|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 21, 2004 8:53:01 GMT -5
Is the Immaculate Conception of Mary true?
The tradition of the Catholic Church states that Mary was conceived "WITHOUT SIN." This is referred to as the Immaculate Conception. The original decree setting forth this required belief on the part of Catholics was issued by Pope Piux IX on 12-8-1854. The decree states that it "must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Those who refused to believe it were "by their own judgment condemned" and were told that they "have made shipwreck concerning the faith." Pope Piux XI on 1-28-1933 said that Mary was conceived "without original sin" (p. 12 MMOC). In "The Glories of Mary" we read that "If the Lamb was always immaculate, the Mother must also have been always immaculate" (p. 273 GOM). One may be led to reason, why not the Mother's mother, etc.? Again we read, "The Blessed Virgin never committed any actual sin" (p. 268 GOM). Thus we have tradition presenting Mary as a person born without the curse of original sin, without a sinful nature, and without one sin ever laid to her charge. She appears to parallel her Divine Son in purity, but what does the Bible say?
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 21, 2004 8:53:43 GMT -5
The Bible says that all who are born into this world are under condemnation because of the sin of Adam, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death pkmtyolped upon all men, for that all have sinned" and "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation . . . " (Rom. 5:12, 18). All of the world's people are sinners. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10-12) and "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). All of the world's people need a SAVIOUR, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:3-4).
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is foreign to the Bible and foreign to Mary herself. In her song of praise given in Luke 1:47 she said, "my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Only a sinner needs a SAVIOUR and Mary understood that she was a sinner.
All of the Jewish people were commanded by GOD to bring an innocent substitute (a lamb or a turtledove) whose blood would be shed to effect the forgiveness of their sins. The only one who was exempt from this requirement was our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Since He was without sin there was never a need for Him to offer a sacrifice for His sins. If Mary was immaculately conceived, and never had one sin laid to her charge, you would expect her to be exempt also from bringing a sacrifice for sins. However, the mother of JESUS brought a sacrifice for her sins as recorded in Luke 2:22-24 "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord; . . . And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." Every woman who gave birth to a child was commanded to bring a sin offering unto the LORD to make an atonement for themselves. We read in Leviticus 12:6-8 "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledone, for a SIN OFFERING, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her . . . This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female." Notice that it was a "sin offering" and that it was to make an "atonement" for her. The word "ATONEMENT" carries the meaning of making one right with GOD after sinning. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception of Mary urged upon us by the Catholic Church is not true according to the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 21, 2004 8:55:22 GMT -5
We are also told, in "The Glories of Mary," that Mary had the use of her reason from the moment she was conceived (p. 374 GOM). Again we are told that "Mary loved God . . . during the whole of the nine moths preceding her birth, during which she never ceased for a moment to unite herself more closely with God by fervent acts of love" (p. 297 GOM).
The Bible is completely silent about such an extraordinary thing and we should set it aside as lacking in proof. We are also told that Mary was brought to the Temple at the age of three, and left there in one of the cells that adjoined the Temple. There she is supposed to have lived a life of piety, being fed daily by an angel (p. 307, 311-312 GOM). Again, the Bible is silent about such a thing. It seems to be a fiction intended to bring many young women into the convent in an effort to copy the life of Mary.
From the article
CAN YOU GO TO JESUS THROUGH MARY?
Paul L. Freeman Bible Teacher
Date unknown (circa 1960)
There are millions of people today who are being led to believe that personal salvation is obtainable through the Virgin Mary. The Roman Catholic Church has put forth a great amount of tradition concerning Mary which is completely contradictory to the Holy Bible. Since our eternal salvation is of the utmost importance, we need to examine these traditions in the light of the Bible. The resuts of our study should put us in a better position to lay hold on eternal life" (I Tim. 6:19).
The Roman Catholic Church traditions concerning Mary will be taken from the book "The Glories of Mary" written by Bishop Alphonsus de Liguori (hereafter referred to as GOM) and from the book, "Mary, Mother of the Church" compiled by Rev. Francis J. Ripley (hereafter referred to as MMOC). Both books are published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Illinois 61105. The quotations from the bible are from the King James Version.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 21, 2004 10:48:17 GMT -5
This article is not post in any way intended to demean Catholics - but as an examination of their beliefs in the light of Scripture. Nothing in this article should be construed as Catholic bashing.
Rather it is intended as a catalyst to cause folk to honestly evaluate their belief systems against the simple teachings of the Word of GOD.
Can you, my reader, say with countless others that are saved by the blood of Jesus?
"My faith is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness, I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name!
On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand!"
|
|
|
Post by Archangelwolf on Mar 21, 2004 17:09:51 GMT -5
I must admit, the whole theology concerning Mary is the single most deterrent to my ever even considering converting to Catholicism. I question many things in their theology, but this is the most perplexing. I have toyed with the idea of going to Catholic Churches, of exploring their world, and perhaps joining them. But then I read the dissertations on Marian theology and completely change my mind.
