D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
not all protestants believe in the trinity. those that do see clear evidence in scripture for the trinity. very few protestants see clear evidence in scripture for mary being born without sin. thats it.
- Status
C
ChiFaithful
Guest
Daniel those that do see clear evidence in scripture for the trinity. [/QUOTE said:
C
Contarini
Guest
Romans 3, which states that all human beings have sinned–and of course there are many other passages to that effect.Christ is said in Hebrews to be like us in all respects except sin–that would seem to imply that He is unique in His sinlessness, since this is mentioned as something that sets him apart from everyone else. I don’t deny that one could argue for exceptions to the rule, and I know that in Catholic theology Mary’s preservation from all sin is part of Christ’s saving work. If we had sufficient reasons to do so, it would be legitimate to interpret these passages so as not to conflict with the IC. So this particular reason for rejecting the IC works in conjunction with the absence of sufficiently compelling reasons for believing it.
I don’t see any meaning in that question (it’s a bit like the guy who said he had a hundred witnesses who had not seen him commit a murder). Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the ways in which the Trinity *does *conflict with the apparent sense of Scripture.
Scripture says that there is one God. That apparently conflicts with any kind of Trinitarian doctrine.
Scripture speaks of Jesus as the “firstfruits of all creation.” On the face of it, that appears to say that Jesus was the first of all creatures.
Jesus says frequently that He comes from the Father, that He obeys the Father, that the Father is greater than He is, etc. That appears to imply that Jesus relates to God as His Father and thus is not a member of some kind of Triune Godhead.
Actually, after listing these things, I think I may have been wrong in saying that the conflict is less. The relevant point really is that there is far more reason in Scripture for believing the Trinity than for believing the IC, not necessarily that there is less reason for not believing it (though obviously these things can’t be separated).
The sense that a text appears to have before I conclude on the basis of some other text (or something outside Scripture) that it cannot mean that. Of course this is going to be very different depending on who it is being “apparent” to! All I’m saying is that if I have to do a double-take as I read the Bible and say to myself “it looks as if the text says X but I have to believe that it says Y,” then that’s going to build up in my mind as evidence against Y. If I come to believe that X is less implausible than I thought, or that there are other reasons to believe Y than I had realized, then I may remember that initial, naive reaction to the text and it may seriously influence me. (This is how I came to believe in baptismal regeneration, for instance–I remember thinking that John 3:5 sounded as if it referred to baptism, but of course it couldn’t. I know that other people don’t always seem to respond to John 3:5 that way, but I did. So when Protestants come up with elaborate alternative hypotheses, it’s hard for me not to laugh.)
The IC is not even hinted at until the fifth century, in one of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings. It’s not a conceivable idea until then because you don’t have a full-fledged doctrine of original sin. You can’t believe Mary is free from original sin until you have an original sin for her to be free from.
Do I need to show you that the Trinity was accepted dogma by the time of Augustine? You surely know that.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’ll be happy to explain. You are wrong about Protestants.
There are Protestants who say tradition doesn’t matter–but they are generally also the Protestants who deny being Protestants because of course they are just “Christians” who don’t pay any attention to human tradition. (In the same way, there are Anglicans who don’t believe in sola scriptura in any sense–but they usually deny being Protestants too.)
Most Protestants fall into a spectrum from Anglicans like myself who believe that Scripture is supreme but tradition is extremely important, to Baptists who give tradition a very limited role but admit that it is useful if kept in its place. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., fall somewhere in the middle.
- Scripture speaks of Father, Son, and Spirit in terms that would be inappropriate if all three were not divine. In particular, Scripture ascribes to both Son and Spirit a saving role that would be idolatrous if ascribed to someone other than God.
- Scripture says there is one God.
- Scripture speaks of Jesus praying to the Father, etc., and of the Spirit being sent by the Father and the Son. This implies that Father, Son, and Spirit work together in some kind of relationship.
