Sinless Mary

Arsenios said:

The only question is "Do YOU call her Blessed?"

The Bible states you are to call her Blessed...

Yet you refuse to do so...

Because you hate the Latins so much?

Man up, Menno!

Don't be a sissy...

Call her Blessed as the Bible affirms you will do...

But only IF you are one of the generations of Christians...

Are you going to ignore the Bible because of your resentment of those who you think use it wrongly?

Can you not simply call her Blessed?



So is it your claim that because Apostolic Churches teach that she was sinless, you therefore refuse to comply with Scripture and call her Blessed?

Because if YOU REFUSE to call her Blessed for any reason, then you scorn the Bible...


Arsenios

Click to expand...

I do not give Mary the mother of Jesus the title "Blessed Mary." God never commands it. That title is your denominational tradition.
It is a fallacious statement to say I scorn the Bible because I don't give her a non-biblical title.
Arsenios, I have been blessed by God to know Him as my Redeemer. Do you give me the title of "Blessed MennoSota?" I too have been blessed.

Arsenios said:

What does it mean to be conceived with original sin?

Click to expand...

You must ask Josiah to explain the term that he used.

What is the stain of original sin that we are all conceived with that the Blessed Virgin was not...??

Click to expand...

Stains are the marks left behind after the sin of Eve and Adam had cut them off from the tree of life, Eden, and harmonious fellowship with God. They lost their sinlessness by sinning, death came upon them and their posterity because of sin, and what the church fathers called concupiscence which is a tendency towards sin and away from God also came upon them and their posterity so these are the consequences of their sin with the last being the stain of sin. Death ruled over all human beings from Adam onward. Each individual human being had a tendency towards sins and away from God but not so powerful as to leave them "totally depraved" as the Calvinists suggest. Blessed Mary was born without that stain.

Arsenios

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

You must ask Josiah to explain the term that he used.

Click to expand...

Forgive me - I thought it was your basis for the doctrine of the I/C...

Stains are the marks left behind after the sin of Eve and Adam had cut them off from the tree of life, Eden, and harmonious fellowship with God.

Click to expand...

OK...

They lost their sinlessness by sinning,

Click to expand...

OK...

death came upon them and their posterity because of sin,

Click to expand...

Is this the stain?

and what the church fathers called concupiscence which is a tendency towards sin and away from God also came upon them and their posterity so these are the consequences of their sin with the last being the stain of sin.

Click to expand...

So the Latin Church sees the stain of Original Sin as death and our desire to sin?

Death ruled over all human beings from Adam onward.

Click to expand...

And Paul writes that it is because of this death-rule that all have sinned...

The individual human being had a tendency towards sins and away from God
but not so powerful as to leave them "totally depraved" as the Calvinists suggest.

Click to expand...

A weakened condition but not totally dead-inert-depraved, yes?

Blessed Mary was born without that stain.

Click to expand...

So that she was never tempted as all the rest of humanity is?


Arsenios

Arsenios said:

Forgive me - I thought it was your basis for the doctrine of the I/C...
OK...
OK...

1. Is this the stain?
2. So the Latin Church sees the stain of Original Sin as death and our desire to sin?
3. And Paul writes that it is because of this death-rule that all have sinned...
4. A weakened condition but not totally dead-inert-depraved, yes?
5. So that she was never tempted as all the rest of humanity is?

Arsenios

Click to expand...

1) No
2) No - you didn't read what I wrote with sufficient care.
3) … Are you referring to Romans 5:12-21?
4) Yes, dead in sin yet not incapable of responses.
5) Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was tempted in every way as we are yet without sin. I do not see any implication that Blessed Mary was not tempted.

MoreCoffee said:

Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.

Click to expand...

... so claims one singular, individual denomination - first in the 12th century and dogmatically since 1870. NO denomination stands with the singular RC one on this. Not one.


The Bible says NO SUCH THING.


