second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Novocastrian]

Except that kecharitomine means “has been” full of grace.

Great. And unless it means ‘from conception’ too, then the argument still falls flat on its face.

 

[Novocastrian]

Except that kecharitomine means “has been” full of grace.

Also, my koine is rusty, but surely it’s “has been filled” rather than “has been full”?

 

[Kliska]

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

**2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
**
A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which** enables one to be sinless** and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html

This is all well and good, but the main contention is the actual meaning of the translations as mentioned in the article; it is clear from the Greek that the “full of grace” applied to Stephen and Jesus is not the same understanding as what is applied to Mary. Regardless, protestants DON’T disagree that she was favored, as we too believe in grace (obviously).

The problem, as stated, does indeed come in with the idea of “sinlessness.” One would have to argue that the ideal of Calvinism then would be proven in his “preservation of saints” that true saints don’t sin because of grace, in effect making Mary into a type of “frozen chosen.” Many protestants would have a big problem with the premises because grace is unmerited, it is completely unearned. The sinlessness that we have is Christ; literally by becoming a part of Him, and Him fulfilling the law for us. The grace shown to us is because of Jesus, not because of self. Salvation is indeed by grace, but it is through faith. Grace is God’s action, faith is man’s.

Mary too has a Saviour as we all agree, but the implication is different from each perspective. From a protestant perspective like mine this is fully implying that there was something she needed saved from, but that doesn’t lessen her grace, as grace is from God not from the object of His grace. The grace here has more to do with God than Mary, and on Mary’s part it is her faith that is a shining example to us. That even though Joseph and Mary both didn’t fully understand what was up, they fully trusted God. How much more so Mary who was told she was going to be a mother, and what a mother she was going to be!

The main thing I wish to communicate is that the protestant perspective (such as mine) isn’t meant to be disrespectful to Mary, quite the opposite. The idea of grace, what it means and implies, and how and why it is conferred differs in our perspective. So, it isn’t the result of “just” one disagreement but several. Nor is the non-immaculate conception perspective just based on one verse, even the one in Romans, and we feel Jesus made it clear that praise to Mary should be because she did the will of the Father of her own volition.

 

[Kliska]

Don’t be silly. You’re making a huge leap here, which is to assume that Mary’s being full of grace is tied to her conception. There is nothing in your argument that necessarily applies to anything before the moment that Gabriel greets Our Lady.

If you’re going to try to set out semi-formal arguments, at least be consistent and clear.

And that is one of the main premises to the non-immaculate conception argument; that the words Gabriel spoke were for that specific moment; Mary was highly favored to be approached the way she was and to be asked to consent to being mother to Jesus. There was nothing that merited the favor, or else it wouldn’t be grace and Mary, being faithful, said “yes.”

 

[PRmerger]

Great. And unless it means ‘from conception’ too, then the argument still falls flat on its face.

We don’t argue from that to “from the moment of conception”, Novo.

All it does it prove that her sinlessness didn’t occur at the moment of the angel’s message, which is what you were asserting.

Thus,** it proves your argument false**, without necessarily assuming that the Catholic position is correct.

We get the apologia for the Catholic position from Tradition, as well as from Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, my koine is rusty, but surely it’s “has been filled” rather than “has been full”?

Source, please?

 

[PRmerger]

I know, but it doesn’t mean what the translation most RCC translations claim it means. The idea of being Full of Grace as the RCC applies to Mary applies to Jesus only. Mary was indeed favored (unmerited favor IS the meaning of grace in this sense).

Just a wee correction again, Kliska.

The Catholic Church is not Roman. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

To speak of the RCC, the Roman Catholic Church, is to exclude all the other rites of the Catholic Church (i.e. Ruthenian, Melkite, Chaldean, etc etc etc) which are not Roman but *are *Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[PRmerger]

Regardless, protestants DON’T disagree that she was favored, as we too believe in grace (obviously).

Well, some of you do.

To speak of what “Protestants believe” (as in “Protestants DON’T disagree with [A]”), however, is to presume a unity which you do not have.

NB: There will, of course, be the objection raised by some here who will state, Tu Quoque, and cite all sorts of dissenters to Catholic teaching, as if to say, “There is no unity in Catholicism either!”

Not the same thing.

There is no such thing as a Catholic who is free to dissent. There is the teaching of the Church and it is clear to all through the Catechism, encyclicals etc. And there are those who put themselves outside by dissenting.

 

[prodromos]

Just a wee correction again, Kliska.

The Catholic Church is not Roman. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

To speak of the RCC, the Roman Catholic Church, is to exclude all the other rites of the Catholic Church (i.e. Ruthenian, Melkite, Chaldean, etc etc etc) which are not Roman but *are *Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Given that the non-roman Catholics make up only a tiny percentage of the Catholic Church, I think the distinction you are making is rather petty.

 

[PRmerger]

Given that the non-roman Catholics make up only a tiny percentage of the Catholic Church, I think the distinction you are making is rather petty.

And that is why I said it was a “wee correction.”

Incidentally, it is the position of our hosts, the Catholic Answers.

And that is like saying, “You are Chinese”. And when I say, “I am not Chinese, I am actually from Laos” (hypothetically speaking) and you respond with, “Well, that’s just petty. You know what I mean, esp. since most Asians are Chinese”.

Well, I am not Chinese and to lump me into that group is astonishingly close minded, no?

 

[PRmerger]

It is the position of our hosts, the Catholic Answers.

From the Catholic Answers Staff:

The Catholic religion is the religion of the Catholic Church—i.e., that group of churches in communion with the pope. If a group isn’t in communion with the pope, it isn’t part of the Catholic Church.

Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite.

There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics.

The Roman rite is not stricter than these other rights. They are equal. They all teach the same faith; it is only local customs that are different among them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There was nothing that merited the favor, or else it wouldn’t be grace and Mary, being faithful, said “yes.”

For sure this state was a fact before the annunciation.

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action.

(The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.)

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

The reduces the reality to two points.

1. After her birth before the Annunciation (fact)
2. Or The IC .(CC calls most fitting)

This, mind you, also means as stated in Genesis, complete enmity with the serpent. Evil has no-access to Mary because of Her predestined office “certified” evil has no access.

As to Merit {now your getting Catholic on us) - God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. Grace has gone before us.

Your argument takes a reverse spin here.

Orange…

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought;

or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says,

“What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

“I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

and…

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares:

“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

I can’t imagine protestants having an issue, sounds like a double standard of SS advocates who’s final answer is “Holy Spirit”.

The “yes” was the free-will given to all.

"The problem, as stated, does indeed come in with the idea of “sinlessness.” One would have to argue that the ideal of Calvinism then would be proven in his “preservation of saints” that true saints don’t sin because of grace, in effect making Mary into a type of “frozen chosen.” Many protestants would have a big problem with the premises because grace is unmerited, it is completely unearned. The sinlessness that we have is Christ; literally by becoming a part of Him, and Him fulfilling the law for us. The grace shown to us is because of Jesus, not because of self. Salvation is indeed by grace, but it is through faith. Grace is God’s action, faith is man’s.

Mary too has a Saviour as we all agree, but the implication is different from each perspective. From a protestant perspective like mine this is fully implying that there was something she needed saved from, but that doesn’t lessen her grace, as grace is from God not from the object of His grace. The grace here has more to do with God than Mary, and on Mary’s part it is her faith that is a shining example to us. That even though Joseph and Mary both didn’t fully understand what was up, they fully trusted God. How much more so Mary who was told she was going to be a mother, and what a mother she was going to be!

It is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble. Mary “cooperated” with what was already given.

You would deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit here? Not very protestant.

What must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something?

All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.

Famous Four Words to remember “always” here I am in total agreement with our protesting brothers and sisters “I believe in God” Absolute, the depth of the conviction indeed makes all things possible.

As to the difference in the inclination to sin as opposed to Grace? This is well covered by the Church, Augustine comes to mind.

Indeed we must admit some are predestined by the Lord.

Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception, further sanctified at the supernatural Incarnation after Her yes, and still further at the Cross.

Interesting points though Klisha.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Great. And unless it means ‘from conception’ too, then the argument still falls flat on its face.

Actually this leaves two options as mentioned above. So think about this, what argument for sure fell sloppy dead? Oh right that’s the preserved at the Incarnation theory…false?

