And here's what I want to know: do you hold that God could just as easily have allowed Mary to be conceived in original sin, and still preserved Jesus from becoming contaminated by the corruption of her sinful nature? So that when He took up His human nature, His flesh and blood and DNA and all the rest, from her, He in is human nature was still preserved from all stain of sin?
I think that's a respectable belief, by the way. I just don't know if it's your belief.
Yes. Although I would word it different.
It wasn't preserved from sin. He had none.
The sin nature comes through the father, not the mother.
Also, what Catholics claim God did for Mary in conception, having been carried by a sinful mother and yet remaining free from the stain of sin, He could have done for Jesus, being carried by a sinful mother.
It's totally inconsistent to argue that Mary had to be free from sin in order to carry Jesus and have Him be free from sin, and yet claim that very thing for Mary.
If God could do it for Mary, a mere human, then He could certainly do it for His own son. If He couldn't do it for His son, then He couldn't do it for Mary.
What it does is portray Jesus as being weaker than Mary in that He could not have been born sinless or protected from sin, being born of a sinful mother, but yet Mary could.
Sin is not transferred by touch or osmosis. It cannot be absorbed. The sin nature is inherent in us as human beings. We sin because we're sinners.
Romans 5:12-13 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Romans 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
And yes, Eve did sin when she ate. But sin was not counted until ADAM ate. It was after he ate, too, that the eyes of both of them were opened and sin entered the world.
I honestly don't know what the outcome would have been had Adam refused to eat and exercised his authority in the situation.
There is OT Scripture that holds the man responsible to a degree for vows made by his wife or daughter.
He can release them from those vows if he chooses. If he doesn't, they are then bound by them.
Be that as it may, Adam did eat and we are here stuck with dealing with the consequences of that action.
I'd say that most of the non-Catholics here do NOT identify as Protestant.
Those denominations which have been historically labeled as Protestant have become so liberal and strayed so far from Scriptural teachings that they can hardly be called churches any more. They have abandoned the authority of Scripture, even to the point of claiming they are fables or mythology. They don't recognize or accept the authority of Scripture, so as a whole, we do not affiliate or associate with them. That is primarily the mainline Protestant denominations.
What is most often labeled as Evangelical is what most of the Bible believing churches identify as and that includes non-denominational churches.
One branch I do not identify with is Pentecostalism. There are some things about it that have been good for the church, and primarily that is more freedom in worship as far as people feeling free to raise their hands if they feel like it.
However, there is way to much that is either off base or out and out wrong. I have *NO* use at all for televangelists.
There are a few evangelists, like Billy Graham, who have integrity and preach a solid message, but the rest, they're just a bunch of money grubbing shysters, IMO.