He got this one right, at least...

The Reformers held to her perpetual virginity by tradition.

We hold that the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the scriptures: but came either to us, or to our ancestors only by tradition. As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said, that Jannes and Jambres were the magicians that withstood Moses: now in the books of the Old Testament we shall not find them once named, and therefore it is like, that the Apostle had their names by tradition, or by some writings then extant among the Jews. So Heb. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle records of Moses, that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai, he said, I tremble and am afraid: which words are not to be found in all the books of the Old Testament. In the Epistle of Jude mention is made, that the devil strove with Michael the Archangel about the body of Moses: which point (as also the former) considering it is not to be found in holy writ, it seems the Apostle had it by tradition from the Jews. That the Prophet Isaiah was killed with a fullers club is received for truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture: and so likewise that the Virgin Mary lived and died a virgin. And in Ecclesiastical writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded, and received of us for truth, which nevertheless are not set down in the books of the Old or New Testament. And many things we hold for truth not written in the word, if they be not against the word.

-William Perkins, A Reformed Catholic

Of course we deny immaculate conception and her intercession for particular people, to receive and deliver our prayers to God.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

He got this one right, at least...

---

Your dogma says the Muslims got it right so I wouldn't worry about the Protestants.

Pretty sure the saints in heaven present our prayers to God...

Revelation 5: 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; 9 and they sang a new song, saying,
"Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that she is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She was certainly special. Specially chosen to be a special, unique person that hasn't been nor will ever be repeated.

But, Paul wrote like 2/3rds of the New Testament. Our understanding of Christ and Christianity would be so much dimmer without his teachings.

I don't really hold Mary in a higher place than I do Paul. But I don't really hold Paul to be more important either. They both had really unique roles to play in God's Kingdom plan.

I do worry that sometimes the veneration of Mary verges on idolatry. I have heard about people that "worship" Mary. I have never heard about a person that "worshiped" Paul.

But, I'm not sure it really matters all that much. It's not like we are arguing "well, Jesus said this but Mary said that" or the same with Paul. That's just not how it works.

I do think that the role of women in the ancient Roman world was not consistent with the way that God sees us as human beings. And, for that reason, I would understand why the importance of Mary and Mary Magdalene and a few other eldresses in the NT were emphasized. But, I'm not in the camp that Mary was anything like divine. At least, not any more divine than you or I.

As a Catholic, I am bound to believe that Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless throughout her earthly life. Those two things alone make her the most elevated creature.

The dogma comes to us from Mary being the new Eve, who was also created immaculate. It comes to us from Mary being the tabernacle and Holy of Holies for 9 months. The Holy of Holies and the Tabernacle HAD to be immaculate and pure, per Leviticus. In the bible, "All" doesn't always mean each and every person. "All Israel will be saved!" (Every Israeli ever born? Judas? Caiaphas? Atheists in Israel unrepentant to the end?) "I will draw ALL men to myself (atheists, rapists, murderers who do not repent?).

BusterAg said:

---

As a mostly sola scriptura protestant with existentialist philosophical leanings, I just can't get there.

Do Catholics just not believe that Romans 3:2 applies to Mary?

All (except Mary) have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God?

This idea that Mary lived a sinless life is actually new to me. I understand why she would be venerated even without that conclusion. Being chosen to be the mother of Christ is pretty much the highest honor a human being could achieve, I would think. But, I don't have a theological reason to believe that she would have to be sinless to be chosen for that role. I wouldn't limit God's power or abilities thus.

It's very contradictory. I mean, I am all about embracing the Mysteries of Christ. But how can Mary have remained sinless and also sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God?

I'm not making light of this or arguing with anyone about it. I just honestly don't understand.

Did Mary never sin? If she never sinned, did she need accept Christ as her savior? If she never sinned, and still needed Christ as her savior, why did she need him thus? Did she sin, yet still somehow remain sinless? I just don't get it.

I'm comfortable with accepted paradox's in theology. I'm just not sure what the believed paradox is that we are talking about here.

Really interested in the Catholic perspective here. Also happy to spend some time with a text or a sermon that goes into this if there is one that someone likes.

