Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

Mary was a blessed vehicle through whom God gave us the incarnation. She was not born sinless, likely did not remain a virgin, and no doubt sinned during her lifetime. That does not diminish our admiration for her in believing by faith the incredible news she was given by the angel Gabriel. She is a model wife and mother. Why must we make her into something more she is not?

Mary was born sinless, remained a virgin, and never sinned. Your teachings are not found in the Bible, indeed are contrary to a true understanding of Holy Scripture and go against the teachings found in the early Church.

 

[JoeT]

There seems to be some misunderstanding.

Saving faith is belief in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the mission of one's sin and right standing with God (justification--declared righteous), which faith saves apart from the works of faith (Eph 2:8-9).
Not to mention that when the unbeliever comes to faith, there are no works to accompany it, for he had no faith to produce acceptable works before that.

In a manner of speaking, the Protestant justification is declarative. One simply says he is justified and somehow, as children of wrath, sin is declared as righteous. How does that work?

However, the meaning of the word justification (dikaiosis) is declaration of righteousness, sentence of acquittal (Ro 4:25, 5:18).
It is a forensic righteousness, distinct from actual righteousness of sanctification.
It is the result of forgiveness of sin through belief in and trust on the atoning work of Jesus Christ (faith).
Both salvation (Eph 2:8-9) and righteousness (Ro 3:28) are not based on one's law-keeping (works), they are based only on one's faith.[\QUOTE]

In the Reformed doctrine we find a different justification. Justification is necessary for sanctity and righteousness. Those not justified implies original sin is still resident in the believer along with actual sin. Justification is the restoration, at least in part, of our original justice lost by Adam. Some would suggest that it is called “forensic justification in the Catechumens, but they eventually learn that Justification found in Baptism is efficacious grace.

CCC 1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65

CCC 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

CCC 1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Matthew 4:17] Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. [Council of Trent (1547): DS 1528]

According to Charles Hodge, a Reformed Presbyterian theologian, justification is a mere forensic symbolic act, a declaration that the sinner is just and now righteous. Effectively throwing the white blanket of snow over the pile of dung. [Cf. Charles Hodge, Justification Is a Forensic Act]

Hodge states this clearly, And, therefore, in the third place, affirmatively, those Symbols teach that justification is a judicial or forensic act, I .e ., an act of God as Judge proceeding according to Law, declaring that the sinner is just, I .e ., that the Law no longer condemns him, but acquits and pronounces him to be entitled to eternal life [Charles Hodge, Justification Is a Forensic Act]

R.C. Sproul puts an utterly false modernity to the symbol of justification.

If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. (R.C. Sproul, Imputed Righteousness: The Evangelical Doctrine).

St. Aslam says, “justification is the “rectitude-of-will kept for its own sake.” [St. Anselm, On Truth, 12]. Any act, sinful or not, prior to Baptism is covetousness and is a sin. Which is why the catechumen learns he must repent and reform his will to God.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

You keep saying Jesus received the "flesh of His mother." No, he received the flesh of his mother and father through their DNA. The Holy Spirit supplied the DNA for the father, Mary the DNA of the mother. While God is not a being of flesh, God can and has created flesh and human DNA. The fertilized egg in Mary's womb was a normal fertilized egg but the method by how that egg can to be fertilized was different. Just because Jesus did not have an earthly father does not mean his flesh is 100% from Mary. It is those chromosomes mixing in the egg that create the flesh.

Even a human child does not receive the flesh of His father. The mothers ovum, for the purposes here the unfertilized female egg, is the flesh of the women. It takes the the spark of life to make it a zygote (fertilized egg). Except for chromosomes, nothing of the father remains with the child. The flesh the child bears is that of its mother.

Federal Headship is found in the Bible as Christ is called the "second Adam." It was not invented nor was an attempt to explain away anything regarding Mary. I don't see where Federal Headship is married to "once saved always saved" either.

You've completely failed St. Paul's lecture. Roman's 5:12-21 does not revel 'headship'. And the "second Adam" is said to be the last Adam [1 Corinthians 15:45]. The interpretation is a way to justify "once saved always saved", another false doctrine most always found with the false doctrine of "sin nature".

