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

[RDKirk]

Some of Paul's letters were lost according to the NT - but that does not make those letters "scripture".

yep.

A not-scripture document was out there some place.

There was also a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans that he mentions in the letter to the Colossians. Apparently, the Laodiceans neither heeded it nor retained it.

But I believe that the canon is what the Holy Spirit wants it to be, and any documents that were lost are not meant to be canon.

 

[Jipsah]

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

And also just happened to be the mother of God Incarnate, the God Bearer. Kind of a big deal, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jipsah]

Christ states anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother.

Yeah, being chosen as the God Bearer was No Big Thing. I mena, she just bore the Creator of the Universe in her body for nine months. So what?

We are also not to revere anyone

Websters Dictionary

revere​

verb
revered; revering
transitive verb
: to show devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor
revere the aged
revere tradition

Mary was blessed to have given birth to Christ.

Ya think?

But again anyone that does the will of the Father is the same as his brother, sister or mother. To state otherwise would be to go against Christ's own teaching.

Hmmm... Being the Mother of God Incarnate kind of sets her apart, though, don't you reckon? I can't think of anyone else who could make that claim. And an archangel showing up to give her the news is kinda special too, innit?

 

[Jipsah]

The doctrine of the Trinity is so much more than there being a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. More study is suggested.

That's something that most Protestantsare petty shaky on these day. Nestorianism and Modalism seem to be the order of the day. Just wait for the responses I'm gonna get for referring to the Blessed Virgin as the God Bearer.

Maybe start with the Athanasius Creed.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[Jipsah]

Notice He never once says "Salvation is of Mary".

And neither did anyone else.

 

[JulieB67]

Being the Mother of God Incarnate kind of sets her apart,

Actually it doesn't. That's Christ's point. She was blessed to have been chosen to bear him but he did not set her apart from anyone else that does the will of God. He very specifically made that point more than once.

I believe many cross that line beyond mere honoring into worshipping . We'll see in the end...

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

And also just happened to be the mother of God Incarnate, the God Bearer. Kind of a big deal, wouldn't you say?

Very big deal! However, it doesn't change the fact that she was a sinner like all of us. Scripture does not teach she was sinless nor requires it. That is human supposition.

 

[rturner76]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

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

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human
I would say that Protestants did the right thing in drawing a line between them and the Catholic Church. One must reform traditions that create non-biblical guidelines to living in Faith.

I know this is a very old post but a reply to it was sent to my feed so I must have commented on it at some point. Rather than try to search for it, I thought I would comment again. Likely this time with more diplomacy.

The logic you have put forward is very clear. However, I believe that the difference between St Stephen and the virgin mother is somewhat apparent from my point of view (obviously coming from a slightly different theology).

The Church declares that the Virgin Mother was sinless because an incarnation of the Almighty ruler of the universe could not choose to be brought forth from an unclean vessel. The original Church has made this declaration. It is important to remember that the Holy Greek, Roman, Jerusalem, Hippo, and many other Churches were unified in doctrine. I preface that by saying that our fist Apostolic and Holy Church was founded close to 400 years before the New Testament Cannon was approved. There were many Apostolic writings in circulation and writings from the Magisterium before that was decided.

That obviously means that the Church was teaching it's theology hundreds of years before they decided what books would be included in the New Testament. Also, it might not have even been made manifest without Emperor Constantine's direct order to summarize the Gospel message. I think they did a good job documenting the most popular and well-known teachings of Jesus and his disciples. However, though The Bible has became our most reliable manuscript of faith, it does not document every word that was taught in those first 400 years. It still remains the best summary of faith but The Church existed to create the Bible, The Bible didn't creat the Church.

There are many other historical writings in the vaults of the Vatican that also have teaching within them and much was taught by word of mouth. In fact Jesus never wrote a word of scripture himself. So while the Bible is divinely inspired, it is not literally divinely written. I am sure that sounds blasphemous to a Protestant as the entirety of their religion is contained within the Bible.

I'm not trying to excuse any wrong teaching or trying to convert anyone to Catholic theology. I am merely trying to explain how a teaching like Mary being sinless came to be. Regardless of what is in or not in the Bible, my understanding of the Immaculate Conception is that God would not choose a sinful vessel for his entrance into humanity and I believe that it one reason why Christ was sinless.

I do not disagree that Mary also had a sinful nature, I just don't believe that she acted on that nature. I also believe it is one of the reasons that she was chosen to be the vessel. That and her extraordinary faith. She did her job and funded Christ as a baby, fed and nurtured him in a perfect way so he had the full understanding of who he was and what he was there to do, not to discount Father God, and the Holy Spirit from this task as well.

