Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[joe370]

Protestants, scripture says:* “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”* Romans 3:23

Meaning that Mary must have been a sinner too…

Scripture says: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…" Romans 5:19

Meaning that it was the disobedience of just the one man, as opposed to the first man and woman, that many were made sinners.

Those who believe that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner:

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Interesting idea.

but hey, I’m interested.

 

[hawkeye]

Protestants, scripture says:* “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”* Romans 3:23

Meaning that Mary must have been a sinner too…

Can someone clean (Jesus) come from someone unclean (Mary) ?

Scripture says: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…" Romans 5:19

Meaning that it was the disobedience of just the one man, as opposed to the first man and woman, that many were made sinners

This makes no sense, it was the first man and woman that contaminated us with sin. Although Eve persuaded Adam and he fell for it if he had not accepted,( who knows) then in this regard it was the first man. It’s takes two to tango…

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding her from Romans 5?

How could Mary be a sinner and the new Eve and still be a sinner ? the old Eve wasn’t a sinner until she disobeyed, Mary was obedient until the last, so therefore never sinned, otherwise she could not be the new Eve. So it’s logical that She,Mary could not be called new…if she sinned…

 

[Godith]

Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.

Including Mary in the Romans 3 passage is sensible, because it’s the simplest interpretation. I’ve been taught that, when trying to understand Scripture, you should look at what’s simplest and most straight-forward first. So, when Romans 3 v23 says ‘all have sinned’, I would say it means ‘all’, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin). The reason I wouldn’t exclude Mary from that is because I don’t see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded. You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.

 

[Rahn]

Protestants, scripture says:* “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”* Romans 3:23

Meaning that Mary must have been a sinner too…

Scripture says: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…" Romans 5:19

Meaning that it was the disobedience of just the one man, as opposed to the first man and woman, that many were made sinners.

Those who believe that Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner:

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

Joe, sorry, I think it’s a thin argument. It also doesn’t address Luke 1:47 either (the part of the Magnificat where Mary calls God “my Savior”).

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If one interprets “all” to mean every individual with no exceptions then one must include Jesus because He is fully human so is one of the individuals.

 

[KathleenGee]

This is where we begin to need theologians, especially as Christianity and the understanding of it developed.

The Lord Jesus has blessed the Church with many saints down through the ages, who through reflections of past works, began to discern through shared experience of Christ in the Eucharist, the reflections of our faith walk with Him.

Traditionally this is the state of perfection.

The Latin Church, derived of celibate priesthood and its subequent calling to forsake all for the Gospel–even lawful marriage-- more profoundly discerned the path that Christ took being the Savior and Atonement of sin for us, how our lives are a lifelong calling to renounce our selves, die to self and allow the New Man of Christ to grow within, and how all of us must make the same walk.

For the past hundreds of years, theologians discussed among themselves whether or not Mary had to make the same walk.

It went back then to whether or not she was conceived without sin. If she was conceived without sin, then she was the only one who did not need a savior?

In the 1800’s, thought evolved that Mary was uniquely created by the Father and that her entire being was freely disposed, full of grace, to say ‘yes’ to the will of God. At her conception, and propensity to always affirm the will of God, she freely chose Christ as Savior at her conception.

It took up to the early 1950’s for the Church to declare through dogma and the 2,000 year old history of documented saints and studies and Marian reflections, that through Pope Pius XII Mary was conceived without sin.

Mary chose Christ as Savior and Redeemer, ‘yes’ to God, to Christ at her conception, she a unique creature of God, a creature like us but as a channel of grace, a bridge of grace between us and Christ.

Mary subsequently is called the Mother of Sinners, the Advocate of sinners. She is the greatest helper to sinners to finally turn to God in confidence of His mercy. She is capable, upon a person’s request, to reform and put into good order the soul who entrusts himself to her, and to give the soul courage in God in spite of one’s past sins, no matter how many or great.

 

[joe370]

Can someone clean (Jesus) come from someone unclean (Mary) ?

This makes no sense, it was the first man and woman that contaminated us with sin. Although Eve persuaded Adam and he fell for it if he had not accepted,( who knows) then in this regard it was the first man. It’s takes two to tango…

How could Mary be a sinner and the new Eve and still be a sinner ? the old Eve wasn’t a sinner until she disobeyed, Mary was obedient until the last, so therefore never sinned, otherwise she could not be the new Eve. So it’s logical that She,Mary could not be called new…if she sinned…

Hawk, I agree with you on every point.

