Thanks to some free advertising from RasorsKiss, Ed "What the" Heckman, of The Greatest Pursuits, found my response to Rand's screed and tossed in his two cents. It's an intelligent, thought-provoking response. Here's a sample:
Is it unreasonable to think that if God/Jesus was in intimate contact with 'sinners' before the formal end of that separation then there would be no problem with intimate contact with Mary in spite of her own sins?
If anything, the Bible implies that it was necessary for Mary to be a sinner. Consider this passage in Galations:
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
(Gal. 4:4-5, NASB)
I'm not sure when I'll have time to respond, so I hope some of my readers will help me out.
Funky Dung
Comments 23
Christ's intimate contact with Mary in the womb was far deeper than the contact He had with any of the disciples — Christ wasn't physically attached via a placenta to any of them. Along that same vein, if Christ took up a human nature alongside His divine nature (contra-Monophysitism), which most agree on, He would have taken it from Mary. If Christ's human nature (via Mary) was sinful, it would have been in conflict with His divine nature, and He would've either been two persons, or one will would've taken over (monophysitism, condemned virulently by Athanasius at Nicea).
Also, if Christ was floating around in Mary's womb for nine months while she was sinning, would Christ not be somehow complicit in Mary's sins?
What exactly is meant by "under the law?" While I'm not intimately familiar with the theology regarding the new and old covenants, I'd say that, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the law, all were bound to follow it, regardless of what sins had been committed by believers.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:23 am ¶As an aside that I hope doesn't derail discussion, why do you hold and profess all that is contained in three of the four dogmatic and authoritative Creeds, Eric? You heretic, you left out the Tridentine Creed, that of Pius IV… http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0808.htm
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:35 am ¶Re: the meaning of "under the law"
Paul explains it much better than I could. See Galatians 3-4 and Romans 5:12-21.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:47 am ¶Two thoughts:
1. The sin nature is descended through Adam, through the man. Hence the whole point of the virgin birth in the first place—Christ would not have receieved the sin nature.
2. Christ's human nature, got from Mary, had to be capable of sinning, had to be temptable, since otherwise Christ would not have been "tempted in every way" just as we are.
There's every reason to believe that Christ was sinless and without the sin nature, since he had no human father, but Mary, who had a human father, must have had the sin nature.
Christ in his divine nature was not capable of sinning, in his human nature was capable of sinning, and there lies his mystery. But he emphatically did not have a sin nature, since in that case he could not help but sin.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 6:57 am ¶Tom - I'd never heard of that creed before. ;P
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 12:51 pm ¶Andrew, that's an interesting way of putting it. I'd point out, however, that there are two kinds of sin - original and actual. To be totally sinless is to be without both. Original sin is the "stain" upon humanity because of the fall that objectively keeps us out of heaven (though I would argue their are subjective cases in which God's mercy could allow whomever He pleases to reach heaven). Actual sin is the sin that is attributed to each individual as the result of his actions. Though Jesus' human nature was not stained by original sin, He could have (at least in theory) still sinned, though to do so would conflict with His divine will and a logical impossibility.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 12:57 pm ¶Tom - The three creeds I sited are "ecumenical" creeds. IOW, most Christians, regardless of denomination, accept them. Ecumenism and reunification of the Body of Christ are very important to me.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 1:05 pm ¶I understand the curiosity people have about the Virgin Mary, but do not understand the emphatic conviction that some have that she is holy, is the Queen of Heaven, is to be prayed to, etc. Even if she was sinning up a storm while Our Savior was in her womb (she wasn't, although she probably did doubt and fear occasionally, being a 13 year old girl), wouldn't the rest of the entire New Testament and the fact that He has personally saved each and every one of us in this discussion (Ihope), and the changes He has made in our hearts and lives, the miracle that some of us have witnessed, the peace He provides, prove that He did, in fact, have no sin? All I see in Scripture about Mary is that she was blessed, highly favored, and of the line of David.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 4:28 pm ¶I'm protestant, by the way…
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 4:30 pm ¶"1. The sin nature is descended through Adam, through the man. Hence the whole point of the virgin birth in the first place—Christ would not have receieved the sin nature."
First off, we should probably start by agreeing exactly what is meant by "sin nature." Do you mean concupiscence, the inordinate attachment to sin (not to be confused with simple temptation), or original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace? Where does the notion that the fallen state passes seminally come from?
"2. Christ's human nature, got from Mary, had to be capable of sinning, had to be temptable, since otherwise Christ would not have been 'tempted in every way' just as we are."
I'm not saying he and Mary weren't temptable; I'm saying they didn't have concupiscence. There is a difference.
"There's every reason to believe that Christ was sinless and without the sin nature, since he had no human father, but Mary, who had a human father, must have had the sin nature."
I agree he was sinless, but because he didn't have concupiscence. Mary had the ability to sin, yes, but, through extraordinary action of God, did not have concupiscence.
This makes me remember a bad Catholic joke. Christ was drawing a line in the sand before the adulterous woman. He said, "May he has not sinned throw the first stone." Christ then sees a little rock whizzing through the air over his head, hitting the adulterous woman. "MO-OMMM!!!" he shouted.
