J
justasking4
Guest
Of course Mary being an exception is but an assertion and no proof has ever been shown to be the case that she is an exception.
God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn't tell us a sinless virgin
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
Obviously we need you to answer them again, since we don’t remember the answers. What sins has a newborn baby committed? Who is excluded from Rom 5:12? And how do you know?
(BTW, that’s quite an interesting approach you’ve taken here. You refuse dozens of times to answer the question, and then you claim you’ve answered it but we’ve rejected your answers. It’s all part of this bizarre avoidance on your part of a fundamental question about sin, an avoidance that I think is based on your deep fear of facing the contradictions of your manmade theology, and thus watching that theology fall apart before your eyes.)
V
VociMike
Guest
But Rom 5:12 talks about active, personal sin: “all have sinned”. So I ask again (perhaps you’d like to answer): what sin has a newborn baby committed?
G
guanophore
Guest
This was developed from the discussion on the hypostatic union that occurred in response to the Arian heresy. If Jesus is truly God in the flesh, He took His flesh from Mary. Since God would not take on tainted flesh, then Mary’s flesh must have been cleansed so that He could derive His humanity from it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Really? You answered those questions? Would you mind terribly giving me the post # where they were answered? I have gone through every single post and I have not seen you answer. . . but surely it wouldn’t be hard, since you say you have already given the answer just to put the answer again, for those three questions? Especially since two of them are nearly identical.
So would you mind, please? Yes or no. . .
Does a stillborn baby sin? You say the answer is in Scripture. . .the answer must be a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. What does Scripture say? Does it say ‘yes’ or does it say ‘no.’
Does the Bible specifically say, in exactly those words, “Mary is part of sinful humanity?” Yes or no.
I am looking forward to seeing your answers at last.
So would you mind, please? Yes or no. . .
Does a stillborn baby sin? You say the answer is in Scripture. . .the answer must be a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. What does Scripture say? Does it say ‘yes’ or does it say ‘no.’
Does the Bible specifically say, in exactly those words, “Mary is part of sinful humanity?” Yes or no.
I am looking forward to seeing your answers at last.
E
emeraldisle
Guest
E
emeraldisle
Guest
Ah your problem is that you don’t like the answers I have given, you want to ask me a question and then dictate to me as to how I should answer. Yes or No
Ok lets get back to the issue of this thread.
God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn’t tell us a sinless virgin.
.
.
J
justasking4
Guest
Evidently something is seriously wrong with newborns that the church commands that they be baptized. Here is what the Catholic Ency says:
"Unbaptized infants
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, **that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. **This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. "
No one is excluded unless it can be shown they were not concieved by a human father and mother. All conceived in this way fall under Romans 5:12.
Mary was conceived by 2 humans which means she inherited sin through them…
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, emeraldisle, I’m ‘calling you out’ on this.
You were asked, repeatedly, 3 days running, the same questions, and not only by me. You were asked the questions because when you did visit the thread and post, you did **not **respond to posters. When you were asked the questions again, you ‘disappeared’. Three days you did not say you had ‘answered the question already’ and in fact, we can very easily pull the posts you actually gave to prove that you did not answer. Then suddenly, out of the blue, you say, “I answered these questions already but you didn’t like the answers’”.
Projecting much???
Was this the advice of those to whom you turned for advice? “How do I answer them, if I give a straight yes or no, they will actually be able to discuss things with me, oh no, the horror!!”
“Oh emerald, the answer is simple. Tell them you’ve already answered the question. Refuse to answer by saying you already answered. It’s an OLD dodge but you have nothing to lose and in fact everything to gain. Don’t let them sway you, boy! Don’t even try to discuss things honestly with them! They’ll drag you to Rome if you have to give a straight answer. . .because the TRUTH leads to Rome. . .”
You were asked, repeatedly, 3 days running, the same questions, and not only by me. You were asked the questions because when you did visit the thread and post, you did **not **respond to posters. When you were asked the questions again, you ‘disappeared’. Three days you did not say you had ‘answered the question already’ and in fact, we can very easily pull the posts you actually gave to prove that you did not answer. Then suddenly, out of the blue, you say, “I answered these questions already but you didn’t like the answers’”.
