The assumption of Mary

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

This is a contradictory statement. Anyway, my question was, can you show me in Scripture where Jesus is referred to as a “Son of Adam?” Ah-huh, can you show me in Scripture where she’s called the "New Eve?" Christ is not called the “new Adam,” but the “Last Adam.” There’s GREAT theological significance in that phrase. And it has nothing to do with Mary. That Jesus is the “Last Adam” is a divinely revealed truth being found in the written Word of God. If you cannot show where Mary is called the “New Eve” in Scripture, then the title has no merit. It is the teachings of men, not God.

In the writing of the Sacred Scriptures, a person is called “Son of …” with the blank filled with his biological father (or in the case of Jesus, mother – since He had no biological father). Why would Jesus then be stated “Son of Adam” when His foster father is Joseph. There is no need to state Jesus is “Son of Adam”. But, in keeping with the son-of rule, the Bible DOES state Jesus is “Son of Mary”. Unless you deny that the flesh and blood of Jesus is the flesh and blood of Mary, unless you deny that Jesus is conceived through Mary, you cannot possibly deny that Jesus is Adam’s descendant, since Mary is Adam’s descendant!

This is getting really frustrating. It all boils down to this: We believe that Sacred Scripture does not stand alone. Sacred Tradition is equally important. In fact, what is the Scriptures if not one of the Tradition? (That was rhetoric) The Scriptures were compiled and canonised by the Catholic Church; without her what you will have is old writings (assuming people preserve these writings) without no one being able to really say which one is divinely inspired. Think about this, a saint once said, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. – When you hold the Bible and believe the books to be divinely inspired, you are actually adhering to a Catholic Tradition! (although, as we all know, in your case 7 books had been taken out)

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman:

Then it’s possible you might be reading the Koran. You’d better check, or if it says “Holy Bible” then you’ve got some research to do, buster.

Here is all of Romans chapter 3. There is no place in it where it mentions anythingg about Adam or his race. There is also no place where it excludes Jesus as a sinner. Again none of your interpretation is supported by the bible. Even if it did say Adams Race it still would not matter because Jesus was a desenden of Adam and therefore part of his race.

1 What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them. 3 For what if some of them have not believed? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid. 4 But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged. 5 But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath?

6 (I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. 9 What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written: There is not any man just.

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery in their ways: 17 And the way of peace they have not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God. 20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. 22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: 23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, 25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, 26 Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. 27 Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. 30 For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

 

[Pani_Rose]

It is true not everything is contained in Scripture as John said. The Bible is about Jesus, that is what the Church decided when they put it together. However, we have many writings from the Apostles that are not in Scripture, The Proto Evangelian of St James is but one such writing. Written by St. James the Apostle, it tells of the life and death of Mary and the rest of the famlily.

Also, in the East the Byzantine Catholics celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great from the thrid century. In these liturgies are 220 references to the Holy Scriptures, not including the readings from the Gospel and the Epistle during the liturgy. These liturgies are from the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, Basil and Chrysostom just organized it a little. So we have been celebrating a Liturgy that was written more than 2000 years ago. So to say that everything is in Scripture is inerrant. The Liturgy of St. James itself is still celebrated in the monasteries today on a daily basis in it’s original form, in aramaic all over the world.

There is more out there! Can you imagine what Scripiture would be to carry around if everything was included.

Also, the Eccumenical Coucils played a defining role in the teachings on the Theotokos. So to say there was nothing before the late dates that have been quoted is false. Here is a statement on the purpose and accomplishment of the Third Councel:

The Third Ecumenical Council

Held in Ephesus, Asia Minor in 431 under Emperor Theodosius II (grandson of Theodosius the Great). 200 Bishops were present.
The Nestorian Controversy

It concerned the nature of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God, the “Logos” (“The Word”, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros: The “Bearer of God”. Consequently, Virgin Mary should be called “Christotokos,” Mother of Christ and not "Theotokos, “Mother of God.” Hence, the name, “Christological controversies”.

Nestorianism over emphasized the human nature of Christ at the expense of the divine. The Council denounced Nestorius’ teaching as erroneous. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one person, not two separate “people”: the Man, Jesus Christ and the Son of God, Logos. The Council decreed that Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Logos), is complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary is “Theotokos” because she gave birth not to man but to God who became man. The union of the two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other.

