Immaculate Conception?

[Alithis]

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”
Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary – itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” – which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language).

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer).​

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact hat kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)​

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14 (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
Ephesians 2:8-10

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.
All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament...
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.


Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14. That doesn't mean equality because Mary is a human creature made sinless while Jesus was always sinless. Big difference.

I will be blunt . i really dont pay heed nor care what catholics believe .believing something doesnt make it truth .athiests say they believe there is no God and they are wrong also. Dont waffle on about what some guy said about scripture and then use that to justify a false teaching that is simply not contained in direct unambiguous inspired scripture. Its not in there because it is not in there and no amount of waffel and external devilinspired writings are going to make it magically appear there.

 

[Albion]

Very nice post! Thanks for sharing this. Never thought of it this way

Some of that is pretty goofy, though, Andy. The idea that God could be born as a human baby but COULD NOT keep from being "blemished" by sin in the process is a purely illogical theory.

 

[miknik5]

Here is the point, Hank, do you carry/share your moms DNA?

The Answer is YEAH! Of course you carry/share you Moms SINFUL contaminated through and through DNA every strand and fiber of our being. We all carry/share our Moms Sinful DNA which makes us who we are, Sinful.

Virgin Mary's DNA through the Grace of God CANNOT/SHALL NOT be Contaminated with Sin. IF people say Virgin Mary's DNA is like any other, with sin, then people who call themselves Christians, contradict themselves by say Jesus Christ was born with out sin. IT IS ALL IN THE PURE/IMMACULATE DNA!

Please reread Romans 1:3 through 1:4

HE is according to the flesh, the likeness of David, but according to THE SPIRIT...,DECLARED....HOLY

Perfect true and holy flesh (son of man)/ perfect true and Holy Spirit (son of GOD)

The flesh never counted for anything

And flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of GOD

HE came in our fleshly likeness to SHOW US THE FATHER , who is INVISIBLE SPIRIT

How can what is invisible be made manifest but by a visible vessel

HE is the visible image of the invisible GOD...the exact representation of HIS being (not talking about flesh) and the full radiance of HIS GLORY (not talking about flesh)

 

[Albion]

Here is the point, Hank, do you carry/share your moms DNA?

The Answer is YEAH! Of course you carry/share you Moms SINFUL contaminated through and through DNA every strand and fiber of our being. We all carry/share our Moms Sinful DNA which makes us who we are, Sinful.

Virgin Mary's DNA through the Grace of God CANNOT/SHALL NOT be Contaminated with Sin. IF people say Virgin Mary's DNA is like any other, with sin, then people who call themselves Christians, contradict themselves by say Jesus Christ was born with out sin. IT IS ALL IN THE PURE/IMMACULATE DNA!

Sin is not carried in anyone's DNA. It's not biological. It's a spiritual condition that, after Adam and Eve, was a feature or characteristic of every human, just by virtue of BEING human.

 

[david.d]

I'm not giving credit to Mary, of course she is not the reason why we are saved.

I'm simply asking, how would Jesus be born from a sinful women, that doesn't make sense. God is HOLY and cannot be around sin. She must have been made sinless, or something of that sort in order to be able to give birth to God Himself.

I see what you are saying now. This is where the Trinity is important. The Son is the physical form of God, He walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, the Holy Spirit is the spiritual side God which interacts with us spiritually. It was the Holy Spirit that is given credit with conceiving with Jesus. God the Father is in heaven and can't be in the presence of sin.

 

[Alithis]

I am a Calvinist Baptist, so I strongly believe all have fallen short of the Glory of God, and are dead in their sins, and slaves to sin, and need to be given faith so that they can be saved, even faith its a gift.

Scripture does say Mary was Full of Grace, I'm not sure what they implies I am seeking out this matter

It simply means god chose to show her favor in choosing her.
In asking why he chose her he revealed to us it was because 1 she was the right liniage and 2 she was betrothed by arrangment to joseph. No other reason.
Had jane or karen been of the tribe of judah and betrothed to joseph ..they would have been chosen instead. She had no other attribute at all.
Some want to teach that she did because it justifies the wicked practices they promote of praying to her (they say they dont pray to her but ask her to pray for them...the Joke of this untruth is the fact that the word pray... Means，to earnestly Ask. So they pray to her. They just aernt honest about it. And to lie so openly in something so obvious tells me not to trust anything they say at any level any time. Untill they repent .

