Immaculate conception

[kwikphilly]

Quote

I need help understanding the roman catholic doctrine of immaculate conception.                                     gdemoss

Blessings Brother

     May I ask "why".......Its a sincere question                                                                     With love-in Christ,Kwik

[gdemoss]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:38 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

I have to copy and paste you post instead of quoting it.... my phone is gliching. 

Quote"

Yes, that is where I am at on this and why I am asking my catholic brothers to use the opportunity to bridge the gap for me.  If the doctrine were true and I believe it to be a lie then I am missing some important information that would allow me to believe.  If it isn't true then my dear brothers and sisters who believe are believing a lie and I need to understand how to help minister unto them.

To better help you see how to help me see what you see please consider the following truths. 

We are told that nothing is impossible with God.  We are also told that it is impossible for God to lie.  So I conclude that while God can accomplish anything he does so in truth.

I consider things like the Israelites having to wait to enter into the land until the inhabitants of the land had filled up their sin to the point of being ejected.  This tells me that there are truths that govern the choices that God makes to bring things to pass.

God makes a way then brings things to pass. Things are said to happen in the fullness of time.  He does so according to truth, righteousness and according to every thing else about his person.  So God cannot do somethings because they go against his word that he gave. For this cause the gifts and callings of God are without repentance as well.  In this world all things are upheld by the power of his word. 

My conclusion is that God cannot choose to do whatever he wants whenever he wants because everything must be according to his word that he has already given.  The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true.  If God only needed a sinless sacrifice and God was able to keep Mary from sin then God ought to have spared his son and allowed him to stay in the form of God and destroyed sin using a created person.

I have already shown that Mary need not be sinless to bear Christ.  She sinned in Adam.  The only important thing is that Christ be sinless."

End quote

-----------------------------

Quote "We are told that nothing is impossible with God.  We are also told that it is impossible for God to lie.  So I conclude that while God can accomplish anything he does so in truth."

I agree.... sorta, God can not contradict reason. God can not make a round triangle. God also didn't not guarantee to protect our understanding of his word. So his Word is truth, Yes. Our understanding of this Word is not always correct. 

-------

quote" I consider things like the Israelites having to wait to enter into the land until the inhabitants of the land had filled up their sin to the point of being ejected"

you lost me here. The Israelites could not enter the promise land until everyone from the generation that sinned by worshipping the golden calf had died. 

God did use the Israelites as the method to invoke justice against the inhabitants for the sins they were committing. But God didn't keep them out of the promise land waiting for the sin meter (my words) to reach a certain point. 

---------

Quote "My conclusion is that God cannot choose to do whatever he wants whenever he wants because everything must be according to his word that he has already given"

I agree, so what part of his word would the immaculate conception violate?

---------

Quote "The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true"

i agree. I asked already what part you find is in conflict so I'll wait for your response and answer best I can. 

-------

quote "If God only needed a sinless sacrifice and God was able to keep Mary from sin then God ought to have spared his son and allowed him to stay in the form of God and destroyed sin using a created person"

God did not need a sinless sacrifice, I touched on this in a previous post responding to someone else. Mary needed a saviour, the teaching is that God applied the merits of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to Mary at the moment of her conception. She was saved and made perfect. She was than filled with Gods grace and by the power of that grace she remained sinless. She triumphed where Eve had failed. 

When we sin we offend and infinite God and only an infinite sacrifice can atone for the offense. This is why Jesus had to fully offer himself up to be a sacrifice for our sins. Because he was that infinite sacrifice. Simply being sinless would not be enough. 

If I could make a recommendation. Tim Staples recently wrote a book called behold your Mother. It covers all the Marion teachings of the Catholic Church. If you go on you tube and search for Tim Staples you should be able to find some of his talks. 

Another resource is Scott Hahn, he was a prestbrytarian pastor and anti-catholic (in the sense Catholics weren't saved) and he's got lots of talks and materials out on Mary as well. His website is The St Paul Centre or salvation history Scott Hahn in google should find it too. 

Its a very deep theological topic and hard to go indepth on a forum. So if you are sincrere in your desire to seek knowledge (and I have no reason to doubt you) on what Catholics believe when it comes to the Immaculate Conception than you can go wrong with those two guys. 

