Poster "stunned" by Mary's Immaculate Conception

[Orionthehunter]

You didn’t answer any of my questions. You just announced I don’t understand. Why is it that when I strongly disagree with anything Catholic someone has to annouce it’s that I don’t understand. It’s highly annoying. Perhaps I DO understand and think you are drastically wrong? Could that be possible?

What is forgiveness then? Why couldn’t Mary have carried Jesus if she has sinned once and been forgiven of it already? Why is God capable of making her sinless but not capable of making her able to carry the Son of God when she had sinned and been forgiven? Why did Jesus have to come to earth to die for us? If people could live sinless lives, why was Jesus’ arrival and death even necessary? Why not just have one of the sinless people be sacrificed? Why not just let the sinless people go to Heaven and skip killing the Son of God?

Or is it that you don’t know the answers so you intend to simply attack me rather than my comments? This thread is on why Protestants are “stunned” about this. I told you what most protestants would think… including myself. If you want us all to stop being “stunned” try answering questions instead of attacking people. The magisterium is not the topic of this thread.

What I bolded, I agree. It was you who introduced an attack on Catholic teaching about forgiveness, purgatory and a host of other issues. If you were sincere in your being stunned, you’d have have made your case without saying (and all opening issues that deserve their own thread):

• this Doctrine just highlights the fact that Catholics DON"T believe that our sins are completely forgiven. (misrepresenting our belief)
• God CAN’T or WON’T (accusing us directly that God is either not all-powerful or that He is not honest since that is what He promised).
• He forgives you say, but not completely. (misrepresenting what we believe)
• In my beliefs God FORGIVES and forgives completely. (again inferring that we believe something different)
• He’s a loving God that way. (inferring that we don’t think God is loving)
• This is why Jesus Died for us. (inferring that we don’t believe Jesus died for us)

The difference between your post and that of most of the others is they admit they don’t see the same things in Scripture that I do. Sincere Christians with a difference of opinion. As this thread isn’t about authority and magisterium, I don’t want to get into that discussion. But, they didn’t make their case by asserting that Catholics have a concept of God that makes Him less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful.

 

[Della]

No doubt it is odd from the Catholic perspective. If I may take a chance here, assume for a moment that you are a devout Protestant for all of your life. You take your faith seriously. You believe as an article of faith that mankind is corrupted by the Fall. You believe as an article of faith that “all have sinned”. You believe that Christ, our redeemer, is the only human being who has never sinned. You believe that Christ is fully man, yet fully human, and is the perfect human being, the new Adam.

Now, you find out that the largest body of Christians on the world believe something different…that Mary also never sinned. This is a paradigm shift, a totally new and totally foreign concept to your entire faith existence. Yes, I think that you would be stunned. As Protestants, if we are to understand Catholics, we need to put ourselves in your shoes and try to think and experience our faith as you do. If you are to understand Protestants, you need to do the same thing I think.

I was that person you describe most of my life. I think you forget that most Catholics on this board are former Protestants, so we understand your position very well, indeed.

You wrote in an earlier post that when you learned of the Catholic teaching about Mary’s sinlessness that you felt “deceived.” I put it to you, how could you have been deceived when it has been Catholic teaching for centuries? Your Catholic friends didn’t bring it up, I assume, but then why would they? It’s not the first thing a Catholic might share with a Protestant, especially in an ecumenical setting.

Another point I think you need to consider is that most of the world’s Christians have believed in Mary’s sinlessness for centuries. Even the reformers did. It wasn’t until more modern times that this teaching was even seriously challenged. It is the Evangelical Protestant position that has been/is historically and proportionally the minority one, not the Catholic/Orthodox.

 

[Syele]

What I bolded, I agree. It was you who introduced an attack on Catholic teaching about forgiveness, purgatory and a host of other issues. If you were sincere in your being stunned, you’d have have made your case without saying:

• this Doctrine just highlights the fact that Catholics DON"T believe that our sins are completely forgiven.
• God CAN’T or WON’T (accusing us directly that God is either not all-powerful or that He is not honest since that is what He promised).
• He forgives you say, but not completely.
• In my beliefs God FORGIVES and forgives completely. (again inferring that we believe something different)
• He’s a loving God that way. (inferring that we don’t think God is loving)
• This is why Jesus Died for us. (inferring that we don’t believe Jesus died for us)

The difference between your post and that of most of the others is they admit they don’t see the same things in Scripture that I do. Sincere Christians with a difference of opinion. As this thread isn’t about authority and magisterium, I don’t want to get into that discussion. But, they didn’t make their case by asserting that Catholics have a concept of God that makes Him less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful.

The very reason I was stunned was that the idea said to me, “God is less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful.” I attempted to state why I saw that AND I asked sincere questions that MUST be answered if I am to change my opinion. I did not attack you personally as you did me. I’m sorry you do not like the way this doctrine sounds to me. How can my opinion be changed if you refuse to answer my questions? The difference between my post and others is that others were less “point-blank” and therefore kinder in their approach, but I honestly can’t be calm while people go around saying God is less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful. My questions WERE sincere your attacks were personal and not related…

You seem to think that each doctrine is totally seperate. They are not, they are interwoven. If you refuse to accept that sinlessness of humans can be related to God’s forgiveness and that God’s complete forgiveness includes other issues then you are wrong. Each doctrine about God affects the others. If you want to include authority and the magisterium in your discussion of Mary being sinless, I am fine with that… but useing it as a personal attack on myself is not appriciated.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The very reason I was stunned was that the idea said to me, “God is less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful.” I attempted to state why I saw that AND I asked sincere questions that MUST be answered if I am to change my opinion. I did not attack you personally as you did me. I’m sorry you do not like the way this doctrine sounds to me. How can my opinion be changed if you refuse to answer my questions? The difference between my post and others is that others were less “point-blank” and therefore kinder in their approach, but I honestly can’t be calm while people go around saying God is less than all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful. My questions WERE sincere your attacks were personal and not related…

You seem to think that each doctrine is totally seperate. They are not, they are interwoven. If you refuse to accept that sinlessness of humans can be related to God’s forgiveness and that God’s complete forgiveness includes other issues then you are wrong. Each doctrine about God affects the others. If you want to include authority and the magisterium in your discussion of Mary being sinless, I am fine with that… but useing it as a personal attack on myself is not appriciated.

Syele, you may not have attacked me personally but you misrepresented what the Church teaches regarding forgiveness and purgatory. And we have previously had these very discussions with you explaining our beliefs. And if you think I will calmly accept you consciously misrepresenting Catholic theology to serve your purposes, you are wrong. I’m able to debate where you disagree with my theology but not when someone appears to intentionally misrepresent what my theology is. The appearance that it is intentional as I’ve witnessed where these issues have been very well explained to you but you hold on to your inaccurate view.

Furthermore, if you understood (I’m not asking you to accept it)Catholic Marian theology, you would know that we hold Mary out as a unique creation of the all-powerful God and we base this on the interpretation of Scripture by the Christ-commissioned magisterium. The rules that apply to the rest of creatures don’t apply equally to Mary. While she had free will and could have rejected God and sinned, we believe God gave her the graces that assisted her in rejecting sin.

And if one believes her an unique creature, her sinlessness is irrelevant to all the things you mention. When you try to incorporate these other beliefs (forgiveness and purgatory) to Mary, you inherently have changed Marian Theology to something that the Church doesn’t teach about Mary.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

God can do anything He chooses, but He always chooses to do things in a fitting way. And it was only fitting that Jesus derive His humanity from a perfect human mother, just as He derived His divinity from a perfect divine Father. The miraculous method you propose would have been possible, but it would not have been fitting. It would have cast grave doubts about the competeness of the Incarnation.

I know this won’t convince you, but I am writing for other readers as much as for you.

Hi,
I dont know about that. I have absolutely no doubts about Mary being able to carry Jesus Christ and still sin. Actually I find it comforting that God would use a sinner to give to us such an awesome Gift–Jesus Christ. It makes me feel more connected to Mary. Knowing she was a sinner like me and that I may also be able to attain favor in God’s eyes. Not like Mary did of course–to that degree. Just like God used David for great things. David was an adulterous murderer and look what God said about him. David was a man after God’s own heart. That gives me assurance about me and my salvation.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Hi,
I dont know about that. I have absolutely no doubts about Mary being able to carry Jesus Christ and still sin. Actually I find it comforting that God would use a sinner to give to us such an awesome Gift–Jesus Christ. It makes me feel more connected to Mary. Knowing she was a sinner like me and that I may also be able to attain favor in God’s eyes. Not like Mary did of course–to that degree. Just like God used David for great things. David was an adulterous murderer and look what God said about him. David was a man after God’s own heart. That gives me assurance about me and my salvation.