---

I assume you meant all of Romans 3 and not just verse 2? I think you're reading Romas out of context. Paul's audience was converted Jews and Romans. Mary's sinlessness is properly understood in light of Paul's teaching in Romans 3 about sin and justification in a complementary way. Romans 3 definitely highlights that all humanity, including Mary, is subject to sin and stand in need of justification, which comes solely through faith in Jesus Christ and participation in His Church, not through the works of the Mosaic Law. Paul's teaches that justification is a gratuitous gift of God's love that comes from Christ's redeeming sacrifice, which cleanses from sin and enables believers to obey Christ's moral teachings and integrate with His body the Church and become righteous, or justified in God's sight.

Mary's sinlessness is not a contradiction of the universal need for redemption and justification that Paul teaches. It highlights her role in salvation history.

The Church's tradition and teaching is that Mary was preserved PROLEPTICALLY from original sin and all sin by a singular grace of God foreseeing the merits of Christ's redemptive sacrifice at the moment of her conception. This means she was free from the stain of original sin (concupiscence) while remaining human and fully dependent on Christ's saving work applied preemptively to her by God's foreknowledge.

This exceptional privilege was fitting given her role as Theotokos (Mother of God), the "new Eve" who, unlike the first Eve, did not fall into sin but fully cooperated with God's plan of salvation by her fiat ("Let it be done to me according to your word"). Mary stands as a singularly pure member of the Church, uniquely graced and justified from the beginning of her existence, but not outside the saving grace of Christ, rather wholly dependent on it in a unique way.

Paul's theology in Romans supports this understanding insofar as the grace that justifies all humanity is from Christ and administered by the Spirita grace that Mary received in full measure to remain sinless. Her sinlessness does not negate the universality of sin's consequences taught in Romans 3 but rather is an extraordinary status granted by God in view of Christ's merits.

Executive summary: Mary's sinlessness aligns with Pauline theology in Romans 3 by recognizing that justification and grace come from Christ alone through faith. Mary's preservation from sin is a unique, singular grace applying Christ's merits in a preemptive manner, confirming her unique role as the Mother of God and exalted member of the Church. Her sinlessness exemplifies the power of God's redemptive grace, which justifies all believers as taught by St. Paul.

Buster Ag said:

---

Really interested in the Catholic perspective here. Also happy to spend some time with a text or a sermon that goes into this if there is one that someone likes.

---

This is a thread from a long time ago you might find helpful… there is significant Biblical support for the beliefs on Mary. Unfortunately most Protestants/non-denom Christians are unable to work past their modern Biblical interpretive tradition to be able to see and recognize the depth that is there.


https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3224950/replies/60107144


Edit to add: the last post in this thread addresses Romans 3

Law Of The Quad said:

---

The Virgin birth should be defended and Mary should be recognized. The problem is Roman Catholicism tends to add things. She is given titles, the queen of heaven and all sorts of mysticism and aberrations, where she appears to people, make prophesies, etc.

Post like this create arguments and don't advance the kingdom.

---

The problem really is that Christians have being doing these dastardly things with respect to the Mother of God since the earliest days of the church. It's your rejection of that based on a theological novum that makes it a problem. The Catholic church also added things like the canon of the Bible but I suspect you don't see that as a problem.

Mary is the Queen of Heaven. We not only see this in Revelation 12, but since Jesus is the King of Heaven, His Queen Mother is the Queen of Heaven. Protestants don't usually know that in the Jewish Kingdom of David, which Jesus inherited, the Kings had their mother as Queen, not their wives...

It is my understanding that the mothers were deemed queen more so since the ancient Jewish culture practiced polygamy. Which of the wives would have even sat next to their husband?

Furthermore, since we are applying this example to Mary, is it part of the Catholic/Orthodox view that Mary is sitting on Jesus' right side this very moment in Heaven? So we have God, then Jesus, then Mary - in that order on their thrones in Heaven?

Lastly, the ancient Jewish monarchy was a completely broken and corrupted system. One of the themes in the Bible (and specifically in the Old Testament) was the Israelites desire to be like their neighbors. During the time of Samuel, they desired to have a king and no longer thought of God in his rightful place in the theocracy he had established. God, in his usual way, let the people over to their desires and gave them a king and monarchy. However, this monarchy a broken vessel that was used to bring about the ultimate King from the line of David. I don't think it is appropriate to take the functionality from this broken monarchy (like a queen mother) and then apply it to how it is operating in it's fullest and most perfect state.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

It is my understanding that the mothers were deemed queen more so since the ancient Jewish culture practiced polygamy. Which of the wives would have even sat next to their husband?

Furthermore, since we are applying this example to Mary, is it part of the Catholic/Orthodox view that Mary is sitting on Jesus' right side this very moment in Heaven? So we have God, then Jesus, then Mary - in that order on their thrones in Heaven?

Lastly, the ancient Jewish monarchy was a completely broken and corrupted system. One of the themes in the Bible (and specifically in the Old Testament) was the Israelites desire to be like their neighbors. During the time of Samuel, they desired to have a king and no longer thought of God in his rightful place in the theocracy he had established. God, in his usual way, let the people over to their desires and gave them a king and monarchy. However, this monarchy a broken vessel that was used to bring about the ultimate King from the line of David. I don't think it is appropriate to take the functionality from this broken monarchy (like a queen mother) and then apply it to how it is operating in it's fullest and most perfect state.

---

There are known biblical instances where the revered status of the queen mother is evident particularly Solomon showing deference to his mother Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:19 shows Bathsheba sitting at the king's side, a position of honor and interceding with the new King at the request of Adonijah the son of Haggith.

1 Kings 2-

13 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, "Do you come peaceably?" He said, "Peaceably."
14 Then he said, "I have something to say to you." She said, "Say on."
15 He said, "You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brother's, for it was his from the LORD.
16 And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me." She said to him, "Say on."
17 And he said, "Pray ask King Solomon -- he will not refuse you -- to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife."
18 Bathsheba said, "Very well; I will speak for you to the king."
19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right.
20 Then she said, "I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me." And the king said to her, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you."

Where do we begin?
Yes! Jesus is our eternal King and Mary is our Queen Mother reigning with him in His kingdom. Mary sits at the right hand of Jesus in Heaven.

When the Angel Gabriel greeted Mary he greeted her as queen, "Hail, full of grace". Mary was greatly troubled by this saying and unique greeting. Then Gabriel helped Mary understand that she was to be the mother to the Son of the Most High, and that God will give her son the throne of his father David, and that his kingdom will have no end. The Davidic kings are almost always identified reigning with their Queen Mothers. Immediately Mary understood that she is The Queen Mother because of who her Son was as King.

When Mary visits Elizabeth she is greeted by Elizabeth as the bearer and Mother of God (Theotokos and virgin queen). At the sound of MARY's voice John leaps in his mother's womb. Mary is the true Arc of the Covenant. The parallels of this account in Luke are a clear connection to David shouting and dancing before the OT Arc. (Read Luke 1:39-56 in light of 2 Sam 6: 2, 9-19)

And then we have more in Revelation 11 and 12:

Quote:

---

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple, and there were flashes of lightening, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child…she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron…"

---

Mary is clearly our Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven. She is the New Eve, The Woman, the God Bearer and Arc of the Covenant. Mary was the very first Christian and is the mother of Jesus - Mother of God - and mother of all Christians.

The framework and foreshadowing of the OT is how and why the earliest Christians were able to come to believe in Christ. You are right that the OT was full of flawed, broken, and corrupted people and systems, but you are wrong in discounting their NT fulfillments. Why is it okay on one hand to accept the broken monarchy used to bring about the ultimate king from the line of David (Jesus) - but then reject unique and distinguishing attributes specific to that monarchy like the Queen Mother (Mary)?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Where do we begin?
Yes! Jesus is our eternal King and Mary is our Queen Mother reigning with him in His kingdom. Mary sits at the right hand of Jesus in Heaven.

When the Angel Gabriel greeted Mary he greeted her as queen, "Hail, full of grace". Mary was greatly troubled by this saying and unique greeting. Then Gabriel helped Mary understand that she was to be the mother to the Son of the Most High, and that God will give her son the throne of his father David, and that his kingdom will have no end. The Davidic kings are almost always identified reigning with their Queen Mothers. Immediately Mary understood that she is The Queen Mother because of who her Son was as King.

