/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>587184

>If God can impart such a gift, freely, without undermining free-will then the whole Atonement is superfluous.

But certainly Jesus had free will and Jesus was without sin, and that is the whole root atonement.

>>587205

Jesus was God incarnate, who has to be free from sin by definition. We can allow an exception for him because his nature was Godly from the start.

Humans can become free from sin via His atonement and via faith and being born again. It's a process.

I'm okay with Mary being sinless as a matter of struggle and her wisdom and self-control and maybe some luck/grace from God. But the idea that she was just given this freedom from sin inherently, (a get out of hell free card) really is a problem for the atonement. If God wants all to be saved then clearly giving them an Mary-treatment would be far superior than the atonement, far more efficient, far less harmful for the world, the atonement caused a lot of strife on earth, parents against kids, nation against nation, and it will probably not save all people anyway…

Theodicy rests on freedom of will as an explanation of evil, if God can just snap his fingers and make a "perfected" version of free-will, like Mary had, then Christianity really just eats itself and makes no sense.

>>587209

>Jesus was God incarnate, who has to be free from sin by definition. We can allow an exception for him because his nature was Godly from the start

Yet he was also human, and resisted sin through the power of God in the desert, just like we are called to do. Jesus is fully man and fully God, anything the perfect man can do through faith Mary can do through faith, especially if it is necessary for the incarnation. We never state, however, that Mary was not tempted, simply that the peace of God was always stronger in her and that she was free from the original sin we are all born into.

>>587213

>we never state that Mary was not tempted

Okay, as long as she wasn't given some sort of gift from God that prevented her from ever sinning, if she struggled and had some responsibility for her purity then its fine

>free from original sin

ya I think all are born free from original sin because the way its taught by the Catholics and Prots is not accurate, no one is guilty or responsible for another's sin, neither their great grandparents or adam and eve's.

We are judged by our own sins and face the earthly consequences of other people's sins, but we don't face the spiritual consequences/judgment for other people's sins

>>587217

>Okay, as long as she wasn't given some sort of gift from God that prevented her from ever sinning

Well she was, but that gift was a flawless faith, the faith that can move mountains, not a majik sin be gone shield.

>We are judged by our own sins and face the earthly consequences of other people's sins, but we don't face the spiritual consequences/judgment for other people's sins

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

>>587230

>I don't see this as a good verse for original sin, being born in iniquity doesn't mean he is guilty of it himself, but that he is born in time or setting of iniquity or the circumstances of his conception were not pure.

I think you are misinterpreting what original sin actually is, here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Give this a read, I'll try to get back to you in the morning if you still have objections.

>Wrath is an emotional state, not necessarily sin.

Matthew 5:22

>Sure, "youth" being an age where a child has some understanding of right and wrong and can be culpable for their actions. It varies from child to child and doesn't imply newborn infants are guilty of some sin, specially a sin they did not commit.

The original language excludes this interpretation, as the article shows.

>>587236

you're going to have to present some specific verses, probably a combination and form some sort of argument about them. Majority in that article are very weak and the argument is really disjointed. Good luck tomorrow.

>>587238

>Majority in that article are very weak and the argument is really disjointed.

Wait wut. Literally this is the most organized proof of original sin on the internet and only does it by explaining how the doctrine is derived from specific verses in Romans 5 and backed up by specific verses in the OT, combined through arguments. You need to actually prove that these arguments are weak and disjointed, not just state that they are.

>>587243

Get the best verses and make an argument. I already showed how several are extremely faulty, Ephesians 2:3 Gen 8:21 and Psalm 51:5…

Either unpack them or find some better verses. The article is just very weak and disjointed from start to finish. If you can find the crux of the argument then just post the key verses here and explain it. This is for your good too, really, if you can't defend original sin then you shouldn't believe it.

>>587217

If you don't believe in original sin then why do you need Jesus? Why aren't you already in union with God?

>>587217

You don't understand. Original sin is no inherited sin or inherited guilt. We are not responsible for what Adam and Eve did, but we have to face the consequences of which the Baptism washes us free. That is a huge and very important difference right there. It is not being responsible for the sins of the first humans, it is the shadow of death and the inclination to sin that we have to deal with.

I don't know what sparked this "Catholics believe in inherited guild", but it's a lie and you should read about a matter before you spread it. Because chances are that when you're not Catholic, you get it wrong (and I don't imply intention here).

>>587184

Before the original sin, Adam and Eve had free will, right?

>>587222

>but that gift was a flawless faith,

Assuming that doesnt negate freewill why wouldnt God give everyone that gift?

>>587283

I’ve never thought of that before. Now that I think about it, Mary being born sinless sort of seems a bit strange. On one hand, according to Catholics, Christ couldn’t be born of a sinful woman. It is a fundamental belief of all Christians that Jesus died to save us from our sin. Under Protestantism that makes perfect sense. But under Catholicism it was already possible for God to create sinless humans, meaning that it was not nessecary for Christ to die. Is there any solution to this problem?

