Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??

[mrtumnus]

If you are looking to Mary for that redemptive grace, you are not going to ever see it. Mary cannot redeem anyone.

The source of all redemptive grace is Christ and his work on the cross.

 

[mrtumnus]

mrtumnus,


Quote:
"The papal proclamation:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

mrtumnus,



The pronouncments of the leader of a countefiet christian group mean nothing, mrtumnus. They are 100% irrelavent. Please dont waste your time.

I could post a prayer from Pope John Paull II that was made during an ecumenical meeting where he was praying in unity with Voodoo practitioners, witch doctors, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc etc etc in order to bring peace in the world. Thats blasphemous.

The Catholic Church exterminated multiplied thousands for much less during the Inquisitions.

Mike

Mike,
The reason I posted the quote from the proclamation is to illustrate my point that the doctrine has much less to do with Mary and everything to do with her being saved by Christ. I understand that you do not accept the authority of the document. I do however operate under the impression that people would like to be able to correctly portray what they are objecting to. And since I see continual references that indicate that people somehow believe this doctrine implies that Mary did not need a Savior, I used the opportunity to point out this was not the case.

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe
mrtumnus
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Why is Mary is rejoicing in this verse?

What is God saving her from?


Your answer....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrtumnus
God absolutely did save her from sin. The question is -- when did he save her? Is it required that her sanctification and perfection as a Christian must occur after the cross, and after she had sinned?

Or does the omnipresence and omniscience of God allow for the possibility that He knew the choice she would make and opted to sanctify at the time of her creation in order to make holy the vessel in which He would dwell?

And if this were the case and you were Mary, wouldn't you absolutely be rejoicing in God your Savior, who had done great things for you?

The issue is that those who do not understand this doctrine try to make it about Mary. The only thing is has to do with Mary is that she was the one chosen by God for this purpose. The doctrine itself is totally about God, His nature and His grace.

The papal proclamation:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Your answer....



Again, mrtumnus, please answer my questions. They are simple.
It's polite to not answer a question with questions Then I'll answer you ok

Sorry Joe, I thought I had answered your questions.

Mary is rejoicing that God has saved her from sin.

You infer from that she has sinned. I would say that’s not something that can not be definitively stated, unless you believe it would be impossible for God by the grace merited by Jesus on the cross to have saved her from sin pro-actively and prior to her ever actually committing a sin.

 

[mrtumnus]

mrtumnus,

Quote:
"I didn't forget the "sinless" part. But after I am completely sanctified and perfected by redemptive grace, my expectation is to be sinless as well."

Yes, but you will be in heaven then....not here on earth.

In all probability yes. But to believe that God is limited to waiting for heaven to bring to fullness the sanctification and perfection of a person would not be correct in my view.

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtumnus
God absolutely did save her from sin. The question is -- when did he save her? Is it required that her sanctification and perfection as a Christian must occur after the cross, and after she had sinned?

After the cross? No, definitely not. She knew that Christ was the Messiah well before the wedding of Cana where Christ performed his first miracle and began his ministry.

I am glad to see that you understand that God is not bound by time and the sacrifice on the cross did not have to occur prior to her salvation.

 

[mrtumnus]

Or does the omnipresence and omniscience of God allow for the possibility that He knew the choice she would make and opted to sanctify at the time of her creation in order to make holy the vessel in which He would dwell?

Absolutely not! God does not go against his Word. Salvation is the same for all. It is by grace through faith, and not of works (Eph.2:8,). Mary was no exception. Mary admitted that she was a sinner; admitted that she was in need of a Savior; and also brought a sin offering to the priest at the time of her purification. That is very strong evidence that Mary knew of her sinful condition. Sinners need to be saved. They can only be saved when they are at an aged when they realize they are sinners and are able to volitionally accept the grace of God on behalf of their sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. She must have believed. We know she believed. At what age? We don't know, but it had to be at an age of understanding and comprehension of who Christ was. Her own children: James and Jude did not believe that Christ was the Messiah until after the resurrection.

There are several problems with this part in my view. First however, we do agree that salvation is the same for all – through the merits earned at the cross.

