You let scripture interpret scripture.
Pray tell, where is this 'scripture interprets scripture" principle found in Scripture? After all, an inanimate object cannot interpret itself. In order to interpret something, you need mental capacities.
If a particular verse seems obscure or contradictory, you look at other verses to find clarity.
This is a wonderful principle to follow. However, in order to explain how the verses are not contradictory to each other, you need an infallible authority.
When Paul said “all” have sinned most everyone who is not trying to defend a pet dogma knows that Paul meant all mankind and not the one (Jesus) who came to save them.
Actually, when Paul says “all,” he means “most/the majority/a significant portion” of mankind.
The Godhead and unfallen angels of course were not part of Paul’s “all” either.
Children below the age of reason and people who have their mental capabilities stripped away due to mental illness are excluded from Paul’s “all” also.
And logic tells you that Jesus is excluded as well because He was sent to rescue and forgive repenting sinners.
Your logic would be fine if Jesus were only God. Jesus is, however, perfectly man also. He therefore had the ability to sin. Therefore, logic dictates that if your interpretation of “all” means “all mankind,” then you
MUST include Christ within that list.
A. All humans are sinners.
B. Jesus was a human.
C. Therefore, Jesus is a sinner.
If Mary were not a repenting sinner then she would need no Savior.
First, what evidence can you provide that states that Mary was repenting of her supposed sins when she said “my spirit rejoices in my Lord and Savior.”
Second, the argument that “Mary needed a Savior, therefore she is a sinner” is not valid logic. Did you even read my explanation as to why this argument falls short of being good?
Here Paul is again saying Jesus came to save the “all”, so it would be illogical for Him to be included in the all.
This verse says nothing about Jesus saving mankind; Paul talks about faith possibly being given to them.
Second, your argument only works if you believe Jesus is only God. However, since Jesus is also a human man, He logically has to be included with that “all.”
A. All humans are under the stain of sin.
B. Jesus was a human.
C. Therefore, Jesus was under the stain of sin.
As I said before, you cannot escape this logic. If your interpretations of the “all” in Romans and Galatians are correct, then you must admit that our Lord and Savior was a sinner.
Here we see the very clear scripture excepting Jesus from the " all".
There is, however, a contradiction between your interpretation of this verse and your interpretation of Paul’s “all.” Therefore, your interpretations are faulty.
There is no such scripture excepting any other Bible personage.
As far as Mary’s sinless nature goes: Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 make it pretty clear that she was spared from sin by God’s divine intervention.
You have yet to refute my explanations as to why these verses point to Mary being sinless, by the way. You just keep rehashing the same, already-refuted arguments.
So reasonable men and women who just want to know the truth and are not trying to argue against the truth to maintain a tradition of men
This is intellectually-insulting. All of us here are reasonable, Truth-seeking men and women. The fact that we disagree with
your personal interpretations of Scripture does not mean we are not.
Mary’s sinless nature is not a “tradition of man,” as it clearly as scriptural support. The idea that Mary is not sinless is a relatively new belief, appearing quite sometime after the Reformation. Therefore, my money is on this relatively new belief being a “tradition of man.”
Further, the Early Church Father and the major Reformers believed in Mary’s sinless nature. Therefore, I have a question for you:
The Early Church Fathers were astounding biblical scholars. Likewise, the original Reformers, though they disagreed with the Church on many counts, were also very well-versed in Scripture. If, then, your “all have sinned” and “all under sin” text-proofs were a problem for Mary’s sinless nature, then why did these biblical scholars believe that she was, indeed, without sin?
Also, the original Reformers were the first people to advocate the principle of
Sola Scriptura. Under the Lutheran understanding, at least, teachings that have a larger basis in Sacred Tradition are fine as long as they do not contradict Scripture. Since the Reformers believed the Marian beliefs, we can logically conclude that Mary being sinless does not contradict Scripture.
see that Mary was indeed well favored and had God’s grace
In fact, Mary was so well-favored by God that she was
kecharitomene. This word is in the perfect tense, and that therefore means Mary was “full of grace” at some point in her past, and this “full of grace” state continues well into the future. One cannot be “full of grace” if he or she is currently under the stain of sin. Therefore, Mary must have been preserved from sin.
yet had at one time transgressed the law (sinned) as everyone else
As I keep telling you, there is no scriptural evidence that states Mary transgressed the Law.
Oh, and don’t reply with your Romans and Galatians text-proofs. I have already discussed those. If the “all” in those verses literally means “all,” then you must include Jesus Christ in that “all.” This is logic you simply cannot get around.
including John the Baptist , whom , by the way was deemed by Jesus as greater than Mary…
Why do you keep bringing this up? It is not pertinent to the discussion.