When Mary visits Elizabeth she is greeted by Elizabeth as the bearer and Mother of God (Theotokos and virgin queen). At the sound of MARY's voice John leaps in his mother's womb. Mary is the true Arc of the Covenant. The parallels of this account in Luke are a clear connection to David shouting and dancing before the OT Arc. (Read Luke 1:39-56 in light of 2 Sam 6: 2, 9-19)

And then we have more in Revelation 11 and 12:

Quote:

---

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple, and there were flashes of lightening, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child…she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron…"

---

Mary is clearly our Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven. She is the New Eve, The Woman, the God Bearer and Arc of the Covenant. Mary was the very first Christian and is the mother of Jesus - Mother of God - and mother of all Christians.

The framework and foreshadowing of the OT is how and why the earliest Christians were able to come to believe in Christ. You are right that the OT was full of flawed, broken, and corrupted people and systems, but you are wrong in discounting their NT fulfillments. Why is it okay on one hand to accept the broken monarchy used to bring about the ultimate king from the line of David (Jesus) - but then reject unique and distinguishing attributes specific to that monarchy like the Queen Mother (Mary)?

---

Well said!

Side note: Jesus's status as the last Davidic king is also relevant in his action in Matthew 16:19 where the Lord gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, which is clearly a reference to Isaiah 22 where the Lord Himself appoints Eliakim to the role of steward. God declares through the prophet Isaiah that Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, will be clothed with authority to replace Shebna as the steward or "master of the palace." The reference to the "key of the house of David" symbolizes the authority Eliakim will hold, indicating his role in managing the king's household and governance responsibilities when the king is away.

Thanks for the replies on this thread.

I will likely look into it in more detail before I respond, but wanted to say I appreciate the explanation.

I will say that I am more likely to conclude that ALL, inclusive of Mary, have sinned and are not God.

My theology is one that God is the ultimate subjective in every way. He IS objective truth. He isn't measured against truth, he is the rubric to which everything else gets measured.

In that theology, Mary being sinless has a troubling place. But, I can kind of get the idea of Mary being prophylactically protected from sin (purposeful word play here, on many levels) by the Holy Spirit, but now we are entering into the realm of determinism and free will, which is an even muddier bog.

Anyways, back to work. I might bump this thread after some obscene amount of time to think about it.

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks for the replies on this thread.

I will likely look into it in more detail before I respond, but wanted to say I appreciate the explanation.

I will say that I am more likely to conclude that ALL, inclusive of Mary, have sinned and are not God.

My theology is one that God is the ultimate subjective in every way. He IS objective truth. He isn't measured against truth, he is the rubric to which everything else gets measured.

In that theology, Mary being sinless has a troubling place. But, I can kind of get the idea of Mary being prophylactically protected from sin (purposeful word play here, on many levels) by the Holy Spirit, but now we are entering into the realm of determinism and free will, which is an even muddier bog.

Anyways, back to work. I might bump this thread after some obscene amount of time to think about it.

---

Would you agree that Eve had the option to remain sinless, as she was born without original sin? If yes, then we look at that "prophylactic". What kind was it? Mary was born as sinless as Eve. That's what God did for her. In this event, Mary was given the same option as Eve, but didn't screw it up like Eve did. She did what Eve was supposed to do originally. The only gap you need to bridge is whether or not God gave her the same option He gave Eve.

If you believe Eve had no choice but to fall into sin there are some serious ramifications around the nature and origin of sin/evil.

BusterAg said:

---

I will say that I am more likely to conclude that ALL, inclusive of Mary, have sinned and are not God.

My theology is one that God is the ultimate subjective in every way. He IS objective truth. He isn't measured against truth, he is the rubric to which everything else gets measured.

In that theology, Mary being sinless has a troubling place. But, I can kind of get the idea of Mary being prophylactically protected from sin (purposeful word play here, on many levels) by the Holy Spirit, but now we are entering into the realm of determinism and free will, which is an even muddier bog.