You are assuming sin nature is passed by physical means. Our sin nature is a spiritual affliction that is part of our spiritual nature. It is not something found in the father or mother's DNA. This should not be surprising as our redeemed nature is also not gained through the flesh. Mary was a sinner but that does not make Jesus a sinner because he was not given that sin nature which is considered passed on through the father but not in his DNA. It was not necessary for Mary to be without sin for Christ to be born without a sin nature.

Sin is not innate part of man's nature.

The main focus in Scripture is on the sin of Adam, not Eve. Although Eve did sin, and sinned first, it is Adam's sin that is the focus.

where does it say man's sin is greater than woman's (Eve's)

Scripture never calls Mary a "New Eve", and any parallels between Mary and Eve are largely man-made by the Catholic church. Many Old Testament saints were saved before Mary was ever born.

Mary was a blessed vehicle through whom God gave us the incarnation. She was not born sinless, likely did not remain a virgin, and no doubt sinned during her lifetime. That does not diminish our admiration for her in believing by faith the incredible news she was given by the angel Gabriel. She is a model wife and mother. Why must we make her into something more she is not?

Mary was born sinless, remained a virgin, and never sinned. Your teachings are not found in the Bible, indeed are contrary to a true understanding of Holy Scripture and go against the teachings found in the early Church.

Non-Catholics demand that everything be in the Bible. Catholics do not make the same demand for the obvious reason, it may not have been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit for hundreds of years. Mary was said to be Aeiparthenos, “Ever Virgin”, by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and by the Lateran Synod (649). Prior to those concils the early Church Fathers honored Mary as Ever Virgin:

​

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).​

​

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).​

​

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).​

​

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In fact she was given "honorable mention" in scripture, maybe a bit more then a simply 'honorable", a royal mention. An envoy from God, "hailed" Mary like one does did in the courts of kings and queen. Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [Luke 1:28-30]. In Greek Gabriel starts off saying “chaire, kecharitomene”. Chaire means "hail" in English. This is language usually exclusive to addressing royalty. Continuing in Greek Gabriel says kecharitomene, poorly translated as "full of grace". I say poorly translates because it fails to convey the full importance of the greeting. “Kecharitomene” is taken as a noun, vocative case, singular, feminine case. She is being addressed royally which is this thing "kecharitomene" by God's envoy. The angel identifies Mary as “full of grace” actuality obtained in the past and is still full in the present, and continuing in grace in the future. Consiquently, “kecharitomene” is better translated from Greek as the person who is “most favored or highly favored with grace”. “Kecharitomene” means is that the woman being addressed is the state of being “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." [Blass and DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature]. But let’s not forget the words that precede, “Hail”. God's emissary's words are spoken as if addressing a queen, “Hail”.

Scripture is much more friendly than the ink on paper would seem to be able to convey. And there is much more. Stay tuned.

JoeT

You keep trotting out the one non-Catholic source you can find that defines kecharitomene to mean "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." The vast majority of scholars do not interpret it that way. It simply means "highly favored one." One favored by the grace of God. To say it means "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace" goes beyond the text. Clearly, Mary was highly favored to be chosen to be the mother of our Lord but that does not mean she was so full of grace that she could not have sinned or inherited original sin.

None of than Thomas Aquinas opposed the belief that Mary was created without original sin. He believed she was created with it but then cleansed of it prior to her birth. There was a long disagreement between the Dominicans and the Franciscans over this. It was by no means a unanimously agreed-upon doctrine in the early church. The Catholic Church would lead you to believe that the early church fathers all supported this doctrine and yet Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anslem, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan, and popes Gregory the Great and Innocent III, Pope Leo I, Pope Galatius, Clemet of Alexandria, Bernard, Antonitus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Peter Lombard, John of Damascus, all opposed this doctrine for one reason or another. Hardly a settled doctrine.