"Christ in his divine nature was not capable of sinning, in his human nature was capable of sinning, and there lies his mystery."
Right-o. . . crazy stuff, eh?
"But he emphatically did not have a sin nature, since in that case he could not help but sin."
I think we're working with different understandings of "sin nature." Please clarify. Again, if your sin nature lines up with my concupiscence, we agree.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 4:33 pm ¶"and the changes He has made in our hearts and lives, the miracle that some of us have witnessed, the peace He provides, prove that He did, in fact, have no sin?"
Well, not really, as it isn't really quantifiable that way. Believers don't need quantification, but others do.
"All I see in Scripture about Mary is that she was blessed, highly favored, and of the line of David."
Highly Favored or Full of Grace? That's a really, really big debate.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 4:41 pm ¶Experience is rarely quantifiable, especially that of a personal nature. If a lost person is set on not believing what you are telling them numbers statistics and references will not sway them. Only the conviction of Holy Spirit (not quantifiable at all) will. If our intent is to relay the good news in love and not "be right", then we will likely have to rely on unquantifiable information. Our own testimonies are probably our most persuasive arguments…The fact that a man who ostensibly died 2000 years ago can change my heart and hear my prayers today (you'll have to take my word on that one
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:14 pm ¶To supplement Tom's comments: one thing that the Orthodox find irritating about original sin is that Catholics seem to imply that original sin or concupiscence is some inheritable trait or stain that we pass on to the next generation. This seems to be a stumbling block with Protestants as well.
A clarification of the doctrine of original sin that I prefer is that original sin is just a state of being apart from God's grace. Because of Adam's sin, we are by default at a certain remove from God's grace, and thus vulnerable to sin, which drives us further yet. Thus, original sin is not a physical thing (which does sound rather Manichean), but rather a pervasive lack of grace, or distance from God.
Mary, however, being "full of grace" avoided concupiscence, which brings us back to Tom's point that while Mary could sin, being blessed by God, she avoided it, thus being a pure tabernacle for the Christ Child.
Does this help?
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:37 pm ¶What about children that die before the age of acountability? Are they full of grace?
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 5:42 pm ¶Silbert,
No, just like us, the unborn and unaccountable are conceived in a state of concupiscence. Their fate is in the hands of an all Merciful God, thank goodness.
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 6:25 pm ¶"What about children that die before the age of acountability? Are they full of grace?"
I don't know. Are they?
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 7:09 pm ¶Not to be glib, but if Christ didn't mind having a murderer, adulturor, prostitute and whatnot as his direct forebears why would having a mother who had her share of sins be an impingement upon His holiness? I'm debating with myself whether I should post this…
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 8:42 pm ¶Those "forebears" you mentioned were legally Jesus' ancestors, as they were Joseph's ancestors, but they were not so biologically, whereas Jesus was conceived in, and born of Mary, a much more intimate connection!
This is only a partial rebuttal, if that, but I only have for that…any other thoughts?
+0
Posted 02 Feb 2005 at 10:49 pm ¶I may be mistaken but I thought that Mary was also of the line of David? Anyone more seasoned know fo sho?
+0
Posted 03 Feb 2005 at 1:37 am ¶I had thought they were from Joseph's side. . . though I may be wrong.
Anyway, it seems to me that Jerry is right, in that Christ dwelt physically in Mary's womb. Literally, he was imprisoned within another human (and hopefully, I'd say, one who wasn't sinning).
Anyway, about original sin. . . it seems to me, Jerry, that you are skirting the edges of the Augustinian definition of what happened at the Fall. I believe he laid out three results of the Fall: the pain of childbirth, tilling the fields, etc.; concupiscence, the inordinate attachment to sin; and the lack of sanctifying grace. The Orthodox, insofar as they agree on anything, seem to accept only the first of the three.
+0
Posted 03 Feb 2005 at 3:08 am ¶Tom, I've heard Catholics and Orthodox circle each other on what the other believes enough times that I'm not sure. You had appeared to be tending towards an Augustinian definition of Original Sin yourself (no surprise–it was his idea!), and I tried to expound on it with a clarification that made it easier for me to understand (and which incidentally might help it make it easier for an Orthodox or Protestant Christian to swallow).
I do not know if the Orthodox use the term concupiscence–I rather doubt it–I thought that it would be the "lack of sanctifying grace" that they would latch onto, since it would be a nice foil to the theosis or transfiguration as we are saved by God. But again, I've heard this one kicked around so many time that I could easily be wrong.
+0
Posted 03 Feb 2005 at 3:16 am ¶I think I understand what you mean, Jerry.
And you're right that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are rather loathe to pin down specific doctrines in such a fuzzy area, which is probably a wise move. But I do think Augustine is on the money with both the terms he uses and the notions he holds to (not that I know his writings intimately well, but y'know).
+0
Posted 03 Feb 2005 at 3:35 am ¶I'm inclined to follow Augustine as well, but also like how succeeding generations have reinterpreted him. The Orthodox do have a point when they speak of how the Eastern Fathers would counterbalance and clarify each other, whereas the West has sometimes made Augustine too monolithic an influence.
+0
Posted 03 Feb 2005 at 4:17 am ¶Post a Comment