SPLIT: "Full of Grace" =sinless?

[unacanta]

From the early Church Fathers on, the identification of Mary as “woman” has been seen as a reference to the one identified in Genesis 3:15.

Mary is entitled “Full of Grace”, using the perfect passive participle “kecharitomene”, indicating completed action with continuing results. That is, she was full of grace from her past and continues in that condition. More here.

Those are the short answers.

So, if Mary is full fo grace, and continuing results, does this mean she was sinless…or in need of grace to cover for sin as the rest of us are?

 

[kepha1]

It means she was and is sinless. God and sin cannot co-exist.
Grace doesn’t cover up sin. Sin is removed when we cooperate with God’s grace, obey ALL that Jesus commanded, and we are transformed within. It’s a free gift, not a free ticket.

 

[unacanta]

It means she was and is sinless. God and sin cannot co-exist.
Grace doesn’t cover up sin. Sin is removed when we cooperate with God’s grace, obey ALL that Jesus commanded, and we are transformed within. It’s a free gift, not a free ticket.

First Point.
Then explain how it is the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us, who are sinful. There are many scriptures where Jesus walked, ate and fellowshipped with sinners. Even the 12 were sinners and He selected them to be His diciples. So God does “co-exist” with evil in order to remove it from our lives. He does not warrent, condone, or approve, but alas in this fallen world, He does co-exist with evil

Matthew 9:12
But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

A physician can not heal the mortal body with touching it, and so, we need a touch from Christ to heal our sin.

There is no warrent within scripture for teaching that Mary was sinless. To do so would to deny Christ’s humanity.

Second point:
Sin is removed by the judicial actions of Christ on the cross and the impartaion of righteousness to us from Him, not by our cooperation in grace. Grace is the vehicle by which we receive our forgiveness. I sincerely doubt that you have “obey ALL that Jesus commanded”, so under your theory, you have not received His grace nor had your sins removed.

Blessings,
Len

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, if Mary is full fo grace, and continuing results, does this mean she was sinless…or in need of grace to cover for sin as the rest of us are?

She was in need of a Savior, if that’s what you mean. Her gifts are entirely from Him.

(Edited)

 

[Michael_Francis]

These posts have been split off into their own apologetics thread because they were off topic in the original thread in Sacred Scripture.
MF

 

[DaveBj]

Remember in the context of this discussion that the English phrase “full of grace” does not convey the full impact of the Greek word “kekharitomene,” which is in Luke’s Gospel as the word Gabriel used to address Mary.

“Full of grace” does, however, accurately translate a Greek phrase used in the book of Acts to describe Stephen.

DaveBj

 

[natsclem]

First Point.
Then explain how it is the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us, who are sinful. There are many scriptures where Jesus walked, ate and fellowshipped with sinners. Even the 12 were sinners and He selected them to be His diciples. So God does “co-exist” with evil in order to remove it from our lives. He does not warrent, condone, or approve, but alas in this fallen world, He does co-exist with evil

Matthew 9:12
But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

A physician can not heal the mortal body with touching it, and so, we need a touch from Christ to heal our sin.

There is no warrent within scripture for teaching that Mary was sinless. To do so would to deny Christ’s humanity.

Second point:
Sin is removed by the judicial actions of Christ on the cross and the impartaion of righteousness to us from Him, not by our cooperation in grace. Grace is the vehicle by which we receive our forgiveness. I sincerely doubt that you have “obey ALL that Jesus commanded”, so under your theory, you have not received His grace nor had your sins removed.

Blessings,
Len

Personal sin is effectually removed from us through repentance on our part and granting of forgiveness on the part of God. Repenting is cooperating. However, being able to cooperate is also a grace from God.

The Redemptive Work of Christ is like a vaccine. Unless it is accepted and actually applied, it cannot be effective. St. Paul mentioned that he fills up what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Colossians 1:24). The work of Christ in itself is perfect and efficacious but He wants us–His Body–to do our part to complete the process of redemption not only for ourselves but also for the rest of humankind.

Lest I forget, just as Jesus commanded the woman caught in adultery “to sin no more” we are also obliged to do our part to sin no more (of course, victory against temptations is also God’s grace). Finally, Jesus taught us that not all who call him “Lord, Lord” will be saved but only those who do the will of God.

The presence of Jesus among the public sinners is different. You should not equate the Holy Spirit’s presence (in the fullness of grace) in the soul of Mary with Jesus’s presence among the sinners.

Don’t forget that God expelled Lucifer from Heaven just as He expelled Adam & Eve from paradise. Ultimate good & evil cannot co-exist. Heaven is all good with the absence of evil. Hell is all evil with the absence of any good.

On earth, both the wheats and the weeds or the goats and the sheep co-exist because the goats may become sheep, sheep may become goats; the wheats may become weeds and vice-versa. Earth is the battle field between goodness and evilness–it is tug-o-war actually.

