to pass when God placed “enmity” between satan and the Woman (Mary) and her seed (Jesus) Genesis 3:15. Gabriel confirms this by calling Mary “full of Grace”.

When do the Orthodox believe God saved Mary and how?
 
From a Catholic perspective in relation to “time” the Immaculate Conception makes common sense.

For one If God wills, God can save anyone at anytime. For example infants can be saved after birth, any criminal during the course of life can be saved, including senior citizens and those on a death bed can be saved.

John the baptist was saved in his Mother’s womb.

Mary was saved in her conception. Thus the Immaculate Conception. From this saving grace that filled her full of grace since her conception. Mary is to conceive from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit in her fleshly womb the divine infant Jesus.

According to the Orthodox here, and I ask for clarification; Mary was saved from her “fiat” her faith expressed from her will “yes” to God’s Word?

This Orthodox view sounds very new and protestant. Because protestants believe that in order to be saved “all one needs to do is believe and confess Jesus is Lord”. Is this the Orthodox position of Mary’s fiat that saved her and made her immaculate in order to conceive God?

Catholics believe God saved Mary in her Immaculate Conception. When God’s Word comes to pass when God placed “enmity” between satan and the Woman (Mary) and her seed (Jesus) Genesis 3:15. Gabriel confirms this by calling Mary “full of Grace”.

When do the Orthodox believe God saved Mary and how?
This debate on when somebody was ‘saved’ as if it were a one time event sounds Protestant.
 
Could someone be courteous enough to explain the difference between the Roman Catholic concept of “original sin” and the Orthodox concept of “ancestral sin”?
 
I think you may benefit from reviewing the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this matter:

"The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III
Right I understand this and the Doctrine on Original Sin, my post is in response to this “and you are not guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin:” To the preceding post before mine.

And more importantly the earlier post which takes into consideration St Mary was not Baptized at the Birth of Jesus Christ. Since she followed Jewish law with St Joseph.

Follow where I’m at?
 
I’m missing the bit where it says we are guilty of their sin.

Sin and death entered the world through them, and we live with the consequences, but we hold no guilt about that particular sin.
To me its self evident.

Romans-5:19
Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [all mankind] were made sinners.

If you feel guilty or not is not of question. Perhaps I am missing what you are saying?

When you state…“and we live with the consequence” that consequence is Original Sin. Your guilt is not in question. That is the implication of the earlier post that, not a question of who feels guilty everyone is of guilt of the consequence…[all mankind] were made sinners …thus guilty. If you feel guilty is not the question nor the implication made.
 
Could someone be courteous enough to explain the difference between the Roman Catholic concept of “original sin” and the Orthodox concept of “ancestral sin”?
Here is the meaning of Original Sin of the CC per the Catholic Encyclopedia

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death — “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men”. Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil death came into the world”. Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: “For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead”. Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.

(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, “for as by the disobedience of one man many * were made sinners” (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam’s bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, “Contra julian.”, VI, xxiv, 75).

Where the Orthodox arrive at the theology I haven’t read. Perhaps someone will post it.*
 
Why? Because she was able to resist temptation? Are you somehow superhuman every time you resist a temptation? Of course not. How does having a perfect record make you so?
It certainly makes you super-human if you resist temptation without grace! I repeat, not even Mary can do so without God’s grace. 🤷
Has your baptism made it easier for you to not sin?
Absolutely! It, along with the other sacraments has given me grace and without grace, falling and remaining in sin is an absolute guarantee!
Baptism is for the washing away of sin, but it does not make it easier not to sin.
Wrong! Baptism introduces the life of God in the soul aka grace or the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity. The sacraments convey this divine life/grace to you. None of us can be Holy without this grace, not even the Theotokos, but she got her grace at her conception.
Pelagius taught that man could get to God on his own, while the orthodox theology of both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church teaches that we need God. We also both agree it is because of the Ancestral Sin/Original Sin which placed a barrier between us and God that only God can overcome. Baptism does not, on its own, overcome this barrier.
He taught that you could achieve salvation without God’s grace. it is the teaching of the catholic church that this is impossible! Grace is what achieves holiness- our free wills co-operate with Grace, they cannot achieve it.
Infact before Christ it was through the law that the Jews were to overcome this barrier, and the Theotokos lived according to the law.
I’ll ask you to read the New Testament where the theory of any man achieving salvation by the Law, Jew or gentile was positively rejected. The Council of Jerusalem comes to mind. As saint Peter said, we are all saved by Grace, not works of the Law, both Jews and gentiles- (the Theotokos included). That’s why the Old Covenant could not save and they had to wait in Limbo for Christ! :shrug:The idea that any person achieves holiness by sheer free will and not grace is heretical and pelagian. And the suggestion that Mary achieved holiness without grace makes her superhuman- she was not! She, like all of us, needed God’s grace and she was given it to the fullest (full of Grace, they called her).
 