I agree with you! I’ll admit that I’m a Catholic with doubts when it comes to Mary and her sinlessness.

 

[rr1213]

You wrote in an earlier post that when you learned of the Catholic teaching about Mary’s sinlessness that you felt “deceived.” I put it to you, how could you have been deceived when it has been Catholic teaching for centuries? Your Catholic friends didn’t bring it up, I assume, but then why would they? It’s not the first thing a Catholic might share with a Protestant, especially in an ecumenical setting.

Another point I think you need to consider is that most of the world’s Christians have believed in Mary’s sinlessness for centuries. Even the reformers did. It wasn’t until more modern times that this teaching was even seriously challenged. It is the Evangelical Protestant position that has been/is historically and proportionally the minority one, not the Catholic/Orthodox.

I don’t recall using the word “deceived”. That would imply that I thought someone was lying to me and I don’t believe that is the case. Your point about most Christians believing in Mary’s sinless nature is a good one, but not determinative. Even some of the ECF were not of this belief (see cite below) although, again, whether they were or were not would not be determinative either.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’ve sort of wondered that myself.

Except that Catholicism states I must believe this is true and have no reason to believe this other than “we say so”.

From the Bible it seems to me you really have to stretch Luke 1:28 to get this.

And every writing from the early church fathers that (at least the earliest that I have read) could also just as easily support a position that is much more Biblically tolerable…that Mary was a woman of exceptional virtue, character and purity. I could even tolerate the notion that the achieved the (Wesleyan) state of entire sanctification in her lifetime. This does not mean that she did not sin once in thought, word, or deed in her entire lifetime…or that she was conceived without original sin.

I have always been curious how Catholicism arrived at this dogma considering the scanty Biblical and patristic support it really has.

We should really look at the two versions of the same verse.

Douay Rheims: And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

King James Version: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

There appeared to be some extra wording in the KJV so I grabbed the Greek:

ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΜΕΤΑ ΣΟΥ

The Orignal Greek has a longer word then the Greek Erasmus used.

Orginal Greek : κεχαριτωμένη

Erasmus Greek : χαριτόω

So found this to be perplexing so I went to E-sword:

Luk 1:28 And2532 the3588 angel32 came in1525 unto4314 her,846 and said,2036 Hail,5463 thou that art highly favored,5487 the3588 Lord2962 is with3326 thee:4675 blessed2127* art *thou4771 among1722 women.1135

E-sword shows there are added words as is shown by the Italics and red.

So what is up with this word in Green? Let’s found out.

E-sword has G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

Seems like KJV used the last definition and added some extra wording of “thou that art”.

GreekBible.com has χαριτόω,v {khar-ee-to’-o}

1. to make graceful 1a) charming, lovely, agreeable 2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour 3) to honour with blessings

But there was the issue of the Orginal Greek vs the Erasmus Greek.

Orginal Greek : κεχαριτωμένη = ?

Erasmus Greek : χαριτόω = charitoō

I can’t finish this, I have to go home.

 

[Syele]

My goal was not to “misrepresent the Catholc Church.” It was to explain why this idea is stunning and ask questions to straighten it out. You only read it that way. I do not see myself as "representing the Catholic Church " at all. I’m neither Catholic nor do I teach others about Catholics. I’m on this forum to learn about Catholics as well as explain Protestantism.

• this Doctrine just highlights the fact that Catholics DON"T believe that our sins are completely forgiven. (misrepresenting our belief)

It is the result of a comparison of what I believe with the doctrine that Mary was sinless.

• God CAN’T or WON’T (accusing us directly that God is either not all-powerful or that He is not honest since that is what He promised).

If Mary could not have carried Jesus in her womb unless she was sinless then God either can’t or won’t forgive her completely enough to make it possible. If you;d have answered the questions I asked perhaps this one could have been cleared up.

• He forgives you say, but not completely. (misrepresenting what we believe)

We must still suffer for our sin and Mary, if she had ever sinned would not have been righteous enough in the eyes of God to carry Jesus. This is a logical conclusion to the typical argument against Mary having ever sinned. If it’s not what you believe, why not answer my questions and straighten it out??