I don’t think this is the case for the IC at all. The “problem” allegedly solved by the IC is a non-problem. Jesus came into a sinful world. To assume that Jesus would somehow be polluted by being the son of a woman who was conceived with original sin assumes way too much that we simply don’t know. The ultimately victorious argument for the IC was formulated by Duns Scotus, one of the most ultra-speculative of Christian theologians and someone whom I tend to regard as mostly a pernicious influence (though his argument for God’s existence is unsurpassed).
Again, I’m not trying to refute or disprove the IC. It may be true for all I know. But I see no particular reason to believe it. If I decided the Catholic Church should be believed as a whole, I’d take this as part of the package. But I can’t imagine believing it for any other reason.
Edwin
T
Tigerhawk
Guest
The Church does not teach that Jesus would have been “polluted” if Mary were a sinner. It teaches that it is proper that Jesus would make for himself an immaculate woman for his mother, and based on Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition the church teaches that this is what he did.
There was no “problem” to solve. God could have used a unrepentent prostitute and murder to come into the world. He is The Almighty God.
A problem to solve is not a prerequisite of the Truth. However, sometimes a controversy of some sort is a prerequisite for the Church stating it.
God gave you free will. I will not try to talk you out of your rejection of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, but please try to properly understanding the teaching before you do.
Peace be with you.
For the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:15
C
Contarini
Guest
Tigerhawk,
You’re right. I expressed myself sloppily. Scotus’s argument–followed for the most part by Catholics today, I think–is that it is more fitting for the one who brought Jesus into the world to have been saved in the most perfect manner possible.
In my defense, I do hear the “clean vessel” type of argument thrown around a lot on this board.
My basic objection remains–we’re dealing with a highly speculative argument without a lot of weight behind it.
The fact that you don’t think a problem needs to exist for a dogma to be defined is one of the marks of the difference between modern (I don’t mean “contemporary” but modern as in the past few centuries) Catholicism and Anglicanism. And on this point I think Anglicans have the more traditional approach.
I agree with Fr. Louis Bouyer (a convert to Catholicism) that doctrinal definitions are the scars left on the Church’s body by the errors over which she has been victorious. Unnecessary doctrinal definitions amount to wilful self-mutilation.
The Trinity, on the other hand, was necessary, because all the alternatives failed (in a very radical way) to do justice to the basic affirmations of the Christian Faith.
I think we could have a more interesting conversation along the lines ChiFaithful is interested in if we took transubstantiation instead of the IC. I think there are good reasons for believing in the Trinity and rejecting transubstantiation, but I think the parallel works much better than in the case of the IC. Transubstantiation (at least if we think of it as defined at Trent) was defined to protect an important truth of the Christian Faith which was being questioned in a rather radical way. Many of us sacramental Protestants–rather like the ancient semi-Arians–wonder if the precise definition was really necessary or even wholly correct. But at least we can see why one would conclude that the important truth of the Real Presence needed to be defined carefully (and in all fairness, the Tridentine definition is not as “philosophical” or as technically precise as many Protestants assume; I think this is true of the earlier statement of IV Lateran as well, but I’m not as familiar with it).
Edwin
You’re right. I expressed myself sloppily. Scotus’s argument–followed for the most part by Catholics today, I think–is that it is more fitting for the one who brought Jesus into the world to have been saved in the most perfect manner possible.
In my defense, I do hear the “clean vessel” type of argument thrown around a lot on this board.
My basic objection remains–we’re dealing with a highly speculative argument without a lot of weight behind it.
The fact that you don’t think a problem needs to exist for a dogma to be defined is one of the marks of the difference between modern (I don’t mean “contemporary” but modern as in the past few centuries) Catholicism and Anglicanism. And on this point I think Anglicans have the more traditional approach.
I agree with Fr. Louis Bouyer (a convert to Catholicism) that doctrinal definitions are the scars left on the Church’s body by the errors over which she has been victorious. Unnecessary doctrinal definitions amount to wilful self-mutilation.
The Trinity, on the other hand, was necessary, because all the alternatives failed (in a very radical way) to do justice to the basic affirmations of the Christian Faith.