 

[joe370]

Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.

Including Mary in the Romans 3 passage is sensible, because it’s the simplest interpretation. I’ve been taught that, when trying to understand Scripture, you should look at what’s simplest and most straight-forward first. So, when Romans 3 v23 says ‘all have sinned’, I would say it means ‘all’, as in everyone (excluding Jesus, because we know from elsewhere that He was without sin). The reason I wouldn’t exclude Mary from that is because I don’t see anything elsewhere in Scripture that would lead me to believe she is excluded. You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible. If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.

You use Scripture to interprete Scripture, so any conclusions have to be compatible with the whole of the Bible.

Scripture interprets Scripture? Reasonable, with the right interpreter of course… How is Romans 5, which says, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners…” - compatible with Genesis 3, which says that many were made sinners through the disobedience of man and woman?

 

[joe370]

Joe, sorry, I think it’s a thin argument. It also doesn’t address Luke 1:47 either (the part of the Magnificat where Mary calls God “my Savior”).

Less of an argument and more of an observation…Mary is a creature like the rest of us so yes, like she said, she needed to be saved. All catholics admit this, but this is outside the scope of the observation. My point is, perhaps we are reading to much into Romans 3 if in fact we can safely assume that Paul was including the disobedience of the first woman, in Romans 5 even though he clearly left her out as being an integral part of sin entering the world?

 

[joe370]

If one interprets “all” to mean every individual with no exceptions then one must include Jesus because He is fully human so is one of the individuals.

To that logic most non-catholics will simply say: Jesus was also fully God, unlike every other human, making Him the exception to the rule. Why His mother couldn’t be the exception to the rule as well, makes no sense to me, at all.

I guess the point of the thread is: scripture is not always so cut and dried; Scripture needs someone to settle matters such as these; Observational questions such as these are impossible to resolve.

How is that possible to resolve the matter without God’s (name removed by moderator)ut?

How do we go about getting God’s (name removed by moderator)ut regarding observational questions such as this - is the bigger question?

The catholic answer is - we go about getting God’s (name removed by moderator)ut regarding observational questions such as this via HIS church.

The protestant answer is, I think - we can’t know for sure… If I am wrong then please clarify?

 

[joe370]

Joe, sorry, I think it’s a thin argument. It also doesn’t address Luke 1:47 either (the part of the Magnificat where Mary calls God “my Savior”).

Sidebar: Rahn, leaving scripture out of the discussion for the moment:

If God created Mary in a sinless state, then surely God, Who has no limitations, could have saved her from the natural consequence of sin, that being death, prior to Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, just as the twelve apostles ate and drank Jesus’ flesh and blood prior to His atoning work on the cross?

Surely Jesus could function outside the scope of His word given to His church?

 

[amber_lux]

if it’s wrong to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

Spend some time studying the passages in question. Romans 5 doesn’t contradict Genesis 3. Though it is easier to undertand why there is no contradiction when you read it literally, rather than figuratively. Either way works.

Amber

 

[Rahn]

Surely Jesus could function outside the scope of His word given to His church?

Well, He could, He can do anything. But, by His very nature, we know that God cannot change His mind (Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever).

If we go by the Old Testament (because it is the only way we can know what God has said and promised prior to the birth of Jesus), the only requirement for Jesus’s mother is that she is a virgin. Jesus could not function outside of the scope of this, because that would be God changing His mind.

But, if you go down this road, then all other aspects of church doctrine about Mary would be fair game (the necessity for the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s sinlessness and her perpetual virginity).

 

[joe370]

Spend some time studying the passages in question. Romans 5 doesn’t contradict Genesis 3. Though it is easier to undertand why there is no contradiction when you read it literally, rather than figuratively. Either way works.

Amber

It is wrong to assume one contradicts the other even though Romans 5 is silent as to the first womans involvment. We all just assume that Paul, in Romans 5, meant both adam and eve - so that it jives with Gen 3.

What was your answer to the question:

Could it possibly be wrong to interpret Romans 3 to include the woman Mary, the new Eve of creation, as a sinner, if it’s wrong, and it is, to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 by excluding the first woman from Romans 5?

