- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,564
- 18,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I have been trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I come from primarily an Eastern Christian background so it is not something I have considered much before. So, I'm trying to understand this doctrine. I'm not a Bible-only type of person so I'm willing to seriously consider the Christian tradition.
1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).
2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?
3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).
The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).
1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).
2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?
3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).
The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).
Last edited: