Was Mary sinless?

[tonychanyt]

Wiki:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that by the grace of God "Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."

Well, Romans 3:

23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The Son of God was the only sinless human.

 

[BobRyan]

True. No one sinless except Christ.

 

[JoeT]

Wiki:


Well, Romans 3:


The Son of God was the only sinless human.

The problem with this line of thought is that Jesus Christ is made a sinner needing justification. All men are born with the stain of original sin. Christ is both God and man whose natures were inseparably joined without mixing, mingling or confusion. If not made, but born of woman then that woman must be a type of Eve before the fall.

Mary receives a special grace of justification in her conception from the same divinity you receive justification in baptism, her son. The soul of Mary was justified by the same grace of justification you might claim, thus protected from sin her entire life.

JoeT

 

[tonychanyt]

Jesus Christ is made a sinner needing justification.

verse?

 

[Grip Docility]

The problem with this line of thought is that Jesus Christ is made a sinner needing justification. All men are born with the stain of original sin. Christ is both God and man whose natures were inseparably joined without mixing, mingling or confusion. If not made, but born of woman then that woman must be a type of Eve before the fall.

Mary receives a special grace of justification in her conception from the same divinity you receive justification in baptism, her son. The soul of Mary was justified by the same grace of justification you might claim, thus protected from sin her entire life.

JoeT

Let's get the important Theology out of the way, first.

Jesus was fully God and Fully Man, yet His very nature was genuinely a Man of flesh and simultaneously He was and is the the Son of God the Father with zero duality or to put it biblically... "Hebrews 1:3 Who being the effulgence of His glory (Exodus 40:35), and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins,"

That said... To go through theological gymnastics that bring "Augustine's" teachings into the matter, are completely unnecessary. We know this to be fact... Hebrews 4:14-16... which insinuates that He accomplished what we can't, with every disadvantage of Privation, that we experience. What's the difference? Jesus had the soul of the Divine. He accomplished what no other human being can. He walked in perfection.

There is no need to work this out with quantum physics level theological math. He was Immanuel, God with us. He is the Word, and the Word was With God and Was God... and that Word (Logos, Memra) BECAME FLESH.

That's my two cents.

 

[JoeT]

verse?

The verse Romans 3:23, if taken as inclusive of every person, "all", it must by definition include Christ, He is man, albeit a type of Adam prior to the fall, man nevertheless. "All" is not the thrust of Romans 3:23 rather those present, both gentile and Jew, all.

To be "just" the will is rectified to the will of God. Thus, a just man is without voluntary immoral act, word or thought, and without original sin. But, we find many "just men" in Scripture, e.g., Tobias, Noah, Moses, Joseph to name but a few. Also, Christ tells us to be "perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect". [Matthew 5:48]. How do you square that a man can in fact be just or justified, thus not falling short of the glory of God?


JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Let's get the important Theology out of the way, first.

Jesus was fully God and Fully Man, yet His very nature was genuinely a Man of flesh and simultaneously He was and is the the Son of God the Father with zero duality or to put it biblically... "Hebrews 1:3 Who being the effulgence of His glory (Exodus 40:35), and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins,"

That said... To go through theological gymnastics that bring "Augustine's" teachings into the matter, are completely unnecessary. We know this to be fact... Hebrews 4:14-16... which insinuates that He accomplished what we can't, with every disadvantage of Privation, that we experience. What's the difference? Jesus had the soul of the Divine. He accomplished what no other human being can. He walked in perfection.

There is no need to work this out with quantum physics level theological math. He was Immanuel, God with us. He is the Word, and the Word was With God and Was God... and that Word (Logos, Memra) BECAME FLESH.

That's my two cents.

I think what you described is Monophysitism, a heresy settled between 325 to 787, One Person, One hypostasis (underlying substance), and One soul. Catholicism holds that a Christology where Christ is One Person, One hypostasis and two natures, Divine and human, again without mixing, mingling, or confusion. If Monophsitism then Christ came to redeem Himself, not mankind.


JoeT

 

[Grip Docility]

I think what you described is Monophysitism, a heresy settled between 325 to 787, One Person, One hypostasis (underlying substance), and One soul. Catholicism holds that a Christology where Christ is One Person, One hypostasis and two natures, Divine and human, again without mixing, mingling, or confusion. If Monophsitism then Christ came to redeem Himself, not mankind.


JoeT

Oh for goodness sakes… would it have been better if I dropped the Athanasian Creed

Did you even read the scriptures that I posted?!? Honestly, you have offended me. No joke!

