Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[Frogster]

Um, Jesus was also man, a descendant of Adam, just as Mary was (Luke Chapter 3).

I think most Christians know, it is ok to exempt Jesus from sin.

 

[narnia59]

Why is she concieved then immaculately? What difference it really does if she was not?

Just because something doesn't have to be a certain way (as in God can't fulfill his plan without this) doesn't mean God's choice is immaterial or indifferent.

So why it is of ardent importance that she is concieved immaculately if it does not matter? Why would God want to intervene and save Mary apriori ? How is Mary NOT enabled to sin? I see the difference between : you can sin but you are not enable to sin...To me it means she was NOT able to sin...and that is contrary to her b eing created human and of course with free will to sin.

Because with fallen human nature, even after incorporation into Christ, we still have the tendency or leaning towards sin. It still appeals to our nature, and it is a gradual transformation into becoming more and more Christ like that turns us away from sin.

I fail to see how being created in the same state as Adam and Eve can ever be construed to mean being not able to sin. Does history not speak for itself?

Being conceived without original sin for Mary would mean that the natural tendency to sin would not be there. That does not mean that she could not be led into sin, as Eve was, which is why her free will choice to do the will of God is still intact.

I never said it did not matter if she was conceived with original sin or not. I said it wasn't necessary -- there is a difference.

The adulteress was told to remain sinless was she under Christ's grace? In my estimation sure she was blessed by Him to be "able" to do so. The same would apply to Mary she was "blessed" to do so. The reason she is called "blessed among women" is that she is truly "special" for the "mission" she accomplished into God's plan and thus is held in high honor and esteem. She is the Theotokos the one who chose to remain pure and blessed to the end of her life. I see no "special grace" given to Her for although she is called "the all graced one" that is because she is especiallly honored and "seperated" as a shiny example for us to follow. She truly remained holy and pure and that is great credit to her and that would mean that to attain theosis is attenable for we are all given this grace of God as baptized Christians. The difference is that we have to "seek" that "unity" with God to be able to succeed there is a synergy that is taking place between us and God through His grace and mercy.

The adulteress may have received sufficient grace from Christ at their meeting, and may have chosen to cooperate with it sufficiently to indeed go and sin no more. Scritpure doesn't tell us -- it is certainly possible. But she was not sinless her entire life. She experienced the tendency to sin that in inherent in a fallen human nature and evidently yielded to it.

Do you think people all receive the same amount of grace? It seems as though you are saying that, but want to make sure.

God intervenes in our lives 24/7 to save us His salvific grace is dispensed to us through our Baptism (Protestants would say that is the regenaaration) then we do havet to work with God to allow that Grace and mercy to be active in our lives. Most times we fall off the wagon and we do come back to Him through reconciliation of the sacraments of confession and of course sealed by the Eucharist. We need God's grace to be saved no question about it. Without it there cannot be salvation but faith without praxis of the faith is dead as much as works without faith are empty and in vain as we should aquire the grace of God and ackowledge it for all good things are from above NOT man. The stenghth we find is from God to continue the race (St. Paul) but we have to stay in the race and to want to do the race... Ultimately it is our free will to want to live under God's Grace since God dispenses it at the time of our baptism.

I don't think I disagree with any of that.

[
Why would Christ want to have one of His creatures to be concieved immaculate if it just did not matter anyways....

I never said it didn't matter....

How many of his creatues did he have the command to 'honor'? Not you or I. How does he honor her? Is he capable of giving her this gift? The gift of seeing God more clearly, of having a nature that doesn't pull her towards sin, of truly sharing "enmity" against Satan with him?

The RC immaculata usually means that Christ needed a "sinless" womb to be born from for he was sinless. That necessiates the event of the incarnation; for the need is that Christ was born into a condition prior to the fall. For Mary had to be born in an non-fall state. That is hardly what we as EO believe about the incarnation. I will leave it at that as I do not want to get into it any deeper.

While some Catholics may try to explain it that way, a good apologist will not. The church does not teach that Christ "needed" to be incarnated in a sinless womb in order to be born sinless. So I would question your "usually". In fact, you will not find one statement in the Catholic catechism that God "needs" anything....

 

[narnia59]

they were still in adam, Elijah said he was a man of unclean lips too, part of a wicked and perverse generation. No?

