Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

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?


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.


"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.


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?

Since nobody in the the early Church was roughly Protestant, as you say, then how can one make a plausible case against the beautiful doctrine about our Blessed Mother, Mary, the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception? Obviously your argument requires Catholics to provide an explicit text on the Immaculate Conception. But there is no such explicit text for the definition of the Trinity or the N.T. Canon, both of which were defined by the early Catholic Church in communion with the Successors of St. Rock. I don't find any of the specifically Protestant ideas/oral traditions/arguments against the Marian doctrines in the Bible. Likewise, you've acknowledged that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not a divine truth. And of course the Bible says to hold fast to both the written and the oral traditions 2 Thessalonians 2:15. So how do Protestants hold fast to the oral traditions when their oral traditions only came in about the 1500s?

 

[Albion]

Since nobody in the the early Church was roughly Protestant, as you say, then how can one make a plausible case against the beautiful doctrine about our Blessed Mother, Mary, the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception?

Because nobody in the early church was a Vatican Catholic either.

Obviously your argument requires Catholics to provide an explicit text on the Immaculate Conception.

Or admit that you believe in it for some other reason not related to God's word. I'm not opposed to you doing that. It's only the contention that you have some valid reason for doing so that's fueling the debate.

 

[patricius79]

Because nobody in the early church was a Vatican Catholic either.


Or admit that you believe in it for some other reason not related to God's word. .

I think that is your oral tradition. I think that Protestants are already testifying to the Immaculate Conception by accepting the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Trinity, which are likewise not explicit in Scripture. Obviously the early Church, which defined these doctrines and believed in the Immaculate Conception, was Catholic, teaching people that the proper name of the Church is "the Catholic Church", Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Bishops, that Mary is the New Eve, that we are justified by works and not by faith alone, and prayers for the dead, and veneration of relics, and Transubstantiation, and the authority of Catholic Tradition, and the central authority of the Successor of Rock, and many other distinctively Catholic doctrines.

 

[Albion]

I think that is your oral tradition.

Well, keep on saying it if you want the discussion to end here.

 

[patricius79]

Well, keep on saying it if you want the discussion to end here.

I won't stop saying what I think and believe, especially in regard to Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception and Mother of God.

 

[Albion]

I won't stop saying what I think and believe, especially in regard to Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception and Mother of God.

Nor am I asking you to stop believing whatever you do. I'm simply saying that the little zinger lines that you repeat and repeat and repeat won't bring a response from me any longer, considering that I've explained what's incorrect about them over and over again.

 

[patricius79]

Nor am I asking you to stop believing whatever you do. I'm simply saying that the little zinger lines that you repeat and repeat and repeat won't bring a response from me any longer, considering that I've explained what's incorrect about them over and over again.

I repeat what I repeat because from my perspective the point I'm making is still valid, hasn't been addressed, and is relevant.

Your argument is that the Immaculate Conception is not in Scripture. But the the Bible doesn't say that, and neither are the doctrines of the N.T. Canon or the Trinity explicit in Scripture

 

[Albion]

I repeat what I repeat because from my perspective the point I'm making is still valid, hasn't been addressed, and is relevant.

Well, because it HAS been addressed--repeatedly--I can't accept this as changing anything.

Your argument is that the Immaculate Conception is not in Scripture.

That's right. It's not. And the fact that it's not in Scripture, isn't a proof that it's a true doctrine! That would be like saying that everything in the Book of Mormon or the Wizard of Oz must be true precisely BECAUSE it's NOT in the Bible. That's a strictly absurd argument.

 

[patricius79]

Well, because it HAS been addressed--repeatedly--I can't accept this as changing anything.


That's right. It's not. And the fact that it's not in Scripture, isn't a proof that it's a true doctrine! That would be like saying that everything in the Book of Mormon or the Wizard of Oz must be true precisely BECAUSE it's NOT in the Bible. That's a strictly absurd argument.

I don't know that you or anyone is claiming that a doctrine's absence from Scripture proves it is true. What I do say is that your argument is self-refuting because it goes beyond Scripture, while claiming that one should go by Scripture Alone, which is itself an oral tradition. I'm sure we both feel that the other just repeats arguments that have already been refuted. The reality is that the early Catholic Church was Papist and defined the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Trinity, neither of which are explicit in Scripture.

How do you hold fast to the oral traditions as Scripture command us to do?

 

[Job8]

Total Depravity is a false doctrine which originated with Calvin. None of the Church Fathers taught that, since it wasn't handed down from the Apostles in any shape or form.

Since I am not a Calvinist, we both can agree that total depravity as described by Five Point Calvinism is false.

However, leaving that aside we can go directly to Scripture and confirm that neither Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul were exempt from sin, simply because they all (just like us) descended from Adam and Eve (Rom 5:12): Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The proof that all are sinners is that all men die. Mary was not exempt from death either. Christ was the only exception in that He died voluntarily (and at a time and place of His choosing) and rose again to prove that He is indeed the Son of God -- God Himself. Hence the unique virgin birth of Christ also. The RCC has incorporated all kinds of legends about Mary to present her as almost divine. But Scripture does not support those legends.

 

[Albion]

I don't know that you or anyone is claiming that a doctrine's absence from Scripture proves it is true.

