THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION - MARY BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN???

thessalonians,

If you could remember that far back you would remember that all Protestant Christians believe in Original Sin. I have sat in both Arminian and Calvinistic seminaries and both institutions and professors believe in the Adamic Nature, and that no human being is without it. There may be liberal Protestants in denominations who deny this just a some Catholic theologians like Hans Kung, Karl Rahner and Edward Schillbeeckx have become apostates.

Mary and Joseph both had Original Sin, but the atonement of Jesus covered it not only great people like them, but for us also who live in this 21st. century. Although we do not know the burial place of Mary and Joseph, they both will arise at the first resurrection when Christ comes for His church. [I Thess. 4:17] Like the Christians who drowned in the ocean throughout all times, Mary and Joseph will stand before Christ at the Judgment Seat of Christ [II Cor. 5:10] and will enter Heaven [II Cor. 5:8 & Philippians 1:23] itself.

And by the same token, no living wicked soul will escape the Great White Throne Judgment. [Revelation 20:11.

 

Rbent,

I am merely stating that your definition of OS may well be different than ours. The definition you gave was non-commital as to whether it involved a stain on the individals soul. I do not believe your definition does. Correct me if I am wrong. Tecnically speaking that is all that the Catholic doctrine says (though this has implications on her sinlessness which is included). If you think you know Catohlicism better than I so that you can say my post is not intelligent that is a matter of pride that you will have to deal with. In truth it is apparent you don't know what you are talking about because you say the doctrine is that Mary was BORN without OS. It is that she was CONCIEVED without OS. By the way, did you know that John the Baptist was born without OS. Biblically prove me wrong.

As for intelligent posts your cut and past distortoins and straw men are rather boring.

God bless.

 

Hi Ray,

Karl Rahner apostasized? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. ...The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded , it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin , was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin , were excluded..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In essence - the sinful nature.

The RC stories speculate that Mary had no sinful nature while admitting that in fact - all humans have sinful natures.

Of course even Mary denies this as she herself calls "God HER Saviour" and nothing is said in all of scripture about Mary "having no sinful nature" and hence nothing about "Mary being assumed into heaven".

Notice that the "entire argument" for the assumption of Mary is neither from 1st century NT history nor from scripture - it is based solely on the story that the RC spins about Mary not having a sinful nature and being "sinless like Christ".

But in fact - all (Romans 5, Romans 3) are born in sin - and ALL need a savior from the very moment of their birth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The simple fact is that without the Savior, Mary was destined for Hell. She was TOTALLY human and a daughter of Adam. She was no more perfect then Noah, Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Peter and Paul.

Any other position is purely the foolishness of man's desire to place a major importance on the works of man.

 

Then why did Jesus say to John, from the Cross, "Behold thy mother"? That wouldn't have been necessary if she'd had other children. No, I hold to the ancient teaching(s)of the church-Mary was perpetually virgin.

 

Carson Weber,

You asked, 'What is the matter with Dr. Rahner?

Dr. Paul Enns says that 'Rahner perceives Christ as the pinnacle of human evolution.' from "The Moody Handbook of Theology" Moody Press, Chicago, p. 602.

Another summary of Rahner's theology see: Robert Kress, "A Rahner Handbook" Atlanta: Knox, 1982 pgs. 36-41.

We believe Christ is eternally with the Father and the Spirit of God; one God. Christ does not come from an evolutionary forte.

We hold to the Creation view coming from the Book of Genesis.

 

Mary CANNOT be a perpetual virgin. She gave birth. As for Christ's line to John. It would seem that John was the only male there with Mary.
This was the first time Jesus saw Mary from the time of His arrest until the cross. John was called the beloved disciple.

There is a question as to whether Christ's step-brother's and sisters were even believers at the time of His crucifixtion. The likelyhood is that Jesus' claims of being the Messiah were looked at as an embarrassment to the "FAMILY" as a whole.
Joseph was died, and Mary seems to have been the only immediate family member present. How would you like to be a younger brother of Jesus. A child who could do no wrong... What happened to Joseph (in Genesis) by the hand of his brothers.

James, however, eventually wrote the book of James and this step-brother of Jesus finally did become a leader in the Church.

 

A_Christian,

A few things.

