Protestants who believe Mary, the Mother of God sinned

[Lutheranteach]

I’m not trashing anyone. I’m saying your source is one that, as a protestant, makes little impact on your case with me. You can use common sense, you can use Biblical things, you can use commonly accepted Christian principles, linguistics, historical research, you can use all sorts of things. What you can’t use, and expect to get an “oh you are obviously right” moment from a protestant is: “because the Catholic Church (or a pope) says so” proof. —*just as I would never expect any Catholic to change his or her mind if I said I believe something because Martin Luther said so.

I do admit, my words were far too harsh as there is much in your Catechism that we can all agree upon and it is the template for much that came after.

 

[ufamtobie]

Impossible to answer. It could go eather way. We just don’t know.

Rev. Kevin,

“It can go either way” Rev. step to the side and listen to yourself.

Rev. It can go only one way, and that way is, Virgin Mary could not have sinned while carrying Jesus Christ. Virgin Mary could not have sinned before, during or after the Birth of Christ therefore She was Born without sin.

Rev. It was Virgin Mary who gave Jesus Christ his human flesh/ Her DNA. Common Sense should only tell you that Virgin Mary’s DNA must be with out sin to give Birth to Him who is without sin.

Like the Ark of the Covenant that carried the Word of God, Virgin Mary is the Living human Ark
that Carried the Word of God made flesh.

Rev. God is not a God, that can go either way! God is a God, that can only go the sinnless way to come into this world.

Pray to God to understand this about Virgin Mary, She is our sinless Mother, for abandoning the Mother, is but one step from abandoning her Son.

Ufamtobie

 

[BrianH]

Rev. It was Virgin Mary who gave Jesus Christ his human flesh/ Her DNA. Common Sense should only tell you that Virgin Mary’s DNA must be with out sin to give Birth to Him who is without sin.

And why does that common sense not apply to her parents?

 

[LilyM]

And why does that common sense not apply to her parents?

Because Mary could be made sinless by grace, by Divine Intervention. But Jesus had to be MORE - He had to be sinless by His very natures (both human and divine). Meaning the vessel HE came from had to be pure. So that sinlessness had to extend to her who gave Him the only flesh and DNA He possessed - Mary’s.

You see, if the Father had intervened in some way during or after Christ’s conception to render Him sinless, He would in fact be performing the act of salvation (by removing the stain of Adam from Him) as He does for when He saves the rest of us. But we know Jesus never needed saving from anything - including the sin of Adam.

If Jesus’ conception had been interfered with in the way you suggest, HE would be the one singing ‘my soul rejoices in God my saviour’ along with Mary - which is a preposterous and impossible thought - the God Man Himself being saved!

To look at it another way, let’s draw an analogy - the Ark of the Covenant was made of finest, purest gold, and was untouchable by human hands. This had to be so because of the holiness of its function and what it contained.

Does that mean the gold used in its manufacture came from sources different from any other gold? No. But ordinary sources do not equal an ordinary end product. The fact remains that, because of its unique purpose, from its very creation the Ark itself was pure and holy and untouchable and remained (remains) so as long as it lasted/lasts.

And so Mary, much more a vessel of God, dedicated to a much more lofty purpose, than the Ark of the Old Testament could ever be, for it was never destined to contain God Himself, though made from ordinary human DNA, was herself spotless, sinless, set apart, holy and untouchable.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Rev. It was Virgin Mary who gave Jesus Christ his human flesh/ Her DNA. Common Sense should only tell you that Virgin Mary’s DNA must be with out sin to give Birth to Him who is without sin.

I am not a scientist and I am open to being corrected by somebody who is an authority here…

But I do not think that sin is a function of DNA.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If neither party is willing to agree on sources then there can be no valuable, beneficial, intelligent debate or discussion, just a cat chasing its tail and an understanding of the other party’s position, nothing more. If you are to not put the early church fathers, the councils, the papal teachings, the catechism AND the scriptures into a holistic theology, and you only use the Bible, I say this respectfully, the discussion has little worth, doesn’t it? IMO, to appeal to a Protestant, I would try to convince them to get “out” of that sola scriptura box they’re in. I wouldn’t just appeal to them with the only source they like, the Bible. I would encourage them to take a look at who actually put that Bible together, who decided the theology of the Holy Trinity and made it official, who fought back the heresies and sinful teachings that tried to invade orthodoxy for over a millenium before Luther and Calvin and company arrived. I would encourage them to look and see a visible, viable, holy catholic church in the early centuries that was based on apostolic succession, sacramental theology, Church teachings (not just Bible alone thinking), and I would ask what came first—the Bible in its entirety or the Church? Sola scriptura falls on its head when you consider the early church had many dioceses and parishes that existed for decades without all the gospels or epistles or canon? I would also point out that James says we are NOT saved through faith alone, which Luther taught. I would also point out there was not such thing as a printing press until the Middle Ages, and holistically point out what the Church looked like in its infancy. I wouldn’t need to use a Bible-alone approach to argue with a protestant. If he or she couldn’t agree on those points and persisted in wanting only the Bible as a common point of reference, the discussion would be pretty much dead.