Pani Rose

 

[Pax]

kinsman,

You misunderstand Paul in Romans 3:9-12 where he says,
"What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.” Your understanding is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul says that all are under the power of sin. This is a reference to the “Fall” and the burden of original sin. Paul is speaking of Jews and gentiles as equal in their damaged state of inheritance, and that the Jews need grace and redemption just as much as the gentiles. All of mankind needs redemption, and man is prone to sin.
2. In Romans 3:9-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14:1-5. Paul makes reference to the Psalm by saying, “as it is written,” and he would not have made that remark or quoted so much of the passage word for word, if he did not intend for us to look to the psalm in order to place his own statements within the Old Testament context. The context of Psalm 14 is made clear in the first verse which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.” Then in verse four and five the psalm reads, “Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.” Psalm 14 clearly distinguishes between the evil doers (i.e. the fool that says there is no God) and “my people”….”the generation of the righteous.”

The generation of the righteous is not an empty set. And yes the Virgin Mary could indeed be without sin by the grace of almighty God. You know that we have supplied numerous scripture verses to you and have answered your every objection. While you may have your own thinking and opinion, you should give a lot more credence to Catholic teaching after what you’ve been shown. Catholic teaching has tremendous scriptural support.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

… If you cannot show where Mary is called the “New Eve” in Scripture, then the title has no merit. It is the teachings of men, not God.

Are we then to suppose that because we cannot find the word “Trinity” in scripture that this title has no merit, but is merely a teaching of men, not God?

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

This is a contradictory statement. Anyway, my question was, can you show me in Scripture where Jesus is referred to as a “Son of Adam?” …

To make an issue about this is to be contentious and making meaningless arguments over words. To say that Jesus is a son of Adam can only mean one thing, and that is that Jesus, while divine, is also human and that like all men, Jesus takes His humanity from our common ancestor.

Lukes geneology of Jesus traces itself all the way back to Adam, where in verse 3:38 we read, “the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” I really think that arguing over the usage “son of Adam” has no significance.

 

[Harland]

All men have sinned? Read Job 1:1 upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil. I read it to mean without sin a.k.a. sinless. And how are you to tell me I’m wrong.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman,

Do you believe that man is basically good or basically evil?

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

In the writing of the Sacred Scriptures, a person is called “Son of …” with the blank filled with his biological father (or in the case of Jesus, mother – since He had no biological father). Why would Jesus then be stated “Son of Adam” when His foster father is Joseph. There is no need to state Jesus is “Son of Adam”. But, in keeping with the son-of rule, the Bible DOES state Jesus is “Son of Mary”. Unless you deny that the flesh and blood of Jesus is the flesh and blood of Mary, unless you deny that Jesus is conceived through Mary, you cannot possibly deny that Jesus is Adam’s descendant, since Mary is Adam’s descendant!

Luke 3:23 “And when Jesus began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thrity years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli (NASB)”

The connection to Adam, and his sin, i.e., original sin, is through the man. And you state correctly that Jesus had no biological father. Mary was the vessel for the divine to enter humanity, but without sin. He is the exception, not Mary. Mary had a biological father. Romanism fabricates the idea that God kept Mary from original sin by its doctrine of “immaculate conception.” But that’s an extrabiblical doctrine of convenience formed to support its Marianology. The doctrine is stated void of any divine revelation.

Rom 5:12 “Therefore, just as through ONE MAN, sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…”

This is the reason for the virgin birth, people. Jesus would not be born of Adam’s sinful race. Through the virgin birth He is made fully human, but He is not connected to Adam’s sinful race. Mary certainly is connected to Adam (and his sin) having a biological father, but Jesus, as you correctly stated, has no biological father.

This really is not difficult to understand.

 

[Kinsman]

Kinsman,

Do you believe that man is basically good or basically evil?

All men are capable of doing both. I’m not a Calvinist, if that’s what you’re driving at. However, no man is without sin, being in Adam. However, the gospel (good news) states:

ROM 3:21-24 "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

When Paul says “no distiction,” of course he means Jew or Gentile. That’s ALL HUMANITY IN ADAM.

The reason I can never be a Roman Catholic is that although we both believe in the necessity of grace, I believe, according to God’s Word, in the sufficiency of grace through the Person and work of Jesus Christ. His infinite work on the cross is sufficient to save me, forever. I rest, by faith, completely in His work, none of my own. Hence, to God be the glory, alone.

For this reason there will always be friction between those who adhere to Rome’s extrabiblical doctrines and those who adhere only to God’s Word.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

The reason I can never be a Roman Catholic is that although we both believe in the necessity of grace, I believe, according to God’s Word, in the sufficiency of grace through the Person and work of Jesus Christ. His infinite work on the cross is sufficient to save me, forever. I rest, by faith, completely in His work, none of my own. Hence, to God be the glory, alone.

For this reason there will always be friction between those who adhere to Rome’s extrabiblical doctrines and those who adhere only to God’s Word.

