Mary WAS sinless

[MrS]

I did a search and found no place in the OT (not even in the Apocrypha) where the quote from Rom 3:23 appeared.

Since you said it was a quote, I expect you to show me from where?

Try Psalms 14:

1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. 4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? 5 There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

Paul often…often… only needed a line or two from the OT to make the point he needed to make.

Those who listened to him would have picked up on his quote right away… if they were famililar with the scrolls.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I have the lessons in Greek at the state university, and I have trouble thinking of a more ungodly place than that.
“pas”:
Has several meanings - but the one used in Rom 3:23, as it has been turned into a noun, “pantes” must be “everyone”.

“Must be”? Really?

Here are some instances where pantes is used:

Mark 1: 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Every single person in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized?

Mark 1:37 And when they had found him, they said to him: All seek for thee.

Mark 5:20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

Romans 5: 12 Here is good one that uses the nown form:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You would disagree with this all meaning “Must Be Everyone”? Enoch and Elijah did not experience death.

Here is

 

[LilyM]

Erm…I would like to see where in Scripture you get this theology?

How is the sentiment “The work of Jesus is not enough…I need to save myself through various good deeds” not a belittlement (is that a word?) of God’s gift of mercy? Then YOU can take the glory for your salvation - God only helped a little.
That is blasphemy if anything is.

So what do you make of these two statements of St Paul - ‘I am glad to make up in my flesh what is LACKING in the sufferings of Christ’ and ‘WORK OUT your salvation in fear and trembling’ - is Paul here belittling either Christ’s sufferings or His saving power? Surely not. And I am saying no more than he did, that we need to co-operate with Gods saving grace.

Surely that should be self-evident. If such cooperation was not needed, everyone would be in heaven willy nilly and noone in Hell, since God desires to save all.

As for the ‘incubation chamber’ bit - seriously, you’ve got to quit with that. Have you ever said to your mother’s face that she was nothing more than an incubation chamber for you? I’d love to see her reaction if you did. It’s an incredible insult and offence to any mother and any female. I most certainly am not and never have been a mere ‘incubation chamber’ neither has my mother or yours or anyone’s. Please be respectful.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I have the lessons in Greek at the state university, and I have trouble thinking of a more ungodly place than that.
“pas”:
Has several meanings - but the one used in Rom 3:23, as it has been turned into a noun, “pantes” must be “everyone”.

“Must be”? Really?

Here are some instances where pantes is used:

Mark 1: 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Every single person in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized?

Mark 1:37 And when they had found him, they said to him: All seek for thee.

Mark 5:20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

Romans 5: 12 Here is good one that uses the nown form:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You would disagree with this all meaning “Must Be Everyone”? Enoch and Elijah did not experience death.

Here is another

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This presents a major problem. You as a Lutheran don’t speak the same thing. Lutheranism has divided among you. You as a Protestant don’t have the same mind and the same judgement…

you can view for yourself all these :