She was graced before the Annunciation. Two options remain, the question then becomes why is the contrary to the IC most fitting?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also, my koine is rusty, but surely it’s “has been filled” rather than “has been full”?

Rusty, wrong and linked to the thread. Was already full, for sure.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So ill just be a brat

Yes, that would be being a brat, I agree. Your honesty is admirable.

 

[PRmerger]

For sure this state was a fact before the annunciation.

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action.

(The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.)

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

The reduces the reality to two points.

1. After her birth before the Annunciation (fact)
2. Or The IC .(CC calls most fitting)

This, mind you, also means as stated in Genesis, complete enmity with the serpent. Evil has no-access to Mary because of Her predestined office “certified” evil has no access.

As to Merit {now your getting Catholic on us) - God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. Grace has gone before us.

Your argument takes a reverse spin here.

Orange…

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought;

or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says,

“What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

“I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

and…

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares:

“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

I can’t imagine protestants having an issue, sounds like a double standard of SS advocates who’s final answer is “Holy Spirit”.

The “yes” was the free-will given to all.

It is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble. Mary “cooperated” with what was already given.

You would deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit here? Not very protestant.

What must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something?

All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.

Famous Four Words to remember “always” here I am in total agreement with our protesting brothers and sisters “I believe in God” Absolute, the depth of the conviction indeed makes all things possible.

As to the difference in the inclination to sin as opposed to Grace? This is well covered by the Church, Augustine comes to mind.

Indeed we must admit some are predestined by the Lord.

Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception, further sanctified at the supernatural Incarnation after Her yes, and still further at the Cross.

Interesting points though Klisha.

Best. Synopsis. of the IC. Ever.

:bowdown:

 

[PRmerger]

Is the Bible = to the Word (Logos) of God, or is it a subset?

In other words, are ALL of Jesus’ teachings enscripturated?

If so, I would like to know which gospel states that Jesus said, “It is better to give than to receive”, which is something that Acts 20:35 references Jesus as saying…yet it is not recorded in any of the red letter Words of Christ in the gospels.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, we know that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. The sheer volume of his words tells us the impossibility of recording everything he proclaimed and taught.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 19:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Catholicism, at least, can have faith in the fact that all that Paul preached was preserved through Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture.

Those who believe that Scripture Alone records the Word of God will be missing a very large portion of Paul’s preaching.

If we could have sat at Paul’s feet and absorbed every single thing he taught, wouldn’t we relish the opportunity?

As a Catholic, we can do this!

 

[Kliska]

Just a wee correction again, Kliska.

The Catholic Church is not Roman. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

To speak of the RCC, the Roman Catholic Church, is to exclude all the other rites of the Catholic Church (i.e. Ruthenian, Melkite, Chaldean, etc etc etc) which are not Roman but *are *Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome.

I could start writing RCC/ECC if that would be better. The use of RCC is for clarity’s sake since many protestants believe they are indeed a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Well, some of you do.

Source for a protestant that doesn’t believe what Gabriel declared to Mary?

There is no such thing as a Catholic who is free to dissent.

Precisely part of the problem of disunity.

 

[Peter_J]

I could start writing RCC/ECC if that would be better.

Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, much obliged to you. :tiphat:

 

[Kliska]

For sure this state was a fact before the annunciation.

The favor was shown by God prior to that, yes. Again, from a protestant perspective the grace is from God, and He had favored her, in effect, through all time since He is existent outside of time. So, for example, we refer to the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

As to Merit {now your getting Catholic on us) - God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. Grace has gone before us.

There are different “types” or effects of grace, however.

It is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble. Mary “cooperated” with what was already given.

Again, Mary truly had free will; she had the ability to say no. To deny that is to rob Mary of her rightful place as a champion of faith.

You would deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit here? Not very protestant.

You’ve lost me. The indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit happened only after Pentecost, and only to believers.

All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.

Have faith/trust, yes, as opposed to head knowledge.

Indeed we must admit some are predestined by the Lord.

We agree, but it is according to the foreknowledge.

Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception, further sanctified at the supernatural Incarnation after Her yes, and still further at the Cross.

Interesting, I’ve never actually heard it put this way before. So, the baptism that she was baptized with, according the RCC wasn’t an actual water baptism?

Interesting points though Klisha.

Grace and peace to you.