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

[JulieB67]

Scripture also teaches that Mary was blessed among all women.

Many people are blessed but that doesn't make them sinless.

they didn't like they tossed out (kind of like the Apocrafal books of the Bible)

It's kind of like one believes the church made the Bible

I think God will choose whomever he will to get certain things done and the truth will always find away but some of those books have blatant contradictions to the other chosen ones (people, dates, etc) So that's why I never bought into the" CC choosing the books" so that's makes them the "one true church". I feel like they missed on some of those.

but a combination of the two, each one testing the other.

But that's just it. Many traditions (and I'm not just talking about CC/RCC, I'm talking different dominations) of men don't pass the test when compared to scripture. As I've stated Christ didn't raise up Mary over anyone else that does the will of God. We shouldn't put "traditions of men" over Christ. Christ trumps everything. We should always follow his lead. The CC as everyone loves to point out, choose the very books that they consider canon but then choose imo to overide Christ in raising her up while he didn't. She desired to speak to him and he did not jump up, etc. He chose that moment as a teachable one in that anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother. She was blessed to have had him but to raise her up beyond that goes against Christ's very own teaching.

And the foundation of any church should be the ones brought forth by the prophets, disciples/apostles with of course Christ being that cornerstone. That's the traditions we should follow and uphold -what they brought forth.

II Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Of course we aren't privy to every teaching of Christ's and the apostles ministry but we do have the OT and the gospels brought forth as well as other letters and again, some traditions do not past the test at all when compared to those.

 

[rturner76]

Many people are blessed but that doesn't make them sinless.

Mary wasn't just "many people though." She held God incarnate in her womb and she was chosen above all women past, present, and future. I think that makes her special.

I think God will choose whomever he will to get certain things done and the truth will always find away but some of those books have blatant contradictions to the other chosen ones (people, dates, etc) So that's why I never bought into the" CC choosing the books" so that's makes them the "one true church". I feel like they missed on some of those.

I wonder why Protestants DO trust the Bible that The Church cannonized but just not all of it. Well, if the Church has been to know what books should be made holy Scripture, who are we to trust that certain books can be thrown out. We speak of the traditions of men, well eliminating the scripture we don't like seems to be following the traditions of men IMO.

But that's just it. Many traditions (and I'm not just talking about CC/RCC, I'm talking different dominations) of men don't pass the test when compared to scripture. As I've stated Christ didn't raise up Mary over anyone else that does the will of God. We shouldn't put "traditions of men" over Christ.

It's kind of a conundrum because it is the traditions of the Church that made it clear what books should be made Holy. Why do we trust their written work and not trust their spoken word? Like I said to someone else, The Church made the Bible, the Bible didn't make The Chrch. The Church was up and running for 400 years before the Bible was Canonized. What were they teaching then? Anything relevant do you think? They taught from many books and letters that were considered truth. They whittled it down to the most important writings for the Biblican Cannon. That doesn't mean there is no truth to be taught unless it's in the Bible. As I said, Mass was going on for 400 years before we had a New Testament.

And the foundation of any church should be the ones brought forth by the prophets, disciples/apostles with of course Christ being that cornerstone. That's the traditions we should follow and uphold -what they brought forth.

Agreed.

II Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Exactly! Here, it says specifically that truth can be taught by word or letter. I trust the Church that Christ founded. I'll let other people trust the Church founded by some guy who thought they knew better than the original Church. If the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit was the only way to reach the truth, why would there be literally be 1,000+ different denomination who all have their own interpretations of the truth?

 

[Valletta]

Many people are blessed but that doesn't make them sinless.




I think God will choose whomever he will to get certain things done and the truth will always find away but some of those books have blatant contradictions to the other chosen ones (people, dates, etc) So that's why I never bought into the" CC choosing the books" so that's makes them the "one true church". I feel like they missed on some of those.


But that's just it. Many traditions (and I'm not just talking about CC/RCC, I'm talking different dominations) of men don't pass the test when compared to scripture.

The Word of God is comprised of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. A tradition such as the tradition of the list of 66 books in the Bible is manmade and is not found in the Bible. That is a manmade tradition and NOT Sacred Tradition.

 

[JulieB67]

They whittled it down to the most important writings for the Biblican Cannon.

And yet they still put the traditions of men over Christ's teachings in the gospels. Again, I will repeat, if he didn't raise Mary up over anyone else that does the will of God, we shouldn't either. Was she blessed, yes. Is she to be raised to an above stature over anyone else that does the will of God? No. That's Christ's own teaching.

