lobopride said:

---

You are 100% correct.

"as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.""
Romans 3:10-12 ESV

---

Mary was saved from even the stain of original sin by the proleptic application of what her son would accomplish by the cross. So, while Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless for her life on earth, it was not of her own doing. It was God's grace. "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee."

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Just a personal bias, but I think the Protestant quasi-revulsion of Catholic and to a lesser extent Orthodox understanding of Mary is related to their constrained understanding of the Incarnation. Just a personal opinion.

The Banned said:

---

lobopride said:

---

You are 100% correct.

"as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.""
Romans 3:10-12 ESV

---

I'm not the best scriptural quoter, but I'll try:

Luke 1:28, which is often translated as "favored one" now has also been translated as "full of grace". How can Mary be full of grace prior to Jesus' death and resurrection? Because a little later in Romans 3:24-25 it shows the gift of grace came from Jesus atonement.

---

In Lk 1:26-30, the Angel Gabriel, God's messenger, spoke extraordinary words to Mary: "Hail, full of grace", in Greek, "Kaire, kecharitomene". The angel does not call her by her earthly name, Miryam, Mary, but 'Kecharitomene', 'Full of Grace', as if this were her real name.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

I don't take it as being a jerk. I agree that the disagreement with Sola Scriptura is foundational and will be hard to really have much meaningful discussion if that is not in agreement.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

I don't take it as being a jerk. I agree that the disagreement with Sola Scriptura is foundational and will be hard to really have much meaningful discussion if that is not in agreement.

---

To be clear, the disagreement isn't "because of Sola Scriptura."

We could look to the historical church to see it could centuries for just some of the Marian claims to come out.

We could point out that these are typological arguments being made, many again not found in the Church Fathers, but read into Scripture after the Marian claims.

But in the end, for all the claims of Sola Scriptura, the only real claim The Banned can point to is he believes them simply because Rome says he has to.

Quote:

---

The idea that Mary was the highly favored and blessed one and was some kind of comparison to the Ark of the Covenant is something perhaps I can shrug off and say, "sure."

---

In the last 24 hours you went from "never heard of this" to "ok this is a thing" on this topic, which the church has been teaching consistently for as long as we have historical information available to us.

So how can you then say - the people that already knew other piece of information that comes straight out of the scriptures, that I never knew before, are definitely wrong about this other stuff?

Quote:

---

But she is not to share in any of the glory that God is due.

---

We all share in the glory of God - that is the wonderful part of God's plan for the salvation of mankind. St Peter says that he is "a partaker of the glory that is going to be revealed" and that the "proven character of our faith... results in praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." St Paul says that "glory and honor" will come to those who do good from God at the judgment.

So on the one hand, I absolutely agree that there is worship and service that is reserved for God alone - who would argue against this? - but I would add to this that the saints, the holy ones of God, who have run the race and persevered have become partakers of the divine nature and escaped the corruption of the world, and they are glorified by God and share in His glory, and we do well to recognize them as friends of God and His holy ones. And the glory that they have is from God, and that Jesus Christ gives them the glory that God the Father gave Him (John 17:22).

Quote:

---

God is the only perfect being in the history of mankind.

---

The scriptures say otherwise. We are commanded by God to be perfect, and He perfects us. We press on toward perfection, and St Paul says this is the purpose Christ takes hold of us for. The saints in glory are perfected in Christ. They are truly righteous, made righteous through grace. This is the promise for each of us.

Quote:

---

In addition, the "full of grace" is nowhere in the ESV or other versions of the Bible I use - it is always "highly favored."

---

Your translation isn't wrong. The word is "kecharitomene". This is the perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo which means literally "to grace" - it comes from the word "charis" which means "grace". The other place this word is used in the NT is in Ephesians 1:6 where St Paul says God "blessed us" (same word) with his "grace". The translation in Eph 1:6 is kind of klunky and and hides it, because we don't use "grace" as a noun very much, but the literal translation is something like his glorious grace which he has graced us with in his Beloved One. The word ending in "oo" implies turned into or filled with something, kind of like our English suffix -ful.

"kecharitomene" means the one who has been and still is graced, turned into or full of grace.

So "hail" or "rejoice" are good, as is "favored" because that is also implied by grace, or blessed, and also graced.

Quote:

---

I simply cannot accept the fact that Mary was without sin.

---

Sin or personal sins?

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Some have the misconception that Mary didn't need to be saved. She did and she was saved from original sins and from committing any future sins. So she still fell short as all men do, but she was saved by Gods grace early on for her unique role. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you". This wasn't just a cute phrase....she was full of the Lords grace until the end of her life.

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

I don't take it as being a jerk. I agree that the disagreement with Sola Scriptura is foundational and will be hard to really have much meaningful discussion if that is not in agreement.