To me its self evident.

Romans-5:19
Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [all mankind] were made sinners.

If you feel guilty or not is not of question. Perhaps I am missing what you are saying?

When you state…“and we live with the consequence” that consequence is Original Sin. Your guilt is not in question. That is the implication of the earlier post that, not a question of who feels guilty everyone is of guilt of the consequence…[all mankind] were made sinners …thus guilty. If you feel guilty is not the question nor the implication made.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Feeling of guilt doesn’t even enter into the picture on either side.

We are all affected by the Sin of Adam. We hold no guilt or responsibility over it.

Think of it this way:
One of your parents is a horrible criminal, insert whatever crime you want, it doesn’t matter. When you are five years old the parent is sent to prison for life. You will never see them again, your other parent doesn’t want you to have anything to do with them, etc.
You are now paying the consequences of the sin of your parent, and it will affect many facits of your life, even though you are guilty of nothing in the matter.

Disclaimer: This is an analogy, all analogies only go so far, if you stretch and pull it, it does fall apart, not every single element is covered but it should give a basic description of what is believed.
 
No one is claiming that anyone can do anything without God.
Yes they are- it’s quite clear from nine’s posts that he believes Mary could be holy by her sheer will and not by God’s grace.
I don’t know what this is meant to achieve. Of course you are wrong, and the statement I made is right. 🤷 Perhaps we could try to have actual intelligent conversation going forward?
 
It certainly makes you super-human if you resist temptation without grace! I repeat, not even Mary can do so without God’s grace. 🤷
I would point to non-Christians being able to resist temptation without any special “grace”. I believe we’re just going to have to disagree.
Absolutely! It, along with the other sacraments has given me grace and without grace, falling and remaining in sin is an absolute guarantee!
So because of the sacraments you do not sin? This is quite contrary to the Orthodox view that we require the sacraments because we do sin. I’m certain there are Atheists out there who sin less than myself, in spite of a lack of the Holy Mysteries. The only difference is that I take my medicine, and they don’t.
Wrong! Baptism introduces the life of God in the soul aka grace or the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity. The sacraments convey this divine life/grace to you. None of us can be Holy without this grace, not even the Theotokos, but she got her grace at her conception.
Hmm, I think you might want to look over the Creed again. 😉
In Orthodox theology, what you describe as being the role of Baptism is done through Chrismation, although it is only the Holy Spirit the indwells, not the whole Trinity, and even this does not make it easier not to sin.

He taught that you could achieve salvation without God’s grace. it is the teaching of the catholic church that this is impossible! Grace is what achieves holiness- our free wills co-operate with Grace, they cannot achieve it.
Yes, that’s essentially what I said.
I’ll ask you to read the New Testament where the theory of any man achieving salvation by the Law, Jew or gentile was positively rejected. The Council of Jerusalem comes to mind. As saint Peter said, we are all saved by Grace, not works of the Law, both Jews and gentiles- (the Theotokos included). That’s why the Old Covenant could not save and they had to wait in Limbo for Christ! :shrug:The idea that any person achieves holiness by sheer free will and not grace is heretical and pelagian. And the suggestion that Mary achieved holiness without grace makes her superhuman- she was not! She, like all of us, needed God’s grace and she was given it to the fullest (full of Grace, they called her).
I was just about to defend myself that I didn’t say one could receive salvation through the law, but I paused, looked back at what I wrote, and saw that it very much looks like that. I’d interprete it the same way.

The law was the only way to get closer to God, the problem is that no one could quite get it all right. Christ came to fullfill the law so that we wouldn’t need to, he came and gave us that Grace, as you put it.
And while this grace may have been present with the theotokos at her dormition, there is no requirement that she have it when Christ was born.

As mentioned by someone else above, this idea that grace was given to her at a specific time of her life (conception) seems very similar to the Protestant use of the term “saved” as a one time event.
 