As I said, Mass was going on for 400 years before we had a New Testament.

I trust the Church that Christ founded.

I do as well but if any part of that church Christ founded veers off so much even to go against his very own teachings should they still be considered part of that true church he founded? A church that started off as the "body" that met in different places, etc with God adding that to that church daily, not man. Which is something else the CC and other churches. do. There's a period of time before someone can even become a member. And again, that's up to God, not man.

Again, God will choose whomever he does to get the truth out. But we cannot veer off of that truth and start our own traditions afterwards. That goes for any denomination. As I've stated before, I left a church when they taught false doctrines that were not biblical.

I'll let other people trust the Church founded by some guy who thought they knew better than the original Church.

Again, the original church did not raise Mary up. The original church upheld Christ's teachings on the subject. That's why you don't see the disciples and apostles mentioning her in the letters/epistles we have besides Acts. They knew she was a fellow servant in the body of Christ.
And Paul we know would set up many churches and he only mentioned Mary one time, calling her "a woman" and that was in reference to Christ being born of her. If we do the same today, calling her just "a woman" , we are insulting her according to some. He certainly didn't raise her up to be revered. And he stated we have one mediator -Christ. He and the others didn't state if she were to pass, she would become a mediator/intercessor. He stated the very opposite. One can boldly go the the throne. As one should.

And raising Mary up to what she is today is definitely veering off on another course. Point being again, she wanted to speak to Christ. He did not jump up to go to her, Instead he took that moment to teach us that anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother.

This should tell us all we need to know

Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto Him, Behold, "Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Thee."

Matthew 12:48 "But He answered and said unto him that told Him, "Who is My mother? and who are My brethren?"

Matthew 12:49 "And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, "Behold My mother and My brethren!

He even lists mother last in this next verse-

Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.


His teaching cannot being any clearer. Yes, she was blessed to have given birth to him. She was a righteous women but she is not a mediator to Christ, never was. That's just not biblical and his teachings here prove it. She had no more pull over him than anyone else that does the will of God. She was a fellow servant in the body of Christ and in his ministry. Anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother. That's it.

We cannot let the traditions of men, no matter how sacred you call it make void Christ's own teaching.

 

[JulieB67]

The Word of God is comprised of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

But if one does not agree with one another, obviously you will accept "Sacred Tradition" That's apparent. Even over Christ's own teaching as I've stated in my post above. It was the tradition (taught by Christ) that we should not raise up Mary over anyone else that does the will of God. Everyone is the same in his eyes in that aspect. And we saw that tradition being held and brought forth by the disciples/apostles.

As soon as I knew my church taught something that was in blatant contradiction to Christ's teachings, I left. But that's me.

 

[LoveofTruth]

"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.

It was said in scripture

Luke 1: 47. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

Sinners need a saviour.

Luke 2: 24. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Sacrifices were for sin.

 

[Valletta]

But if one does not agree with one another, obviously you will accept "Sacred Tradition" That's apparent. Even over Christ's own teaching as I've stated in my post above. It was the tradition (taught by Christ) that we should not raise up Mary over anyone else that does the will of God. Everyone is the same in his eyes in that aspect. And we saw that tradition being held and brought forth by the disciples/apostles.

As soon as I knew my church taught something that was in blatant contradiction to Christ's teachings, I left. But that's me.

Christ's own teaching is Sacred Tradition. It existed before one word of the NT was written. The Word of God tells us to stand fast by that. By all means if someone teaches otherwise then leave. Actually we are all different, all unique.

 

[Valletta]

It was days in scripture

Luke 1: 47. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

Sinners need a saviour.

Luke 2: 24. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Sacrifices were for sin.

Sinners do need a savior. Mary did too. God saved her from sin.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Also, we don't see Mary's sin in scripture so I guess we are at a stalemate there.

When Constantine legalized the Catholic Church in Rome and the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek and Hebrew scriptures into Latin, Church doctrine became more standardized with the Bishop of Rome being counted as first among equals. There was a Roman Church since Peter went there and established it but it was an underground illegal church. There were other Churches and at first, the Church of Jerusalem was considered the largest and most influential. Still, there was a basic understanding of doctrine that was agreed upon during the many ecumenical counsels. Once the Church in Rome was legalized, it became the most influential as Latin was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. Even at that point in time doctrine was voted upon in councils where a Bishop from every diocese was represented. So it wasn't Rome who dictated doctrine but with the enormity of Roman and the Latin speaking empire, it became the most influential. The Roman Church had influence since the beginning through the rock St Peter ut the Roman Church didn't dictate doctrine to the other churches but like I said, the council of bishops was united.

