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.
If God could simply declare mary to be free from sin.. then why bother to send Christ at all?? He could simply remove the sin of all men ..Bingo no need for the cross
It’s what you’re lexicons are translating as “highly” that signifies “completely.” But thanks for contradicting dart user who is falsely claiming that it’s all simply the present tense of “charitou.”
The obvious difference between Christ and Mary is that Mary has received grace from Christ, where Christ possesses his own grace.
>> SIN is SIN. <<
And where there is no sin at all, there is no sin at all.
>> It is what comes out of him - out of his mind, heart, and mouth. <<
In general, this is true. In the larger sense, however, Sin is separatedness from God. We all live under the curse of Adam and Eve, which means in addition to committed sin, we also have original sin, which renders us incapable of sinlessness.
>> That we cannot approach the Father but through a mediator is for our sakes, not for YHWH’s. We would perish in His full glory because of our sins. It is not a matter of His being defiled. He cannot be defiled.
Whatever condition that Christ is in comparison to the full glory of the Father, He is not that, lest every single thing that looked upon him would have perished. That obviously didn’t happen. <<
Correct; it’s called the condescension. But God will not violate the law he set forth for the purpose of man. So read what his law says about the Ark, the Temple, the uncleanliness of blood, etc.
I never said its present tense. It is perfect tense, and the perfect tense uses consonantal reduplication ... that is how we recognize that the verb is indeed in the perfect tense.
This is very elementary Biblical Greek. What you are claiming, that κεχαριτωμένη is a different word and not related to χαριτoω, is wrong. Biblical greek is a highly inflected language, the basic verbs (there are lots of tenses) are formed with various combinations of consonantal reduplication, tense formations, stem endings, personal endings, etc. The lexicon only lists the verbal root. That is why the lexicons contain the form χαριτoω, and tend to only put rare tense variations in footnotes or sublistings under the main root.
The meaning of χαριτoω, is simply "I am favored." The perfect tense (one of the past tenses in Greek) would be rendered "I have been favored" ... and in this passage the verb is in participle form "the one who has been favored." How do I know this is a perfect passive participle? From the ending, the ωμένη tells me (in combination with the reduplication) that the verb is a perfect passive participial form of χαριτoω.
The perfect tense also denotes a completed action in the past with some manner of continuing results up to the present. It says nothing about the qualitative aspect of the verbal action. We dont say "filled completely" or "filled perfectly" because the verb is perfect tense. The perfect tense says nothing about the quality of the action, just that it was completed in the past and has some consequences up to the present.
If you will allow me to be overly wordy ... a good way (perhaps not the best) to translate this unique word is simply "the one who has been graced sometime in the past and who, to this very day, still has favor in Gods eyes."
It is my sincere hope that you will look into this matter independently and not take my word for it.
If you are really interested in Biblical Greek may I suggest Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek.
There may be a newer edition by now from the one I have.
Regards ...
dartuser claimed nothing of the sort ...
As many years as I've been a Freeper, I've never seen a discuss with the YOPIS gang to have any positive result.
There is only one place where ‘full of grace’ is actually found in the GREEK text (John 1:14) throughout Scripture.
In Acts 6:8 Stephan is described as πληρης χαριτος the literal which translation of which is "full of grace", as you say.
Incidentally, while you say "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace), I think pleres charitos would be a better transliteration, the η being the 'eta', the Greek 'long e' and the χ being the "chi", whose exact pronunciation was being debated when I was doing this stuff, but most people seem to go with the 'ch' of the Scots "loch".
I think citing the AV for definitive translation is assuming the thing to be proved. But I also think that we simply do not have enough instances of the use of the perfect passive participle of χαριτόω to make any definitive statements, one way or the other, about its meaning. To those of us who agree with Catholic ecclesiology, "full of grace" would be the 'dynamic equivalent' of the p.p.p. in the context of unfolding doctrine. And to those who don't, "full of grace" would seem to be over-reaching.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
I really need an LXX. The oldest use of the verb seems to be in Sirach 18:17, but that's not enough info to develop a sense of any 'traditional' or 'technical' meaning. It's frustrating.
One without sin does not need a Savior, only a sinner needs a Savior. If Mary was without sin, then she LIED in this passage! That would then make her a sinner wouldn’t it?!?!
The principle point of the original post is that that simply does not follow. I could say that my rabies inoculations "saved" me from rabies without implying that I ever had rabies, and my seatbelt "saved" me from injury without implying I had injury. "The guardrail saved me from falling off the edge," doesn't mean "I fell off the edge."
Further (and finally) to say someone said something not true is not to say someone lied. I do not think you lied when you wrote, There is only one place where ‘full of grace’ is actually found in the GREEK text (John 1:14). You were mistaken; it's not true, but that doesn't make it a lie. I do not think you intended to deceive.
Breathing and feeties all good. Spring, daffodils, trees in bud. Yowser! Good stuff.
You?
dartuser:
My apologies. I had had a little trouble reading the post, and saw perfect as present. On a full monitor, and with your bolding, I certainly see your assertion is correct. But then my point still stands about tense, then, however: The perfect tense denotes that an action has been completed in the past.
And, yes, I will repeat my assertion that the protestant lexicon’s translation to “highly favored” is a lie. In every other case where the word is applied to a mortal, over 100 cases, the KJV bible (and the protestant lexicons I’ve referred to) translate the root word as “grace,” clearly because the intent is to signify salvation.
May I be permitted one small "Arrggghhhhhh!" of frustration?
The teaching is NOT that God simply declared Mary to be free from sin. It is because of the "merits" of Christ:
Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis,...I THINK that once again, the hurdle is not only about the Gospel but about "time and eternity." We think that it is "self-evident" (clearly not in the sense of "obvious") that eternity is something which may contain temporality but which is outside of it, in such a way that all times may be said to be "now" in eternity.
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, ...
SO we are not bound to think that the effects of Calvary and of the work of Christ generally are bound to happen only "afterwards."
ANd because of the hypostatic union, we think that the sacrifice of Calvary is both in time and in eternity. So that its effects especially may ripple in every direction in time, not just forward.
Sure from OUR temporal point of view, the conception of Mary was 'before' all the "work" of the Incarnate Christ. But to the One to whom all times are "Now", what does "before" mean?
As always, this is not meant to persuade. I would, I think, pose the problem the same way even if I weren't Catholic. I'm just trying to present the shape of the argument and why, in light of that shape, your objection doesn't address the question.
No where in Scripture is Mary ever given anything other than a position of being favored, or blessed, as the Mother of the Messiah.
She acknowledged she needed a Savior in Luke 1:47. Either she was born in sin, or she was a liar. Either way she sinned.
The only one ever referred to in the Greek text as 'full of grace', i.e., without sin, was Christ.
>> She acknowledged she needed a Savior in Luke 1:47. Either she was born in sin, or she was a liar. Either way she sinned.
<<
Go read the article.
Good.
Dad no significant change. Still virtually blind; still expecting another devastating stroke any moment; still no blood thinners yet; yet . . . doing OK with housekeeper staying with him 24/7.
Mostly over flu, myself. Still in Cleansing Streams process with retreat scheduled 29 Apr.
Students still blessed and a blessing.
Still a lot more human than I’d prefer. LOL.
Playing mostly nice with the RC’s and Calvinists. LOL.
Still praying God delays WWIII as long as possible . . . along with the devastations slated for the Mississippi Valley.
Thx.
Unfortunately for us both, these things will happen more and more the older we get lol. If I didn't put on my reading glasses I couldn't even see the monitor in front of my face.
Acts 6:8 – Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ.
Yes I was aware that ‘plaras karitos’ is used in Acts 6:8; however, it is not used in that passage in the translation sense of being ‘without sin’ as the RCC translates “full of grace”. The only place in Scripture where the GREEK text uses ‘plaras karitos’ in a way that would conform to being ‘without sin’ as the RCC definition places it would be John 1:14 when referring to Christ alone.
But I have to thank you for showing the rest of the thread Acts 6:8 as well. Good job, I was going to leave it alone and just focus on John 1:14, but hey, since you’ve pointed out Acts 6:8 its now fair game. The 2nd usage of ‘plaras karitos’ in Acts 6:8 actually further weakens the RCC definition on what 'full of grace' means. BTW: In both places where ‘plaras karitos’ is found neither one refer to Mary!
Why is the RCC interpretation weakened by Acts 6:8 and plaras karitos??? Because the RCC has raised ‘full of grace’ to mean without sin, i.e., immaculate conception regarding Mary. Is the RCC going to suggest as well that Stephen was without sin????? See where I’m going here??? That would be ridiculous. Christ was without sin, absolutely, so the RCC def. fits in John 1:14, and as I said, John 1:14 is the ONLY place in Scripture where the RCC definition would fit the Greek text. Stephen and Acts 6:8 is all together different isn’t it?
All Acts 6:8 does is reaffirm that ‘full of grace’ does not mean sinlessness (unless you are referring to Christ alone) and the RCC definition regarding Luke 1:28 and ‘full of grace’ is an error.
And we’re still back to the phrase ‘plaras karitos’ (charitos is mere semantics) πλήρης χάριτος is still not the phrase used in Luke 1:28. Luke 1:28 uses an entirely different word: κεχαριτωμένη. So again I ask why didn’t Luke use πλήρης χάριτος instead of κεχαριτωμένη if he wanted to convey that Mary was ‘full of grace’? He didn’t. He said she was ‘favored’. That’s it.
The principle point of the original post is that that simply does not follow. I could say that my rabies inoculations "saved" me from rabies without implying that I ever had rabies…. [Regarding Luke 1:47 and Mary’s statement “God MY Savior”].
LOL! Word games. It definitely does follow and quite well too. Unless you’re trying to defend the indefensible and have to result to word games to do so! You’re going to have to do better than that. There is not ONE verse in Scripture that ever suggests Mary is sinless. Not one. Romans 3:23 refutes it and whether you like it or not Mary herself refuted it.
"For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” -Origen, Against Celsus 4.40
Vincent of Lerins pointed to the ‘sinlessness of Mary’ doctrine as a Pelagian heresy. You see both Pelagius and Celestius, two early heretics, were using Mary as an example of one born free of original sin. This teaching was very early considered heresy. Note what Vincent of Lerins actually SAID:
"Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?' (Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.62, Series Two, vol. XI, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 149-50).
I guess there is more than one way in which people use "only" and "save".
Sometimes people get buck fever. The lust for a win overpowers reason and the love of truth.
I am happy to let the doctrine be neither proved by Scripture nor contrary to it. I don't need to win. IHS has already won for both of us. There is something amiss when someone who professes faith in the victory of Christ bobbles the opportunity to admit an error. And, of course that bobbling, especially if it's habitual, makes useful conversation difficult.
ICXC
NIKA
#1 - John 1:14 is the only place in Scripture where pleres charitos could be understood to mean without sin, since it refers to Christ, and not to Mary.
#2 Acts 6:8 is a different definition of pleres charitos unless you want to make Stephen sinless as you've done with Mary. Is that your contention? Because if you're going to be consistent that 'full of grace' = without sin then you must equally apply this same definition to Stephen. To be consistent of course. So either 'full of grace' means 'without sin' and ALL of them partake of this sinless character: Christ, Mary, AND STEPHEN or the RCC interpretation and definition of 'full of grace' is wrong. You can't have it both ways here.
And the above still doesn't solve the RCC problem that pleres charitos wasn't used in Luke 1:28 no matter how you spin it. Cheer up, maybe a new papal decree will clear all this up for you by declaring Stephen sinless along with Mary. That should be interesting.
(BTW: I agree with you that pleres charitos is the same definition in both passages where it is used. It means what it says which is merely full of grace, it is not a reference to sinlessness as the RCC would maintain. And if its not a reference to sinlessness in John 1:14 or Acts 6:8 then neither can it be used to imply such in Luke 1:28. It is not I who is having a problem with these passages as I am not the one going into the realm of absurdity by trying to twist Luke 1:28 into some heretical prooftext of the 'immaculate incarnation' of Mary).
I am happy to let the doctrine be neither proved by Scripture nor contrary to it.
The Scriptures ARE contrary to it - that's the problem. Many of the early fathers wrote opinions contrary to it for that matter as well. Most within in the RCC are blind to this truth because they are afraid to question the magisterium. You and I both know that within the RCC the magisterium and its decrees are more authoritative and final than the Scriptures themselves so its not surprising you would be 'happy'with whatever their decree is. Those of us who hold that the Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority aren't so 'happy' with the false decrees of the magisterium and will refute the position of the RCC over and over again.
If you want to be a part of the pelagian heresy no one is stopping you. It is a 'matter of concern' when one particular group begins to adopt heresy, twists the clear text of Scripture to support such heresy, and then proclaim it is 'doctrine' when it clearly is not.
Thank you both for your quite educated knowledge of the Greek meaning of the term. I will trust what you say over anyone who claims only their “source” is correct and ALL other lexicons are erroneous. How convenient for them to claim such things when the truth contradicts their own slanted interpretation.
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.