Yes they are- it’s quite clear from nine’s posts that he believes Mary could be holy by her sheer will and not by God’s grace.I don’t know what this is meant to achieve. Of course you are wrong, and the statement I made is right. 🤷 Perhaps we could try to have actual intelligent conversation going forward?
I don’t believe Mary can be “holy” by sheer will (No one is holy like the LORD! There is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 1 Sam 2:2). I do, however, believe she can follow the will of God without having to have had her ability to sin taken away beforehand.
 
Why? Because she was able to resist temptation? Are you somehow superhuman every time you resist a temptation? Of course not. How does having a perfect record make you so?

Has your baptism made it easier for you to not sin? Baptism is for the washing away of sin, but it does not make it easier not to sin. Pelagius taught that man could get to God on his own, while the orthodox theology of both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church teaches that we need God. We also both agree it is because of the Ancestral Sin/Original Sin which placed a barrier between us and God that only God can overcome. Baptism does not, on its own, overcome this barrier. Infact before Christ it was through the law that the Jews were to overcome this barrier, and the Theotokos lived according to the law.

Hopefully that answer gives an indication of what we believe. I am no deep theologeon, and accept my description may be flawed in some respects, but it is the general gist.

Yes, and we don’t have that belief.
Summary of Pelagius and Caelestius’s teachings from the Catholic encyclopedia, that were condemned as heretical in the 5th century:

  1. *]Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
    *]Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
    *]Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
    *]The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
    *]The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
    *]Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

  1. Summary of canons of the Council of Carthage regarding those heretical teachings, from the same cite:

    1. *]Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
      *]New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
      *]Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
      *]The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God’s commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
      *]Without God’s grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
      *]Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
      *]The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
      *]The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
      *]Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.
 
I don’t believe Mary can be “holy” by sheer will (No one is holy like the LORD! There is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 1 Sam 2:2). I do, however, believe she can follow the will of God without having to have had her ability to sin taken away beforehand.
Are you saying that Grace takes away a person’s ability to sin?
 
I would point to non-Christians being able to resist temptation without any special “grace”. I believe we’re just going to have to disagree.
Of course you can disagree with the Council of carthage if that’s what you want to do 🤷 I prefer to obey the teachings of the councils and to avoid as far as possible what is condemned as heresy.
So because of the sacraments you do not sin?
Who says I do not sin? I said without grace (which the sacramnets convey) I can’t resist sin. Who says I will always choose to use the gift of God wisely and not abuse it? You’re introducing a false concept here. Grace enables you to be Holy and resist temptation- but just like Adam who had grace, you can use your free will to reject it 🤷 Fact remains, without Grace, you cannot be Holy.
Hmm, I think you might want to look over the Creed again. 😉
In Orthodox theology, what you describe as being the role of Baptism is done through Chrismation, although it is only the Holy Spirit the indwells, not the whole Trinity, and even this does not make it easier not to sin.
I’ve read too many contrary statements on Orthodox cites to believe this. As for Catholic theology, the CCC will speak for itself:
**
**
1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35
And while this grace may have been present with the theotokos at her dormition, there is no requirement that she have it when Christ was born.
Yes, there is. If you say she remained all holy always, then you say she had it- otherwise…pelagiansim. She depended on Grace to resist evil and choose the will of God and for all the moments she did that, grace must be present or we are saying she could do it by sheer will.
As mentioned by someone else above, this idea that grace was given to her at a specific time of her life (conception) seems very similar to the Protestant use of the term “saved” as a one time event.
Actually, the IC teaches that she had it always, not just a specific point. That’s why it mentions the beginning of her existence- conception. 🤷 To be clear that she was never without it.
 
We hold no guilt or responsibility over it.
Not of question to me, regardless of if we hold guilt or responsibility over it, doesn’t relinquish its reality. Its a consequence, “Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin” We inherited it. We own it.

Vatican City, Dec 3, 2008 - Pope Benedict XVI’s catechesis was dedicated to Saint Paul’s teaching on original sin. This teaching is presented by Paul as the relation between Adam, the first man, and Christ, the second Adam, the Pope explained.

The Apostle, in his Letter to the Romans, “traces the basic outlines of the doctrine of original sin,” the Pope began.

“The center of the scene is occupied not so much by Adam and the consequences of sin on humanity, but by Jesus Christ and the grace which, through Him, was abundantly poured upon humanity.”

“If, in the faith of the Church, an awareness arose of the dogma of original sin, this is because it is inseparably connected to another dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. This means that we should never consider the sin of Adam and of humankind separately, without understanding them within the horizon of justification in Christ,” the Pope continued.