I’m not trashing anyone. I’m saying your source is one that, as a protestant, makes little impact on your case with me. You can use common sense, you can use Biblical things, you can use commonly accepted Christian principles, linguistics, historical research, you can use all sorts of things. What you can’t use, and expect to get an “oh you are obviously right” moment from a protestant is: “because the Catholic Church (or a pope) says so” proof. —*just as I would never expect any Catholic to change his or her mind if I said I believe something because Martin Luther said so.

I do admit, my words were far too harsh as there is much in your Catechism that we can all agree upon and it is the template for much that came after.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would tend to agree, Amateur. I would point more to the fact that Mary and Our Lord shared the same flesh and blood but the sin being in the DNA isn’t really a road I’d go down. If we argue that DNA pre-determines behavior then we must agree that being gay, a serial killer, a rapist, a glutton, a deadbeat, are all based on nature alone, not nurture, a notion I reject. We all might have predispositions or strikes against us, but we are given, according to Scripture, the means by which to become holy and overcome sin.

I am not a scientist and I am open to being corrected by somebody who is an authority here…

But I do not think that sin is a function of DNA.

 

[Publisher]

The arguement that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless has no real sway as an arguement…for me anyway. Mary’s parents weren’t sinless were they? God according to Catholic belief preserved Mary from the stain of original sin…even if Mary was a “sinner”…could God not have preserved Jesus in her womb from the “stain of sin”?

To claim one and not the other makes no sense to me.

 

[adstrinity]

The arguement that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless has no real sway as an arguement…for me anyway. Mary’s parents weren’t sinless were they? God according to Catholic belief preserved Mary from the stain of original sin…even if Mary was a “sinner”…could God not have preserved Jesus in her womb from the “stain of sin”?

To claim one and not the other makes no sense to me.

This was answered 3 or 4 posts ago. Does that argument not make sense to you? That God would have had to save Himself?

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev. Kevin,

“It can go either way” Rev. step to the side and listen to yourself.

Rev. It can go only one way, and that way is, Virgin Mary could not have sinned while carrying Jesus Christ. Virgin Mary could not have sinned before, during or after the Birth of Christ therefore She was Born without sin.

Rev. It was Virgin Mary who gave Jesus Christ his human flesh/ Her DNA. Common Sense should only tell you that Virgin Mary’s DNA must be with out sin to give Birth to Him who is without sin.

Like the Ark of the Covenant that carried the Word of God, Virgin Mary is the Living human Ark
that Carried the Word of God made flesh.

Rev. God is not a God, that can go either way! God is a God, that can only go the sinnless way to come into this world.

Pray to God to understand this about Virgin Mary, She is our sinless Mother, for abandoning the Mother, is but one step from abandoning her Son.

Ufamtobie

There were only 3 that were without sin
Adam because sin had not yet been commited
Eve for the same reason as Adam
Jesus he is the son of God. He is God

Now to say the Mary was born without sin is speculation. No solid proof
To say Mary didn’t sin while carrying Jesus. Very possible but no solid proof
To say Mary never sinned is only speculation. No solid proof
Reguardless of anything Mary was human and humans are not infallible. So to say that she never sinned would mean she is infallible there for she would be like God/Jesus which she is not. Using your common sense Mary’s parents DNA is part of her and her parents are human who were born with original sin so that would mean that the DNA of her parents would be Mary’s DNA and if her parents DNA is impure then that would make Mary’s DNA the same as her parents unless they, Mary’s parents, were also born without sin.

 

[Publisher]

This was answered 3 or 4 posts ago. Does that argument not make sense to you? That God would have had to save Himself?

If I believed Mary was sinless and followed your tradition…you may have a point…but to me we’re discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The doctine of the IC and PV have no deep attraction for me…when we’re talking about how and why “sin” is trasmitted inutero…to me it’s the same kind of arguement…why does it matter?

I know for Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants questions such as this are part of their sotierology…for me…it’s an “interesting oddity” of some of the doctrines that have found their way into the blanket called “Christianity.”

 

[wmscott]

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the Blessed Mother was sinless? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.

 

[adstrinity]

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the Blessed Mother was sinless? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.

Have you been Catholic all your life? There really is a disconnect between Protestants and Catholics as far as the IC is concerned. It is illogical for Protestants.

 

[wmscott]

Have you been Catholic all your life? There really is a disconnect between Protestants and Catholics as far as the IC is concerned. It is illogical for Protestants.