I think we could have a more interesting conversation along the lines ChiFaithful is interested in if we took transubstantiation instead of the IC. I think there are good reasons for believing in the Trinity and rejecting transubstantiation, but I think the parallel works much better than in the case of the IC. Transubstantiation (at least if we think of it as defined at Trent) was defined to protect an important truth of the Christian Faith which was being questioned in a rather radical way. Many of us sacramental Protestants–rather like the ancient semi-Arians–wonder if the precise definition was really necessary or even wholly correct. But at least we can see why one would conclude that the important truth of the Real Presence needed to be defined carefully (and in all fairness, the Tridentine definition is not as “philosophical” or as technically precise as many Protestants assume; I think this is true of the earlier statement of IV Lateran as well, but I’m not as familiar with it).
Edwin
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Along the same lines….
One of the things that well catechized Protestants might argue is that necessity dictates that a Trinitarian Doctrine be developed. The scriptures are clear that God is one and The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Spirit is God.
This of course led to much confusion in which many of the early Ecumenical Councils were gathered to handle such questions.
Perhaps a better question is why do you believe in the Chalcedon Compliant view of the Trinity?
The Immaculate Conception on the other hand is as people have put it on this board not necessary but fitting that it is so… Well a fitting explanation has little appeal to stringent Sola Scriptura protestants.
I have not looked at the developments of the doctrine but I would not be surprised if formation of the Immaculate Conception came about around the same time as the argument that Jesus contained biological make-up from Mary.
One of the things that well catechized Protestants might argue is that necessity dictates that a Trinitarian Doctrine be developed. The scriptures are clear that God is one and The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Spirit is God.
This of course led to much confusion in which many of the early Ecumenical Councils were gathered to handle such questions.
Perhaps a better question is why do you believe in the Chalcedon Compliant view of the Trinity?
The Immaculate Conception on the other hand is as people have put it on this board not necessary but fitting that it is so… Well a fitting explanation has little appeal to stringent Sola Scriptura protestants.
I have not looked at the developments of the doctrine but I would not be surprised if formation of the Immaculate Conception came about around the same time as the argument that Jesus contained biological make-up from Mary.
S
seabird3579
Guest
What? Have you failed to read Scott Hahn’s book, “Hail, Holy Queen - The Mother of God in the Word of God”? or, do you just not believe his numerous citations of Old and New Testatment regarding the foreshadowing of the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the Immaculate Conception?
E
Erich
Guest
I don’t think it “somehow” assumes anything… there’s a lot we already know just from Freshman Bio. For example, there are plenty of diseases, drug addictions, noxious influences, etc. that can be transmitted across the placenta to a developing fetus, or via breast milk to a newborn infant.
Couldn’t original sin work the same way?
T
Tigerhawk
Guest
While I know you do not acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church, regardless, the Church has stated infallibly that Mary the Mother of God was immaculately conceived. Therefore, it is the Truth. The basis for the dogma in scripture and tradition has been well established here and weight behind the argument is considerable.
I will not argue it with you again as you seem to be fully aware of all the points I find to be clear and convincing. You are not convinced and you are welcome to remain unconvinced.
However, I don’t think it is accurate to say the argument doesn’t have a lot of weight behind it. The Roman Catholic Church put its claim of infallibility on the line when it defined this dogma. While you may not agree that the church is infallible, you must acknowledge that the Church takes it very seriously and would not have done so if the argument was as speculative and light as you claim.
I said that a problem is not a prerequiste for the Truth. I didn’t say dotrinal definition. My point was and is that the Truth is the Truth. Whether a dogma was defined in the first century or last week they are both equally true. The age of every dogma is eternal as they are statements of the Truth which is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I also disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception along with the other Marian doctrines are unnecessary. Do you deny that there is a wide gulf between the Catholic understanding of the position and role of Mary and the understanding of most protestants? Given the Catholic Church’s veneration of the Blessed Virgin it is necessary that the Church defend her. Therefore, the Marian doctrines are far from unnecessary.
