Posted on 12/17/2021 7:31:59 AM PST by The Ignorant Fisherman
That’s it my friend and that is what Scriptures totally teach. If people would just put tradition on the back burner for Biblical teaching and sound doctrine etc alot more would have light in our day and hour and ETERNITY.
We provided the sound biblical references in context but they are clearly rejected.
That’s how people start getting into such demonic heresy and praying to her, worshiping her, Co matrix of ETERNAL salvation etc. etc.
We have the greatest respect for Miriam but she would absolutely rebuke all who adhere to such demonic heresy
Rom. 5:12-21 (ALL)
Ignorance of the Bible is ETERNAL ignorance of Christ.
Not seeking to divide, just provide sound biblical insight and light - John 17:17
The virgin birth likens Jesus to Adam, who also came into the world without a father and without sin.
“The solemn pronouncement of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception only affirmed what had been contained in Catholic Tradition.”
No, it didn’t.
1. Many deemed to be early and “later” church fathers didn’t believe it. Origen, Tertullian, Basil, Hilary, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Acquinus, etc. And their objections weren’t condemned by the church, either:
https://gavinortlund.com/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/
2. For a long period of time, it was extremely divisive within the Catholic Church:
“Anne appears as the mother of Mary in the late 2nd-century Gospel of James. Anne and her husband, Saint Joachim, are infertile, but God hears their prayers and Mary is conceived. The conception occurs without sexual intercourse between Anne and Joachim, but the story does not advance the idea of an immaculate conception...”
“By the 4th century it was generally accepted that Mary was free of personal sin, but original sin raised the question of whether she was also free of the sin passed down from Adam...”
“First debated by medieval theologians, it proved so controversial that it did not become part of official Catholic teaching until 1854, when Pius IX gave it the status of dogma in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus. Protestants rejected Ineffabilis Deus as an exercise in papal power and the doctrine itself as without foundation in Scripture, and although Eastern Orthodoxy reveres Mary in its liturgy, Patriarch Anthimus VII of Constantinople characterized the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility as ‘Roman novelties’...”
“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception caused a virtual civil war between Franciscans and Dominicans during the middle ages, with Franciscans in its favour and Dominicans against it...”
“The Immaculate Conception became a popular subject in literature and art, and some devotees went so far as to hold that Anne had conceived Mary by kissing her husband Joachim, and that Anne’s father and grandmother had likewise been conceived without sexual intercourse, although St Bridget of Sweden (c.1303–1373) told how Mary herself had revealed to her that Anne and Joachim conceived their daughter through a sexual union which was sinless because it was pure and free of sexual lust...”
“In 1849 Pope Pius IX asked the Bishops of the Church for their views on whether the doctrine should be defined as dogma; ninety percent of those who responded were supportive, and in 1854 the Immaculate Conception dogma was proclaimed with the bull Ineffabilis Deus. Although the Archbishop of Paris, Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour, warned that the Immaculate Conception ‘could be proved neither from the Scriptures nor from tradition’ he was present at the promulgation of the decree and shortly afterwards solemnly published it in his own diocese...”
“Up until this point it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition, but Mary’s immaculate conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it; Ineffabilis Deus therefore was a novelty, being based instead on the declaration of a special commission to the effect that neither Scripture nor tradition were necessary to define dogma, but only the authority of the Church expressed in the Pope...”
“In the mid-19th century, some Catholics who were unable to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility left the Roman Church and formed the Old Catholic Church; their movement rejects the Immaculate Conception.”
“Eastern Orthodoxy never accepted Augustine’s specific ideas on original sin, and in consequence did not become involved in the later developments that took place in the Roman Catholic Church, including the Immaculate Conception.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
John 1:1-16 and beyond.
You asked me where in the Bible it says that original sin is transmitted through the biological father. Is that in the Bible - or for that matter the Immaculate Conception etc?
But actually, Catholic doctrine holds that original sin is transmitted through the father. This is not an area of disagreement between Protestant and Catholic. I was a little surprised that you were asking that.
