What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

[coffee4u]

Where is this theory found in Scripture that original sin is passed down biologically from the father? Is it a DNA thing? Is it a gene? You speak as if it is a fact somehow that a mother does not pass sin on to her children. Do you really think Romans 5 is scientifically verifiable through the science of genetics?

Where is it? Right there in the verse.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Adam's sin caused death to come into the world not Eve's sin. It spread from Adam to us.
As a woman I am not saying we don't have original sin, we do, but we don't pass it on. It's passed on by the father to the child.
Eve sinned because she was deceived, Adam sinned in open disobedience.
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Many other verses point to men being treated differently from women.
For example there are many verses on 'sins of the father' not 'sins of the mother'.

One large difference was that God commanded Jewish men to be circumcised. Circumcision acts as a symbol of cutting off the sinful flesh and its flesh involved in the act of procreating. Jewish women did not have to be cut in any way since they didn’t pass the sin along.
Somehow sin and death gets passed down by the father, the Bible doesn't say if it's a gene or spiritually, just that it does.

This is also why Jesus had to be a sinless man, a women could not die for the sins of the world.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[coffee4u]

Where on earth did this silly idea come from, that our fallen nature is only passed on from the male?

You do understand that it was actually Eve who sinned first, don't you?

I know she did, but Eve did not bring death into the world, Adam did.

Romans 5:12
sin entered the world through one man

Eve sinned but her sin was from being deceived. Adam sinned without being deceived.
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
He knew what he was doing. His sin was premeditated.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Christ still could have sinned, it probably was possible. But if he did he would have lost his status as God and all of humanity would have been without hope.

So He could have sinned but then would cease to be God? Huh?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Where is it? Right there in the verse.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Huh? That verse shows that original sin is passed on by males but not by females? I think you have read some opinion into the verse. Sorry.

 

[prodromos]

I know she did, but Eve did not bring death into the world, Adam did.

Romans 5:12
sin entered the world through one man

Eve sinned but her sin was from being deceived. Adam sinned without being deceived.
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
He knew what he was doing. His sin was premeditated.

Adam and Eve were one flesh, and it matters not whether Eve was deceived. God said do not eat of this tree. She chose to disobey God.

 

[coffee4u]

Adam and Eve were one flesh, and it matters not whether Eve was deceived. God said do not eat of this tree. She chose to disobey God.

Yes she did but the Bible is clear that sin and death spread to us by one man. That one man was Adam.
Romans 5:12
sin entered the world through one man

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes she did but the Bible is clear that sin and death spread to us by one man. That one man was Adam.
Romans 5:12
sin entered the world through one man

So how does that prove that other men spread original sin but women don't?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Where is this theory found in Scripture that original sin is passed down biologically from the father? Is it a DNA thing? Is it a gene? You speak as if it is a fact somehow that a mother does not pass sin on to her children. Do you really think Romans 5 is scientifically verifiable through the science of genetics?

"But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].

...

But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Romans 5:12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (Of Sin and Merit I.24). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3).

...

"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. "

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

 

[Daniel Marsh]

This is the case against sin being passed down by the Father Do Children Inherit the Sin of Their Parents?

This claims quescense of sins of the fathers effects their children to the third or fourth generation. What Are "Sins of the Father"? Understanding Generational Consequences

This one looks at various cases for how sin is passed down Is Sin Nature Passed through the Father’s Genetic Line?

 

[chevyontheriver]

"But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].

...

But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Romans 5:12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (Of Sin and Merit I.24). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3).

...

"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. "

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

Which gets at why I so dislike the term 'sin nature' that gets bandied about here. We have a human nature, not a sin nature, although that nature of ours is bent by original sin and committed sins.

Catholics are defenders of original sin while others seem to write it off. And yet do not endorse total depravity. Our depravity is real but not total. Otherwise there could be no honor among thieves, a rare thing but real.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Yes, you are correct. With that being said, Could I ask you the same thong I asked Coffee4u?

Is it your belief, the word "all" here to mean absolutely everyone who has ever lived or ever will live, with exception of Jesus? Right? And is it also your belief when Scripture say's 'all'....... that it absolutely means "all?"


Have a Blessed Day!

It is my opinion that Jesus was an exception because his basic nature is God or Divine.
I think all does mean all, but God can decided to make exceptions. As I recall two people besides Mary in the Bible did not taste death, but were taken to heaven.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Where is it? Right there in the verse.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Adam's sin caused death to come into the world not Eve's sin. It spread from Adam to us.
As a woman I am not saying we don't have original sin, we do, but we don't pass it on. It's passed on by the father to the child.
Eve sinned because she was deceived, Adam sinned in open disobedience.
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Many other verses point to men being treated differently from women.
For example there are many verses on 'sins of the father' not 'sins of the mother'.

One large difference was that God commanded Jewish men to be circumcised. Circumcision acts as a symbol of cutting off the sinful flesh and its flesh involved in the act of procreating. Jewish women did not have to be cut in any way since they didn’t pass the sin along.
Somehow sin and death gets passed down by the father, the Bible doesn't say if it's a gene or spiritually, just that it does.