I believe the Catholic Church is a vessel that God has used for centuries to share the good news of His Son. However, until the Church changes its philosophy towards Mary, I can honestly say I will never be a Catholic.
Arch.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 22, 2004 9:00:29 GMT -5
nic -- please go back through prior thread on this debate forum. you will find your answers and replies. i will not continue to allow myself to be incited into debates on things that have already been typed about. unfortunately things like this, when asked in earnestness are easily discussed. however it appears they are being posted more to "up yours" attitudes. no matter what the Rcc on the board post in reply - the asnwers will not be accepted. they don't have to be understood, but they do need to be accepted to be considered an actual debate.
so please -- take some time and go back through the threads for your answers.
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 10:30:59 GMT -5
The Bible says that all who are born into this world are under condemnation because of the sin of Adam, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death pkmtyolped upon all men, for that all have sinned" and "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation . . . " (Rom. 5:12, 18). All of the world's people are sinners. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10-12) and "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). All of the world's people need a SAVIOUR, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:3-4). The Immaculate Conception of Mary is foreign to the Bible and foreign to Mary herself. In her song of praise given in Luke 1:47 she said, "my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Only a sinner needs a SAVIOUR and Mary understood that she was a sinner. All of the Jewish people were commanded by GOD to bring an innocent substitute (a lamb or a turtledove) whose blood would be shed to effect the forgiveness of their sins. The only one who was exempt from this requirement was our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Since He was without sin there was never a need for Him to offer a sacrifice for His sins. If Mary was immaculately conceived, and never had one sin laid to her charge, you would expect her to be exempt also from bringing a sacrifice for sins. However, the mother of JESUS brought a sacrifice for her sins as recorded in Luke 2:22-24 "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord; . . . And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." Every woman who gave birth to a child was commanded to bring a sin offering unto the LORD to make an atonement for themselves. We read in Leviticus 12:6-8 "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledone, for a SIN OFFERING, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her . . . This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female." Notice that it was a "sin offering" and that it was to make an "atonement" for her. The word "ATONEMENT" carries the meaning of making one right with GOD after sinning. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception of Mary urged upon us by the Catholic Church is not true according to the Bible. As per www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IXIX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 ("All have sinned") Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle. Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin. Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes." 1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so). Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah). Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God. Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse. Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God. Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good." Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good. Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin. Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity. Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 10:33:44 GMT -5
From the same site as shown abov:
II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.
Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.
Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately pkmtyolpes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.
Rev 12:1 - the "woman" that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.
Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary's offspring are those who keep God's commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.
Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary's offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.
Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.
Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.
Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.
Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.
Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.
Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 11:35:56 GMT -5
As per www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IXIX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 ("All have sinned") Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle. Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin. Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes." Blessings, Ann Your entire argument is impeached by your very first paragraph. No Bible believer will allow you or anyone else to assume that GOD didn't really mean what He wrote - and to somehow suggest that Mary was an anomaly is simply unacceptable. Mary's soul rejoiced in "God her Saviour!" Only sinners need a Saviour - if Mary was sinless - then she exclaimed this in error. Mary offered a "sin offering" upon the birth of her Son. There is nothing in the Word of GOD to suggest that the Catholic twisting of Scripture is valid. And then you further attempt to produce more unscriptural teaching with baptismal regeneration of infants. As to your point of infancts, retarded and senile - all that are born of man are born with a sin nature - but in the case of some, Paul says that he was alive once withoiut the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died. As long as he did not understand the commandment - he was SAFE, just as are Catholic babies. As to the senile - am I missing something here? What of the sins they committed before they became senile? Finally, Jesus was NO EXCEPTION to the rule - He was born completely without a sin nature because He did not have a human father - period. The sin nature is transmitted through the seed of the man. The woman does not, of her self - carry this -- so the virgin birth by-pkmtyolped any possibility of Jesus Christ having a sin nature.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 22, 2004 12:06:44 GMT -5
Your entire argument is impeached by your very first paragraph. No Bible believer will allow you or anyone else to assume that GOD didn't really mean what He wrote - and to somehow suggest that Mary was an anomaly is simply unacceptable. WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT ANN DID -- SHE DID NOT SAY GOD DIDN'T MEAN WHAT HE WROTE -- YOU DID. SHE SAID YOUR INTERPRUTATION WAS WRONG - JUST AS YOU ARE CLAIMING THE RCC'S TO BE... Mary's soul rejoiced in "God her Saviour!" NOTICE GOD, NOT JESUS. Only sinners need a Saviour - if Mary was sinless - then she exclaimed this in error. NO SHE EXCLAIMED IT OF GOD AFTER KNOWING THAT HER CHILD WOULD BE HIS. KNOWING HER FATE WAS NOW SEALED AS THE HAINDMAID OF GOD FIRST AND FOREMOST. Mary offered a "sin offering" upon the birth of her Son. There is nothing in the Word of GOD to suggest that the Catholic twisting of Scripture is valid. HUUH??