>>587286

>But under Catholicism it was already possible for God to create sinless humans, meaning that it was not nessecary for Christ to die. Is there any solution to this problem?

It is entirely possible for God to create humans born without original sin, since Jesus was Himself fully man, and was born without sin. If Jesus can be an exception, there is no reason God could not do so for Mary. Not that Mary was granted this favor without view of the Cross. Mary received the redemptive benefits of the cross before the sacrifice on the cross, even before the incarnation. So Mary is still immaculate by virtue of the cross, even if the immaculate conception precedes the cross in time. Strictly speaking, God did not need the cross either. He could have chosen another method. St. Athanasius in "On the Incarnation of the Word" writes the following on why the cross was chosen

>And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have 「become Galatians 3:13 a curse,」 unless He received the death set for a curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: 「Cursed Deuteronomy 21:23 is he that hangs on a tree.」 3. Again, if the Lord's death is the ransom of all, and by His death 「the middle Ephesians 2:14 wall of partition」 is broken down, and the calling of the nations is brought about, how would He have called us to Him, had He not been crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out His hands, that with the one He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what manner of death He was to ransom all: 「I, when John 12:32 I am lifted up,」 He says, 「shall draw all men unto Me.」 5. And once more, if the devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, wanders about our lower atmosphere, and there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits, as his peers in disobedience, not only works illusions by their means in them that are deceived, but tries to hinder them that are going up (and about this the Apostle says: 「According to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience」); while the Lord came to cast down the devil, and clear the air and prepare the way for us up into heaven, as said the Apostle: 「Through Hebrews 10:20 the veil, that is to say, His flesh」 — and this must needs be by death — well, by what other kind of death could this have come to pass, than by one which took place in the air, I mean the cross? For only he that is perfected on the cross dies in the air. Whence it was quite fitting that the Lord suffered this death. 6. For thus being lifted up He cleared the air of the malignity both of the devil and of demons of all kinds, as He says: 「I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;」 and made a new opening of the way up into heaven as He says once more: 「Lift up your gates, O you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors.」 For it was not the Word Himself that needed an opening of the gates, being Lord of all; nor were any of His works closed to their Maker; but we it was that needed it whom He carried up by His own body. For as He offered it to death on behalf of all, so by it He once more made ready the way up into the heavens.

>>587289

> It is entirely possible for God to create humans born without original sin, since Jesus was Himself fully man, and was born without sin. If Jesus can be an exception, there is no reason God could not do so for Mary

Jesus was fully God as well as fully man. It should not be surprising that he is an exception and did not sin. Every other human is 0% God, and needs salvation from their sins. Unless of course Mary was 0% God and was still created sinless, in which case there is no good reason why the entirety of humanity could not simply be immaculately conceived.

>>587294

>Unless of course Mary was 0% God and was still created sinless, in which case there is no good reason why the entirety of humanity could not simply be immaculately conceived.

Mary was granted a special privilege with this, since she was somewhat unique being the mother of God. While God could have simply made everyone conceived immaculately, this would not really be useful. Adam and Eve lacked original sin and still sinned, so simply being born without original sin doesn't solve the problem. The cross and incarnation were not needed by God, but by us. Since we have fallen into corruption, this must be fixed and it is not fixed simply by immaculate conception, which does not make it impossible to sin, but by the cross and life of Jesus where He showed himself Lord of all. Corruption set in, and men were worshipping nature, demons, or the dead. Christ, through His life, showed himself master of all these to turn us towards God. The life of Christ is not meant solely for the cross but to at every step refute incorrect notions we had, and to show us to the true God, for which He was to be the "image of the invisible God" which would restore us having fallen. The cross again was chosen as the means of normal atonement as explained by St. Athanasius. The reason we are not all immaculately received is that we are allowed to experience our corruption to point us to God and then we receive healing. This serves to remind us of the reality of sin, of the precious gift received, and of the source of righteousness, God.

>>587281

Adam and Eve always had free will. Man always had, has and always will have free will.

>Mary

Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

>>587281

And they still sinned

>>587252

>This is for your good too, really, if you can't defend original sin then you shouldn't believe it.

Fair enough, although I see no way the entire history of the doctrine in an article can be weak and disjointed. But either way, Paul is very clear on this doctrine.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not.

But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences, unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.

For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound.

That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord." -Romans 5:12-21

Through Adam's rebellion, sin entered the world, and all of us are born into a sinful nature. This is the stain of original sin; not an inheretince of guilt, but an inheretence of fallen nature. None of us can be guilty of his sin, yet all of us are guilty of sin, even infants as the original language of Genesis 8:21 shows (yeah that's a weird point but it is the Word of the Lord, at least in hebrew. I was always confused with it until Augustine pointed out that babies are more or less animals with none of the gifts of reason who just scream for tits all day. Not that they are in any way at fault for that, but it is a bestial nature all the same) because he is the one who brought sin into the world in the first place; the sin is our inherent inability to live the life of grace that God of made Adam for.

