-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mary Worshipers
- Thread starter mojoala
- Start date
Taken to the literalness of it, we can say Jesus was a sinner as well, since this verse does not have an exception included. Furthermore, if all have sinned then the exception for those under the age of reason go straight to hell if they die prior to accepting Christ. All aborted babies go to hell. Do you want to acknowledged exceptions for Jesus and Children? If so, we can say that Jesus saved his own mother at her conception.JamieinNH said:
[SIZE=-1]In the second century, St. Justin Martyr is already expounding the "New Eve" teaching, which Cardinal Newman regards as a starting-point for much later Marian dogmatic development:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the third century, Origen taught the perpetual virginity (192), Mary as the second-Eve (193), and was the first Father to use the term Theotokos. (194) He expressly affirms the spiritual motherhood of Mary: "No one may understand the meaning of the Gospel [of John], if he has not rested on the breast of Jesus and received Mary from Jesus, to be his mother also." (195)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By the fourth century, the designation "Mother of God" was in general use, since the Roman emperor Julian (the Apostate) taunted Christians,saying: "You never stop calling Mary Theotokos." (196) Eusebius, the first Church historian, calls her panagia, or "all-holy." (197) St. Athanasius calls Mary "ever-virgin," (198) arguing from the fact that Jesus gave His mother to St. John's care. (199) St. Hilary of Poitiers also affirmed the perpetual virginity. (200) St. Ephraem is thought to be the first Father to hold to the Immaculate Conception: "You alone and your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in thee, my Lord, and no stain in thy Mother." (201) He invokes the Blessed Virgin in very "Catholic" fashion:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Epiphanius regards Mary as aeiparthenos, ever-virgin (209), using the argument of John's care of Mary after the Crucifixion. (210). Like all the Fathers, he places Mariology under the category of Christology: "He who honours the Lord honours also the holy vessel; he who dishonours the holy vessel, also dishonours his Lord." (211) St. Epiphanius also teaches the parallelism of Eve and Mary (which was the common belief of Eastern, Greek Christianity, and concludes that Mary is "the mother of the living." (212) He identifies the Woman of Revelation 12 with Mary and suggests that she may have been assumed bodily into heaven (213), and makes a clear distinction between veneration and worship:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Jerome, in the late fourth and early fifth century, continued the Second Eve motif, and vigorously defended Mary's perpetual virginity:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception underwent much development, as Ludwig Ott and Cardinal Newman recount:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Christ became man by the Virgin so that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it originated. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. The Virgin Mary, however, having received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced to her the good tidings . . . answered: Be it done to me according to thy word. (189)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Irenaeus, a little later, takes up the same theme: "What the virgin Eve had tied up by unbelief, this the virgin Mary loosened by faith." (190) He also views her as the preeminent intercessor for mankind. (191)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]In the third century, Origen taught the perpetual virginity (192), Mary as the second-Eve (193), and was the first Father to use the term Theotokos. (194) He expressly affirms the spiritual motherhood of Mary: "No one may understand the meaning of the Gospel [of John], if he has not rested on the breast of Jesus and received Mary from Jesus, to be his mother also." (195)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By the fourth century, the designation "Mother of God" was in general use, since the Roman emperor Julian (the Apostate) taunted Christians,saying: "You never stop calling Mary Theotokos." (196) Eusebius, the first Church historian, calls her panagia, or "all-holy." (197) St. Athanasius calls Mary "ever-virgin," (198) arguing from the fact that Jesus gave His mother to St. John's care. (199) St. Hilary of Poitiers also affirmed the perpetual virginity. (200) St. Ephraem is thought to be the first Father to hold to the Immaculate Conception: "You alone and your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in thee, my Lord, and no stain in thy Mother." (201) He invokes the Blessed Virgin in very "Catholic" fashion:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun's splendor, rays or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth. (202)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Gregory Nazianzen, still in the same century, frequently refers to Mary as "undefiled." (203) He warns that "if anyone does not accept the holy Mary as Theotokos, he is without the Godhead." (204) This is an instance of Mariological doctrine representing a test of orthodoxy. St. Gregory cites an invocation of Mary by a woman tempted by the devil, to "the Virgin Mary, imploring her to help a virgin in danger." (205) St. Gregory of Nyssa often refers to Mary's perpetual virginity, calls her "undefiled," (206) and develops the Mary-Eve theme. (207) He infers a vow of virginity on Mary's part, based on Luke 1:34. (208)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]St. Epiphanius regards Mary as aeiparthenos, ever-virgin (209), using the