Cheers and God Bless

Thank you for your reply.  I am digesting it.  I am very busy in ministry and have to wait for God to make time for me to continue to learn as he is ready for me.  

A quick question.  Is there anywhere in scripture you would point me too that would show that God needed an infinite versus sinless sacrifice?  

[Fidelibus]

On 4/11/2017 at 5:37 AM, shiloh357 said:

Rom. 3:10 states that there is none righteous, no not one. 

But in Luke 1:6 it says:  : "Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly."  Both being Elizabeth and Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents.

Rom. 3:23 says, "for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

  
This too was my way of thinking when I was a Protestant. However, in my conversion and relentless studies of Scripture, I looked up the Greek word for 'all'  (pas) and found in it's  semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.”  Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.”  So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner of men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”  In context, Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off?  No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9).  When Paul uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks when it comes to sin.  So it seems the Catholic Churches interpretation is in line at this point.  Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily refer to Mary as having sinned.  And, the Bible actually translates the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! 

So you see Shiloh357, If you want the context of this entire passage from Romans 3, you need to look to the Old Testament so that you don’t “topicalize.”  In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and/or Psalm 53.  In those Psalms, Paul states there is none that do good, no not one; that “all” have gone astray; all have fallen away.  So, does that mean every single person?  No, because the context of Psalms 14 and 53 is that there are the evildoers, the sons of men - those who deny God - and there are the people of God, the generation of the righteous.  And it is about those who deny God that the psalmist says “all” have gone astray.  In other words, the Old Testament, biblical-wide context for this passage of Romans, is that the word “all” simply does not mean every single person ever.   If you miss the Old Testament context of the passage, then you miss the New Testament context of the passage, which you (and others) have done.  

Nowhere does Paul qualify that with an exception for Mary.

Again, to address this, I would fall back to my first "scriptural" argument to state that the Bible nowhere says, "Mary sinned."  Nowhere.  So, if you want to use the Bible to say that Mary did indeed sin, it would be, at best, an indirect argument from Scripture. 

Also, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).  Do you contend that he sinned?  

Have a Blessed Holy Thursday!

[Guest shiloh357]

34 minutes ago, Fidelibus said:

But in Luke 1:6 it says:  : "Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly."  Both being Elizabeth and Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents.

But you are confusing contexts.  And now you're pitting the Bible against itself, which is really bad hermeneutics.   So Paul was wrong?   I don't think so.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:9-20)

So while Zechariah and Elizabeth were "righteous" in terms of their observance of law, they were not inwardly righteous.  That is what Paul is talking about.   No one is inwardly righteous before God except that they have been declared righteous by faith alone in the finished work of Jesus on the cross.  

Quote

This too was my way of thinking when I was a Protestant. However, in my conversion and relentless studies of Scripture, I looked up the Greek word for 'all'  (pas) and found in it's  semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.”  Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner of men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Ah more bad hermeneutics.   And Greek doesn't support that. I assume you don't read Greek, 'cause the word in Greek is pántes and it doesn't mean all manner of."  It means, "all."   When used without the definite article in connection with ánthrōpoi  it refers to all men.   If the phrase is pántes ággeloi it then means, "all angels."   There is no "all manner of" connected with pántes.   Moreover, in v. 22 Paul says there is no "difference" and the word for that is diastolḗ   and it what Paul is saying is that there is no distinction, no one is left out of what he is about to say in v. 23.  So you're way off base in that interpretation.  

Additionally, "all manner of"  doesn't really agree with the context.  Paul doesn't qualify his statement.  His point is that the condition of the whole world apart from Christ is that the whole world, every person is a sinner and not one person is righteous.   That is what you get from the entire paragraph, so your claim about the meaning of the word used in Greek is simply false.

Quote

Again, to address this, I would fall back to my first "scriptural" argument to state that the Bible nowhere says, "Mary sinned."  Nowhere.  So, if you want to use the Bible to say that Mary did indeed sin, it would be, at best, an indirect argument from Scripture. 

No, you are making an argument from silence, and you are making an argument based on a view that didn't have unanimous support from the RCC until 1854 AD.   So it is only 163 years old, basically.   It is not taught in Scripture.  It is something that is being imposed on the Scriptures retroactively.  It is made up out of thin air.

