Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1) The topic and title of the debate.
The Immaculate conception of Mary!
2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.
Affirmative: Athanasias
Opposition: ahiggs
3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.
3
4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.
Affirmative
6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.
1 Week (7 Days)
7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.
5,000 word Maximum
8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.
Of course..
9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.
ASAP
IMHO, the "debate" has been lost with the opening post....
The apologist for this dogma has freely admitted that he has nothing to support this teaching which is promoted as dogma of the greatest certainty and importance. Nothing.
The entire argument seem to pin on "types." But types REQUIRE a fulfillment - something in the NT that states it is a type - otherwise, anyone can just say "this is referring to fuzzy creatures living on the Moon of Endor" and there would be nothing to support that, nothing to reject that, creating an entirely meaningless hermeneutic that has no basis whatsoever in the text. What is being suggested is pure eisegesis. A view assumed to be true, then pumping that view INTO texts that teach no such thing because "it's implied by a type." Frankly, ANYTHING can be "supported" in this way. ANYTHING.
I sure hope SOMETHING is present to defend and support this dogma. Otherwise, we're left with a pretty boring "debate" with one side's entire argument being, "it's IMPLIED by a type." IMHO, that's entirely worthless. I spent a year in very intense discussions with a Mormon teacher and apologist (and his friends) and frankly, that opening argument makes Mormonism look downright logical, intellectual and biblical by comparison.
Let's hope for better things to come.....
.
Athanasias said... the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit.
That you dismiss typology is your issue.
[/color]
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be said to be "implied by invisible words not present." That has no relation whatsoever to the text supporting the teaching. That has no relation to the words OF THE TEXT supporting the teaching. It rather means that the text admittedly does not support it.
I'm not involved in this debate, but my advise to our friend would be to not point to what he just admitted doesn't support his view. He would be better advised to go to the source of this view: Tradition. That, of course, opens a whole other issue, but at least he can point to declarations and opinions. He CAN support that the view was embraced some centuries after the death of Mary and the Apostles (of course, so was Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. so that, too, would lead to another debate). The "It's our tradition!" argument is one he can support and win. He's already surrendered any other defense, IMHO.
[/color]
I don't necessarily dismiss it, but obviously the case is very, very weak unless the fulfillment of it is also noted in Scripture. Otherwise, ANYONE can say "Noah was a type of the Bishop of Rome and the Ark of Catholic Denomination" and while that's a nice OPINION, it actually has nothing to do with the text - the text doesn't say that or remotely, wildly even suggest that, it's a view imputed TO the text. Now, if the NT says that Noah is a type for the Pope - that's an entirely different situation. I could argue that Moses is a type for Senator Obama and supports a dogma that he will lead us out of slavery and into the Promised Land - but of course, the biblical text says so such thing and in no way supports that view. It is a view IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text - and thus is in no sense supportive of the view.
I'm hoping for better things to come in that debate....
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
.
I don't necessarily dismiss it
Another common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". The context of St. Paul's writings explains how this message does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word "all", was not describing every single person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions.
I generally agree with what California Josiah is saying. I have a couple of more specific iossues:
There is NOTHING in the text to suggest that this is the case. The original Greek is as follows:
παντες adjective - nominative plural masculine
pas pas: apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole
I don't see any exceptions in there. And the mentally handicapped/infants most certainly ARE sinful. Hence the Psalmist writes that we are sinful from birth. And Christ is no exception, he is God, human yes, but God also, thus WHY he is sinless. Mary cannot be sinless unless she is God..
[/color]
I don't necessarily dismiss it, but obviously the case is very, very weak unless the fulfillment of it is also noted in Scripture.
I'm hoping for better things to come in that debate....
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
.
I think you are just looking for a phrase in the bible that says "Mary is the ark" or "Mary is the New Eve" or "Mary is sinless". That works well for doctrines of the Christian faith that are explicit in scripture. The problem here is that when a doctrine is implicit in scripture a direct phrase is not there but a clear biblical logical connection is.
These types of Mary are strongly "suggested" implicitly in scripture and the early Christians taught by the apostles and their successors would agree.
Peace be with you always!
Then, IMHO, you REALLY have your "work" cut out for you - if that, indeed, is the path you intend to take in this debate...
You are agreeing that Scripture doesn't support this "type" you have created, and that it's only "implicit" ........ Difficult to do, since for it to be a "clear biblical logic" it needs to be biblical - and you admitted in post #1 that it's not biblical. IMHO, you "gave away" your point right off the top.
Oh, one more little thing (IF I may). Don't take any of this personally. Actually, I'm glad YOU are the one taking the "it's dogma" side. This really has nothing to do with love, reverence, devotion, esteem or adoration for Our Blessed Lady, it has to do with a particular teaching. You are in a debate about dogma, not devotion or faith. I'm not so familiar with the "it's not dogma" presenter, but I hope you'll not take anything he might post as an attack on your, Our Lady or your spirituality (all of which I deeply respect).
... and also with you!
I'll "watch" the debate with some interest. I don't have any particular opinion about this issue. As a Lutheran, many in my "camp" embrace this as pious opinion (including Luther and my own pastor), some don't. I honestly can't say that I have a view, one way or the other.
Good luck!