Aquinas said that "the blessed Virgin did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefore before her birth" (Summa Theol. III, ad 2; Quest. 27, Art 1-5). Saying she was conceived in original sin, but cleansed from it, is different than saying she was not conceived with original sin. Thomas was so opposed to the doctrine that it became almost a point of honor among the Dominican Order. It was the Franciscans who later championed the idea. The dispute between these two orders became so bitter that pope Sixtus IV prohibited further discussion without deciding in favor of either side. The Council of Trent was asked by pope Pius IX to make a pronouncement on it but they ended the council without doing so. It was the Jesuits who finally took up the banner again and in 1870 the Vatican Council finally ratified the doctrine. Thus for over 18 centuries the Catholic Church failed to make it an official doctrine and the history of the dispute between the different monastic orders and the failure of earlier councils to declare it doctrine demonstrates that the Catholic Church was hardly in agreement on this doctrine and that it's official recognition in 1870 was simply making official that which was long held.

 

[Clare73]

In a manner of speaking, the Protestant justification is declarative. One simply says he is justified

Justification is not about what the sinner declares, it's about what God declares as a result of saving faith; i.e., "not guilty."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I've just gone through some Holy Scripture that points to Mary being sinless. There is Scripture too that points to three Persons in the Godhead, although it may not spell it out to one's satisfaction. But let's look at your Biblical passages. Romans 3:10. Romans 3:10 says that "none are righteous." Let me say first that Catholics agree with you and believe the Bible is inerrant. We believe it teaches exactly what God intends it to teach, that doesn't mean that every word is to be taken completely literally, it should be accepted in the context in which God gave it to us. So Romans 3:10 is a lament, first it is not teaching us that Jesus is not righteous. Nor is the meaning to teach us that there are no other righteous people, the Bible speaks of others who are also righteous:

Luke 1:5-6​

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition​

The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold​

5 [a]In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari′ah,[b] of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

"All" is a way of speaking, when "all" of Judea went out to see John the Baptist, is God trying to tell us that every pagan, and every Roman in Judea, even Roman prefects, every invalid and baby and person on their death bed went out to see John the Baptist? When the Bible says none is righteous and in a different place says that there are righteous people, we are not being lied to. It's the same for "all have sinned." God is not telling us there are no exceptions at all, that newborn babies have committed sins or that Jesus has sinned. All either means every individual or it does not.

There is a difference between righteous living and righteous standing. No one, apart from the righteousness of Christ, can stand righteous before God. Romans 3:1-20 describes man (Jew and Gentile) in his natural state. None are righteous (either in living or in standing). Apart from the saving Grace of God, no one can live a good enough life. One sin is all it takes and we are born in sin. Once we put our faith in Christ, and are redeemed, we are now positionally righteous before God. We have right standing. We still sin, though hopefully less and less. God calls us righteous because in Christ we now are but not by our works for we still sin. A "righteous man" is a man who has been saved by faith and whose lifestyle is one of obedience and confession. When he sins, he confesses and repents. Such a person can be called righteous (like Zechariah and Elizabeth}. They are positionally righteous and are living (imperfectly) out that righteousness.

When Romans 3:10 says "none are righteous, no not one" that includes every human save Christ for none of us were righteous from birth nor can we live 100% righteously for life. Those who go on to faith now are righteous before God (positionally) and practice righteous living (which includes some sin but accompanied by confession and repentance as part of the ongoing process of sanctification). King David is a good example. He certainly was a sinner throughout his life. Yet God called him a "man after my own heart." How could one be a man after God's heart and not be righteous? David was positionally righteous by faith, and though he sinned, he always confessed and repented. In that way he lived righteously.

Mary, like all of us, was born in sin and sinned. She was made positionally right by faith and lived a righteous lifestyle. Not free from sin, but not a slave to sin and one who confessed and repented. "None", in Romans 3:10, actually does mean none. No exceptions. I understand your reference to "all" not always meaning "everyone", but Paul makes it clear when he adds "no not one." His "all" meant all as he states there is no exception among men save Jesus. He didn't say "None are righteous, no not one except Mary..."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary was born sinless, remained a virgin, and never sinned. Your teachings are not found in the Bible, indeed are contrary to a true understanding of Holy Scripture and go against the teachings found in the early Church.

In fact it is your (Catholic) teachings that are not found in the Bible and as I pointed out in a recent post, there were many in the early church who disagreed that Mary was born sinless.

 

[JoeT]

Justification is not about what the sinner declares, it's about what God declares as a result of saving faith; i.e., "not guilty."

