Do you guys seriously believe that Mary was sinless? I certainly don't.

In the Bible it talks about Jesus dying for all mankind. Wait a minute, wasn't Mary human? If she wasn't then I would think that some kind of conspiracy went on. It brings thoughts to mind like "what was Mary anyway? an angel maybe?" God isn't a conspirator and he did in fact come to earth as a man. . . .If Jesus was a man then wouldn't Mary need to be no more than human to conceive him?

Thanks, Watz. I and some others in this thread: you're preaching to the choir. Human = sinner. Not sinner = not human. That's what some have a hard time accepting.

TOM: check out my edit.

Human = sinner. Not sinner = not human. That's what some have a hard time accepting.

Was Jesus human? Because Jesus was not a sinner. It seems that being human does not necessarily entail sinfulness. I too agree that Mary was sinful, but your response compromises the humanity of Christ--which is necessary for the atonement.

TBG

Human = sinner. Not sinner = not human. That's what some have a hard time accepting.

(TBG sort of beat me to it. I was working on this post when I got notification of his post ) Just to clarify, I think you oversimplified it just a bit. Human = sinner works except in Jesus' case. Jesus did not sin, but from what I can gather on this forum the consensus is that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God (never mind that that adds up to 200% ). A man is human. The equation would be better Human = sinner, except when Human = Jesus. Not sinner = not human, unless Jesus = Not sinner.

Personally, I think we are focusing a bit too much on the “how.” When all is said and done, it does not matter how Jesus became a human without sin, but that he did. If we needed to know precisely how God did it, we would have been told. I think we might be asking to hear part of someone else’s story and are probably looking like Dufflepuds in the processes.

In 1 Timothy [2], Paul says, "Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Genesis 3 makes it clear that both Adam and Eve sinned, Eve first.

Definitely both sinned, but how they sinned is a little fuzzy, to me anyway. Well, I understand that the main problem was that they ate of the tree they were not supposed to. But did Adam know what he was eating when he ate it? Did he look at what Eve was giving him and recognize it for what it was and still eat it? Or did he assume it was safe to eat because Eve gave it to him? I suppose I’m wondering why he ate it. If he didn’t look before he ate, the “why” makes much more sense; he didn’t know what he was doing. In that case, he was deceived by Eve, which seems to go against the verse in 1 Tim. If he knew what it was when he ate, what was his motivation? A. I’ll eat this and die. B. Eve ate it and didn’t die so I might as well too. C. something else I haven’t thought of.

The Incarnation is a supernatural event, even more so than the birth of Isaac ["just" a miracle], which I think in a way foreshadowed that of Christ.

It might have been. Things I have read, either in notes in my Bible or in commentaries (I’m not sure where I’ve read what) would agree with this. It (used to refer to whatever source or sources the information came from) pointed out that Isaac had to carry the wood upon which he was supposed to be sacrificed just like Jesus had to carry his own cross. Isaac allowed his father to bind him. I also read that when the servant went to find a bride for Isaac at Abraham’s bidding, it was like the Father sending the Holy Spirit to find brides for His Son and the similarities continue throughout the chapter.

@ waggawerewolf27 – I am by no means an expert on Bible history and don’t know where things fit in with history although I have often thought it would be interesting to compare the Bible to what was happening elsewhere. However, notes in my Bible suggest that parts of Genesis were written while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt because the writer had to explain where places (ex. In Abraham’s story) were located and if the Israelites were in Canaan when the book was written they wouldn’t not have needed that explanation.

That's the problem with Christians. It's great to think these things through but often we over-analyse things to the point where they lose all their wonder. The mysteries of God are exactly that because they keep us in awe. We don't know how God did it but we recognise he did and thank him for that. Listen to people explaining the parables for example, and in doing so, they lose much of their power. Just my thoughts.

For the individual that asked.Yes I truly believe that the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin and that she chose not to sin during her life. While its true its not explicitly stated in Scripture it can certainly be inferred. Not only from the Angel Gabriel's greeting, but from common sense.

When we look back to the Old Testament we see the exacting standards of perfection that God had for both the Ark and the Temple. These things had to be perfect because they were going to in some mystical way be the dwelling place of the Presence of the Most High.

