A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"?

AO Ministries ^ | 1991 | James White

[fishtank]

A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"?

A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" in "This Rock" magazine, December 1991.

by James White

Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter with the Protestant pastor,

More at link......

[stuartcr]

None taken, I did it ‘cause I’m basically a smart-ass.

You see, I’m not a believer as you, in His self-revelation. I believe God instills in each of us a concept of what is good or evil, but as for something actually being good or evil, I don’t believe that matters to God, just to us. We need to believe in good and evil in order to function in societies and have laws, etc. Our actions, whether we perceive them to be good or evil, I don’t believe, matter to God.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

fishtank; all, there have been over 180 posts with no one posting why Mary had to be a virgin for The Christ to be born without a sin nature. The sin nature is past down by the father. There is no need for Mary to be sinless. Just a virgin so there was no chance of a human father. 

Numbers 14:18

The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.

This passage is more pertinent to this conversation because the Catholic version only states; "You shall have no other gods before me." No mention of how sin is passed or all the things Catholics claim they don't do. 

Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments

 ¹ And God spoke all these words, saying:
       ² “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
       ³ “You shall have no other gods before Me.
       ⁴ “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ⁵ you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, ⁶ but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
 

Mary being the second Eve has the same problem. God did not pass judgment when Eve sinned. It was when Adam sinned. There was no need for a second Eve, only a second Adam

To know the nature of Jesus, The Christ, you don't have to read what someone who might have known an apostle or someone who might have known someone who knew someone who might have known an apostle. That is where the the  Catholic,  Apostolic religion proudly claims to get it's truths.

If you are a Christian, a follower of Christ, you can get it from God by reading His Word. He explained it well in His letter to the Romans, and us.  Especially chapter 5.

Jesus was a Man exactly like the man, Adam. That is why He is called; "The second Adam." God could not condemn Adam and us, His creation, without proving His creation could live a sinless life. Jesus provided that proof. He was just like Adam with a free will. Adam used his free will to be tempted by Satan. Jesus used His free will to follow God.

My God lead us all to His truth, BVB 

 

 

[paladinan]

Mary being the second Eve has the same problem. God did not pass judgment when Eve sinned. It was when Adam sinned.

Well... I'm not sure how you could maintain that, given that God specifically itemised the consequences of her sin (pain/suffering during child-birth, etc.); if only Adam was to blame, then why did she get punished at all? No... both sinned, and both were in need of redemption; both sexes participated in the fall; thus, God saw fit to incorporate both sexes in the redemption.

There was no need for a second Eve, only a second Adam.

If one pushes the point, there was no absolute "need" for a "second Adam", either; God could have redeemed us without becoming incarnate (though it would have made a hash of the entire meaning of our lives). Rather, God freely chose to use both sexes to participate in the redemption of what both sexes helped to destroy. God does not save us in spite of ourselves; He does so only with and through our COOPERATION with His grace... without exception.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Mary being the second Eve has the same problem. God did not pass judgment when Eve sinned. It was when Adam sinned.

Well... I'm not sure how you could maintain that, given that God specifically itemized the consequences of her sin (pain/suffering during child-birth, etc.); if only Adam was to blame, then why did she get punished at all? No... both sinned, and both were in need of redemption; both sexes participated in the fall; thus, God saw fit to incorporate both sexes in the redemption.

God punished Eve but it did not include the fall. That came when, Adam sinned.              

Lets look what God said to Adam.

Genesis 3:17-24

New King James Version (NKJV)

 

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
      “ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
      In toil you shall eat of it
      All the days of your life.

 ¹⁸ Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
      And you shall eat the herb of the field.

 ¹⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
      Till you return to the ground,
      For out of it you were taken;
      For dust you are,
      And to dust you shall return.”
²⁰ And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
²¹ Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
²² Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴ So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Adam's sin got him and us chased out of the garden of Eden and the chance to eat of the tree of life, not Eve's.

There was no need for a second Eve, only a second Adam.

If one pushes the point, there was no absolute "need" for a "second Adam", either; God could have redeemed us without becoming incarnate (though it would have made a hash of the entire meaning of our lives). Rather, God freely chose to use both sexes to participate in the redemption of what both sexes helped to destroy. God does not save us in spite of ourselves; He does so only with and through our COOPERATION with His grace... without exception.

What you say is true but it is not what God choose to do. He choose to give us a second Adam.

May God lead us all to His truths, BVB
 

Mary being the second Eve has the same problem. God did not pass judgment when Eve sinned. It was when Adam sinned.

Well... I'm not sure how you could maintain that, given that God specifically itemized the consequences of her sin (pain/suffering during child-birth, etc.); if only Adam was to blame, then why did she get punished at all? No... both sinned, and both were in need of redemption; both sexes participated in the fall; thus, God saw fit to incorporate both sexes in the redemption.

God punished Eve but it did not include the fall. That came when, Adam sinned.              

Lets look what God said to Adam.

Genesis 3:17-24

New King James Version (NKJV)

 

¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
      “ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
      In toil you shall eat of it
      All the days of your life.

 ¹⁸ Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
      And you shall eat the herb of the field.

 ¹⁹ In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
      Till you return to the ground,
      For out of it you were taken;
      For dust you are,
      And to dust you shall return.”
²⁰ And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
²¹ Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
²² Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴ So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Adam's sin got him and us chased out of the garden of Eden and the chance to eat of the tree of life, not Eve's.

There was no need for a second Eve, only a second Adam.