argument of John's care of Mary after the Crucifixion. (210). Like all the Fathers, he places Mariology under the category of Christology: "He who honours the Lord honours also the holy vessel; he who dishonours the holy vessel, also dishonours his Lord." (211) St. Epiphanius also teaches the parallelism of Eve and Mary (which was the common belief of Eastern, Greek Christianity, and concludes that Mary is "the mother of the living." (212) He identifies the Woman of Revelation 12 with Mary and suggests that she may have been assumed bodily into heaven (213), and makes a clear distinction between veneration and worship:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Honour Mary, but let the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be worshipped. Let no one worship Mary . . . even though Mary is most beautiful and holy and venerable, yet she is not to be worshipped. (214)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. John Chrysostom upholds Mary's perpetual virginity (215) and calls her the New Eve. (216) St. Ambrose contended that Mary's virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ was the authoritative doctrine of the Church from the beginning (217), and that she was sinless. (218) He speaks of her role as Mediatrix (219) and "type of the Church." (220) But he is also careful to distinguish between veneration and adoration: "Mary was the temple of God, not the God of the temple. And therefore he alone is to be adored, who worked in the temple." (221)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]St. Jerome, in the late fourth and early fifth century, continued the Second Eve motif, and vigorously defended Mary's perpetual virginity:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Virgin Mary . . . remained a virgin before as well as after the birth . . . after he was born, she remained ever-virgin. (222)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]We . . . take the brethren of the Lord to have been, not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the children of Mary, the maternal aunt of the Lord . . . For all Scripture shows that cousins are called brethren. (223)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Augustine, like other Latin Fathers, avoids the title "Mother of God," on grounds that it might give rise to misunderstandings, but he clearly holds the doctrine, which was defined as dogma at the Council of Ephesus a year after his death. He often stresses Mary's perpetual virginity and assumes that Mary had made a vow of celibacy. (224) Like St. Ambrose, he expounds the teaching of Mary's role as Mediatrix and Spiritual Mother:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How do you not also belong to the childbirth of the Virgin, when you are members of Christ? (225)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both. (226)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]St. Augustine affirms the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The holy Virgin Mary, about whom, for the honour of the Lord, I want there to be no question where sin is mentioned, for concerning her we know that more grace for conquering sin in every way was given to her who merited to conceive and give birth to him, who certainly had no sin whatsoever - this virgin excepted, if we could . . . ask all saints, whether they were without sin, what, do we think, would they answer? (227)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The feast day for Mary's Conception was celebrated in the east from the seventh century onwards, and in the west from the ninth century. The Byzantine feast of the Assumption appears to have been introduced in the late seventh century, and by the end of the next century it was observed everywhere in the west on August 15th. (228)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception underwent much development, as Ludwig Ott and Cardinal Newman recount:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Under the influence of St. Bernard, the leading theologians of the 12th and 13th centuries (Peter Lombard, St. Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas), rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Their difficulty was that they had not yet found the way to bring Mary's freedom from original sin into consonance with the universality of original sin, and with the necessity of all men for redemption.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The correct approach to the final solution of the problem was first achieved by the Franciscan theologian, William of Ware, and this was perfected by his great pupil John Duns Scotus (d. 1308). The latter taught that the animation need not precede the sanctification in order of time but only in order of concept. Through the introduction of the concept of preredemption, he succeeded in reconciling Mary's freedom from original sin with her necessity for redemption. The preservation from original sin, is, according to Scotus, the most perfect kind of redemption. Thus, it was fitting that Christ should redeem His mother in this manner . . .