Why aren't we all immaculately conceived?

[Flame4]

I’m complaining. Billions and billions of souls in hell are complaining.
Over 60% of the world is not Christian. A much larger number if you say not-Catholic.

So by being born with original sin, they are destined to go to hell unless they can receive baptism before hand. So even if I were the perfect Catholic, and I gave birth to a baby, and it died an hour later in the hospital, before I got it baptized… now my baby is in hell suffering eternally forever.
And I’m supposed to be OK with that. I cannot picture myself in heaven being at peace knowing that my child was suffering eternally because I didn’t get there in time

No, the baby would not go to hell. Neither would a person who did not know anything about Christianity- They would be judged on actions (loving or not) I assume. There are people who honestly believe that their religion is right, and they live the most loving (good) life that they can- these people are not destined for hell either. Actually we don’t know their fate, but the Chuch believes it is possible for them to go to heavan.

People who, lets say, choose to be an atheist b/c they do not want to be chaste and not b/c they are misinformed and confused- I can see them having some problems, but I’m not saying they are going to hell. We don’t know who is and who isn’t going to hell, but we know what actions can lead to there.

Please see the CC. I am sorry I can’t post the exact quotes online. Maybe someone else can, or redirect you.

God Bless.

 

[po18guy]

But Adam and Eve were only “preserved” from sin in the sense that there was no original sin for them to contract in their creation. They had to actually commit a sin to contract sin. And according to the CCC, this sin that they contract would be passed down by propogation to their progeny, and I would expect this would hold true 100% of the time unless something different happened to throw off the natural course of propogation.

So, you tell me: Was Jesus a sinner? Did He have original sin? Did He have the stain?

But the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a belief consistently held by the Church for 2,000 years. As late as the 4th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was actually sinless.–Mike

The revelation was made. Did man fully understand it? No. You might Google “doctrinal development”. For example, Jesus was the revelation of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, yet much of the NT writings show that the authors did not yet understand this. The concept of the Trinity and the word ‘trinity’ are later developments. Is the bible therefore false? Is the Trinity false?

 

[po18guy]

To Matorin and mpartyka: Arguing is pointless. If you exist only to be anti-Catholic, may God bless you! If you are seeking the truth, get a catechism and read it, please! If you cannot afford one, I will send you a copy. Just PM me.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Matorin]

Is that it then? No more discussion? You’re shutting it down because you perceive us to be “anti-catholic”? Does anyone who questions Catholic doctrine qualify as “anti-catholic”? Since you oppose much of Protestant doctrine does that make you “anti-Protestant”? Whether you meant it or not, that is a very offensive term that gets thrown around here a lot and it really bothers me. You just implied that our entire existence is to fulfill some “anti-Catholic” need. I, and assumedly mpartyka, have read the catechism on the matter and we still have questions. I have read two books on the subject, have talked to a latin rite priest and a Greek Orthodox priest on multiple occasions on the topic. Mary is one of the big hurdles for me, and I came here hoping to gain some insight. To simply brush both of us off in the middle of the conversation is thoughtless at best and a weak defense of the faith at worst. I apologize if things I said before were offensive to you, but know that praying to Mary for salvation and placing faith in HER is repugnant and offensive to me, so do not think you are the only one frustrated here.

fhansen, there is a vast difference between Scripture and IC: first of all 90% of the books in the NT were pretty solid after the first 150 years. IC wasn’t even brought up for a thousand years. I suppose you will have to define what you mean by “Divine Revelation” because when I talk to Mormons my answer is “no” because they take it to mean “New things added on” whereas I’m sure that couldn’t possibly be what you mean.

I think a miscommunication here is that we are not asking whether or not Mary was sinless but if she was conceived immaculately. I have not seen a solid defense in anything I have read. Reasons have been

1. “It was necessary that Jesus have a sinless womb to be sinless” to which was responded “Why then did Mary not need a sinless womb to be sinless” to which was responded “God did a miracle and made it so” (which is not actually a reason, more of an unfair ‘trump’ statement that allows no room for questioning) to which was responded “And in the case of Jesus God did a miracle and made it so” and I haven’t seen a solid response to this yet.
2. “It is easier for God to create her sinless than to later make her sinless” or “He can’t wash the stain of original sin away just the original sin” to which was responded “Isn’t that limiting to God?” and I haven’t seen a solid response to this yet.
3. By fiat. “It was divinely revealed therefore it is true.” My response to this is, do the Mormons too, not believe in ongoing revelation? How do you respond to them?

