Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[Peter_J]

That’s a great way to look at it. But then that -]begs/-] begets the question then, did the Ephesians ever commit sin after they received or accepted Christ? Or to say it another way: Do Christians stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior? The answer is simply no and Paul relates to this in his letter to the Romans when he states that the very thing he doesn’t want to do he ends up doing.

Yes, they (and we) continue to commit sin; No, Christians don’t stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior. That why I said we are in the process of being made sinless.

Blessings to you too,

 

[ralphinal]

That’s a great way to look at it. But then that begs the question then, did the Ephesians ever commit sin after they received or accepted Christ? Or to say it another way: Do Christians stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior? The answer is simply no and Paul relates to this in his letter to the Romans when he states that the very thing he doesn’t want to do he ends up doing.

That’s the reason we have Christ. If it were possible to never commit sin then we wouldn’t need Christ. I would make a correction to your statement. We are not being made sinless through Christ. We are being made Righteous or Holy by Christ. Righteous and Holy simply mean to be set apart. But that doesn’t make us sinless. A Righteous person can still sin just as Moses and Noah did.

Yes, they (and we) continue to commit sin; No, Christians don’t stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior. That why I said we are in the process of being made sinless.

Blessings to you too,

I agree that we all continue to sin. However, and this has been a major issue with me as I read the Bible, it seems like the NT writers hold a position that once you become a Christian, you should never sin again. This is really true with John. I know that is not the case, but they make it seem so easy to accept Christ and never sin again.

 

[fbl9]

there is one point in the life of all christians at which they are completely sinless,no matter the age:it is that tiny bit of time immediately following baptism…
the reference to St.Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is from which verses?is it 1:6"unto praise of the glory of His grace,with which he has favored us in His beloved Son"?
if this the reference then God has always favored Mary with His grace.hence she was/is without sin at the time of her conception…
how does one lose grace?by committing a sin…

 

[Peter_J]

I agree that we all continue to sin. However, and this has been a major issue with me as I read the Bible, it seems like the NT writers hold a position that once you become a Christian, you should never sin again. This is really true with John. I know that is not the case, but they make it seem so easy to accept Christ and never sin again.

Any particular passages you have in mind?

 

[ralphinal]

Any particular passages you have in mind?

Off the top of my head, I cannot recall. I will find them, though.

 

[Canto]

FBL that’s a great question. There’s no doubt that the conjugation of charitoo in Luke refers to a past completed action. But here’s the problem. If you apply the action of charitoo to Mary as being sinless then you also have to apply it to the ephesians. Mary may have been favored at conception but then the ephesians were told by Paul they were favored

When the Ephesians were favoured there is no implication in the Greek that they remained favoured.

The Greek for 1:28 shows that Mary was favoured and continued to be favoured throughout her life.

There’s just no way around this.

Luke 1:28 uses a perfect passive participle, Ephesians does not.

Additionally being highly favored was never viewed as being sinless.

To be justifed means to be freed from sin
St Paul says that were are justified by favour

If Mary recieved favour sometime in the past - the action completed and the Greek implying a fullness - and it tells us she remained favoured, how could she have sinned.

Mary simply is not described this way.

The Greek does not literally translated as full of favour, but being the perfect passive particple it implies that she is full of favour

The full of grace interpretation came from Jerome when he wrote the vulgate using the latin words gratia plena for kecharitomene. Gratia plena receiving the English translation of full of grace. But this is incorrect.

-Tyndale, who used many non traditional renderings in his translation, did full of grace.
-Covedale - full of grace
-The Latin and Syriac (when Biblical Greek was still spoken) - full of grace
-The Arabic - full of grace

Are all these translations wrong?

Even Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI say the most literal translation is full of grace.

As Mary was favoured in the past, the action completed with and implication of fullness, and she remained so throughout her life - how does one translate this to convey all the senses yet keep the translation vocative as in the Greek?

Full of favour. Or an even better reneding of Charis and its derivatives - Full of grace.

If Mary is full of grace, she must have been filled sometime in the past. As the Bible doesn’t say she lost the grace, she must have remained graced throughout her life. Lastly in lieu of v.30 we see that Mary found grace (charin) with God, and thus we have her passivity.

