N
Nicea325
Guest
I just do not understand how people can use Romans to debunk Maryâs IC and yet on the same token use Hebrews 4 to say âonlyâ Jesus is sinless? Well, if Paul says âallâ then it meansâŠALL,no exceptions!
- Status
M
Monergistic
Guest
I may be able to explain. In Romans, it says all have sinnedâŠand fall short of the glory of God.
Who is it that falls short of the glory of God? All- who are not God, obviously. Can God fall short of the glory of God? Imagine that. God is not an exception, because He is the one that All fall short of.
Jesus is God. Therefore, He is not an exception, He is the standard. He is what all fall short of. Itâs like saying All fall short of the speed of Usain Bolt (in track and field sprint events that donât involve hurdles). Well, you might say, Usain Bolt is a person. Does he fall short of Usain Bolt? Aaaahhhh, I gotcha there! Exceptions are allowed, and with Bolt being used as a precedent for one who equals the speed of, um, himself, I want to tell you about another exception to the rule. This friend of mine is just as fast as him, I swear. You believe me?
Iâm sorry, but thatâs not how exceptions are made, and thatâs not how precedent works.
Follow up question- if Mary never sinned, does she still somehow fall short of the glory of God, or does she approximate that glory through her alleged sinless perfection? To the Protestant mind (and maybe sometimes to the Orthodox mind), the one would seem to imply the other, and when any personâs glory is purported to approach or equal that of God- even by implication- that is a sensitive topic youâre stepping into.
Another follow up- if Mary never sinned yet did fall short of Godâs glory, how do you go about the task of squaring that circle?
See people, this isnât quite as simple as saying âException! I am completely satisfied, no more issues, that is all.â There is a stated consequence for the All that have Sinned- they fall short of Godâs glory. If you choose to manufacture an exception, there is a link to the issue of Godâs glory that requires a bit of due diligence.
Ah, one other thing. Curious minds want to know- has the CC done its due diligence in an official capacity? When this verse comes up, does Magisterial authority merely comment that All comes with exceptions and stop right there, or does it also follow through with comments on Maryâs status, glory-wise, relative to Godâs glory?
N
Nicea325
Guest
So God cannot and absolutely cannot make an other exception like Mary?
M
Monergistic
Guest
That didnât really answer the question. It offered an explanation for the how (anticipatory grace), but Iâm curious to know where it leaves Mary in comparison to the glory of God. Hypothetically, of course- you do understand that the idea of a sinless Mary is strictly counterfactual.
To the issue of possibility, however- Iâd argue that since Jesusâ death was the centerpiece of Godâs salvation plan, this strongly implies that with the Fall and the curse earned by humanity, God had no other possible means of saving the people He loved. If He were able to intervene and allow people the possibility of living a sinless life despite not being God, He would have done so for every single person and maybe even saved Himself the trouble of crucifixion and death. That clearly did not happen, therefore the idea of anticipatory grace must not have ever been a workable strategy in reality.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
But
When you say, All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Accordingly this makes God above All. And of course rightly so, infinite perfection, so why is it He is subjected to mans law? Iâm just curious about this? We are subjected, He provides the miracles and apparently though Mary? And when He thought about this Ark/Temple for Himself, how you think He prepared it to proclaim His glory? Would He have prepared Mary at the moment of Her conception, somewhere in between, for sure Biblically He preserved Her before the Incarnation, I canât seem to squeeze otherwise out of Luke. So what was âmost fittingâ in Gods infinite perfection?So are you saying God could have preserved Her earlier but He didnât? Or He couldnât do this?
N
Nicea325
Guest
According to who? You? All the non-believers who are all finite creatures? Remember the words of the archangel Gabriel:
For there is nothing that God cannot do.
Unless you consider the above as counterfactual?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
âwith God all things are possibleâ Matthew Does that âallâ have the same meaning as you require of it above?
M
Monergistic
Guest
ââŠand fall short of the glory of God.â
Anyone want to address that? I asked some pretty specific questions about where Maryâs counterfactual sinlessness would leave her relative to Godâs glory. Can Someone please answer this instead of changing the subject three different ways without ever circling back there? And if you can find anything authoritative that actually gives an answer to this, Iâd be much obliged.
Anyone want to address that? I asked some pretty specific questions about where Maryâs counterfactual sinlessness would leave her relative to Godâs glory. Can Someone please answer this instead of changing the subject three different ways without ever circling back there? And if you can find anything authoritative that actually gives an answer to this, Iâd be much obliged.