 

[rturner76]

Very big deal! However, it doesn't change the fact that she was a sinner like all of us. Scripture does not teach she was sinless nor requires it. That is human supposition.

I also want to remind you the The original church existed for nearly 400 years before the New Testament Canon was canonized and it was that same Church that canonized it. I'm sure you wouldn't say that many of the teachings of the Church for the first 400 years were somehow invalid. This is kind of a sticking point for Protestants and I understand the logic but it was not the Bible that created the Church, it is the Church that created the Bible. I'm not saying that the Bible is not the best manual for discipleship there is today but there is no way that every single thing that the Apostles and their followers preached made it to the Bible as we know it.

 

[Clare73]

I know this is a very old post but a reply to it was sent to my feed so I must have commented on it at some point. Rather than try to search for it, I thought I would comment again. Likely this time with more diplomacy.
The logic you have put forward is very clear. However, I believe that the difference between St Stephen and the virgin mother is somewhat apparent from my point of view (obviously coming from a slightly different theology).
The Church declares that the Virgin Mother was sinless because an incarnation of the Almighty ruler of the universe could not choose to be brought forth from an unclean vessel.

But the "clean vessel" of his mother Mary could be brought forth from the "unclean vessel" Anne?
Whatever method would have preserved Mary from defilement by Anne, is the same method by which Jesus would have been preserved from defilement by Mary, making it unnecessary that Mary be a clean vessel.

Not to mention Jesus came that the defilement of the sin would be laid upon him on the cross

 

[Clare73]

I also want to remind you the The original church existed for nearly 400 years before the New Testament Canon was canonized and it was that same Church that canonized it. I'm sure you wouldn't say that many of the teachings of the Church for the first 400 years were somehow invalid.

Depends on what they were. . .

If they did not agree with the writings they recognized as authored by the Holy Spirit (the Canon), then they were invalid.

This is kind of a sticking point for Protestants and I understand the logic but it was not the Bible that created the Church, it is the Church that created the Bible.

You've left the Holy Spirit out of the equation.

Yes, the church is the body of Christ, beginning with Jesus and the apostles.
Yes, the Bible was God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) by the Holy Spirit to the body of Christ, which is the church.
Yes, the church, which is the body of Christ, in whom is the Holy Spirit, recognized the writings that were God-breathed by that same Holy Spirit.

The church, the body of Christ, did not author the writings--the Holy Spirit is the author (2 Tim 3:16),
the body of Christ, the church, in whom is the Holy Spirit, only penned them and recognized those that were penned by the Holy Spirit.

The church, the body of Christ, did not create the Bible, the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit penned the writings, and through the same Holy Spirit, the church, the body of Christ, through its leaders, recognized the Holy Spirit penned writings.

I'm not saying that the Bible is not the best manual for discipleship there is today but there is no way that every single thing that the Apostles and their followers preached made it to the Bible as we know it.

And there is no way that whatever didn't make it to the Bible is in disagreement with what did make it to the Bible, therefore,
the Bible is sufficient for faith and doctrine.

 

[rturner76]

But the "clean vessel" of his mother Mary could be brought forth from the "unclean vessel" Anne?
Whatever method would have preserved Mary from defilement by Anne, is the same method by which Jesus would have been preserved from defilement by Mary, making it unnecessary that Mary be a clean vessel.

Not to mention Jesus came that the defilement of the sin would be laid upon him on the cross

Mother Mary was selected for her piety and faith. We can have the most sinful of parents and still not choose a sinful life. Remember I didn't say that Mary was not born with a sinful nature like everyone since Adam and Eve. This doesn't mean that she acted out her sinful nature and that is part of the reason she was found worthy: that and her steadfast faith.

The defilement of sin was laid upon him because he remained sinless. Are you now saying that Christ also had a sinful nature? Even if that were possible he like Mary did not act upon that sin, nor did they act upon their temptation.

 

[rturner76]

If they did not agree with the writings they recognized as authored by the Holy Spirit (the Canon), then they were invalid.

It's not that they disagreed with the Bible but it is possible that the Bible is the most essential teachings but not ALL of the teaching of God's original Church. The status of Mary's sin is not really relevant to the message of salvation so it is not one of the most essential of teachings. Therefore like I said, not every single solitary teaching is included in the Bible but the most essential teachings are. Whether one belives that Mary was or was not sinful is not essential to the Gospel so there was no need to include it. That doesn't mean that the theology of the original Church is invalid. This is where we get into Bible worship as an Idol.

The church, the body of Christ, did not author the writings--the Holy Spirit is the author (2 Tim 3:16),
the body of Christ, the church, in whom is the Holy Spirit, only penned them and recognized those that were penned by the Holy Spirit.