Sounds like the perfect passive particple to me

 

[ckempston]

You can also use the following Scriptures. Begin with:

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY - Mary is the New Testament type of the Ark of the Covenant (see obvious parallels in chart here). The Ark was not to be touched (1 Chr 13:10).

Another way to see it is Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would bear a son. “How can I since I don’t know man?” she says. Well, since she was about to be married, the obvious answer to her would have been because she’d bear Joseph’s son. But if she had taken a vow of chastity, as some Jewish women did, then her question makes sense.

Some Jewish women took vows of chastity? I’d be interested in seeing any references for this claim. As far as I knew, only the Essenes did this, and I don’t recall when that started.

There are others who believe that the way Jesus entered the world (her womb) will never be crossed again by man:
Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Ok, at the risk of being relabeled a Catholic hater, I’m going to say I can’t believe some of the claims that non-Catholics just allow to go unchallenged, such as this one. If Mary is the Temple, and nobody can go “in” except the Lord, that would be just the opposite of being born. Being born is going out not coming in. That passage also says the Lord will continue to go in and out of it, if you had provided any context, your point would have been lost.

The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may **enter **through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. The prince himself is the only one who may **sit inside the gateway **to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to **enter by way of the portico **of the gateway **and go out the same way.” **

The passage makes no sense if we apply it to Mary. Jesus certainly didn’t go in and out of Mary’s womb. The passage doesn’t support Mary being the new Temple in any way.

The “brothers” mentioned in Scripture are not His fraternal brothers.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION/SINLESS LIFE - Again, Mary is the new Ark, which was made of gold and perfection, untouchable, spotless. And NT types are even more glorious than their OT types.

In Luke 1:28, she is called in the Greek, kecharitomene. The word is in the perfect passive participle, the only time this word appears in Scripture. It indicates a completed past action with continuing results. In other words she has been graced and continues to be so in two directions of time. More here.

Of course it is in that tense. Once God makes a decision about your life, such as having a child, that act is spoken of as if it were already completed, and you would never cease to be a parent. You’re reading WAY too much into a verb tense.

The other way is to recognize Mary as the NT type of Eve. Again, since NT types are holier versions of their OT types, consider Eve was created without sin. So too, all the more was Mary.

Types don’t necessarily have anything to do with holiness. Again, you’re reading things into the passages and words that aren’t there.

I also recently heard a debate with Father Pacwa in which he explained that when Elizabeth called Mary “blessed among women” that this was a Hebrew way of calling her the “greatest”. The phrase “among women” meant “of all women”. And that would include Eve, who was conceived without sin.

Among those born of women, none was greater than John the Baptist, at least according to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But, hey, if you want to perform all manner of mental gymnastics instead of relying on plain statements from scripture, that’s fine.

 

[Canto]

Among those born of women, none was greater than John the Baptist, at least according to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But, hey, if you want to perform all manner of mental gymnastics instead of relying on plain statements from scripture, that’s fine.

‘plain statements’ - you mean like when St James says that we are NOT justifed by faith alone.

“BORN OF WOMEN”

Another text that is sometimes used to discount the distinctives of Mary is Matthew 11: 11, where Jesus declares, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” How can Mary be second only to her Son if John the Baptist is the greatest “among those born of women?”

The answer again has to do with correctly identifying the class of things being discussed. This is made clear by the context. The reference to John’s greatness occurs in a discussion of his role as a prophet (11:7-15). And the declaration of his greatness is occasioned by Jesus quoting the prophecy of the coming prophet (v. 10) who would herald the Messiah (Mal. 3:1). Jesus follows up the remark by pointing to John as the terminus of the Law and the prophets (v. 13) and as the fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah (or one like Elijah) would come (v. 14).

This explains the sense in which John is greater than all others: He is the greatest of the pre-Christian prophets in the sense that he gets to be the herald of the Messiah himself. Indeed, some manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel give the parallel to this saying as, “I tell you, among those born of women no prophet is greater than John the Baptist” (Luke 7:28, var.). Needless to say, the class of Old Testament prophets is a set to which Mary does not belong.