Some have also noted that they don't feel this doctrine is important. It is important not because it talks about who Mary is but about who Christ is. I'm reminded of the debate that happened early in the Church about if the Blessed Virgin could rightly be called the Mother of God. In the end if was determined that it had to be so...because any other way of putting it denied the Divinity of Christ or confused the natures of who He was. This is a similar issue.

I also believe that we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that natural human perfection is possible, and this does not mean that you are God. It simply means you have natural perfection as Adam and Eve were before the fall.

As for the discussion of the Eucharist. I think that John 6, Paul, and the history of the Church speak on the matter better than I ever could. This is the reason above all that I believe and profess the Catholic faith.

JBC

Definitely both sinned, but how they sinned is a little fuzzy, to me anyway. Well, I understand that the main problem was that they ate of the tree they were not supposed to. But did Adam know what he was eating when he ate it? Did he look at what Eve was giving him and recognize it for what it was and still eat it? Or did he assume it was safe to eat because Eve gave it to him? I suppose I’m wondering why he ate it. If he didn’t look before he ate, the “why” makes much more sense; he didn’t know what he was doing. In that case, he was deceived by Eve, which seems to go against the verse in 1 Tim. If he knew what it was when he ate, what was his motivation? A. I’ll eat this and die. B. Eve ate it and didn’t die so I might as well too. C. something else I haven’t thought of.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I must admit this has puzzled me as well for a very long time. Satan didn't tempt Adam when he was alone, which I consider significant. Perhaps he was the stronger willed of the two and more prone to following orders...who can say? But I can tell you that Satan viewed Eve as the key to nailing Adam. After all, here's probably a beautiful woman, ultra-appealing to Adam (she was custom made for the guy, bear in mind), and after she's taken the fruit she offers it to Adam, perhaps her eyelashes batting, speaking in that soft voice that women know how to use and which guys are almost defenseless against, and one things leads to another and there's Adam chomping down on the forbidden fruit, and the rest of us have this stupid sin nature for life as a result. If I ever got a hold of a time machine, let me tell you...

jbc,

I'm not sure how the immaculate conception of Mary is relevant to Jesus being sinless at all. In fact, it raises more questions than it answers: how was Mary free from original sin? I'm assuming that both her parents were sinners. The key is this: you don't start with Mary, you start with Christ. Christ had no sin nature and no original sin because He was divine and His father was God Himself.

No, natural human perfection is not possible--that was the heresy of Pelagius (condemned at Carthage and Ephesus). None are righteous in the sight of God apart from the atoning work of Christ. I cannot answer for you, but for myself, I cannot go for five minutes without sinning--and I in a state of grace. Thanks be to God that it is not by my own works that I am saved, but by those of Christ.

TBG

perspicacity, I realize after your post that I've failed to tell you why the Catholic Church is the true one. The reason is that Jesus founded it, and appointed Peter to guide it. This truth has been handed down through Tradition and Scripture:
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church

True enough; the body of believers.

built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Well, the last one's your assertion. It's not something the verse says. It just says, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church." That's fine. I even accept that it may be talking about Peter himself there. Not an issue for me. But it's a bit much to extrapolate from this lone verse the idea that Peter=infallible Pope...or that this supports the Roman Catholic Church as the One True Church at all.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility.

This has not been demonstrated and I do not think it is true.

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Which can just as easily be interpreted as orthodox, Nicene Christianity as one, admittedly pretty ancient church sharing that creed.

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

Clement's an extra-biblical authority, but okay. So Clement believed that apostolic succession is the way things should be done. I have no problem with that belief and might even cautiously accept it. This system lasted a good amount of time. But it failed eventually and needed reformation. Clement doesn't say a word about the possibility of that, or the church's infallibility or whatever. At least not here.

So you see, Jesus founded the Catholic Church before it was even called Catholic. The popes (there were saints, and there were bad ones, but they all taught the truth with the help of the Holy Spirit) can be traced all the way back to Peter.

I was, until very recently, a practicing Catholic, albeit one considering leaving for Eastern Orthodoxy. These arguments are not new to me. They're about as standard as you can get, actually, about as standard as Ephesians 2:8-10 in a sola fide debate.

Consider also: "...Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. ...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." (Irenaeus Ag. Her. 3.3.3.) If Peter was the only bishop of Rome, Paul wouldn't also appoint Linus as Peter did. Furthermore, Paul along with Peter founded the church in Rome. Peter was basically on equal footing with Paul.