NO ONE prior to the 5th century even theorized such a thing. No one who was an Apostle or knew an Apostle or knew the great, great, great, great, great grandchild of anyone who ever even saw an Apostle. And it was only a rare personal opinion, even then. The RC denomination didn't teach it until the 12 Century (after it split off from the EOC), and not as doctrine unill 1870. There is NOTHING about this from the Early Church (30-311 AD) or for nearly a century after that age.


As noted before, that PER SE doesn't make it wrong but it doesn't make it right, either (much less DOGMA). It's a POSSIBLE theory (as would be that Mary was 9 feet tall or hated fish or walked with a limp) but possible does not equal DOGMA. And that, PER SE, doesn't mean it's wrong to call her "BLESSED" (anymore than it would if she was not 9 feet tall or occasionally ate fish).




.

The alleged Scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not sound. It is said that the Angel spoke to Mary, saying that she was "full of Grace" as though grace is a measurable commodity like gasoline in your gas tank. Full, not half-full, see? That means no sin. Almost all Bible translations, however, including the Catholic ones, render the passage as "have found favor with God" (or something close to that). Even if it did mean that there was nothing but Grace in Mary's tank, she could have been absolved of all her sins at the time of the Annunciation or at the time God chose to send Gabriel to her. It doesn't follow that she not only was born sinless but conceived without sin before that.

Indeed, if there is some necessity for the mother of Jesus to be sinless from the time of conception (not right for God to be carried in the womb of a human who has sin on her soul, etc. etc. etc.), why would it be acceptable for Mary, the future birthgiver of God to have been carried in the womb of a sinner mother, Anne? All of that is in the realm of pop religion or speculation, but it, like the Immaculate Conception itself, is often the stuff of doctrine in the one and only denomination that teaches the Immaculate Conception.

MennoSota said:

I do not give Mary the mother of Jesus the title "Blessed Mary." God never commands it. That title is your denominational tradition.
It is a fallacious statement to say I scorn the Bible because I don't give her a non-biblical title.
Arsenios, I have been blessed by God to know Him as my Redeemer. Do you give me the title of "Blessed MennoSota?" I too have been blessed.

Click to expand...

"All generations shall call me blessed..."

Sorry Menno, but Scripture only mentions Mariam, and not you...

All creation is blessed just to be created...

But all Christians will call the Mother of our Lord Blessed...

Unless they scorn Scripture's Holy Word...


Arsenios

Lämmchen said:

Thank you for searching but I was asking about the early church fathers believing that Mary was sinless...not about perpetual virginity.

Click to expand...

Well so much for MY theory of YOUR question...

Forgive me!

I would imagine that describing her as "Immaculate" would only be understood by you as not having had any sexual relations...

On the matter of sinlessness, Scripture does not record her committing any sin, but that is not billiard-ball proof either...

We do have John baptizing people into repentance from sin because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...

And we know that Christ IS the Kingdom of Heaven...

And that we are Baptized by Christ into Christ at the hands of His Servant-members of His Body...

And all this is to attain new-creaturehood in Christ...

How much MORE purity is required in order that a virgin, which means purity, not only from sex but from all that is worldly, that a virgin young woman should conceive in her virgin body the Creator of all that is Created?

The Church has held from early on that She is sinless, but for doubters, perhaps we can say that at least from the time Christ came to be within her womb She most assuredly was so, wouldn't you think? I mean, there are sins of omission, involuntary sins, etc, and of these Scripture is silent, so we do not know... But knowing the early Church, to find the doctrine of Her sinlessness written even in the 5th Century would itself affirm it from the beginnings, because the dogmas of the Faith were practiced from the beginnings, and any variance at all was cause of great scandal...


Arsenios

Josiah said:

And that, PER SE, doesn't mean it's wrong to call her "BLESSED"

Click to expand...

Do you call her, in your inner thinking, as "BLESSED," Josiah?


Arsenios

It never fails to make me think that I'm dealing with a song by Creedence Clearwater Revival, though.