If you are looking for a passage that explicitly declares Mary’s sinlessness, you are bound to fail. Her sinlessness (including original sin) is a conjecture of kecharitomene, “Mighty God has done great things for me”, and many other scriptural passages." From generation to generation, Christians contemplated on her blessedness being Theotokos and came out with conclusions that she must be indeed sinless and it cannot be otherwise. And ultimately, the Church declaration through the Magisterium that she was immaculately conceived (Being graced with that, She was practically more powerful than satan whose head she would crush. But of course, her power is God’s and not her own).

On the other hand, can you prove the contrary thru the scripture that she sinned? In what way that the teaching of Mary’s sinlessness is a denial of Christ’s humanity? Please review the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. Original sin is not synonymous with human nature. Before Adam’s fall, originally human nature was endowed with original innocence/justice/holiness. Mary being preserved from all stains of original sin would consequently give Jesus human nature that is in that state of original innocence/justice/holiness.That’s why Jesus is the new Adam while Mary is the new Eve.

If you stick with protestantism, you will not grow in theology and even in Faith.

 

[allischalmers]

If you stick with protestantism, you will not grow in theology and even in Faith.

A TOTALLY FALSE AND IGNORANT STATEMENT

 

[natsclem]

A TOTALLY FALSE AND IGNORANT STATEMENT

Well, if you stay Baptist forever.

How can a Baptist grow in Faith when, in fact, he rejects Matthew 16:17-19, as scriptural basis of Petrine Ministry as guarantee of infallibility so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church–the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)?

**Since Protestants reject the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, no wonder then that they cannot believe in the immaculate conception or in the sinlessness of Mama Mary. ** (Protestants except Orthodox cannot claim of any Apostolic Succession. This means that they just elevated themselves and proclaim themselves pastors of souls. True or not? Nevertheless, they may be used by the Lord to save souls.)

Because of that impediment, how can not I say that staying in protestantism will not make protestants grow in theology and Faith–I mean Catholic Faith?

 

[blossom02]

Full of Grace means FULL. If a glass is full of water you can add no more. If a soul is full of grace you can add no more.

Full of Grace would have all the graces needed for holiness.

 

[natsclem]

Full of Grace means FULL. If a glass is full of water you can add no more. If a soul is full of grace you can add no more.

Full of Grace would have all the graces needed for holiness.

Amen.

And its original Greek text of “Kecharitomene” is even more precise as a biblical testimony of Mary’s sinlessness (original sin and personal sin) which even many Orthodox could not accept.

 

[maurin]

If you stick with protestantism, you will not grow in theology and even in Faith.

A TOTALLY FALSE AND IGNORANT STATEMENT

Not absolutely, Allis, but I do agree that some tweaking is needed here.

Maybe, “If you stick with protestantism, you will only grow in the traditions of men instead of the Traditions of God,” is a more precise rendering of the orignal poster’s thought.

Luther, the original, or the first to succeed in disseminating the traditions of men on a “global” scale believed in the Sinlessness of Mary. But others, following Luther’s total tradition of men which advocates the ignorant’s elevation of his own intellect, rejected more and more of God’s Traditions. Today we have thousands of competing communities each avowing their own man made traditions.

So I agree–staying a protestant does not mean one will not grow in theology or faith. It means merely that one will grow in a direction separate from that which Christ Himself gave us: the Church.

 

[natsclem]

Not absolutely, Allis, but I do agree that some tweaking is needed here.

Maybe, “If you stick with protestantism, you will only grow in the traditions of men instead of the Traditions of God,” is a more precise rendering of the orignal poster’s thought.

Luther, the original, or the first to succeed in disseminating the traditions of men on a “global” scale believed in the Sinlessness of Mary. But others, following Luther’s total tradition of men which advocates the ignorant’s elevation of his own intellect, rejected more and more of God’s Traditions. Today we have thousands of competing communities each avowing their own man made traditions.

So I agree–staying a protestant does not mean one will not grow in theology or faith. It means merely that one will grow in a direction separate from that which Christ Himself gave us: the Church.

Scott Hahn, while still a Protestant, made a stride to grow in theology little by little by opening himself to the claims of the Catholic Church–the more he becomes Catholic the lesser he becomes Protestant. Ask him personally–Scott, where do you feel you grow better in Christian faith–Protestantism or Catholicism? Knowing his background, I feel he is in the better position than any one of us here to make a comment on this subject.

The conviction that Mary is sinless (being preserved from the stains of original sin and without personal sin) guaranteed by the infallibility of Petrine ministry is a growth in theology and Faith.
Staying in protestantism means continuous rejection of that conviction.

 

[unacanta]

She was in need of a Savior, if that’s what you mean. Her gifts are entirely from Him.