You are however, binding the power of God by believing that Mary’s belief had to come prior to her salvation, for God in his omniscience is perfectly capable of knowing what Mary’s response was to be. So the question becomes – could he have opted to save her at the moment of her creation based upon her belief? My answer to that is yes, that was within his power. Do you disagree with that?

The comments I see about her bringing a ‘sin offering’ proving that she was indeed a sinner are extremely problematic. First of all, she was following the Jewish law which she was under. To not have brought a ‘sin offering’ would have in fact been a sin, for she would not have submitted herself to the law. Secondly, if you trace this law back to the OT, I believe she was required to make this sacrifice after childbirth. Your conclusion therefore that this ‘proves’ she was a sinner means that you believe that Mary committed a personal sin by giving birth to Jesus.

The other problem I see with this reasoning is just because somebody follows the command of God to present themselves to partake of a ritual one cannot make any assumptions from that. If so, what would one have to conclude regarding Jesus? After all, he presented himself to be baptized by John, whose baptism was “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. Using your logic, this would now prove Jesus was a sinner. That of course would be incorrect, as is the conclusion you’ve reached that the fact Mary provided a ‘sin offering’ proves she is a sinner.

 

[mrtumnus]

However you seem to be one who is treating God like a puppet at your fingertips commanding him to do what you want. God acts according to His nature and according to His Word; not ours. It was His will that God the second person of the trinity, come to earth in the form of a man--born of a virgin, conceived by the third person of the Godhead, and being found perfect and complete in his humanity, and not giving up any part of his deity he lived and dwelt among men. And because of his love for man he finally died for man's sin. He could do so for he was perfect man without sin, and because he was God at the same time.

I have not made God a puppet. I do indeed believe that God acts according to His nature. This is why I would believe that it was within His power to sanctify Mary at the moment of her creation, that would be completely consistent with the Gospel, and He would do so because it would be contrary to His nature to have a dwelling place that was not sanctified. You seem to be comfortable to believe that it was within His nature to dwell in a vessel of sin. That would not be consistent with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible in my view.

I've tried to reply to everyone but know I have a few left. I will have to do those later.

 

[annsni]

If God can protect anyone from sin even without the Blood of Jesus, why didn't He apply such Technique to all other human beings without the need for His Beloved Son to die the terrible death?

So you are saying that God is incapable of doing something? God would be incapable of protecting someone from sin? I think not. However God has put forth rules and requirements that He will not change. He could have made another way for man to be saved in the beginning but He set up the requirements of sacrifices for sins. In that requirement, He then required a perfect sacrifice to end all the other sacrifices. It was by God's own choice to set up the requirements that His Son would have to die. But God is absolutely capable of doing whatever He wants - but He chooses to work within rules that He Himself has set up.

 

[mrtumnus]

mrtumnus
These are your statements to various people beginning with page 17. We are now on page 19

Quote:
Mary absolutely required a Savior and she absolutely recognized this



Quote:
"That does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that she sinned however."

Quote:
The problem with a definitive declaration that Mary sinned from a sola-scriptura POV is that scripture in no way states this.To go from her recognition that God is indeed her savior to that she actively committed sin is a leap without merit.



Quote:
God absolutely did save her from sin.




I am seeing this conversation going in circles and becoming quite fruitless. It's my bedtime, goodnight

I’m sorry you see this as going in circles Joe. My perception is that occurs because people attempt to place God into human time (past, present and future) instead of understanding that omnipresent means always present in each moment of time. So while it may seem circular to us to entertain the thought that Mary’s salvation occurred prior to her birth or belief, it would not be so to God, who sees all of time as one moment, always present.

One does not have to have sinned therefore to be saved from sin. One can also be saved from ever falling into sin in the first place. This salvation can based upon the faith of the believer. This is all possible because God is not bound by time. He did not have to wait for Mary to sin or for the human time to come for her to profess faith.

I understand one may instead opt to believe that God chose to dwell in a vessel of sin.

But to state that scripture definitively proves that Mary sinned and her salvation was not obtained prior to that would be incorrect I believe.