This is also why Jesus had to be a sinless man, a women could not die for the sins of the world.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

"For that all sinned (επ ωι παντες ημαρτον — Ephesians' hōi pantes hēmarton). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of αμαρτανω — hamartanō gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek επ ωι — Ephesians' hōi usually meant “on condition that,” but “because” in N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 963)." Romans 5 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

As I understand the Greek Grammar, "all have sinned" is active sin of their own free will. Not, born with it. It is the Consequences of Adam that was passed down.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

So He could have sinned but then would cease to be God? Huh?

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here wife will be home soon.

 

[coffee4u]

So how does that prove that other men spread original sin but women don't?

Two reasons.

One we have that verse that says sin and death spread to all due to one man, who we know was Adam.
Then secondly because Mary did not pass on original sin to Jesus.

If you are Roman Catholic you would believe she didn't because she was sinless. I'm a protestant, I don't believe that.
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
I believe that verse includes all normally born human beings, including Mary. The fact that she didn't pass it on is why I believe women don't, all women not just Mary.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Two reasons.

One we have that verse that says sin and death spread to all due to one man, who we know was Adam.

The text says 'one man', and not 'all men' or 'only men'. You read too much into the text.

Then secondly because Mary did not pass on original sin to Jesus.

We agree she did not. HOW she did not is the question.

If you are Roman Catholic you would believe she didn't because she was sinless. I'm a protestant, I don't believe that.

I don't believe that either. Nor is that what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that it is 'fitting' that Mary be sinless. She does NOT teach that Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless. Simply, Jesus would have been sinless no matter who His mother was because He was the eternal Son of the Father. He was going to be sinless no matter what, by His nature as God. His nature as a human being would not and could not change that. It was the one thing He could not inherit from Adam when he inherited His humanity.

So, Mary did not have to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless. Mary's parents did not have to be sinless so Mary could be sinless, nor her grandparents, nor her great-grandparents, and so on. It was a singular gift, and it was appropriate but not necessary for Jesus to be raised by the very best role models. He would have been sinless anyhow simply because of who He was. He never could have inherited any sin EVEN IF Joseph were His true biological father. Because He was God. Not because he didn't inherit sin from His mother.

Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
I believe that verse includes all normally born human beings, including Mary. The fact that she didn't pass it on is why I believe women don't, all women not just Mary.

And I think your theory of how Jesus remained sinless is defective because it presumes the possibility of a sinful Jesus who had to be protected from inheriting sin by not having a human father. Jesus was sinless because He was God, not merely because He didn't have a human father.

I believe the verse you quoted here is true generally but not exhaustively. It actually refers to all tribes. And I do accept it as meaning that each and every human being, except the God-man Jesus Christ, need saving. Mary needed saving from the eventuality of sinning. All the rest of us need saving from original sin and our own sins.

Your opinion touches on Christology in that it presumes that all that is necessary to be the Son of God incarnate is to be sinless. There is way way more to it than that. God can make sinless people any time he wants. God the Father has only one eternal Son, and that Son was way more than just sinless.

 

[Hmm]

The Catholic Church teaches that it is 'fitting' that Mary be sinless. She does NOT teach that Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless.

The one thing that puzzles me in this debate is the relevance of this. You've just said that it's not necessary that Mary was sinless, just that it would be fitting if she was, so what practical difference does it make to anyone's faith whether they believe it or not? Again, I'm not arguing about the truth of it but simply asking why it matters. If it is only fitting that it is true why can't the jury simply be out on the matter?

 

[Albion]

The one thing that puzzles me in this debate is the relevance of this. You've just said that it's not necessary that Mary was sinless, just that it would be fitting if she was, so what practical difference does it make to anyone's faith whether they believe it or not?

Good question, particularly because the Catholic Church made it an official dogma in 1854, considers it to be infallible, and holds that members must accept and believe it under pain of mortal sin.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The one thing that puzzles me in this debate is the relevance of this. You've just said that it's not necessary that Mary was sinless, just that it would be fitting if she was, so what practical difference does it make to anyone's faith whether they believe it or not? Again, I'm not arguing about the truth of it but simply asking why it matters. If it is only fitting that it is true why can't the jury simply be out on the matter?

It's not the absolute center of the faith. And it wouldn't have been a thing here if someone didn't start a thread trying to find proof that it was false. So 500 posts later here we are. People get all riled up about it, on both sides. But it was not always so contentious. For example, Martin Luther accepted that Mary was sinless. But now Mary is a flash point. There are even people who deny that Mary was the mother of God, and they can be quite vociferous about it.

 

[Tigger45]

It's not the absolute center of the faith. And it wouldn't have been a thing here if someone didn't start a thread trying to find proof that it was false. So 500 posts later here we are. People get all riled up about it, on both sides. But it was not always so contentious. For example, Martin Luther accepted that Mary was sinless. But now Mary is a flash point. There are even people who deny that Mary was the mother of God, and they can be quite vociferous about it.

Martin Luther absolutely had a higher Mariology than anyone here outside of Catholicism & Orthodoxy but the Immaculate Conception didn't become official doctrine of the RC until 1854 well after Luther's death. Do you have any sources of Luther holding to the sinlessness of Mary other than him having a high Mariology?