In the Roman Catholic tradition, Original Sin is, as mentioned above, passed down from father to child; the transmission occurs through the sexual act. Since Christ's Father is God Himself, there was no Original Sin to be passed down. Conceived by the Holy Spirit through Mary's willing cooperation at the Annunciation, Christ was not subject to Adam's sin or to its effects.
Mary, however, was preserved from Original Sin in a different way from Christ. While Christ is the Son of God, Mary's father, Saint Joachim, was a man, and as all men descended from Adam, he was subject to Original Sin. Under normal circumstances, Joachim would have passed that sin on to Mary through her conception in the womb of Saint Anne.
God, however, had other plans. Saint Mary, in the words of Pope Pius IX, was preserved from Original Sin "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God." (See the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which Pius IX infallibly proclaims the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception.) That "singular grace and privilege" was granted to Mary because of God's foreknowledge that she would, at the Annunciation, consent to be the mother of His Son. Mary had free will; she could have said no, but God knew that she would not. And so, "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race," God preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin that had been mankind's condition since the Fall of Adam and Eve.
So what I said in post 69 is affirmed by Catholic doctrine:
Somehow Mary was able to be without the taint of original sin with a biological father but Jesus was not if we believe Catholic theology.
This, to me, is rather ludicrous.
Jesus was born sinless because HE IS GOD.
He TOOK ON human form, but remained God. GOD took on human form to CLEANSE it!
He did not lay aside His holiness to become man.
So Jesus wasn’t made unclean by touching the leper. Instead, He touched the leper and MADE HIM CLEAN.
So why was He born of a virgin as He was?
It was part of God’s plan, and part of the highway of faith He’s built for us through the dark wilderness of this world.
It was another way in which God was revealing Himself and His ways to us while ALSO working for our sake, just as He demonstrated His love by giving His Son for us (John 3:16).
Could God have just forgiven humanity for all of our sins without Jesus’ death? Yes, in that He can do anything. But no, because spiritually, it would have been unwise and counter-productive because we wouldn’t be changed in our hearts towards Him. We wouldn’t have learned anything. And no, too, because He would have visibly violated His justice for the sake of His love and mercy towards us.
Joseph and Mary were faithful where Adam and Eve failed, and their faith was rewarded when it was strengthened through angelic visits. The circumstancs of Jesus’ birth are to counteract the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and VISIBLY so. We are TRANSFORMED by recognizing the differences.
Adam and Eve transgressed, and they NATURALLY produced Cain, and their sin gave us over to eternal death. Joseph and Mary were faithful, tender-hearted, and obedient to God, and so SUPERNATURALLY, through the Holy Spirit, they became parents to the Son of God who brings eternal life.
And too, the glory of God goes with Him. So His Son couldn’t be born in a completely ordinary, “natural” way. And part of that glory is also that the King of Kings, the King of all, was born in a lowly way, in a stable and not a palace. And His first visitors included lowly and despised shepherds—though they were led to seek Him due to a visit they had received from angels, when the glory of the Lord shone around them.
The logic in your comment is faulty.
Because SOMEWHERE along Jesus’ line, someone who sinned had to “magically” produce a sinless child, OR there would be sinlessness going back all the way to Adam and Eve, and including them.
You seem to believe that Mary’s parents “magically” produced Mary without sin, unless you believe they were sinless, too. In that case, then you would believe that Mary’s grandparents “magically” produced Mary’s sinless grandparents, or her great-grandparents, and so on.
So where did the “magic” happen, in your belief? Did Mary’s parents sin, yet produce a sinless child?
There’s actually no “magic” necessary anywhere, though.
Jesus is God. He remained God, even when He took on human form. As God, He was and is sinless. God CANNOT be a sinner— or do you doubt that statement? He would have been sinless, no matter who He was born to. But being born to faithful parents in the way that He was was most usefulfor God’s purposes, and SIGNALED that He was the Son of God. It showed Him to be spiritual royalty even as He was born in a stable to worldly poor parents.
See my post 83. The “Immaculate Conception” belief was extremely controversial and divisive for many centuries, going back to when it was first devised, centuries after Christ.