Number 3 is one I would like to go in to in more detail.

Orthodox view

Again, we (or at least I) are not asking if she had more kids (which ironically wouldn’t be sin unless you are saying that even sex in marriage is sin) or even asking if she was sinless.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

In short, the Scriptural evidence is there - take it or leave it. But on a another level, the Church wrote the bible, guards it, and interprets it. This is a teaching of the Church. Development of doctrine is a real thing, even if the Orthodox don’t accept that themselves and in the course of early Christian history, they had bigger problems at the time, like survival, to expound on these Christian truths that have always been part of the Tradition. God bless.

 

[PJM]

=Luke K;6889585]Oh my goodness, this is so much posting for a question with a simple answer.

Q: Did Mary need to be immaculately conceived?
A: No. But it sure was nice of God to give Mary that privilege.

Q: Why aren’t we all immaculately conceived?
A: We don’t know. God could do it that way, but he doesn’t.

And then why not ask the obvious question:
Q: Why is life unfair?
A: We don’t know.

I made a thread about this a while ago and I only got two replies: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370397

Hi Luke. I’d like to add a coment to the middle Q&A…

We DO KNOW; BUT may not fully understand.

**Isiah 43 vrs. 7 and 21 **explain quite well why God Made us.

With Literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVING THINGS ON PLANET EARTH, ONLY ONE; HUMAITY has God-like Spiritual gifts of mind, intellect, freewill and soul. WHY?

So that we could CHOOSE FREELY to know, love and serve God; OR just as freely NOT TOO! The point being, God desires to be known, loved, acknowledged for all that He does for us. But He wants it to be OUR DECISION.

We are not conceived immaculately, because there is always a penaly for sin. ONE of the greatest failings of humaity in general is our lack of abhorence for ALL sin. And our casual acceptance by OH SO MANY OF US, of abortion, contaception, gay “rights” Ect. is appalling to God. And it ought to be for us.

Our Conception in sin is consistant with God’s Divine Justice. onsider the Penalty to Adam and Eve fo “just eating an apple?” NO! THIS WAS DELIBERT AND DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD WHO GAVE THEM EVERY POSSIBLE GOOD THING EXCEPT EATING FROM ONE SPECIFIC FRUIT TREE.

The consider Moses. In anger at the Hebrew nation, he struck the rock TWICE, instead of once as diected by Yahweh. His penalty was NOT TO ENTER THEPROMISED LAND.

God is and ONLY CAN BE GOOD and JUST. The problem is ours and its a matter of improper perception on our part.

God DID NOT have to permit us to be born! We have ZERRO rights to complan of AY conditions God’s sets before us. AMEN?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[po18guy]

Is that it then? No more discussion? You’re shutting it down because you perceive us to be “anti-catholic”?

Our disagreement is intractable. Further effort on my part at this time, will be fruitless, just as all of my effort so far seems to have been. My time will be better spent in prayer.

To the best of my knowledge, you did not mention before that you had spoken with a latin rite priest. You did not mention before that you read the catechism. Both tidbits would have helped, because mentioning speaking only with an Orthodox Priest gave the appearance that you were consulting solely with sources which would disagree with the Catholic Church. If I have missed something here, please forgive me.

2 Maccabees 15:38 “If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.”

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, there is a vast difference between Scripture and IC: first of all 90% of the books in the NT were pretty solid after the first 150 years. IC wasn’t even brought up for a thousand years. I suppose you will have to define what you mean by “Divine Revelation” because when I talk to Mormons my answer is “no” because they take it to mean “New things added on” whereas I’m sure that couldn’t possibly be what you mean.

I think a miscommunication here is that we are not asking whether or not Mary was sinless but if she was conceived immaculately. I have not seen a solid defense in anything I have read. Reasons have been

1. “It was necessary that Jesus have a sinless womb to be sinless” to which was responded “Why then did Mary not need a sinless womb to be sinless” to which was responded “God did a miracle and made it so” (which is not actually a reason, more of an unfair ‘trump’ statement that allows no room for questioning) to which was responded “And in the case of Jesus God did a miracle and made it so” and I haven’t seen a solid response to this yet.
2. “It is easier for God to create her sinless than to later make her sinless” or “He can’t wash the stain of original sin away just the original sin” to which was responded “Isn’t that limiting to God?” and I haven’t seen a solid response to this yet.
3. By fiat. “It was divinely revealed therefore it is true.” My response to this is, do the Mormons too, not believe in ongoing revelation? How do you respond to them?