Mat_11:13; Mat_11:28; Mat_12:23; Mat_14:20; Mat_15:37; Mat_19:11; Mat_21:26; Mat_22:28; Mat_23:8; Mat_25:31; Mat_26:31; Mat_26:33; Mat_26:35; Mat_26:52; Mat_26:56; Mat_27:1; Mar_1:5; Mar_1:27; Mar_1:37; Mar_5:12; Mar_5:20; Mar_6:42; Mar_6:50; Mar_7:3; Mar_7:14; Mar_12:44; Mar_14:23; Mar_14:27; Mar_14:29; Mar_14:31; Mar_14:50; Mar_14:53; Mar_14:64; Luk_1:63; Luk_1:66; Luk_2:3; Luk_2:18; Luk_2:47; Luk_4:22; Luk_4:28; Luk_4:40; Luk_6:26; Luk_8:40; Luk_8:52; Luk_9:17; Luk_9:43; Luk_13:3; Luk_13:5; Luk_13:17; Luk_13:27; Luk_14:18; Luk_14:29; Luk_15:1; Luk_19:7; Luk_20:38; Luk_21:4; Luk_21:15; Luk_23:48; Luk_23:49; Joh_1:7; Joh_1:16; Joh_3:26; Joh_5:23; Joh_5:28; Joh_6:45; Joh_7:21; Joh_10:8; Joh_11:48; Joh_13:10; Joh_13:11; Joh_13:35; Joh_17:21; Joh_18:40; Act_1:14; Act_2:7; Act_2:12; Act_2:32; Act_2:44; Act_3:24; Act_4:21; Act_5:17; Act_5:36; Act_5:37; Act_8:1; Act_8:10; Act_9:21; Act_9:26; Act_9:35; Act_10:33; Act_10:43; Act_16:33; Act_17:7; Act_17:21; Act_18:17; Act_19:7; Act_20:25; Act_21:18; Act_21:20; Act_21:24; Act_22:3; Act_25:24; Act_26:4; Act_27:36; Rom_3:12; Rom_3:23; Rom_5:12; Rom_9:6; Rom_9:7; Rom_10:16; Rom_14:10; Rom_15:11; 1Co_1:10; 1Co_8:1; 1Co_9:24; 1Co_10:1; 1Co_10:2; 1Co_10:3; 1Co_10:4; 1Co_10:17; 1Co_12:13; 1Co_12:29; 1Co_12:30; 1Co_14:23; 1Co_14:24; 1Co_14:31; 1Co_15:22; 1Co_15:51; 1Co_16:20; 2Co_3:18; 2Co_5:14; 2Co_13:13; Gal_1:2; Gal_3:28; Eph_2:3; Eph_4:13; Phi_2:21; Phi_4:22; Col_2:3; 1Th_5:5; 2Th_2:12; 2Ti_1:15; 2Ti_3:12; 2Ti_4:16; 2Ti_4:21; Tit_3:15; Heb_1:6; Heb_1:11; Heb_1:14; Heb_3:16; Heb_8:11; Heb_11:13; Heb_11:39; Heb_12:8; 1Pe_3:8; 1Pe_5:5; 1Jo_2:19; 2Jo_1:1; Rev_7:11; Rev_13:8; Rev_18:19; Rev_19:5;

 

[5pintLutheran]

Well, this is a major dispute between RC and Protestant theologians. But I have to lean to the Prot. side. And here’s one reason why:

Doesn’t Paul say that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)? If Mary didn’t sin, then “all” haven’t sinned. Even if we want to say “well, Paul meant ‘all’ back in his day”, then we have to remember that Mary was part of that “all” in his day.:coffeeread:

 

[JoeyWarren]

Well, this is a major dispute between RC and Protestant theologians. But I have to lean to the Prot. side. And here’s one reason why:

Doesn’t Paul say that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)? If Mary didn’t sin, then “all” haven’t sinned. Even if we want to say “well, Paul meant ‘all’ back in his day”, then we have to remember that Mary was part of that “all” in his day.:coffeeread:

Read post 63. You probably responding to the first post and did not read the other posts. Romans 3:23 has been dealt with in detail.

 

[LilyM]

Well, this is a major dispute between RC and Protestant theologians. But I have to lean to the Prot. side. And here’s one reason why:

Doesn’t Paul say that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)? If Mary didn’t sin, then “all” haven’t sinned. Even if we want to say “well, Paul meant ‘all’ back in his day”, then we have to remember that Mary was part of that “all” in his day.:coffeeread:

There are many cases where, for example, scripture refers to ‘all’ the people going to listen to Jesus or going to be baptised by John. Since many didn’t like Jesus, some didn’t like John, and many would’ve had to work at those times or what have you, it’s plain that not literally every single person would’ve gone. Yet scripture says ‘all’ in these cases without specifying any exceptions.

So why should Paul’s use of the word mean literally all with no exceptions? Could it possibly be that your understanding of the Greek is faulty?

 

[5pintLutheran]

Another problem I have in the doctrine of a sinless Mary…
(This takes a little bit to explain, so bear with me :coffeeread: )
In Rev. 12:1-2 it is written: Rev. 12:1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Clearly this is tied to Rev. 12:17: “Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.”

Many agree the woman is Mary. But if you look at the earlier verses such as Rev. 12:2 it is written: “She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.”

Now this also presents a problem for sinless Mary doctrine, b/c in Genesis, God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowlege of Good and Evil. They ate and were under the penalty of sin (pain, suffering, death, etc…).

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

Now if Mary is the woman written about in Revelation 12:2, and she is “crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth” then she is also under the condemnation of original sin. This is another problem I have with the teaching that Mary is sinless.