Further, Jesus’ universe of discourse at this point is limited by another factor: time. “The kingdom of heaven” refers to the Christian age, to the Church that Jesus will found. John thus may be the most blessed of the line of Old Covenant prophets because he is the Messiah’s herald, but even the humblest Christian will be more blessed than John is. And of course Mary-unlike John-lived into the Christian age and became part of the Church.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105bt.asp

 

[NDfan]

You didn’t say it but it’s still true. “Highly favored” does not convey the idea that she “was always favored and will always be favored” (which is conveyed by “kecharitomene”, as you already admitted) hence it is not the correct translation.

Well technically you are correct in that the translation does not really convey the meaning of the word kecharitomene to its fullest. But the meaning of the word charitoo which is the root word means highly favored. It’s the conjugation that adds the descriptor to it. Meaning that it was a past completed action. The overall tense of the greeting tries to convey the meaning by saying favored one. But that’s still more accurate than full of grace. Full of grace just does not apply here.

Good question.
See #36.

The problem with #36 as I stated in another post is that Christ does not implement a process by which we become sinless before GOD and the church certainly doesn’t support that. We are made righteous before GOD by Christ. The church teaches that the purgation process is what ultimately cleanses us of our sin before GOD.

 

[NDfan]

Yes, they (and we) continue to commit sin; No, Christians don’t stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior. That why I said we are in the process of being made sinless.

Blessings to you too,

But you can’t apply the meaning of Charitoo to being made sinless. The way the word is used especially with the greeting to Mary is as a past participle which as stated in my original post becomes a descriptor for the verb. Like an adjective. So it ends up becoming an attribute of the person(s). In Mary’s case she was favored probably at conception based on the past tense. The Ephesians are being told that they are now favored more present tense. But the entire meaning behind being favored is the reason GOD sent Christ to us. To redeem us. Not to make us sinless.

 

[NDfan]

I agree that we all continue to sin. However, and this has been a major issue with me as I read the Bible, it seems like the NT writers hold a position that once you become a Christian, you should never sin again. This is really true with John. I know that is not the case, but they make it seem so easy to accept Christ and never sin again.

Ralph that is so true and I struggle with that more than anything as I’m sure you do and everyone here. Actually if you really study church history the initial church fathers were not willing to allow someone to remain in the church if they sinned after baptism. In some cases they would make an exception for maybe a one time offense if you will but outside of that it was not acceptable.

Good Post

 

[MarcoPolo]

Some Jewish women took vows of chastity? I’d be interested in seeing any references for this claim. As far as I knew, only the Essenes did this, and I don’t recall when that started.

If memory serves correct, Karl Keating goes into this in Catholicism & Fundamentalism.

Ok, at the risk of being relabeled a Catholic hater, I’m going to say I can’t believe some of the claims that non-Catholics just allow to go unchallenged, such as this one. If Mary is the Temple, and nobody can go “in” except the Lord, that would be just the opposite of being born. Being born is going out not coming in. That passage also says the Lord will continue to go in and out of it, if you had provided any context, your point would have been lost.

Catholic hater!!! As I said, “some believe” that passage to say that. I don’t necessarily one way or another. But the typology would not have to be precise. It would be limited to only the Lord passing through the gate, eluding to Mary remaining a virgin, untouched by another. Just as Paul tells us Jesus is a type of Adam, yet does not have to mirror EVERY characteristic of Adam. But Paul tells us that Jesus is a type of Adam as a firstborn and the “reverser” of Adam’s sin. But Jesus did not necessarily mirror every characteristic of Adam. The typology need not be exhausted, but it can focus on one or two concepts of the antetype.

Of course it is in that tense. Once God makes a decision about your life, such as having a child, that act is spoken of as if it were already completed, and you would never cease to be a parent. You’re reading WAY too much into a verb tense.

You may think so. The Catholic Church considers this textual criticism in harmony with the whole of Scripture. I didn’t even get into this being a “title” of Mary. I was trying to be brief. You can read more about this verse here or here if you really want.

But, hey, if you want to perform all manner of mental gymnastics instead of relying on plain statements from scripture, that’s fine.

