An inerrant Bible vis-à-vis the Immaculate Conception

[Didaskomenos]

I was talking to a hyper-fundamentalist friend of mine earlier today. He brought up the fact that Catholics view Mary as sinless. He was much indignant about this, so I offered to him the reasoning behind it.

The reason Catholics believe Jesus must be sinless is that she was ordained to bear God in her womb. How could the sinless Son of God be brought into the world by a sinful, tainted vessel? God is of purer eyes than to look upon sin - and yet to say that Mary was not sinless is to say that Perfection was conceived and borne in an imperfect vessel.

I concluded, to his consternation, that the reasoning behind this was the same and as sound as the reasoning behind the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The Fundamentalist is likely to assert that there can be no errors in Scripture, or else how could God be responsible for it? How could Perfect Truth co-exist (indeed, co-mingle) with the misconceptions in man's finite understanding?

For my own part, I affirm neither doctrine. My question is this: are Fundamentalists being consistent here?

 

[stone]

Abrahams wife, Sarah was visited by Y-shua accompanied by 2 angels on his way to judge Sodom and Gomorha, *spell check * Sounds like Y-shua to me anyway when you read what is said between him and Abraham and how he speaks to Sarah. anyrate. Sarah was told that by the power of g-d she was going to become withchild. She was about 100 years old at the time.


When Abraham saw them 1st arrive at his doorpost he fell on his knees at the door in front of the 2 angels and Y-shua, aka J-sus. Abraham told Sarah to prepare a meal. They went outside behind the tent to speak, and sat under a tree. When Y-shua mentioned that Sarah was going to become withchild she covered her mouth and giggled at the thought.

Later, when she was out under the tree with them, Y-shua said to her why did you giggle at the thought of becomeing pregnant, do you not believe the power of the lord is great enough to do such a thing?

Now i know Isaac is not the son of father, but the point here is in the way that Sarah had become pregnant by the power of g-d. She was no virgin, and she did not require to be so for the work of father to take place. Israel is born from this seed.


The angels spoke with Joseph and let him know what was going on, so that he would not chastice her.

From Noah we can see that he was chosen for his rightousness. Sin is passed on from generation to generation. There is mention of sin passing to the 3rd and 4th generations. Somewhere along the lines here the sin ceases, so whatever kind of sin this is it cannot be from the parents haveing sex, and it being sin to be passed onto a newborn child. This is not anywhere in the bible that i have seen.

This doctrine is catholic man made. There is no biblical truth in it. Babies are not born with sin. If you have some i would be glad to see it.

Point is Mary was sinless while bearing Y-shua.

I do not believe that there is error in scripture, but in how man comprehends scripture.

I do not see that this doctrine can be compared to sola scriptura, that catholic doctrine is not biblical.

Fundamentalist can exist with their own opinions from whatever their viewpoint is on religion, would you agree?

A baptist can be a fundamentalist with their doctrine and a catholic with theirs.


fun·da·men·tal·ism

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

1. 1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
   2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

*****

This could mean many things.

 

[BigNorsk]

If Jesus couldn't be perfect without being conceived in a sinless woman. How was Mary sinless, wouldn't she have needed a sinless man and a sinless woman to conceive her without sin? You can't just stop with Mary.

If it was possible to conceive Mary sinless from a sinful Mother and Father, then Jesus didn't need a sinless mother either.

See the problem with the rational? If Jesus needed a sinless vessel in order to be sinless, then Mary certainly wasn't sinless either.

This is much of the reason why original sin has been taught to be inherited from the father, not the mother. Things don't fit otherwise. Remember we all died through the sins of one man, Adam. We aren't told we died through the sins of Eve.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NET
(21) For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man.
(22) For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Allegories can get people into very strange places, for instance, if you carry the ark compared to Mary allegory to the idea of sinfulness, which seems to me to be where it ends up. I would like an explanation of how the ark could be sinful or for that matter righteous. The ark did not pass on its nature to the 10 Commandments did it? Was the ark melded with it's contents?

Real dangerous to take allegory too far.

Marv

 

[stone]

If Jesus couldn't be perfect without being conceived in a sinless woman. How was Mary sinless, wouldn't she have needed a sinless man and a sinless woman to conceive her without sin? You can't just stop with Mary.

If it was possible to conceive Mary sinless from a sinful Mother and Father, then Jesus didn't need a sinless mother either.

See the problem with the rational? If Jesus needed a sinless vessel in order to be sinless, then Mary certainly wasn't sinless either.

This is much of the reason why original sin has been taught to be inherited from the father, not the mother. Things don't fit otherwise. Remember we all died through the sins of one man, Adam. We aren't told we died through the sins of Eve.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NET
(21) For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man.
(22) For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Allegories can get people into very strange places, for instance, if you carry the ark compared to Mary allegory to the idea of sinfulness, which seems to me to be where it ends up. I would like an explanation of how the ark could be sinful or for that matter righteous. The ark did not pass on its nature to the 10 Commandments did it? Was the ark melded with it's contents?

Real dangerous to take allegory too far.

Marv

The rightousness of Noah has nothing to do with the boat he constructed.

Where does it read in the bible that sin is passed on to a child from conception?

It is more dangerous to add to the scriptures and to create man made doctrines and impose them on the people that look up to you for guidance and leadership.

 

[BigNorsk]

This doctrine is catholic man made. There is no biblical truth in it. Babies are not born with sin. If you have some i would be glad to see it.

Psalms 51:5 NET
(5) Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

Psalms 58:3 NET
(3) The wicked turn aside from birth; liars go astray as soon as they are born.

The flip side is also taught.
Psalms 22:10 NET
(10) I have been dependent on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother's womb you have been my God.

Psalms 71:6 NET
(6) I have leaned on you since birth; you pulled me from my mother's womb. I praise you continually.

Isaiah 49:1 NET
(1) Listen to me, you coastlands! Pay attention, you people who live far away! The Lord summoned me from birth; he commissioned me when my mother brought me into the world.

Galatians 1:15 NET
(15) But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased

Do you not consider unbelief a sin? We are told those who believe will be saved, those who don't won't. It seems to me that unbelief is very sinful.

Romans 11:19-21 NET
(19) Then you will say, "The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."
(20) Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear!
(21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you.

Just for example.

I hope this helps you understand the concept that people are indeed born sinners.

Marv

 

[Didaskomenos]

Fundamentalist can exist with their own opinions from whatever their viewpoint is on religion, would you agree?

A baptist can be a fundamentalist with their doctrine and a catholic with theirs.


fun·da·men·tal·ism

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

1. 1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
   2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

*****

This could mean many things.

Did you even read that definition? It's referring to Evangelicals, which refers to Protestants or others who uphold inerrancy and sola scriptura (i.e., not Catholics who hold to the dogma of the Church, including Immaculate Conception). What was your point again?

 

[stabalizer]

I was talking to a hyper-fundamentalist friend of mine earlier today. He brought up the fact that Catholics view Mary as sinless. He was much indignant about this, so I offered to him the reasoning behind it.

The reason Catholics believe Jesus must be sinless is that she was ordained to bear God in her womb. How could the sinless Son of God be brought into the world by a sinful, tainted vessel? God is of purer eyes than to look upon sin - and yet to say that Mary was not sinless is to say that Perfection was conceived and borne in an imperfect vessel.

Why not? Didn't Mary herself declare God her Saviour (Lk chpt 1)

I concluded, to his consternation, that the reasoning behind this was the same and as sound as the reasoning behind the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The Fundamentalist is likely to assert that there can be no errors in Scripture, or else how could God be responsible for it? How could Perfect Truth co-exist (indeed, co-mingle) with the misconceptions in man's finite understanding?

For my own part, I affirm neither doctrine. My question is this: are Fundamentalists being consistent here?[/QUOTE

It seems possible to me. God's only blood line was from Mary's side of the fence.

 

[stabalizer]

If Jesus couldn't be perfect without being conceived in a sinless woman. How was Mary sinless, wouldn't she have needed a sinless man and a sinless woman to conceive her without sin? You can't just stop with Mary.

If it was possible to conceive Mary sinless from a sinful Mother and Father, then Jesus didn't need a sinless mother either.

See the problem with the rational? If Jesus needed a sinless vessel in order to be sinless, then Mary certainly wasn't sinless either.