My point Remains… Jesus was fully Divine and Fully Human! Read it again! Must we quibble over complexities that I didn’t think I had to write a book on to cover my tail, when I was simply saying that Jesus triumphed because He was Divine?!? You read that all wrong! I was trying to be as succinct as possible to avoid dropping the entire Creed, yet there’s always “one”… pointing at you, on these debate sites!

Yeesh! You read into what I wrote to the point of claiming Heresy!

Was He Divine? Yes, check… said it. Was He Human? Yes, check… said it. Was He the Son of God and Son of Man simultaneously? Yes, check, said it!

I actually relaxed my writing in good faith that some numbskull wouldn’t do exactly what you just did… but hey… I can put my “Politically Correct” DEI Christian dialogue switch to “on” that forces me to spell out everything in a 10 page post, vs a couple paragraphs…, as soon as you step into a chat room!

Take this in good humor, but get real!

 

[Grip Docility]

I think what you described is Monophysitism, a heresy settled between 325 to 787, One Person, One hypostasis (underlying substance), and One soul. Catholicism holds that a Christology where Christ is One Person, One hypostasis and two natures, Divine and human, again without mixing, mingling, or confusion. If Monophsitism then Christ came to redeem Himself, not mankind.


JoeT

You know what… gloves off… I’m asking Mrs. Potato Head to bring me my angry eyes!

Spoiler

Let’s talk about how Augustine was a Manicheanist….and how his history in Manichaeism actually bled into his doctrines, despite the fact that he “renounced Manicheanism”…. We can thank his Manichaeist inclinations folded within his doctrines for the later and FAR greater butchering of theology that came from Calvin’s heavy reliance on Augustine!

I’m doubling down that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin (aka Manichaeism 101) isn’t needed in this discussion. Say I’m a Heretic one more time for declaring Jesus Fully Human, Fully God and Divine in ways we can never be… one more time!

Spoiler

Duel music from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" playing softly in the background, page turning hands hovering delicately over the Bible

Please tell me that you aren’t reformed!

What do you call a Presbyterian drinking Mountain Dew?
A Hyper-Calvinist

 

[Joseph G]

Wiki:


Well, Romans 3:


The Son of God was the only sinless human.

Additionally, consider:

Luke 18:9 NIV

"Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

If Mary were sinless, she would be good, which would therefore make her God. Nowhere in the entirety of Scripture is there any indication that Mary is a member of the God-head.

Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus to be born. Mary could have been crucified for our sins...

 

[tonychanyt]

The verse Romans 3:23, if taken as inclusive of every person, "all", it must by definition include Christ, He is man, albeit a type of Adam prior to the fall, man nevertheless. "All" is not the thrust of Romans 3:23 rather those present, both gentile and Jew, all.

I am having trouble understanding you.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

True?

 

[JoeT]

I am having trouble understanding you.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

True?

Let's start with your proposition that "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God". [Romans 3:23]. Given that Christ is One Person, one Holy hypostasis, with two inseparable natures, God and man, we can't separate His Divinity from His Humanity. what we say of the Divine is True of Christ and what is said of the man Jesus is True of Divinity. Thus, in your paradigm, since "all [humanity}" has sinned and since Christ has an inseparable human nature, then logic demands the word "all" used as you have included Christ. Furthermore, if you say "His Divinity" protected Him from sin, then the two natures are not inseparable.

Here are a couple of quotes from the early Church:

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? God forbid." [Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I, AD 215 ]​

​

"Paul says that it is wrong to say that God is unjust for bringing wrath on men. For how will the one who judges the world be thought to be unjust, when his very title of Judge shows that he does nothing without judgment? And where there is judgment, it follows that there will be justice. For the words judge and judgment are both derived from justice.The idea being expressed here does not accord with God or with the wisdom of God, but with man and with what has just been said, viz.: “All men are liars.”​

​

"But it is perfectly logical and right to say that justice is the enemy of unrighteousness, just as life is the enemy of death and light is the enemy of darkness. Therefore God, in whom is justice, is said to bring wrath on men, in whom unrighteousness dwells. For justice and unrighteousness are natural enemies. So how could God be regarded as unjust, simply because he is fighting unrighteousness?" [Origen of Alexandria, on Romans 3:5, AD 253]​