Number 3 is one I would like to go in to in more detail.

Orthodox view

Again, we (or at least I) are not asking if she had more kids (which ironically wouldn’t be sin unless you are saying that even sex in marriage is sin) or even asking if she was sinless.

I understand your concerns. The Church does nothing by impulse, arbitrary fiat, or whim. The doctrine of the IM was not some new revelation, as if a moronic angel suddenly began dictating to the Pope. It was humbly promulgated after diligently researching, discussing, and praying over the matter.

But the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a belief consistently held by the Church for 2,000 years. As late as the 4th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was actually sinless. (It might actually be later than that, since Orthodoxy split off from Catholicism in the 10th century, and Orthodoxy doesn’t require belief in Mary’s sinlessness.) As late as the 15th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was sinless from conception. And until the mid-19th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was simply cleansed of original sin at conception or altogether prevented from contracting original sin at conception. The Immaculate Conception is a belief that progressed to its final form over time and only later, finally, in 1850, was declared to be divinely revealed and necessary for all Catholics to believe. (Not to say that the progressive origins of the Immaculate Conception means it’s wrong, but just that you’re giving a false picture of history in saying that it’s a 2,000 year old revelation that people only recently started rejecting.)

All of the above is a great description of how dogma is left undecided and develops amidst controversy-and is ultimately resolved if it’s at some point deemed important to do so. Look at all the disagreement in the early church over whether or not Jesus was even God-the whole world was practically Arian and was repulsed by the ignorance of those who thought otherwise about Jesus. And it still might’ve been that way if the Holy Spirit through the Church hadn’t resolved the issue and formulated the declarations about the Trinity at Nicea. But even then the controversy raged on for centuries. The resolution, in the end, is with the Magisteruem of the CC, the place where the buck stops-and we’re fortunate that such a place or charism exists-in fact I believe we’d be dead in the water without it.

But once these decisions are made, many will continue to object. For myself, as I grew in trust of the Church in other areas of Catholic teaching, issues like this one became less relevant. Of course Mary could’ve been graced in such a way as to be sinless, of course she could’ve been immaculately conceived.

The issue didn’t arise in a vacuum and as it became more in need of resolution for whatever reason, the Church acted. And the doctrine was promulgated.

 

[mpartyka]

I will answer your question if you can answer mine:

**God has the power to protect literally anyone on earth from suffering, yet why does God only intervene in some people? Why are there Christians who die the most painful death? Why are there Christians who pray for their sickness yet still died? God has the power to stop sickness right? God has the power, then are you telling me your benevolent God is not gonna do anything for even His people? **

First, I just want to mention that Strawberry Jam was first to put forward this particular argument:

God is able to prevent all humankind from suffering from starvation, cancer, and many other things. Why doesn’t he? Certainly you can not use the argument that his ability to do something must mean he must excercise that ability as we see most appropriate. We are not God, he knows best.

And I have to admit, this argument is probably the best I’ve heard yet. But suffering is God’s way of turning us to Him, right? If God just let us go on without any suffering, we would never turn to Him for healing. So the sufferings we encounter and undergo in this life are what turn us to Him so that we can have cleansing from original sin and eternal life. But what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does, I would argue, is suggest that God doesn’t need to use sufferings to turn us to Him for cleansing and healing – He could just cleanse and heal us all right from the beginning, and that would be infinitely better for us because, as evidenced with the Virgin Mary, we could potentially live a life without sinning. So our sufferings, which once had meaning and worth, now no longer do because they are demonstrably unnecessary – God could cleanse and heal us all right away, but for some reason just doesn’t.

I mean, for that matter, there are Catholics who have argued that God didn’t need to send Jesus to die for our sins so that He could forgive us – God could have just forgiven us by fiat. Do you think that’s true? Or do you think that God is perhaps limited by His own character into doing things in certain ways – i.e., that just forgiving people without requiring something in return would be wrong and therefore ungodly, which is why God sent Jesus to die for our sins? Likewise, do you think that God can willy-nilly break the rule that He Himself established as to the transmission of original sin, or is it possible that God is constrained by His own character so as not to break the natural chain of transmission of original sin unless He also breaks the natural chain of propogation of human life?

–Mike

 

[PJM]

=po18guy;6895560]Our disagreement is intractable. Further effort on my part at this time, will be fruitless, just as all of my effort so far seems to have been. My time will be better spent in prayer.

