No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

his plan delayed.

No. Failed. As in, the feedback loop is broken and existence itself collapses.

Either way… That’s where your argument breaks, because that wouldn’t have been a possibility.

 

[MarysLurker]

that wouldn’t have been a possibility.

Mary was free to say no, as you yourself said, so yes, it is a possibility. Obviously, it’s one that God sees and avoids by planning around it. As stated in the Catechism, that planning includes bearing Mary up by grace so that She can be free to say yes. But free from what? The power of the devil, to wit the influence of concupisence.

I think the issue here is that you might be misdefining freedom. We are still free even though we have concupisence, but we are less free than Adam and Eve were.. As stated in CCC 490,, Mary had to be wholly free by grace.

 

[tafan2]

But my argument is precisely that the bearing by grace is part of the design.

Yes, I would agree with that. As was Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It was certainly all part of the design. We know that. But what what you are presuming is two things:

1. it was a necessary part of the design. On this point you very well may be right, indeed it seems most likely. But, God could have made Mary sinless from conception just so that Jesus would have a pure vessel, it was required for God’s dignity. She still could have said yes without it. And God would have known this was her answer from all eternity.
2. Her immaculate conception ensured God’s plan would work, ie it made it impossible for her to say no. Now, I realize you have said explicitly she still had free will, but you have also said that this is what gave Him a 100% probability of success, which certainly implies a lack of free will.

Granted all of that, it is still not clear to me how if this was lacking, God could not still be immutable. For example, why could God not have chosen a plan which success was all up to Mary, ie she says no and we are simply not saved? Then He would still be immutable.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

that wouldn’t have been a possibility.

Mary was free to say no, as you yourself said, so yes, it is a possibility. Obviously, it’s one that God sees and avoids by planning around it. As stated in the Catechism, that planning includes bearing Mary up by grace so that She can be free to say yes. But free from what? The power of the devil, to wit the influence of concupisence.

I think the issue here is that you might be misdefining freedom. We are still free even though we have concupisence, but we are less free than Adam and Eve were.. As stated in CCC 490,, Mary had to be wholly free by grace.

No, you’re misunderstanding the mystery of predestination, in which Mary had the free ability to say no but God has absolute immutable knowledge from all eternity that she’ll say yes. As he has absolute, immutable knowledge of all our choices. No situation evolves in an unexpected manner for God. God has accounted for all things from all eternity.

 

[MarysLurker]

why could God not have chosen a plan which success was all up to Mary, ie she says no and we are simply not saved?

Yes, He could have done things differently, but He didn’t; as others have said, it is fitting but not necessary that the Redemption be conditioned on the Incarnation, but given that it is, then Mary’s consent is necessary.

 

[MarysLurker]

No, you’re misunderstanding the mystery of predestination, in which Mary had the free ability to say no but God has absolute immutable knowledge from all eternity that she’ll say yes. As he has absolute, immutable knowledge of all our choices. No situation evolves in an unexpected manner for God. God has accounted for all things from all eternity.

The issue is not that God didn’t see it coming. The issue is, having decided to make the Redemption dependent on the Incarnation (which He didn’t have to do, but did), how did He insure Mary’s freedom? If the answer is “God predestined Her, end of story,” that’s a denial of free will.

 

[tafan2]

Agreed her consent is necessary. I hope I haven’t implied otherwise. But why is her Immaculate Conception necessary for her consent? And why did her Immaculate Conception make it 100% sure for God it would all work? Those are the assumptions you are making.

The former question, I tent do answer that it was necessary, but I do not know it for sure. The latter question I would say it begs the further question: did Mary had free will.

 

[Gorgias]

Just nitpicking here, while I consider the rest of your post. Not “technically conceived”, why does the Apostles Creed say “conceived by the Holy Spirit”. I think conception occurred, and that was when Jesus became incarnate.

I’m with you here, @tafan2! Scripture says that Gabriel tells Mary, “you will conceive in your womb”. It’s pretty specific.

Now, was that conception like any other in the history of the world? Of course not. It was still a ‘conception’, though.

Conception means beginning and Christ, as God, had no beginning.

But as man, He certainly had a beginning! Jesus Christ did not exist in 10BC or 100BC or 1000BC. He did exist as the Logos, the Second Person of God.

But, to say that he wasn’t conceived because he could not have a beginning … well, that sounds like some of the arguments against the doctrine of the “Theotokos” that failed to take root, 17 centuries ago!

Eve was conceived in the same state

Actually… no. Eve was created with preternatural gifts; Mary was not conceived with them. Mary’s redemption came by virtue of and at the moment of her Immaculate Conception; Eve’s salvation would come by virtue of the same thing that saves us: Christ’s sacrifice in atonement for our sins.

But the issue is how He could insure an absolute 100% success rate while maintaining free will.

God’s perfect foreknowledge does not force actions to occur; it merely knows them.

We, as humans, have a hard time with this, because even though we have the ability to predict, we still don’t have perfect foreknowledge. Even if I knew you loved chocolate chip cookies above all others, I can’t be certain that you won’t pick an Oreo one day.

God doesn’t have to “insure 100% success”. He already knows – with 100% certainty – what we’ll choose in the exercise of our free will.

Sure, but that begs the question of how He would prevent the devil from interfering.