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Council of Trent, in its Decree on original sin, makes the significant declaration "that it was not its intention to involve Mary, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God in this Decree." (229)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]As to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied. In the Middle Ages it was denied by St. Thomas and by St. Bernard, but they took the phrase in a different sense from that in which the Church now takes it. They understood it with reference to our Lady's mother, and thought it contradicted the text, In sin hath my mother conceived me - whereas we do not speak of the Immaculate Conception except as relating to Mary; and the other doctrine (which St. Thomas and St. Bernard did oppose) is really heretical. (230)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The correct approach to the final solution of the problem was first achieved by the Franciscan theologian, William of Ware, and this was perfected by his great pupil John Duns Scotus (d. 1308). The latter taught that the animation need not precede the sanctification in order of time but only in order of concept. Through the introduction of the concept of preredemption, he succeeded in reconciling Mary's freedom from original sin with her necessity for redemption. The preservation from original sin, is, according to Scotus, the most perfect kind of redemption. Thus, it was fitting that Christ should redeem His mother in this manner . . .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Council of Trent, in its Decree on original sin, makes the significant declaration "that it was not its intention to involve Mary, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God in this Decree." (229)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]As to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied. In the Middle Ages it was denied by St. Thomas and by St. Bernard, but they took the phrase in a different sense from that in which the Church now takes it. They understood it with reference to our Lady's mother, and thought it contradicted the text, In sin hath my mother conceived me - whereas we do not speak of the Immaculate Conception except as relating to Mary; and the other doctrine (which St. Thomas and St. Bernard did oppose) is really heretical. (230)[/SIZE]
Footnotes for the above post:
189. Dialogue with Trypho, 100:5, in Graef, Hilda, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965 - as are all patristic quotes following unless otherwise noted.
[SIZE=-1]190. Against Heresies, 3,21,10.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]191. Ibid., 4,33,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]192. Homily 7 on Luke.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]193. Homily 1 on Matthew 5.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]194. Two Fragments on Luke, nos. 41 and 80 in the Berlin ed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]195. In John, 1,6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]196. Quoted by Cyril in his work against Julian.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]197. Ecclesiastica Theologia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]198. Discourse Against the Arians, 2,70.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]199. Letter to the Virgins.[/SIZE]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604071746/[SIZE=-1]200. Commentary on Matthew, 1,4 / 1,20.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]201. Nisibene Hymns, 27,8.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]202. "Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God".[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]203. Carmina, 1,2,1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]204. To Cledonius the Priest, Against Apollinaris, 101.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]205. Oratio, 24,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]206. E.g., Against Appolinaris, 6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]207. Homily 13 on the Canticle / On the Birth of Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]208. Ibid.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]209. Panarion, 78,1 / 78,5.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]210. Ibid., 78,10.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]211. Ibid., 78,21.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]212. Ibid., 78,18.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]213. Ibid., 78,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]214. Ibid., 79,7.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]215. Homilies on Matthew.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]216. Commentary 7 in Psalms 44.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]217. Epistle 42, 4-6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]218. Commentary on Luke, 2,17 / Commentary on Psalms 118, 22,30.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]219. Epistle 63,33 / Epistle 49,2.[/SIZE]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604071746/[SIZE=-1]220. Commentary on Luke, 2,7.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]221. The Holy Spirit, 3,79 ff.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]222. Commentary on Ezekiel, 13,44,1 ff.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]223. Comm. on Matt., 12.50.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]224. See Graef, ibid., 95-100 / Heresies, 56.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]225. Sermon 188,4.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]226. Christian Combat, 22,24. From Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, 50.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]227. Nature and Grace, 36,42[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]228. Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 692,99.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]229. Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, tr. Patrick Lynch, Rockford, IL: TAN Books & Publishers, 1974 (orig. 1952 in German), 201-202.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]230. Newman, Meditations and Devotions, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, n.d. (orig. 1893), 153.[/SIZE]
189. Dialogue with Trypho, 100:5, in Graef, Hilda, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965 - as are all patristic quotes following unless otherwise noted.