We don't have a complete biography on Mary because she isn't that important to Gospel writers or even Luke in the book of Acts.  Even Mary Magdalene plays a bigger role than Jesus' own mother in the resurrection account.  Luke mentions her one time and she is never mentioned in again in the book of Acts and is never mentioned in any of the epistles   The Bible does not have a theology of Mary and it does not really tell us much about her outside of her role as the earthly mother of Jesus' humanity.

So you really don't have a case to be made that Mary doesn't sin.  I don't have to prove she didn't.  The Bible's default position on all people is that every person has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.   Unless you can provide Scriptural evidence that Mary should be viewed as the exception, then you don't have argument.

Quote

Also, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15).  Do you contend that he sinned?  

Yes, I do, based on the totality of Scripture.   To say otherwise, is to commit the same logical fallacy that you commit when claiming Mary is sinless.  Unless you can provide evidence from the Scriptures that state he never committed a single sin at any time in his life, then the default position of Scripture is that John the Baptist was a sinner.    Even John the Baptist said that he needed be baptized by Jesus.   He did not see himself as sinless man.

[1to3]

I John1:8,9,10

-8 If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.

-9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

-10 If we say that we have not sinned,we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

John ch1 :1,2

-1 In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

-2 He (Christ Jesus) was in the beginning with God.

 

John 14 :6

-6 Christ Jesus said the them:  I AM the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. No one comes to the FATHER except through Me.

 

John 16 :7,8

Christ Jesus said:

-7 "Nevertheless I tell you the TRUTH, It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the HELPER will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM to you.

-8 "And when He does come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment.

 

Only God the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit are COMPLETELY SINLESS.

1John ch1 :5

-5 This is the message which we have heard from HIM and declare to you

                  that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all

                                                             

 

 

 

[BobRyan]

On 4/7/2017 at 7:56 AM, gdemoss said:

I need help understanding the roman catholic doctrine of immaculate conception. Please read below and answer the question.  Please refrain from answering if you don't believe or are not roman catholic.

Man was created, fell and subsequently all people born of their procreation are born after their fallen sinful image.

Jesus, the lord from heaven, was in the form of God pre-existing the creation of man yet placed into the womb of Mary and therefore was sinless, untouched by the fall.

Where did Mary come from if she was supposedly sinless?

FOR CLAIRITY: THIS THREAD IS MEANT TO BE AN INVITATION FOR ME TO DIALOG WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY.  PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF SAID DOCTRINE. 

Caps used so as to not be overlooked.  Not yelling

 

The idea is that Mary could be born sinless - from a sinful mother. But Jesus could not do that - He would need a sinless mother. So then Mary was born sinless even though her mother was a fallen human being with a sinful nature.

[BobRyan]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:50 AM, Rick_Parker said:

Mary was not sinless. Christ was born without a sin nature because the sin nature is passed down through the male and since Christ was created by the Holy Spirit in Mary, He was without sin.

All true - but that is not the "immaculate conception" doctrine of the Catholic church.

[BobRyan]

On 4/7/2017 at 10:29 AM, Spock said:

I believe the Catholics teach Mary also had the Holy Spirit for her father, like Jesus. 

I have never heard that.

[BobRyan]

On 4/7/2017 at 10:53 AM, Teditis said:

As an ex-Catholic, I can say that they don't teach a different Gospel or Jesus.

Nor do they claim her as someone who can "Save" anyone.

 

To the OP, as I was taught, Mary was absolved of "original sin" for the express purpose that

she was to be an appropriate vessel for a Sinless Jesus... it's not that she came from somewhere spectacular

or had a lineage that was pure. I do think that this is speculative thinking on the part of the Catholic Church

and leads to some wrong-headed ideas about Mary.

The doctrine on the "Immaculate Conception" is not about the birth of Christ -- it is about the birth of Mary. "Her conception" - Mary's conception by her mother  - was supposedly a case of a sinful being giving birth to a sinless being - in this case that sinless being is supposedly Mary.

[HAZARD]

If Mary was born sinless and led a sinless life, she would not have needed a saviour and she would never have thanked God for her saviour, and these Scripture's would not have been recorded in God's Word.

Luke 1:46, And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, V. 47, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

God's Word would have clearly stated that Mary was born without sin and led a sinless life.