• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

Discussion in 'Mariology & Hagiography' started by mcarmichael, Jan 9, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IT REALLY SAYS

    IT REALLY SAYS Member

    152
    +19
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Does not your post stat that all cant have sinned since Jesus didnt sin? And I stated jesus is not included as one of the (All) through scripture but you tried to use it as such, so no I answered your post... btw i do see scripture where Jesus was sinless but not mary....
     
  2. IT REALLY SAYS

    IT REALLY SAYS Member

    152
    +19
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The bible say all truth belongs to God and how can I then believe there are new things added over a 1000 years after the bible was written that I can count on? If you would of been born in the 1600s mary wasnt sinless then so now what? If mary was sinless from day one why did it take 1800 years to find this out? And where did this new words from God come that goes against scripture is what you have to ask yourself... but if you doubt one claim where does that end, if God asked you where in his word did you come to this conclusion you would show him what as your proof? That some popes words were equal to and in this case greater than Gods for God says all have sinned and was it not a man who said no thats not right..... just sayin
     
  3. IT REALLY SAYS

    IT REALLY SAYS Member

    152
    +19
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    =) no guess it wouldnt be
     
  4. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother? Supporter

    +7,994
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    I said that verse cannot be absolutely, literally true. And then I enumerated self-evident exceptions to it.

    Thereby you missed my point. My point was that this "All have sinned" is not literally true. It's generally true.

    Ergo, attempting to use that passage as a proof-text against Our Lady's sinlessness is not a viable argument.

    Good for you.

    Would you settle for sources dating from the time during which the New Testament was written? How about sources from the centuries before sacred scripture was compiled into a single volume?

    Ambrose of Milan stated Our Lady's sinlessness in the 300's AD. So I don't know what you're talking about.

    I'm not sure how suggesting Our Lady was sinless "goes against scripture". You said yourself that sacred scripture is silent about her sinlessness. So unless you're arguing from silence, I don't see how you can say that the doctrine of her sinlessness goes against something in scripture.

    Above you used argument from silence. Now you're using appeal to authority. Nice try.

    Remember, sola scriptura is your limitation. Please don't try making it mine.
     
  5. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Luke 1:28. To me, "Full of Grace" means totally full of grace, absolutely pure. To you, it means, "full of grace with a little sin on the side" which makes no sense.
    The phrase “full of grace” or badly translated as "highly favored" is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person – Jesus Christ in John 1:14.
     
  6. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Romans 6:14 (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

    We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

    Ephesians 2:8-10 (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

    Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

    1. Grace saves us.

    2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

    Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

    1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

    2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

    A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

    1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

    2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

    3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

    4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

    5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

    6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

    7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

    8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

    The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and
    1) hold either that grace does not save or
    2) that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.

    It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

    Luke 1:28 The Immaculate Conception
     
  7. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    What was dogmatically defined in 1854 does not mean it was invented. That is a typical Protestant straw man fallacy.

    Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.


    [​IMG]
     
  8. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother? Supporter

    +7,994
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    sort-of-like-meme.jpg
     
  9. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,245
    Catholic
    Married
    ITREALLYSAYS - as a general point, slow down and punctuate!

    It is hard to understand what you mean if you dont use punctuation and conflate several ideas into one long sentence with several related but different ideas all together.... See what I mean ? your posts are full of such!

    On the main point made, I think you need to study the core tenets of Christianity, particularly christology. One piece of understanding settled early on in the church was the true nature of Christ.

    Jesus was both truly God , but also he was truly Man. A dozen heresies were outed in the early church which sought to reduce Christ's humanity, or revert him to a pure spirit figure, or only God.
    The poster was therefore correct as a refutation of "all have sinned" to say that Christ (so in his capacity as truly man) was a clear exception to the rule "all ( men) have sinned".

    The poster was also right in saying that all are non sinners at least for a while!
    Since sin requires an act of will, NONE of us are sinners till later!. So the question is whether later most do sin. So all have not sinned. Many babies die before ever being able to do so! A single exception disproves the generality of your argument.

    But then single verse proof texting as you do repeatedly is the reason that post reformation theology has splintered into 10000 bits, which disagree on every major aspect of doctrine, from eucharist to baptism, clergy to moral matters.

