Sinless Mary and the Bible

[cc42]

Cachonga:

We all agree that scripture is inspired the claim that you are making is amounting to saying if something isn’t said in scripture then we shouldn’t hold to it although you even said that that’s not correct because there are certianly things that scripture doesn’t mention.

So just because Mary being sinless isn’t explicitly stated in scripture (as neither are the Trinity or Original Sin) scripture can still give us an indication of that teaching.

Jesus is the Second Adam by extension Mary is the Second Eve, that is a conclusion based upon reason.

Mary was hailed as full of grace and the Greek indicates that she had been completely filled prior to the Anunciation.

The Envangelium says that the serpent will strike the heal of the woman’s offspring but she will crush its head, meaning that the woman (being Mary) won’t be affected by the serpent.

You said that Mary’s sins could have been wiped away at the Anunciation, the problem is that she would still be a sinner of the past and would not be a pure vessel for Jesus or qualify as the Second Eve. Also, if you accept that her sins were wiped away then your argument about her having to make a sin offering doesn’t work because she would be sinless. And if it is necessaty for her to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus then God could obviously make her sinless at her conception.

 

[gcharles]

Why make this so hard? Mary was full of grace and sin couldn’t enter her. This was an act of God. Jeus never sinned because he was God and overcame sin and became the perfect sacrifice.

 

[GraceSofia]

Jesus is the Second Adam by extension Mary is the Second Eve, that is a conclusion based upon reason.

“The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” ~ St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres

“Death through Eve, life through Mary.” ~ Sts Epiphanios and Jerome

 

[Reuben_J]

Timothy H:

Jesus the rabbi was using the woman’s remark to instruct the crowd that one is not blessed because of a family relationship, in this case the example was Jesus’ mother, but because one hears the word of God (you will concieve in your womb and bear a son) and obeys (Let it be done to me). The inference is that they should be like his Mother, and then they will be similarly blessed.

Exactly. Jesus is talking about family. He was born into a family and we know that his parents are righteous folks. They were his father (Joseph) and his mother (Mary). There is no question that he despised his family, no record of that, and that Jesus like any good Jew, would love and honor his parents. After all that was the fourth commandment. It is unthinkable that he did not follow the Ten Commandment.

It is a privilege to be in Jesus’ family. What Jesus was saying, you, the crowd, can be in his family if you hear the word and do it. Later on, this has become a Christian doctrine, that all believers are one family of God.

 

[Reuben_J]

hope 7:

She had a mother and a father through which the sinful nature that we all have was passed down to her all the way from adam and eve. No human being has escaped this. She was born under the curse that God had placed on all mankind and would one day die. Even the orthodox church dosent believe that Mary was sinless from birth. This immaculate conception of Mary was not official dogma of the roman catholic church untill 1854 when pope pius xiv declared it an official dogma. and was a hotly debated topic.

Jesus’ salvation which is not governed by time and space can save Mary from sin even before she was born. That is not a big deal for God who can do all things. Jesus the Son of God who is human in all things except sin, would not allow himself to be fed and grew in a sinful womb. The only thing that God cannot be a part of it sin.
hope 7:

The scripture teaches us that Christ is in us if we have recieved Him according to scripture. He comes to dwell in us through the new birth which is recieved through faith. How is it possible for Christ to dwell in me who has sinned when you say Mary had to be without sin and have never sinned at all for Him to be in her? Why would Mary after seeing the angel Gabrial and then going to see Elizebeth say that God has saved her? If she had never sinned what was it the God had saved her from? If she had never sinned why would she need to be saved?

We must remember that when Jesus dwells in us, it is when we are freed of all sins through our Baptism. God is able to make us sinless (through Baptism) and therefore He could make Mary sinless through the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Reuben_J]

savedwretch:

In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” If Mary had no sin, from what did God save her? Mary was absolutely a virgin when she was with our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:27, 34, Isaiah 7:14)but we know that she had to have sin because of the same reason we all have sin (and because of the verse I cited,Luke1:47), because we inherited it from the first man Adam. Mary was not of a different created race of people that had no sin. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all men sinned-” Our sin is inherited according to Romans 5:12. We sin because were sinners and we’re sinners because we sin. For Mary to be sinless her father would have had to be sinless and his father and so on.