Enoch never sinned? Please....

So how was Mary exempt? You're acting like she was not born in Adam.

I never said Enoch or Elijah never sinned, or that they were not born in Adam. They simply didn't die.

You've given two verses from Romans, and here's how you expect it to play out:

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (which even though Paul says 'all' he doesn't really mean every individual) because all men (but when St. Paul says 'all' here he absolutely has to be referring to every single individual) sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men (but when St. Paul says 'all' here he absolutely has to be referring to every single individual) , so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men (which even though Paul says 'all' he isn't really referring to every individual).

You want "all" to mean every individual when it suits you, and to not mean that when it doesn't suit you -- even when using the same word in the same sentence. And you expect me to think that isn't problematic?

Has it occurred to you that when Scripture uses the term 'all' that it is making a generic statement about mankind, not individuals? Try it. It's a standard you can consistently apply throughout Scripture. Like when Scripture says that all the people of Jerusalem came out to be baptized by John the Baptist, you don't have to understand that to mean that all the Pharisees, and Herod, and every individual in Jerusalem went out to be baptized.

Aside from that, you have another problem in Romans chapter 5. In verses 15 and 19, Paul basically repeats himself but switches from 'all' to 'many'. Check it out:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. ...19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

So which is it Frogster? Were "all" made sinners, or "many"?

 

[narnia59]

I think most Christians know, it is ok to exempt Jesus from sin.

I would hope so.

 

[narnia59]

Human nature is one divine nature is another. Humans cannot overcome their nature but through God's grace and that would be trhough the incarnation / resurrection of Christ. His incarnation, sacrifice, resurrection and ascension is the soteriological plan of God to save humanity from its fallen condition.
"what cannot be assumed cannot be saved" according to St. John of Damascus and also Stl Athanasius. So in order for Christ to save us he had to enter into our "condition" otherwise it would have been null.
If Christ was born into a prefall condition then he might not have been able to go through what he went. Maybe he would not have been able to feel pain for example or sweat for it says that (after the fall) God said to Adam that he would have to "labour" and "sweat" to eat.. and feed his family. We know that Christ though lived as a man and that he did show signs of "after the fall" existence.

I am only speaking of human nature, not divine.

It would seem to me that what you are saying is contradictory to the quote Dorothea posted earlier:

It must be stressed that in the Incarnation the Word assumes the original human nature, innocent and free from original sin, without any stain. This does not violate the fullness of nature, nor does this affect the Savior’s likeness to us sinful people. For sin does not belong to human nature, but is a parasitic and abnormal growth. This point was vigorously stressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and particularly by St. Maximus the Confessor in connection with their teaching of the will as the seat of sin.7 In the Incarnation the Word assumes the first-formed human nature, created "in the image of God," and thereby the image of God is again re-established in man.8

If I'm wrong about that (has happened once or twice), perhaps you could explain to me how the two reconcile.

It also seems to me that based upon when you said this:

It is an apriori theologoumenon(theological speculation) that one could or could not accept

that perhaps both views are theological speculation?

 

[Frogster]

I never said Enoch or Elijah never sinned, or that they were not born in Adam. They simply didn't die.

You've given two verses from Romans, and here's how you expect it to play out:

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (which even though Paul says 'all' he doesn't really mean every individual) because all men (but when St. Paul says 'all' here he absolutely has to be referring to every single individual) sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men (but when St. Paul says 'all' here he absolutely has to be referring to every single individual) , so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men (which even though Paul says 'all' he isn't really referring to every individual).

You want "all" to mean every individual when it suits you, and to not mean that when it doesn't suit you -- even when using the same word in the same sentence. And you expect me to think that isn't problematic?

Has it occurred to you that when Scripture uses the term 'all' that it is making a generic statement about mankind, not individuals? Try it. It's a standard you can consistently apply throughout Scripture. Like when Scripture says that all the people of Jerusalem came out to be baptized by John the Baptist, you don't have to understand that to mean that all the Pharisees, and Herod, and every individual in Jerusalem went out to be baptized.

Aside from that, you have another problem in Romans chapter 5. In verses 15 and 19, Paul basically repeats himself but switches from 'all' to 'many'. Check it out:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. ...19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

So which is it Frogster? Were "all" made sinners, or "many"?