I'm sorry if this post is too brief or just confusing, but I am really tired. Work's been draining me lately. But I do like this discussion, and I want to participate more, so I'm going to start making a rule of long posts every weekend.

In regards to original sin, there is a really interesting tidbit that many people don't realize. Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her. Genesis 3 says when the woman tasted the fruit, she gave some to her husband who was with her. Adam did far worse that what Eve did. He let her get decieved, did not stand up for what was right, nor took his position as head of his family. And then he blamed Eve for it all. Just thinking about that will get some thought processes going.

Hi TBG,

Of course perfection apart from grace is impossible. That is not what I was arguing at all. This is all possible because an action of God. By God's good grace Mary was preserved from original sin. Surely you believe that if God wished it it could be done.

As for myself I have many sins as well...but this isn't about you or me. This is about the perfection willed by God. If God gave so much attention to the Temple and the Ark surely He would have given more attention to the Woman that was going to bear His Son.

And TBG you know me well enough to know I don't hold the heresy of Pelegius.

JBC

@ waggawerewolf27 – I am by no means an expert on Bible history and don’t know where things fit in with history although I have often thought it would be interesting to compare the Bible to what was happening elsewhere.

It is indeed! We know that what was widely believed to be a copy of Deuteronomy (2 Chronicles 34: 15-22, 2 Kings 22: 8-14) was found in the Temple when Josiah was a lad thanks to Hilkiah and his mate Shaphan. And we can believe that before the collapse of first Israel and then Judah that there were scribes to keep annals, among other things. It seems that this tradition went on continuously throughout the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, that the priests who kept these annals weren't always friendly to the reigning monarchs and that keeping scribes was normal among the kings of those times, most of whom, like the Assyrian kings, never learned to read or write.

We also know that during the reign of Solomon that Israel had contact with the Phoenicians who developed their own cursive script to write with, a much less clunky script than the old hieroglyphics and cuneiform. The current script in which Hebrew is written is a direct development of this Phoenician script, as is the Greek alphabet and much else besides. But not the Latin alphabet.

What strikes me most about the Bible is the sheer amount of input during the period from Uzziah the king who became a leper, and the fall of Babylon to Cyrus. There is the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, plus the two books of Samuel. Then much of the rest of the Old Testament is later than that. After Kings and Chronicles there ensues some accounts of the return to Jerusalem, a period of time which includes Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, probably even Malachi, which isn't even in the Hebrew scriptures or Tanakh. The following prophets all come from the time between Jeroboam II to the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzah, and subsequently: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (possibly), Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah, a descendant of Hezekiah who may not have written his own book.

I would not be at all surprised that there wasn't a reorganisation at that time of what writings survived the fall of Jerusalem.

For the individual that asked.Yes I truly believe that the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin and that she chose not to sin during her life. While its true its not explicitly stated in Scripture it can certainly be inferred. Not only from the Angel Gabriel's greeting, but from common sense.

Of course that is common sense. Remember the way the woman caught in adultery was treated in those days, and that Jesus had to intervene for her.

In regards to original sin, there is a really interesting tidbit that many people don't realize. Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her. Genesis 3 says when the woman tasted the fruit, she gave some to her husband who was with her.

You know as many times as I've read and reread early Genesis I can't for the life of me figure out how I missed that detail. For some reason I always had this mental image of Adam sort of meandering nearby and catching the tail end of the conversation as he walked up on Eve biting into the fruit. Still I point out verse 17 of the same chapter.

And He said to Adam, "Because you listened to your wife's voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'Do not eat from it'

This would seem to imply that Adam may not have been on board with Eve from the outset as far as eating the fruit. I still maintain that Eve basically talked him into it (note it doesn't say "Because you listened to the serpent's voice"). If that's not the case why didn't Satan tempt Adam while he was alone?

It is true that Adam listened to Even but point was he was there and did nothing. We don't know what took place between Eve's and the serpents converstation and when she finally ate. Your point that Eve talked Adam into it is perfectly valid and I'll stand by it. My point that Adam was there and did nothing while Eve listened to the serpent, nor stood up to his wife after she ate is also valid. But it really does make you think about what really took place at the Fall.