N
Nicea325
Guest
What about her relation to Godâs glory? Mary is NOT equal to God. God created Adam, Eve, and the all angels without sin, but evidently not Godâs equal. The majority of the angelical hosts never sinned at the rebellion by Lucifer;likewise, and all the human souls in heaven are without sin. However, this does not take away from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
Are you under the impression Catholics are claiming Maryâs needed no Savior? That is not true, Mary needed a Savior. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
All âbutâ God. Monergistic Mary was indeed predestined to be preserved at some point, we are saying this occurred at Her conception which is most fitting because of His perfection. What are you saying Mary wasnât preserved and was a sinner? Gods Mother? Human and Divine Nature which cannot be separated the doctrine is the Hypostatic Union. His divinity was not fallen, nor could it ever be, fallen. Preservation of mans fall by divine perfection is an absolute, imperfection has no access.
P
Protos
Guest
Letâs look at this another way:
Mark 3:21 - "When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, âHe is out of his mindâŠHis mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.â
Look Mary was mentioned as one of the relatives who thought Jesus was mad and went out to seize Him. Surely this shows a lack of faith and therefore of sinfulness?
Mark 3:21 - "When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, âHe is out of his mindâŠHis mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.â
Look Mary was mentioned as one of the relatives who thought Jesus was mad and went out to seize Him. Surely this shows a lack of faith and therefore of sinfulness?
N
Nicea325
Guest
This is comment is what baffles me:
*you do understand that the idea of a sinless Mary is strictly counterfactual.To the issue *
The fact that nothing is impossible for God is not an idea. Or that He alone prevented Mary from original sin is also not an idea.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Other translations just use âfamilyâ, âassociatesâ, âfriendsâ, or even âthose nearest himâ, which may mean that his mother was not involved at all.
Latin Mark 3:21:Greek Mark 3:21 said:
M
Monergistic
Guest
God acts according to the perfection of His nature, which means He does not have complete libertine freedom to do absolutely anything- which would include all sorts of things that are nasty and wrong. If it could be shown that preserving a created human being from sin is somehow contrary to Godâs divine nature and Godâs divine justice, then the option would be off the table in that sense.
Now, when God is working to accomplish something that is in accordance with His nature and perfect will, He does get that done 100% of the time. That I do affirm. Clearly, however, I am saying there is reason to believe a perfect sinless Mary is not in accordance with all that. There is an argument to be made there, but for now I am interested in a different line of questioning.
All have sinned and fall short if the glory of God. Obviously, you sin, you fall short. But hypothetically, if someone did manage to be an exception to the rule while also not being God, would that person fall short of the glory of God? Or would that person not fall short of the glory of God? Letâs see if we can get a straight answer to a simple question. Iâm trying here, but I donât know if I can break it down any simpler than that.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Creator/Creature. Creation/Incarnation of Divine perfection. Which St Athanasius states is intimately connected. The Churchâs call the hypostatic union related to mans fall. We all agree Mary was not subjected to aspects of the fallen nature of Adam and Eve. She is the new Eve, Mother of the Incarnate Word of God. From there the Apostle Paul describes the law, sin etc. The Catholic Church =original sin. No access to God.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with Godâs plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.
All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say âyesâ to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell âin a body under debt of sinâ (Wis. 1:4 NAB).
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Nowhere in Mark 3 was Mary ever mentioned. Family in non-American terms always means extended family, which includes cousins to several degrees. This is true of many cultures not only of First Century Palestine, but of almost all non-American cultures today.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Thing is, Western Christians see sin as nothing more than offenses, that one needs to commit something to sin. Which is why in the East as what the Church Fathers have taught, we have not problem trying to create a false dichotomy on semantics trying to find an âoutâ for Mary being âunder sinâ.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Bible speaks on the law/sin per the Apostle Paul. This is what is being discussed here. Can you relate the Eastern perspective to the Apostle Paul and his understanding of the law/sin and mans nature post Adam/Eve, and relate this to Mary, Mother of the Lord? The issue is the Pauline concept of Law and Sin apparently. This will serve your point of the debate well. Whatâs not serving you well is elaborating on what you think the West is saying and not explaining what the East is saying. That is not furthering the dialogue.
Why not explain to us from an Eastern perspective mans fallen nature. And using âBible Onlyâ and how this relates to Mary and the Incarnate Word of God. Since as per the OP we are speaking to many who use Bible only as we see. What we are not doing is entering into a theological/philosophical debate between East/West on this nuanced point which distracts from the OP.
- Status