If one pushes the point, there was no absolute "need" for a "second Adam", either; God could have redeemed us without becoming incarnate (though it would have made a hash of the entire meaning of our lives). Rather, God freely chose to use both sexes to participate in the redemption of what both sexes helped to destroy. God does not save us in spite of ourselves; He does so only with and through our COOPERATION with His grace... without exception.

What you say is true but it is not what God choose to do. He choose to give us a second Adam.

May God lead us all to His truths, BVB
 

[MarkBsnr]

Kind sir, please remove the plank from your eye.

I'm glad I could point out to you the scriptural foundation for Mary being the mother of the Lord God of Israel, ie, God. Stop trying to shift the focus from your own faulty reading--well, probably lack of reading, since it's right there for anyone to see who also knows anything about Judeo-Christian theology; again, Luke 1. Look at it. Consider what is actually said. Review and then revise your remarks regarding Mary and heresy accordingly.

I think that you just took him to school.

[MarkBsnr]

“My personal belief is that God brought to Mary’s womb the already formed embryo-aged Jesus for implantation.”

This is an echo of Henry Morris's attempt to solve a non-existent problem. In one of the Institute for Creation Research bulletins from the late 1970s, Morris reasoned himself into a corner by saying that since Jesus had to be the perfect lamb of God and since lambs for Passover in which there was any defect were rejected and since sin had had a corrupting effect on the human race and since Mary was part of the human race, then Jesus could not be the perfect lamb of God and have come from the sin-corrupted flesh of Mary and, so, must have been created ex nihilo within Mary's womb.

Aside from the problem of a divine in utero creation not being a conception, as was stated in the accounts, Morris fundamentally misunderstands the nature of sin as well as the nature of nature. According to Paul, the reason creation is subject to decay is not because it has been "invaded and corrupted" by sin, but because God subjected it temporarily to this "frustration" and "bondage of decay" until such time that "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8). Sin matters but sin is not matter. Matter is not evil. Matter is not sinful. Matter does not transmit sin. Sin is not inherited through DNA, genomic or mitochondrial. Morris, and others who come up with similar schemes, are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Very elegant argument.

[MHGinTN]

And it is because I agree that matter is not evil that I do not believe Mary needed to be born sinless. It is because I do not believe Adam's sin is transmitted via a gene pool that I do not believe Mary needed to be born sinless.

Humankind are unique in the animal world due to their soul having a spirit. It is because their spirits were alive that they could comprehend good and evil, but in learning of it the way they did, they rebeled against God's authority and the Life in their spirits left and in that day they died. This lead to their being cut off from the fruit of the Tree of Life which caused their physical life to begin decaying, but they did not die physically for quite sometime after their fall from Grace.

When God created Adam and breathed into him a living soul, Adam had an alive spirit animating his soul. When the first couple sinned, they lost that characteristic of 'alive souls' via God breathed life in their spirit, so they passed to all their descendants a spirit without God-life in it, thus all descendants of Adam have a lifeless spirit ... where Life is defined as God-life in the spirit. That Life can be restored because of The Grace of God in Christ Jesus.

Jesus taught us about this state of existence with the scene of the rich young ruler who pleaded that he had to go bury his father before he could follow Jesus (let the dead go bury the dead). But that is yet another issue over which our Catholic brethren will likley berate me, so I'll bow out of this thread at this point.

[MarkBsnr]

Jesus taught us about this state of existence with the scene of the rich young ruler who pleaded that he had to go bury his father before he could follow Jesus (let the dead go bury the dead). But that is yet another issue over which our Catholic brethren will likley berate me, so I'll bow out of this thread at this point.

Vaya con Dios, my friend.

[huldah1776]

Why would God not use Mary’s egg? Hebrew and Jewish tradition has it that a Jew is a Jew because of the mother, not the father, I think.

Maybe original sin is passed through the sperm. Oh boy, not important anyway. Can’t have other children and stay a virgin.

[DonkeyBonker]

Nothing to revise in my statement. My first statement said the fact. Mary was a virgin when she conceived of the Holy Ghost. She bore a Son who is Christ the Lord and my Lord and Savior.

What I contested is the Roman Catholic tradition of praying to Mary, a human. True, she is blessed among all women, but praying to her makes her seem to be a deity which she is not and she cannot answer prayer.

I am a graduate of Bible College, not a seminary, (cemetary), and am a born again Holy Spirit filled believer.

[Diamond]

Here is that post, MHGinTN. The person to whom I was responding was Ex-Mormon/atheist/agnostic/whatever LeGrande, but no matter. The amount of Biblical evidence of the Trinity is overwhelming to anyone who is intellectually honest.

Section IV is on the Holy Spirit.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827129/posts?page=529#529

Cordially,

[MarkBsnr]

What I contested is the Roman Catholic tradition of praying to Mary, a human. True, she is blessed among all women, but praying to her makes her seem to be a deity which she is not and she cannot answer prayer.

I'd recommend that you might read http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints in which the whole role of praying for others, the role of the saints in Heaven carrying our prayers to God, and the instruction for Christians to intercede for each other is spelled out, with the appropriate Scriptural proofs.

I am a graduate of Bible College, not a seminary, (cemetary)

So is this wackjob:

A graduate of Bible College, you say? Was it mail order? Was it a weekend seminar? Or did you have to earn an undergrad and graduate degree before actually beginning a religious education? Pope BXVI has a doctorate, a real one. From a prestigious university, not a diploma mill.

and am a born again Holy Spirit filled believer.

From the fuits of your posts, I'm not sure that it is the Holy Spirit that you are filled with.

[MHGinTN]

Bless you ... and thank you for your patience.

[DonkeyBonker]

That’s what happens when you cast your pearls before swine.