• In my beliefs God FORGIVES and forgives completely. (again inferring that we believe something different)

Again, your sins are not forgiven and erased completely because you must still be purified of them after death. If they were, then God could easily just forgive Mary and her ability to be a vessel for the Son of God would not be in question. Instead of annoucing I’m my own mastarium, perhaps you could have answered my questions?

• He’s a loving God that way. (inferring that we don’t think God is loving)
• This is why Jesus Died for us. (inferring that we don’t believe Jesus died for us)

Again when I compare what I believe and try to reconcile the believe that Mary had to be sinless this is the logical conclusion. So maybe you see why the idea is “Stunning”? Because this is not what I normally would infer about Catholics.

 

[Syele]

Syele, you may not have attacked me personally but you misrepresented what the Church teaches regarding forgiveness and purgatory. And we have previously had these very discussions with you explaining our beliefs. And if you think I will calmly accept you consciously misrepresenting Catholic theology to serve your purposes, you are wrong. I’m able to debate where you disagree with my theology but not when someone appears to intentionally misrepresent what my theology is. The appearance that it is intentional as I’ve witnessed where these issues have been very well explained to you but you hold on to your inaccurate view.

I was not consciously misrepresenting Catholic theology to serve any purposes. I’m sorry you insist on reading it that way, and I’m sorry no one cares to answer my questions. Since I obviously don’t see it diffrenetly, perhaps they WEREN’T very well explained to me, just because YOU as a Catholic, understood it well dosn’t mean I did.

Furthermore, if you understood (I’m not asking you to accept it)Catholic Marian theology…

If I understood Marian Theology perhaps I wouldn’t have spent time sitting here asking tons of questions about it, expressing my ability to be stunned about it to people who will simply decide I’m an anti-Catholic troll.

 

[Orionthehunter]

My goal was not to “misrepresent the Catholc Church.” It was to explain why this idea is stunning and ask questions to straighten it out. You only read it that way. I do not see myself as "representing the Catholic Church " at all. I’m neither Catholic nor do I teach others about Catholics. I’m on this forum to learn about Catholics as well as explain Protestantism.

It is the result of a comparison of what I believe with the doctrine that Mary was sinless.

If Mary could not have carried Jesus in her womb unless she was sinless then God either can’t or won’t forgive her completely enough to make it possible. If you;d have answered the questions I asked perhaps this one could have been cleared up.

We must still suffer for our sin and Mary, if she had ever sinned would not have been righteous enough in the eyes of God to carry Jesus. This is a logical conclusion to the typical argument against Mary having ever sinned. If it’s not what you believe, why not answer my questions and straighten it out??

Again, your sins are not forgiven and erased completely because you must still be purified of them after death. If they were, then God could easily just forgive Mary and her ability to be a vessel for the Son of God would not be in question. Instead of annoucing I’m my own mastarium, perhaps you could have answered my questions?

Again when I compare what I believe and try to reconcile the believe that Mary had to be sinless this is the logical conclusion. So maybe you see why the idea is “Stunning”? Because this is not what I normally would infer about Catholics.

Until you acknowledge* that Catholic Marian Theology begins with the premise that Mary was a unique creature of God, it is clear that you don’t understand what the Church teaches on this matter and discussion about the theology is fruitless. When you acknowledge* this unique nature is part of the theology, those questions are irrelevant and subjects of another thread.

• I stress that acknowledge doesn’t mean you have to accept the Doctrine.

 

[Syele]

Until you acknowledge* that Catholic Marian Theology begins with the premise that Mary was a unique creature of God, it is clear that you don’t understand what the Church teaches on this matter and discussion about the theology is fruitless. When you acknowledge* this unique nature is part of the theology, those questions are irrelevant and subjects of another thread.

• I stress that acknowledge doesn’t mean you have to accept the Doctrine.

Well I still think you are behaving rudely. I never said that Catholcs DON’T believe that Mary was a unique creature of God. I did say I don’t believe as such she was only as unique as any other human (God made each of us unique).