I believe two things about that....One is that it was a political move as the Church in the West used Latin and the Church in the East used Greek. The west was united by Rome but the second thing is there was a fundamental difference between the two. The Eastern Church believed that the revelation was already made and there would never be a change to it and the Western Church believed that God would continue to make revelations known to the ChurchBoth groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

The Catholic Church did and still exists. Now since the East-West Schism, we have the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Both Churches were and remain Cathilic as they accept people of all ethnicities making it the first Catholic or "universal" Church. Before the Universal Church, people's religion was based on their ethnicity. Israelites worshipped one God one way. Then there were the Greek Gods, and the Roman gods, and the Middle Eastern Zoroastrians, the Sumerans had their own Gods, Egypt and China had their own Gods/ The Universal Church accepted people who started off in all of these traditions and was truly a free international Church.

I want to acknowledge your logic but I had the opposite experience that you had. I was raised Protestant and moved into the Catholic fold later in life because I studied theology, and had discussions with my brother who has a degree in theology and a Master of Divinity. The Catholics and theology and theologians seemed to ring more true than the reformers. To me it seemed like the Reformers followed 90% Catholic doctrine but changed what they didn't like and added things they did like which veried between each Reformer

Thank you for putting together a well thought out argument but I still disagree on the Mary issue.....God Bless

As I read church history, the office of the pope evolved over centuries. Peter may have been the first bishop of Rome and as such he naturally would have had successors just like every church has a succession of pastors. One retires or dies and another takes over. The fact that Peter had successors does not establish the office of the pope. Papal powers evolved over time and different councils and decrees expanded them and different popes claimed them. It was many centuries before the office of pope, as we know it today, came to be.

If Peter was installed, as Catholics believe, as the indisputable head of Christ's church on earth, his powers would have been established from day 1 and any successor would naturally assume all those powers. There would have been no need for centuries of evolution of such powers. I believe Peter was the leader of the Apostles but not in an ecclesiastical sense. Paul was an equal pillar in the early church and had much to do with the start of the church in Rome and James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. Had Paul not be imprisoned, he might well have been the first bishop of Rome. The Apostles, and Peter among them, were unique. They were never meant to have successors. The sign gifts died with them and there are twelve thrones in heaven for the Apostles but none for their successors. Never once in all his writings did Paul refer to Peter as the head of the church nor did any other NT writer beyond the disputed text in Matthew. If he had such authority, why was no mention made of it? Even if Peter had such broad authority, where is it written he would have a successor or that such a successor would inherit those powers? There were many unique things about the Apostles. Gifts they were given to help birth the church that ceased when they died. By the time Peter died, much of the NT had been written and was being circulated. Future generations would have Scripture as their guide and that is how the Apostles passed on their teaching. The traditions of men change and words get lost. That is why our faith is based on the written word.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Sinners do need a savior. Mary did too. God saved her from sin.

A curious answer, are you trying to say that Mary was saved from the original stain of sin or a sin nature? If so that would not be correct. She had a sin nature and all have sinned (except Jesus)

 

[JulieB67]

Christ's own teaching is Sacred Tradition.

If that is indeed the case, why not uphold the tradition/teaching that he brought forth in that anyone that does the will of God is the same as his brother, sister and mother? Why not follow his lead in teaching us he is no respecter of persons (even his own family) when it come to who does the will of God? Why raise her up when he didn't?

 

[rturner76]

Papal powers evolved over time and different councils and decrees expanded them and different popes claimed them. It was many centuries before the office of pope, as we know it today, came to be.

if Peter had such broad authority, where is it written he would have a successor or that such a successor would inherit those powers? There were many unique things about the Apostles. Gifts they were given to help birth the church that ceased when they died. By the time Peter died, much of the NT had been written and was being circulated. Future generations would have Scripture as their guide and that is how the Apostles passed on their teaching. The traditions of men change and words get lost. That is why our faith is based on the written word.

One complication was that when Peter was Bishop of Rome, Catholicism was being persecuted there being fed to lions and so forth. According to Jesus, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. This didn't make him the sole leader of The Church. As you said, James in Jerusalem and Paul in Greece who was sent to the Pagans made huge contributions and it was all of the Apostles who built the early Church, Not just Peter. Peter even differed to Paul at one point when he refused to eat with the Gentiles and only ate with the Jews. He was corrected but as St Peter was the messenger to the Jews, he didn't want to eat with Gentiles and not be able to go back and eat with the Jews as he would have defiled himself by not keeping Jewish dietary laws. So Paul had a great influence as I said. I have even seen Christians who I would call "Paulians" because they disregard other scripture in favor of their personal interpretation of Paul's writings.