(Edited)

She is in need of a Saviour because she is human, as a human she falls under the same catagory we all do.(Rom3:23)

Her gifts and everyone else for that matter are given by the Father from above.

 

[unacanta]

Personal sin is effectually removed from us through repentance on our part and granting of forgiveness on the part of God. Repenting is cooperating. However, being able to cooperate is also a grace from God.

The whole world’s sin is forgiven according to 1n2:2. Not just ours, but the sins of the whole world. You are correct, we can not even repent least the Lord gives it to us.

The Redemptive Work of Christ is like a vaccine. Unless it is accepted and actually applied, it cannot be effective. St. Paul mentioned that he fills up what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Colossians 1:24). The work of Christ in itself is perfect and efficacious but He wants us–His Body–to do our part to complete the process of redemption not only for ourselves but also for the rest of humankind.

Our part is to “believe in Him whom He has sent.” (jn6:29)

The presence of Jesus among the public sinners is different. You should not equate the Holy Spirit’s presence (in the fullness of grace) in the soul of Mary with Jesus’s presence among the sinners.

I was simply saying that Mary, did not have to be sinless in order to birth Christ. The very humanity which makes Christ the Man-God was given through Mary. Virgin, yes, sinless not in the equation. If she were sinless, then she could have been the perfect sacrifice and the Son of God need not be so.

The Holy Spirit dwells in sinfull man every day. I do not know of one Christian that is currently sinless, do you? Even though we be a “New Creation” we still inhabit perishable and sinful bodies. You are correct, it will not always be so. The age of Grace will end.

On earth, both the wheats and the weeds or the goats and the sheep co-exist because the goats may become sheep, sheep may become goats; the wheats may become weeds and vice-versa. Earth is the battle field between goodness and evilness–it is tug-o-war actually.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit dwells within every sheep that know His voice and every wheat germ that is sown. The fact still remains, Mary was a sheep and needed redemption. Her status of having sin or being sinless has nothing to do with Christ’s Advent.

If you are looking for a passage that explicitly declares Mary’s sinlessness, you are bound to fail. Her sinlessness (including original sin) is a conjecture of kecharitomene, “Mighty God has done great things for me”, and many other scriptural passages." From generation to generation, Christians contemplated on her blessedness being Theotokos and came out with conclusions that she must be indeed sinless and it cannot be otherwise. And ultimately, the Church declaration through the Magisterium that she was immaculately conceived (Being graced with that, She was practically more powerful than satan whose head she would crush. But of course, her power is God’s and not her own).

The conclusion that she was indeed sinless was incorrectly pressed into scripture to fit a festering doctrine growing out to the gnostic teachings.

vintage.aomin.org/In_sententius.html
Quote:
First, let’s look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritow “sinlessness.” The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (NIV). If the bare term caritow means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
End of Quote.

The article does a great job of explaining the greek, which of course to me is “all greek”

On the other hand, can you prove the contrary thru the scripture that she sinned?

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

If she is one of the all, then she has sinned. If not she was not a daughter of Eve and therefore not able to birth the Christ child into humanity.

In what way that the teaching of Mary’s sinlessness is a denial of Christ’s humanity? Please review the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. Original sin is not synonymous with human nature. Before Adam’s fall, originally human nature was endowed with original innocence/justice/holiness. Mary being preserved from all stains of original sin would consequently give Jesus human nature that is in that state of original innocence/justice/holiness.That’s why Jesus is the new Adam while Mary is the new Eve.

There is nothing in scripture which would lead us to believe she was “preserved from all stains of original sin” Furthermore, her status of having the origninal sin or not has no bering what so ever on salvation. It was the sinlessness of her Son that was important. True, Adam and Eve were “endowed with original innocence/justice/holiness”. With the advent of the fall, the sin nature was passed onto every son or daughter. Mary was a daughter of Eve.

If you stick with protestantism, you will not grow in theology and even in Faith.

I will not even give credence to that statement.

Blessings,
Len

 

[MarcoPolo]

She is in need of a Saviour because she is human, as a human she falls under the same catagory we all do.(Rom3:23)

Her gifts and everyone else for that matter are given by the Father from above.

Well, she doesn’t fall under the category of having committed actual sin, like Rm. 3:23 generalizes…but I don’t see where we really differ. The power is all Christ’s. :dancing:

 

[natsclem]

Our part is to “believe in Him whom He has sent.” (jn6:29)

Is that all? But how is it that Paul said “I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24)? Also, he told the Philippians “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12.)

I was simply saying that Mary, did not have to be sinless in order to birth Christ. The very humanity which makes Christ the Man-God was given through Mary. Virgin, yes, sinless not in the equation. If she were sinless, then she could have been the perfect sacrifice and the Son of God need not be so.