Actually, I am a convert. I used to be Southern Baptist. I have been a catholic for about 26 years now. However, once the Holy Spirit leads you to the fullness of truth, many things open up to you that it makes it hard to understand why others do not see it. Peace

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Do you believe it was possible for Her, and did She infact, sin, while pregnant with Jesus?

1. The Bible says, “For all have sinned…” It gives one exception, Jesus. Now, it COULD be that since there is one exeption, ergo there could be 6.5 billion exceptions - but Scripture says NOTHING about that. And I’d note that the ONLY exception actually given was God incarnate in the flesh, and there is only ONE case of that.
2. I find the issue amazingly moot. It simply does not matter - which is maybe why Scripture simply does not say.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the Blessed Mother was sinless? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.

“With God ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE.” But that doesn’t make all things dogmatic facts.

Is it hard for you to believe that God created 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Do you lack the faith to accept that possibility? Does it mean that ERGO, it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that there are 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Get my point? See the flaw in your premise?

Friend, the “burden of proof” in apologetics is always, only and exclusively with the one taking the affirmative position. It is not accepted in any form of debate that it is necessary to disprove a non-reality (try to disprove the creaters on the Moon of Endor and you’ll see my point). It is The Catholic Church alone that has this dogma. It is the exclusive responsibility of The Catholic Church to substantiated as a dogmatic fact - not simply as “possible” for ALL THINGS are “possible” but not necessarily true.

.

 

[adstrinity]

Actually, I am a convert. I used to be Southern Baptist. I have been a catholic for about 26 years now. However, once the Holy Spirit leads you to the fullness of truth, many things open up to you that it makes it hard to understand why others do not see it. Peace

I came from Congregationalism. I, myself, had a hard time with this concept and asked Sister Therese Ann in a Jr. or Sr. religion class the same question as I couldn’t understand it.

“With God ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE.” But that doesn’t make all things dogmatic facts.

Is it hard for you to believe that God created 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Do you lack the faith to accept that possibility? Does it mean that ERGO, it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that there are 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Get my point? See the flaw in your premise?

Friend, the “burden of proof” in apologetics is always, only and exclusively with the one taking the affirmative position. It is not accepted in any form of debate that it is necessary to disprove a non-reality (try to disprove the creaters on the Moon of Endor and you’ll see my point). It is The Catholic Church alone that has this dogma. It is the exclusive responsibility of The Catholic Church to substantiated as a dogmatic fact - not simply as “possible” for ALL THINGS are “possible” but not necessarily true.

No, I don’t see the flaw in his logic as it’s not the same with this scenario.

We know that Endor is a made up place, not…okay, the MOON of Endor, the planet, is a made up place, not found in the Bible (I would hate for Samuel to come back and prove me wrong with my initial statement). Furthermore, Ewoks have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[Publisher]

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the Blessed Mother was sinless? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.

“Putting limits on God” is not a good argument for me…just because I do not believe Mary was sinless or a perpetual virgin doesn’t mean I doubt God’s power to do so if God so chose…I do not believe God had a “good reason” to do such a thing…I might believe that God could make black white…or red yellow…but there’s no reason for Him to.

I DO"rationalize" and “justify” my beliefs from a human perspective…I’m human and I have to believe there would have to be a reason forGod to do so…I do not beleive a good enough reason has been presented…I do not claim to know God’s plan and will in every jot and tittle of pious speculation…yes I DO rationalize from a human perspective…I’m human…how else could I form my beliefs except through human experience? It is not an issue of “lack of faith”…it is an issue of purpose and reality.

 

[wmscott]

“With God ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE.” But that doesn’t make all things dogmatic facts.

Is it hard for you to believe that God created 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Do you lack the faith to accept that possibility? Does it mean that ERGO, it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that there are 5 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor? Get my point? See the flaw in your premise?

Friend, the “burden of proof” in apologetics is always, only and exclusively with the one taking the affirmative position. It is not accepted in any form of debate that it is necessary to disprove a non-reality (try to disprove the creaters on the Moon of Endor and you’ll see my point). It is The Catholic Church alone that has this dogma. It is the exclusive responsibility of The Catholic Church to substantiated as a dogmatic fact - not simply as “possible” for ALL THINGS are “possible” but not necessarily true.

.

Interesting, you state “With God ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE.” only to turn around and do as I had just stated, Put limits on God.

As far as “It is The Catholic Church alone that has this dogma” I really do not see an issue with this since the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established, not a man. The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim 3:15

 

[AmateurPianist]

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the Blessed Mother was sinless? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.

The problem is that I can use this exact same reasoning for any assertion whether it be true or false. Let me use this with another theological proposition.

Let me ask a question of those who are so skeptical. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that these healings performed by Benny Hinn are real? To me you are putting limits on Gods infinite powers. You’re rationalizing and justifying your beliefs from a human perspective without taking into account Gods plan and will. Peace.