To the best of my knowledge, you did not mention before that you had spoken with a latin rite priest. You did not mention before that you read the catechism. Both tidbits would have helped, because mentioning speaking only with an Orthodox Priest gave the appearance that you were consulting solely with sources which would disagree with the Catholic Church. If I have missed something here, please forgive me.

2 Maccabees 15:38 “If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.”

Christ’s peace be with you.

What do you wish to discuss; I’ll be happy to take up whre our friend is leaving off?

love and prayers,
Pat

 

[thenobes]

But Mike, salvation is more than avoiding sin. It is doing God’s will.

And I have to admit, this argument is probably the best I’ve heard yet. But suffering is God’s way of turning us to Him, right? If God just let us go on without any suffering, we would never turn to Him for healing. So the sufferings we encounter and undergo in this life are what turn us to Him so that we can have cleansing from original sin and eternal life. But what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does, I would argue, is suggest that God doesn’t need to use sufferings to turn us to Him for cleansing and healing – He could just cleanse and heal us all right from the beginning, and that would be infinitely better for us because, as evidenced with the Virgin Mary, we could potentially live a life without sinning. So our sufferings, which once had meaning and worth, now no longer do because they are demonstrably unnecessary – God could cleanse and heal us all right away, but for some reason just doesn’t.

–Mike

So Mary was prevented from being injured by sin, at least spritually. But that doesn’t make the life she led any easier than one baptised later in life. From those whom much is given, much will be expected.

Further, remember those who were hired by the master at the start of the day? They worked much longer than those hired at the end of the day. Although they received the same pay, eternal salvation, we must realize that they must receive also reward based on their faithful life, which entails much assent of their will to the will of God, and constant humbling of themselves.

So when you think that it may be easier for us to be faithful by having OS takem away earlier, just thisnk that it will require in exchange a life of constant work for God and humbling of self, which may be more than most men can endure.

peace
steve

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

But Mike, salvation is more than avoiding sin. It is doing God’s will.

Salvation is a 3-dimensional reality with past, present, and, future components.

PAST
Rom 8:24:
For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?

Eph. 2:5-8:
even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus,
that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

Present
1 Cor 1:8: He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus (Christ).

2 Cor. 2:15:
For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

Future
Rom. 5:9-10:
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.
Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

1 Cor: 3:12-15:
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation,** that person will receive a wage**.

Rom. 13:11:
And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed (first believed what?! This is St. Paul, a follower of Christ and he is saying that his salvation is not yet fulfilled…sorry Charlie, salvation is not purely “history” from one point in time onwards)

 

[thenobes]

Exactly, salvation is a gift but no cakewalk as I’m sure Paul would agree.

Salvation is a 3-dimensional reality with past, present, and, future components.

PAST
Rom 8:24:
For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?

Eph. 2:5-8:
even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus,
that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

Present
1 Cor 1:8: He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus (Christ).

2 Cor. 2:15:
For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

Future
Rom. 5:9-10:
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.
Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

1 Cor: 3:12-15:
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation,** that person will receive a wage**.

Rom. 13:11:
And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed (first believed what?! This is St. Paul, a follower of Christ and he is saying that his salvation is not yet fulfilled…sorry Charlie, salvation is not purely “history” from one point in time onwards)

We have one foot in Heaven now, and a pledge of an inheritance. However, this requires assent of our will to the works in which God ordained we should walk. Can you imagine someone who never deviated from such an assent? Who wasn’t God Himself?

Mary!!

An incredibly difficult life for a mere human! Would we be able to follow in her footsteps? And how harshly we would be judged if we fell! To whom much is given much will be required!

peace
steve

 

[StrawberryJam]

Mary is for me many things. One thing that makes sense in so much that does not make sense.

But, that is only one thing of so many things she means when I reflect.

What I see here sounds to me personally, perhaps because I have a personal affinity towards her is a disguised hostility to her rewards granted to her by the Father and Son.

I am very very likely wrong to draw such a hasty conclusion from all of this. But, my gut instinct is telling me this. That is the same instinct that has kept me alive to this point. Right or wrong, I take a leap on the topic of Mary. If I were to believe, I could accept all and any declarations made about her from the Catholic Church without hesitation.
Not the apparitions, which I fully reject.
But, the idea and concept of Mary as told to us by the Catholic Church.
I can live with that.
Some would mock me, and tell me it is wishfull thinking.
Meaner ones would tell me I don’t like women to say that, because that means no woman will ever be able to be…

I don’t idolize her. I simply am amazed by the strength she exhibits in the story. Such a person, would be worth noting. She has my attention.