Following your thought,God could have saved mankind without the Son of God becoming man and die on the cross–as the only sacrifice that can satisfy the Divine justice. But God’s way is different. He designed that the Second Divine Person become man thru a virgin, teach true religion, die on the cross, and rise up in three days.

The Holy Spirit dwells in sinfull man every day. I do not know of one Christian that is currently sinless, do you? Even though we be a “New Creation” we still inhabit perishable and sinful bodies. You are correct, it will not always be so. The age of Grace will end.

can you prove from the scripture that the Holy Spirit dwells in sinful man?

Yes, and the Holy Spirit dwells within every sheep that know His voice and every wheat germ that is sown. The fact still remains, Mary was a sheep and needed redemption. Her status of having sin or being sinless has nothing to do with Christ’s Advent.
The conclusion that she was indeed sinless was incorrectly pressed into scripture to fit a festering doctrine growing out to the gnostic teachings.
vintage.aomin.org/In_sententius.html
Quote:
First, let’s look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritow “sinlessness.” The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (NIV). If the bare term caritow means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
End of Quote.
The article does a great job of explaining the greek, which of course to me is “all greek”
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
If she is one of the all, then she has sinned. If not she was not a daughter of Eve and therefore not able to birth the Christ child into humanity.
There is nothing in scripture which would lead us to believe she was “preserved from all stains of original sin” Furthermore, her status of having the origninal sin or not has no bering what so ever on salvation. It was the sinlessness of her Son that was important. True, Adam and Eve were “endowed with original innocence/justice/holiness”. With the advent of the fall, the sin nature was passed onto every son or daughter. Mary was a daughter of Eve.

Not caritow but kecharitomene.

The original text of Luke 1:28 is Greek loosely translated as “Greetings, you who are highly favored!” in NIV. In fact the text in Greek is “Chaire, Kecharitomene” (translated in English as "Hail, Full of Grace "based on the Latin translation in Vulgate). Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

To paraphrase the text in a way faithful to its meaning, it should be rendered as “Hail , completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” The translation “Hail, full of grace” encapsulates the Greek meaning. Understood in that sense, sin, in any way and in whatever form, has no room in Mary–from the first moment of her conception until she was still on earth. How was it possible that she stayed sinless? That’s the grace of the Immaculate Conception–Mary, being preserved from all stains of original sin through the foreseen merits of Christ’s victorious Redemptive Work, was enabled by God to perfectly give her consent to be the mother of the Son of God and provide Him a nature without original sin so that He might be like us in all things except sin.

How was this possible?

Well, God is mighty that’s why He has great things for her (Luke 1:49)

The Immaculate Conception is above all the exaltation of Christ’s redemptive work. It shows that His victory has even a preventive and retroactive effect aside from being curative, e.i. cured after contracting original sin. We often hear in medical circles “Prevention is better than cure.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Our part is to “believe in Him whom He has sent.” (jn6:29)

Which flies directly in the face of the Gospel as it was preached by the apostles.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46

Looks like you espouse a different gospel to me.

Galatians 1:[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

 

[unacanta]

Which flies directly in the face of the Gospel as it was preached by the apostles.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46

Looks like you espouse a different gospel to me.

Galatians 1:[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

In each and everyone of the “Baptism” scriptures the person must have first believed before they could ever make it to the baptismal. Surely, we are not saying a non-believer agrees to be baptized, then upon baptism are suddenly transformed.

Acts2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, …
In their heart, they then believed. how else would they agree to be baptized.

Acts22:16’Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized,
Paul believed was baptized.

Mat25-36

34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

The kingdom was prepared for the sheep at the foundation of the world. It was because of their belief in the Son that they inherit. According to your theology, everyone whom will give a drink of water, provide shelter or visit the sick or incarcerated will inherited the kingdom. Clearly the passage does not say the sheep “believed”. It is assumed. The passage continues and the sheep were not even aware of any righteous deed done, it was just the inward work of the Holy One within.

I work in Prison Ministry, I see a Native American Indian leader go in every week and administer the Sweat Lodge. Are we saying this person has qualified for the kingdom, after all, he did visit those in prison?

Clearly the reason the sheep and goats are divided is not because of the work that Christ recognizes, but rather because they believed “in Him whom I sent”

Many, many scriptures speak of belief as the basis of our salvation. One of the best is:
Titus 3:5
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Note: it is not the baptismal washing, but the washing of the blood: Rom3:25,5:9,Eph1:7,2:13 and I can go on and on.
Don’t get me wrong, yes we are commanded to be baptized. It is however an outward sign of an inward work.

Baptism is not the key, but it is an integral part of salvation.

As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Don’t be accursed, just preach the truth.

Now that is aired, shall we return to the discussion at hand concerning Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

Regards

 

[justinthemartyr]

Jesus was said to be full of grace.

I think that answers the question.