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Mar 22, 2004 12:09:29 GMT -5
Nick,
Not really part of this debate, but you made me curious about something. If someone were then to clone someone (i.e. create a life without the use of a man's seed), then would this person not have a sin nature?
I say that Jesus could have sinned, but didn't. Are you saying that Jesus did not having the sin nature, and could not have sinned? I don't think this would really make him fully human. I believe that he was fully God and fully human. He experienced the same temptations to sin that we all do, but he did not sin. So whether this means that he had or didn't have the sin nature, I am not sure, but I do believe that he could have sinned, but chose not to.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 12:30:12 GMT -5
Nick, Not really part of this debate, but you made me curious about something. If someone were then to clone someone (i.e. create a life without the use of a man's seed), then would this person not have a sin nature? I say that Jesus could have sinned, but didn't. Are you saying that Jesus did not having the sin nature, and could not have sinned? I don't think this would really make him fully human. I believe that he was fully God and fully human. He experienced the same temptations to sin that we all do, but he did not sin. So whether this means that he had or didn't have the sin nature, I am not sure, but I do believe that he could have sinned, but chose not to. As I understand cloning, the seed is still involved, is it not? Of course, I am aware that some have said that a cloned human would lack a soul - and be nothing more than an animal. I really don't have an opinion on this, though. The doctrine of the impeccability of Christ teaches that Jesus was totally unable to sin - yet that did not make Him any less man - for he was still able to be tempted. However, to tempt Jesus, as Satan did - was akin to a raft attacking a rowboat. The temptation was not so much to prove that that Jesus was the Messiah - but to show that Satan was already defeated. To explain the dual nature of Christ - take a solid iron bar and a number two pencil and wrap them together. The pencil, by itself [manhood] is easily broken with a child's pinkie - but once attached to the iron - takes on the quality of the stronger. Had Jesus been born with a sin nature - whether He ever sinned or not - He would have been ineligible to be the Saviour of the world. One other illustration - Colossians tells us that He is the Creator of the worlds, and that by Him all things consist - If Jesus were to sin even once, our salvations would no longer matter anyway because the entire creation would be ground to dust in an instant. It would totally implode upon itself. The world, His creation, our salvation - everything is riding upon His faith, and not ours (Gal. 2:20)
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Mar 22, 2004 15:16:08 GMT -5
As I understand cloning, the seed is still involved, is it not? Of course, I am aware that some have said that a cloned human would lack a soul - and be nothing more than an animal. I really don't have an opinion on this, though. The doctrine of the impeccability of Christ teaches that Jesus was totally unable to sin - yet that did not make Him any less man - for he was still able to be tempted. However, to tempt Jesus, as Satan did - was akin to a raft attacking a rowboat. The temptation was not so much to prove that that Jesus was the Messiah - but to show that Satan was already defeated. To explain the dual nature of Christ - take a solid iron bar and a number two pencil and wrap them together. The pencil, by itself [manhood] is easily broken with a child's pinkie - but once attached to the iron - takes on the quality of the stronger. Had Jesus been born with a sin nature - whether He ever sinned or not - He would have been ineligible to be the Saviour of the world. One other illustration - Colossians tells us that He is the Creator of the worlds, and that by Him all things consist - If Jesus were to sin even once, our salvations would no longer matter anyway because the entire creation would be ground to dust in an instant. It would totally implode upon itself. The world, His creation, our salvation - everything is riding upon His faith, and not ours (Gal. 2:20) I still do not understand how Christ could be considered fully human if he did not have the ability to sin? How could Him being able to sin, and yet not sinning, make him not elligible to become our saviour? The miracle of the cross is that Christ took our sin upon Himself. He, who knew no sin, became sin for us, so that we in turn could become the righteousness of God. The reason why death had no hold on Jesus is that he never sinned. By the way, your illustration of the iron bar and the pencil doesn't really work, because the properties of either do not change by simply being in contact. The pencil would still shatter under the same amount of force as before. The reason why this is a big deal is because if you say that Jesus did not have the ability to sin, then he could never have known what it is like to struggle against temptation.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 15:57:09 GMT -5
Philip, this is a discussion that, like so many others, have been raging over the centuries - and it is true that no human illustration will ever capture the essence of the truth.
Right now I have many brands in the fire - but I would like to address this issue later. Perhaps I will begin a new thread on the topic.
The nature of Christ is a very crucial one - and it is easy to see where you can come to your conclusions.
The nature of a biblical doctrine is that it can be clearly, unequivocally demonstrated by Scripture - and until such is accomplished - you are right not to accept my conclusions just because I say so. LORD willing, when I can - I will present it in such a way as to accept no other conclusion.
GOD bless.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Mar 22, 2004 17:47:23 GMT -5
Nicodemus wrote: Mary's soul rejoiced in "God her Saviour!" Only sinners need a Saviour - if Mary was sinless - then she exclaimed this in error. Pehaps it was out of humility... God bless
|
|