He foreknew that the devil wouldn’t.

Given free will, that would require that Mary be graced to give a truly free consent.

It didn’t require the Immaculate Conception, though, per se. Yes, she would have to be in a state of grace, and the way God chose to do that was fitting: immaculate conception.

Then why did She have to be borne by grace in order to say yes?

She had to be “borne by grace”, not “immaculately conceived.” You seem to be conflating these two.

But my argument is precisely that the bearing by grace is part of the design.

Right. But it was fitting, not necessary.

it is fitting but not necessary that the Redemption be conditioned on the Incarnation

No… the “fitting but not necessary” notion doesn’t refer to the Incarnation; it refers to the Immaculate Conception.

 

[MarysLurker]

But why is her Immaculate Conception necessary for her consent? And why did her Immaculate Conception make it 100% sure for God it would all work? Those are the assumptions you are making.

CCC 490 doesn’t give the reason why, but I think it’s pretty clear the issue was the risk presented by concupisence, which a few paragraphs up is stated to basically be part of the power the devil gained from original sin.

 

[MarysLurker]

No… the “fitting but not necessary” notion doesn’t refer to the Incarnation; it refers to the Immaculate Conception

It’s both. God did not have to shed His blood to forgive us, He chose to do it that way.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, you’re misunderstanding the mystery of predestination, in which Mary had the free ability to say no but God has absolute immutable knowledge from all eternity that she’ll say yes. As he has absolute, immutable knowledge of all our choices. No situation evolves in an unexpected manner for God. God has accounted for all things from all eternity.

The issue is not that God didn’t see it coming. The issue is, having decided to make the Redemption dependent on the Incarnation (which He didn’t have to do, but did), how did He insure Mary’s freedom? If the answer is “God predestined Her, end of story,” that’s a denial of free will.

He insured her freedom by giving her the agency to choose, like he does all of us.

And he knows from all eternity what she would choose and accounts for it in his plan and creation.

Predestination does not contradict free will.

 

[tafan2]

I will say again, this terminology of “risk” and 100% surety, sounds very off to me. I will go review the catechism passage you stated, but need to get back to work for a while.

 

[MarysLurker]

I will say again, this terminology of “risk” and 100% surety, sounds very off to me. I will go review the catechism passage you stated, but need to get back to work for a while.

He insured her freedom by giving her the agency to choose, like he does all of us.

But under concupisence we are not totally free. It is always possible to avoid sin with God’s grace. But Mary’s Fiat presents a special case because She only gets that grace (and so do we) if She says yes.

Are you sure that you all understand that all grace is given only by the merits of Christ… and that given the conditions God has set, that grace is only there if Christ does become incarnate so as to die so as to redeem all of us, Mary included?

 

[Wesrock]

tafan2:

I will say again, this terminology of “risk” and 100% surety, sounds very off to me. I will go review the catechism passage you stated, but need to get back to work for a while.

He insured her freedom by giving her the agency to choose, like he does all of us.

But under concupisence we are not totally free. It is always possible to avoid sin with God’s grace. But Mary’s Fiat presents a special case because She only gets that grace (and so do we) if She says yes.

Are you sure that you all understand that all grace is given only by the merits of Christ… and that given the conditions God has set, that grace is only there if Christ does become incarnate so as to die so as to redeem all of us, Mary included?

Yes, every good work we do is made possible by God’s grace, which enables our free will to say yes.

However, that’s not “no immaculate conception, no immutable God.”

 

[Gorgias]

It’s both. God did not have to shed His blood to forgive us, He chose to do it that way.

Not really. That’s a common-enough thought (“Jesus could have done whatever he wanted, but he chose crucifixion”), but it doesn’t really express what the Church teaches. Jesus chose to redeem us. He accepted death on a cross.

 

[MarysLurker]

However, that’s not “no immaculate conception, no immutable God.”

Again, given God’s decision to make salvation contingent on the Incarnation, yes it is. It’s actually Mary says no + God can’t change = we all cease to exist.

 

[MarysLurker]

Not really. That’s a common-enough thought (“Jesus could have done whatever he wanted, but he chose crucifixion”), but it doesn’t really express what the Church teaches. Jesus chose to redeem us. He accepted death on a cross.

Not quite. He DID have to redeem us somehow. He chose to do it by becoming man and dying for us, so He must become man to accomplish the redemption, which only happens if Mary says yes.

 

[tafan2]

Are you sure that you all understand that all grace is given only by the merits of Christ… and that given the conditions God has set, that grace is only there if Christ does become incarnate so as to die so as to redeem all of us, Mary inclu.ded?

Yes, I am sure. I would guess Wesrock is also.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

However, that’s not “no immaculate conception, no immutable God.”

Again, given God’s decision to make salvation contingent on the Incarnation, yes it is. It’s actually Mary says no + God can’t change = we all cease to exist.

(1) Even with the IC Mary could say “no.”
(2) As stated, God knew what she would choose from all eternity even while she had the intrinsic capacity to say “no.”

There was no risk for God with or without the IC. This argument that it could fail misunderstands Catholic teaching on free will and predestination.

 

[Wesrock]

The idea that there could have been such uncertainty or risk is contrary to Catholic theology.

If it was necessary, it wasn’t because something would have been uncertain or risky otherwise.