 

[MrS]

Another problem I have in the doctrine of a sinless Mary…
(This takes a little bit to explain, so bear with me :coffeeread: )
In Rev. 12:1-2 it is written: Rev. 12:1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Clearly this is tied to Rev. 12:17: “Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.”

Many agree the woman is Mary. But if you look at the earlier verses such as Rev. 12:2 it is written: “She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.”

Now this also presents a problem for sinless Mary doctrine, b/c in Genesis, God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowlege of Good and Evil. They ate and were under the penalty of sin (pain, suffering, death, etc…).

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

Now if Mary is the woman written about in Revelation 12:2, and she is “crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth” then she is also under the condemnation of original sin. This is another problem I have with the teaching that Mary is sinless.

It is also understood that the woman is giving birth to the Church.

To limit any verse to only one possible theological understanding is a big mistake.

If the woman is Mary (also acceptable),
and Catholics consider her as the Mother whom Jesus gave to all at the Cross,
and Scripture tells that her heart too, a sword shall pierce,

how does that conflict with her sinless life?

.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It would appear that some are confusing “sinless” with “divine”. They are not the same. God made Mary sinless. Without that grace, she would have been the same as anyone else. That she was sinless does not mean she was divine.

 

[LilyM]

Now if Mary is the woman written about in Revelation 12:2, and she is “crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth” then she is also under the condemnation of original sin. This is another problem I have with the teaching that Mary is sinless.

No, it simply means she was human. As Jesus was human. Part of the human condition is suffering, and there’s nothing in scripture to suggest that suffering in childbirth is ONLY to do with original sin. Don’t some translations say ‘I will MULTIPLY your pains in childbirth’? Can’t multiply something that doesn’t already exist, surely.

However, let’s assume you’re right and it was brought into the world by original sin. As Catholics we believe that ANYONE who is baptised has the stain of original sin removed, and from that point on is only under condemnation for their personal sins.

Surely you believe that original sin is removed from the soul of the believer at some point during their life as well, probably by baptism as we do, perhaps by some other means. In any event there’d be at least a few people out there for whom it has been removed, otherwise no-one could get to heaven. Some of these would have to be women of childbearing age, no?

By your logic any woman who has had the taint of original sin removed (as at least some apart from Mary have) shouldn’t suffer pain in childbirth either, if it’s only related to original sin. Of course they do suffer nonetheless.

Goes to show pain in childbirth, even if it originally came about because of Eve’s sin, isn’t removed when that taint of original sin is.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The arguments seem to be getting ever more strained. Labor pains as evidence of sin? Wow! What’s next? Breathing?

 

[JoeyWarren]

The arguments seem to be getting ever more strained. Labor pains as evidence of sin? Wow! What’s next? Breathing?

You never know with Protestants, it just might be the next “Another Gospel”

The People’s Republic of California

That one just slays me…:knight2:

 

[AFollower]

I am honestly trying to understand the Catholic position on Mary. I came up with two questions that I think are important.

1. How is Mary free of original sin if she was also born of a woman?
2. Just assume that the non-catholic position is right for a second, that Mary was not sinless. Does that impact the deity of Christ in any way? In the grand scheme of things, does Mary’s sin or sinlessness even matter?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I am honestly trying to understand the Catholic position on Mary. I came up with two questions that I think are important.

1. How is Mary free of original sin if she was also born of a woman?
2. Just assume that the non-catholic position is right for a second, that Mary was not sinless. Does that impact the deity of Christ in any way? In the grand scheme of things, does Mary’s sin or sinlessness even matter?

Answer you own question with this one:

If in the grand scheme of things, Mary’s sin or sinlessness does not matter, then why you fighting it so much?

 

[AFollower]

Sin from the fall is the reason for Jesus coming to earth in the first place.

Where in the bible does it say once you are baptized, the stain of original sin is removed?

 

[5pintLutheran]

No, it simply means she was human. As Jesus was human. Part of the human condition is suffering, and there’s nothing in scripture to suggest that suffering in childbirth is ONLY to do with original sin. Don’t some translations say ‘I will MULTIPLY your pains in childbirth’? Can’t multiply something that doesn’t already exist, surely.

However, let’s assume you’re right and it was brought into the world by original sin. As Catholics we believe that ANYONE who is baptised has the stain of original sin removed, and from that point on is only under condemnation for their personal sins.