Correction:
In that case, then, you would believe that Mary’s grandparents “magically” produced Mary’s sinless parents, or her great-grandparents sinned and produced her sinless grandparents, and so on.
Mary, like Christ Himself, was born without the stain of Original Sin. That is so she could be a pure and untainted vessel to carry the baby Jesus to term. And then, after that, she simply NEVER sinned. She was also, as even Martin Luther agreed, a lifelong Virgin.
Mary’s case is simply a matter of Pure Reason. Just as we can also say, through pure reason, that both Adam and Eve were created (not born) without Original Sin, since sin did not exist on Earth until THEY authored it.
I know it but it appears that Romulus doesn’t or denies it.
“You have not explained how Jesus is born sinless.
How exactly did this happen?
If you can’t tell me how it is possible... than you can NOT say it isn’t magic.”
I certainly did explain that to you. Jesus was and is God. Do you honestly think that GOD could EVER be a sinner, in any way? GOD’s nature will always triumph over the nature of man, and He can’t be tainted by sin. The point of the Incarnation (of the Son of God taking on human form), in fact, is that God always triumphs over the sinful flesh! ALWAYS, from first to last.
Jesus also didn’t need the baptism of repentance administered by John, but as you will notice, He got baptized anyway. There was a point in it. It was “to fulfill all righteousness.” He was teaching us visibly, and leading us in the way to God. Certain things had to be accomplished spiritually and symbolically. We don’t know everything about Jesus’ life on earth, but what God has revealed to us about Him, He had purposes for. Everything we know has a meaning and purpose. The ultimate purpose is to turn us away from Satan and towards God.
“I can show you in the Bible where it says ALL men have sinned... no exception...the Bible cannot contradict itself...and Jesus was born MAN...”
That’s not any evidence of anything. In fact, you are arguing that the Bible contradicts itself right there if you agree with Catholic doctrine. Because Catholic belief says that Jesus was born man, yet was sinless. The issue is HOW Jesus was born sinless.
And that’s not a good use of Scripture. God often simplifies things in His Word. If He didn’t, and explained EVERYTHING to us down to the last detail, the Bible would likely be the size of a set of encyclopedias (the kind with more than 20 volumes). So to a certain extent, He leaves it to us to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. It’s then our choice whether or not we do that faithfully and responsibly or twist it to fit some agenda.
As Jesus is in a category all by himself (Catholics frequently use the word “unique”) as God and man, not everything that describes man applies to Him, or applies to Him in the exactly same way that it applies to other men.
“Jesus was born MAN, OF Mary’s flesh- who OK... is said to be full of grace, but still has to be a sinful Jewish girl...”
It’s speculation to say He was born of Mary’s flesh, or with Joseph’s DNA, for that matter. God has kept almost all of the details of that hidden. But we can be sure that He did exactly the right and best thing. He was born man, though. But He was also God, and God always triumphs over the flesh, and triumphs over man.
“Jesus wasn’t placed in her womb fully developed as he could have been, I guess..... or he didn’t mysteriously appear out in the desert as God could have chose...no he chose a sinful human birth for him...”
I can agree with you that God had definite purposes for exactly how He was born—in fact, I started to write that earlier to someone else here in this thread, that God COULD HAVE chosen to have His Son come to earth as an adult, or as a baby left on someone’s doorstep.
First, Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill prophecy and ultimately so we’d see Him as the Son of God. As God, He was worthy of miracles, and the miracles also help us to see the truth about Him and believe.
On the matter of sin, IF it had best served God’s purposes, Jesus could have been born to a harlot and He still would have been sinless.
But that didn’t best serve God’s purposes, just like it didn’t for God to just forgive man’s sin without Jesus dying to pay our sin debt for us.
Jesus’ virgin birth spiritually and symbolically counteracts the sin of Adam and Eve. It does that through its spiritual meaning.