The Holy Father then said that, “Men today should ask themselves: What is original sin?”

Taking stock of current answers to the question of original sin, the Pope said, “Many think that, in light of the history of evolution, there is no room for the doctrine of a first sin. As a result, the question of Redemption and of the Redeemer loses its basis.”

The real answer to whether or not original sin exists requires men to distinguish between two aspects of the doctrine on original sin, Benedict said.

“There exists an empirical, tangible reality, the other relating to the mystery, the ontological foundation of the event. In effect, there is a contradiction in our being.

“On the one hand we know we must do good, and in our inner selves this is what we desire, yet at the same time we feel an impulse to do the opposite, to follow the path of egoism, of violence, to do only what he enjoys even though we know that this means working against good, against God and against our fellow man…This inner contradiction of our being is not a theory. We all experience it every day as around us we see the second of these two wills prevail. Suffice to think of daily news of injustices, violence, and dissipation. This is a fact. From the power evil has over our souls, a foul river of evil has arisen over history, poisoning the human landscape.”

Blaise Pascal, the Pope recalled, spoke of a “second nature,” which puts itself above man’s original nature. This “second nature” makes evil appear normal to man. Evil appears to have become a second nature.

“This contradiction of man, of his history must provoke, and provokes even today, the desire of redemption,” the Pontiff explained.

The Holy Father then turned to reflect on the desire that “the world change and the promise that there be created a just, peaceful, good world is present everywhere.”

“In politics,” the Pope remarked, “everyone speaks of the need to change the world, to create a more just world. This is an expression of the desire that there be a liberation from the contradiction that man experiences in himself.”

“The power of evil in the heart and history of humankind is undeniable, yet how do we explain it? In the history of thought, discounting Christian faith, there exits one main explanatory model with a number of variants. This model holds that human beings are inherently contradictory: they carry good and evil in themselves.

"The faith tells us that there are no two principles, one good and one evil. There is only one principle, which is God the Creator, and He is solely good, without shadow of evil. Hence, neither are human beings a mix of good and evil. The human being as such is good.

“This is the joyful announcement of the faith: there is but one source, a source of good, the Creator, and for this reason, life too is good.

"There is also a mystery of darkness, which does not arise from the source of being, it is not original. Evil arises from created freedom, a freedom that has been abused,” Benedict XVI said. “How has this happened? This remains unclear. Evil is not logical. Only God and goodness are logical, only they are light. Evil remains a mystery.”

“It remains a mystery of darkness, of night. But there is immediately added a mystery of light. Evil arises from a subordinate source; God with His light is stronger. For this reason evil can be overcome, for this reason the creature, man, is curable.”

“Man is not only curable but is in fact cured. God introduced the cure. He personally entered history and, to counteract the permanent source of evil, placed a source of pure good: Christ crucified and risen, the New Adam Who opposes the foul river of evil with a river of light. That remains present in history.

Pope Benedict then reflected on how Advent proclaims redemption in Christ.

“In the language of the Church the word Advent has two meanings: presence and expectation. Presence, the light is present. Christ is the new Adam, he is with us and among us. Already the light shines and we must open our heart to see the light.”

“But Advent also means expectation. The dark night of evil is still strong. Therefore, we pray, in Advent: ‘Rorate caeli desuper.’ We pray with insistence: Come Jesus; come, give strength to the light and to the good; come where dishonesty, ignorance of God, violence and injustice dominate; come, Lord Jesus, give strength to the good in the world and help us to be bearers of your light, workers of peace, witnesses of truth. Come Lord Jesus!”
 
Summary of Pelagius and Caelestius’s teachings from the Catholic encyclopedia, that were condemned as heretical in the 5th century:

Summary of canons of the Council of Carthage regarding those heretical teachings, from the same cite:
I’m not arguing what Catholics believe. You asked what Orthodox believe. I told you. I’m not going to argue what belief is superior, and which belief is correct. I’ve received censure quite recently for doing just that. You asked a specific question, which you said you had asked many times before, but never had answered, and I gave you an answer. Whether or not you like that answer doesn’t matter.

I’m a bit annoyed that you pretended to have an innocent question and then decided to lead the resulting conversation in such a way that you could accuse us of heresy for not believing the IC.

As for that particular canon, if we use your strict reasoning, nobody prior to Jesus (except Mary, though the special stuff God did to her) could possibly do anything good. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Ezra, not the prophets, and not the kings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top