Immaculate conception of Mary?

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Just give me the verse. You do that every other time when you think Scripture supports your position.

Verses have been given but you interpret them differently. Do you have a verse which teaches that there is One God in Three Co-Eternal Persons, or which gives the N.T. Canon--both of these being true doctrines--or teaches the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

I hear you asking for verses, but I've asked Protestants repeatedly if they affirm 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and I get ambivalent answers at best. I don't recall ever hearing "amen" or "yes, we should hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by letter!"

I will always know that Mary is our Mother and that she is the Immaculate Conception.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
Verses have been given but you interpret them differently.

Do please stop. Not one verse that has anything to do with the immaculate conception has been given, with the possible exception of the last thing I read from Justin that was so obscure that I had to ask for a clarification.

Your repeated testifying to what you WANT to believe and the citing of verses that describe Mary in glorious terms do not show us any immaculate conception. We can all agree that she is special, but that isn't the issue.

I hear you asking for verses, but I've asked Protestants repeatedly if they affirm 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and I get ambivalent answers at best.

I could take that up if you wish--but not as part of an evasion of the topic of this thread.

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Do please stop. Not one verse that has anything to do with the immaculate conception has been given, with the possible exception of the last thing I read from Justin that was so obscure that I had to ask for a clarification.

Your repeated testifying to what you WANT to believe and the citing of verses that describe Mary in glorious terms do not show us any immaculate conception. We can all agree that she is special, but that isn't the issue.

I could take that up if you wish--but not as part of an evasion of the topic of this thread.

Can you show how the N.T. Canon is more explicit in Scripture than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or any any passage which says that there is One God in Three Co-Eternal Persons?

As to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I think it is revealing that Protestantism doesn't simply affirm this word of God.

It appears that the arguments against the Immaculate Conception both go beyond Scripture and assume the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

I know the Bible teaches that Mary conceived Jesus, our God, and that this certainly supports the teaching of the true Church, since--as St. Augustine notes--the honor of the God the Son is connected with His Mother.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
Can you show how the N.T. Canon is more explicit in Scripture than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or any any passage which says that there is One God in Three Co-Eternal Persons?

What?

As to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I think it is revealing that Protestantism doesn't simply affirm this word of God.

"Protestantism" does.

It appears that the arguments against the Immaculate Conception both go beyond Scripture and assume the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

It may appear that way to you.

I know the Bible teaches that Mary conceived Jesus, our God, and that this certainly supports the teaching of the true Church, since--as St. Augustine notes--the honor of the God the Son is connected with His Mother.

Regardless of denomination, it supports the teachings about the Theotokos and the Virgin Birth. Those beliefs are clearcut in Scripture. But the Immaculate Conception, Ever-Virginity, and the Assumption are not based on Scripture but on legend and speculation instead.

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
What?

"Protestantism" does.

It may appear that way to you.

Regardless of denomination, it supports the teachings about the Theotokos and the Virgin Birth. Those beliefs are clearcut in Scripture. But the Immaculate Conception, Ever-Virginity, and the Assumption are not based on Scripture but on legend and speculation instead.

I think that is your extra-Biblical tradition.

Neither the N.T. Canon, nor the definition of the Trinity, nor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are explicit in Scripture.

They all derive from Christian Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

You have affirmed 2 Thessalonians 2:15, so now: how do you know what the oral traditions are which Paul says we must hold fast to?

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
You have affirmed 2 Thessalonians 2:15, so now: how do you know what the oral traditions are which Paul says we must hold fast to?

Since you're the believer in traditions over Scripture, that's the question I put to you...several times!

You didn't have an answer, so do you think you'll try to turn the question back on me????

Neither the N.T. Canon, nor the definition of the Trinity, nor the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are explicit in Scripture.

Have we at least agreed, then, that the Immaculate Conception is believed by Roman Catholics only because of the RCC's traditions?

That's what we've been discussing and it's the topic of this thread, not the rest of this stuff.

Albion · Dec 30, 2015

patricius79 · Dec 30, 2015

Albion said:
Since you're the believer in traditions over Scripture, that's the question I put to you...several times!

You didn't have an answer, so do you think you'll try to turn the question back on me????

Have we at least agreed, then, that the Immaculate Conception is believed by Roman Catholics only because of the RCC's traditions?

That's what we've been discussing and it's the topic of this thread, not the rest of this stuff.

I think your rejection of the Immaculate Conception. is logically a rejection of the other doctrines--such as the definition of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon--which are not explicit in Scripture but were defined by the Catholic Church more than a thousand years before Protestantism began.

We both agree that we must hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter. My position is that the way to know what these traditions are is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church which defined the doctrine of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon, and to submit authority of the Successor of St. Rock, the Vicar of Christ.

How do you hold fast to the oral traditions that Paul refers to?

Standing Up · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
How do you hold fast to the oral traditions that Paul refers to?

What oral traditions extant in Paul's time are you talking about?

justinangel · Dec 31, 2015

Albion said:
Just give me the verse. You do that every other time when you think Scripture supports your position.