How about some basic logic then. Why wasn't Mary born with a sinful nature, like the billions of other humanoids, on the planet, that were also in Adam?

 

[narnia59]

How about some basic logic then. Why wasn't Mary born with a sinful nature, like the billions of other humanoids, on the planet, that were also in Adam?

Why was she chosen to be the human the second person of the Trinity took flesh from, dwelt in, nursed from, and to be his mother, unlike the billions of other humanoids on the planet?

How do you think Christ fulfilled the command to honor his mother?

 

[Frogster]

Why was she chosen to be the human the second person of the Trinity took flesh from, dwelt in, nursed from, and to be his mother, unlike the billions of other humanoids on the planet?

How do you think Christ fulfilled the command to honor his mother?

Welp, thats all fine, but do you see how you are not offering a clear scriptural observation? In fact, all the text, and spiritual reason, go against the fact, that somehow she did not have sinful nature, like all the other billions born in Adam.

 

[whitetiger1]

Would you put new wine in old wine skins

 

[narnia59]

Welp, thats all fine, but do you see how you are not offering a clear scriptural observation? In fact, all the text, and spiritual reason, go against the fact, that somehow she did not have sinful nature, like all the other billions born in Adam.

Did Christ have a command to fulfill to honor any of the other of billions born in Adam?

You did not answer my question. Do you think Christ honored his mother, and if so, how did he do that?

 

[Frogster]

Did Christ have a command to fulfill to honor any of the other of billions born in Adam?

You did not answer my question. Do you think Christ honored his mother, and if so, how did he do that?

yes, Jesus loved his mother, but i was hoping for scripture. yes, Jesus loved his mother, we know that.

 

[narnia59]

yes, Jesus loved his mother, but i was hoping for scripture. yes, Jesus loved his mother, we know that.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is found implicitly in Scripture, but you're not going to get there with only a surface swim.

For example, as St. Paul teaches that Christ is the new Adam, the early church fathers clearly see Scripture as implicitly teaching that Mary is the new Eve. In teaching on the relationship between man and woman, St. Paul teaches that "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God." 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Fill in the blank:
For just as woman (Eve) came from man (Adam) , so man (new Adam -- Christ) is born of woman (???).

Or, answer this. Who is the "woman" that is referred to in Genesis 3:15, whose seed will have enmity with Satan?

 

[Frogster]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is found implicitly in Scripture, but you're not going to get there with only a surface swim.

For example, as St. Paul teaches that Christ is the new Adam, the early church fathers clearly see Scripture as implicitly teaching that Mary is the new Eve. In teaching on the relationship between man and woman, St. Paul teaches that "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God." 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Fill in the blank:
For just as woman (Eve) came from man (Adam) , so man (new Adam -- Christ) is born of woman (???).

Or, answer this. Who is the "woman" that is referred to in Genesis 3:15, whose seed will have enmity with Satan?

no offense, but there are way to many blanks to fill in here.

Only Jesus was of the new creation. Notice how you can't argue from Romans 5?

Why?

The clear text says all sinned in 5:12, there is no exemption, again, way too many blanks to fill in, in light of the overt clear text.

And the Genesis verse does not in any way, imply that Mary would be sinless. it was not a sinless family, it was a sinless seed, read gal 3:16, Jesus was the seed, not Mary.

 

[narnia59]

no offense, but there are way to many blanks to fill in here.

Only Jesus was of the new creation. Notice how you can't argue from Romans 5?

Why?

The clear text says all sinned in 5:12, there is no exemption, again, way too many blanks to fill in, in light of the overt clear text.

And the Genesis verse does not in any way, imply that Mary would be sinless. it was not a sinless family, it was a sinless seed, read gal 3:16, Jesus was the seed, not Mary.

Back to Romans 5? You didn't answer me the first time -- can't go looping back to it. So is it "all" or "many" who sinned Frogster? Which?

How can "all men" referred to twice in the same sentence mean two different things -- one with no individual exceptions and the other that has them?

And re-read Genesis 3:15. The enmity that Christ has with Satan -- that enmity that would have fallen if Christ had sinned (for they would no longer be enemies) -- that enmity is shared with the woman from whose seed he comes.