Mary needed the salvation of her God and that salvation was received before she was born so that she would be worthy to be the Ark for Jesus, God’s only Son.

 

[GraceSofia]

Why make this so hard? Mary was full of grace and sin couldn’t enter her. This was an act of God. Jeus never sinned because he was God and overcame sin and became the perfect sacrifice.

Why make this so hard? Good question.
What is really behind this anti-Marian feeling on the part of some Christians?
As a convert, I’ve thought a little about it, and I think some of it is just the natural effect of what happens when beliefs begin to diverge; they don’t go off a bit and run parallel; they continue to diverge more and more.

However, I’ve come to believe that one big reason is that many Protestants think in terms of “either/or” while Catholics think in terms of “and/also.” (So you can love Jesus or Mary, but not both, forgetting that they probably love their children and spouses, and probably have photos of them around the house, but they don’t worry that this causes them to love Jesus less).

The other reason is just the modern obsession with equality and dislike of authority. Some people are offended that God chose Mary in such a way that she would be called blessed by all generations. Just my opinion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Baptism was not required by the law. Also, this was a turning point for Jesus, from His private life into His public ministry.

This is what Luke tells us was done. Notice, though, that one of the turtledoves was still a sin offering.

That’s irrelevant.

The Law was given by God for a reason. If He required a sin offering for childbirth, there was a reason, and He certainly was aware that Mary would give birth to Jesus when He gave the Law to Moses.

The stated reason in the law is for impurity. If one does not have impurity, the sacrifice is un-necessary.

I see no reason to believe that Mary is some kind of exception to the Law. She obviously made a sin offering.

The greek does not say HER offering. We’ve been over the point, and you are ignoring it.

Luke 2:22 και οτε επλησθησαν αι ημεραι του καθαρισμου αυτων κατα τον νομον μωυσεως ανηγαγον αυτον εις ιεροσολυμα παραστησαι τω κυριω

It’s right there in black and white – the word is not “her” which would be autH, it is “them” autwn – THAT is according to the Law of Moses. The law you are quoting is not for a group of people including men – but for a single woman. YOU HAVE MISQUOTED THE LAW, and YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.

Either learn, or close your mouth.

Logically, she would either have to have had sin before the offering, or she bore false witness against herself (which is a sin) and was a sinner because of the offering. Of course, when you redefine “sin”, you can ignore the consequences.

Look, we’ve been over this – it’s about time to call the moderator in.

Name the EXACT sin she committed, or admit your ignorance and stop insulting the Catholic faith until you do know. Ignorance is your middle name – mr. accuser.

There are a couple of proverbs: Only a crook would believe everyone is a crook – and: it takes a crook to KNOW a crook.

Jude1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jude1:10 These speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

EG: What I KNOW is that Childbirth IS NOT A SIN.

 

[Cachonga]

GraceSophia, You’re right. I was the one who took this off topic. Sorry. It happens sometimes. If you want to start a thread on Mary’s virginity, I may join in and go into greater detail. I will just make a quick comment on your last comment –

It is all of a piece. It all goes together. You can’t just take this out of context, and then take that out of context, etc, etc.

Are you saying that conception and birth are the same thing? What about babies conceived in an “unnatural” way (like in vitro fertilization)? Are their births equally unnatural? There is no disagreement that the conception of Jesus was miraculous, but nothing is said of the birth in Scripture, so I see no reason to believe it was anything but natural.

 

[Cachonga]

Nicea325:

Double standard.Listen to what you are saying:

Unless scripture tell us that God did something (like allow Mary to be conceived without any stain of sin, including original sin), then it is unreasonable to assume He did such a thing.