    You cannot take one single text as all encompassing. There are a dozen statements for example on what you must do for eternal life. You cannot simply cherry pick one of them, or asume that one says it all. or that one denies the others. Scripture, Jesus and prophets also provably speak on occasion in hyperbole. So literal interpretations are not necessarily correct either. Sola scriptura is also provably false as a doctrine and easily shown as false. The bible must be read holistically and with due cognisance of tradition , and early church and church authority. So a single "proof text" "all have sinned" is false theology.

    Clearly our Lord has the ability to "keep us free from temptation" or why does he ask us in the lords prayer to ask God for the grace to assist us in doing just that? And it is therefore within his power to do so. Since Mary was "full of grace (which translation sells the original grammar short - because the greek tense implies "complete" or total.)

    Notice also that "full of grace" was not a description or used adjectively. The angel uses the phrase as a TITLE hail "full of grace" which from figure of speech and titular usage can also be imputed as "hail God's grace personified" even. The angel states the "lord is with her". She is unique amongst her kind. No other of makind has come even close to the gifts given to Mary. She is a davidic queen, ( as the mother of a davidic king) which we know from OT means she has power of intercession, which we know from OT that the Lord will do what she asks of him. We see that at Cana.

    And since there is no evidence of Mary having sinned. And in accepting God as her saviour, He can do that by either keeping her free from temptation so the occasions of sin, instead of forgiving her when she did so. His choice. Which for one honoured as full of grace, the lord was with her, is hardly stretching his abilities or likelihood, and that is what the early fathers thought too!


    Also look at the typology. Mary was Ark of the new covenant. See how the ark was treated in OT! Mary had an important place in salvation history that continues to this day.

    Protestants make Mary sound like a used wineskin! I wonder if Jesus will have words to say, at Judgement...how dare you treat my mother like that!


     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  10. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +612
    Catholic
    Married
    Excellent resource from Charles Spurgeon on the use of the word 'all' in Scripture. One can hardly claim a Catholic bias from him...

    For instance, look here. "The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

    Particular Redemption


    If you look at the context of "all have sinned" you will see it's just as Spurgeon describes -- both Jews and Gentiles (some of all sorts) have sinned. Neither group can claim to be over the other. That would be taking the phrase literally. Not a statement about any particular individual.

    If not, you also have to deal with this problem -- 2 chapters later in Romans 5:12 Paul says that "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". Yet when Paul wrote that death had not spread to every individual man because Scripture records that Elijan and Enoch never died.

    An explicit statement that Mary sinned in Scripture would prove she sinned. One cannot infer she sinned from Paul's statement that 'all' have sinned.


    The understanding of Mary being sinless is rooted in the Early Church Fathers and their undertanding that Mary was the 'new Eve'. Asking why it took until 1854 for the Church to "receive" this knowledge is like the Jehovah Witness who asks why the Church didn't "receive" the knowledge about the dogma of the Trinity until 325. The formal definition of a dogma is not related to the timeline of when a dogma is known to be true. Church history 101.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2017
  11. narnia59

    narnia59 Regular Member

    +612
    Catholic
    Married
    You didn't ask me, but I don't think we can say the lives of Joseph and Mary were 'normal' in any sense of the word.

    I've never seen Catholics who had an idea of sexual relations between spouses as being 'repugnant'. God created that gift for married couples for us to be able to share in his act of creation -- it is holy and good.

    That does not mean however, that there cannot be an even 'better' good for some. St. Paul expresses that here:

    1 Corinthians 7:36-38 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

    Betrothal is the state Mary and Joseph are in when she conceives Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are still in a state of betrothal when they travel to Bethlehem. And even when Joseph receives the message from the angel in a dream to go to Egypt and return, the message is not "take your wife and the child" -- it is "take the child and his mother". That fully explains Joseph's role -- he is the protector of the child and his mother. Scripture never records they leave the state of betrothal or that Mary gives birth to other children.
     
  12. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,398
    Non-Denom
    I don't which I am more amazed at - the out-of-context response to my quite-dormant post or your stunning handling of Mr. Spurgeon's commentary.
     