Amazingly enough, I asked questions because I wanted to know the answers not to go around “representing any knowledge of Catholic Marian Theology”. The subject of the thread was why someone would be “stunned” and I answered it thouroughly. If answering questions that would cause the person to no longer be stunned is off topic, by all means, start a new thread. But at this point I’d rather someone else answer my questions, you have already made up your mind about who I am and my purposes, reguardless of the truth.

 

[Della]

I don’t recall using the word “deceived”. That would imply that I thought someone was lying to me and I don’t believe that is the case.

I looked back through the posts and found that it was JesusforMadrid that wrote that. I do apologize!

Your point about most Christians believing in Mary’s sinless nature is a good one, but not determinative. Even some of the ECF were not of this belief (see cite below) although, again, whether they were or were not would not be determinative either.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

True, it’s not determinative, but then the point you were making to which I was answering wasn’t about that, but about being stunned to learn, as a Protestant, that most of the world’s Christians believe in Mary’s sinlessness. My point being that non-belief is even newer than Protestantism itself, and what does that tell us?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Well I still think you are behaving rudely. I never said that Catholcs DON’T believe that Mary was a unique creature of God. I did say I don’t believe as such she was only as unique as any other human (God made each of us unique).

Amazingly enough, I asked questions because I wanted to know the answers not to go around “representing any knowledge of Catholic Marian Theology”. The subject of the thread was why someone would be “stunned” and I answered it thouroughly. If answering questions that would cause the person to no longer be stunned is off topic, by all means, start a new thread. But at this point I’d rather someone else answer my questions, you have already made up your mind about who I am and my purposes, reguardless of the truth.

Syele, go back and read my very first post to you. And read in the context that Marian theology begins with Mary being unique in ways that don’t apply to all other human creatures (Christ is not a creature but part of the Creator). Your questions about Church teaching on forgiveness, purgatory, etc. may be relevant on other matters but they are irrelevant to Catholic Marian theology. We believe she was uniquely capable of not sinning and chose to resist sin. To answer your questions about forgiveness and purgatory are irrelevant to Catholic Marian theology.

Your premise is you reject she was unique as taught by the Church. Fine. If she was not unique, we wouldn’t hold her out as sinless and thus we would probably believe that prior to conception, she would have been forgiven for her sins and, by grace, remained sinless at least through the birth of Christ. But in either case, forgiveness as it applies to the rest of us and purgatory is still irrelevent to Marian Theology because it begins with the principle and belief she was unique.

Again, to answer your questions on these matters are for another thread.

 

[Syele]

You say my questions are irrelevant but I disagree. Every argument I have yet heard on why Mary was sinless was that Jesus (being holy and Pure) couldn’t come out of an impure vessel. Forgiveness definately DOES come into play here. If our sins are completely forgiven then you can be pure even if you weren’t previously pure or if at some time in the future you will not be pure.

Syele, go back and read my very first post to you.

The only thing yousaid to me in your first response to me in this thread that was not a personal irrelevant attack was:

. It denies nothing but proves it.

You say it proves it but did say how it proves anything. This is no more helpful than saying “Nyh NyH Boo Boo I’m right, you aren’t”

And read in the context that Marian theology begins with Mary being unique in ways that don’t apply to all other human creatures (Christ is not a creature but part of the Creator).

Why would I have ever read a personal attack on me in the context that Marian theology begins with Mary being unique in ways that don’t apply to all other human creatures? that post wasn’t even about Mary it was about you being mad at me for getting a bad impression of Catholic theology. What evidence do you have to make me want to suppose Mary didn’t have to follow the normal rules? Why would I start with such a supposition when the only thing put forth before this was that she was sinless?

 

[Syele]

Your premise is you reject she was unique as taught by the Church.

MY PREMISE is that I’m NOT Catholic and living in a protestant world, understanding Mary throught Protestant Doctrines and suddenly one day I see “Mary was immaculately concieved and never sinned!” My PREMISE is that this is stunning and impossible to reconcile without more information, so I asked lots of questions.

Your Premise appears to be “I must read double intentions in all Syele says and assume she’s a troll.”

 

[Contarini]

There appeared to be some extra wording in the KJV so I grabbed the Greek:

ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΜΕΤΑ ΣΟΥ

The Orignal Greek has a longer word then the Greek Erasmus used.

Orginal Greek : κεχαριτωμένη

Erasmus Greek : χαριτόω

Kecharitomene is simply the perfect passive participle of charito. And of course we don’t have the original Greek text, so there is no “original Greek” versus “Erasmus Greek.”