 

[po18guy]

Mary is for me many things. One thing that makes sense in so much that does not make sense.

But, that is only one thing of so many things she means when I reflect.

What I see here sounds to me personally, perhaps because I have a personal affinity towards her is a disguised hostility to her rewards granted to her by the Father and Son.

I am very very likely wrong to draw such a hasty conclusion from all of this. But, my gut instinct is telling me this. That is the same instinct that has kept me alive to this point. Right or wrong, I take a leap on the topic of Mary. If I were to believe, I could accept all and any declarations made about her from the Catholic Church without hesitation.
Not the apparitions, which I fully reject.
But, the idea and concept of Mary as told to us by the Catholic Church.
I can live with that.
Some would mock me, and tell me it is wishfull thinking.
Meaner ones would tell me I don’t like women to say that, because that means no woman will ever be able to be…

I don’t idolize her. I simply am amazed by the strength she exhibits in the story. Such a person, would be worth noting. She has my attention.

An excellent insight.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Why doesn’t God prevent all of us from contracting the stain of original sin as He did with Mary?

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see this question answered. If it was, please summarize.

Thanks
bd

 

[po18guy]

Why doesn’t God prevent all of us from contracting the stain of original sin as He did with Mary?

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see this question answered. If it was, please summarize.

Thanks
bd

I think you have the question backward, as other posters did. Reverse it and it answers itself. If you just cannot comprehend why God would grant a unique grace to the mother of His Son’s flesh, then there is no answer for you. It has little to do with the “answer”, and much to do with your state of mind.

 

[mpartyka]

I think you have the question backward, as other posters did. Reverse it and it answers itself. If you just cannot comprehend why God would grant a unique grace to the mother of His Son’s flesh, then there is no answer for you. It has little to do with the “answer”, and much to do with your state of mind.

I could comprehend this if God were a respecter of persons, but the Bible says that He is not (2 Chr 19:7, Rom 2:11). A respecter of persons would do for His mother what he would not do for another. But that’s inconsistent with the character of God, “who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work” (1 Pet 1:17). What work had Mary done at conception? Nothing. So no one can argue that Mary deserved to be graced with the Immaculate Conception. All one can argue, then, is that Mary had to be immaculately conceived to accomplish her work of conceiving and bearing a sinless Christ in her womb. But that’s been denied here, and besides, if Mary could have been borne in the womb of Anna, a woman stained with sin, without contracting original sin herself, then neither did Christ need to be borne in the womb of a sinless woman. So necessity is out as a reason, too. Is there anything left?

Some have argued that original sin is just like any disease or unhappy circumstance that God might allow in one person’s life but not another person’s, but original sin is a matter of nature, not disease or circumstance. If a child is conceived, and nature is allowed to take its 100% perfect course, then the end result is still a child stained with original sin. For a disease, a disorder, or a defect to happen in a child’s conception or development, things have to go wrong – but original sin is a part of a child’s nature even if everything goes right. Which means that original sin is the norm of the human condition, and it takes a special intervention by God to effect a conception in which original sin is not transmitted. And if God did this for Mary, then that means He did not choose to do it for all of us, and instead left us dead in sin and prone to sin, which is completely inconsistent with the character of a God who hates sin – whose heart breaks when we sin. Indeed, the Bible says that no one is compelled to sin by external circumstances – “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor 10:13) – and so our countless decisions to sin come either at the impetus of our free-will consideration (as in the case of Adam and Eve) or at the impetus of the original sin that has stained us irrevocably…a stain that God could have kept us all from contracting, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but didn’t. So whose fault is it that we sin, ultimately? Does the guilt of our sins really lie with us, or does it lie with God, who chose by his deliberate withholding of grace that we should be conceived and born as sinners?

