Posted on 03/19/2011 10:57:34 PM PDT by dangus
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." -- Luke 1:47
It is undeniable, that "Savior" in this sense alludes to being saved from sin. So the question is: If Mary had never sinned, or was never guilty of original sin, as the Catholic Church states, why would she need a Savior?
As in English, in Greek word for "Savior" ("soter") comes from the word for "safe" ("sozo"). In modern English, the connection between "safe" and "heal" is largely lost, but "salvation" retains the root, "salv," from "salve," meaning "heal" or "a healing ointment." Thus, the notion of a "savior" being one who restores health, or undoes harm is not a completely incorrect notion. But neither should it overshadow the fundamental meaning that a "savior" is one who prevents harm, as much as one who restores one from harm.
Therefore, it should hardly be surprising that one who has been prevented from original sin should rejoice in her "savior" from original sin.
In fact, the term "savior" in Greek has a connotation of a god who preserves his people. As explained in the Protestant lexicon, Strong's Concordance,:
The name was given by the ancients to deities, esp. tutelary deities, to princes, kings, and in general to men who had conferred signal benefits upon their country, and in more degenerate days by the way of flattery to personages of influence.(Wigram) The word soter was a common Greek epithet for the gods (e.g., Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes), active personalities in world affairs (e.g., Epicurus) and rulers (e.g., Ptolemy Philopator, and later Roman Emporers). (cf. LSJ and BDAG)God certainly was Mary's Lord and Protector, who kept her safe from sin. That does not mean she sinned.
But doesn't Paul state that "all have sinned?" Is Paul wrong?
Not in the least. As Protestant theologian Charles Spurgeon explains (in an alternate context) the meaning of "all," (in Greek, "pas"):
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).In context, what Paul is saying is that Jews (in general) and Greeks (in general), and every other people (in general) have sinned. To establish that Jews are no better than any other people, he quotes the prophet Isaiah,
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.In this passage, the prophet is describing the Jews around him, and uses the phrase, "There is no-one righteous, not one." It's been argued that the prophet is describing in a prophetic sense not just the Jews around him, but the universal condition of man, as a result of original sin. It might make sense to say that all we who have committed original sin are not righteous in a sense, since our righteousness is imputed righteousness, earned not by our own effort, but by Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways and the way of peace they do not know.
" "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
But that same passage asserts that not one has done anything good at all, that they know not the way of peace, and there is no fear of God among anyone. Even if our righteousness is merely imputed, and our ability to do good relies entirely on Christ acting through us, regenerated Christians do good, know the way of peace and fear God. As such, we know that Paul is using that passage only to establish that Jews need Christ as much as Gentiles, for they have been as wicked as Gentiles, he is not using that passage to describe saved Christians.
But the Blessed Virgin Mary lived (in part) before the Holy Sacrifice, the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit? How can she have been saved from sin?
The bible explicitly states that salvation occurred anticipating these events. For the prophet Simeon stated upon seeing the infant Jesus, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation." How could this be? Whose salvation has he witnessed?
Mary's.
Time & God will reveal which side all things, individuals and creatures are on.
INDEED.
GHASTLY.
No... they are creatures -- CREATED -- just like Mary. Adam and Eve fell, and as a result, Mary was sinful, and in need of a Savior, just as we are.
Hoss
claud: How did Christ escape it? He was born into that family too, wasn't He? Christ can apply the merits of the Cross to us after Calvary, right?
Catholics seem to have a gross misunderstanding about where the sin nature comes from. The sin nature is passed on through the father. Jesus had no sin nature because He did not have a human father to pass it on to Him. THAT'S how He escapes it.
Well, then, why can't He apply the merits of the Cross to His mother *before* Calvary? Does God live in time? What does "before" and "after" mean to Him?
The merits of Calvary do not mean sinless perfection. They mean salvation by forgiveness through faith. Sinless perfection comes only after this mortal body of ours dies. Before that, we sin. ALL of us.
Mary herself recognized her need for a savior. Only sinners need a savior. That is her admission of her own sin and sinfulness.
If she had never sinned and called God her savior, then that would have been a lie, thus making her a sinner.