>Mary dindu nuffin

Suppose he had been Tabled at thy Teats,

Thy hunger feels not what he eats:

He'll have his Teat ere long (a bloody one).

The Mother then must suck the Son.

>>587351

do you think aborted babies go to hell

Can we pause and appreciate how much better Mike looks with a beard and without that smugish smile?

>>587374

https://www.catholicherald.com/Faith/Your_Faith/Straight_Answers/Straight_Answers__Do_Aborted_Children_Go_to_Heaven_/

tl;dr: we don't know but it would be cruel to think the helpless and unbaptizable would be damned, and God isn't cruel, so probably not.

>>587306

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word

>>587407

And the Lord came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

>>587370

Romans 4:14

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

>>587383

He's a really great guy, honestly.

Catholics don't actually believe Mary was without sin, do they?

>>596350

Protestants don't really think Mary was full of grace, do they?

>>596352

wait…no, no they don't.

what a disgusting heresy!

>>587298

>>587289

Had a lot of time to think about this and yeah, I think my original concerns were a bit misguided. Of course God can create a sinless person if he so chooses, just as he can save literally anyone if he so chooses, or refrain from saving them. Protestants might have other reasons to dispute Mary's sinlessness, but they must at least acknowledge that God already has the power to create sinless people if he so chooses, and that he is also not obligated to do so either.

>>587179

He should shave, he looked more handsome without facial hair.

>>596471

>missing the point this badly

When he starts rattling off words that start with the letter M, in my mind, I had the realisation that M is the 13th letter of the alphabet. Did he pick M because of Mary's name or was there something else to that decision?

>>587280

If any notion of original sin is true, it's this one or something like this. Sadly, Augustine and many other western theologians 4th century and onward disagreed with you and espoused original sin as inherited guilt. Lord have mercy.

>>587306

We know that translation is fraudulent. The original greek of St Luke 11:28 is

>αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν Μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.

Notice that word, Μενοῦν, which gets translated in english bibles as “rather”. It does not mean “rather”. It means “yes indeed”. Messiah was not telling off the woman from the crowd, but affirming her. He did not insult His mother, but expanded upon her blessing.

>Yes indeed, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

>>596616

>English perfect tense=greek perfect tense

>>596628

I trust protestants from biblehub over jews from google

>3304 menoúnge (from 3303 /mén, "indeed"; 3767 /oún, "therefore"; and 1065 /gé, "really") – properly, therefore really indeed.

>>596649

>>596652

my EO NT has a footnote, says

> This is the traditional expression. “The perfect participle

kecaritwme,nh has the strongest connotation of the present: ‘having been favored and as a result still being in this blessed condition.’ The root in the verb is carij, grace, the unmerited favor bestowed by God. The passive voice makes God the agent.” (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1946) p. 62). Many translations have “Greetings, favored one!” or something similar.

I don't believe Mary was sinless.

>>596875

then you contradict scripture

>>596466

I wonder if you'll have your retard.jpg memes stocked up for Judgement.

>>596464

>he looked more handsome without facial hair.

Blasphemy, real men have beards

>>596875

Why?

One of the best videos hes ever done.

>tfw the loneliness of virtue

>>602460

"Unlike Catholicism which has meditated on and studied Mary we're just gonna tell you it's a mystery so fuck you"

Thanks bro you really stuck it to those papist

>>602488

instead of being defensive, think about what he said:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

when we start to autistically define everything to the n-th degree, eventually stuff starts getting made up (see: the jews and their man made laws). there are things man was not meant to know in this life, believing them is called having faith.

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

may the lord god bless you richly my friend. always ask the theotokos for protection and for the growing in love for her son and our king. amen

>>602532

thanks

>>603041

This is idiotic. One word hypocrite - Theotokos.

>>602532

Catholics just have four dogmas on Mary, how is that autism?

>>587184

>Mary was immaculately conceived because her son would become her Savior

That's some Game-of-Thrones-tier time travel.

>>587179

This also seem to be a recent widespread phenomenon:

>Papist priests growing beards to look less like Papist priests

Oh the irony.

>>604564

How petty.

>>604786

It was petty that Catholics shaved their beards in order to set themselves apart from other Christians. It is ironic that they try to blend in with Christians now that their organization is collapsing.

>>604961

All the trad priests I know are clean shaven. One of the more "modern" ones I know is bearded.

My question: can Catholics lift a finger without you orthos scrambling to find a reason to hate us even more?

>>604546

He needs a beard dude… he speaks like a teenage girl complete with the effeminate side to side head tilting and soyboy open mouth smile. Shockingly open for a catholic with such exposure tbh, he doesn't even try to hide it

>>604995

They're usually just projecting their insecurities.

>>605072

What are you talking about?

>>605075

>>605041