[SIZE=-1]190. Against Heresies, 3,21,10.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]191. Ibid., 4,33,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]192. Homily 7 on Luke.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]193. Homily 1 on Matthew 5.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]194. Two Fragments on Luke, nos. 41 and 80 in the Berlin ed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]195. In John, 1,6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]196. Quoted by Cyril in his work against Julian.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]197. Ecclesiastica Theologia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]198. Discourse Against the Arians, 2,70.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]199. Letter to the Virgins.[/SIZE]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604071746/[SIZE=-1]200. Commentary on Matthew, 1,4 / 1,20.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]201. Nisibene Hymns, 27,8.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]202. "Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God".[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]203. Carmina, 1,2,1.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]204. To Cledonius the Priest, Against Apollinaris, 101.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]205. Oratio, 24,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]206. E.g., Against Appolinaris, 6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]207. Homily 13 on the Canticle / On the Birth of Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]208. Ibid.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]209. Panarion, 78,1 / 78,5.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]210. Ibid., 78,10.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]211. Ibid., 78,21.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]212. Ibid., 78,18.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]213. Ibid., 78,11.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]214. Ibid., 79,7.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]215. Homilies on Matthew.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]216. Commentary 7 in Psalms 44.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]217. Epistle 42, 4-6.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]218. Commentary on Luke, 2,17 / Commentary on Psalms 118, 22,30.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]219. Epistle 63,33 / Epistle 49,2.[/SIZE]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604071746/[SIZE=-1]220. Commentary on Luke, 2,7.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]221. The Holy Spirit, 3,79 ff.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]222. Commentary on Ezekiel, 13,44,1 ff.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]223. Comm. on Matt., 12.50.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]224. See Graef, ibid., 95-100 / Heresies, 56.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]225. Sermon 188,4.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]226. Christian Combat, 22,24. From Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, 50.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]227. Nature and Grace, 36,42[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]228. Cross, F.L. & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 692,99.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]229. Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, tr. Patrick Lynch, Rockford, IL: TAN Books & Publishers, 1974 (orig. 1952 in German), 201-202.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]230. Newman, Meditations and Devotions, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, n.d. (orig. 1893), 153.[/SIZE]
All Have Sinned . . ." (Mary?)
[SIZE=-1]Romans 3:23: "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." {NRSV}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I'm still looking for a good answer on the "for all have sinned" question in regards to Mary. The "all doesn't always mean all" answer is not satisfactory since I am sure there are references where all does mean all![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I don't follow. If the word "all" (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), then it can have different meanings! It matters not if it means literally "every single one" in some places, if it can mean something less than "absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos ("brother") meaning "sibling" in one place rules out a meaning of "cousin" or other non-sibling somewhere else.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV reads, "being filled with all unrighteousness.....," whereas NRSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, ".....every kind of wickedness...." As another example in the same book, Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The "exception" answer is not satisfactory either considering Adam and Eve were before there was original sin and Jesus was God!![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And Mary was freed from original sin! Again, I don't see how this is compelling at all. All you've shown is that there are exceptions indeed. Granted, Jesus is of course unique, but if He proves an exception to the rule here, is it utterly inconceivable that Mary could as well? Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but they are used as examples of immaculate human beings however short-lived it was in their case! I agree that this verse could be regarded as a "difficulty," but I don't think it is insurmountable. What would be irrefutable would be a verse that read something like: "absolutely every human being who ever lived no exceptions - has sinned......" This would include Jesus since He is a human as we are - just that He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn't entail that logical conundrum.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]One could also say that Mary was included in the "all" in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin like all the rest of us but for God's special preventive act of grace - a "preemptive strike," so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). I don't think that is stretching it, considering that Hebrew idiom was not at all "scientific," "philosophical" nor excessively particularistic as to literal meanings, as English in our culture seems to be today. I myself - in my admittedly relative ignorance of technical exegesis - think that this "exception / original sin / Hebrew idiom" explanation is the most plausible. It allows one to take "all" here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, and it is also in line with the thought of Luke 1:47, as interpreted by Catholic theology, in light of its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]That said, I go now to linguistic reference works. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Likewise, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives "of every kind" as a possible meaning in some contexts {p.491, word #3956}. And Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean "every kind or variety." {v.1, p.46, under "All"}.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Nevertheless, I am inclined to go with the "exception" interpretation I described above. My point here is simply to illustrate that pas doesn't necessarily have to mean "no exceptions, so that Mary's sinlessness is not a logical impossibility based on the meaning of pas alone.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God's, but He doesn't deny that we can be "good" in a lesser sense.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But us Catholics agree with Protestants on the universality of sin, with just the one lone exception of Mary among created human beings. That's not too incredible or implausible or unthinkable to imagine God doing, is it? To make sure that one solitary created person was kept from sin? And that because she was the Theotokos, the God-bearer? Newman said that it is far less difficult to hold that Mary was freed from original and actual sin than it is to accept the proposition that all men are subject to original sin. The real mystery is why God would allow the latter to happen, not that He willed to restore His Son's earthly mother to a state which - but for original sin - would have characterized every one of us.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]=================================================================[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not "all" people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, "all" will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.[/SIZE]
After doing a search on "All Have Sinned", I found this
[SIZE=+3]All Have Sinned . . ." (Mary?) [/SIZE] I wrote the following to an evangelical Protestant friend who has since converted to Catholicism. This is a classic Protestant objection which has in the past troubled me a little bit (even as a Catholic) as well.
[SIZE=-1]Romans 3:23: "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." {NRSV}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I'm still looking for a good answer on the "for all have sinned" question in regards to Mary. The "all doesn't always mean all" answer is not satisfactory since I am sure there are references where all does mean all![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I don't follow. If the word "all" (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), then it can have different meanings! It matters not if it means literally "every single one" in some places, if it can mean something less than "absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos ("brother") meaning "sibling" in one place rules out a meaning of "cousin" or other non-sibling somewhere else.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV reads, "being filled with all unrighteousness.....," whereas NRSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, ".....every kind of wickedness...." As another example in the same book, Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The "exception" answer is not satisfactory either considering Adam and Eve were before there was original sin and Jesus was God!![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And Mary was freed from original sin! Again, I don't see how this is compelling at all. All you've shown is that there are exceptions indeed. Granted, Jesus is of course unique, but if He proves an exception to the rule here, is it utterly inconceivable that Mary could as well? Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but they are used as examples of immaculate human beings however short-lived it was in their case! I agree that this verse could be regarded as a "difficulty," but I don't think it is insurmountable. What would be irrefutable would be a verse that read something like: "absolutely every human being who ever lived no exceptions - has sinned......" This would include Jesus since He is a human as we are - just that He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn't entail that logical conundrum.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]One could also say that Mary was included in the "all" in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin like all the rest of us but for God's special preventive act of grace - a "preemptive strike," so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). I don't think that is stretching it, considering that Hebrew idiom was not at all "scientific," "philosophical" nor excessively particularistic as to literal meanings, as English in our culture seems to be today. I myself - in my admittedly relative ignorance of technical exegesis - think that this "exception / original sin / Hebrew idiom" explanation is the most plausible. It allows one to take "all" here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, and it is also in line with the thought of Luke 1:47, as interpreted by Catholic theology, in light of its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]That said, I go now to linguistic reference works. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., "all Jerusalem" in Mt 2:3 and "all the sick" in 4:24. {pp.796-7}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Likewise, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives "of every kind" as a possible meaning in some contexts {p.491, word #3956}. And Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean "every kind or variety." {v.1, p.46, under "All"}.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Nevertheless, I am inclined to go with the "exception" interpretation I described above. My point here is simply to illustrate that pas doesn't necessarily have to mean "no exceptions, so that Mary's sinlessness is not a logical impossibility based on the meaning of pas alone.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]No one is good but God alone. {Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17}[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.... {Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45, 7:17-20, 22:10}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God's, but He doesn't deny that we can be "good" in a lesser sense.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good [Hebrew, tob] no not one. {Ps 14:2-3; cf. 53:1-3 / Paul cites these in Rom 3:10-12}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But us Catholics agree with Protestants on the universality of sin, with just the one lone exception of Mary among created human beings. That's not too incredible or implausible or unthinkable to imagine God doing, is it? To make sure that one solitary created person was kept from sin? And that because she was the Theotokos, the God-bearer? Newman said that it is far less difficult to hold that Mary was freed from original and actual sin than it is to accept the proposition that all men are subject to original sin. The real mystery is why God would allow the latter to happen, not that He willed to restore His Son's earthly mother to a state which - but for original sin - would have characterized every one of us.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]=================================================================[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not "all" people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, "all" will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.[/SIZE]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Mary is never mentioned in the book of Revelation.