You are accusing Catholics of following a belief not supported in scripture,yet your argument falls on the same criteria. Therefore, precisely tell me where does Scritpure teach unless it is said by God in Scripture it is to be considered void? Your argument falls on Scripture,thus where is it taught?

Sorry if my point was confusing to you. Let me try again. We do not see anywhere in Scripture where Mary was ever baptized. However, as this was a common practice of the early church (which we DO know from Scripture), then it is not unreasonable to believe Mary was baptized. On the other hand, since the Scripture does not tell us anything about Mary prior to the angel coming to her, then it is not unreasonable to believe that she was just like any other woman who was engaged to be married (including having original sin and other faults). To claim she was preserved from all stain of sin from conception is to go beyond the Scriptures.

Apparently, you were also confused about what I was saying about the canon of Scripture. Webster’s dictionary includes the following definition for the word “Canon” –

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard]
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

Note a and b are similar, in that God is the author of the Scriptures. Keep this in mind and reread what I said about the canon being found within the Scriptures.

I would recommend you examine some of my following posts, which will address other issues that you will very likely raise. Hope this helps.

 

[Cachonga]

Church Militant:

Your logic and premise fail based upon the Word of God.

How can one without sin be baptized? Yet…
Matthew 3: [13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. [14] But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? [15] And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.

In Acts 19:4, Paul advises that “John baptized with the baptism of repentance” (NASB). Would you agree that a baptism of repentance is different than a baptism for forgiveness of sins? If not, please explain the difference between the two, and why Paul baptized them in the name of the Lord. Also, the baptism was a turning point for Jesus (from private life to His public ministry).

So then you agree with the baptism of infants and that is washes away sins?

This is off topic (I mentioned infants and mentally handicapped to show that original sin is on all the descendants of Adam). For the record, I do not believe baptizing babies is Scriptural.

Sorry but you’re dead wrong here, since baptism is nowhere required in the Jewish law, and John’s was a baptism of repentance…what would Our Lord Jesus Christ have been repenting of?

Excuse me, isn’t that what I said? As I mentioned already, the baptism was a turning point for Jesus (from private life to public ministry).

Mary’s grace was gifted to her by God at her conception, which, if you knew your NT Greek you’d know was made plain by the archangel Gabriel at the annunciation when he used the title “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

Heard it before. First of all, “Full of grace” doesn’t necessarily mean “sinless”. Second, the tense only indicates that the filling of grace happened at some point in time prior to the announcement. It could have been right before the angel started speaking just as easily as from her conception. However, since Scripture doesn’t say when this filling took place, or that it includes “sinlessness”, I am not convinced that it shows Mary was immaculately conceived. As for “full of grace” being a title, Mary recognized it as a greeting, not a title (plus it seems strange to me that, if it were a title (or a new name, as I’ve heard some claim), it is never used of her again).

Furthermore, as you are apparently a Sola Scriptura/Bible only Christian now, where exactly in the New Testament do we find any reference that might indict Mary in sin? I’ve read the whole Bible (all 73 books of it) many times and I know of no such verse or passage.

As I mentioned in a previous post, since Scripture does NOT tell us Mary was conceived without any stain of sin, then it is unreasonable to believe that she was anything other than a normal human being, complete with original sin (at least prior to the annunciation). To say that she was immaculately conceived is to go beyond what is written in Scripture, which is a dangerous place to be (see Prov 30:6). Would you say the Apostle Philip was sinless because we don’t have a testimony that he sinned? How about Nathanael? Just because we don’t know of specific sins doesn’t mean anyone was sinless. Let’s try it this way – can you name ANYONE (other than Mary (for the sake of the argument) or Jesus) who was NOT born with original sin? (Obviously Adam and Eve come to mind, but they were created, not born, so let’s exclude them as well.)

 

[Cachonga]

pablope:

When the offering is made out of love, humility and obedience…and the offering is not just for oneself…but also for the love of others…for the sin of others.