I have pointed out before and I will do it again here. You are going against scripture if you do not believe the teaching of James concerning faith and works. Moreover, faith while being a supernatural gift of God, is also a work. Believing is something “we do,” and God will have it no other way.

I will again refer, as I have in other posts, to what it says in the book of Revelation. In John’s vision, Jesus warns members of the church at Ephesus that they might be destroyed if they do not repent and return to the love they once had. This is very clear in Rev 2:4-5 where Jesus says, “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” Then again just before addressing the transgressions of the church at Thyatira, Jesus says in Rev 2:19 that, "I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.” These verses are significant in two ways. They show the necessity of love in the plan of salvation, and they show that both love and faith are referred to as works. This is God’s plan and it is by grace that we are saved, and it is by grace that we are able to believe in God and what he has revealed to us. It is also by grace that we can love God above all things, and our neighbor as ourselves, and it is by grace that we can completely trust in God. And that my friend is in a nutshell the “complete work of Christ.”

Catholic teaching is not extra biblical as you have tried to argue. You have been provided over and over again with the answers you need. You reject them, which is your right, but that does not make them less valid. I find your view of the scriptures to be arid and your understanding of God’s love and gifts to His creatures, such as those bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin, to be counter to scripture. I find the Catholic view, more beautiful, true, and in keeping with “all” that we are given in scripture. I hope that you can appreciate this. I do not say any of these things with any sense of superiority or disrespect to you. None of this comes from me, but it comes from what God has graciously given us.

 

[Kinsman]

There was always controversy and opposition to the idea of the “immaculate conception” of Mary in the western church until Pope Pius IX in the bull Ineffabilis Deus, Dec. 8, 1854. However, in it he does not state the doctrine to be based on Apostolic tradition, but directly from God.

The idea that Mary had to be immaculately conceived was never a discussion in the early years following the Apostolic age. The first form in which this notion appeared was comparing Mary with the prophet Jeremiah, whom the Lord said He sanctified (set apart) while still in the womb for the office of prophet (Jer. 1:5). It was claimed, without proof or merit, that in like manner, Mary was sanctified in the sense of being made holy (i.e., sinless). But in the Latin church Augustine, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, held to the fact that if Mary was not partaker of the sin and apostasy of man, she could not be a partaker of redemption. But as Thomas Aquinas, and after him the Dominicans, took one side of the on-going controversy, Duns Scotus and the Franciscans took the other side. The public feeling was in favor of the Franciscans.

In 1401, John Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, came out in favor of the immaculate conception. But not without first candidly admitting that this doctrine had not previously been the doctrine of the Church. He claimed that God communicated this truth gradually to the Church.

Well, this of course implies that this doctrine was not based on holy “tradition.” The Roman doctrine of tradition claims that a plenary revelation of all Christian doctrine was made by Christ to the Apostles and by them communicated to the Church, partly by writing and partly by oral instruction. To prove that any doctrine is of divine authority, it must be proved that Christ and the Apostles taught it, and that it has been always and everywhere held by the Church.

Yet Gerson admitted that the church before his time taught that Mary, common with all other members of the human (Adamic) race, was born with the infection of original sin; BUT the church of his day, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, believed in her immaculate conception. Hence “tradition” was substituted for the “sensus communis ecclesae” of any given time.

The question of Mary’s immaculate conception was still undecided at the time of the meeting of the Council of Trent. In fact, it created intense heat between the Dominicans and Franciscans, both having equal influence in that Council. Each viing that their particular view be sanctioned. The Council came to no decision on the matter and it continued on until Pope Pius IX when in 1854, he went up in great pomp to St. Peter’s in Rome and simply pronounced the decree. A decree not borne out of Apostolic writing or “tradition,” but spurred by his own personal devotion to Mary.

Sorry, folks, but we just can’t accept doctrines based on this kind of history and personal bias. You know the old adage, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool ALL the people ALL the time.

 

[Pax]

Your statement, *“Sorry, folks, but we just can’t accept doctrines based on this kind of history and personal bias. You know the old adage, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool ALL the people ALL the time.” * spoiled an otherwise excellent post.

Since you raised a good point, worthy of serious attention, but had not received a response, there was no need to insult people with a parting barb. This kind of pre-emptive dig is at best poor manners, and betrays something in your heart and mind. Let me suggest that you honestly reflect on all of the material given you so far. Open your heart to the Holy Spirit with the true intention of being open to the truth no matter where it leads you. I could be very wrong, but I sense that you turn off to evidence simply because it is supportive of Catholic teaching.

