Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

[chevyontheriver]

Actually there is a hair that's being split here. I am not saying that Mary was born sinless, I am only explaining the logic behind the Roman doctrine that she was.

But that's NOT the logic. The logic is that we all considered Mary to be sinless. At least until some of the descendants of the Reformation came along. But how could she be sinless, given everybody else?

 

[HTacianas]

But that's NOT the logic. The logic is that we all considered Mary to be sinless. At least until some of the descendants of the Reformation came along. But how could she be sinless, given everybody else?

The Eastern view is that Mary never intentionally sinned, but she was born with the propensity to sin just like everyone else. The Western view is a bit different due to the Western view of original sin. The Eastern view of original sin is that everyone is born with a propensity to sin but is only guilty once a sin is committed. The Western view has it that all people are born with the stain of original sin and are therefore born guilty of sin. That leads to the sinlessness of Mary. If everyone is "born guilty" then Mary was born guilty. In comes the Immaculate Conception to resolve the problem.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

born with the propensity to sin

The question is begged: Is the propensity to sin, sin itself?

 

[HTacianas]

The question is begged: Is the propensity to sin, sin itself?

No. A propensity to sin is merely a desire to sin. But then you get into willful sin vs. unintentional sin. Paul discussed his desire to sin and his unintentional sins in Romans 7. He lusted for things, i.e., he coveted. To covet is to sin. He laments that his desire leads him to sin. It's that desire that is the propensity to sin. James goes into it as well:

Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

Jas 1:15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Notice that there is a desire first. That is the propensity to sin. But only when sin "is full-grown" that it brings death, meaning the sin has to be completed. But that is for an intentional sin. To covet is unintentional but still sin. That is mostly what the sacrifices of the old testament were meant for:

Lev 4:27 ‘If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty,

Lev 4:28 ‘or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Notice that there is a desire first. That is the propensity to sin.

Is the desire to sin, sin itself?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Eastern view is that Mary never intentionally sinned, but she was born with the propensity to sin just like everyone else. The Western view is a bit different due to the Western view of original sin. The Eastern view of original sin is that everyone is born with a propensity to sin but is only guilty once a sin is committed. The Western view has it that all people are born with the stain of original sin and are therefore born guilty of sin. That leads to the sinlessness of Mary. If everyone is "born guilty" then Mary was born guilty. In comes the Immaculate Conception to resolve the problem.

Whatever.

Do you recognize that Mary did not HAVE TO BE sinless for Jesus to be sinless? You previously said that was the Catholic logic.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip> But only when sin "is full-grown" that it brings death, meaning the sin has to be completed. <Snip>

Well, no. The stain of original sin condemns us to death no differently than actively, pre meditated sin. This is why Jesus had to die for us all.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is the desire to sin, sin itself?

Concupiescence, that tendency toward sin, is generally not considered a sin in and of itself. Just as a temptation, quickly dismissed is not a sin, but dwelling on the temptation is a sin.

But concupiescence is not original sin but a consequence of it.

I suspect that some day the traditional Christians of the West and of the East will get over their divergence on the way we inherit s tendency to sin. Probably not in my lifetime though.

 

[HTacianas]

Well, no. The stain of original sin condemns us to death no differently than actively, pre meditated sin. This is why Jesus had to die for us all.

That is the Western view of original sin. The Eastern view differs. Newborn infants who die are not condemned.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Newborn infants who die are not condemned.

So the newborns at the time of the Genesis flood who were drowned, not condemned?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Concupiescence, that tendency toward sin, is generally not considered a sin in and of itself. Just as a temptation, quickly dismissed is not a sin, but dwelling on the temptation is a sin.

But concupiescence is not original sin but a consequence of it.

I suspect that some day the traditional Christians of the West and of the East will get over their divergence on the way we inherit s tendency to sin. Probably not in my lifetime though.

This is where Rome and the Reformers (all three branches of the Reformation) part ways. In the Sixteenth Century, concupiescence was a HUGE issue as it is today. There will be no agreement between Rome and historical protestants on this issue. Never. Not going to happen.

 

[HTacianas]

So the newborns at the time of the Genesis flood who were drowned, not condemned?

Condemned to hell for eternity? No.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Condemned to hell for eternity? No.

Such high optimism concerning man's anthropology.

Thus a abortion, while it may rob the soul of its comparatively insignificant 80 years or so in the world, guarantees that the soul’s entrée into eternal bliss ….when in fact the exact opposite may have occurred if that person made a willful decision to reject the gospel had he lived long enough to make.

 

[HTacianas]

Such high optimism concerning man's anthropology.

Thus a abortion, while it may rob the soul of its comparatively insignificant 80 years or so in the world, guarantees that the soul’s entrée into eternal bliss ….when in fact the exact opposite may have occurred if that person made a willful decision to reject the gospel had he lived long enough to make.

That's the "why not kill your children if you think they will go to heaven for eternity" conundrum.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Eastern view we are born innocent.

There are a number of real problems here.

What gives parents absolute confidence their child will be in heaven before the age of accountability? Death. It appears that death alone has become a superior remedy for the human condition rather than the cross delivered to them through baptism. Death for those under the age of accountability is actually their salvation. THIS IS SALVATION BY DEATH ALONE.

At this point, the curse (death) now becomes the instrument for blessing (salvation).

When the curse becomes the blessing, the Christian faith is turn on its head and becomes an absurdity!

And you call it a

conundrum

I want nothing more to do with this topic. Disgusting.

 

[prodromos]

There are a number of real problems here.

What gives parents absolute confidence their child will be in heaven before the age of accountability? Death. It appears that death alone has become a superior remedy for the human condition rather than the cross delivered to them through baptism. Death for those under the age of accountability is actually their salvation. THIS IS SALVATION BY DEATH ALONE.

At this point, the curse (death) now becomes the instrument for blessing (salvation).

When the curse becomes the blessing, the Christian faith is turn on its head and becomes an absurdity!

And you call it a



I want nothing more to do with this topic. Disgusting.

Interesting strawman.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting strawman.

Why is a strawman?