Nice sentiment, but I can’t find anywhere in the Law of Moses where someone can make a sin offering on behalf of someone else. Mary made the sin offering for herself, as required by the Law (she was also required to confess her sin to the priest when the offering was made). She could make the offering for unknown sin, but, as I’ve already mentioned, if she was sinless, then she bore false witness against herself, which is a sin.

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

Many things are not said literally in scripture but that does not negate their truth. For instance, the word “Trinity” is not found in scripture. The word ‘bible’ is not found in scripture, nor is there a list of any of the books that make up the New Testament to be found in scripture itself; nor any mention of how they came to be compiled into a single canon. You will also not find a sentence that reads “God is omnipotent” or “God is omniscient”, yet we know the concepts are also shown in scripture. So please bear in ming that just because something isn’t expressly stated in scripture, doesn’t mean that the concept or teaching is not illustrated.

The trinity, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are clearly demonstrated within the pages of Scripture. “Bible” isn’t a relevant argument (take a look in your local Barnes & Noble and you could find a “bible” for computers, printers, high tech devices, and other things besides what we are discussing here). Bible is what the compilation of the different books are called (not a scriptural concept). I have already addressed the question of the canon (or list of books that make up the books of the Bible). I suggest you take a closer look at what I’ve already said about Scripture and “adding to what is written”.

Mary as the “New Eve”

Eve came out of Adam, Jesus came out of Mary.

Eve said yes to the spirit lucifer allowing sin to enter into the world. Mary said yes to the spirit Gabriel, allowing salvation to enter the world.

Eve appeared at the beginning of the Old Testament. Mary appears at the beginning of the New Testament.

Eve was an immaculately created virgin. Mary was an immaculately created virgin.

Eve gave mankind forbidden fruit for his damnation; Mary gave mankind the fruit of her womb for our salvation. (Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb in Luke 1:42). “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:43-44). If Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb who is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), and if a tree (Mary) is known by its fruit (Jesus), what does that tell you about Mary?

President Lincoln and President Kennedy both had a vice president named Johnson. Both were assassinated (shot in the back of the head). Both had their wives present when they were shot. Both assassins had 3 names (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both assassins were killed before they could stand trial. What does this mean? We may never know for sure. As humans, we have an innate ability to find patterns, parallels, etc… in almost anything. Conclusions aside, I can take your same list of parallels and substitute “Church” for “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels, only the conclusion would differ. The question I would ask is “Did God inspire anyone to make these connections directly within Scripture in the same way they made the connection between Adam and Jesus?” The answer I come up with is “No!”

Adam named Eve “woman” which means mother of all the living; Jesus (the New Adam) calls Mary “woman” at the beginning of His ministry (where He works His first miracle at Mary’s request), and He calls her ‘woman’ at the end of His ministry while He is on the cross. He says to St. John, “behold your mother.” John 19:26-27.

By golly, you got me. I guess since Mary is the only woman Jesus ever called “woman”, then I have to agree with everything you’ve said. Oh, wait a minute. Mary ISN’T the only woman Jesus addressed as “woman” (there was a Samaritan woman in John 4, a woman caught in the very act of adultery in John 8, and even a woman in the synagogue in Luke 13). Are these women also your mother?

If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that scripture also shows that the Blessed Mother is the ark of the New Covenant, and the ark mentioned at the end of Rev 11 and the ‘woman’ of Rev 12.

Sorry. Don’t see it. I could see the Levites who carried the Ark as a type of Mary (I believe they were the Korahites), but I don’t see her as the Ark. Plus (you can probably guess what’s coming), the Scriptures do not make this connection (just like the “new Eve” claim). I’m not sure if this is related to the topic, but when was the earliest documented use of Rev 11 or 12 in relation to Mary? I have found a commentary from the 3rd or 4th century, but Mary is not mentioned in either chapter. I would say that makes any claim of “Apostolic Tradition” highly questionable.

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

Like said it was just food for thought, I know Father Pacwa would not make statements without evidence. Here’s the website if you’re interested in hearing the full homily. Unfortunately he does not cite references, after all it is a homily not a university lecture.

I listened to the YouTube link (all of it). I have talked with Jewish Rabbi’s about these specific offerings before, and I have never had anyone give the explanation given in the video. I may need to listen to it again, but I don’t think he ever directly addressed the sin offering specifically. Overall, it still did not answer my question.

I find your standard interesting. You are so quick to believe Mary was born with original sin for one of the reasons being she made a sin offering, yet your willing to overlook Jesus’ baptism by St John. St John was performing baptism for sinners only not for the righteous, with a baptism of repentance. Jesus subjected Himself to such an act when clearly He was not a sinner. You mentioned in one of your posts Jesus was making way from His private to public life. In scripture He gives this explanation “it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”. Mary also fulfilled righteousness by remaining obedient to the law like any other good Jewish girl would do. I have no idea how you can reconcile this without using a double standard.

Hopefully I have already explained this in a previous post.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

We all agree that scripture is inspired the claim that you are making is amounting to saying if something isn’t said in scripture then we shouldn’t hold to it although you even said that that’s not correct because there are certianly things that scripture doesn’t mention.

I hope I clarified this in my previous post.

So just because Mary being sinless isn’t explicitly stated in scripture (as neither are the Trinity or Original Sin) scripture can still give us an indication of that teaching.

The trinity and original sin are clearly indicated within Scripture. Mary’s immaculate conception is not (I believe I have given my reasons clearly in previous posts).

Jesus is the Second Adam by extension Mary is the Second Eve, that is a conclusion based upon reason.

See my previous posts.

Mary was hailed as full of grace and the Greek indicates that she had been completely filled prior to the Anunciation.

I addressed this in a previous post.

The Envangelium says that the serpent will strike the heal of the woman’s offspring but she will crush its head, meaning that the woman (being Mary) won’t be affected by the serpent.

If I’m not mistaken, the word used could be read as He OR She, so it would be a stretch (to my thinking) to claim that she (Mary) will crush the serpent’s head. It could just as easily refer to Jesus or even the Church (the Bride would certainly have the ability, through Jesus Christ, to crush the serpent).

You said that Mary’s sins could have been wiped away at the Anunciation, the problem is that she would still be a sinner of the past and would not be a pure vessel for Jesus or qualify as the Second Eve. Also, if you accept that her sins were wiped away then your argument about her having to make a sin offering doesn’t work because she would be sinless. And if it is necessaty for her to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus then God could obviously make her sinless at her conception.

I do not believe she had to be sinless to bear Jesus (not any more than the Joseph had to be sinless to care for Him and train Him up, teaching Him a trade). I thought I made it clear that even IF she had to be sinless (which, again, I do not believe), it doesn’t follow that she had to be sinless from conception. As far as her “being a pure vessel for Jesus”, if that was required (again, I do not believe it was), certainly God can purify ANY vessel He desires (or do you think God is incapable of such a thing?). Take, for example, the Ark of the Covenant. This was made with ordinary materials, and was basically little more than a very beautiful chest until it was sanctified by God. What do you think was lacking from God in the purification of the Ark? And if God can purify a gold covered wooden box for His use, what makes you think He couldn’t do the same thing with a person at any point in their life?

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou, I refer you back to post #22.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry. Don’t see it. I could see the Levites who carried the Ark as a type of Mary (I believe they were the Korahites), but I don’t see her as the Ark. Plus (you can probably guess what’s coming), the Scriptures do not make this connection (just like the “new Eve” claim). I’m not sure if this is related to the topic, but when was the earliest documented use of Rev 11 or 12 in relation to Mary? I have found a commentary from the 3rd or 4th century, but Mary is not mentioned in either chapter. I would say that makes any claim of “Apostolic Tradition” highly questionable.