And two other points:
1. Undisputed history from the Roman Catholic Church shows that the “Immaculate Conception” doctrine didn’t come from the original church, but was an extremely DIVISIVE development that arose from speculation and debate about Mary that happened over many centuries. To the original church, questions about Mary were a mere tangent next to its UNITED focus on JESUS. But over the years, the Catholic Church took its eyes off Jesus and started to focus on this Mary tangent, causing great controversy in the church.
2. The Orthodox Church never had the “Immaculate Conception” doctrine. It rejects it as a “Roman novelty.”
You will have to provide a citation for your dogmatic assertion that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin is passed strictly in the paternal line. “Natural propagation” is what the Church defined at the Council of Trent.
The point is very simple and has nothing to do with agreeing with the Orthodox church. If the IC was the position of the Roman Catholic church from the start then it follows that it would be the position of the Orthodox Church as well. The fact that it rejects the IC proves that it was never an agreed upon idea in the Roman Catholic church (before Pius IX one day declared it to be true).
The Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Nor can this be understood as denoting imitation or suggestion, since it is written (Wis. 2:24): "By the envy of the devil, death came into this world." It follows therefore that through origin from the first man sin entered into the world.
I answer that, According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness.
Reply to Objection 1. The son is said not to bear the iniquity of his father, because he is not punished for his father's sin, unless he share in his guilt. It is thus in the case before us: because guilt is transmitted by the way of origin from father to son, even as actual sin is transmitted through being imitated.
Reply to Objection 2. Although the soul is not transmitted, because the power in the semen is not able to cause the rational soul, nevertheless the motion of the semen is a disposition to the transmission of the rational soul: so that the semen by its own power transmits the human nature from parent to child, and with that nature, the stain which infects it: for he that is born is associated with his first parent in his guilt, through the fact that he inherits his nature from him by a kind of movement which is that of generation.
Reply to Objection 3. Although the guilt is not actually in the semen, yet human nature is there virtually accompanied by that guilt.
Reply to Objection 4. The semen is the principle of generation, which is an act proper to nature, by helping it to propagate itself. Hence the soul is more infected by the semen, than by the flesh which is already perfect, and already affixed to a certain person.
Also, in his Treatise On Evil, Aquinas writes on QQ. 4, A. 7, response 6, that "Christ was unable to contract original sin because he was conceived of the Virgin without semen from a man"
The idea that Christ had no earthly father because Adam also did not seems flawed, since he had no mother either. I can't find where that explanation is an official Catholic doctrine either.
The most literal interpretation of Romans 5:12 - "sin entered the world through one man" - would mean that original sin is transmitted through the father. Aquinas obviously understood it to mean that.
St. Thomas opined against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because he had an erroneous grasp of ensoulment. He believed (rightly) that grace cannot be received by a creature that has no rational soul, and was of the opinion that the soul did not enter the body until quickening. He lacked a modern understanding of embryology. We know now that semen is not the sole principle of human generation — right? Jesus is descended from Adam through his mother, after all. Why do you think he called himself the “son of man”. Don’t you know that “Adam” is “man” in Hebrew? So while he is possibly the best systematic theologian the Latin Church has ever produced, St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. Merry Christmas.
Exactly my points, lasereye. If the “Immaculate Conception” was truly there as doctrine at the beginning, it would have been well-established in the Orthodox Church for almost 1,000 years before the split. But instead, it’s been a source of great division between Catholics and Orthodox and within the RCC itself.
Murphs, you’re the one who should be careful, and fear. It amazes me how many Catholics who passionately defend their church’s doctrine don’t seem to have any fear of doing wrong while doing so, despite the fact that they say they believe in “faith plus works.”
Meanwhile, I’m trying to carefully consider and weigh every word because as God’s Word says, those who teach will be judged more harshly, and Jesus Himself says we will have to give an account for every word we say. There’s nothing wrong with defending Christian beliefs, except when truth is sacrificed in the process to protect the church at all costs.
You made some false accusations against me, Murphs, and I’d beware, too, of using foul language as you have (that “c” word) as Christians aren’t supposed to use it.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/foul_language
So let’s turn this conversation to our Savior. Here’s a question for you: is Jesus wonderful to you? If so, why? What has He done for you?
“And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Revelation 12:11
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.