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......

[RoadGumby]

What if there is? What are you then? Where will you go without the Salvation Christ offers?

[Salvation]

The Scripture Text

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father  David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:26-38 RSV) 

[Rippin]

What wasn’t understood at the time was the the blood from the mother did not pass to the child. Interesting point that, in this case, the truth of science didn’t catch up to the bible until I don’t know when.

---

Sounds like you are using a Greek view of ‘blood.’ In Hebraic scripture blood is ‘life.’ Not plasma etc. The life indeed passes to the child from the mother so the theological issue remains. However, the idea that sin is ‘inherited’ is a common problem for both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Two peas in a pod really.

[stuartcr]

I imagine things would be the same as they are now.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Huh? Jesus did not have Mary's genes(and mitochondria)? Adam was not Mary's ancestor?

I specifically mentioned 'blood'. We call it a 'blood line', but that is just an old and accepted term. Yes, Jesus' was related to Adam/Mary thru the 'blood line'. But he didn't have 'their blood in his veins' - another old term we use that science has now provided answers for.

[RoadGumby]

Much applause... for the vaguness and twist away from answering.

So, then to answer Your question, ‘what if there were no original sin’

I imagine things would be somewhat different than they are now.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

That may be the theological rationale you advance, but it isn't the rationale the Catholic Church uses.

I can barely represent my views, not going to try to represent the rationale the Catholic Church uses. I just wanted to point out the Immaculate Conception was an incredible solution to a theological problem. But later, thru science, the theological problem was non-existent. Jesus' blood could be a perfect/sinless sacrifice even if His mother wasn't sinless - He didn't have her blood in His body.

[Salvation]

Then from whom did Jesus become man?

The flesh came through the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s why she was sinless — so that she could carry that flesh in her womb.

[stuartcr]

Whether original sin exists or not, nothing changes, does it? If there wasn’t original sin, then the whole Immaculate Conception wouldn’t matter, would it? It’s all relative to what one believes.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I may not be following all of that...not a scholar by any stretch. I do know the ‘life is in the blood’, and that His blood was shed, a perfect sacrifice, for my sins. The OT gives a good picture of blood sacrifices, even though those sacrifices of blood were not sufficient, just a picture of the one to come (Jesus, not Obama...).

[RoadGumby]

If original sin doesn’t exist exist, then sin is still absent and all things are good and there is no evil. Wait, that isn’t the case is it?

So sin is here, and renders us hell bound without redemption. So, yes the IC and Jesus DO matter. There is no relativism to it.

[Tramonto]

So how was Mary born immaculate if her mother had sin? Wouldn’t the stain of sin pass to Mary from her sinful mother?

If its possible for Mary to be miraculously born without original sin, then why not Jesus?

[stuartcr]

How do you know that isn’t the case? Perhaps a sense of good and evil is something God instills in each of us, in order for humans to create societies and function together. Maybe there is no good or evil to God?

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Then from whom did Jesus become man?

I think we agree that Mary was his mother. My point is that His spotless, unstained blood was not hers. In addition to not being a scholar, I am also not a doctor. My understanding is that their blood types could have also been deadly to one another.

[RoadGumby]

In Him there is no darkness. (i.e. evil)

Per Jesus :

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he (being Jesus) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

It was original sin that allows us to know evil, to sense it, and that unleashed it.

And unleashed, it wreaks havoc on the societies that we try to build. Unleashed, it makes You question the very goodness of the Lord. Unleaashed, it makes You decide that maybe You know a bit more than the Lord about your very existence.

[Salvation]

You aren’t doubting the power of God or the power of the Bible, now, are you?

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you...”

[stuartcr]

Isn’t what you just wrote, relative to your belief? Would you have written that, if you didn’t believe it?

[RoadGumby]

What I wrote is belief. Belief in the knowledge that Jesus lived, died, rose again and came to be the Savior for the world. Jesus said “You believe in the Father, also believe in me.”

Having said that, what is the point of the question that points out the obvious?

You like the ‘what-if’ style questions.....

IF you haven’t accepted Jesus as Your Savior, what will your thoughts be when you close your eyes in death, here and open them in hell there?

[stuartcr]

Yes, although not really knowledge...in that there’s no way you can prove any of it, which is relative to your belief.

Obviously I like them, or I wouldn’t ask so much. There’s lots of ‘what-if’ questions on FR. It’s a forum.

I have no idea what thoughts the future will bring, how could I?

[Iscool]

Using the author's standards, there is not enough evidence in the Bible to justify the teacing of the Trinity, yet for some reason he clings to that. I'd ask the author why the Immaculate Conception is unbiblical yet the doctrine of the Trinity is.

If you are the typical Catholic, you don't even know enough scripture to debate the subject...

But being a bible believer, if I couldn't find sufficient evidence of the Trinity in scripture, I wouldn't believe in the Trinity...Somebody's pullin' your leg...