 

[mrtumnus]

I have attended Catholic masses many times with my husband and can tell you that I've never heard anybody there say Mary was a goddess. They honor her as the mother of God just like Elizabeth did when Mary went to her when she was pregnant. Now when I go to my church nobody ever talks about Mary but then at my husbands church they showed me where the Catholics get there teachings from I was ver surprised to find it in the Bible.

Luke 1: 41-43 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, Most blessed are you amoung women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, And how does the happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


Grace56

Thank you for that Grace. Since Mary is hardly mentioned during the rite of the Mass (which is the central worship service of the entire church), I’ve always found it hard to understand how people have concluded we are centered on Mary.

I love your name by the way. My grandmother’s name was Grace, and there’s been many a time I’ve regretted not passing that on to my daughter.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I’m sorry you see this as going in circles Joe. My perception is that occurs because people attempt to place God into human time (past, present and future) instead of understanding that omnipresent means always present in each moment of time. So while it may seem circular to us to entertain the thought that Mary’s salvation occurred prior to her birth or belief, it would not be so to God, who sees all of time as one moment, always present.

One does not have to have sinned therefore to be saved from sin. One can also be saved from ever falling into sin in the first place. This salvation can based upon the faith of the believer. This is all possible because God is not bound by time. He did not have to wait for Mary to sin or for the human time to come for her to profess faith.

I understand one may instead opt to believe that God chose to dwell in a vessel of sin.

But to state that scripture definitively proves that Mary sinned and her salvation was not obtained prior to that would be incorrect I believe.

Your belief is wrong according to Scripture

 

[mrtumnus]

Mrtumnus, I have a pretty good understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I was set to swim the Tiber this Easter of ’08 and have been attending RCIA classes in preparation for a few years. I’m now an Orthodox Catechumen for reasons as such we are discussing.

You say I beg to differ…

The IC means that Mary’s conception was brought about the normal way, only she at her conception was without original sin…that’s what “Immaculate” means…without stain. Through this act of preserving Mary, sin wasn’t passed on to Jesus in her womb. <<<-This IS Roman Catholic teaching…period.

The Catholic Church and many Protestants teach that Adam’s guilt is passed on to us at our conception…This is purely Augustine theology…and the RC dogma of the IC is the answer to this. Pope Pius IX, dogmatized the IC centuries after the split between the Eastern and Western Church.

The West (Roman Catholic and maybe some Protestants), likes to believe that sin is something tangible, like it’s something you can see or touch, maybe even taste.

The Orthodox has no problem at all, b/c we don’t inherit Adam’s guilt, only the consequences and that’s death. Mary, even though she herself was a sinner, never passed on Adam’s guilt…Mary, just as you and I are responsible for our own sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

I have enjoyed your posts very much Agnus_Dei.

All I can say if that if your RCIA classes implied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was in any way necessary to prevent a 'sin nature' from being passed to Jesus, then it was not an accurate presentation of the doctrine.

I am however quite puzzled by what I've marked in red above? I have several friends who are Orthodox, and while they do not have the same understanding of the IC doctrine, they do indeed believe that Mary was sinless. My understanding would be that this was defined at the 2nd Council of Nicea prior to the schism and accepted by the Orthodox as being a valid council. Worded something like the "God-bearer" being without blemish.

So is it your understanding in your studies that the Orthodox believe that Mary was a sinner? And do you have an Orthodox teaching site that states that? I would like to discuss with my friends.

 

[mrtumnus]

Your belief is wrong according to Scripture

I understand that you view my belief as being wrong based upon your interpretation of Scripture.

However, as we've seen in this thread, accurate interpretation is not a given, even among those who profess a belief in the Bible as the sole authority. Somebody is right on the issue of whether Mary was Jesus biological son, and somebody is wrong. Both views claim scripture back them up.

So since I have yet to find anything in scripture that I believe definitively disproves the doctrine of the IC, I am not concerned regarding my belief in this manner.

But my point to you folks (at least I hope) is not that I'm right and you're wrong, but that if you want to use scripture to prove to somebody their belief is incorrect, you should at least approach it from the position of understanding what the belief actually is. Otherwise your objections are meaningless.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Mary was not sinless. The Bible is right, your friends are wrong.

