Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[Reuben_J]

……
Romans 3:23 is not referring to Jesus, otherwise, Paul contradicts himself in 2 Corinthians 5:21 when He said that Jesus was sinless, but then ‘became’ sin for us. Plus, Jesus is God, Who is sinless. ‘All’ is referring to all human beings, which would include Mary. Jesus is called ‘the second Adam’ is Scripture because Jesus is a ‘life-giver’, but Mary is not called ‘the second Eve.’ That is a nonbiblical religious belief to try to get around passages like Luke 1:46-47 & Galatians 4:4-5 which clearly tell us that Mary was sinful.

As previously mentioned, ‘all’ refers to all human beings, including Mary & babies, but not Jesus.

Think very carefully. You literal interpretation may be on soft ground if you put Jesus as the exception just because Jesus is God. Probably you have been going around with these verses to prove a point but from a person who looks at it from the outside, you are not very logical.

Jesus is also human; therefore he should be included in the ‘all’ in Romans 3:23. You cannot exclude Jesus as he true man too. The only reason Paul used the term ‘all’ is for emphasis since we know that did not include ‘all’. That’s mean there are exceptions.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9375228:

Consider a child below the age of reason

.So there is no such thing as original sin ?

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus)

,Again , God is not an exception to his own rule. It seems quite plain,simple,succint-ALL.

 

[Patavium]

But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.

The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.

Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals with original sin.) And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.

The context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)
Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709btb.asp

 

[Prosmith]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

I know what Roman Catholic teaching is regarding Mary, I just don’t agree with it on many different levels.

 

[kellerk]

Patavium;9375299:

david ruiz;9375228:

.So there is no such thing as original sin ? ,Again , God is not an exception to his own rule. It seems quite plain,simple,succint-ALL.

No such thing as original sin? Never heard someone say that before. Is that the general view of all protestants?

 

[Patavium]

Teachings of the Early Church on Mary (video)

catholic.com/video/how-did-the-church-fathers-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9376364:

Patavium;9375299:

No such thing as original sin? Never heard someone say that before. Is that the general view of all protestants?

hi kellerk- no that was my question to patvium i think ,who said babies have not sinned therfore romans 3 -all have sinned- does not apply to them. so i asked don’t babies have original sin paraphrasing .i know we believe in original sin ,just wondering how a catholic could say babies had no sin,considering cc teaching about original sin . that’s all.

 

[Patavium]

kellerk;9378646:

david ruiz;9376364:

hi kellerk- no that was my question to patvium i think ,who said babies have not sinned therfore romans 3 -all have sinned- does not apply to them. so i asked don’t babies have original sin paraphrasing .i know we believe in original sin ,just wondering how a catholic could say babies had no sin,considering cc teaching about original sin . that’s all.

See the answer. Personal Sin vs. Original Sin.

 

[david_ruiz]

But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.

The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.

Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals with original sin.) And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.

The context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)
Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709btb.asp

Patvium .You speak well. It is still a stretch . Christ can not be applied as an exception because He was fully man cause he was also fully God . He is not an exception, nor are are there millions of others who have not sinned and equal the glory of God. Maybe babies haven’t sinned but they haven’t reasoned beautifully/gloriously as God can yet either. If you say but give them time and they can reason beautifully, because we are made in His image , I would counter and say that by then the baby has turned to reasoning age and sinned. … Furthermore, people do confess and should confess, at a reasoning age, their “original sin”. A broken and contrite heart He can not turn away . There is nothing more broken than a man who sees his natural depravity and proclivity to sin. He says, " I sin because I am a sinner", due to original sin and his own spiritual deadness and lack of saving faith. At that point, and only at the point, one can truly be saved by crying out to the Lord. Indeed He came for the “sick” and poor in spirit…Romans is not about just sin whether original or personal, but as compared to the majesty and righteousness of God , and how we are justified by faith, (a faith that no one is born with -originally), and are granted His righteousness freely…To say that because babies are an exception , hence why not just add one more, as an adult (Mary) is contrived . Babies are not an exception because it is understood they are not at the age of accountability. Anyways, can you separate the seed from the outcome of growth ? Are we ok at birth then at three or four we go bad ? Fallen mankind is fallen mankind and next to God they are what ? The whole idea of infant baptism is what you are challenging. You say they haven’t sinned, are not accountable yet you hold them accountable for original sin ? That is, if they are not infant baptized and die what happens ?

 

[Patavium]

David,

You are mixing the original sin and personal sins. Babies have committed personal sins?

and How do you confess the Original Sin? Do you say Forgive me for the sins of Adam and Eve and you are forgiven?

 

[Patavium]

Man was not created sinful by nature. God created man entirely holy and sinless. Our sinful condition is not the result of God’s creative work, but is a historical consequence of our abuse of free will. To say that God should have created us “for the most part holy and not sinful” fails to do justice to the true freedom and consequences of free will.

Free will means that even though our first parents were entirely sinless and enjoyed the life of original grace, they were still capable of choosing to be otherwise and forfeiting of the life of grace—and that’s just what they did. We, their offspring, are conceived and born bereft of this life, spiritually dead, in original sin. Even when we are spiritually reborn in baptism, we remain affected by concupiscence or tendencies toward sin as a result of having been conceived in original sin.