Well, actually they did. God did not take up a pen a write scripture. He did not pen the Bible he inspired it. The Bible was written by men. Men with a special insight into the gospel but they were in fact men and no book of the Bible was actually written when Jesus walked the Earth. It is inspire by God but not written down by God. It was written down by the Church he founded and like I said, the most essential teachings but not every single solitary teaching ever taught.

The church, the body of Christ, did not create the Bible, the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit penned the writings, and through the same Holy Spirit, the church, the body of Christ, through its leaders, recognized the Holy Spirit penned writings.

Right, and that was the original Church. There were also other teachings passed down but the Bible was approved as the most concise and important teachings. Mary's sin nature is a teaching but it is not essential to the gospel. that doesn't mean it wasn't taught, it's just a detail and not the meat and potatoes of the Gospels

And there is no way that whatever didn't make it to the Bible is in disagreement with what did make it to the Bible, therefore,
the Bible is sufficient for faith and doctrine.

Like I said, it's NOT in disagreement, it just wasn't included in the same books. The Bible is the most important writing of the Church but like I said to another poster, the Church wrote the Bible, the Bible did not create the Church unless you are protestant. Then you are free to interpret it any way you wish and you are free to throw away the original theology of the first universal Church known to man.

 

[Clare73]

Mother Mary was selected for her piety and faith. We can have the most sinful of parents and still not choose a sinful life. Remember I didn't say that Mary was not born with a sinful nature like everyone since Adam and Eve. This doesn't mean that she acted out her sinful nature and that is part of the reason she was found worthy: that and her steadfast faith.

So you weren't talking about her fallen nature as corruption.

Keeping in mind that fallen nature condemns all mankind (Ro 5:18), except those of faith; e.g., Mary.

The defilement of sin was laid upon him because he remained sinless. Are you now saying that Christ also had a sinful nature? Even if that were possible he like Mary did not act upon that sin, nor did they act upon their temptation.

No, Christ did not have a sinful nature.

He came to die for sinful mankind who needed saving by faith, including Mary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

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

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

My wife is a better person than I am, and I don't have a difficult time in surmising that Mary could very well have been the sort of person who, by today's comparative moral standards, was more or less a very virtuous person in a way that many of us can't relate with.

So while I'm not Roman Catholic, and I while I can think that Mary had a sinful nature along with various Protestant Christians, I don't think we can assume that in Mary's full, lived reality she was "simply no better than anyone else." There are a small handful of people who actually do have the moral backbone to live better, much more consistent moral lives before the face of God than the rest of us could only dream of living. And I think Mary was one of them.

Yeah, I think Mary must have been a special person for God to have chosen her as His specific human vessel for our Messiah.

 

[Clare73]

My wife is a better person than I am, and I don't have a difficult time in surmising that Mary could very well have been the sort of person who, by today's comparative moral standards, was more or less a very virtuous person in a way that many of us can't relate with.

So while I'm not Roman Catholic, and I while I can think that Mary had a sinful nature along with various Protestant Christians, I don't think we can assume that in Mary's full, lived reality she was "simply no better than anyone else." There are a small handful of people who actually do have the moral backbone to live better, much more consistent moral lives before the face of God that the rest of us could only dream of living. And I think Mary was one of them.
Yeah, I think Mary must have been a special person for God to have chosen her as His specific human vessel for our Messiah.

A vessel prepared by him to be special, and it didn't require a sinless conception to do so.

Christ died for her just as he did for the rest of us.

 

[rturner76]

So you weren't talking about her fallen nature as corruption.

Keeping in mind that fallen nature condemns all mankind (Ro 5:18), except those of faith; e.g., Mary.

Yes, I do acknowledge original sin. Like you pointed out in your own way, Mary did not succumb to that sin born in us but it was her faith that made her worthy. Just like Joseph's faith made him worthy of being Christ's adopted father. Not saying that Joseph was sinless but his faith made him worthy.

No, Christ did not have a sinful nature.

He came to die for sinful mankind who needed saving by faith, including Mary.

Exactly, and I have a hard time believing it would be possible coming to Earth through a sinful vessel. The main point of the whole conception story was that amongst all women in the world, Mary was found to be the best possible vessel for the incarnation of the almighty. That in itself tells a story about the faith of the Virgin Mother. She was there for his conception and consented to it. She was there when Christ came of age a taught at Temple for days at a time and supported him in it, and she was there for his death and resurection. She knew her mission, and Christ's mission and did everything in her power to support his minestey. She was a special lady.

All of that "queen of heaven" stuff in my view is Christian poetry. The ancients looked to Mary as Jesus guide on Earth in his childhood. By that, the Church Canonized her into Sainthood. The Saints are especially favored in heaven.