That having been said, it’s probably best to turn the focus toward the substance of your post. You apparently have difficulty with the idea of doctrinal development. This concept basically means that our understandings of revelation and scripture deepen and grow in clarity. As a result we can define doctrines in greater detail.

A couple of examples separate from the Church’s teaching on Mary might be helpful. The Trinity has been well defined by the Church even though the term is not in scripture and was not clearly and fully expounded upon in scripture. Even the Canon of Scripture was not settled until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late fourth century. Even the definition of the hypostatic union was a development in teaching. We know that Jesus is both man and God, and that these two natures reside in the one person of Jesus. This was argued about and great heresies like Arianism arose against this truth. The Church clarified all of these things and the doctrines surrounding them became established over time. This holds true of the doctrines concerning Mary.

This is not a topic that can be addressed in a post or perhaps even a series of posts with any degree of coverage. Perhaps others can do it, but I cannot. I would strongly suggest, however, that you go to the following link where there are a number of articles that can do it justice. You can find them at ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ529.HTM

I hope this is helpful.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman,

The web reference I gave in my previous post is for David Armstrong’s Apologetics site. He has article after article, including debates that he has had on these topics with such Protestant giants as James White. I would strongly suggest you check out everything he has on Mary. He seems to cover every point of argument.

In your post you cited some history to support your contentions concerning Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception. There is apparently more history than was contained in your post. Please take note, this is borrowed from Dave Armstrong’s debate with James White. " I toss out just one example of a Marian doctrine present in “kernel” form (at the very least) in the Fathers (in this case, from the 4th century):

You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother.

{St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8}

O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun’s splendor, rays or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth.

{St. Ephraem, “Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God”}

{cited from Hilda Graef, MARY: A HISTORY OF DOCTRINE & DEVOTION (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965) }

At this point of Church history (before 373), you’ll recall, neither the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the Two Natures of Christ were fully developed or dogmatically defined in Council. Yet you would deny the legitimacy of Marian dogmatic developments - hardly a coherent position."

I hope this quote and reference from Armstrong will do more than generate a shrug on your part. Get curious and look at his web site. It is powerful in presentation and citation of historical sources.

 

[SPH1]

Kinsman:

But in the Latin church Augustine, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, held to the fact that if Mary was not partaker of the sin and apostasy of man, she could not be a partaker of redemption.

This is similar to the issues recently gone over with on another thread with anti-Catholic JasonTE.

Determing what any Father or anyone else believed first requires that one distinguish between Original Sin and Actual Sin. Some might have thought that Mary was conceived in Original Sin, but had no Actual Sin.

I suspect that upon a closer inspection, one would probably find that none of those cited by Kinsman believed that Mary had any Actual Sin. Just because someone might have questioned or doubted the Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean they went around believing that Mary was a “sinner” with Actual Sin like many modern-day Protestants do.

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman

If Jesus is not part of the race of Adam then why is he called the so of David on many instances.

The multitude rebuked them, telling them that they should be quiet, but they cried out even more, “Lord, have mercy on us, you son of David!” Matthew 20:31

---

As Jesus passed by from there, two blind men followed him, calling out and saying, “Have mercy on us, son of David!” Matthew 9:27

---

Behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders, and cried, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, you son of David! My daughter is severely demonized!” **Matthew 15:22 **

Behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, you son of David!” Matthew 20:30

 

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

Kinsman

If Jesus is not part of the race of Adam then why is he called the so of David on many instances.

First of all, “Son of David” is not “Son of Adam.” They’re two different people. Adam was created the Federal head of all mankind. David was born and God made Him king of Israel. Secondly, “Son of David” is a Messianic title connected to the unconditonal Davidic covenant found in 2 Sam. 7:13-16 and Ps. 89, where it is stated that his (David’s) earthly throne will be everlasting and one of his descendents will sit on it forever (Jesus Christ). If you look at the genealogies you’ll see that the family Jesus was born into was of the Davidic line. Jesus is the rightful heir to the throne of David which He will ascend at His 2nd Advent (Rev. 3:21; Matt. 25:31ff; Acts 15:16-18; Zech. 14:9; 16).

For now He shares His Father’s throne in Heaven, not as King, but as the believer’s High Priest, functioning as our Intercessor (Heb. 1:3; Heb. 7:25) and Advocate before the Father (1 Jn. 2:1-2). Because He Himself, through His sacrificial death and shed blood is the propitiation for our sins, i.e., the complete satisfaction for the offended holiness of God brought about by sin. You see Jimmy, God never looks to us to satisfy His offended holiness because of sin; Jesus Christ executed that work perfectly and completely on the cross. An infinite work accomplished between the Father and the Son. That’s why “purgatory” is an antibiblical doctrine and actually an insult to the cross of Christ…

 

[Kinsman]

SPH1:

This is similar to the issues recently gone over with on another thread with anti-Catholic JasonTE.