John never prays to her.
John never calls her "the mother of God"
See - no mention of Mary at all in that text!!
[quote
Mary is symbolically represented as the "WOMAN".
[/quote]
No she is not.
The Church of God OT and NT is listed in Rev 12.
The Church of God goes into 1260 years of persecution during the dark ages following the life of Christ and establishment of the Christian Church - as the text points out.
You see - your habbit of just "making stuff up" does not provide a sufficient substitute for reading the Bible -
John never prays to her.
John never calls her "the mother of God"
mojoala said:
See - no mention of Mary at all in that text!!
[quote
Mary is symbolically represented as the "WOMAN".
[/quote]
No she is not.
The Church of God OT and NT is listed in Rev 12.
The Church of God goes into 1260 years of persecution during the dark ages following the life of Christ and establishment of the Christian Church - as the text points out.
You see - your habbit of just "making stuff up" does not provide a sufficient substitute for reading the Bible -
mojoala said:
Grace and Peace mojoala,
If you don't mind I don't believe it is the literalness in which this verse is taken that determines the subject of 'All'. Regardless of how one interprets this verse one must determine the subject of 'All' within the logic that it was intended by it's author. 'All' refers to a subject which I might argue could be 'all rational creatures of God'. If you take my argument at face value it would actually exempt Jesus Christ who is not a 'creature' but the Incarnation of God Himself.
With regard to Children, we must look beyond this one verse to grasp further clarity as to whom this 'All' actually includes. I would point you to:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: - Romans 5:12
Please note that Romans 5:12 is actually very tricky to interpret and that I prefer the 'causual' interpretation; i.e. “death spread to all people because all sinned.” Once again, if you agree with my argument then Adam's 'guilt' cannot decend on those whom have not had the opportunity to exercise their sinful nature in a manner which would be considered 'of their own free will'. Children and adults without the capacity to make self-determined decisions would be exempt. Unless Mary lacked the capacity to exercise her freewill I have a difficult time accepting that either exemption extends toward her. In fact, we have Biblical evidence that Mary exercised her freewill in the acceptance of the Holy Spirit to dwell within her so that she might bare the Incarnation of God.
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:38
Unless you are suggesting that Mary was unable to say 'no' to this invitation and thus was predestined by God before hand through a unique and special conception I would suggest that such a doctrine removes any merit of participation in which Catholics and Orthodox claim her to have. Either she is blessed by her participation 'freely' given or she was predestined by God with a unique and special conception and thus any merit is solely that of God's alone and not Mary's at all. As I understand it this is why Orthodoxy holds no doctrine of a unique and special conception with regard to Mary.
Just as a side note your profile states that you are Baptist. Are you now Catholic?
Regardless Peace and God Bless.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Quote:
As for Revelations 12 and Romans 11, that makes no sense whatsoever.
BOTH chapters deal with ONE symbol that stands for the church IN BOTH OT and NT.
Romans 11 has both Jews and Gentiles grafted into the SAME VINE - in both OT and NT.
Rev 12 shows BOTH the OT and NT church of the saints as "a pure woman".
This just isn't that hard.
Mary is never mentioned in Rev.
Mary is never called "Holy Mother" by ANYONE in the NT
Mary is never prayed to in ALL of the NT - not even by John.
Mary is never called "SINLESS" in the NT NOR are there any references to ANY altars built to Mary.
You get the point.
As for Revelations 12 and Romans 11, that makes no sense whatsoever.
BOTH chapters deal with ONE symbol that stands for the church IN BOTH OT and NT.
Romans 11 has both Jews and Gentiles grafted into the SAME VINE - in both OT and NT.
Rev 12 shows BOTH the OT and NT church of the saints as "a pure woman".
This just isn't that hard.
Mary is never mentioned in Rev.
Mary is never called "Holy Mother" by ANYONE in the NT
Mary is never prayed to in ALL of the NT - not even by John.
Mary is never called "SINLESS" in the NT NOR are there any references to ANY altars built to Mary.
You get the point.