While during the persecution Jerusalem had the largest Church and The Greek Church. Rome was an underground Church but Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom also had his successors. When Christianity became legal and even made the official religion of Rome. The Bishop if Rome who like Peter, wasn't the sole leader of all Churches, also like Peter, he was the first among equals. As the Roman Empire was so large, after the Latin Vulgate was distributed, Rome became the most influential of all Churches. Even being first among equals, ecumenical counsels were still convened to vote on doctrine so the Pope wan't a dictator, he just had (and has) the loudest voice, being the bishop of what was then a global empire.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

A curious answer, are you trying to say that Mary was saved from the original stain of sin or a sin nature? If so that would not be correct. She had agsin mature and all have sinned (except Jesus)

Agreed but Jesus is in a class of his own. He was fully human and thus qualified to be the "second Adam." He was, however, not part of the "all" who sinned. Jesus's spiritual nature is divine unlike the rest of us. He could not sin. "All" refers to all born of an earthly father and mother. Everyone in that group inherits original sin, or a sin nature, from Adam. We are all sinners from birth whether we have committed actual sin or not. Jesus is not an exception as he was never a part of that group. In context it is clear that "all" does not mean every human being that ever lived but rather the "sons of Adam" (i.e. fallen humanity). Jesus was never a part of that group. Therefore, Romans 3:23 allows for no exceptions.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Agreed but Jesus is in a class of his own. He was fully human and thus qualified to be the "second Adam." He was, however, not part of the "all" who sinned. Jesus's spiritual nature is divine unlike the rest of us. He could not sin. "All" refers to all born of an earthly father and mother. Everyone in that group inherits original sin, or a sin nature, from Adam. We are all sinners from birth whether we have committed actual sin or not. Jesus is not an exception as he was never a part of that group. In context it is clear that "all" does not mean every human being that ever lived but rather the "sons of Adam" (i.e. fallen humanity). Jesus was never a part of that group. Therefore, Romans 3:23 allows for no exceptions.

Yes, we agree Jesus did not have a human father and was without sin. The second Adam is a good verse to use here.

I am also speaking if Mary, who had a sun nature abdf had sinned as all do (except Jesus). Sone may try and say Gid saved her from having a sin nature which is not a biblical teaching. Mary called God her saviour. So she , like all (except Jesus) had sinned and needed a saviour. Only sinners need a saviour and she called God her saviour.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, we agree Jesus did not have a human father and was without sin. The second Adam is a good verse to use here.

I am also speaking if Mary, who had a sun nature abdf had sinned as all do (except Jesus). Sone may try and say Gid saved her from having a sun nature which is not a biblical teaching. Mary called God her saviour. So she , like all (except Jesus) had sinned and needed a saviour. Only sinners need a saviour and she called God her saviour.

What do you mean by a "sun nature," and what does "abdf" stand for? Thanks!

 

[JoeT]

Yes, we agree Jesus did not have a human father and was without sin. The second Adam is a good verse to use here.

I am also speaking if Mary, who had a sun nature abdf had sinned as all do (except Jesus). Sone may try and say Gid saved her from having a sun nature which is not a biblical teaching. Mary called God her saviour. So she , like all (except Jesus) had sinned and needed a saviour. Only sinners need a saviour and she called God her saviour.

Sin nature doesn't exist, it is an invention. We are made in the image of God. If 'sin nature' did exist we could never be held culpable for our sins. Our nature can not be resisted, thus being made by God with a nature of sin, then God should be held responsible for our sinning.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

What do you mean by a "sun nature," and what does "abdf" stand for? Thanks!

I think it's obvious he meant "sin nature" and "abdf" was meant to be "and."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Sin nature doesn't exist, it is an invention. We are made in the image of God. If 'sin nature' did exist we could never be held culpable for our sins. Our nature can not be resisted, thus being made by God with a nature of sin, then God should be held responsible for our sinning.

JoeT

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:13-19) (emphasis added)

Yes, we do act in accordance with our nature and these verses make clear that we are all condemned by Adam's sin. We all fell when Adam fell. The entire human race. We all became equally guilty before God. We all inherit a sinful nature. Read on in Romans where Paul writes about this battle between the "old man" and the "new man" and the bondage of the flesh to sin. You say this makes God responsible for our sin?