 

[Jipsah]

Actually it doesn't.

Yeah, there was a lot of that going around, wasn't there?

That's Christ's point. She was blessed to have been chosen to bear him

Are you sure? I mean, we wouldn't want her to get a big head about it or anything, like she was some kind of a celebrity.

but he did not set her apart from anyone else

You reckon He called her mom, or just "Hey, you..."?

that does the will of God. He very specifically made that point more than once.

You think maybe there was more to what He was saying there than simply slagging off His mom?

I believe many cross that line beyond mere honoring into worshipping . We'll see in the end...

I'spect it doesn't take much respect shown for the Blessed Virgin for y'all to declare it "worship". Gotta make sure you're not mistaken for - shudder!- Catholics. Yes, we'll see.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I do acknowledge original sin. Like you pointed out in your own way, Mary did not succumb to that sin born in us but it was her faith that made her worthy. Just like Joseph's faith made him worthy of being Christ's adopted father. Not saying that Joseph was sinless but his faith made him worthy.

Exactly, and I have a hard time believing it would be possible coming to Earth through a sinful vessel.

He came to earth for the sake of sinful vessels.
He mixed it up with sinful vessels, to the Pharisees' dislike.
He died for the redemption of sinful vessels.

Christ's whole life was about sinful vessels.

The main point of the whole conception story was that amongst all women in the world, Mary was found to be the best possible vessel for the incarnation of the almighty. That in itself tells a story about the faith of the Virgin Mother. She was there for his conception and consented to it. She was there when Christ came of age a taught at Temple for days at a time and supported him in it, and she was there for his death and resurection. She knew her mission, and Christ's mission and did everything in her power to support his minestey. She was a special lady.

All of that "queen of heaven" stuff in my view is Christian poetry. The ancients looked to Mary as Jesus guide on Earth in his childhood. By that, the Church Canonized her into Sainthood. The Saints are especially favored in heaven.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I also want to remind you the The original church existed for nearly 400 years before the New Testament Canon was canonized and it was that same Church that canonized it. I'm sure you wouldn't say that many of the teachings of the Church for the first 400 years were somehow invalid. This is kind of a sticking point for Protestants and I understand the logic but it was not the Bible that created the Church, it is the Church that created the Bible. I'm not saying that the Bible is not the best manual for discipleship there is today but there is no way that every single thing that the Apostles and their followers preached made it to the Bible as we know it.

What we call the Roman Catholic Church today, is a creation after the first 4 centuries. Most of the unique doctrines that define Catholicism came later. I would characterize the men who met and decided on the canon of Scripture as Christians, not Catholics. It was the church universal that decided on the canon of Scripture (recognized it really) and not the Catholic church.

While we know not every word Jesus spoke is recorded for us in Scripture, we believe Scripture alone is divinely inspired and the only authoritative record of his and the Apostle's teachings. If God had wanted other teachings of Jesus to be in the Scriptures, they would have been. The Scriptures contain all we need and anything beyond them is human reasoning, tradition, or conjecture.

Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be so. If Mary was sinless, how is it her mother wasn't? If God preserved Mary from sin, being born of a sinful mother, why couldn't He do the same for Jesus? While I am not dogmatic on the point, there is the belief that our sin nature is passed on through our fathers and Jesus had no earthly father but rather the Holy Spirit caused Mary to be pregnant and supplied the male chromosomes. Besides, a sin nature is a spiritual state and not something passed to us by our mother or father's DNA. It is not genetic in origin. While Jesus was fully human, he was also fully divine. As divine, he would not have had a sinful nature as such a nature is inconsistent with being fully divine. He simply did not have a sinful nature like the rest of humanity since he was divine. We sometimes act as though our sin nature is passed to us genetically. It's not. Mary had a sin nature as she was fully human but not divine. Jesus is an exception because he was fully divine in addition to being fully human. His divine nature precluded him from having a sin nature like the rest of humanity. That has nothing to do with Mary. I believe it is a failure to grasp the origin of our sin nature and treated it like it is something genetic that has led the Catholic Church to conclude Mary must not have had a sin nature or at least not acted upon it (if you have a sin nature, you WILL act upon it, "fall all have sinned..."). Jesus was tempted but he lacked a sin nature that could give into temptation. That doesn't mean he didn't feel tempted but it was not within his nature to sin. There was no chance that Jesus could have sinned.

So there is no requirement for Mary to have been sinless and Scripture does not teach that she was. While many in the early church may have believed this, that doesn't make them right nor can we argue from silence by saying not everything Jesus said was written down. What may or may not exist in the Vatican archives is of no bearing. Those writings are not Scripture.