Thursday, April 29, 2010

Immaculate Conception

In a discussion from BattleACTS, a challenger brought up several verses regarding the Immaculate Conception and allegedly these verses contradict Catholic teaching on them.  Let us see...

>MA said: And wouldn't it be nice if the 5 times God tells us that ALL HAVE SINNED, simply be believed at face value instead of twisting his holy word and concocting fairy tales about Mary's reproductive cycle!
>1) Romans 3:9
>2) Romans 3:23
>3) Romans 5:12
>4) Galatians 3:22
>5) Hebrews 4:15
sw: Let us look at these verses and see if they REALLY say what he intends them to say...
What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin. (DRB)

sw:  Hmmm, "they" are all under sin - is a general statement not one specifically stating Mary.

For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. (DRB)

sw: This "all" would have to include Jesus - OR - it doesn't mean "all" in the strict sense.  Thus, in a broader sense, speaking of mankind, it does not specifically mean Mary.  More on this in a moment.

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (DRB)

sw: Yes, sin entered the world by one man (Adam) and death passed on to all men (includes Mary) in whom (Adam) all have sinned.  Hence, Mary's "sin" is in Adam, not in herself.  See below for more on the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (DRB)

sw: Yes, again, in complete agreement with Romans 5:12, Mary too is "under sin" because she too inherits the nature of Adam and Eve - the fallen nature of Original Sin.   

For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. (DRB)

sw: All this verse says is that Jesus was tempted, as we are, in all things - yet Jesus is without sin.  It does not say what our challenger implies.  

sw:  Let me begin with the definition of the Immaculate Conception:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

sw: The Immaculate Conception of Mary does not mean that she was spared from the consequence of Original Sin.  I believe she died, just as all of us do, as the CONSEQUENCE of the Original Sin she too inherited.  What she was preserved from was the STAIN of Original Sin!  Thus, since still bearing the CONSEQUENCES of Original Sin, she too NEEDED a redeemer - which she found in her own Son - the Son of God and Man who came to redeem the world, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).


  1. For a response to this by the person to whom I am responding to, click here.

  2. What I don't understand is MA's statement that we don't take these verses "at face value," when all the while he does not take Jesus own words in John 6 at face value. I find it hypocritical that one would state that you must take certain verses (not Jesus' words) at "face value" according to that person's idea of what that "face value" is, but one must not take Jesus' own words literally because it doesn't fit his own theology.

    I really don't understand why so many prots think that St. Paul's words negate the teaching of Christ and His Church. The teachings of Christ, St. Paul, as well as St. James and the rest only SEEM in conflict when one has taken so, so many of those verses and taken them out of context, string them together and come up with their own theology--and become, as you have said on many occasion, their own pope.


Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.