​

"He solves one perplexity by another again. Yet as this is not clear, we must needs declare it more clearly. What is it then he means? God honored the Jews: they did despite to Him. This gives Him the victory, and shows the greatness of His love towards man, in that He honored them even such as they were. Since then, he means, we did despite to Him and wronged Him, God by this very thing became victorious, and His righteousness was shown to be clear. Why then (a man may say) am I to be punished, who have been the cause of His victory by the despite I did Him? Now how does he meet this? It is, as I was saying, by another absurdity again. For if it were you, he says, that were the cause of the victory, and after this are punished, the thing is an act of injustice. But if He is not unjust, and yet you are punished, then you are no more the cause of the victory. And note his apostolic reverence; (or caution: εὐλάβεια]); for after saying, "Is God unrighteous Who takes vengeance?" he adds, "I speak as a man." As if, he means, any body were to argue in the way men reason. For what things seem with us to be justice, these the just judgment of God far exceeds, and has certain other unspeakable grounds for it. Next, since it was indistinct, he says the same thing over again [Romans 3:7]" [John Chrysostom on Romans 3:5-6 AD 407]​

JoeT

 

[tonychanyt]

Let's start with your proposition that "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God". [Romans 3:23]. Given that Christ is One Person, one Holy hypostasis, with two inseparable natures, God and man, we can't separate His Divinity from His Humanity. what we say of the Divine is True of Christ and what is said of the man Jesus is True of Divinity. Thus, in your paradigm, since "all [humanity}" has sinned and since Christ has an inseparable human nature, then logic demands the word "all" used as you have included Christ. Furthermore, if you say "His Divinity" protected Him from sin, then the two natures are not inseparable.

Here are a couple of quotes from the early Church:

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? God forbid." [Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book I, AD 215 ]​

​

"Paul says that it is wrong to say that God is unjust for bringing wrath on men. For how will the one who judges the world be thought to be unjust, when his very title of Judge shows that he does nothing without judgment? And where there is judgment, it follows that there will be justice. For the words judge and judgment are both derived from justice.The idea being expressed here does not accord with God or with the wisdom of God, but with man and with what has just been said, viz.: “All men are liars.”​

​

"But it is perfectly logical and right to say that justice is the enemy of unrighteousness, just as life is the enemy of death and light is the enemy of darkness. Therefore God, in whom is justice, is said to bring wrath on men, in whom unrighteousness dwells. For justice and unrighteousness are natural enemies. So how could God be regarded as unjust, simply because he is fighting unrighteousness?" [Origen of Alexandria, on Romans 3:5, AD 253]​

​

"He solves one perplexity by another again. Yet as this is not clear, we must needs declare it more clearly. What is it then he means? God honored the Jews: they did despite to Him. This gives Him the victory, and shows the greatness of His love towards man, in that He honored them even such as they were. Since then, he means, we did despite to Him and wronged Him, God by this very thing became victorious, and His righteousness was shown to be clear. Why then (a man may say) am I to be punished, who have been the cause of His victory by the despite I did Him? Now how does he meet this? It is, as I was saying, by another absurdity again. For if it were you, he says, that were the cause of the victory, and after this are punished, the thing is an act of injustice. But if He is not unjust, and yet you are punished, then you are no more the cause of the victory. And note his apostolic reverence; (or caution: εὐλάβεια]); for after saying, "Is God unrighteous Who takes vengeance?" he adds, "I speak as a man." As if, he means, any body were to argue in the way men reason. For what things seem with us to be justice, these the just judgment of God far exceeds, and has certain other unspeakable grounds for it. Next, since it was indistinct, he says the same thing over again [Romans 3:7]" [John Chrysostom on Romans 3:5-6 AD 407]​

JoeT

Sorry that I am slow. I still am having trouble understanding you.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

True?

 

[JoeT]

Sorry that I am slow. I still am having trouble understanding you.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

True?

We'll try again

1. You cited Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God".
2. You seemed credulous that "Mary remained free of sin given "all have sinned."
3. I contend that your understanding of Romans 3:23 is in error holding that "all" means the entirety of humanity sins, thus there are no just men.
4. Continuing, if all humanity had sinned then Jesus was a sinner because He has two inseparable natures, God and man. What is said of the Divine Nature can be said of the human nature, and what can be said of the human nature of Jesus can be said of the Divine nature.
5. Therefore, your understanding of Romans 3:23 must be flawed because it is given that Jesus Christ is without imperfection.

It seems Irenaeus and St. John Chrysostom see it much the same as I do.