Well Ok, Justification for the non-Catholic is what the sinner declares God saves, "not guilty". One is not obliged repent and rectify the will.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

There is a difference between righteous living and righteous standing. No one, apart from the righteousness of Christ, can stand righteous before God. Romans 3:1-20 describes man (Jew and Gentile) in his natural state. None are righteous (either in living or in standing). Apart from the saving Grace of God, no one can live a good enough life. One sin is all it takes and we are born in sin. Once we put our faith in Christ, and are redeemed, we are now positionally righteous before God. We have right standing. We still sin, though hopefully less and less. God calls us righteous because in Christ we now are but not by our works for we still sin. A "righteous man" is a man who has been saved by faith and whose lifestyle is one of obedience and confession. When he sins, he confesses and repents. Such a person can be called righteous (like Zechariah and Elizabeth}. They are positionally righteous and are living (imperfectly) out that righteousness.

When Romans 3:10 says "none are righteous, no not one" that includes every human save Christ for none of us were righteous from birth nor can we live 100% righteously for life. Those who go on to faith now are righteous before God (positionally) and practice righteous living (which includes some sin but accompanied by confession and repentance as part of the ongoing process of sanctification). King David is a good example. He certainly was a sinner throughout his life. Yet God called him a "man after my own heart." How could one be a man after God's heart and not be righteous? David was positionally righteous by faith, and though he sinned, he always confessed and repented. In that way he lived righteously.

Mary, like all of us, was born in sin and sinned. She was made positionally right by faith and lived a righteous lifestyle. Not free from sin, but not a slave to sin and one who confessed and repented. "None", in Romans 3:10, actually does mean none. No exceptions. I understand your reference to "all" not always meaning "everyone", but Paul makes it clear when he adds "no not one." His "all" meant all as he states there is no exception among men save Jesus. He didn't say "None are righteous, no not one except Mary..."

If this statement is true, because covering sin does not make it righteous. just saying "Lord, Lord" may not do the trick [Matthew 7:21] except that you do the will of God. .

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If this statement is true, because covering sin does not make it righteous. just saying "Lord, Lord" may not do the trick [Matthew 7:21] except that you do the will of God. .

JoeT

One finds that salvation is by faith alone when one studies the Bible. No, saying "Lord, Lord" will not do the trick because God can see into your heart. He knows if you call upon Him in faith or desperation. Salvation is by faith alone but God does not leave us alone. Salvation begins the God-powered process of sanctification. If we are truly saved, our lives will begin to change and we will bear fruit demonstrating our salvation. That is what the Book of James is about. Anyone can mouth the words and claim to be saved. God is not fooled. No Bible-believing Protestant things you just have to "say the magic words" and you're saved. You have to first recognize you are a sinner and have offended God. You must also recognize that you cannot save yourself or do enough works to merit salvation. You must repent (in your heart) and ask for God's grace to start obeying Him. You then ask Him to forgive your sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. You must be sincere.

If you do those things, you are forgiven. All your sins, past, present, and future are washed in the blood of Christ and His righteousness is imputed to you. James' words are a warning to those who claim saving faith but show no signs of it. As Jesus said, a good tree produces fruit. We give testimony to our saving faith by good works but those works come after we are saved and by the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through us. They are the evidence of our salvation but in no way the basis for it. A person saved on their deathbed have no opportunity to show the fruit of their salvation but are saved nonetheless. Sanctification is a process. We have our ups and downs. Paul makes it clear that works have no part of salvation.

The Catholic fiction is that Protestants believe that someone can just say the right words and they are saved and then can live like the devil and it doesn't matter because they said the magic words. No! That is not what Paul taught nor the Bible in general. Good works follow salvation as surely as day follows night. Until were are saved and given a new nature and the Holy Spirit, we cannot please God and do truly good works. Show me a man who claims salvation but lives like the devil and I will question that man's salvation.

 

[Valletta]

In fact it is your (Catholic) teachings that are not found in the Bible and as I pointed out in a recent post, there were many in the early church who disagreed that Mary was born sinless.

I'm not Bible-only, you claimed:

Mary, like all of us, was born in sin and sinned.