However, all of this is the result not of some defect in God’s creative work, but of the self-chosen circumstances into which our race fell in the very beginning.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-could-a-perfect-god-create-man-who-is-by-nature-sinful

 

[david_ruiz]

catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumptionActually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive,

So it is said .To say otherwise may be subject to …Well I’ll just erase my desire to put my thoughts down on this one here. Blessings ,and thank this CA forum for being very tolerant and gracious to opposing views, sometimes gruffly said…

 

[Patavium]

So it is said .To say otherwise may be subject to …Well I’ll just erase my desire to put my thoughts down on this one here.

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains,

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

Concerning the Church’s teaching that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces, while this doctrine has been divinely revealed, it has not yet been—although could be—elevated to dogma. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, “The doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition” (215).

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma

 

[Patavium]

Patvium .You speak well. It is still a stretch . Christ can not be applied as an exception because He was fully man cause he was also fully God . He is not an exception, nor are are there millions of others who have not sinned and equal the glory of God. Maybe babies haven’t sinned but they haven’t reasoned beautifully/gloriously as God can yet either. If you say but give them time and they can reason beautifully, because we are made in His image , I would counter and say that by then the baby has turned to reasoning age and sinned. … Furthermore, people do confess and should confess, at a reasoning age, their “original sin”. A broken and contrite heart He can not turn away . There is nothing more broken than a man who sees his natural depravity and proclivity to sin. He says, " I sin because I am a sinner", due to original sin and his own spiritual deadness and lack of saving faith. At that point, and only at the point, one can truly be saved by crying out to the Lord. Indeed He came for the “sick” and poor in spirit…Romans is not about just sin whether original or personal, but as compared to the majesty and righteousness of God , and how we are justified by faith, (a faith that no one is born with -originally), and are granted His righteousness freely…To say that because babies are an exception , hence why not just add one more, as an adult (Mary) is contrived . Babies are not an exception because it is understood they are not at the age of accountability. Anyways, can you separate the seed from the outcome of growth ? Are we ok at birth then at three or four we go bad ? Fallen mankind is fallen mankind and next to God they are what ? The whole idea of infant baptism is what you are challenging. You say they haven’t sinned, are not accountable yet you hold them accountable for original sin ? That is, if they are not infant baptized and die what happens ?

Here about original sin.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[kellerk]

kellerk;9378646:

david ruiz;9376364:

hi kellerk- no that was my question to patvium i think ,who said babies have not sinned therfore romans 3 -all have sinned- does not apply to them. so i asked don’t babies have original sin paraphrasing .i know we believe in original sin ,just wondering how a catholic could say babies had no sin,considering cc teaching about original sin . that’s all.

Hello again, sorry, I shouldn’t have butted in without reading the entirety of the comments. I’m just so facinated by this thread and learning so much. I think the other guy explained it pretty well so, I just butt out now!

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9378683:

kellerk;9378646:

Hello again, sorry, I shouldn’t have butted in without reading the entirety of the comments. I’m just so facinated by this thread and learning so much. I think the other guy explained it pretty well so, I just butt out now!

It’s cool.

 

[david_ruiz]

Here about original sin.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

Thanks .Prey much in agreement with what I said .The realization that one sins cause he is a sinner ,because of Adam, sets our ego free somewhat , like, "oh it’s not my fault ,I am supposed to be a sinner, and here I have been tring to be good, and avoid my ,well Adam’s guilt. All I am reponsible for is what do I do with the gospel , with this Jesus, the New Adam ,which is the remedy. The fault of my sin is “outside” of me, and so is the remedy. One may not “confess” their original sin in one sense of the term , but in another yes , one must admit it to oneself and the Father. This to me is at the juncture of being born again ,and baptism is a witness/testimony of it,which is another topic,where I disagree somewhat with your quote where it is “effectual”, or for infants…thanks

 

[brumano]

QUOTE=david ruiz;9379461]Patvium .You speak well. It is still a stretch . Christ can not be applied as an exception because He was fully man cause he was also fully God . He is not an exception, nor are are there millions of others who have not sinned and equal the glory of God

Christ is not in that way an exception because He is the rule, He is the rule because He did not make Himself an exception for our sake (accepts the baptism of John, and also see among many others, Phil.ch 2vs 6-11) and neither does Mary; because she is the counterpart to Eve just as Adam is the type of the one who is to come which is Christ; Rmns ch5vs14, so Rmns 5v12 does not apply to them at all. .

 

[brumano]

Maybe babies haven’t sinned but they haven’t reasoned beautifully/gloriously as God can yet either. If you say but give them time and they can reason beautifully, because we are made in His image , I would counter and say that by then the baby has turned to reasoning age and sinned

.

Babies have not conciously sinned, but who says they do not reason beautifully since Christ says: "I thank Thee Father that thou hast kept these things hidden from the wise of the world, and revealed them to little children…& “for out of the mouths of babes Thou hast perfected praise”.

 

[david_ruiz]

1 .

Babies have not conciously sinned

Then why does evryone worry to hurry up and baptize a baby in case they die ,like they would not enter heaven.,

but who says they do not reason beautifully since Christ says: "I thank Thee Father that thou hast kept these things hidden from the wise of the world, and revealed them to little children…& “for out of the mouths of babes Thou hast perfected praise”

. Doesn’t quite match .Little children do reason and are full of trust and uncomplications ,but are at the age of reasoning ,I do not think He was referring to newborns do you ? Anyways , those are my words(reason beautifully). Scripture says" the glory of God" , Does a fallen newborn equal the glory of God ?