 

[annsni]

I’m sorry you see this as going in circles Joe. My perception is that occurs because people attempt to place God into human time (past, present and future) instead of understanding that omnipresent means always present in each moment of time. So while it may seem circular to us to entertain the thought that Mary’s salvation occurred prior to her birth or belief, it would not be so to God, who sees all of time as one moment, always present.

One does not have to have sinned therefore to be saved from sin. One can also be saved from ever falling into sin in the first place. This salvation can based upon the faith of the believer. This is all possible because God is not bound by time. He did not have to wait for Mary to sin or for the human time to come for her to profess faith.

I understand one may instead opt to believe that God chose to dwell in a vessel of sin.

But to state that scripture definitively proves that Mary sinned and her salvation was not obtained prior to that would be incorrect I believe.

What I see in Scripture, though, does not support Mary being without sin - without having sinned - without sinning. She is not set forth at all in Scripture as one to emulate (which I do think she would be if she didn't sin) nor is she even listed in Hebrews 11 - the "Faith Hall of Fame". I don't see any support for this belief. Scripture says that all have sinned - and the ONLY one who lived without sin is Jesus Christ. There is nothing in Scripture that says anyone else lived a life without sin so we cannot say that. If Scripture says all have sinned, and that if we say we are without sin, we lie and make God a liar, then I think we can conclusively say that Mary was a sinner and sinned in her life too.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Romans 3:10-20 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Mary was included in that 'all the world may become guilty before God.' She was not excluded as you would have her to be. She kept the law, even to the offering of two turtledoves after the commands of the law. And yet, Scripture declares those under the law were GUILTY. Was not Mary under the Law? Scripture declares she was.

Romans 3 alone declares Mary was not sinless.

Here is another verse that shows Mary was not sinless:

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

All, not some, not most, but ALL. That included Mary.

And Mary herself declared her need for a Savior in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

To teach that Mary was sinless is contrary to God's Holy Word.

 

[DHK]

There are several problems with this part in my view. First however, we do agree that salvation is the same for all – through the merits earned at the cross.

You are however, binding the power of God by believing that Mary’s belief had to come prior to her salvation, for God in his omniscience is perfectly capable of knowing what Mary’s response was to be. So the question becomes – could he have opted to save her at the moment of her creation based upon her belief? My answer to that is yes, that was within his power. Do you disagree with that?

There is nothing wrong with having a child. Women did it all the time. It was not wrong to conceive. It is not a sin. It seems that you have a wrong understanding of the purpose of the sin offering.

Leviticus 12:6-7 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

It was for her uncleaness that she had to offer a sin offering. When any "unclean" thing was touched an offering had to be made, even the blood that was involved in giving birth to a child. The Bible specifically says in Luke "when the days of purification were at hand..."

6-8. the days of her purifying--Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature. The offerings were to be presented the day after the period of her separation had ended--that is, forty-first for a boy, eighty-first for a girl. (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

I believe a quote from JFB explains it well. Mary was still under the law at that time. She was required to give a sin-offering. But it was evidence to her that she was a sinner. The pointed to her as a sinner. She could not escape that inevitable fact. A sinner needs a Saviour in which she rejoiced.

God did not opt and does not opt to save a person contrary to his will and his word, and just because you want him to do so, or just because it will conveniently fit into your unbiblical scheme of theology. Therein lies the real problem. If you have real evidence that God did such a thing present it. Other than that your proposal is completely untenable and unscriptural.

The comments I see about her bringing a ‘sin offering’ proving that she was indeed a sinner are extremely problematic. First of all, she was following the Jewish law which she was under.

So to obey God's word; to be obedient to the Word, is a problem to you?

To not have brought a ‘sin offering’ would have in fact been a sin, for she would not have submitted herself to the law.

True. She had to bring a sin-offering according to the requirements of the law.

Secondly, if you trace this law back to the OT, I believe she was required to make this sacrifice after childbirth.

False, It was for her own purification, not because she had a child. Having a child is not sin. Read Leviticus 12.

Your conclusion therefore that this ‘proves’ she was a sinner means that you believe that Mary committed a personal sin by giving birth to Jesus.

Your conclusion proves you haven't studied the Bible.

The other problem I see with this reasoning is just because somebody follows the command of God to present themselves to partake of a ritual one cannot make any assumptions from that.