---

As you spend time pondering and reflecting on Mary and in line with your theology, remember that EVERYTHING about Mary is because of Jesus and who Jesus is. NOTHING we believe about Mary is because of the greatness of Mary, but rather the greatness of her son.

We believe Mary was given a special grace which protected her from sin in the beginning and sustained her throughout her lifetime. We support this belief because we believe Mary to be The Woman in Genesis 3:15 whom God placed enmity with the devil (sin). Similar to the pure and holy OT arc, Mary was the true arc who bore Jesus in her womb and gave birth to God. Mary was set apart by God for God in an intimate and Holy way. Mary was literally the exception in all of salvation history. Mary was the fulfillment of OT prophesies and types galore, and Jesus takes his humanity, his flesh and blood scarified for us, from Mary. Mary was literally filled with the Holy Spirit and she contained God in her womb and gave life to the giver of life. Mary and Jesus shared his precious blood while he was formed in her womb. The mystery and reality is beyond all comprehension.

Again, Mary being without sin is not about Mary but about Jesus and who Mary's Son is. Jesus was loving and honoring his mother perfectly from the very beginning of her existence.

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks for the replies on this thread.

I will likely look into it in more detail before I respond, but wanted to say I appreciate the explanation.

I will say that I am more likely to conclude that ALL, inclusive of Mary, have sinned and are not God.

My theology is one that God is the ultimate subjective in every way. He IS objective truth. He isn't measured against truth, he is the rubric to which everything else gets measured.

In that theology, Mary being sinless has a troubling place. But, I can kind of get the idea of Mary being prophylactically protected from sin (purposeful word play here, on many levels) by the Holy Spirit, but now we are entering into the realm of determinism and free will, which is an even muddier bog.

Anyways, back to work. I might bump this thread after some obscene amount of time to think about it.

---

This article is not specifically about Mary's sinlessness, but it is about her Immaculate Conception and it goes into the theology in a way that you might find interesting. The sinlessness of Mary is a direct consequence of her being born without the privation of original sin, which means she did not have the same proclivities with which those of us born with original sin must contend.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/14/why-i-came-to-believe-that-mary-was-conceived-without-sin/

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks for the replies on this thread.

I will likely look into it in more detail before I respond, but wanted to say I appreciate the explanation.

I will say that I am more likely to conclude that ALL, inclusive of Mary, have sinned and are not God.

My theology is one that God is the ultimate subjective in every way. He IS objective truth. He isn't measured against truth, he is the rubric to which everything else gets measured.

In that theology, Mary being sinless has a troubling place. But, I can kind of get the idea of Mary being prophylactically protected from sin (purposeful word play here, on many levels) by the Holy Spirit, but now we are entering into the realm of determinism and free will, which is an even muddier bog.

Anyways, back to work. I might bump this thread after some obscene amount of time to think about it.

---

This would be the correct historical view of the Church. Mary was born into sin and she sinned.

I delved into this about 6 months ago as part of a thesis and there is pretty uniform agreement, even with Roman Catholic scholars, that the earliest church fathers did not hold to immaculate conception or to the belief that Mary was sinless. The earliest known manuscripts that begin to elevate Mary to mythical levels actually start in apocryphal (true apocryphal books) and slowly filtered into the church as one-offs.

It actually destroyed my entire thesis idea because the consensus is so overwhelmingly against Rome that there wasn't really anything to do. The books have been written, mostly by Roman Catholic Scholars, and the consensus is clear.

The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and even the reformers including Martin Luther were and are in agreement that Mary was without personal sin.

Luther wasn't fully reformed yet

There is also a biological fact about Mary, through the grace of God, being sinless. During pregnancy, there is fetal microchimerism, which is when cells from the mother go into the infant and from the infant into the mother. I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't carrying sinful cells from Mary, since He is sinless by nature.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

There is also a biological fact about Mary, through the grace of God, being sinless. During pregnancy, there is fetal microchimerism, which is when cells from the mother go into the infant and from the infant into the mother. I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't carrying sinful cells from Mary, since He is sinless by nature.