If you do not believe in Tradition, or a deeper exegesis in typology, or textual criticism as the Church does, there’s no need to get insulting.

Good day! :tiphat:

 

[NDfan]

there is one point in the life of all christians at which they are completely sinless,no matter the age:it is that tiny bit of time immediately following baptism…
the reference to St.Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is from which verses?is it 1:6"unto praise of the glory of His grace,with which he has favored us in His beloved Son"?
if this the reference then God has always favored Mary with His grace.hence she was/is without sin at the time of her conception…
how does one lose grace?by committing a sin…

FBL yes it is from Ephesians 1:6. If you study the Greek Ephesians 1:6 states "For the praise and Glory of HIS grace(charis) with which he has favored (echaritosen) us in the beloved. Charis being a noun and echaritosen being the present tense verb form of charitoo.

What Paul is saying here is the grace (charis) that GOD infills in us is a direct result of GOD favoring (echaritosen) us through or in Christ. Basically because GOD favors us HE sent Christ, who is full of GODs Grace, (pleres charitos) to bring us the grace (charis) that infills us once we accept Christ to make us holy. Holy simply means to be set apart.

So in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he states that we are favored by GOD using the verb charitoo but with a present tense descriptor. Because GOD favors us HE sent Christ to us to infill us with HIS grace which is the noun charis. But keep in mind no one in scripture is described as being full of grace (pleres charitos) the way Christ is. Pleres which I believe I elaborated on in another post means to be complete, perfect, to lack nothing. So Christ is so full of GOD’s grace that HE is perfect and lacks nothing. HE (Christ) can’t be filled with anymore of GOD’s grace as HE is already perfect.

PEACE

 

[ckempston]

When the Ephesians were favoured there is no implication in the Greek that they remained favoured.

The Greek for 1:28 shows that Mary was favoured and continued to be favoured throughout her life.

No, it does not. It shows that Mary was favored (i.e. she was the recipient of an action) at some time in the past, and that favor is having a definite result at the present (from the perspective of Mary and the Angel).

Luke 1:28 uses a perfect passive participle, Ephesians does not.

“Perfect passive participle” is used all throughout the New Testament with many different verbs. It does not guarantee ongoing future action or perpetual effects as you are suggesting. If that was the case, OSAS would be absolutely true.

To be justifed means to be freed from sin
St Paul says that were are justified by favour

If Mary recieved favour sometime in the past - the action completed and the Greek implying a fullness - and it tells us she remained favoured, how could she have sinned.

You are incorrect in your interpretation of the Greek perfect passive participle.

The Greek does not literally translated as full of favour, but being the perfect passive particple it implies that she is full of favour

-Tyndale, who used many non traditional renderings in his translation, did full of grace.
-Covedale - full of grace
-The Latin and Syriac (when Biblical Greek was still spoken) - full of grace
-The Arabic - full of grace

Are all these translations wrong?

Even Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI say the most literal translation is full of grace.

As Mary was favoured in the past, the action completed with and implication of fullness, and she remained so throughout her life - how does one translate this to convey all the senses yet keep the translation vocative as in the Greek?

Full of favour. Or an even better reneding of Charis and its derivatives - Full of grace.

If Mary is full of grace, she must have been filled sometime in the past. As the Bible doesn’t say she lost the grace, she must have remained graced throughout her life. Lastly in lieu of v.30 we see that Mary found grace (charin) with God, and thus we have her passivity.

Sounds like the perfect passive particple to me

This is just wrong. You are butchering the Greek language.

Matthew 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.”

“lying” is another verb in the same tense. If perfect passive participle implied what you are suggesting it does, the man would have never gotten up from his mat.

 

[ckempston]

‘plain statements’ - you mean like when St James says that we are NOT justifed by faith alone.

Are you suggesting that I believe we are?

 

[ckempston]

If memory serves correct, Karl Keating goes into this in Catholicism & Fundamentalism.