Insofar as there’s an argument here, it would be based on the use of the perfect rather than the aorist tense. The aorist would refer to an act that had taken place once for all in the past, while the perfect is an act that continues (or whose consequences continue) to the present. However, this is a very slim basis to build a theory, much less a dogma on.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Of course I would like to be sinless. But am I sinless? IF I never sin again from this day foreward, will I have been sinless?

If you are baptized, and if you took your sins to Confession, and if from the moment you stepped out of the Confessional you in fact never committed another sin, then in that case, you would indeed be sinless. Your past sins would have been washed out of your soul, and it would be clean and bright again.

It all boils down to …Why did Jesus have to come to earth to die for us? If people could live sinless lives, why was Jesus’ arrival and death even necessary? Why not just have one of the sinless people be sacrificed? Why not just let the sinless people go to Heaven and skip killing the Son of God?

First, it was not because Jesus was without sin that He was sacrificed; it was because He was God the Second Person.

No human being, even if they are sinless, could ever become a sacrifice for sins, since any human being only has the capacity of one sinless human being.

God alone has the capacity to take on the sins of the entire human race and yet remain without sin, because God alone is infinite (and something, regardless of how large it is, added to infinity, equals nothing - but something added to something finite causes the finite thing to be adulterated with the thing that was added - a sinless human being taking on the sins of the whole world would go straight to Hell from the abundance of sins added to him; only the infinite God can withstand this and still remain without sin).

Second, I have heard it said (and I believe it) that even if I or you or any single individual were the only person who had ever sinned, Jesus Christ would have died on the Cross for that one person.

This means that if every human being on earth with the sole exception of me (or you) is Immaculately Conceived, and I alone am born with Original Sin, Jesus Christ would have died on the Cross to save me from Original Sin; that’s how much He loves me, and that’s how much He loves every human being on earth - if this is so, (and I do believe that it is) then the fact that His mother was Immaculately conceived takes nothing away from Christ’s love for me, and takes nothing away from His sacrifice on the Cross for my sins and for the sins of all who are born into sin (which is everyone except His mother, who was saved by Him from her sins in a different way, in that she was prevented from ever committing them in the first place) because He would have done it even if 6.5 billion people in the world were Immaculately Conceived, and I alone were born to sin.

 

[mozart-250]

Just one comment on why this is incredulous for us to believe:

For us verses like Romans 3:23 are the heart of the gospel.

I remember taking Navigators 2:7 10 years back or so…and one of the first verses we had to memorize…on a section on the gospel message was this verse.

It’s not like Romans 3:23 is like some throw away verse in Jeremiah 53 or someplace like that.

Yeah, I know aborted foetuses have not sinned, but Mary was not an aborted foetus. It would really make sense to me that if God went through the bother of creating a deliberate exception to these verses that are at the heart of the gospel message, He would spell it out clearly so that a dummy like me could get it.

As is, I am stuck with the assertion that God created a deliberate exception to a verse that is the heart of the gospel message, and really no way to confirm its veracity.

BTW, I have felt that Romans 5:18 is a better response to this claim than Romans 3:23. At least the (aborted, stillborn) babies reply is not applicable here.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Just one comment on why this is incredulous for us to believe:

For us verses like Romans 3:23 are the heart of the gospel.

I remember taking Navigators 2:7 10 years back or so…and one of the first verses we had to memorize…on a section on the gospel message was this verse.

It’s not like Romans 3:23 is like some throw away verse in Jeremiah 53 or someplace like that.

Yeah, I know aborted foetuses have not sinned, but Mary was not an aborted foetus. It would really make sense to me that if God went through the bother of creating a deliberate exception to these verses that are at the heart of the gospel message, He would spell it out clearly so that a dummy like me could get it.

As is, I am stuck with the assertion that God created a deliberate exception to a verse that is the heart of the gospel message, and really no way to confirm its veracity.

BTW, I have felt that Romans 5:18 is a better response to this claim than Romans 3:23. At least the (aborted, stillborn) babies reply is not applicable here.

Roman 5:18 states, " For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. " That one man’s disobedience is Adam’s sin, and that one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. This man who will be made righteous is Jesus.

Many Protestants fail to consider the ancient Jewish context concerning Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

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.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

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.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.