In regards to original sin, there is a really interesting tidbit that many people don't realize. Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her. Genesis 3 says when the woman tasted the fruit, she gave some to her husband who was with her.

You know as many times as I've read and reread early Genesis I can't for the life of me figure out how I missed that detail. For some reason I always had this mental image of Adam sort of meandering nearby and catching the tail end of the conversation as he walked up on Eve biting into the fruit.

Although I noticed that verse about Adam being with Eve, I still had the same idea as Shadowlander. The idea that Adam was listening in on the serpent's conversation with Eve and did nothing really makes his sin worse (I mean Eve at least stated what God had said). If he didn't believe the serpent or wasn't tempted by it, he ought to have at least said something.

Satan didn't tempt Adam when he was alone, which I consider significant. Perhaps he was the stronger willed of the two and more prone to following orders...who can say? But I can tell you that Satan viewed Eve as the key to nailing Adam. After all, here's probably a beautiful woman, ultra-appealing to Adam (she was custom made for the guy, bear in mind), and after she's taken the fruit she offers it to Adam, perhaps her eyelashes batting, speaking in that soft voice that women know how to use and which guys are almost defenseless against, and one things leads to another and there's Adam chomping down on the forbidden fruit, and the rest of us have this stupid sin nature for life as a result. If I ever got a hold of a time machine, let me tell you...

It is interesting that Satan targeted Eve. I wonder if it had something to do with Adam's power over the animals. He named them after all. The part I bolded does raise some questions. What would have happened if only Eve ate the fruit? Or only Adam for that matter? Would we still be dealing with sin and the other "punishments" God gave? I also wonder if before the fall Adam was supposed to be the head of the household or if he and Eve were more of equals. God made a point of telling Eve that her husband would rule over her. By the way, if you ever get a hold of that time machine, make sure you deal with both Adam and Eve.

Personally, I think we are focusing a bit too much on the “how.” When all is said and done, it does not matter how Jesus became a human without sin, but that he did. If we needed to know precisely how God did it, we would have been told.

May I offer my own Amen to that?

Yes, too many Christians are overdosing on “mystery” to the point where they will reject not just an idea about how God did something or is a certain way, but the very truth itself. I don’t think that’s what a real Christian is doing when he or she decides that talking on and on about such things seems to take away from the mystery. If God had wanted us to know, He would have told us.

My view? He’s left such things open for questions partly because it doesn’t affect us much now, and partly to give us more to debate and discuss in the New Earth.

Similarly — here I want to be very careful — I think if He wanted us to know that Mary was a sinless person, He would have told us more directly in Scripture. I can be good neighbors and a Christian brother to Catholics if they believe in the true Gospel (hey again jbc!) but we’ll need to agree to disagree on this whole Mary-“sinless” thing. It seems to be argued mostly from presuppositions originating elsewhere, rather than from Scripture itself.

But again, I fear that Protestants who sit back smugly and thinking “well at least I don’t worship Mary” will be more apt to drift into default “worship” of other things, or acceptance of other beliefs that really do demean God’s glory, that are not in Scripture.

As I understand it, you’re thinking that because Christ is in His glorified body now, how could it be possible for His natural body to be present in the Holy Feast. Whereas I believe that when Jesus said, “This is My body; this is My blood,” I don’t think He meant that only the Twelve were getting His actual body and blood, and since then all other believers don’t get any.

Thanks for your thoughts, The Old Maid. (Have I mentioned that it’s great to see you offering more stuff here, and not just about that old Left Behind series? )

Mostly because Paul repeated the words of Christ to believers in the Corinthian church, we know what He said has applicability to Christians throughout the ages, not just His disciples. If Paul hadn’t repeated that, a case could be made that this was only a unique event, a single Last Supper. But I don’t think any believer claims that. Does anyone here argue otherwise?

But my question remains about how Christ, Who is physically present in Heaven now, could be also simultaneously and literally physically present in the elements of Communion. We know He is with us spiritually. It makes more sense to say that He and His grace are spiritually in the elements. It also fits better with the original context: the disciples would have understood His references to the bread and wine as His body metaphorically. After all, His real body had not yet been broken; His real blood was not yet spilled. Transubstantiation was not taking place for them then. Why would it take place for us now?