True. We cannot read into the Bible that which is not there. That is how the RCC get infant baptism. EX. Infant baptism is justifiable because there must have been infants in the jailor's household. But the Bible doesn't say that.

If so, what would one have to conclude regarding Jesus? After all, he presented himself to be baptized by John, whose baptism was “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. Using your logic, this would now prove Jesus was a sinner. That of course would be incorrect, as is the conclusion you’ve reached that the fact Mary provided a ‘sin offering’ proves she is a sinner.

This proves you don't study the Bible. Jesus plainly said when he came to John that the purpose of his baptism was "to fulfill all righteousness." Am I to believe the Bible or your unbiblical inferences?

 

[DHK]

But my point to you folks (at least I hope) is not that I'm right and you're wrong, but that if you want to use scripture to prove to somebody their belief is incorrect, you should at least approach it from the position of understanding what the belief actually is. Otherwise your objections are meaningless.

Your point here is that human reasoning is more important than Scripture and should be put on a higher authority than God's actual words recorded in the Scripture.
That is heresy.

 

[Joe]

Sorry Joe, I thought I had answered your questions.

Mary is rejoicing that God has saved her from sin.

You infer from that she has sinned. I would say that’s not something that can not be definitively stated, unless you believe it would be impossible for God by the grace merited by Jesus on the cross to have saved her from sin pro-actively and prior to her ever actually committing a sin.

Good afternoon
To jump in here, imo, there is one sin recorded in which Mary committed. First lets look at sins-

Actual sins are of two types:
1. Sins of omission
2. Sins of commission

Omission - Neglect or failure to do that which should have been done
Commission - Acting or doing that which was decided upon

Sins of omission are sins of not doing, of omitting, that which God commands us to do - not thinking, saying, and doing that which God requires of us in His law.

Let’s look at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-4) and exactly what Mary expected when she told her son Jesus “We are out of wine”
Jesus replied “Woman, what does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come”

At this time, Jesus was 30 years old and beginning his Ministry (Luke 3:23) Jesus had no job, so he was poor.

"We have no wine" was not an idle comment.
It meant “Do something about it” Imo, it meant she was open to encouraging him performing a miracle. He obliged performing that miracle in producing enough wine for everyone, yet not after setting her straight.

She was certainly out of line.

Mary sinned in this instance imo because she had a sin nature. All humans who carry a sin nature do not escape sin, either by commission or omission.

Example: I don't rejoice because the Lifeguard at the pool is planning on saving all of our lives if we begin to drown. I am not subject to drowing, I am not swimming but sunbathng only, so the lifeguard is not my savior since I am not a person he will be saving. Thus, I am not calling him my Savior or rejoicing in it

So when Mary called Jesus her Savior and rejoiced, it wasn’t because Mary was sinless. She had a sin nature, and all who have sin natures do what there natures dictate. They sin.

 

[D28guy]

Grace56...

I have attended Catholic masses many times with my husband and can tell you that I've never heard anybody there say Mary was a goddess. They honor her"

Well, of course they arent going to come out and say, "let us now engage in the woship of Mary", Grace.

They say its "veneration"...but the fact of the matter it is full blown goddess worship.

From my ealier post, again...

" In the Catholic Church of Rome...and the Eastern Orthodox as well...Mary has evolved, over the course of 1700 years, into a full blown GODDESS who is the recipient of full blown GODDESS WORSHIP, non-stop now, 24 hours a day for centuries.

She *supposedly* is the protectress of Humanity. The protectress of children. Millions offer their supplications up, not to God, but to (((MARY)))...seeking answers. She *supposedly* grants visitations and gives messages of wisdom. She is expected to grant miraculous interventions and healings. Millions travel the word to visit her "shrines". She is hailed as the (((MOTHER OF GOD))) and the (((QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE))).

The diefication of Mary is not conjecture...its REALITY."

When we observe how Mary is treated, and the things they do regarding her, the things that are believed about her, and the titles she is given, it becomes crystal clear what is going on.

Goddess worship, plain and simple.

The Catholic Church, and the Orthodox, LIES to their people in order to get away with it.

Mike