J
jmcrae
Guest
In Luke 1:28, where the Angel declares Mary to be full of grace (that is to say, lacking all sin) and blessed among women.
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
What does believing both make one, right?
K
Kliska
Guest
It’s also rendered “highly favored.” The phrase as recorded in Greek is not the same Greek phrase used to describe Jesus in John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
I hope you told her that if she forgot how, then she has to go to Confession before receiving again, since she has missed way too many Sunday Masses.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Exactly. So either it’s infallible, or Christianity does not exist at all, there being no way of knowing what is true or not true about Jesus, and about how we are to be in relationship with Him.
J
jmcrae
Guest
“Original sin” is our lack of relationship with God at the time of our conception and until we are Baptized.
It isn’t a “thing” that can be transmitted by way of DNA.
P
PJM
Guest
YES, but VERY conditionally
B
bubbawanda
Guest
Ooh loaded question! So ill just be a brat and say, "yeah, probably.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But Stephen was also referred to as “full of grace” using the same word used in John 1:14, so in this sense, Jesus was NOT unique.
Consequently, I don’t think we can read too much into your argument.
K
Kliska
Guest
I know, but it doesn’t mean what the translation most RCC translations claim it means. The idea of being Full of Grace as the RCC applies to Mary applies to Jesus only. Mary was indeed favored (unmerited favor IS the meaning of grace in this sense).
This is a false dilemma and an invalid argument all in one.
Oh, I don’t know about that. But, there is a connection from the fall to both physical and spiritual. It IS clear in scripture that the curse is by the male unto all, not the female unto all. That is specifically why (in this theory) “the seed of the woman” is so important, it is the male’s line that transfers that sin nature. Jesus is the only man, besides Adam, that had no human father’s seed. That is how He could be pure without Mary being immaculately conceived. It is one of several views.
K
Kliska
Guest
I’m talking translations here. The translations can’t be accurate if they are translating them as the same phrase when they aren’t the same phrase in Greek. So, what happens is that there is a comparison in the English between the phrases that doesn’t apply. It’s exactly as you say, the “full of grace” phrase is applied to both Stephen and Jesus, but not to Mary. The phrase referring to Mary is different, but in the translation favored by RC’s it appears to mean something it doesn’t.
She was indeed highly favored by God.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand. However, my point is that you can’t simply say that Jesus is “full of grace” because he’s God whereas Mary is merely “highly favored” because she is merely human.
Once you consider that a human, Stephen, can be full of grace, then it’s not a stretch at all to say that Mary was also full of grace just as Stephen was. That’s all I’m getting at.
But there is much, much more to this. And you get it all now…
The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).
The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
(cont.)
J
jmcrae
Guest
I disagree. If the Catholic Church is wrong about even one thing, then there is no way to know which of its teachings are true, and which of them are false. People can have their opinions, but there is no tangible way to know, one way or another.
Protestantism and other forms of Christianity did not begin to exist until many centuries later, which means that everything we know about Christianity comes from the Catholic Church; there is no other source that was present at the time of Christ to witness what was going on, other than those approved of and preserved by the Catholic Church over these past 2,000 years.
People can say, “the Bible,” but we rely on Pope Innocent I, St. Jerome, and the Council of Trent to know what is the Bible.
People can say, “Archaeology,” but this science was invented by a Catholic woman - St. Helena - and it was her findings (together with various miracles) that contributed in large part to her son, the Emperor Constantine, legalizing the Catholic Church in 317 AD.
These “third party sources” aren’t “third party” at all, but merely other aspects of the Catholic faith - meaning that, if the Catholic Church can be wrong, then so can the Bible, and so can archaeology - nothing is reliable, and we have no way to know what is true at all.
K
Kliska
Guest
Yes, I know, I’m just pointing out that the translations need to be clear that there are 2 different phrases and if we stop at just “full of grace” for Mary, Jesus, and Stephen the assumption would be that the Greek is all the same as well, and they are not. So, there has to be a different meaning.
K
Kliska
Guest
You’re whole premise is Begging the Question and that is why it is false dilemma. Another possibility is that the mainline protestant perspective is correct, another is the Orthodox perspective is correct. I understand that for you that isn’t feasible starting with the premises… or actually the conclusion that you express.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is a complex topic, so I’m posting some work done by Dave Armstrong:
The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).
The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).
The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.
One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.
All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.
Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html
- Grace saves us.
- Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
- To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
- To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
- The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
- To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
- Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
- The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
- To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
- Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
- The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
- Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.
One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.
All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.
Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Don’t be silly. You’re making a huge leap here, which is to assume that Mary’s being full of grace is tied to her conception. There is nothing in your argument that necessarily applies to anything before the moment that Gabriel greets Our Lady.
If you’re going to try to set out semi-formal arguments, at least be consistent and clear.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Except that kecharitomine means “has been” full of grace.
- Status