 

[miknik5]

Crystal dragon,

When did the "king of tyre" walk amongst the fiery stones?
When was the "king of tyre" in the garden of GOD?
When was the "king of tyre" a covering angel?

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death.

Genesis isn't talking about the seed of a woman. If same sex and bestial relations were an abomination only because of "waste of seed", why shouldn't a woman lie down to a beast? But even if you included a woman's egg as "seed", would an animal's sperm have any chance of penetrating the egg and ruining it?
No, these things are abomination because they are abomination in themselves.

The sin of Onan was, in fact, multifaceted:
1. He dishonoured his father in appearing to obey his instructions, while proceeding to rob him of descendants.
2. He despised the all-important promise of God that salvation was to come through the Seed of the Woman.
3. Indeed, he despised the blessing that could have come on his name through his heritage. Yes he"knew the seed would not be his", but when it came to the crunch, whom does the Scripture honour as Pharez's father? Does it say "Jacob begat Judah and Judah and Judah begat Er and Er begat Pharez"? No! It says "Jacob begat Judah and Judah begat Pharez". Er's name could have been in that genealogy. Similarly, later in the Scripture, Boaz is the father of Obed, not Mahlon or Chilioon.
4. He despised the command to be fruitful and multiply.

There is no suggestion in Scripture that contraception is a sin in itself, especially now that the Seed of the Woman is come.

 

[Alithis]

Crystal dragon,

When did the "king of tyre" walk amongst the fiery stones?
When was the "king of tyre" in the garden of GOD?
When was the "king of tyre" a covering angel?

Good grief..he still on that train...

 

[miknik5]

Genesis isn't talking about the seed of a woman. If same sex and bestial relations were an abomination only because of "waste of seed", why shouldn't a woman lie down to a beast? But even if you included a woman's egg as "seed", would an animal's sperm have any chance of penetrating the egg and ruining it?
No, these things are abomination because they are abomination in themselves.

The sin of Onan was, in fact, multifaceted:
1. He dishonoured his father in appearing to obey his instructions, while proceeding to rob him of descendants.
2. He despised the all-important promise of God that salvation was to come through the Seed of the Woman.
3. Indeed, he despised the blessing that could have come on his name through his heritage. Yes he"knew the seed would not be his", but when it came to the crunch, whom does the Scripture honour as Pharez's father? Does it say "Jacob begat Judah and Judah and Judah begat Er and Er begat Pharez"? No! It says "Jacob begat Judah and Judah begat Pharez". Er's name could have been in that genealogy. Similarly, later in the Scripture, Boaz is the father of Obed, not Mahlon or Chilioon.
4. He despised the command to be fruitful and multiply.

There is no suggestion in Scripture that contraception is a sin in itself, especially now that the Seed of the Woman is come.

Because the genealogy followed
Those who were in the likeness of their father and it was not dependent on physical birth order but in the likeness of the son after his father

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Jesus is fully man, and fully God.

I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?

For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless

I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.

You have not thought this out for then you would have the same problem with Mary how could she be born sinless if her parents were sinful in the line of Adam. If God could act miraculously in her birth he was certainly not limited to acting the same way in the birth of Jesus. You would then need a sinless line going back. The prophecy in Isaiah was a virgin shall conceive a child. That is about it as far as the Bible prophecy about the to be mother. But of the son it says, For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Every aspect of Jesus life was detailed in the Bible and the role of John the baptist as well. If God had intended Mary to be coredemptress it would have been outlined in prophetic detail just as well. You have used some sort of reason and logic to come to your conclusion which is flawed reasoning and bringing you to false conclusions.

 

[miknik5]

everywhere and throughout HIS WORD, GOD "hid" HIS SON in signs and lower representions pointing is to the HIGHER HIDDEN TRUTHS and REALITIES found in HIS SON

 

[miknik5]

Good grief..he still on that train...

I know. That is why I said I "can't help your unbelief"

Maybe one day he/she will understand

I hope so

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Jesus is fully man, and fully God.

I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?

For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless

I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.

So are you held accountable to God for your fathers or mothers sins of the past?

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

So are you held accountable to God for your fathers or mothers sins of the past?

No, I think I see where your getting at

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Actually, it wasn't necessary that God intervene with Mary's conception to prevent original sin, He did so because it was fitting. Eve was created without sin, the New Eve was conceived without sin, so a precedent exists.

Jesus existed before Mary ever was. The precedent is not true in that Eve was not born a descendant of Sinful Adam as she was taken out and formed from his rib before the fall. Jesus walked in the garden there are many appearances of Jesus in the old testament. Jesus created all thing and preexisted so his incarnation he was human through Eve and divine through the holy spirit. The sinful nature of Mary as a descendant of Adam was not part of the spiritual DNA of Jesus. This is God never ceasing to be God and sinless righteousness was never dependent on Mary being sinless. Her being a servant to mother the child was a great role to have and she is surely blessed. Jesus however is creator of all things and to put her up on the platform as somehow anywhere near equal is very wrong.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

You have not thought this out for then you would have the same problem with Mary how could she be born sinless if her parents were sinful in the line of Adam. If God could act miraculously in her birth he was certainly not limited to acting the same way in the birth of Jesus. You would then need a sinless line going back. The prophecy in Isaiah was a virgin shall conceive a child. That is about it as far as the Bible prophecy about the to be mother. But of the son it says, For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Every aspect of Jesus life was detailed in the Bible and the role of John the baptist as well. If God had intended Mary to be coredemptress it would have been outlined in prophetic detail just as well. You have used some sort of reason and logic to come to your conclusion which is flawed reasoning and bringing you to false conclusions.

For the Birth of Jesus, things obviously would be different.

The birth of Jesus involves Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

So you refuse to believe Adam and Eve were, at first, sinless? You are dodging the the obvious.
It seems to me objectors to Mary's sinlessness think God is a whimp, He's too useless and has no power to make the mother of His Son free from sin at conception.

No we just recognize that God's decree that sin, like patrilineage, is inherited only through the father, so that the Seed Of The Woman, not being the seed of a man, is free from original sin, does NOT make Him a whimp - contrary to what you are pleased to say.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am asking this:
How can Christ be born from a sinner?

Very easily in the normal way and with more difficulty if a cesarean section was necessary.

But seriously - the Bible is clear that Adam was the responsible party in the original sin. The sin nature is passed on through the male not the female.

For good reason - Christ is called the second or last Adam and not the second or last Eve.

Being without earthly Father - Christ received His human nature from Eve and His divine nature from the Heavenly Father.

Ergo He was both sinless man and sinless God.

Some who are unfamiliar with Roman Catholic dogma believe that the "immaculate conception" doctrine has to do with Christ's sinless nature when born. Of course we know that it has to do with the sinless nature of Mary.

That dogma is unsustainable in view of the fact that Mary herself clearly understood the fact of her sinful nature, as she declared in Luke 1:47, “. . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . .”

Unless you have a predilection to defend the un-defendable Catholic dogma concerning her sinlessness - you will agree with the scriptures and disavow the dogma of that particular cult.

I'm assuming that, since you posed the OP as a question for others here, you have no axe to grind in the matter and will simply believe the scriptures and not add to them.

Of course the axe to grind that many Catholic teachers have to grind is their trying to make Mary out as co-redemptrix.

I certainly hope that you are not trying to establish the possibility of that awful heresy.

 

[miknik5]

So are you held accountable to God for your fathers or mothers sins of the past?

No. But the truth is that THE LIGHT has come into the world

And that is both the verdict and the judgement

Christ said if I had not come, they would have no sin (John 15)

But He did and All need the RIGHT COVERING (Matthew 22) for their sins