Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We are born with fallen human nature that is subject to sin, corruption and death.
If Christ can still be fully human and without sin, why can't Mary?
I thought this thread was about the Orthodox perspective on the IC? IF that is the case, why are Roman Catholics being allowed to debate with us in this thread?
Because Christ is the God-man. Mary is a human being. To say that there are three "kinds" of people that have lived on earth--1. normal humans like you and me, 2. Mary, and 3. Christ--isn't the Orthodox understanding.
Rather, we see it like this: there are two kinds of people. 1. human beings like you, me, and Mary; and 2. Christ.
Mary is not on an intermediate level between other human beings and Christ (and, of course, the Trinity as a whole). To say that she was conceived without sin is to place her on this intermediate level.
Does that make sense?
Monica,
We don't believe that any of us are born with the guilt of original sin. We do believe that we and this world are affected by sin (death, corruption, etc), and we all have to deal with that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, but we aren't guilty of anything until we sin ourselves.
The Roman Catholic position as you well know is that because all moments in time are before God's eyes, he applied the merit of Christ's work on the cross to her retroactively so that she could be pure and conceived without sin. We don't see it that way.
The Orthodox position is that there was nothing to preserve her from. We are all born free of guilt in the first place and only fall subject to any guilt after we committ sin ourselves. Christ saves her just like all the rest of us. She never sinned, but she didn't have to be preserved from sin in the first place because she was not guilty.
Does that make sense?
I thought this thread was about the Orthodox perspective on the IC? IF that is the case, why are Roman Catholics being allowed to debate with us in this thread?
if we are not born sinful, then what is the problem with Mary being conceived without sin?
and if we are born sinful, then how is it a problem for Mary to be conceived without sin if being sinless doesn't not take away from being fully human (as we can see with Christ, who was sinless in any case)?
was Jesus born with fallen nature?
Because Christ is the God-man. Mary is a human being. To say that there are three "kinds" of people that have lived on earth--1. normal humans like you and me, 2. Mary, and 3. Christ--isn't the Orthodox understanding.
Rather, we see it like this: there are two kinds of people. 1. human beings like you, me, and Mary; and 2. Christ.
Mary is not on an intermediate level between other human beings and Christ (and, of course, the Trinity as a whole). To say that she was conceived without sin is to place her on this intermediate level.
Does that make sense?
I don't understand,
- so you are saying that Christ is the same as us in His humanity except for sin.. that is true! I agree with Chalcedon.. but why does this relate to Mary? If Christ can still be fully human and without sin, why can't Mary? after all, the Orthodox also believe that Mary didn't sin?
I disagree even with the question being asked, as it is rather like asking "have you stopped beating your children?"
Jesus was born with a FULL human nature - the same human nature we have now. If that isn't true, that Christ didn't become as we are and we are still separated from God.
Yet if you, like Augustine, imply that our nature has "sin" within it - that we have a sin nature - then you necessarily make it impossible that Christ could take on such a fallen nature (as Christ is without sin).
If you accept the more Cappadocian view (Basil and the Gregories) and Athanasian view that our nature, after the fall, isn't fundamentally different but is, rather, subject to separation from God and thereby to death do to our own sin (and this is the same as the pre-fall nature, as implied by God's warning, except that because no sin had occured these consequences were not occuring), then Christ can have our literal nature - except that Christ doesn't chose to sin.
He became as we are, except without sin.
So yes, Christ had a "fallen" nature - or rather, He had the same nature as we do today (human nature after the fall). To say less is to undermine the Incarnation and destroy the Gospel. By His very goodness He redeemed that nature - but whatever is not assumed is not healed. If He didn't assume our nature, the Gospel is moot. But if He did assume our nature, then God (by His very changelessness) has transformed that state-of-separation into a means of communion. Even in our present nature, because of the Incarnation, we can be with God.
In Christ,
Macarius
so if she did not have sin
did she need Christ as a Savior?
I am still a little unclear on the EO view of this
if she was born without any sin and never commited a sin, then why would she need Christ as Savior?
so if she did not have sin
did she need Christ as a Savior?
I am still a little unclear on the EO view of this
if she was born without any sin and never commited a sin, then why would she need Christ as Savior?
Please forgive me, but I would hesitate to classify Jesus as distinct from human beings. He is God - which makes Jesus the person unique - but His humanity was full and complete, identical to ours. Unless I'm misunderstanding, in which case forgive me for that as well
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?