I am just as blessed through partaking in Communion, which is about every five weeks at my church, without the “transubstantiation” notion. For me, and for millions of other non-Catholic Christians, it does not detract from His sacrifice to say it is a spiritual, symbolic reminder of His death until He comes, and not a physical re-enactment or re-presentation of His sacrifice or physical presence.

220, I wasn’t directly referencing you in my comment about evangelical “sacraments,” that is, traditions held up as Biblical that actually aren’t. And I’d love to go further into the topic of altar calls; I enjoy the topic. (Talking about church practices on NarniaWeb before actually got me a wife!) But at this point, I must ask why? The last time I went further into stuff with you, you ignored it entirely. I’m guessing the same would only recur with this. So let’s deal with that before I try to respond to other questions. Until then, I’d rather write about other things, either here or elsewhere.

I’m not too keen on predestination either, as sometimes it seems a way of avoiding responsibility for one’s own actions. Understandable when one commits something unintentionally, like Puddleglum discovering that it was a Talking Animal they had been served at Harfang, but all too often a justification to exert authority over someone else.

www, if you are referring to predestination in salvation and not just the general idea that God is large and in charge, I have been where you are. I have met the snooty hyper-Calvinists who seemed to use the doctrine as an excuse (I was never sure exactly how; perhaps I am being unfair now) to be cliquish and hoity-toity. I’m not sure if they used it to avoid personal responsibility, either, but I am guessing those kinds of people are out there.

If I were to go further into that topic — which has recurred many times in the NarniaWeb Christianity series (sorry, Fencer! )— I would say that what really matters is not whether people abuse an idea, but whether it is true.

Any idea, whether it is Biblically valid or not, can be abused.

One example: for every instance of “Christians who believe in predestination use that notion of ‘fate’ to avoid responsibility,” I could point you to a Christian) who used overemphasis on man’s personal responsibility to pile un-Biblical notions of guilt onto a person. Or they fall all over themselves, acting obnoxious or lame in their desperate attempts to get someone Saved. They may even water down the message of the Gospel itself because numbers and external commitments, not depth, are what is important. It is, after all, Our Responsibility to convert people, right? So the end justifies the means.

A quick answer: Yes and no. Biblically, our participation in evangelism is a joyful privilege, not a program of desperation. God graciously involves Christians in His efforts to call people to Himself.

I’d hate to avoid some Biblical truth based solely on the fact that people can abuse it. That goes back to my post a couple pages back. It was about how in studying God through the Scriptures He inspired, I would submit it’s best not to come at His Word with a perspective of “how can I avoid the wrong ideas” but rather “how can I fully learn and act on the right ones?”.

What does Scripture say about predestination — in its fullness? Do people come to God through their own “merit” of repentance and belief? Or is repentance and belief in itself a gift of God, Who is truly large and in charge, even in the matter of who is saved from inevitable and justly enforced doom?

My father thought I was destined to become a teacher when I won a scholarship. I felt that becoming a teacher was just about the last thing I wanted to do. So was I wrong or right?

Either way, I’d suggest your career choice would be outside the Biblical debate over whether believers meet God halfway or are fully saved by Him.

Evident in Scripture are what theologians call the “two wills” of God.

There’s His revealed will, or will of command, which includes mandates for behavior and such, the Ten Commandments, and things like that. People can violate that all the time. People also violate His will in that way, that all people repent from their sins and believe in Him.

Yet Scripture also includes God’s “secret” or hidden will — and that side of His will can never be thwarted. For example, God commanded Moses to tell Pharaoh to let the Hebrew slaves leave Egypt (God’s revealed will) yet we know from Exodus and Romans 9 that God had actually decided He would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (whatever that means, it’s clear God took the initiative) and drag out the process more, for His own glory.

Similarly, if something happens, and you look back and see in retrospect that it did, it was obviously God’s secret will. So if you had become a teacher, that would have been His will. If you didn’t, that would have been His will. The proof is obvious: because it happened. There’s no way to step outside of God’s secret will, because He is loving and sovereign.

His revealed will stresses our responsibility.

His hidden will stresses the fact that He is sovereign. Nothing can surprise Him!

Yet Christians have so many wrong ideas about how to know God’s will, through some kind of “sign” or vague communication from Him to them, in advance of making a big decision such as a career choice or whom to date/court/marry. Not cool. I’m hoping to co-write more about this along with contributions from a very familiar “face,” in coming weeks.