Okay, so, Mary is not in the category of the last three, but the first one, so?
But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin.
Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.
Well, the verse says "fallen short of the glory of God" so Jesus is in the verse. I take it you would agree that Jesus is the express image of God, the Word made flesh; so, He is the "glory of God" that "all" are being contrasted with as having "fallen short". So Mary is still in there.
Mary is an exception, not a contrast. I listed scriptural exceptions to the word "all". It's not an absolute.
Only if Mary is the express image of God, the glory of God. But if you believe that then we've got a much bigger proposition than "sinless"
I don't believe that and I never said it.
Okay now you're putting a lot of doctrinal assumptions into your passages. I'm not sure I would agree with what you're interpreting and claiming in that statement.
You're putting a
lot of doctrinal assumptions into the word "all".
I would propose that "all" does mean "many" but "many" doesn't necessarily mean "all"; so, no contradiction and no exceptions.
Do I need to to repost the same verses that clearly show that "all" does not always mean "every single one?
Rom. 3:10-11 - some also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.
That doesn't seem at all what is being said: Paul cites it:
You are ignoring what I said.
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
<sigh>
Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.
Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.
1 Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.
3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon the Lord?
5 There they shall be in great terror,
for God is with the company of the righteous.
6 You would confound the plans of the poor,
but the Lord is their refuge.
7 O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion!
When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad.
Rom. 3:10-11 is based on Psalm 14. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful.
Okay that's begging the question.
I think the biggest problem is such as:
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
So the question would be, by what means would Mary be "perfect" if not by the law (through which perfection is impossible):
Of course.
Mary was not sinless by the law, she was conceived sinless by God's direct intervention. That has nothing to do with the law. I'm still waiting for someone to explain WHEN she was Full of Grace. Did the angel, delivering God's eternal word, say, POOF! you are now full of grace? Did Mary go to the Temple and recite the sinners prayer? Are God's eternal words purely linear with a fixed starting point in time? How about you be the first to explain
WHEN "Full of Grace" occurred, since no one else has.
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Mary, the holiest woman in all human history, the mother of Jesus Himself, was not called to the priesthood.
so it seems it could only by by the grace of God to not impute any sin to her. But, in this case, Mary's perfection is of the same as any believer who is made "righteous" and "perfect" by virtue of belief:
This is Calvinist theology and nothing to do with Mary.
Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
And we do see Mary fully believing the message. So if Mary was "sinless" it seems to me she was like everyone under grace: a sinner made perfect by faith, allowing no imputation of sin:
Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Other than that, I don't see any possible justification of sinless Mary (except through doctrines of tradition, naturally - but I don't know that the OP was looking for tradition? If so, easily enough proven by tradition)
Mary's sinlessness is by virtue of the merits of the cross retroactively, I don't know why you guys have such a problem with that. David was forgiven of his sin on the same principle, but not at conception. Unless you want to argue that David was not forgiven because Jesus hadn't died yet. God can operate retroactively because He is God.
Eve was created sinless, you probably have a problem with that too.
Luke 1:28 - "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God).
Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase "full of grace" 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.
Not "any believer".
Again,
WHEN was Mary Full of Grace?
"Mary a sinner" was not taught by the early reformers, so when did this break from the past occur? It was introduced by 19th century liberal Protestants.
It's a false tradition of men.