E
exoflare
Guest
This is one of my favorite topics, right here. I love it when Protestants try to argue that Mary could not have been preserved of original sin if her parents had it, yet they see no contradiction in Jesus being sinless even though they claim he was born from a “sinful” mother… Then comes all the arguments about how that doesn’t matter because children apparently get all their traits from their father and nothing from their mother, or whatever it is… I don’t know. Crazy stuff. 
B
BrianH
Guest
Nope have not read it. I have read the Bible enough to know that many people will see all manners of foreshadowing and ignore everything else around it. I know that Paul never spoke about it. I know that Jesus never taught it. I know that Peter never taught it. I know that James never taught it. I know that John did not teach it. I also know when it first started to appear in documented sources.
BH
I can fire off 50 verses which speak of false doctrine and say that foreshadows something…
I would need documented early tradition
I would need it to be in scripture and not contingent upon the various meanings of “full of grace”(of which I have read almost all the arguments for and against I suspect)
C
ChiFaithful
Guest
I can use your same argument to explain that the Trinity is not true. As such, given that you believe in the Trinity, this is not a valid argument. Please at least be consistent.
T
TonyRichards
Guest
Good Morning Everyone 
I’m protestant in the strictist sense I guess. (I’m not a Catholic) but I am also non-denominational. I believe in the Trininty (too much proof in scripture not to) But I also believe in the IC. As a matter of fact I didn’t realize that there were Christians that didn’t believe in it.
Now my faith walk has brought me to where I am via a Catholic upbringing, through personal search and informal training from the Methodist, Baptist, Episcopelian, Pentecostal and finally Revival Fellowship. So that may be why I believe undoubtedly in both.
Tony
I’m protestant in the strictist sense I guess. (I’m not a Catholic) but I am also non-denominational. I believe in the Trininty (too much proof in scripture not to) But I also believe in the IC. As a matter of fact I didn’t realize that there were Christians that didn’t believe in it.
Now my faith walk has brought me to where I am via a Catholic upbringing, through personal search and informal training from the Methodist, Baptist, Episcopelian, Pentecostal and finally Revival Fellowship. So that may be why I believe undoubtedly in both.
Tony
B
BrianH
Guest
No you cannot. The NT is full of references of the relationship of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. How can you deny that? Surely you are not.
You do not understand my position at all. “Trinity” is a word. It summarizes and attempts to define a relationship that appears througout scripture. I believe what the Bible teaches about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I do not care what you call it. That is irrelevant to me. Trinity. Triunity. It is just a word. The importantance is in what it describes.
The Immaculate Conception is based upon one verse and conjecture about verses that possibly foreshadow an event.
Let me be as clear as possible. I do believe that parts of the Hebrew Bible predict or foreshadow future events. I do not go back and try to proof text parts of the Hebrew Bible to support a later developing Christian tradition.
My view is not inconsistent at all. If scripture or early tradition supported the Immaculate Conception, I would have no difficulty at all accepting it. It is no big deal for me at all…EXCEPT…I am not about to incorporate a belief that is not found in scripture or that can be traced back to 33 CE to 70 CE ish…
Paul defends tradition(teachings from earlier times). He does not support a belief in something pops up 120 years after the fact.
BH
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
What puzzles me about IC is the infinite regress it implies. If it was somehow necessary or fitting that Christ be born of a sinless vessel, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that a being as naturally wonderful and sinless as Mary ought, herself, to have been born of a sinless vessel? If Christ’s perfection implied Mary’s sinlessness, then wouldn’t it be unfitting that the sinless Mary be born of a sinful mother & father? I can’t recall the names that tradition ascribes to Mary’s parents, but shouldn’t they have been perfect vessels to Mary to take? And her four grandparents? And her eight grandparents? And … well, you follow me.
I never thought that denying the IC was in any way disrespectful of the Virgin. If the absolute worst thing one could say about Mary is that she was touched by original sin … well, that still puts her far ahead of anybody else who ever lived, saving her Son.
