Posted on 07/29/2013 7:55:48 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
A non-Christian asked if we teach that Jesus was sinless because he did not have a human father, wasn't his human mother, Mary, sinful? Why wasn't her sin passed on to her son, Jesus?
Answer:
You ask an important question about the sinlessness and perfection of Jesus Christ.
As you suggest, if there is any way in which Christ partakes of sin, he is disqualified from being the only redeemer of God’s elect (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 21). The testimony of Scripture about this is clear. Hebrews says that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sinning (Heb. 4:15). Christ challenged his adversaries to prove that he had sinned and they could not (John 8:46). As the apostle Paul put it, “For our sake he made him [Christ] to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21, cf. 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5). He is a high priest unlike any other who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). His title as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) also draws our attention to his innocence.
The early church thought deeply about this as it formulated clear statements about Jesus Christ having two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, yet being one person. Christ unites in himself uniquely and in an unrepeatable way, this union (called the hypostatic union) of the human and the divine. This is the mystery of the Incarnation that the creeds of the church confess.
The way in which God answers your question is in the mystery of the virgin birth. The Scriptures begin from, what one theologian terms, “above” (Donald Macleod). John 1 or Philippians 2 show this movement from the eternal Son of God to the incarnate Son of God. This is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes it:
Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin. (Q. 22)
As Matthew described it, Mary was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (1:18), and then the angel explained it to Joseph: “that which is conceived in her [Mary] is from the Holy Spirit” (1:20). The explanation to Mary herself, in response to her “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34), leaves any human agency out of the incarnation in the normal way of conception, for the angel tells Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called ‘holy’—the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Without further description of how this would occur, the Bible testifies that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (the same idea as the cloud which overshadowed the Mount of Transfiguration) in such a way that she indeed became the bearer of the Holy One of God (Gal. 4:4); and her offspring, Jesus Christ, remained without sin. God does not specify in greater detail than this how the conception of Jesus by-passed Mary’s own sinfulness to preserve Christ’s sinlessness, but the rest of Scripture, as I indicated above, affirms that Christ did not inherit our sin nature. He came to be the Second Adam (Rom. 5) who could forgive sins because he himself was both the One offended and himself sinless.
The glory of the grace found in Jesus Christ is that though he was without sin, yet he had pity upon sinners so as to die in their place while we were enemies, ungodly, and sinful (Rom. 5:6, 8, 10). We need a Savior who is fully human to bear patiently with us, yet is able to atone for our sin as the final and perfect sacrifice. The sinlessness of Christ makes a passage like Isaiah 53:9–11 so marvelous in that Christ had no deceit in his mouth and by his death he made many to be accounted righteous.
I hope this is of some help.
"Sin is simply missing the mark of God’s Plan." - Agreed. Notice that your definition indicates that sin is a verb: "missing the mark". You have to do something - physically or mentally - to sin.
"It wasn’t God’s Plan for Adam to have sinned in the Garden." - I think I agree with you here, and would add that God laid the foundation for forgiveness before he laid the foundation of the world (1Peter 1:20). So maybe a better way to say it would be that Adam and Eve's sin was not God's will, but he already had a plan in place before he created them.
"All humans has (sic) missed the mark of God’s Plan." - Those who have sinned - that is, acted against the will of God for man - have missed the mark. Per the passage I cited earlier, "sin is lawlessness."
"Only Christ Jesus, in His perfect humanity was qualified to [provide an appropriate sacrifice]." - Agreed. But if by this you imply that humans are not created perfect by God, then you have God creating dead spirits. Adam and Eve were created perfect by God and I would hope everyone would agree that God does not create dead spirits. If so, then we all have a perfect human at some point until the spirit dies due to sin. The only question is how this happens. Your position is that...
"The sin is passed genetically from the male to each generation of human." - I notice you cite no scripture. My position - and scripture's - is that "the soul who sins shall die." (Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23). (Just like Adam and Eve, by the way.) Quite frankly, to imagine that sinfulness is a physical genetic problem is ridiculous in light of scripture, which teaches that sin is a spiritual problem, and redemption is a spiritual cure. As Jesus taught, "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25)
Finally, to repeat a previous citation, "death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Rom 5:12) Not "because all inherited sinfulness from their father."
IF He had done that, He would have spelled out exactly to whom was given this authority. The Catholic Church is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere. It would be quite a stretch for them to claim all of this power is theirs. You've not proven the Catholic Church has anything to do with this verse.