Catholic hater!!! As I said, “some believe” that passage to say that. I don’t necessarily one way or another. But the typology would not have to be precise. It would be limited to only the Lord passing through the gate, eluding to Mary remaining a virgin, untouched by another. Just as Paul tells us Jesus is a type of Adam, yet does not have to mirror EVERY characteristic of Adam. But Paul tells us that Jesus is a type of Adam as a firstborn and the “reverser” of Adam’s sin. But Jesus did not necessarily mirror every characteristic of Adam. The typology need not be exhausted, but it can focus on one or two concepts of the antetype.

I demonstrated quite clearly that the prince goes both IN AND OUT of the gate, so that passage cannot possibly refer to Mary.

You may think so. The Catholic Church considers this textual criticism in harmony with the whole of Scripture. I didn’t even get into this being a “title” of Mary. I was trying to be brief. You can read more about this verse here or here if you really want.

I don’t have a problem with making it a title of Mary. The text pretty much demands that we intepret it that way. The problem is what you are inferring based on this title. It simply does not follow.

If you do not believe in Tradition, or a deeper exegesis in typology, or textual criticism as the Church does, there’s no need to get insulting.

Good day! :tiphat:

Wasn’t meant as an insult, but simply an observation. You do need to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify this intepretation.

 

[fbl9]

Off the top of my head, I cannot recall. I will find them, though.

found one for you ralphinal…from St.John’s first letter3:9"Who ever is born of God does not commit sin,because His seed abides in him and he can not sin because he is born of God"…but in many of St.Paul’s letters we see beleivers sinning. …there is a footnote in my bible for the verse form St.John’s letter…“this does not mean it is impossible for one who has been spiritually reborn in baptsim to commit sin,but he will not sin as long as he keeps the seed of grace in himself…This grace can be lost through sin.”.that’s why there is the sacrement of reconsillation to recover this grace we lost due to our being off guard against sin…

 

[fbl9]

The problem with #36 as I stated in another post is that Christ does not implement a process by which we become sinless before GOD and the church certainly doesn’t support that. We are made righteous before GOD by Christ. The church teaches that the purgation process is what ultimately cleanses us of our sin before GOD.

close the reason for need of purgatory is the result of sins committed after baptism,if one was die immediatley after baptism they would have been washed clean of all sin through the regerantion of baptism and would have need of further cleansing…

 

[fbl9]

FBL yes it is from Ephesians 1:6. If you study the Greek Ephesians 1:6 states "For the praise and Glory of HIS grace(charis) with which he has favored (echaritosen) us in the beloved. Charis being a noun and echaritosen being the present tense verb form of charitoo.

What Paul is saying here is the grace (charis) that GOD infills in us is a direct result of GOD favoring (echaritosen) us through or in Christ. Basically because GOD favors us HE sent Christ, who is full of GODs Grace, (pleres charitos) to bring us the grace (charis) that infills us once we accept Christ to make us holy. Holy simply means to be set apart.

So in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he states that we are favored by GOD using the verb charitoo but with a present tense descriptor. Because GOD favors us HE sent Christ to us to infill us with HIS grace which is the noun charis. But keep in mind no one in scripture is described as being full of grace (pleres charitos) the way Christ is. Pleres which I believe I elaborated on in another post means to be complete, perfect, to lack nothing. So Christ is so full of GOD’s grace that HE is perfect and lacks nothing. HE (Christ) can’t be filled with anymore of GOD’s grace as HE is already perfect.

PEACE

the question still remains"how was Mary favored by God always(from the time of her conception)"?exactly what was/is this favor?

 

[ckempston]

found one for you ralphinal…from St.John’s first letter3:9"Who ever is born of God does not commit sin,because His seed abides in him and he can not sin because he is born of God"…but in many of St.Paul’s letters we see beleivers sinning. …there is a footnote in my bible for the verse form St.John’s letter…“this does not mean it is impossible for one who has been spiritually reborn in baptsim to commit sin,but he will not sin as long as he keeps the seed of grace in himself…This grace can be lost through sin.”.that’s why there is the sacrement of reconsillation to recover this grace we lost due to our being off guard against sin…

The phrase translated as “commit sin” in your translation would be better explained as saying “habitually sin” or “continually sin.” It does not at all suggest that you will never sin, but that your life will not be characterized by sin.