 

[joe370]

Rahn;8327672]Well, He could, He can do anything. But, by His very nature, we know that God cannot change His mind (Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever).

If we go by the Old Testament (because it is the only way we can know what God has said and promised prior to the birth of Jesus), the only requirement for Jesus’s mother is that she is a virgin. Jesus could not function outside of the scope of this, because that would be God changing His mind.

But, if you go down this road, then all other aspects of church doctrine about Mary would be fair game (the necessity for the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s sinlessness and her perpetual virginity).

Well, He could, He can do anything. But, by His very nature, we know that God cannot change His mind (Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever).

If we go by the Old Testament (because it is the only way we can know what God has said and promised prior to the birth of Jesus), the only requirement for Jesus’s mother is that she is a virgin. Jesus could not function outside of the scope of this, because that would be God changing His mind.

Agreed. Of course Jesus could, but probably would not function outside the scope of His decree that foreordained that the “virgin will conceive and give birth to a son.” However, nowhere in the OT did God ever lay down a requirement that the Messiah’s mother could not be sinless. Correct me if I am wrong?

 

[lyrikal]

[1]In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
[2] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
[3] For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.”
[4] Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem and **all **Judea and **all **the region about the Jordan,
[6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Hmm…

Do you really think that ALL were there? That there was not even ONE soul left in the city? They were ALL at the Jordan River? And ALL were baptized by one man? This is improbable to say the least.

“ALL” does not literally mean ALL. It’s like saying “I went to a concert last night and it was awesome and EVERYONE was there!”

I obviously don’t mean every single soul in the world was there. It is a figure of speech to say “A LOT of people were there…” This is what is happening in the above Gospel and this is what Paul is saying as well. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Especially since babies who die in the womb from abortions and other means have obviously not sinned. Also, babies who are born and die in a few days before even knowing what sin is, have they sinned? What about handicapped people? Have they sinned? If we are going to make exceptions to the ALL in that way, then ALL no longer becomes ALL.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

[1]
Hmm…

Do you really think that ALL were there? That there was not even ONE soul left in the city? They were ALL at the Jordan River? And ALL were baptized by one man? This is improbable to say the least.

“ALL” does not literally mean ALL. It’s like saying “I went to a concert last night and it was awesome and EVERYONE was there!”

I obviously don’t mean every single soul in the world was there. It is a figure of speech to say “A LOT of people were there…” This is what is happening in the above Gospel and this is what Paul is saying as well. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Especially since babies who die in the womb from abortions and other means have obviously not sinned. Also, babies who are born and die in a few days before even knowing what sin is, have they sinned? What about handicapped people? Have they sinned? If we are going to make exceptions to the ALL in that way, then ALL no longer becomes ALL.

God bless.

All of this make perfect sense. Of course the big question is, did Jesus, as her Savior, preserve His mother from original sin, thereby neutralizing Satan’s attack on His mother? What son wouldn’t do this for his mother given the chance?

I’ll check out your blog…

 

[CompSciGuy]

Can someone clean (Jesus) come from someone unclean (Mary) ?

How can someone clean (Mary) come from someone unclean (Mary’s mother)?

I’ve always been told that Mary’s cleanliness isn’t necessary in order for Jesus to be clean, it’s just a special grace given to her.

 

[joe370]

Hey CompSciGuy, just food for thought regarding your statement:

How can someone clean (Mary) come from someone unclean (Mary’s mother)?

I’ve always been told that Mary’s cleanliness isn’t necessary in order for Jesus to be clean, it’s just a special grace given to her.

You know, I think, the reason Jesus couldn’t have been one with sinful flesh is more about God and less about our mother Mary; more about how much God abhors sin, and less about putting limitations on God. God abhors sin so much that He condemned the serpent to destruction, the woman to submission and pain, the man to toil and tears, and ultimately, all sinners to death.

In Genesis 6, we see the condition of man’s heart, that it was so evil that God felt compelled to destroy the entire human race, save 8, in a flood. God abhors sin so much that He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah along with their inhabitants because of sin. Why? All because abhors sin.

If God abhors sin on a scale we couldn’t possibly understand, and scripture clearly illustrates that fact, then perhaps Hawk’s statement makes perfect sense?