That's simply not in the Bible. What sin do you accuse Mary, Mother of God, of committing?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I'm not Bible-only, you claimed:

That's simply not in the Bible. What sin do you accuse Mary, Mother of God, of committing?

I do not know her specific sins, but "all have sinned" so Mary sinned.

 

[Valletta]

I do not know her specific sins, but "all have sinned" so Mary sinned.

Are you saying Jesus sinned? How about a day old infant? Or a severely retarded individual? Either "all" means every individual or it does not.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Are you saying Jesus sinned? How about a day old infant? Or a severely retarded individual? Either "all" means every individual or it does not.

Yes, all have sinned as even a day-old infant has the guilt of original sin upon them. When Paul wrote, "there is none righteous, no not one", he was quoting from Psalm 14. That Psalm is written from God's perspective looking down upon the fallen state of man." Since Jesus is God, it was from his perspective as well and thus he is obviously excluded. When Paul wrote "all have sinned", he is saying all mankind has sinned but Jesus more than just a man. He is also divine. Since sin is disobedience to God, and God cannot sin, Jesus cannot sin. So "all" would exclude, by definition, Jesus but it would not exclude Mary since she is not divine.

We are all born into sin. We do not have to commit an act of sin to be sinful. We are by nature sinful. God saves the day-old infant and the severely retarded because they are not capable of understanding the Gospel message and realizing their need for salvation. God could righteously judge them unworthy due to the stain of original sin but He graciously saves them or so I believe. No one is worthy of salvation apart from Christ. We are born unworthy and thus Mary was born. She was saved by grace just like the rest of us when she put her faith in God.

The Ark was not holy because of the quality of the materials it was made of. It was holy because God made it holy by His presence just as we are made holy by the presence of the Holy Spirit within us. Nothing made by man is holy unless God makes it so. Mary was still betrothed to Joseph as not yet married and as such did not have intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus. The Bible plainly states that. Did Mary have to be a virgin to give birth to God incarnate? The Bible does not say she had to be but God, speaking through the prophets, said the Messiah would be born of a virgin so to fulfill prophecy she had to be. Had Joseph and Mary already married, and had children, some might assume Jesus was conceived in the normal manner of humans. To be born of a virgin is indeed a miracle and testimony that Jesus was no ordinary child. Indeed, many assumed Jesus was born out of wedlock for they refused to believe the miracle. I would not say Mary had to be a virgin but that was God's plan from the beginning and nothing about his life was completely ordinary. Isaiah would have called Mary "the virgin" because she alone among virgins was chosen to bear the Messiah. Mary never took a virginal vow other than the expected vow of an unmarried woman to remain a virgin. The angel did not command her to refrain from intercourse until after Jesus was born yet Mary and Joseph chose to have her remain a virgin which makes total sense when one considers the miracle happening. We are not told in Scripture at what point they ended their betrothal and got married. She never took a vow to remain a virgin for life. Calling her "the virgin" does not denote her having taken a lifelong vow of virginity. It rather calls attention to the fact that as a virgin, she gave birth to the Messiah. She is the only virgin in human history to bear a child without being with a man. That qualifies as "the virgin."

 

[Clare73]

Well Ok, Justification for the non-Catholic is what the sinner declares God saves, "not guilty".

No, the Greek definition of the word dikaiosis (justification) used in the word of God (e.g., Ro 3:28) is what says God declares, "not guilty."

One is not obliged repent and rectify the will.

Repentance (turning) is a necessary element of faith, for one has to turn to belief from unbelief.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, all have sinned as even a day-old infant has the guilt of original sin upon them.

Having sinned and having the guilt of original sin upon one are not the same thing. The Bible says "sinned," Catholic do not believe anyone should add or subtract from the Bible. Additionally we do not believe that Jesus sinned even though the Bible says "all have sinned." We believe the Bible is inerrant, thus, because of Jesus and infants it is obvious that "all" does not mean every individual but instead is used as it often is as a way of speaking. When the Bible says "all of Judea" went out to see John the Baptist that is not meant to say that every Roman prefect in Judea went to see John the Baptist, nor every woman in the middle of labor. That is not the message we are being told.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Having sinned and having the guilt of original sin upon one are not the same thing. The Bible says "sinned," Catholic do not believe anyone should add or subtract from the Bible. Additionally we do not believe that Jesus sinned even though the Bible says "all have sinned." We believe the Bible is inerrant, thus, because of Jesus and infants it is obvious that "all" does not mean every individual but instead is used as it often is as a way of speaking. When the Bible says "all of Judea" went out to see John the Baptist that is not meant to say that every Roman prefect in Judea went to see John the Baptist, nor every woman in the middle of labor. That is not the message we are being told.