  13. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,245
    Catholic
    Married
    One verse people do not give enough attention to realise the full significance is , Luke 1:34
    When Mary says...
    "how can this be for I have not known man"

    The fact is she was betrothed. That is not engaged as we would understand it, betrothal meant the marriage contract was already sealed, there was just a period whilst the husband set up home before married life commenced.

    She was clearly not already pregnant at the annunciation, because the verses before 1:34 say you WILL conceive, so it is in the unspecificed future not present.

    Now consider... Mary was not so naieve she did not know where children came from, and had she intended normal relations with Joseph, it was blindingly obvious "how this could be" she would be with child! So why ask the question?

    The ONLY context in which what she says makes sense is a vow of chastity. Only in that context would it be surprising if she was to be with child (in the future tense, the angel uses)! This was not unheard of, indeed religious such as Essenes did have vows of celibate marriage, and in non canonical works like the protoevangelium, Mary is portrayed as a temple virgin, with the problem of the temple elders knowing what to do when she came of age, so a marriage of convenience to what would appear to be a much older man, part of the temple community, may well have been the sensible answer they came up with.

    Therefore it is reasonable to suppose they did NOT have normal relations. Luke 1:34 if analysed makes that clear, it is hard to come to other conclusion.

    When it comes to brothers and sisters, it is clear Jesus did not have siblings despite the use of the word "brother" which can mean other relations. Else why was it necessary for Jesus to ask John the apostle to look after Mary? It would automatically have fallen to other siblings if there were any.

    This of course ignites several of the doctrines on which protestants disagree with catholics, but analyse Luke 1:34 and it is hard to come to other conclusion than an intended life of celibacy for Mary.





     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  14. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,398
    Non-Denom
    A vow of celibacy is one thing, but a human birth in which the mother's hymen remains quite intact is another. In Mary's womb do you think Jesus Christ was just a spirit baby who was able to be born by spiritually passing through her virgin hymen, thus preserving her virginity forever?
     
  15. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,245
    Catholic
    Married
    Not sure how your post relates the issue.

    I was addressing the issue of whether Mary had a normal relationship with Joseph, and I think Luke1:34 is more far reaching in answring that, than it seems at first sight.

     
  16. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +10,398
    Non-Denom
    I apologize for any confusion. I was merely expanding on your post in which you deduced that marital relations with Joseph would have been quite impossible given the (alleged) vow of chastity made by Mary. If that were true and Mary's virginity was to remain intact (unbroken hymen) then Jesus Christ either was born through her side, as a handful of ECF's deduced or He was a spirit which passed through her birth canal and hymen, leaving the hymen intact and gaining physical human form after passing through her birth canal.

    The implications in both cases - marital frigidity and paranormal birth - cast serious doubt on the nature of the person of the Christ. Was He merely divine, taking on the appearance of human flesh following his paranormal birth? The other implication which you have inadvertently raised is that marital relations are implicitly sinful as such relations would have defiled Mary.
     
  17. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +4,338
    Christian
    Married
    I disagree. Mary is not taking a vow of chastity. She is expressing confusion as to how she could conceive while being a virgin.

    “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” Luke 1:34

    And then in Matthew 1:25 we read, " But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

    It doesn't say they never consummated their marriage or that Mary remained a virgin. It says they didn't consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus. At the end of the day, it's just an interesting discussion point anyway. It really doesn't matter one way or the other.
     
  18. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +584
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Indeed. Luke 1:34 strongly indicates Mary took vows of perpetual virginity, it's just not explicit enough for Protestants. She took vows according to Numbers 30. If Joseph violated these vows contrary to the Torah, the sin would be upon him. He would no longer be a "righteous man" and the Bible would contradict itself.
    A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity? <an excellent site explaining vows in the Book of Numbers
     
  19. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,912
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    He was not a spirit man when He passed through the locked doors where His disciples were gathered. He would not have to be a spirit baby to leave Mary's womb without passing through the birth canal.
     
  20. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,912
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    The Greek text translates as "How will this be, since I am not knowing a man". I can't remember the specific grammatical term but the implication is that her "not knowing a man" is ongoing, continuing into the future. Since the archangel Gabriel does not specify when she will conceive, only that it will occur sometime in the future, her response is quite implicit that she does not expect to fall pregnant by Joseph.
    "I didn't eat any ice cream until I went to sleep."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...