Surely you believe that original sin is removed from the soul of the believer at some point during their life as well, probably by baptism as we do, perhaps by some other means. In any event there’d be at least a few people out there for whom it has been removed, otherwise no-one could get to heaven. Some of these would have to be women of childbearing age, no?

By your logic any woman who has had the taint of original sin removed (as at least some apart from Mary have) shouldn’t suffer pain in childbirth either, if it’s only related to original sin. Of course they do suffer nonetheless.

Goes to show pain in childbirth, even if it originally came about because of Eve’s sin, isn’t removed when that taint of original sin is.

Right, but… In Gen 3:16 the second part of the verse implies that there was not pain before: “in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
So… God tells Eve that she will now have pain bearing children, and this is after they ate the fruit. But this is another matter, b/c they had no children before disobeying God, so therefore… Why would she have birthpains before the fall if there were no children?

We (Lutherans) believe along the same lines as our brothers and sisters in Christ (RC) in that Holy Baptism removes the stain of original sin.
This is what our church (LCMS) teaches about Holy Baptism:
“In and through Baptism,God cleanses us from all of our
sins, snatches us from the power of Satan, and gives us everlasting
life.It is all God’s doing as He gives us His blessing.It is
His promise.In Baptism,our Triune God imparts to each of us
personally the gifts the Lord Jesus Christ won for the world
through His life,suffering,death,and resurrection.
Gal.3:27;Col.1:13–14; 1 Peter 3:21;Titus 3:5–7 and
1 Cor.6:11.”

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sin from the fall is the reason for Jesus coming to earth in the first place.

Where in the bible does it say once you are baptized, the stain of original sin is removed?

Start a new thread on this subject and we will gladly provide you with the answers ye seek. You only need to hear and listen…

 

[AFollower]

Answer you own question with this one:

If in the grand scheme of things, Mary’s sin or sinlessness does not matter, then why you fighting it so much?

I am wondering why it is so important to show her to be sinless? Does it taint Jesus in someway if she was not?

 

[LilyM]

I am honestly trying to understand the Catholic position on Mary. I came up with two questions that I think are important.

1. How is Mary free of original sin if she was also born of a woman?

You and I are both born of women and both (I hope) free of original sin, otherwise we could never enter Heaven. Catholics believe original sin is removed through baptism, which happened to me in babyhood, in your case it may be via a ‘baptism of desire’ if not of actual water, in Mary’s case, simply, it was by direct intervention from God at the moment of her conception. Same goal that God has for all of us, different means and different points in our life by which it was achieved.

1. Just assume that the non-catholic position is right for a second, that Mary was not sinless. Does that impact the deity of Christ in any way? In the grand scheme of things, does Mary’s sin or sinlessness even matter?

This has been asked and answered many times. Of course it matters, we wouldn’t bother with it if it didn’t. It speaks to the very nature of Jesus Christ, one of the central issues that all Christians need to understand. It is essential to understand His humanity and its relationship to His divinity to understand how He could and did save us. And you can’t understand any of it without understanding Mary’s role in it, and how it all depends upon her sinlessness as well as His. For that matter it absolutely DOES taint Jesus, in fact it makes salvation impossible, if Mary is sinful.

We’re all agreed, I hope, that Jesus was perfect sinless man. We need to agree that He got that perfect sinless humanity from Mary alone. Think about this before responding. No other human contributed to His humanity, and the Heavenly Father not being human, He didn’t contribute any of Jesus’ humanity either, so it must have been from Mary. Now for her to pass perfect sinless humanity to Jesus she had to possess it herself.

More importantly if He was sinless only because of His divinity or only because the Heavenly Father interfered in some essential way in His human makeup, then He wasn’t fully human. Adam and Eve were created sinless, so it doesn’t take from anyone’s humanity to be created so. In fact both Mary and Jesus, to adequately fulfil their roles in the plan of salvation, had in the same manner to be created sinless.

Now if He was not fully human - which He wouldn’t be if the Father interfered unduly in the process of His taking on that humanity - then His sacrifice matters not a bit to us humans. He couldn’t sacrifice for us nor atone for our sins nor properly mediate between us and the Father unless He WAS fully human as well as fully divine.

See you take out one card, in this case Mary’s sinlessness, and the whole house of cards falls down.