Arsenios said:

The Church has held from early on that She is sinless, but for doubters, perhaps we can say that at least from the time Christ came to be within her womb She most assuredly was so, wouldn't you think? I mean, there are sins of omission, involuntary sins, etc, and of these Scripture is silent, so we do not know... But knowing the early Church, to find the doctrine of Her sinlessness written even in the 5th Century would itself affirm it from the beginnings, because the dogmas of the Faith were practiced from the beginnings, and any variance at all was cause of great scandal...


Arsenios

Click to expand...

You know, not every legend and piece of religious folklore, no matter when it originated, ought to be made into a doctrine with the term APPROVED BY HOLY TRADITION slapped on it!

Arsenios said:

Do you call her, in your inner thinking, as "BLESSED," Josiah?

Click to expand...

Yup.

I also call Her "The Mother of God" (Matre Dei).... although I prefer the Eastern expression of Theotokos.

But that has nothing to do with it therefore being a dogmatic fact that is necessary to believe for salvation that She was conceived without original sin. IMO, the modern Roman denomination makes a fundamental mistake that one MUST docilicly swallow whole all the CURRENT teachings of the unique, singular RC denomination concerning Mary or else one doesn't honor, love, esteem Our Lady.




.

MoreCoffee said:

1)

3) … Are you referring to Romans 5:12-21?

Click to expand...

Just Rom 5:12 - The text literally states

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
and death through [that one] sin,
in this way also death came to all people,
upon which [death] all have sinned—

eph'w Eph-hoe = upon which - eg "for which cause"...

So that the Death into which we are all born in fallen Eve and Adam is the CAUSE of all sin...

5) Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was tempted in every way as we are yet without sin.

Click to expand...

Agreed...

I do not see any implication that Blessed Mary was not tempted.

Click to expand...

Did you not say that she was conceived without the stain, concupisence, of Original Sin?

Is not the temptation to sin the stain of Original Sin in Latin theology?

Maybe I misunderstand your words...


Arsenios

Albion said:

You know, not every legend and piece of religious folklore, no matter when it originated, ought to be made into a doctrine with the term APPROVED BY HOLY TRADITION slapped on it!

Click to expand...

The purity and virginity of the Theotokos is not mere religious folklore-legend...

It is today's Received Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church...

Every Apostolic Church without exception holds it...


Arsenios

Josiah said:

Yup.

I also call Her "The Mother of God" (Matre Dei).... although I prefer the Eastern expression of Theotokos.

Click to expand...

Then you may appreciate that we have a familiar term by which we address her as we go about our daily tasks: Theotoki...

As you know, this means God-birther...

But that has nothing to do with it therefore being a dogmatic fact that is necessary to believe for salvation that She was conceived without original sin.

Click to expand...

The ancient-Faith Orthodox Churches DENY she was conceived without original sin or its 'stain'...

And we affirm this denial as Salvational...

And we KNOW our Mom...


Arsenios

Arsenios said:

The purity and virginity of the Theotokos is not mere religious folklore-legend...

It is today's Received Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church...

Every Apostolic Church without exception holds it...


Arsenios

Click to expand...

Some thoughts....


1. This thread is not about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. That's a whole other enchilada. THAT, in my opinion, has SOME basis.


2. With the exception of embracing the title (and thought) of Mary as "Mother of God," altogether on purpose, the Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about these Marian views. If my memory serves, nor do the Anglican 39 Articles or the Calvinist Westminister Confession. Lutherans do not embrace any of the Marian views as DOGMA or reject any as HERESY. That said, we acknowledge that Luther PERSONALLY had a deep Marian devotion and EARLY ON embraced the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (later in his life, this is simply not mentioned by him - whether that means he abandoned it or not is not discernable). And you will find Lutherans who embrace some of these views (especially the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) - my own Lutheran pastor being one of them - some who do not and most who simply (like our Confessions) take no stance on this at all. Officially at least, we are silent. The PVM has one things going for it, however, that Lutherans are quick to acknowledge, it is at least SOMEWHAT affirmed by one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. None of the others are.