---

To be clear, the disagreement isn't "because of Sola Scriptura."

We could look to the historical church to see it could centuries for just some of the Marian claims to come out.

We could point out that these are typological arguments being made, many again not found in the Church Fathers, but read into Scripture after the Marian claims.

But in the end, for all the claims of Sola Scriptura, the only real claim The Banned can point to is he believes them simply because Rome says he has to.

---

She was written of as the new Eve, or perfect Eve or advocate for Eve since the beginning. Eve came into the world without sin. There is connection one.

Ambrose and Augustine say it plainly. I could lean on their understanding of scripture and tradition, or I can listen to AgLiving06. And while I have looked, I have found nothing conclusive on Luther ever changing his views, so I'm not sure where you got that. Maybe you have sources you could point me to.

We're all believing something based on someone else's say so. You believe in sola scriptura because Luther said so. Or maybe you believe you could have come to this conclusion by yourself. Then it's still your say so. All we can know for sure is that the Bible definitively does not state that it is the sole infallible source of the faith, so I will trust the Church Christ founded as having the Holy Spirit as its guide.

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

I don't take it as being a jerk. I agree that the disagreement with Sola Scriptura is foundational and will be hard to really have much meaningful discussion if that is not in agreement.

---

To be clear, the disagreement isn't "because of Sola Scriptura."

We could look to the historical church to see it could centuries for just some of the Marian claims to come out.

We could point out that these are typological arguments being made, many again not found in the Church Fathers, but read into Scripture after the Marian claims.

But in the end, for all the claims of Sola Scriptura, the only real claim The Banned can point to is he believes them simply because Rome says he has to.

---

This isn't really true. God gives us faith and reason. We believe the books in the bible are the intended books because of men that we have faith were guided by the Holy Spirit. We also trust in those who added chapters and verses later in the 13th century. Considering the tradition in teaching what scripture means and what was believed by the early Church is the same. So while the Catechism lays out the teachings. Many teachings didn't merit clarification until people challenged them. The concept of the Trinity didn't develop until later either. And if we are talking centuries....How long did it take before people came up with Sola Scriptura. The bible doesn't say anywhere that it is the only source of teaching. Acts 17 is not a formal teaching but a narrative

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Some have the misconception that Mary didn't need to be saved. She did and she was saved from original sins and from committing any future sins. So she still fell short as all men do, but she was saved by Gods grace early on for her unique role. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you". This wasn't just a cute phrase....she was full of the Lords grace until the end of her life.

---

Thief on the cross typology.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.

AGC said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Some have the misconception that Mary didn't need to be saved. She did and she was saved from original sins and from committing any future sins. So she still fell short as all men do, but she was saved by Gods grace early on for her unique role. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you". This wasn't just a cute phrase....she was full of the Lords grace until the end of her life.

---

Thief on the cross typology.

---

Well....just a little different. God chose Mary to bring our Savior into the world. Is it not fitting she was a sinless vessel and that God gave her extra grace?

BluHorseShu said:

---

AGC said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Some have the misconception that Mary didn't need to be saved. She did and she was saved from original sins and from committing any future sins. So she still fell short as all men do, but she was saved by Gods grace early on for her unique role. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you". This wasn't just a cute phrase....she was full of the Lords grace until the end of her life.

---

Thief on the cross typology.

---

Well....just a little different. God chose Mary to bring our Savior into the world. Is it not fitting she was a sinless vessel and that God gave her extra grace?

---

That was a joke with an intentional winky face. I read the Bible like y'all with typology; I'm well aware of Mary's position.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

Just keep in mind that not all Protestants hold to sola scriptura.

Which don't?

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The understanding and belief that Mary was the exception and that Mary was without the stain of sin goes back to the very earliest Christians. It is why St. Luke presents Mary in the way he does in his Gospel as the Arc of the Covenant. The imagery is direct and intentional. This view of Mary is ancient and was held by Christians from the very beginning.

---

St Luke was referenced before but I have yet to see the text. Care to share?

Also, if Mary was kept from sin, I would imagine Paul would have made a shout out somewhere in all of his letters, don't you think? Is there any other scriptural evidence in the Bible? Or does this fall under the authority of the RCC traditions?

---

We can joke about going back to the sola scriptura thread, but I have to point out the double standard. The Bible never says the Bible is the only authority, yet you believe it. The Bible never says Jesus was unmarried, but you believe it. Why hold the catholic and orthodox faith to a standard that isn't truly held by Protestants?

Not trying to be a jerk here. This sort of gap makes conversations much more difficult, so it needs to be highlighted when appropriate.

---

I don't take it as being a jerk. I agree that the disagreement with Sola Scriptura is foundational and will be hard to really have much meaningful discussion if that is not in agreement.

---

To be clear, the disagreement isn't "because of Sola Scriptura."

We could look to the historical church to see it could centuries for just some of the Marian claims to come out.

We could point out that these are typological arguments being made, many again not found in the Church Fathers, but read into Scripture after the Marian claims.

But in the end, for all the claims of Sola Scriptura, the only real claim The Banned can point to is he believes them simply because Rome says he has to.

---

She was written of as the new Eve, or perfect Eve or advocate for Eve since the beginning. Eve came into the world without sin. There is connection one.

Ambrose and Augustine say it plainly. I could lean on their understanding of scripture and tradition, or I can listen to AgLiving06. And while I have looked, I have found nothing conclusive on Luther ever changing his views, so I'm not sure where you got that. Maybe you have sources you could point me to.

We're all believing something based on someone else's say so. You believe in sola scriptura because Luther said so. Or maybe you believe you could have come to this conclusion by yourself. Then it's still your say so. All we can know for sure is that the Bible definitively does not state that it is the sole infallible source of the faith, so I will trust the Church Christ founded as having the Holy Spirit as its guide.

---

Just so we are clear on your post....You randomly drop Augustine and Ambrose as making claims about Mary without citation, but then say I need to prove Luther's views? Demand things you don't want to live up to?

But, and honestly, it took a 30 seconds of googling to find this article:

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/03/luther-on-marys-sinlessnessrevisted.html

I have to rely on this for the quotes since I don't own the Luther library of sermons and what not given how extensive it is.

It's quite conclusive.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.

---

What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Some have the misconception that Mary didn't need to be saved. She did and she was saved from original sins and from committing any future sins. So she still fell short as all men do, but she was saved by Gods grace early on for her unique role. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you". This wasn't just a cute phrase....she was full of the Lords grace until the end of her life.

---

I get that. I think this is part of what makes Rome's view a mess, but I can appreciate trying to force fit it in.

I only find one quite attributing sin to Mary, and it doesn't have a citation (#8). That's very convenient, as all the quotes with citations are comments on her error (not sin) regarding her losing Jesus as a child and not knowing that she should seek him in the temple. He is clearly positioning this as an attack on the infallibility of the Church. It is abundantly clear that he is saying that Mary is so much better than all of us, but even she made a mistake (not sin) when she lost Jesus. Maybe I read it too quickly. Do you see any attribution of sin to her outside of #8?

Here are the Augustinian and Ambrosian quotes (along with other, more vague references to Mary as the new Eve)
https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin

ETA: bearing the child without pain is a reference to her sinlessness. The pain of child bearing comes through Eve's sin. So Mary's painless child birth is noted to show she was not sharing in Eve's sin

Where does the idea that Mary's labor was painless come from?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Where does the idea that Mary's labor was painless come from?

---

Genesis, where labor pains were a consequence of sin from the fall on mankind.

I understand the text from Genesis. I'm asking where the Bible states Mary was without pain. Looking for Book, chapter, verse. Are you saying Genesis prophesies Mary and her painless birth?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I understand the text from Genesis. I'm asking where the Bible states Mary was without pain. Looking for Book, chapter, verse. Are you saying Genesis prophesies Mary and her painless birth?

---

I linked a website with writing of church fathers, a couple of which are estimated at 70 and 80 AD. This would be the same time as several books of the Bible were written.

And again with the Bible alone. Please show me where in the Bible it says Jesus wasn't married.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.

---

What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?

---

I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

---

Jesus was God incarnate, Mary was not.

The Son is a member of the Holy Trinity, Mary is not.

I'm confounded at Catholicism's raising Mary to a near diety, even if she was considered free of original sin. There is still only ONE true God that I worship and pray to.

I will not with a single breath of my life pray to or worship any God, but the one true God.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

If, however, used in the traditional Protestant context to describe perfection, "Holy Mary" would be incorrect because obviously Mary was far from perfect being a fallen sinner like the rest of us in need a His saving grace.

---

The bold is definitely a point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. We do believe Mary, through a special grace from God, was preserved and kept from any personal sin from her conception. Mary is the most Holy and most Blessed person ever created. Mary was not like the rest of us wicked and sinful people but her will was perfectly conformed to God's will through her son.

---

Whoa…

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think that's rather clear.

Not trying to argue…just very different than my personal beliefs.

That is very helpful in explaining the elevation of Mary in Catholic teachings.

ETA further commentary: Protestants overwhelmingly condemned the promulgation of the immaculate conception and a sinless Mary as an exercise in papal power, and the doctrine itself as unscriptural, for it denied that all had sinned and rested on the Latin translation of Luke 1:28 (the "full of grace" passage) that the original Greek did not support. Protestants, therefore, teach that Mary was a sinner saved through grace, like all believers.