Projecting much???
Was this the advice of those to whom you turned for advice? “How do I answer them, if I give a straight yes or no, they will actually be able to discuss things with me, oh no, the horror!!”
“Oh emerald, the answer is simple. Tell them you’ve already answered the question. Refuse to answer by saying you already answered. It’s an OLD dodge but you have nothing to lose and in fact everything to gain. Don’t let them sway you, boy! Don’t even try to discuss things honestly with them! They’ll drag you to Rome if you have to give a straight answer. . .because the TRUTH leads to Rome. . .”
R
redrosetea
Guest
No it wasn’t…as for the op I couldn’t care less what he thinks
J
justasking4
Guest
I think the answer can be found in verse 18-19 which says:
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
The best explanation is that it was through Adam that all of mankind has fallen.
We see the fruit of this when we see a baby grow to and start seeing selfishness and other things within 5 years. Parents don’t teach their children to do these things but it comes from their fallen hearts.
V
VociMike
Guest
If you weren’t afraid of the implications of the question you’d simply answer again. What sins does a newborn baby committed.
V
VociMike
Guest
There’s no question that newborn babies are affected by The Fall. But that doesn’t mean that they have committed personal, active sin. So the claim that Rom 5:12 means that all have committed personal, active sin is simply not sustainable - anybody who disagrees needs to state what personal, active sin a newborn baby can commit.
Now the question of whether Mary was affected by The Fall is another question entirely (and Catholicism teaches that she was not). But it is not the question that the OP engaged in this thread.
V
VociMike
Guest
But what is “wrong” with newborns is not personal sin. If you disagree, please explain.
Rom 5:12 doesn’t talk about inheriting sin. It says, as plainly as possible, “all have sinned”. You (or rather, the OP) are piling layer upon layer of interpretation on that simple statement, pushing and pulling it to fit your (the OP’s) manmade theology.
Disregarding for now the question of whether Mary “inherited sin”, did she, as the OP claims, commit personal sin?
V
VociMike
Guest
Hmm, “many” is not “all”. Were all made sinners, or were many made sinners?
G
Gamera
Guest
No. The “stillborn baby” argument isn’t intended to prove that Mary is sinless. The “stillborn baby” argument shows that “all have sinnned” doesn’t mean literally every human being.
G
Gamera
Guest
Ah your problem is that you don’t like the answers I have given, you want to ask me a question and then dictate to me as to how I should answer. Yes or No
Ok lets get back to the issue of this thread.
God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn’t tell us a sinless virgin.
.
.
- God’s written word calls Mary kercharitomene, “full of grace” in a tense which implies timelessness.
- God’s word is not synonymous with Gods written word. God’s word includes the Apostle’s preaching too (1 Thes 2:13). (I just love 1 Thes 2:13, don’t you?) The Apostles preached Mary’s sinlessness and their preaching constitutes God’s word. To discard part of God’s word is to say that God’s word returned to Him empty.
- Romans 5:12 doesn’t say “all have sinned,” it says “all men have sinned.” Therefore, to be consistent with your own literalism, if “all” means “all” then “men” must mean “men.” You must concede that Romans 5:12 doesn’t apply to Mary, since Mary isn’t a man, or else concede that we can legitmately conclude that “all” doesn’t literally mean “all.” You can’t have it both ways.
A
adstrinity
Guest
For all those Protestants who may be looking into the Catholic Faith for real and wanting answers (though, may God grant them a partial indulgence for sticking around this long on this thread for it), would you please logically explain why? This is a statement that is seempingly pulled out of the air. Protestants believe that it is not only possible, but probably that Jesus came from a non-sinless Woman, and that His Godness trumps all humanness and that even if His Mother did have sin, that could not transfer to Him.
I’m asking you to explain it because it’s a jump in logic. ‘Jesus is sinless. Mary is sinless. It’s this way because God would not take on tainted flesh.’ A is a statement, B is a statement. C is an assertion that needs helpful clarification.
Thank you.
L
larry_m
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Um, 414 was your post and **your **personal opinion.
I’ll stick with the Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, as Scripture tells us.
I’ll stick with the Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, as Scripture tells us.
- Status