You are.

 

[patricius79]

Since I am not a Calvinist, we both can agree that total depravity as described by Five Point Calvinism is false.

However, leaving that aside we can go directly to Scripture and confirm that neither Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul were exempt from sin, simply because they all (just like us) descended from Adam and Eve (Rom 5:12): Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The proof that all are sinners is that all men die. Mary was not exempt from death either. Christ was the only exception in that He died voluntarily (and at a time and place of His choosing) and rose again to prove that He is indeed the Son of God -- God Himself. Hence the unique virgin birth of Christ also. The RCC has incorporated all kinds of legends about Mary to present her as almost divine. But Scripture does not support those legends.

"All" in Scripture doesn't have to include everyone. Examples are 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Mark 1:5. Just as there is an exception for the New Adam (God the Son, who became fully human), so there is God's Mother the New Eve. I think that both the New Adam and the New Eve died not because they were subject to Original Sin, but out of love.

 

[Albion]

However, leaving that aside we can go directly to Scripture and confirm that neither Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul were exempt from sin.

Or, we might say that Peter, Paul, and Mary were sinners.

 

[Job8]

"All" in Scripture doesn't have to include everyone. Examples are 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Mark 1:5.

In the context of Romans 5:12-21, all does mean all, and the entire epistle to the Romans -- when discussing sinners -- includes ALL HUMANITY without exception. Please note (Rom 5:18):Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life.

What is Paul telling us? That just as the whole world is now guilty because of one man's (Adam's) disobedience, the whole world may be justified and receive eternal life through one Man's (Christ's) righteousness. So indeed, Peter, Paul and Mary are all included. Just so none may be deluded, we have "ALL the world" brought to our attention in Rom 3:19: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Had Mary been excluded, she certainly would not have called God her Saviour (Lk 1:47). Only a sinner needs a Saviour, and one only has to be born into this world to be classified as " a sinner" (according to Paul, which is according to God). Otherwise Christ would not be the Propitiation for "the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:2).

 

[patricius79]

In the context of Romans 5:12-21, all does mean all, and the entire epistle to the Romans -- when discussing sinners -- includes ALL HUMANITY without exception. Please note (Rom 5:18):Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life.

What is Paul telling us? That just as the whole world is now guilty because of one man's (Adam's) disobedience, the whole world may be justified and receive eternal life through one Man's (Christ's) righteousness. So indeed, Peter, Paul and Mary are all included. Just so none may be deluded, we have "ALL the world" brought to our attention in Rom 3:19: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Had Mary been excluded, she certainly would not have called God her Saviour (Lk 1:47). Only a sinner needs a Saviour, and one only has to be born into this world to be classified as " a sinner" (according to Paul, which is according to God). Otherwise Christ would not be the Propitiation for "the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:2).

The New Eve (Mary), the Mother of God is an exception. She needed a Savior from falling into sin, not because she had fallen into sin (she had not, since she was prevented by grace from being stained with Original Sin). Romans 5:19 says "many" rather than all, thus indicating that there are exceptions in some sense. Likewise of course the New Adam is excepted.

In Romans 5:18, just as condemnation comes to all men, so justification comes to all men. Yet that doesn't mean that all men will be saved. Likewise 1 Corinthians 15:22 says "all" but isn't promising eternal salvation.

I praise God for the gift of the Mother of God as our Mother, the New Eve!

 

[patricius79]

You are.

Is there any evidence for your claim? I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception in the same way I know the doctrine of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon, which are not explicit in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Is there any evidence for your claim?

It's what you've been asserting throughout this exchange. For example, you said this: "The Successors of Rock and the Bishops in fully communion with them have definitively stated that the Mother of God is Immaculately Conceived." You also stated that you don't know Church History.

I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception in the same way I know the doctrine of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon, which are not explicit in Scripture.

In other words, you take whatever your church teaches you.

I've heard that POV called "Sola Ecclesia" in contrast to "Sola Scriptura."

 

[patricius79]

It's what you've been asserting throughout this exchange. For example, you said this: "The Successors of Rock and the Bishops in fully communion with them have definitively stated that the Mother of God is Immaculately Conceived."

Right. That's true. It sounds to me like there is no evidence for your claim. Is there a historic source of the N.T. Canon--which is never even mentioned in Scripture-- besides the Church which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Job8]

The New Eve (Mary), the Mother of God is an exception.

If Christ is the last Adam (or the second Adam if you will) as Scripture states, then "the New Eve" (His Bride and Wife to be) is the Church (those who have been saved by grace).

Since Mary is His mother, this analogy fails right from the start. So it's back to square one. While Eve was called "the mother of all living", Mary is called the mother of Jesus, and later on Jesus says that His disciples are His mother, and brothers, and sisters.

 

[patricius79]

If Christ is the last Adam (or the second Adam if you will) as Scripture states, then "the New Eve" (His Bride and Wife to be) is the Church (those who have been saved by grace).

Since Mary is His mother, this analogy fails right from the start..

I think it's not a hypothetical analogy, but the word of God. Mary, the Mother of God, is the New Eve.

I think that the Church also is, in a sense, the New Eve, though it is comprised of many individuals.