I gave you the verse: Luke 1:28. So what are you talking about? You'll find what's in the Scriptures in Tradition. Kindly refrain from arguing for the sake of arguing. That's all you do.

justinangel · Dec 31, 2015

Albion said:
So we've moved from pretending that there's anything in Scripture that indicates an immaculate conception to the logic of the belief. OK. So answer this for us--Why would being Jesus' mother prove that she was "the Immaculate Conception" as well?

Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity

"And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent (Genesis 3:15). To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way thhat he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds."
Pope Pius lX , Ineffabilis Deus [8 December 1854]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

I see you're still arguing from ignorance. Just because you fail to see the IC in the Scriptures, that doesn't mean it isn't there. And, of course, you've already made up your mind to reject any Catholic explanation. So there's really no point trying to explain anything to you.

In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."
Matthew 12, 33

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think your rejection of the Immaculate Conception. is logically a rejection of the other doctrines

Well, it's...and it's easy to see that it's not. I have affirmed my belief in the Virgin Birth, for instance, while rejecting such as the I.C. and the Assumption. And what's the difference? Of course, it's that the one has Scriptural proof and the others are just legends that developed until a church decided to make them into dogma.

such as the definition of the Trinity

But the Trinity is unavoidable, according to the testimony of Scripture. It's only the explanation given by the church that you're talking about.

We both agree that we must hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter.

No, we have not agreed to that. You have repeatedly dodged the issue.

My position is that the way to know what these traditions are is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church

...which idea is silly, since you attribute all these traditions and canons to one denomination, yours, when in reality it was all done by the so-called undivided church of the first millennium, from which both your and my denominations or branches have descended.

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

justinangel said:
I gave you the verse: Luke 1:28. So what are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that that particular verse doesn't address our topic.

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

justinangel said:
I see you're still arguing from ignorance. Just because you fail to see the IC in the Scriptures, that doesn't mean it isn't there. And, of course, you've already made up your mind to reject any Catholic explanation. So there's really no point trying to explain anything to you.

Quoting a verse that doesn't refer to the Immaculate Conception isn't a way to convince me, no. It does show me that you'll believe anything, so long as your denomination says to believe it, and, of course, if the idea sounds glorious enough.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Albion said:
Well, it's...and it's easy to see that it's not. I have affirmed my belief in the Virgin Birth, for instance, while rejecting such as the I.C. and the Assumption. And what's the difference? Of course, it's that the one has Scriptural proof and the others are just legends that developed until a church decided to make them into dogma.

But the Trinity is unavoidable, according to the testimony of Scripture. It's only the explanation given by the church that you're talking about.

No, we have not agreed to that. You have repeatedly dodged the issue.

...which idea is silly, since you attribute all these traditions and canons to one denomination, yours, when in reality it was all done by the so-called undivided church of the first millennium, from which both your and my denominations or branches have descended.

I think that "undivided church of the first millenium" was and is called "the Catholic Church" and continues to believe in the Immaculate Conception of God's Mother and the other Catholic doctrines.

I noticed that you skipped over the issue of the N.T. Canon, which--like the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception--is not explicit in Scripture.

Are you saying, now, that you disagree with the Bible's teaching that we should hold fast to the oral traditions, whether given orally or by letter? 2 Thessalonians 2:15

If you agree with this Word of God, would you explain how you hold fast to the oral traditions?

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I think that "undivided church of the first millenium" was and is called "the Catholic Church" and continues to believe the Catholic doctrines.

Of course you do. Was it also "Apostolic?" I know a Pentecostal church body that is legally called by that title and talks as though it belongs to them alone. Is it the only true Apostolic church?

That's what the church of Rome does when it uses the word "Catholic" for itself exclusively, when, in reality, hundreds of other church bodies confess that they are part of the One, Holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic church.

Anyway, the early councils were the work of mainline Christians generally, and had representatives from across the Roman world, including Britain. They included churches that had nothing to do with the Roman church.

The accomplishments of those councils is their doing no less than of the representatives of Rome. In fact, it is understood by most people that the key delegates were from the East, and so they would be the ancestors of the Orthodox churches, not the Roman Catholic Church.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Albion said:
Of course you do. Was it also "Apostolic?" I know a Pentecostal church body that is legally called by that title and talks as though it belongs to them alone. Is it the only true Apostolic church?

That's what the church of Rome does when it uses the word "Catholic" for itself exclusively, when, in reality, hundreds of other church bodies confess that they are part of the One, Holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic church.

Anyway, the early councils were the work of mainline Christians generally, and had representatives from across the Roman world, including Britain. They included churches that had nothing to do with the Roman church.

The accomplishments of those councils is their doing no less than of the representatives of Rome. In fact, it is understood by most people that the key delegates were from the East, and so they would be the ancestors of the Orthodox churches, not the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think that the N.T. Canon is explicit in Scripture. Neither, even, is the most blessed doctrine of the Most-Holy Trinity, our God. So why would we demand that the Immaculate Conception be explicit in Scripture?

If you agree with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, how do you know what these oral traditions are that we are to hold fast to?