I never thought that denying the IC was in any way disrespectful of the Virgin. If the absolute worst thing one could say about Mary is that she was touched by original sin … well, that still puts her far ahead of anybody else who ever lived, saving her Son.
C
ChiFaithful
Guest
Just to clarify: Yes, “Trinity” is a word. It is also a concept that people came to understand through the Bible and Tradition. “Immaculate Conception” is two words. It is also a concept that people came to understand through the Bible and Tradition.
As noted above, you may read “Hail, Holy Queen” or many of the several topics on this board to support many of the claims about the IC that you dismiss, mainly those about the Immaculate Conception not being in Scripture. However, if you choose to dismiss them as not up to your standards for whatever reason, so be it.
M
MariaG
Guest
All, especially Brian,I believe the real question, is not why the IC is rejected, but why the Trinity is accepted when it only has the same “proof” as the Immaculate Conception, implicit scripture and Sacred Tradition?
For the OP as well as many others, the Immaculate Conception is so clearly scriptural, in the same way the Trinity is scriptural, it is hard to understand that others can not see it so clearly also.
It is also hard for many non-Catholic Christians to understand that for Catholic Christians, to tear down Mary and her Immaculate Conception is tearing down Christ and His divinity, because Mary’s IC was not because Mary was special, **but neccessary because of the absolute Holiness of God. To say Mary did not need the Immaculate Conception seems to the Catholic Christian to reduce the Holiness of Christ, to try to make Him less than divine. **
The OP and others (I included) see that the IC is so completely scriptural, as the trinity is, yet both are not clearly spelled out with those words. For Protestants to claim that the Trinity is **clearly **scriptural is to ignore the Jehovah Witness’ and Oneness Pentecostals as well as Mormon who have a completely different definition of the Trinity.
The Trinity is a Sacred Tradition that is implicit in Scripture. It is only once the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to a person that the scripture is “so clear”.
The Immaculate Conception is also a Sacred Tradition that is implicit in Scripture.
The OP just does not understand why one Sacred Tradition is embraced yet the other discarded, yet both only have implicit Scritpture and Sacred Tradition.
For one to say that the Trinity is clearly reflected in scripture is to ignore current splits (last few hundred years) as well as the more historical ones that led to the neccessity of defining the Triune Nature of God.
God Bless,
Maria
P. S.
I can’t make myself delete these things, even though I do not believe they are on target for the OP original question. I guess I just need to post them for those who may not have actually read all the scripture about the Immaculate Conception.
This is from CA Library.
Immaculate Conception and Assumption
**
is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
For you or others who may not have read the Scripture on this subject.
This is from Scripture Catholic.
Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
All can be viewed there, but here is a sample of a few of the many.
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
**
B
BrianH
Guest
Le Cracquere:
I have wanted to bring this point out but have not been able to make it as succinct as you do.
BH
Exactly
I have wanted to bring this point out but have not been able to make it as succinct as you do.
BH
M
MariaG
Guest
Le Cracquere:
And the implication for Catholic Christians is not that it is disrespectful of Mary to deny the Immacculate Conception, but it belittles the Holiness of Christ to deny it. Not saying that is what You mean, but that is the implication to Catholic Christians. Which is one of the reasons we so vemenantely defend the IC. We defend the divinity of Christ in our thinking, just as defending the trinity is defending the divinity of Christ. It all comes back to Christ, not Mary.
God Bless,
Maria
No, because Mary was not a divine and Holy God who humbled Himself and became man.
And the implication for Catholic Christians is not that it is disrespectful of Mary to deny the Immacculate Conception, but it belittles the Holiness of Christ to deny it. Not saying that is what You mean, but that is the implication to Catholic Christians. Which is one of the reasons we so vemenantely defend the IC. We defend the divinity of Christ in our thinking, just as defending the trinity is defending the divinity of Christ. It all comes back to Christ, not Mary.
God Bless,
Maria
- Status