---

Don't have time to do a deep dive. Couple points:

- Luther believed in sinless Mary. As father of all Protestants, I don't know you can say Protestants overwhelmingly deny this teaching. Modern denominations, sure. But that's not a historical stance.

- Mary being sinless was not due to her work, but God's. Jesus, being sinless and perfect, would be best suited by a perfect, sinless "vessel" (feels terrible using that word for the Mother of God, but it the easiest to convey the message) so Mary should be sinless. How when all humans sin? The answer: God saved her from sin prior to her birth (we are saved after our birth) but He still did the saving. She still needed God as much as we do. He just acted in a different manner/timeline than He usually does.

---

A few house keeping items:

First, Luther is not a Pope. His beliefs aren't infallible. To be Lutheran, we don't have to agree with everything he said.

Second, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that a young Luther held views in alignment with Roman Catholics. He was Roman Catholic.

Third, most indications are his views changed as he grew older and, while he held to Mary's perpetual virginity, he did not hold to her sinlessness since that would be contradictory to Scripture.

---

Did he hold to Christ's sinlessness? Because that would be against scripture for the same reason that Mary's would be against scripture.

---

What? You're arguing the Scriptures don't show Christ was sinless?

---

I'm arguing that the scripture that says Mary is sinful includes Christ under the umbrella of "all" meaning it doesn't actually mean "all"

---

Jesus was God incarnate, Mary was not.

The Son is a member of the Holy Trinity, Mary is not.

I'm confounded at Catholicism's raising Mary to a near deity, even if she was considered free of original sin. There is still only ONE true God that I worship and pray to.

I will not with a single breath of my life pray to or worship any God, but the one true God.

---

Catholics (and pretty sure the Orthodox too) would agree, save for this "near deity" comment. These comments read is if you don't really know/understand our practices related to this nor our own understanding of them. There's much to unpack in the differences in how we (both camps) interpret/understand the terms pray, worship, etc... and the language and actions contained within.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I understand the text from Genesis. I'm asking where the Bible states Mary was without pain. Looking for Book, chapter, verse. Are you saying Genesis prophesies Mary and her painless birth?

---

I linked a website with writing of church fathers, a couple of which are estimated at 70 and 80 AD. This would be the same time as several books of the Bible were written.

And again with the Bible alone. Please show me where in the Bible it says Jesus wasn't married.

---

If the Bible doesn't mention it, I chalk that up as extra-Biblical and not worthy of being made into doctrine. The reason the NT epistles were included in the Canon is due to their first hand apostleship and collaboration across other first hand apostles. While it may be true with what "church fathers" wrote in 80AD that hardly qualifies as truth we are to follow, in my understanding obviously. False teaching was rampant in the new Church and something that Paul attacked endlessly in his writings, so we should take note and consider the idea that we can't just take anyone at face value for what they wrote because they lived in 80AD.

The Bible does not speak to Jesus being married. Christ himself didn't mention it, his close followers who wrote scripture didn't mention it, and Paul didn't mention it. You'd think with the marriage instruction we are given in the NT that Christ would be our example and prolifically mentioned, if he had been married. That argument has endless examples and is a really poor barometer to decipher who God is.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I understand the text from Genesis. I'm asking where the Bible states Mary was without pain. Looking for Book, chapter, verse. Are you saying Genesis prophesies Mary and her painless birth?

---

I linked a website with writing of church fathers, a couple of which are estimated at 70 and 80 AD. This would be the same time as several books of the Bible were written.

And again with the Bible alone. Please show me where in the Bible it says Jesus wasn't married.

---

If the Bible doesn't mention it, I chalk that up as extra-Biblical and not worthy of being made into doctrine. The reason the NT epistles were included in the Canon is due to their first hand apostleship and collaboration across other first hand apostles. While it may be true with what "church fathers" wrote in 80AD that hardly qualifies as truth we are to follow, in my understanding obviously. False teaching was rampant in the new Church and something that Paul attacked endlessly in his writings, so we should take note and consider the idea that we can't just take anyone at face value for what they wrote because they lived in 80AD.

The Bible does not speak to Jesus being married. Christ himself didn't mention it, his close followers who wrote scripture didn't mention it, and Paul didn't mention it. You'd think with the marriage instruction we are given in the NT that Christ would be our example and prolifically mentioned, if he had been married. That argument has endless examples and is a really poor barometer to decipher who God is.

---

So since the Bible never mentions it, am I free to believe He was married in your view?

No, the Bible is our basis for doctrine. If it wasn't mentioned, we don't use other sources as doctrine.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

No, the Bible is our basis for doctrine. If it wasn't mentioned, we don't use other sources as doctrine.

---

But it never says He wasn't. So you can't confidently say He wasn't unless you want to hold a pretty clear double standard here.

Or you can agree that there are things that we believe yo be 100% correct that the Bible does not explicitly state.