 

[Standing Up]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is found implicitly in Scripture, but you're not going to get there with only a surface swim.

For example, as St. Paul teaches that Christ is the new Adam, the early church fathers clearly see Scripture as implicitly teaching that Mary is the new Eve. In teaching on the relationship between man and woman, St. Paul teaches that "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God." 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Fill in the blank:
For just as woman (Eve) came from man (Adam) , so man (new Adam -- Christ) is born of woman (???).

Or, answer this. Who is the "woman" that is referred to in Genesis 3:15, whose seed will have enmity with Satan?

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Tim. 2:18 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

The seed is Christ.

 

[narnia59]

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Tim. 2:18 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

The seed is Christ.

Uh, yes, the seed is Christ.

The question was who is the woman? The "her" of "her seed"?

 

[Nick T]

So if that is the historical teaching, am I correct that it is a more recent trend to accept that she was not sinless?

While there are certain Fathers who appeared to deny her sinlessness the overall teaching of Orthodoxy is that she was without personal sin. In this respect yes it is a more recent trend for anyone outside of a few theologians to deny this. However I would say that on an Internet forum such trends can seem significant whereas in real life, especially in Orthodox countries, the fact that Mary did not commit personal sin is not seriously disputed.

So if she was fallen, how do you explain her ability to not sin as we do?

A combination of extraordinary grace resulting from God's presence (remember even before she carried Christ she dwelt within the Temple) and extradorinary piety on her part. The Theotokos is an example of Theosis par excellence; fallen man and holy God working in perfect synergy for salvation and purity.
This is why we feel it important that she was born just like us, she is an example of all that fallen man can become through God.

I think she could die because she wasn't living in a vacuum -- she was still living in a fallen world. Creation fell along with man, right?

Your view seems to hold that the only way a person's physical nature can be impacted is by their own personal spiritual nature. I'd say that's just not true. Our bodies live in and are also impacted by the world around us, regardless of what our spiritual state may be.

Adam and Eve would not have experienced illness or death prior to their sin not simply because of their internal state of holiness, but also because creation was still intact, holy, in harmony with man, and a friend to our physical bodies. Fallen creation spews earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and germs at our physical nature. Why would an internal state of holiness make a person's body immune to fallen creation?

Christ's death was caused by the physical actions of fallen men; Mary's was caused by the physical actions of fallen creation. Is there really a difference in that? Her death does not give testimony that she was not created without original sin. It simply gives testimony that even a person in that state can be physically impacted by a fallen creation.

Interesting, I haven't heard it explained this way. Death however is both a spiritual as well as a physical matter so I'm still dubious but this is certainly food for thought.

 

[Frogster]

Back to Romans 5? You didn't answer me the first time -- can't go looping back to it. So is it "all" or "many" who sinned Frogster? Which?

How can "all men" referred to twice in the same sentence mean two different things -- one with no individual exceptions and the other that has them?

And re-read Genesis 3:15. The enmity that Christ has with Satan -- that enmity that would have fallen if Christ had sinned (for they would no longer be enemies) -- that enmity is shared with the woman from whose seed he comes.

With all due respect, bad hermeneutics because according to your view, if the "many" , does not mean ALL, that could omit millions for that matter, and clearly that would not jive..

Go by the ALL...All means ALL, and many is still ALL, ALL has many people it..same thing.

Did death not regin through "some"? Where there millions who did not die?

If you think "many" does not mean all, show the exemptions, or we can think millions did not die.


5:14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

 

[narnia59]

With all due respect, bad hermeneutics because according to your view, if the "many" , does not mean ALL, that could omit millions for that matter, and clearly that would not jive..

Go by the ALL...All means ALL, and many is still ALL, ALL has many people it..same thing.

Did death not regin through "some"? Where there millions who did not die?

If you think "many" does not mean all, show the exemptions, or we can think millions did not die.


5:14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Frogster, please explain how the "all men" in blue is intended to be a different group of people than the "all men" in red.

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men

And "could mean" millions does not demand to mean millions. St Paul is who chooses the word "many" -- please explain why.

 

[Standing Up]

Uh, yes, the seed is Christ.

The question was who is the woman? The "her" of "her seed"?

Eve began the physical process. Mary ended it. In either case, including the men involved (but of course not the Spirit), they were fallen.