In this case, "all" certainly includes everyone. Sin, by definition, is to disobey God; to "miss the mark." Jesus was fully God and fully man. He could not sin since he is God. Clearly, that verse is talking about mankind sinning against their Creator. That cannot apply to Jesus so we don't need to include him as an exception. Same thing when the Bible says "all have sinned." Can God sin? No! Jesus is God. Could Jesus sin? No! Therefore, "all have sinned" could not, by definition, include Jesus so there is no need to make an exception.

"All" did fall in Adam. We are "all" born with a sin nature. There are no exceptions among humanity save Jesus who was more than a man. He was/is God in human flesh. Fully man and fully God. God cannot sin. Jesus was born without a sin nature. He is the lone exception because he is fully God.

Mary is not God. She was born of two earthly parents (unlike Jesus who had no earthly father). Mary is part of the "all." When Paul uses such terms, he is talking about all mankind before God. He is not using those terms in a loose sense like "all Judea went to see John the Baptist." He is making a precise theological argument that we all have sinned and need a savior. Mary needed a savior too. Scripture never says she was born without original sin nor lived sinlessly. I have been challenged here to list her sins. The Bible does not list the sins of lots of people. What about her husband Joseph? What sins did he commit? I don't recall any being listed in Scripture yet no one has said he was sinless. I don't need to know any specific sins of Mary to call her a sinner. She was born one like the rest of us. It is only Catholic theology that declares her sinless and even that was not universally held in the Catholic church throughout history.

You said that Catholics do not believe anyone should add or subtract from the Bible. If so, then why has the church added her being conceived without original sin? Why has it added her living a sinless life? Why has it added her being assumed bodily into heaven? The truth is, the Catholic church believes it has the authority to add to Scripture.

 

[Valletta]

In this case, "all" certainly includes everyone. Sin, by definition, is to disobey God;

Jesus did not disobey God. Neither did infants disobey God. Obviously "all" does NOT mean every individual, it is not meant to say there are no exceptions. Do you believe that when "all of Judea" went to see John the Baptist that every Roman prefect in Judea and every woman in the middle of labor went to see John the Baptist?

 

[Valletta]

You said that Catholics do not believe anyone should add or subtract from the Bible. If so, then why has the church added her being conceived without original sin? Why has it added her living a sinless life? Why has it added her being assumed bodily into heaven? The truth is, the Catholic church believes it has the authority to add to Scripture.

False. Adding or subtracting from the text of the 73 books--changing the meaning in any way, is not allowed. The Word of God cannot change, we can come to a deeper understanding of the Word of God. God's Word was God's Word before one word of the New Testament was written. Mary was sinless before one word of the New Testament was written. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible never was the Bible intended to include the entire Word of God. The Bible consists of texts that are God-breathed. Those books cannot be added to or subtracted from, nor is one to add in or subtract from or invent a different meaning than the words provide, but it does not follow that the entire Word of God is within those books. God is not confined to a book. The Assumption, like many things Jesus did, are not written of in Holy Scripture. That does not mean they did not happen. The Assumption has been passed down to us much through the liturgy.

 

[Soulx3]

So was Stephen

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

If you believe Mary actively sinned, what are you answers to these questions?

• Why did the prophet, Isaiah, refer to Mary by the title "the virgin" as opposed to "a virgin," if Her virginal vow was to be temporary?
• Why did Mary need to be a virgin in order to conceive, carry and give birth to God Incarnate?
• Why did Mary ask the angel, Gabriel, "How is this possible when I know not man?" when She was already married by that time, and if you believe Her and Joseph were having intercourse?
• Why did God have the Ark of the Covenant be made with the purest materials to carry the written Word, but had an impure ark (Mary) carry the Word made flesh?