Pax
- Josiah
.
1. Anything can be "suggested" by words that don't exist. You've already admitted the teaching isn't found in Scripture and that any "CLEAR BIBLICAL logic" is impossible because it's not found in the Bible.
2. It will be interesting for me to see the earliest CLEAR witnesses you'll have to the Immaculate Conception (well, obviously, they wont' be witnesses, LOL). This is a dogma not embraced by the OO or EO, it's unique to the singular Catholic Church, and I don't think it was dogma until quite recently (I seem to forget the date off the top of my head just now). Anyway, I'm sure you'll post a goodly number of "early Christians taught by the Apostles" which, of course, now requires you to note which Apostle taught each of the ones you quote. Now, friend, when you quote from these several, my advise is to do as you say: Reveal that he was taught by the Apostles (share which Apostle) and give the historical reference, share the quote with the full reference (because you opponent is going to look it up), and be SURE to quote only those statements which CLEARLY are teaching that Mary was CONCEIVED without any sin (please don't bother with quotes that aren't about Mary or her Conception). Frankly, I didn't know that there were several ECF taught by the Apostles who taught the Immaculate Conception - so I'm very interested in this point you've here revealed is "up your sleave!!!!" In fact, I thought there were only 2 or 3 ECF associated directly with the Apostles at all!! I'm very curious to see your list, the evidence that they were directly taught by the Apostles (and which one of the Apostles) and their clear affirmation about Mary's conception. I've been down this road a few times with the Marian dogmas and, to be honest, don't remember - some do have some pretty early and clear affirmations, some are shockingly late, I don't remember which go with which dogma and frankly, I don't remember ANY of those ECF being directly taught by any Apostles. I'm very much looking forward to this part of your presentation! IMHO, the whole enchilada probably hangs on these quotes, so make 'em good! Again, stress which Apostle taught them and be sure the quotes are expressly about her conception.
I'll "watch" the debate with some interest. I don't have any particular opinion about this issue. As a Lutheran, many in my "camp" embrace this as pious opinion (including Luther and my own pastor), some don't. I honestly can't say that I have a view, one way or the other.
Good luck!
Pax
- Josiah
.
I hope this debate at least helps you see why Luther saw this as a doctrine that did not contradict scripture.
FYI...Eastern Orthodoxy does not officially or dogmatically regard the Immaculate Conception as a heresy or even an error.
[/font]
I never stated that it does.
What I stated it that it does not regard it as dogma. I could say even more, it doesn't in any sense officially embrace it at all. In fact, most of the Orthodox with whom I've conversed disagree with it - not because they disagree with the "sinless" status of Our Lady but the foundational "original sin" concept in which this dogma is framed.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is taught by only one denomination - the Catholic Church.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
Yes, CJ it was an FYI that it is not condemned either as heresy or even an error.
As I understand it from Orthodox friends, NOR is it regarded as dogma. In fact, my Orthodox friends have all rejected it as false - largely because of a disagreement about "original sin" on which this dogma is based (note it's emphasis on conception).
Yes, you have stated this already. Is there anything new?
The debate is obviously about it's dogmatic status. Our Catholic friend is required to prove it (all of it) is dogmatically correct. Our Protestant friend obviously has the easier task - he need only show that that "bar" as not been attained. I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.
What Protestants today, including 99.99% of Lutherans would say (even pious opinion) that the Blessed Mother is without sin? Please substantiate this with sources.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
What Protestants today, including 99.99% of Lutherans would say (even pious opinion) that the Blessed Mother is without sin?Josiah said:As I understand it from Orthodox friends, NOR is it regarded as dogma. In fact, my Orthodox friends have all rejected it as false - largely because of a disagreement about "original sin" on which this dogma is based (note it's emphasis on conception).
The debate is obviously about it's dogmatic status. Our Catholic friend is required to prove it (all of it) is dogmatically correct. Our Protestant friend obviously has the easier task - he need only show that that "bar" as not been attained. I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.
The issue of the debate is not what Luther or Lutherans might or might not embrace - as a mere possibility, as pious opinion, as doctrine or as dogma.
The issue is whether Mary was conceived "immaculately" and this can be documented as dogma - the highest level of certainty and importance. There is no other issue, that's it. IMHO, the Protestant has the "easier" task - he merely needs to show that that extremely high "bar" as not been attained, it has not been shown to the level of dogma that Mary was CONCEIVED "immaculately." Perhaps you think that the Protestant has the more difficult challenge.
Of course, the EO does not have any Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
Josiah said:I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.
Are you saying that there are some Lutherans which hold to Mary being without sin?? If so can you substantiate this with a source?
And of course the EO do not have any dogma about the Immaculate Conception. And again, its not heresy (officially) to them either. So whats the point?
I don't think that I said that 99.99% are (as you noted). I do know that SOME are, my pastor is one. I think Luther was another. I have no stats, certainly not down to the thousandth of one percent. I have no opinion, one way or the other - so I don't count (LOL).
CJ said:But, again, the debate is not about who believes what. It's about the dogmatic fact of Mary being conceived immaculately (and obviously this is unique).
Josiah said:I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.
If it's not dogma in the EO, then the EO stands with the Protestant position that it is not dogma.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?