I certainly didn’t intend for that to be an insult if that’s the way you took it.
You intended no insult? Then I'm not insulted. But I will still call it sad and disappointing.
I dispute your assertion that the idea of Mary's immaculate sinlessness is of pagan origin. As far as I know, no pagan belief system acknowledges the reality of "Original Sin": the blighting of the human race as a result of a catastrophic act of disobedience on the part of our primordial ancestors at the dawn of human existence.
If there's no Original Sin, then there's nothing problematic about human nature. In that case, there's no need for a Savior, and no question of whether His mother was "full of grace", since, without Original Sin, we're all "full of grace."
(Quickly disprovable by reading Page One of any newspaper on earth.)
Moreover, God's favor of filling people with grace prenatally as a preparation for some special role is a well-established Scriptural pattern. Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist and others were--- in a partial but analogous way ---- called and enlightened in their mothers' wombs.
It makes sense to think that a person of much greater dignity, with a much more intimate relationship to the Savior, would need a similar but greater gift. This is especially so because she was specifically prepared to give the Messiah his human nature, which in this case must necessarily be sinless and perfect as He takes on flesh from her.
This is the fulfillment of the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 -- the enmity between the Serpent and the "Seed of the Woman".
I don't expect this explanation will result in totally and swiftly convincing you on this issue. (!) You can call it mistaken --- with some show of evidence, hopefully --- but don't just flick it away as "man-made" and "pagan." That just suggests a reluctance to engage with the more challenging words and themes of Scripture. And a reluctance to engage doesn't lead to a good and God-honoring discussion.
sinatorhellary, you must have missed my post 73. I posted from God's Second Commandment.
” For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.”
The iniquities of my grandfathers and great grandfathers are visited on me. My iniquities will be visited to my grandchildren and great grandchildren both male and female.
With this in mind, Cain and Able would have been free of the sin nature and we see how that worked out.
Whether you like it or not, God always puts the male first in the order of things.
May God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB
In that essay he posits the one verse that Catholics use for Mary’s sinlessness. If, somehow, charis or any of it’s derivatives meant to be sinless Stephen and many others would also have been sinless. The use of the word kecharitōmenē first of all never means “sinless” and comes from the word “charis” which only indicates that grace was given to Mary. Again, no definition of those words denote sinlessness. The lengthy attempt at trying to get to sinlessness by Catholic apologists is simply wrong. Never do they prove that the terms mean sinlessness.
That concept of sinlessness of “the queen of heaven” and the “mother of god” is most definitely of pagan origin. Most of the symbolism, vestments, rituals, and holy days the RCC has incorporated into it’s religious practices goes back to Babylonian paganism and has never been instituted by God. In fact, God said not to worship Him with anything taken from pagan practice.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
You think the RCC doesn’t admit that it has taken pagan rituals, symbols, etc?
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. The RCC itself admits that it does. The RCC refuses to hear the words of the Lord as did the Israelites.
“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.” (Jer.44:16-17)
It's true that "grace" per se doesn't automatically mean "sinlessness" --- however, "full of grace", because it is plenary, is incompatible with sinfulness. That's why I consider this line of reasoning assertoric but not apodictic: being full of grace is simply incompatible with sinfulness and compatible with being sinless. This is not a proof, but an inference based on converging lines of evidence.
I don't know that it can be proved by Scripture. I need only say this: it is not disproved or excluded by Scripture; and it is compatible with Scripture.
It is proved by the belief and teaching of Christ's Church.
I know that makes your hair stand on end, but that's because you take a (relatively) minimalist view of the Church, as I understand it --- seeing it as not much more than a fellowship, with guidance by the Holy Spirit to be sure, but no sure court of appeal when you and your brethren seem "guided" in divergent ways.
Catholics take a (relatively) maximalist view --- seeing the Church as exercising all the powers expressed in "he who hears you, hears Me; and he who hears Me hears the One who sent Me" --- the powers of binding and loosing, and receiving the Holy Spirit in a unified way (John 14:26), as an ordered body and not just a collection of cells.
That is, we tend to put the Church-authority language of the NT in bold; you, perhaps, are not so inclined.
This leads also to a relatively robust idea within Catholicism about the "Development of Doctrine", likewise a robust belief in Jesus' sovereignty over cultures, so that all the good things in cultures are brought to subjection to Him, and serve Him (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph. 1:10, 22; Col 1:20) --- because he is the Master of all things and can use them to His purpose.
This has to do with the purification and usability of the resources of human cultures; it does NOT mean the adoption of pagan concepts which are incompatible with Christ.
Think of it. If all things in human cultures were unusable, we could not speak English (based on pagan language) or or even use the Greek terms (another pagan language.) We could not speak of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or of January, February, March; nor could we call Christ the Logos (a word heavily indebted to pagan philosophy), nor wear wedding rings (who authorized that?) Nor be married in church (is that in the NT?) nor do any of a million things which are not explicitly mentioned n Scripture, but which are part of human culture, cleansed of their pagan associations and-- as Paul says -- being subjected to Christ.
That's enough for now. It's getting late. My husband baked me a potato, so that's my agenda now: potato, and bed.
G'Night, Cynical Bear!
No it’s not. The entirety of scripture shows that the only sinless one to live is Jesus. There is not scriptural indication that anyone other than Christ was sinless in fact the opposite is true. Scripture teaches, and has been shown on this forum over and over again, that “all have sinned”. Additionally, the whole premise of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice is based on His sinlessness. If Mary had also been sinless she also would have been the “perfect sacrifice”. The teaching of a sinless Mary is anti scripture.
>> This has to do with the purification and usability of the resources of human cultures; it does NOT mean the adoption of pagan concepts which are incompatible with Christ.<<
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
Deuteronomy 12: 32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
>>Think of it. If all things in human cultures were unusable, we could not speak English (based on pagan language) or or even use the Greek terms (another pagan language.)<<
I would classify that typical Catholic mindset. None of those things were forms of worship to pagan gods/goddesses. That’s what I was talking about how the Catholic apologists work to deceive. They take innocuous subjects to somehow try to lead the listener/reader off track. It doesn’t work with the Holy Spirit filled believer. Just like the subject of my last post. The entire attempt at trying to make the reader believe the sinlessness of Mary was predicated on an error which was that “full of grace” meant sinlessness which it doesn’t. It’s no wonder that they need to mesmerize to deflect from the initial error.
Yes that is the problem with Catholics (mis)understanding of Scripture. John 14:26 is obviously aimed at the individual and not a man made institution. Catholics wish to ascribe supernatural attributes to their Church and stand behind it and their rituals, traditions and ,of course, their hierarchy. More smoke and mirrors when it is uncalled for. The New and Improved Pharisees.
Thanks for picking that up. When we debate with Catholics there is typically so much wrong with what they believe that if one addressed them all in one post it would be so long many would not read it.
Rom 5:12.
“Therefore, just as through one man [Adam], sin [the sin nature] entered into the world, and [spiritual] death through [the] sin [nature], so [spiritual] death spread to the entire human race because all sinned [when Adam sinned].”
Mary was not Chosen to be the mother of Jesus because she was blessed, but was blessed because she was chosen to be the mother of the son of God.
The honor of being the Mother of Jesus was given to her, it was not owed her.
She was favored or chosen for reasons only God knows.
And she should be honored by all Christians today, but the scriptures are silent of any thing in regards to praying to her or praying to God in her name.
In fact the scriptures indicate that she was just like any other mother, she was more concerned of her sons safety than the fact that he was the son of God.
I have not found anything in the scriptures to indicate that either Mary or the brethren of Jesus which were most likely foster brothers and sisters were his followers, in fact they indicate just the opposite, up until his death.
But i guess in order to have a grand old religion and get people to flock to the churches and bring all of their money we we have to have more than just what we see in the scriptures, don,t we?
on the Federal Nudge Squad (LINK)
--- I invite you to go over there and visit, actually, because we've got to find some way to deal with the Feds and their insufferable ninny-nannies.
We seem to have come to the stone wall in the discussion. It's pretty obvious , when you think about it, that when Our Lord says "Whoever hears you, hears Me" he could not be talking abut each and every individual as such, since as you know then it would apply to me as an individual believer -- and you would certainly not accept my voice as the Voice of Christ --- and rightly so, I wouldn't accept my voice either; nor yours, CynicalBear; nor yours, Bipolar Bob. Nor Rick Warren's voice; nor Joel Ostein's ; nor Marvin Olasky's; and just imagine the 10,000 others.
All the individuals can differ, and do differ, sometimes radically, on matters of faith and morals, even though they all read the same Bible and pray for the gift of the same Holy Spirit.
