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......

[rzman21]

Papal infallibility was not defined by a valid ecumenical council. It was done unilaterally by the Pope of Rome without the assent of the Eastern patriarchs.

[stuartcr]

How would you like me to address your questions? With the answers you want to hear?

What can I possibly answer to ‘what if there is original sin?’ ...If there is, then there is.

What do you want to hear?

Fluffed? How can I possibly fluff an answer to where I will spend eternity, other than I really don’t know?

Geez, talk about not liking someone’s answers...isn’t that pretty much you?

[cloudmountain]

If you say that it is a miracle, then the same miracle could have been applied to Jesus. What I am saying is that there is no need for Mary to have been sinless because Jesus' birth was already a miracle. Absence a need and absence scripture, I don't think there is any reason to believe in the immaculate conception. In fact, there are scriptures that would suggest that Mary was indeed sinful.

Apparently God wanted a pure receptacle for the birth of His Son. Of course it wasn't necessary or essential. But, He decided on creating another human without sin. Mary was sinless at conception and remained so always. She didn't HAVE to but she did.
Remember, Adam and Eve were created without sin. They CHOSE sin.
God also decided to send a SON, not a daughter. There were many strong, holy women in Jewish tradition. Jesus MIGHT have chosen 12 WOMEN as His Apostles, or half and half. He might have made Judas Iscariot a woman. But God chose whom He chose.

You can ask Him why He made those choices when you meet Him.

I plan on asking Him what the deal is with the structure of the knee...why so complicated, Lord?

[aruanan]

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

The concept, as it was, came as an unnecessary solution to a docetic-inspired problem. The idea that the human body is sinful comes from the docetic heresy that matter is evil. It is now a philosophical fossil. But all nature, following the Fall, has been subjected, as Paul said, "to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God." Mary's flesh, like that of everyone else since Adam and Eve was subject to decay (except for Jesus of whom it was said that his body did not see decay, Act 2 and 13), but it was not sinful. The creation may be in bondage to decay, but that's not a product of sin but an act of God. It was into this creation Jesus was born in order to become a part of it and to start the new creation within it by his resurrection.

[RoadGumby]

That is a lot of writing to ssay not much.

The Apochryphal anything carries no weight, they are non-canonical. In this case apparently, for good reason.

1) Mary was favored among women, not above them. She was as much a sinner, as much in need of her Savior Son as the rest of us.

2) Mary was virgin, knew no man and bore the Son of God.

[MHGinTN]

You start you post with a completely false assertion (if you read the entire essay, White specifically addresses the issue ofextensive Biblical evidence for the concept of the Trinity, though the specific word to translate as ‘TRINITY’ or ‘trinitarian’ is not in the Bible) and expect readers to fall in line behind your further assertions?

[rzman21]

1) Mary was favored among women, not above them. She was as much a sinner, as much in need of her Savior Son as the rest of us.

>> Revisionism.

[RoadGumby]

I guess it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

For one so full of questions, it is amazing that your only answers revolve around “I don’t know”.

Which makes it really easy and fun, I would gather, to be on your side of things.

[RoadGumby]

Biblically sound.

There are NONE that are good, no not ONE. ALL have fallen short of the Glory of God (Except Mary?)

[MHGinTN]

Are you asserting that the spirit is found in the physical manifestations of cells? Just how is 'original sin' passed from Adam? Is it not that all descendants from Adam have inherited a spirit connection to Adam? As such, Jesus is not a spirit descendant of Adam for Jesus is of His Father, not of Adam's descendants. Mary willingly provided her womb for Jesus to gestate His body. That does not mean Mary provided an ovum or that Joseph provided a spermatazoon.

Jesus IS the Last Adam. He is still alive and forever more, as our Great High Priest, making intercession for us before God The Father Almighty.

What did Jesus obtain from Mary during His gestation in her womb? ... [HINT: could Jesus ingest sin with bread or meat when He ate a meal?]

Jesus was CONCEIVED by The Holy SPirit in Mary's womb. This does not in any biological sense mean Jesus was made from mary any more than eating meat or drinking water or wine or milk 'makes' any part of you.

[Belteshazzar]

MNGinTN, just looking for clarification. Do you place yourself outside of the faith (here, I am referring not to subjective Christian faith, that of the individual, but to the objective Christian faith, that is, its content) that the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds affirm and enunciate?

[MHGinTN]

The Bible does not state that an ovum from Mary was used to conceive Jesus. It does say specifically that that which is conceived in Mary is from God via The Holy Spirit.

[Belteshazzar]

rzman21, I do not find myself in agreement with you on many things, but in the matter of both the immaculate conception and papal infallibility, I cannot disagree with what you have said or the reasons you have given for saying it. Both of these teachings are, as someone said, solutions to non-problems.

[Belteshazzar]

MHGinTN, I will wait until you reply to my post 71 before answering substantively. I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[MHGinTN]

Ask a more cogent question regarding the tpoic of discussion (the IC). [Regarding your oblique question: I am Saved by His Blood shed for me. Jesus is my Savior, my soter, my God in flesh as shown in John Chapter One. I am saved because of God’s Promise of His Grace in Christ Jesus and my utter reliance upon Him only.]

[Tramonto]

Apparently God wanted a pure receptacle for the birth of His Son. Of course it wasn't necessary or essential. But, He decided on creating another human without sin. Mary was sinless at conception and remained so always. She didn't HAVE to but she did.

Im glad you agree that the immaculate birth wasn't necessary. The theological mathematics that deem it necessary are presumptuous and silly.

What evidence is there that God chose to make Mary sinless?

What would chairs look like if our knees bent the other way?

[stuartcr]

Think about what you are saying.

How can I honestly say I know?

Even if I did say it, you would probably ask me how I know, wouldn’t you?

Yes, I am very thankful to God, that I am the way I am.

[DarkSavant]

You start you post with a completely false assertion (if you read the entire essay, White specifically addresses the issue ofextensive Biblical evidence for the concept of the Trinity, though the specific word to translate as ‘TRINITY’ or ‘trinitarian’ is not in the Bible) and expect readers to fall in line behind your further assertions?

I wasn't talking about the specific word, and I clarified myself a few posts down. I'll give you the same task I gave another FReeper: Give the scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and to the Son. Many verses could be seen to imply this but could be knocked down using the same semantic gymnastics the author used on the verses regarding Mary. I could easily make the case the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and Son and not equal.

[lastchance]

I am a staunch Catholic but that is rather an unfair characterization of why the Reformation happened and Protestantism developed.

To make believe that the abuses and corruptions of the 16th century Catholic Church did not play a role in the rise of the Protestant sects is to be ignorant of our history.

[lastchance]

Actually you do. The confessions of Protestant sects denominational or not all have their basis in the 5 Solas of the Reformation. These ideas come from the writings of Luther and Calvin.