Indeed, since they know not Christ, how could they possibly understand His Mother as the crown of creation? The sinlessness of Mary (and other saints) does not bother us, because we know human nature lacks the power to save itself or others. They seem to think a sinless person's works are a demand on God's justice; as if He owes anyone salvation. Since we believe we are saved by Jesus with Mary's cooperation, they claim we exalt Mary to the level of Jesus, a divine person, since they see salvation as the work of a sinless person who by His active obedience fulfilled the Law, but we know they degrade Jesus to a human person.
The truth that our ancestors passed on to us is that His and His Mother's work, full of grace, are an appeal to God's free mercy. His entire life was a life of sacrifice, voluntarily submitting and uniting Himself to our human nature and divinizing Himself so that we can be partakers of the divine nature in Him. As a divine person with human nature, only He can self-sanctify Himself and redeem human nature from death, becoming the Way; no sinless human person can ever do so. They require a redeemer as much as we do, since works do not save; both salvation and deification require grace.
Enjoy this snip from the comments of an old blog. I recommend you read the conversation between Jonathan and Robert:
>I can’t speak for Nick, but having looked over what you said several times, I think the entire problem comes down to the phrase “as a Spirit-filled human being.” I cannot identify any orthodox, Chalcedonian interpretation for that phrase, and I agree with both you and Nick that the description accurately portrays the view of Reformed theology on this point.
>I would characterize your view of kenosis as being identical to that of the Spanish Adoptionist Elipandus. He likewise believed that Christ had emptied Himself of His divine power so as to act as a human person filled with grace and the Spirit, just like another adopted Son. So while He never ceased to be a divine person, through the depths of kenosis, he nonetheless lived out the grace-filled life of an adopted son.
>Now it has been argued that Spanish Adoptionism was not technically Nestorian, and that is probably true. Elipandus, at least, affirmed that there was always ever a single divine person who, by the mystery of kenosis, also lived out the life of an adopted son. Cavadini has pretty convincingly argued that this likely did not come from Nestorian thought, even as mediated by contact with Muslims in Spain. But I don’t think that actually saves the view, because it shares with Nestorianism this idea of Christ acting as a Spirit-filled human being, a man united to God by grace and God’s good will (eudokia), an adopted son. Even if one affirms the single personhood of Christ, it is this idea of Christ as a grace-endowed human being who performs acts of obedience before God in Adam’s place that is the characteristic error of the Nestorian heresy. That is also, by the way, a belief that the Nestorians share with the Pelagians (i.e., that Christ’s grace-enabled human works established His righteousness before God), which is why Nestorian works were condemned as Pelagian in Rome.
>Again, I’m really trying here, but I have no idea how “as a Spirit-filled human being” can be reconciled with Christ being the Son of God. He just flat out isn’t a Spirit-filled human being; He is the Son of God with a divinized human nature.
Edit: Formatting.