1) Scripture never says Joseph died, and yet you present it as a truth?

2) You believe one of Jesus' half-brothers was a later believer...at that time, why did not Mary go and live with him? We know for a fact she did not because Scripture says she stayed with John from that point on.

 

Fact. All sinful people die. Joseph and Mary were both sinful wretches and they both had to die.

Mary could have moved in with anyone sho chose later. The Bible says NOTHING about MARY's final years (including her death).

 

The Bible says NOTHING about a lot of stuff, which is why we have the division that exists today when every man declares himself an authority unto himself to interpret the scriptures.

If Mary was nothing but a "sinful" wretch she would have not been recognized by the angel as blessed. She was set apart by God for the task of being the vessel through which the Savior would be born. You lack of respect for Mary is distasteful at best.

 

You bring up a good point, Bro Adam. Mary was told by the Angel "blessed are you among women". I will have to give this some prayerful thought.

 

Thank you Johnv for your kindness. I also wanted to add quickly, whether or not Mary was set apart from the moment of conception, or sometime during her life she, like Abraham was counted as righteous for her faith, she none-the-less was saved through the same redemptive sacrafice that all of humanity is.

 

I think you missed my point. My point is that you said Joseph was dead at a certain point in Jesus' life, but the Scripture does not say as such. You are relying on tradition, not Scripture, to reach this conclusion.

Really? Because that's not what my Bible says:

And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

 

Gracesaves, you, too bring up a good point. The Bible is notably silent on Joseph in Jesus' ministry years. We presume that Joseph had died somewhere before that. That presumption is likely correct, though we can't say for certain. It is by no means unbiblical to conclude that Joseph was dead. It is only unbiblical to assert that with complete doctrinal certainty.

 

I thought it was interesting how none of the non-Catholics said anything about the aforementioned John the Baptist being born without original sin (not conceived, but born), as the Holy Spirit was upon him inside his mother's womb.

If one can be born without original sin (that stain being removed before they are baptised/saved, why is it impossible for God to not only save a child in the womb but also at the very moment of his conception? John had the Holy Spirit before Jesus' sacrifice also.

 

John the Baptist was saved, that doesn't mean, as today, that John the Baptist was without sin. I don't believe that and the fact is that he didn't want to baptize Jesus because of his imperfection.

As for Mary, she may have lived in John's home the rest of her life. I don't need a pope to tell me what the Bible says or doesn't say. That is the point. The Holy Spirit deals directly with me as HE did with both Mary and John the Baptist. This is where the Catholic church fails to give freedom to its membership but claims it for herself...

 

Nor do I think that John the Baptist never sinned (nor does the Church). The point is that John the Baptist received a specific grace in the womb that others do not receive, one based on the future merit of Christ's life, passion, and resurrection. Why one cannot accept that another particular grace (being conceived without original sin, instead of born, like John, without original sin) is wholly impossible, or rather as is often put, anti-Biblical.

That's not what you said. You said:

Mary could have moved in with anyone sho chose later. The Bible says NOTHING about MARY's final years (including her death).

Even now you place doubt on the Scripture which said she spent the rest of her days with John.

Considering you doubt the Scripture that I posted, yeah, you're right. You rely wholly on yourself.

So the Spirit has to reveal anew to each individual Christian the Truths brought to the world during the Apostolic Age?

Does the Spirit require each person to write Scriptures anew? No. Then why would he require each person to interpret them anew. The Holy Spirit provided the Scriptures once, and He provided the understanding of those Scriptures once.

 

I don't need a pope to tell me what the Bible says or doesn't say. That is the point. The Holy Spirit deals directly with me as HE did with both Mary and John the Baptist. This is where the Catholic church fails to give freedom to its membership but claims it for herself...
---


The problem is that "A_Christian" is prone to error. You may very well have a relationship with Christ, and can reasonably read and understand what is written in the scriptures, but you don't have the promise to be able to interpret the scriptures without error. Just like all of us here- Pastor Larry, Carson, Grant, WPutnam, Ray, myself, everyone, is prone to error, so are you. Unfortunately salvation does not garuntee the ability to perfectly and privately interpret scripture.

So the question you must ask- is there an authority that was given at the Pentacost and exists still today in some form that does have that infallable authority to interpret the scriptures?