Eastern Orthodoxy
[SIZE=-1]Eastern Orthodoxy[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The Mariology of Eastern Orthodoxy is in many respects identical to that of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox greatly venerate the Blessed Virgin in the same sense as in Catholicism, call her Theotokos, Aeiparthenos, (Ever-Virgin), and Panagia (All-Holy), regard her as the New Eve, and hold firmly to her bodily Assumption. Although they maintain that Mary was free from actual sin, the great majority of Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception. Some Catholic theologians, such as Louis Bouyer (231), have argued that Orthodox theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas himself) often misunderstand the precise meaning of this dogma, as clarified by Duns Scotus and others, and finally defined in 1854. (232) Nevertheless, the feast of the Immaculate Conception first originated in the east, and individual Orthodox Christians are free to believe in this doctrine without being deemed heretical..[/SIZE]
231. Bouyer, Louis, The Seat of Wisdom, tr. A.V. Littledale, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965 (orig. 1960), 104.
[SIZE=-1]232. Ware, Timothy (Archbishop Kallistos), The Orthodox Church, NY: Penguin Books, Rev. ed., 1980, 261-4.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Eastern Orthodoxy[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The Mariology of Eastern Orthodoxy is in many respects identical to that of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox greatly venerate the Blessed Virgin in the same sense as in Catholicism, call her Theotokos, Aeiparthenos, (Ever-Virgin), and Panagia (All-Holy), regard her as the New Eve, and hold firmly to her bodily Assumption. Although they maintain that Mary was free from actual sin, the great majority of Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception. Some Catholic theologians, such as Louis Bouyer (231), have argued that Orthodox theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas himself) often misunderstand the precise meaning of this dogma, as clarified by Duns Scotus and others, and finally defined in 1854. (232) Nevertheless, the feast of the Immaculate Conception first originated in the east, and individual Orthodox Christians are free to believe in this doctrine without being deemed heretical..[/SIZE]
231. Bouyer, Louis, The Seat of Wisdom, tr. A.V. Littledale, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965 (orig. 1960), 104.
[SIZE=-1]232. Ware, Timothy (Archbishop Kallistos), The Orthodox Church, NY: Penguin Books, Rev. ed., 1980, 261-4.[/SIZE]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
mojoala said:
OK - but didn't you say that you "take offense" at my reference to the "Magic Powers" of the Priest - that is in fact a reference to the RCC practice of giving "powers" to their priests - "Powers" that THEY say can not be removed EVEN if the RCC excommuncates the Priest as an apostate?
How is that "offense" possible for a Baptist "on the fence" thinking about attending other churches?
I find the Magic Power's remark funny considering the Apostles went around with even more Magical Powers than my understanding of what Priests have. The Magical Powers thing must be an SDA thing. I was at a flea market yesterday and should have bought a big book a saw. It was something about Occults. I browsed thru it. SDA is in the same league as JW, Mormons, Harry Krisna, etc, etc, etc. I might go back and get it and read the SDA section. I might be able to start some good threads about SDA dogma and doctrine.BobRyan said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Your many quotes are frivilous in light of the eternal Word of God. It is God's revelation that is our standard, not man's writings. The church fathers believed in many heresies. That is why you don't see many Baptists quoting from them. The Bible is our fnal authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. If you can't prove your doctrine from the Word of God then it is of no consequence to us. It doesn't matter what you believe. Our standard is the Word of God, not the church fathers, not the Koran, not the "Sahib Granth," or any other such "holy book." Demnstrate your doctrine to be true according to the Word of God, not through some man's opinion of the Word of God.mojoala said:
DHK
I rather trust the opinions of those that lived immediately after the Apostles then from any mordern day person. They lived and breathed the culture and the times. If anybody had a true sense of the interpretation of the Scriptures it was those that had great knowledge of the times, the culture and the utmately the language the scriptures were written in. The learned men of those times had a better understanding of what was written.
With that, I know I am done with this conversation and thread. Anyone that don't believe that the Bible is the Final Authority isn't worth talking to anymore.mojoala said:
For all of your "research" and wanting to understand the differences between Baptist and the RCC you sure seemed to be one sided on the side of the RCC.
Jamie