Your theology is as wrong as your biology. The baby does NOT share the mother's blood.
While nutrients and waste pass through the placenta and umbilical cord, blood is NOT shared.
Sin is not a disease or a physical contaminant that can contaminate the baby physically.
If this was the case, hwo did Mary ever get to be conceived without sin born of a human mother and father who were apparently also sinful? Or were they sinless as well?
If Mary had to be sinless to carry the sinless savior, didn't Mary's mother need to be sinless to carry a sinless Mary? Mary had more than a little contact with her mother in utero, you know. By your reasoning, Mary's mother would have also had to be sinless so that she could be born sinless.
Succinct and to the point. Mom, you hit it out of the park!
Hoss
If God was capable of keeping Mary from sin because of the work of redemption of Christ, why doesn’t He do that for the rest of us and save the world a lot of grief?
Where did you get that nonsense about Mary? There’s not one shred of Scriptural support for it.
Being full of grace does not mean sinless perfection.
How did God keep her from inheriting sin through her sinful parents?
If Jesus couldn’t be carried in a sinful vessel and remain sinless while He was God Incarnate, then how could Mary be kept from sin being carried in a sinful vessel (her mother) being a mere human being?
If God could keep Mary from sin, without her mother being sinless, He could have kept Jesus from sin without His mother being sinless, (presuming of course, that sin is transmitted by physical contact.)
Whys is it the Papists will take one fragment of a verse and build bizarre doctrines, but explain away HUGE passages of Scripture.
God created man in His own image, and Roman Catholics have been returning the favor since their founding.
Waste, nutrients, antibodies, hormones, plasma... Everything but leukocytes pass through the blood barrier, and even that is only established after several weeks of pregnancy.
But the point is not that Jesus was somehow infected by Mary. Read about the demand for cleanliness in the Holy Temple.
>> If this was the case, hwo did Mary ever get to be conceived without sin born of a human mother and father who were apparently also sinful? Or were they sinless as well? If Mary had to be sinless to carry the sinless savior, didn’t Mary’s mother need to be sinless to carry a sinless Mary?<<
This isn’t about transmitting sin like a contagion. It’s about purity in the divine presence. Mary wasn’t divine. So many posters on this thread make this bizarre association between sinlessness and divnity, as if Adam, Eve and the angles were divine. Not being divine, there was no problem in having Mary exposed to sin.
>> No... they are creatures — CREATED — just like Mary. Adam and Eve fell, and as a result, Mary was sinful, and in need of a Savior, just as we are.
Hoss <<
The argument had been made that if Mary were sinless, she must be divine. The point I made is that Adam and Eve and the angels were created sinless, but not divine. Adam and Eve did sin, but they were created pure.
>> If God was capable of keeping Mary from sin because of the work of redemption of Christ, why doesn’t He do that for the rest of us and save the world a lot of grief? <<
He did create the world sinless. Christ died not only because of our original sin, but because we persist in our sin.
So a divine baby is more subject to contamination by sin through osmosis than a human baby?
What kind of weak, impotent god do Catholics serve?
Correct. And they sinned. Mary was born, not "created" -- so, she was part and party to original sin just as you and I.
Hoss
There is no mother of God for heaven sakes...God always was! And Jesus is clearly His son for which he repeatedly said he could do nothing without His power...his Father. Come on now!
INDEED.
The Bible indicates that
JOHN THE BAPTIST
was
*MORE* ‘FULL OF GRACE’ ETC.
Than Mary.
Absolutely
>> So a divine baby is more subject to contamination by sin through osmosis than a human baby? <<
ONCE AGAIN: THE ISSUE IS NOT CONTAMINATION. There is no sin in traipsing mud through a dorm room; there is sin in traipsing mud through the Temple. Likewise, Mary’s parents couldn’t sacrilege HER, because she was only a (very blessed, special) human. No need for her parents to be immaculate.
We are all created. “Before you were born, I crafted you in your mothers womb.” But we are all cursed. Mary was spared from the curse, through the grace of Jesus. Had she been so cursed, the angel could not have called her “filled completely with grace.”
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.