This is much of the reason why original sin has been taught to be inherited from the father, not the mother. Things don't fit otherwise. Remember we all died through the sins of one man, Adam. We aren't told we died through the sins of Eve.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NET

Then you might want to explain Gen 5:2? It's plural.


(21) For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man.
(22) For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Allegories can get people into very strange places, for instance, if you carry the ark compared to Mary allegory to the idea of sinfulness, which seems to me to be where it ends up. I would like an explanation of how the ark could be sinful or for that matter righteous. The ark did not pass on its nature to the 10 Commandments did it? Was the ark melded with it's contents?

Real dangerous to take allegory too far.

Marv

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you?

 

[HypnoToad]

I was talking to a hyper-fundamentalist friend of mine earlier today. He brought up the fact that Catholics view Mary as sinless. He was much indignant about this, so I offered to him the reasoning behind it.

The reason Catholics believe Jesus must be sinless is that she was ordained to bear God in her womb. How could the sinless Son of God be brought into the world by a sinful, tainted vessel? God is of purer eyes than to look upon sin - and yet to say that Mary was not sinless is to say that Perfection was conceived and borne in an imperfect vessel.

I concluded, to his consternation, that the reasoning behind this was the same and as sound as the reasoning behind the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The Fundamentalist is likely to assert that there can be no errors in Scripture, or else how could God be responsible for it? How could Perfect Truth co-exist (indeed, co-mingle) with the misconceptions in man's finite understanding?

For my own part, I affirm neither doctrine. My question is this: are Fundamentalists being consistent here?

I have to agree with BigNorsk - if Mary HAD to be sinless to give birth to a sinless Jesus, then Mary's parents HAD to be sinless in order for Mary to be sinless, and Mary's grandparents HAD to be sinless in order to give birth to Mary's sinless parents, and Mary's great-grandparents HAD to be sinless .... It must go on through all of Mary's ancestors. But, if Mary could have been preserved from sin without sinless parents, then Jesus could ALSO have been preserved from sin without a sinless mother.

So, either Mary's ENTIRE ancestry was sinless, or Mary did not have to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless Jesus.

 

[daveleau]

A common critique would be that if Mary was born sinless, was Mary's mother also born sinless? How far back does the sinlessness go? Many Christians believe Mary was saved through grace, and made sinless, much like Christians are when we call on the name of the Lord with true faith.

Fundamentalists (captial F) are not the only ones that believe in an inerrant Scripture. Most conservative Christians view it as such (Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Reformed, Fundamentalists and many more congregations).

What is your definition of "hyper-fundamentalist?"

My beliefs on inerrancy and inspiration are here: http://www.leaumont.com/Theology/Inerrancy.pdf

 

[Didaskomenos]

A common critique would be that if Mary was born sinless, was Mary's mother also born sinless? How far back does the sinlessness go? Many Christians believe Mary was saved through grace, and made sinless, much like Christians are when we call on the name of the Lord with true faith.

The orthodox position indeed seems to be that she was justified by Christ, making her sinless, but that her sinlessness was of a deeper, purer quality than the justified status of other believers. Why? Because of the belief that she need be more pure than any other human in order to bear the Truth incarnate. So the issue is not how she got to be sufficiently pure, but the doctrine that such purity was necessary that is so parallel to the belief that inerrancy is necessary.

Fundamentalists (captial F) are not the only ones that believe in an inerrant Scripture. Most conservative Christians view it as such (Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Reformed, Fundamentalists and many more congregations).

What is your definition of "hyper-fundamentalist?"

What is your definition of "a big guy"? I doubt you've ever found it necessary to define that in terms of height/weight dimensions, and it would be similarly difficult and not exactly concrete to do so with "hyper-fundamentalism". But I can tell you one thing I was referring to in regard to this friend was two-fold: his view that the Bible is inerrant (one of the defining traits of fundamentalism being adherence to the inerrancy of the Bible) is one thing that makes him a fundamentalist, coupled with what one might refer less ambiguously to as "hyper-Protestantism" (his view that Catholics are probably not Christians), prompting my prefixing "hyper-" to that.

But surely that is all irrelevant...no one's said anything about my main contention.