Harley:
“Ummmm...this is not correct unless you feel that Mary was set apart from Original Sin.”
Which indeed she did.
Your citations are interesting. Starting with St. Irenaeus:
“ST. IRENAEUS Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
Again, Irenaeus is saying exactly what I am saying here. Mary is the second eve.
TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
No reference to Mary as sinful.
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
Cyprian, again no reference to Mary as sinful.
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 360 AD)
Athanasius, no reference to Mary as sinful.
Did you not read St. Irenaeus drawing the contrast between Mary and Eve, sinless and sinner? It’s all right there. Open your eyes and see.
“Mary would not need a Savior if she was not tainted by the original sin of Adam.”
Again, Mary was preserved from sin by Christ. Hence, she is both sinless and in debt to her saviour. There is no inconsistancy.
“Everything comes from God. It is grace that saves and grace that pardons. Enoch walked with God simply because God bestowed His grace to him.”
Why Enoch? Why not someone else. Isn’t it unfair that God favoured Enoch?
“Noah was righteous because God found favor with Noah. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb because that is what God wanted. Paul was made righteous because God decided to reveal Himself to Paul. Mary was blessed because God chose Mary to bless her. All of these people were sinners yet God looked favorably upon them with His grace and mercy.”
Yes, and isn’t it unfair that he did this for all these people and not everyone?
“No, you’ve made the claim that the early church fathers supported the fact that Mary was sinless.”
And they have. Irenaeus is saying word for word what I am saying here. You simply choose to ignore what he’s saying.
“The fact is they did not. They supported the doctrine of original sin in which ALL have sinned because we are ALL from the race of Adam.”
Yet Irenaeus says that the faith of Mary undoes Original sin. Clearly original sin does not apply to her.
“You would like people to believe that Mary was an exception, but that is not recorded in scripture nor in the early church fathers’ writings on original sin.”
You’ve quoted Irenaeus who couldn’t be more clearer that she is, in fact, immune from Original sin.
“Yes, there is an inconsistency. If God wants everyone to be saved, and He can just **POOF** and you’re sinless, then why would He need or want His precious Son to undergo the humiliation, scorn, and horrible death by the likes of us?”
Ahh, now we get to the meat of the issue. Do you not understand that Christ himself chose to sacrifice himself as the passover lamb without blemish?
You’ve claimed that you are all about Christ, and yet you do not understand this very important point. It was not God the Father who commanded Christ to death on the cross, it was Christ who submitted to the authorities of man willingly. Who submitted to scourging, to a brutal crucifixion, upon which he expired only a few hours upon the cross.
You’ve claimed that you are all about Christ, and yet you do not understand this very important point. It was not God the Father who commanded Christ to death on the cross, it was Christ who submitted to the authorities of man willingly. Who submitted to scourging, to a brutal crucifixion, upon which he expired only a few hours upon the cross.
The crucification was a plan of God, the trinity..There is perfect agreement on all issues..
The cross was ordained before the world was made, before the angels were made . All of Gods creation pointed at the redemption of man by the cross.
The fact that no man takes the life of Christ,that He laid it down does not mean that it was not the plan of the Father.