So Jesus, in the passage above, must not mean individual voices. It must mean the Church as the Body of Christ, which alone can speak with one voice.
A person who sees the 'church' as just a fellowship of individuals, will not get this. Such a person recognizes either 1.7 billion supposed-to-be-Christian voices, even though they disagree with each other and are as incoherent as Babel; or, really, each person ends up with no voice but his own.
So good day to you, I leave you to your Babel or your solitude. Because you have no one else to listen to.
Christ built a church you say? Define that. Is it only found in Rome (under Romanist authority)?
There were no Romanists in the beginning. The story lines pretending that was factual are a pack of lies, hence the need for "development" or the theory of "unpacking".
As far as singular papacy goes...that took many centuries to "unpack". In 1054 the final press to enact that "development" left the rest of the church not knowing quite how to respond...
Which would leave any honest man, if supporting that idea (of singular "papacy") by default needing also to maintain a position which goes far beyond merely suggesting that ALL of "the church" got it wrong on that score, until the Latin church all on their lonesome discovered that not only should there be a singular personage over all, and a singular portion of the church over and above all others --- but that they themselves should be it!
Talk about Yopios and point fingers at everyone else all you wish, but go back and correct the various Romanist "Yopios" and then we can talk. Until then --- unless there be some personal testimony which may be shared, then I won't hear it, for it is not "the true church" which is talking, but something else instead...
That is some twisted thinking there. I think you will find even the Apostles had disagreements with each other. So, because we all have a difference we should surrender all to your Church? No way. Are all of your Churchs priests in agreement? On pedophilia? On homosexuality? Is the Pope elected by a 100% margin the very first time a vote is given? I mean you put an impossible bar up there to judge an individual but ignore it when it comes to your own Church. I don't know whether to label that hypocrisy or a straw man argument or both.
Get lost. Its been documented.
More honest investigation reveals differences to be slight in most regards, but admittedly there being a dozen or so significant differences, with those chiefly found among those whom lift themselves up as the only true or entirely correct "church". Sort of like Rome does, just different.
Now---show me 10,000 Christian churches all in [serious or significant] disagreement with one another.
And I could show you thousands of "Catholics in name only", by which I mean there is range of opinion within the RCC which is allowed, but similar when seen in others is pointed at "look, they don't agree. see? we told you".
Perhaps one needs be outside of Romish quarters to better see the double standards of measurement and comparison.
Now that that is out of the way ---define this church which Christ built. Take your time, as long as it takes.
The only thing documented is when Catholics get cornered, they place their fingers in their ears and claim “I don’t hear you”. A Roman centralized church is unBiblical. I think they know that but their emotions and love affair with their church harden their conscience against reasoning. Our focus should be on Jesus and not any man made institution or the Pope or Mary or any other distraction.
Of course they did. That's why you had to have a Church Council. So then when the Council came to a decision, it was authoritative. It became part of the "official teaching," since the Council of Jerusalem was acting as the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. Then either the disagreements ended, ~or~ those who persisted in disagreement could readily be shown to be opposing the Holy Spirit and the Church. The relevant Scripture:
What the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals is perfectly clear. So if any pastor, pundit, bishop or best friend teaches differently, they are teaching erroneously --- contrary to the Church and the Holy Spirit --- and you can document it.
"Are all of your Church;s priests in agreement?"
Yes they are, IF they are teaching what the Church teaches.
"On pedophilia? On homosexuality?"
Yes, those sins ae pretty much addressed by the Catechism: starting with this, and the following paragraphs.
"Is the Pope elected by a 100% margin the very first time a vote is given?"
Why do you even ask this? Of course not. They usually have to go through several rounds of voting. I have never asserted --- nobody has ever asserted --- that all Catholics have the same opinions, or that we are all individually infallible (free of error) or impeccable (free of sin). That would be a manifest absurdity.
What we do say is that the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church cannot propose errors as binding de fide on the whole Church. A shorthand way of saying that would be that the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Church --- e.g. what's in the Catechism --- is true and correct, even if "Catholic" Cardinal Carnal and "Catholic" Congressman Criminal disagree.
"I mean you put an impossible bar up there to judge an individual but ignore it when it comes to your own Church. I don't know whether to label that hypocrisy or a straw man argument or both."
Neither. It's much simpler than that. I would say you probably have an erroneous idea of what the Church actually claims as authoritative.
I would say you probably have an erroneous idea of what the Bible actually claims as authoritative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.