For as these men did not impute unto us (the Gentiles) our transgressions, which we wrought before Christ was manifested among us, so also it is not right that we should lay blame upon those who sinned before Christ's coming. For "all men come short of the glory of God". [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV on Romans 3:23, AD 202]​

​

There is no difference at all between the Greek, the Scythian, the Thracian or even the Jew, for all are in the same plight.… Even if you have not done the same sins as others, you have still been deprived of God’s glory just as they have been, because you are among those who have offended.… However, Paul was saying this not to cast them into despair but rather to show the love of the Lord toward man, as he goes on to say [in the following verses. [John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON ROMANS 7 , [AD 407]​

​

JoeT

 

[Grip Docility]

We'll try again

1. You cited Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God".
2. You seemed credulous that "Mary remained free of sin given "all have sinned."
3. I contend that your understanding of Romans 3:23 is in error holding that "all" means the entirety of humanity sins, thus there are no just men.
4. Continuing, if all humanity had sinned then Jesus was a sinner because He has two inseparable natures, God and man. What is said of the Divine Nature can be said of the human nature, and what can be said of the human nature of Jesus can be said of the Divine nature.
5. Therefore, your understanding of Romans 3:23 must be flawed because it is given that Jesus Christ is without imperfection.

It seems Irenaeus and St. John Chrysostom see it much the same as I do.

For as these men did not impute unto us (the Gentiles) our transgressions, which we wrought before Christ was manifested among us, so also it is not right that we should lay blame upon those who sinned before Christ's coming. For "all men come short of the glory of God". [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV on Romans 3:23, AD 202]​

​

There is no difference at all between the Greek, the Scythian, the Thracian or even the Jew, for all are in the same plight.… Even if you have not done the same sins as others, you have still been deprived of God’s glory just as they have been, because you are among those who have offended.… However, Paul was saying this not to cast them into despair but rather to show the love of the Lord toward man, as he goes on to say [in the following verses. [John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON ROMANS 7 , [AD 407]​

​

JoeT

I'm not seeing any credulous behavior, error or flaw in @tonychanyt 's stance... as it is actually, merely facilitation... to achieve discussion. I do note that he took an extra biblical writing and compared it to the bible... to show a sort of Berean reverence to what scripture has to say on a matter... which suggests that Tony is challenging us in a purposeful or unintentional way to measure all matters against scripture.

I'm not trying to be a pain or anything, but wasn't the New Testament finished well before 202 AD, in the sense that it was all recorded long before that... with the exception of Canonization which happened for the Catholic 73 and the Protestant 66 at differing times that involved much discussion and such, yet doesn't override the fact the books contained within were finished long before 202 AD?

I mean, thank goodness for those bishops and their chain of custody... but also, thank goodness they didn't directly insert their opinions (AKA volumes of commentary) into scripture, am I right?

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm not seeing any credulous behavior, error or flaw in @tonychanyt 's stance... as it is actually, merely facilitation... to achieve discussion. I do note that he took an extra biblical writing and compared it to the bible... to show a sort of Berean reverence to what scripture has to say on a matter... which suggests that Tony is challenging us in a purposeful or unintentional way to measure all matters against scripture.

I'm not trying to be a pain or anything, but wasn't the New Testament finished well before 202 AD, in the sense that it was all recorded long before that... with the exception of Canonization which happened for the Catholic 73 and the Protestant 66 at differing times that involved much discussion and such, yet doesn't override the fact the books contained within were finished long before 202 AD?

I mean, thank goodness for those bishops and their chain of custody... but also, thank goodness they didn't directly insert their opinions (AKA volumes of commentary) into scripture, am I right?

We are not communicating.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

Please answer true or false and nothing else. This is the 3rd and the last time I have asked.

 

[Grip Docility]

We are not communicating.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus sinned.

Please answer true or false and nothing else. This is the 3rd and the last time I have asked.

May I jump into your path of logic and answer where you left this?

I'll go on ahead a hope you facilitate ...

Well, Tony.... I'll have to go with Preposition P2 = Jesus Never sinned.... specifically because we have this verse; 2 Corinthians 5:21

 

[tonychanyt]

I'll have to go with Preposition P2 = Jesus Never sinned.

Right. At this point, I am still trying to understand your point.

Let Q1 = Mary was sinless.

True?

 

[Grip Docility]

Right. At this point, I am still trying to understand your point.

Let Q1 = Mary was sinless.

True?

Well, that’s a problem, Tony, because we don’t have a verse that declares Mary sinless…

Per sound biblical doctrine derived from scripture… we are forced to answer: False

What question should we ask, next?

 

[Grip Docility]

Right. At this point, I am still trying to understand your point.

Let Q1 = Mary was sinless.

True?

I actually do have a verse in mind that may suggest some theologians made the assumption that sin is passed on via the flesh… which by the way is a very fast pathway to full blown Gnosticism… as the gnostics literally had Jesus as a discombobulated Spirit Being that never made physical contact with this earth or flesh of this earth…

But, back to it… I seem to believe this verse may hold some value… John 9:3 in a round about way. Does that hold any discussion value to you?