My understanding is that there isn't any historical figure in the early Church who is roughly Protestant in their overall interpretation of the Bible.

I know the early Church's most common name was "the Catholic Church", and that it believed in the Immaculate Conception, the other Catholic doctrines, and the central authority of the Papacy (the Successors of Rock).

Even the famous Eastern Orthodox scholar Alexander Schmeman wrote openly that the Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledge Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

Certainly, if one rejects the unity of the Church in the Papacy by rejecting the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, they are in serious error.

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I don't think that the N.T. Canon is explicit in Scripture.

Do you believe Scripture to be the word of God or not? If the answer is "yes," all the rest of this banter about who did what, etc. is beside the point. We have it. Do you trust it or not?

Neither, even, is the most blessed doctrine of the Most-Holy Trinity, our God.

Wrong. Put that one aside.

So why would we demand that the Immaculate Conception be explicit in Scripture?

Why would we choose some manmade suggestion of such a doctrine instead?

My understanding is that there isn't any historical figure in the early Church who is roughly Protestant in their overall interpretation of the Bible.

There isn't any historical figure in the early Church who is roughly Roman Catholic either. However, we certainly can refer to Early Church Fathers who cited Scripture for their beliefs--as did the Nicene Creed. In fact, other posters have done exactly that. Interestingly enough, there is NO Early Church Father who cites the Roman Catholic idea of "Holy Tradition."

I know the early Church's most common name was "the Catholic Church", and that it believed in the Immaculate Conception, the other Catholic doctrines, and the central authority of the Papacy (the Successors of Rock).

Then you are sadly mistaken. All of that came later and was the doing of revisionists. The early church didn't believe in any of it.

All that having been said, I think a little progress has been made here and that this post will serve as a basis for future discussion.

patricius79 · Dec 31, 2015

Albion said:
Do you believe Scripture to be the word of God or not? If the answer is "yes," all the rest of this banter about who did what, etc. is beside the point. We have it. Do you trust it or not?

Wrong. Put that one aside.

Why would we choose some manmade suggestion of such a doctrine instead?

There isn't any historical figure in the early Church who is roughly Roman Catholic either. However, we certainly can cite Early Church Fathers who cited Scripture for their beliefs--as did the Nicene Creed. Interestingly enough, there is NONE who cites the Roman Catholic idea of "Holy Tradition."

Then you are sadly mistaken. All of that came later and was the doing of revisionists. The early church didn't believe in any of it.

All that having been said, I think a little progress has been made here and that this post will serve as a basis for future discussion.

I agree with you that nobody in the early church was roughly Protestant, but I can't agree with your oral traditions which you are citing against the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God because I don't think they are historical. Even the Eastern Orthodox scholar, Schmemann, acknowledges that the early Church unanimously saw Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement. As I mentioned, the N.T. Canon is not explicit in Scripture, neither is the doctrine of the Trinity. Both of these were defined by the early Catholic Church, which also held, with Augustine that Original Sin deprives us of hoiness, but that Mary is sinless. Augustine also testifies to the authority what he called "the See of Rock", saying that the Papacy is one of the main reasons why he is a member of "the Catholic Church". Augustine also strongly testifies to the authority of Tradition, the Ever-Virginity of Mary, prayers for the dead, Transubstantiation, and numerous other distinctively Catholic doctrines.

Albion · Dec 31, 2015

patricius79 said:
I agree with you that nobody in the early church was roughly Protestant

Of course you agree with THAT. You're the one who made the statement.

But do you also agree with me that there is likewise nobody in the early church who was roughly Roman Catholic as we know the beliefs and practices of the RCC nowadays?

but I can't agree with your oral traditions which you are citing against the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God because I don't think they are historical.

I can't really respond to inventions like this, my friend. You've tried repeatedly to say that reformed Christians--or I myself--are following some mythical Protestant "oral traditions" when that's totally a figment of your imagination or some misguided debating point you've invented. You think that if you come up with some term like "oral traditions" and attribute Protestant belief to them rather than to Scripture, it will put us in some kind of bind. It does nothing of the sort, since it's not true. It gains you nothing to keep saying it.

Even the Eastern Orthodox scholar, Schmemann, acknowledges that the early Church unanimously saw Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

"Center of Ecumenical agreement" is a million miles away from what you alleged. He certainly did not agree that there was any universal acceptance of Papal Supremacy or Infallibility or some of the Marian doctrines you believe.

As I mentioned, the N.T. Canon is not explicit in Scripture, neither is the doctrine of the Trinity.

You mentioned it. You were wrong. It's a non-starter of a debating point, no matter how many times you say it. I have to inform you that I will not any longer even respond to the fifteenth or sixteenth mention from you of claims that have long since been answered by me.

That said, do you believe Scripture to be the word of God or not? If the answer is "yes," all the rest of this banter about who did what, etc. is beside the point. We have it. Do you trust it or not? Why would we instead choose to believe some manmade suggestion of such a doctrine as the immaculate conception? Seriously, why? Because it seems devout or uplifting, whether or not it's actually true?

Immaculate conception of Mary?

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency