Jump to content
IGNORED

Immaculate conception


gdemoss

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

4 hours ago, OneLight said:

This means that anyone who ever spent time studying the RCC beleiefs don't know what they are talking about.  This way of thinking is like saying that anyone who studies prophecies doesn't know prophecies because they have not lived it.  This site does not exclude others this way.

No, that is an assumption on your part.  It means that only those who have actually believed in the doctrine can describe it from the point of view of one who has believed the doctrine.

Me describing Christianity prior to believing was much different than my descruption post belief.  Spock actually has a unique position that I had not considered which is the perspective of the former believer.  There is value in my research for that view as well.

I started a thread for a specific purpose of duscussion that was taylored to seeing the viewpoint from a specific cross section of our membership.  I do not see anything wrong in what I have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

4 hours ago, missmuffet said:

But we know what the Bible says.

Yes, as do I.  I already understand this from the viewpoint of bible only basis.  Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  54
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, HAZARD said:

We sure do, Mary was born in sin just as every other human being was born in sin since Adams day, she admitted this herself when she said in Luke 1 : 46-47 ;

 Luke 1:46-47, And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, v. 47, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR.

 As a former Protestant, I too thought along these same lines Hazard until much study of Scripture and early Church history showed me differently. Insofar as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation Mary needed redeeming.  But there are two ways of redeeming.  God could allow one to be born in sin and then purify the soul by subsequent application of the merits of Christ, or He could, by an anticipation of the merits of Christ, exempt a soul from an actual contraction of original sin.  Thus He exempted Mary from any actual inheritance of the sin, and she owes her exemption to the anticipated merits of Christ.  In other words, she was redeemed by Christ by prevention rather than by subsequent purification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

9 minutes ago, Fidelibus said:

 As a former Protestant, I too thought along these same lines Hazard until much study of Scripture and early Church history showed me differently. Insofar as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation Mary needed redeeming.  But there are two ways of redeeming.  God could allow one to be born in sin and then purify the soul by subsequent application of the merits of Christ, or He could, by an anticipation of the merits of Christ, exempt a soul from an actual contraction of original sin.  Thus He exempted Mary from any actual inheritance of the sin, and she owes her exemption to the anticipated merits of Christ.  In other words, she was redeemed by Christ by prevention rather than by subsequent purification.

 

Hi Fidelibus. I'm sorry but I must disagree.

In 1854, Pope Pius IX's solemn declaration, Ineffabilis Deus, clarified with finality the long-held belief of the Church that Mary was conceived free from original sin.  In proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma of the Church, the pope expressed precisely and clearly that Mary was conceived free from the stain of original sin. 

The Bible no where teaches any such thing about the "immaculate conception" of Mary.  In fact, the Bible clearly teaches the exact opposite concerning Mary...

"Romans 3:10-12, As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Jesus was the only perfect being!  Jesus never did or said anything which He should not have.  Jesus was the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish.  Mary, Jesus' earthly mother, was a sinner just like you and me. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a fraud, a hoax!  God's Word clearly declares that all of humanity is sinful  The ONLY person who ever walked this earth without sin was the Lord Jesus Christ.  We know this is true because the Bible clearly proclaims Christ's sinlessness...

2 Cor. 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." and Hebrews 4:15, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as are yet without sin."

There is NOT one Scripture in the entire Bible which even hints to such a thing as the "immaculate conception of Mary."  Mary was born with a sin-nature just like any other fallen human.  Only the Lord Jesus Christ was born without a sin-nature.  This is because Jesus did not have an earthly father, but God in heaven was His Father.  Jesus had God's blood flowing in His veins, not man's (Acts 20:28).  Jesus had Adam's flesh, but not Adam's sin-tainted blood.  The Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).  It's the father's blood type that is carried to the child, not the mother's.  Mary was simply an instrument used for God's glory and purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  54
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

 

Hi Fidelibus. I'm sorry but I must disagree.

In 1854, Pope Pius IX's solemn declaration, Ineffabilis Deus, clarified with finality the long-held belief of the Church that Mary was conceived free from original sin.  In proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma of the Church, the pope expressed precisely and clearly that Mary was conceived free from the stain of original sin. 

Hello Hazard, but I must disagree with you. In the fourth century St. Augustine wrote: “When it is a matter of sin we must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I will have no question, raised, owing to the honor due to our Lord.” St. Ephrem, also in the 4th century, taught very clearly the Immaculate Conception of Mary, likening her to Eve before the fall. The Oriental Churches celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as the seventh century. When Pope Pius IX defined the Catholic doctrine in 1854 he gave, not a new truth to be added to Christian teaching, but merely defined that this doctrine was part of Christian teaching from the very beginning, and that it is to be believed by all as part of Christian revelation.

The Bible no where teaches any such thing about the "immaculate conception" of Mary.  In fact, the Bible clearly teaches the exact opposite concerning Mary...

1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.

2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.

3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.

4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.

5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.

6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.

7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.

8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.

"Romans 3:10-12, As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Sorry Hazard, am I missing it, but I don't see where this passage say's that Mary sinned.

Jesus was the only perfect being!  Jesus never did or said anything which He should not have.  Jesus was the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish.  Mary, Jesus' earthly mother, was a sinner just like you and me. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a fraud, a hoax!  God's Word clearly declares that all of humanity is sinful  The ONLY person who ever walked this earth without sin was the Lord Jesus Christ.  We know this is true because the Bible clearly proclaims Christ's sinlessness...

What passage are you refurring to that all of humanity is sinful? And I would also like to ask if you seek of God or ever seeked of God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

So, I believe that one person has shared their belief that Mary became regenerated or purged from all sin by the entrance of the Lord into her womb.  That is an interesting take for a mother and child do share one body and some who touched his garmnents later were heald of sickness. There is power in it.  Thank you for sharing. 

Any other catholic brothers or sisters, current or former care to share what they believe about this doctrine?

I openly express that I do not hold to this doctrine as true and believe the Roman Catholic Church to be wrought with error.  I want to understand the perception of those that do for two reasons.  One, I have been found to be in error myself believing things to be true or false that were not so.  Two, I am better positioned to minister to those whom I understand their position. 

These doctrines are of extreme importance.  For they direct the very prayer of many.  They affect the very behavior of those that believe them as well as those who do not.

My ex-pastor revealed that his whole theology was colored by a single experience he had upon becoming what he calls savef.  His experience made it impossible for him to see certain scripture any other way than according to that experience.  Yet he taught that that interpretstion of scripture based upon experience is error.  I stopped following him.

As my faith has changed, so has my actions.  Today my faith includes having an open mind to hear out those whom I do not agree with for that is how I learned of God, and of his son Jesus.  Today I have practical experience interacting with God.  

It would appear to me that those who hold to the catholic doctrines as true do so based upon an assumed authority tbey believe that the church has over truth and no other reason.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  1,294
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  31,762
  • Content Per Day:  5.26
  • Reputation:   9,760
  • Days Won:  115
  • Joined:  09/14/2007
  • Status:  Offline

17 hours ago, Teditis said:

There are two threads covering this topic and I hardly think it a breech of Policy and Procedure for the OP to make this simple request for this thread.

Every time we see a thread where someone decides to inform the members who and who not can post in the thread, we are required to step in and inform people that this is a discussion forum where everyone can respond if they wish, depending on their grouping.  This is not the first thread I have made such a statement and I highly doubt this will be the last.  If this is not enforced, then the members will feel that they have the right to create their own rules pertaining to the threads they start.  I am just nipping the problem in the bud before it gets any worse.  

People can ignore any post they wish if they are seeking a particular group of replies.  If a person wants only certain replies from a certain group of people, would it not be better for the person to go to the site where only those group of people respond?  It was decided not to divide this site up into denomination forums for Christ is not divided, nor is His Body.

I hope this clears this up for you Teditis.  It was not meant to be overbearing in any means, only creating an atmosphere of equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,453
  • Content Per Day:  0.54
  • Reputation:   1,453
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  11/02/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1991

8 hours ago, Fidelibus said:

Sorry Hazard, am I missing it, but I don't see where this passage say's that Mary sinned.

Sorry, but that passage clearly states that. Using your logic, I could say that "x" never sinned as it is not written in the Bible: "x has sinned".

But if "x" is born from a sinner male seed, then it automatically makes "x" a sinner. Because all have sinned:

"And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" - Romans 3:22-24

 

And as far as I know, Mary was born from a sinner male. Then she is automatically a sinner, and she needed a Savior: The Lord Jesus Christ, who is sinless, from God; not a sinner male.

 

Jesus Christ is all we need, there's no need to worship people or pray to people that died. It is plain simple:

"Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing.
He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." - John 14:12

 

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it." - John 14:13

 

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

Edited by 4LdKHVCzRDj2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  54
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, gdemoss said:

So, I believe that one person has shared their belief that Mary became regenerated or purged from all sin by the entrance of the Lord into her womb.  That is an interesting take for a mother and child do share one body and some who touched his garmnents later were heald of sickness. There is power in it.  Thank you for sharing. 

If this is directed towards me gdemoss, you are welcome. However I must correct you on the first sentence. Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception, not when Jesus entered her womb. It's called... "preservative redemption."  John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that this gift was given to Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

Before my conversion to the Catholic Church after being Protestant most of my life, I too struggled with the notion of Mary being without sin. But after much study in the history of Christianity and the early Church Fathers, I could no longer deny it. Even the founders of Protestantism adhered to the belief of May's sinlessness. I tell you what, that sure set me back in my chair learning that. 

I would hope that you would agree that God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; 1. can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him? 

Any other catholic brothers or sisters, current or former care to share what they believe about this doctrine?

With all due respect gdemoss, I have only been on Worthy a short time, but in that time, what I have noticed thus far, I believe you would be hard pressed to find an un-biased answer from former Catholics. 

I openly express that I do not hold to this doctrine as true and believe the Roman Catholic Church to be wrought with error.

Hopefully Gdemoss I may have shed some light on your mis-conception 


 

I want to understand the perception of those that do for two reasons.  One, I have been found to be in error myself believing things to be true or false that were not so.

Would you agree that you could be in error here as well?

It would appear to me that those who hold to the catholic doctrines as true do so based upon an assumed authority tbey believe that the church has over truth and no other reason.

Could I ask you gdemoss what you beleive is the the pillar and bulwark of the truth? Also, Do you seek God?  Thanks!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  1,294
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  31,762
  • Content Per Day:  5.26
  • Reputation:   9,760
  • Days Won:  115
  • Joined:  09/14/2007
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, gdemoss said:

No, that is an assumption on your part.  It means that only those who have actually believed in the doctrine can describe it from the point of view of one who has believed the doctrine.

Me describing Christianity prior to believing was much different than my descruption post belief.  Spock actually has a unique position that I had not considered which is the perspective of the former believer.  There is value in my research for that view as well.

I started a thread for a specific purpose of duscussion that was taylored to seeing the viewpoint from a specific cross section of our membership.  I do not see anything wrong in what I have done.

Brother, there is a difference between when someone was not a believer and when someone becomes a believer, which is why I chose not to use that comparison.  Once we believe, we are given the Holy Spirit to show us the truth.  A nonbeliever does not have the Holy Spirit and will not understand scripture as a believer.  I used a comparison of those who study prophecy as it relates your the difference between an RCC belief and a non-RCC belief where both have the Holy Spirit to teach them the truth.

As in my reply to Teditis, I will echo it here.  This site does not exclude members from replying unless their grouping restricts them from doing so.  If we started to allow members to create their own rules as to who and who not can reply, they will soon come up with other rules to exclude other groups of people, which this site is firmly against as it is in the TOS that we are all equal.

You have shown that you can filter through the replies that do not fit the parameters you are seeking without excluding others who feel led to reply.  I suggest you continue doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...