Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
Well then, why do you follow Augustine?
Which version? KJV or NIV?
Ah, the ignored question —>Please cite scripture which says everything should be in (as opposed to “should not contradict”) scripture.
Of course, He can do it for us as well — do you doubt His power? Why do you question it?
Maybe, however, that does not negate the fact that he was quite a learned, well-read and multi-lingual man. Far more knowledgeable about linguistics, history and even scripture than humble fishermen.
Thank you.
The Church follows Augustine to extent that Augustine followed the Church. Ditto St. Thomas or any other theologian.
Yes, there's plenty of Catholics out there of all stripes, and yet a few posters hereon want us to think there's only one big happy Catholic church headquartered in Rome. What a laugh. The serfs all escaped the plantation years ago, so the popes decided "cant fight'em, join'em". Maybe they send tithes to the manor for nominal inclusion, and to keep Rome from killing them lol
You call the actions of the Holy Spirit satanic? Be careful.
You call the actions of the Holy Spirit satanic? Be careful.
Isn't the "God is all love for all men" the basis for all liberal theologies?
And if your theology of "God is all love for all men" theology is correct what would it matter if someone is "anti-Catholic" or even "anti-Christian"?
I never heard that he spoke in tongues, which is Biblically a gift but not all have it and he did not need to, but he had the power (which i pray for more of). That this second filling happens is clear, but the theology is precise, perhaps as to not make a formula out of it.
Also, the “problem” with supernatural attestation in general - without which we would not have an Abraham, a Israel, a Bible or a church - is that the devil seeks to operate on the same level, and somewhat can do so. Thus Moses first 3 or 4 miracles were duplicated by the magicians, and the man of sin will deceive souls by such. In addition are the fabrications of the flesh which abound today.
In response ppl and churches tend to react to two extremes, one being to disallow such, which is “safe” but sterile, while the other opens the door to anything, being indecent or is out of order. And as the law was added bcz of transgressions, so liberty can only be realizes insofar s souls are controlled fro within by the Holy Spirit, who is a God of order as well as the spontaneous.
Moody was not well educated and his writings had lots of spelling mistakes, bu he was a man after God’s heart and learned much i the school of Christ.
Most if the divisions within the born again church is due to carnality, while as Wesley and Whitefield showed, who manifestly were at odds concerning predestination, those who were surrendered to Christ, who want to be like Him and used by Him, have an essential unity that is qualitatively superior to that which is the result of implicit trust in man.
The following is from How Great Soul Winners Were Filled
With the Holy Spirit, by John R. Rice
The year 1871 was a critical one in Mr. Moody’s career. He realized more and more how little he was fired by personal acquirements for his work. An intense hunger and thirst for spiritual power were aroused in him by two women who used to attend the meetings and sit on the front seat. He could see by the expression on their faces that they were praying. At the close of services they would say to him:
“We have been praying for you.”
“Why don’t you pray for the people?” Mr. Moody would ask.
“Because you need the power of the Spirit,” they would say.
“I need the power! Why,” said Mr. Moody, in relating the incident years after, “I thought I had power. I had the largest congregations in Chicago, and there were many conversions. I was in a sense satisfied. But right along those two godly women kept praying for me, and their earnest talk about anointing for special service set me to thinking. I asked them to come and talk with me, and they poured out their hearts in prayer that I might receive the filling of the Holy Spirit. There came a great hunger into my soul. I did not know what it was. I began to cry out as I never did before. I really felt that I did not want to live if I could not have this power for service.”
Then the book tells of the great Chicago fire, of D. L. Moody’s relief work, the building of the north side tabernacle, and of his visiting in the East to secure funds for his work. Then the narrative continues:
During this Eastern visit the hunger for more spiritual power was still upon Mr. Moody.
“My heart was not in the work of begging,” he said. “I could not appeal. I was crying all the time that God would fill me with His Spirit. Well, one day, in the city of New York — oh, what a day! — I cannot describe it, I seldom refer to it; it is almost too sacred an experience to name. Paul had an experience of which he never spoke for fourteen years. I can only say that God revealed Himself to me, and I had such an experience of His love that I had to ask Him to stay His hand. I went to preaching again. The sermons were not different; I did not present any new truths, and yet hundreds were converted. I would not now be placed back where I was before that blessed experience if you should give me all the world — it would be as the small dust of the balance.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20John%20Rice/soul_winning_and_holy_spirit_power.htm
Moody recorded it in one of his diaries:
“The world has yet to see what God can do with and for and through a man who is fully and wholly consecrated to Him.” . . . A man! Varley meant any man. Varley didn’t say he had to be educated, or brilliant, or anything else. Just a man. Well, by the Holy Spirit in me I’ll be that man (quoted in John Pollock, Moody: The Biography [ Chicago : Moody, 1963, 1983], 115, author’s italics).
in London , in the gallery of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Varley’s remark and Spurgeon’s preaching focused Moody’s attention on “something I had never realized before. It was not Spurgeon who was doing the work: it was God. And if God could use Spurgeon, why should He not use me?” (Moody: The Biography, 115).
They tarried as they were bidden, waiting and praying for the Holy Ghost, when suddenly the power came, and they were ready for work. And there was more work done in one day than in all the three years while they were with Christ. The Lord had said: “He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father.” “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.” When the power came upon the Apostles, they did greater things than the Master ever did. There was a time when I thought the raising of Lazarus was the greatest work ever done on this earth. But I think the conversion of those 3,000 Jews on the day of Pentecost was more wonderful still. Those hard-hearted Jews were full of hatred and unbelief; many, no doubt, were the same men who murdered Christ. And yet they were swept down by the mighty power of the Spirit. We have got the same obstacles to contend with as the Apostles had. Our Gospel that we are preaching is a supernatural Gospel, and we have got to have supernatural power to preach it.
If there is any preacher/teacher which i think keeps a good balance with wisdom on this issue, i think it is Jones (from what little i have read). Read more about this departed man of God. here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/a-passion-for-christ-exalting-power (good site also)
And for the best Pentecostal (not the Benny Hinn fluff) preacher i have ever heard, see Bert Clendennen here: http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=357
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.