Determing what any Father or anyone else believed first requires that one distinguish between Original Sin and Actual Sin. Some might have thought that Mary was conceived in Original Sin, but had no Actual Sin.

I suspect that upon a closer inspection, one would probably find that none of those cited by Kinsman believed that Mary had any Actual Sin. Just because someone might have questioned or doubted the Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean they went around believing that Mary was a “sinner” with Actual Sin like many modern-day Protestants do.

My goodness, man. The doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary would of necessity involve the absence of both “original” and “actual” sin. Can sinlessness include one and not the other? If so, tell me how! Are you saying Mary was void of original sin but not actual sin?

Do you think men like Augustine and Aquinas were ignorant of these issues? Do you think the controversy between the Dominicans and Franciscans at the council of Trent was whether or not Mary was stained with “actual” sin? That the Dominicans believed she was void of “origianl” sin but were viing for the idea that she was stained with “actual” sin? Do you understand what you are presenting here?

 

[jimmy]

Luke 3:23 “And when Jesus began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thrity years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli (NASB)”

The connection to Adam, and his sin, i.e., original sin, is through the man. And you state correctly that Jesus had no biological father. Mary was the vessel for the divine to enter humanity, but without sin. He is the exception, not Mary. Mary had a biological father. Romanism fabricates the idea that God kept Mary from original sin by its doctrine of “immaculate conception.” But that’s an extrabiblical doctrine of convenience formed to support its Marianology. The doctrine is stated void of any divine revelation.

Rom 5:12 “Therefore, just as through ONE MAN, sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…”

This is the reason for the virgin birth, people. Jesus would not be born of Adam’s sinful race. Through the virgin birth He is made fully human, but He is not connected to Adam’s sinful race. Mary certainly is connected to Adam (and his sin) having a biological father, but Jesus, as you correctly stated, has no biological father.

This really is not difficult to understand.

This idea that original sin is passed through the father is not true. There is no biblical support for it. Rom 5;12 mentions nothing about sin being inherited through the father. Jsus is still part of Adams race even if he does not have a human father. He still has a human mother who is part of the race of Adam which makes him part of it. Actually many Orthodox believe that Mary was kept from sin also.

The reason for the virgin birth was because Jesus is God, he is not the son of any man. Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

Your statement, *“Sorry, folks, but we just can’t accept doctrines based on this kind of history and personal bias. You know the old adage, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool ALL the people ALL the time.” *spoiled an otherwise excellent post.

Couldn’t have been that excellent since you read it and dismissed its content as simply “Protestant rhetoric.”

Let me suggest that you honestly reflect on all of the material given you so far. Open your heart to the Holy Spirit with the true intention of being open to the truth no matter where it leads you. I could be very wrong, but I sense that you turn off to evidence simply because it is supportive of Catholic teaching.

You see, Pax, you’re no better than I am with condescending remarks such as this, stating that I am willfully closed to the Holy Spirit working in my life, and any reality of truth. Actually, I’m in support of many of Rome’s teachings, that is, those that are Biblically (i.e., Holy Spirit inspired) supported and congruent with the Gospel of grace through the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

You apparently have difficulty with the idea of doctrinal development. This concept basically means that our understandings of revelation and scripture deepen and grow in clarity. As a result we can define doctrines in greater detail.

This statement reveals to me that what I wrote regarding the history of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception either went right over your head (did you at least feel the breeze on your foreheard?), or you are guilty of what you have accused me. Nixed it simply because it was presented by someone who opposes the doctrine.

Out of curiosity I’ll go over to the site you suggested, and out of respect toward you. But I have gotten to where I tire quickly with the way the present Roman Catholic apologist often dance around the issues or ignore the logic if it’s too much of a threat.

The point that was made in the brief history I posted revealed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a developed doctrine based on an exegetical study of the Scriptures, nor plenary, Apostolic tradition, but formed from the personal sentiments of men toward the virgin. You can not compare this doctrine with that of the Trinity or even the Canon of Scripture. And certainly not the hypostatic union. All doctrines that can be developed by an exegetical and systematic study of the Scriptures. Doctrines that don’t need a Pope’s seal of approval; they already had God’s, based on His revealed, written Word.

The difference between you and me, Pax, is that I adhere to Sola Scriptura and you to Sola Ecclesia. In the end we’ll find out which one God approves, won’t we?