---

Jesus got 100% of his DNA and 100% of his human nature from Mary. No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin. So seems that Mary must have been without sin at least until after Jesus's birth. This doesn't directly speak to Mary remaining sinless throughout the remainder of her life but if one is not affected by original sin then one would not be inclined towards sin.

The Banned said:

---

Would you agree that Eve had the option to remain sinless, as she was born without original sin? If yes, then we look at that "prophylactic". What kind was it? Mary was born as sinless as Eve. That's what God did for her. In this event, Mary was given the same option as Eve, but didn't screw it up like Eve did. She did what Eve was supposed to do originally. The only gap you need to bridge is whether or not God gave her the same option He gave Eve.

If you believe Eve had no choice but to fall into sin there are some serious ramifications around the nature and origin of sin/evil.

---

Your question just leads to more questions:

Do you believe that Mary understood the difference between Good and Evil?

Do you believe that Eve, when she was first created, understood the difference between Good and Evil?

If you have no knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil, are you capable of Sin?

When a Peregrine Falcon murders a pigeon, plucks out its eyes, tears off its wings, and leaves it in the tree helpless (but not dead) to preserve it for later, is he sinning by torturing the poor bird?

I think that it is perfectly supported in scripture that God and only God has the ability to live a life without sin, which is why God had to come to earth in the form of Jesus.

Quote:

---

The mystery and reality is beyond all comprehension.

---

I'm actually good with this part.

The more I think about this, the more I get to "I don't know, and that is fine".

It seems weird to me that anyone could live a sinless life except for Jesus. Then again, I'm not going to limit God in such a way as to say it would have been impossible for God to have "protected" Mary from sin for her entire life.

At the end of the day, I don't think where you fall on this really matters all that much. Celebrating the birth of Jesus, and Mary's special part in that, is a good, worthwhile thing. Women are human beings and carry with them the light of God's divinity, just as much as men, and the fact that a woman had a closer relationship with Jesus than any other human being is a nice reminder of that. Our culture doesn't have a hang up with that, but there are plenty of cultures in the world that do.

The positives above can all be considered to be true whether or not you think that Mary might have told one little white lie out of selfishness when she was seven. It just doesn't really matter.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin.

---

Why not?

Would it be impossible for God to make that happen?

BusterAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin.

---

Why not?

Would it be impossible for God to make that happen?

---

Jesus could not assume a human nature subject to original sin because original sin wounds human nature, and if that would mean Jesus's human nature would be in a state deprived of original justice, holiness, and inclined to sin. Jesus was sinless, both in actual sin and in original sin, because he is the sinless "new Adam" who came to redeem humanity from sin and its effects. If Jesus had assumed a sinful nature, even by inheritance, he could not have been the perfect sacrifice and mediator between God and man.

The Holy Spirit is sinless by His very nature...
Jesus is sinless by His very nature....
Mary is related to both and is sinful? No way...

BusterAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin.

---

Why not?

Would it be impossible for God to make that happen?

---

Nothing is impossible for God. I would not use words like necessary or required when speaking about God or Jesus. A better word in my view is that it was fitting.

When you understand that Mary is the true fulfillment of the arc of the covenant (and she was not made by human hands) it becomes clear that she was prepared in a special way to be the bearer of God in her womb - the literal dwelling place of God Incarnate. Mary was literally filled with the Holy Spirit and she was the place of the incarnation.

The OT arc was made of incorruptible wood and overlayed in pure gold inside and out (purity). Every detail of the arc was meticulously prescribed including the building of the arc and the consecration of the arc preparing the arc for God to dwell with his people. Do we really think God would have taken less care when creating his mother?

We know God can do anything and that nothing is impossible for God. We also know that God is truth and that Jesus, being God, was perfect and without sin. Jesus did not violate his own commandments by failing to honor his mother and allowing her to be stained by sin. No, Jesus absolutely loved his mother so perfectly that he saved her and provided her the special graces that she would always remain free from sin against God.

It's really that simple.

Faithful Ag said:

---

The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and even the reformers including Martin Luther were and are in agreement that Mary was without personal sin.

---

You build your entire claim about Luther off a Thaddeus quote from a roman catholic website.

Very little he posts is ever particularly credible.