3. In Lutheranism (and I think also in Calvinism and Anglicanism) there is the concept of "pious opinion" or "adiaphora." Variously titled, this is a Protestant idea that a teaching may be permissible but not required. It is not dogma (such would need clear support from Scripture - and perhaps also from Tradition) but it in no sense is contradictory or even misaligned with Scripture. These are views one MAY hold but not teach as dogma.... views one may NOT hold but cannot proclaim as heresy. I lament that this concept from the early Reformation has largely been lost in modern Protestantism (I can theorize why) but it applies here. Lutherans understand "Pious opinion" as something not expressly taught in Scripture BUT 1) Has early and ecumenical affirmation (clear Tradition) AND 2) is not unbiblical. The PVM certainly "fits" that. The rest of the current Marian Dogmas of the singular RCC - not so much.


4. Lutherans often share much of the Marian piety and devotion of many Catholics. And some Lutherans share some of the Marian views of the current RCC - but as "pious opinion." Like Catholics, we refer to Her as "Our Lady" and "Mother of God" and we certainly hold her up as a saint (even the chief of saints) and honor Her for Her faith and obedience, as well as for being so important to our salvation and the Mother of Our Lord. We just don't share the RCC's teachings on Her as Dogma. On a personal note, as a former Catholic, I know that a FEW (very few) Catholics are really wacky on this whole thing.... and that makes MOST Catholics really uncomfortable. But I'm slow to rebuke.... these are folks in love with Her... and that's good.... and being in love (I mean that property, as you understand) sometimes mean folks go overboard, saying things that.... well..... I cut them a lot of slack. Generally, Lutherans do.



Sorry.



- Josiah
hes

Josiah said:

Some thoughts....


3. In Lutheranism (and I think also in Calvinism and Anglicanism) there is the concept of "pious opinion" or "adiaphora." Variously titled, this is a Protestant idea that a teaching may be permissible but not required. It is not dogma (such would need clear support from Scripture - and perhaps also from Tradition) but it in no sense is contradictory or even misaligned with Scripture. These are views one MAY hold but not teach as dogma.... views one may NOT hold but cannot proclaim as heresy. I lament that this concept from the early Reformation has largely been lost in modern Protestantism (I can theorize why) but it applies here. Lutherans understand "Pious opinion" as something not expressly taught in Scripture BUT 1) Has early and ecumenical affirmation (clear Tradition) AND 2) is not unbiblical. The PVM certainly "fits" that. The rest of the current Marian Dogmas of the singular RCC - not so much.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see this point being made. Adiaphora, the more common term among Lutherans, and Essential vs Non-Essential beliefs, the more usual way of expressing it in Anglican circles does survive, I think, and it is important that it remain a recognized principle.

Arsenios said:

The purity and virginity of the Theotokos is not mere religious folklore-legend...

Click to expand...

It does depend on how one phrases the point, though, doesn't it? Here you choose two words that are at once somewhat vague and very definitely do not tread upon the really controversial doctrines that some churches have adopted, such as Co-redemptrix, Mediator of all graces, ever-virgin, Immaculate Conception, the Assumption legend, etc.

It is today's Received Holy Tradition of the Apostolic Church...

Every Apostolic Church without exception holds it...

Click to expand...

The Apostolic Church I belong to does not, so you're wrong there.

Anyway, you've apparently missed the point of my comment. It was not about any particular doctrine but of the hokum of claiming so-called Holy Tradition as the justification for turning legends into dogma.

Albion said:

It does depend on how one phrases the point, though, doesn't it? Here you choose two words that are at once somewhat vague and very definitely do not tread upon the really controversial doctrines that some churches have adopted, such as Co-redemptrix, Mediator of all graces, ever-virgin, Immaculate Conception, the Assumption legend, etc.


The Apostolic Church I belong to does not, so you're wrong there.

Anyway, you've apparently missed the point of my comment. It was not about any particular doctrine but of the hokum of claiming so-called Holy Tradition as the justification for turning legends into dogma.

Click to expand...

All righty then:

Generic Hokum it IS!!


Arsenios