Cachonga,

Please take note of the fact that two of the ECF’s quoted below refer to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant before the evil emperor Constantine made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire and allowed all the pagans to overwhelm the purity of the gospel with their goddess worship.

Additionally, the other ECF’s were writing in the period before the canon of scripture was formalized…suggesting that their understanding of Mary as the Ark was formed by oral tradition handed down from the Apostolic era.

ECFs on Mary – Ark of the New Covenant

**Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) **

Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.’" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

**Chrysippus **(399-479):

“The truly royal ark, the most precious ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos; the ark which received the treasure of all sanctification85 you and the ark of your sanctification; for when you shall have arisen and sealed the ark of your sanctification, then that ark will arise85″

---

**Hesychius **(ca. 433):

“The ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl, then she must be the ark” ( *De S. Maria Deip. *).

John Damascene

“The apostolic band lifting the true ark of the Lord God on their shoulders, as the priests of old the typical ark, and placing thy body in the tomb, made it, as if another Jordan, the way to the true land of the gospel, the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of all the faithful, God being its Lord and architect. Thy soul did not descend to Limbo, neither did thy flesh see corruption. Thy pure and spotless body was not left in the earth, but the abode of the Queen, of God’s true Mother, was fixed in the heavenly kingdom alone” ( *Sermon 1 on the Assumption *).

“Today the sacred and living ark of the living God, who conceived her Creator Himself, takes up her abode in the temple of God, not made by hands. David, her forefather, rejoices” ( *Sermon 2 on the Assumption *).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will briefly state that Luke 2:24 says that they offered “a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). Lev 12:6-8 describes this sacrifice, which applies to the mother (note the use of the word “her” in these verses), and it clearly states that one of these turtledoves is a sin offering. In regard to the angel visiting Mary, I agree that the conception was supernatural, but an angel also visited the mother of Samson (who had a normal conception). I don’t see any reason to suppose he had a “miraculous” birth, as you obviously believe was the case with Jesus. As far as original sin being an analogy, I’d be very curious to know where this is taught in catholic theology (perhaps you could give the reference number so I can look it up in the catechism).

Oh…I see the error in your reasoning. This will help clear up your misunderstanding:

Luke 2:24 – Mary’s Sin Offering

Why did Mary make a sin offering in accordance with the Law of Moses if she was without sin? Here are the relevant passages:

Leviticus 12:7-8
‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

Luke 2:22-24
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later at His baptism, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, **“**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Please take note of the fact that two of the ECF’s quoted below refer to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant before the evil emperor Constantine made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire and allowed all the pagans to overwhelm the purity of the gospel with their goddess worship.

Additionally, the other ECF’s were writing in the period before the canon of scripture was formalized…suggesting that their understanding of Mary as the Ark was formed by oral tradition handed down from the Apostolic era.

I find the following from the Fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus(c 125 AD - c. 202 AD) -

VIII. For(1) as the ark [of the covenant] was glided within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent; for it was adorned within by the Word, and shielded without by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth.

and

XLVIII. As(1) therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from(2) dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For(3) as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together

Seems to me that another ECF (from an earlier date) thought the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Jesus (I’m sure you know there are other ECF’s that taught the same thing). Rather than get into a “My ECF’s are more correct than yours!”, I’ll just say that I take what they say into consideration in so far as it agrees with the written word (Scripture). I do not believe the ECF’s were infallible, nor do I believe any of them were always right.

Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later at His baptism, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

Sounds to me like you’re saying that when God told Moses that a person was to make a sin offering, He didn’t really mean an offering for sin. You also seem to be confusing a sin offering (which was required by the Law, as, I believe, we both agree) with John’s baptism (which was not required by Law, and was not for forgiveness of sins). Remember, John the Baptist did not have authority from God to forgive sin, so his baptism didn’t cover that. Also, he was a fulfilment of prophecy (a voice crying in the wilderness), and his purpose was to turn the people to God. Jesus “turned” from private life to public ministry at this baptism (sorry if I wasn’t clear on that earlier).