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:10-24) (emphasis added)

Romans 9:19-20 responds to your accusation. We, as a race, chose to sin. Do you think any of us would have succeeded where Adam failed? Adam had the ideal situation (and Eve). They were surrounded by nothing but goodness and there was no sin but when they encountered sin (through Satan) they wanted sin more than obedience. The very first time they were tempted they sinned. Do you want to blame God for that too? Why did God create them with a nature that could choose to sin? Why did God allow Satan to come and tempt them? If God had just created all of us with a perfect nature incapable of sin then there would be no need for hell for anyone. Same with the angels. There would be no demons or hell if God had not created the angels with the ability to sin. God took the sin nature out of the angels who remained faithful just as in heaven we will no longer be capable of sin.

Is God unjust in allowing us to sin and then judging us for it? The answer is Romans 9:23. You say we do not have a sin nature so why do we sin? Yes, we are made in the image of God but not in His precise image as God cannot sin. Only Jesus was made in the precise spiritual nature of God as He is God. We sin because it is our nature to sin. Only through faith in Christ can we receive a new nature that has the ability to resist sin. This is the "new man" Paul writes about.

I bow to the sovereignty of God. I do not think God unjust. He has every right to do with his "clay" what He wishes. God is pure holiness. We might not always understand His ways but it is clear from Scripture that all men born of a mother and a father receive a sin nature due to the disobedience of Adam. God in His mercy provided a "second Adam" to save us - Jesus Christ. God did not have to provide a "second Adam." He could have justly left us in our sins and punished us. A sin nature is not a human invention.

 

[JoeT]

Yes, we agree Jesus did not have a human father and was without sin. The second Adam is a good verse to use here.

I am also speaking if Mary, who had a sun nature abdf had sinned as all do (except Jesus). Sone may try and say Gid saved her from having a sin nature which is not a biblical teaching. Mary called God her saviour. So she , like all (except Jesus) had sinned and needed a saviour. Only sinners need a saviour and she called God her saviour.

If you accept that Mary is intrinsically a sinner, then wouldn't her Son inhere the same "sin nature"? If Mary is born with original sin, not justified, then wouldn't Christ have original sin? If not, Jesus Christ wasn't human.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

JoeT

For if the many many died by the trespass of the one man how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:13-19) (emphasis added)

Yes, we do act in accordance with our nature and these verses make clear that we are all condemned by Adam's sin. We all fell when Adam fell. The entire human race. We all became equally guilty before God. We all inherit a sinful nature. Read on in Romans where Paul writes about this battle between the "old man" and the "new man" and the bondage of the flesh to sin. You say this makes God responsible for our sin?

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:10-24) (emphasis added)

Romans 9:19-20 responds to your accusation. We, as a race, chose to sin. Do you think any of us would have succeeded where Adam failed? Adam had the ideal situation (and Eve). They were surrounded by nothing but goodness and there was no sin but when they encountered sin (through Satan) they wanted sin more than obedience. The very first time they were tempted they sinned. Do you want to blame God for that too? Why did God create them with a nature that could choose to sin? Why did God allow Satan to come and tempt them? If God had just created all of us with a perfect nature incapable of sin then there would be no need for hell for anyone. Same with the angels. There would be no demons or hell if God had not created the angels with the ability to sin. God took the sin nature out of the angels who remained faithful just as in heaven we will no longer be capable of sin.

Is God unjust in allowing us to sin and then judging us for it? The answer is Romans 9:23. You say we do not have a sin nature so why do we sin? Yes, we are made in the image of God but not in His precise image as God cannot sin. Only Jesus was made in the precise spiritual nature of God as He is God. We sin because it is our nature to sin. Only through faith in Christ can we receive a new nature that has the ability to resist sin. This is the "new man" Paul writes about.

I bow to the sovereignty of God. I do not think God unjust. He has every right to do with his "clay" what He wishes. God is pure holiness. We might not always understand His ways but it is clear from Scripture that all men born of a mother and a father receive a sin nature due to the disobedience of Adam. God in His mercy provided a "second Adam" to save us - Jesus Christ. God did not have to provide a "second Adam." He could have justly left us in our sins and punished us. A sin nature is not a human invention.

Do you think Christ was ignorant of His own nature and as well as the nature of those around Him? He said "be perfect as the Father is perfect [Matthew 5:48]. Being inherently evil this wouldn't be achievable. Maybe He really didn't mean it, you think?

JoeT