And on top of this, whose fault is it that Eve fell into original sin in a perfect world, if it were possible for this woman Mary, born free from the stain of original sin, to remain without actual sin even in a fallen world? It appears that had God formed Mary from Adam’s rib instead of Eve, Mary would have resisted Satan’s temptation, and the human race would never have fallen in the first place. So whose fault is it that Adam sinned, ultimately? Was Adam right to accuse God when he said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat”? (Gen 3:12) Should Adam have continued, “If only you had given me Mary to be my wife, and not Eve”? Indeed, the guilt of original sin rests upon each and every one of us precisely because we know that had we ourselves been in Adam’s or Eve’s position – a perfect human being in a perfect world with but one tempter – we, too, would have fallen as they did. But if Mary was without sin, then that’s not true. If she would have succeeded where Eve failed, then perhaps I would have succeeded where Adam failed. Perhaps you would have succeeded where your gender’s original representative failed. Perhaps there really is no reason why any of us ought to suffer from the bondage of original sin save for the fact that God chooses to keep us in bondage rather than curing us as any good physician would. All the other sufferings of the world that we experience are mechanisms for pointing us to God for cleansing and healing. If God could cleanse us and heal us without making use of such sufferings, then to what end are the sufferings, if not to satisfy a divine sadism that is altogether unworthy of an all-good, all-loving creator?

I do believe you are correct, though, in that the question ought to be reframed: Consider that while many Protestants do not believe that the Virgin Mary was free from original sin, almost all Protestants – I would daresay all, but I know better than to assume universal consistency on any point within Protestantism – do believe that Jesus was free from original sin. Let us therefore frame the question this way: “Why doesn’t God prevent all of us from contracting the stain of original sin as He did with Jesus?” How do you think a Protestant might respond?

–Mike

 

[po18guy]

I could comprehend this if God were a respecter of persons, but the Bible says that He is not (2 Chr 19:7, Rom 2:11).

God does not respect humans for their own sake - because of their own status or accomplishments. He is their Creator, which rises far above respect. Respect implies equality at some level. Your difficulty in this area is foundational, rather than specific, and this is where you go wrong, IMO.

A respecter of persons would do for His mother what he would not do for another.

But, this is only your opinion. As to what Mary did to deserve this? The only thing was to say “Yes” to Gabriel. But, God did not do this primarily for Mary, but rather for His Son’s perfect, divine state to be translated into the perfection of humanity. Since Jesus is in a perfect divine condition, His humanity also requires the same state, from the moment of conception. Why? God’s very nature. You are complicating this. Yes, you are.

So whose fault is it that we sin, ultimately? Does the guilt of our sins really lie with us, or does it lie with God, who chose by his deliberate withholding of grace that we should be conceived and born as sinners?

You are complaining about being human. Rather than complain, rejoice that God has sent us a Savior!

And on top of this, whose fault is it that Eve fell into original sin in a perfect world, if it were possible for this woman Mary, born free from the stain of original sin, to remain without actual sin even in a fallen world?

I see your problem not as specific, but as general. You have difficulty with the idea of free will. This clouds your view of everything.

If God could cleanse us and heal us without making use of such sufferings, then to what end are the sufferings, if not to satisfy a divine sadism that is altogether unworthy of an all-good, all-loving creator?

Jesus, Who is God, chose, out of love, to suffer to redeem us. You appear also to have a problem with that. Read the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). The grace is God’s to give, or to withold.

I do believe you are correct, though, in that the question ought to be reframed: Consider that while many Protestants do not believe that the Virgin Mary was free from original sin, almost all Protestants…How do you think a Protestant might respond?–Mike

All over the map - from Jesus is God and man, to Jesus is man alone, to Jesus is God alone and not man, to Jesus is the Archangel Michael, to ??? There are an unlimited variety of responses once you place the ego in charge of interpreting God’s Word.

 

[mpartyka]

As to what Mary did to deserve this? The only thing was to say “Yes” to Gabriel.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said, “What on earth could this unknown teenager have accomplished in her short and anonymous life to merit being the mother of Jesus? Thus, she was created for that very purpose.” That’s way different from saying Mary in any way deserved her Immaculate Conception.

Meanwhile, on that same note:

But, God did not do this primarily for Mary, but rather for His Son’s perfect, divine state to be translated into the perfection of humanity. Since Jesus is in a perfect divine condition, His humanity also requires the same state, from the moment of conception. Why? God’s very nature. You are complicating this. Yes, you are.

First, you are making the mistake of confusing the two natures of Christ. His divine nature wasn’t “translated into humanity” (as a Jehovah’s Witness might argue) or even “humanized” (as with the monophysite heresy – i.e., "before the union, two natures; after the union, one nature). Rather, the Word of God, already possessed of the divine nature, assumed to Himself a human nature. Just want to be clear on that – God the Word didn’t become man by changing from God into man but by assuming a created human nature to Himself.

Therefore, second, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it was not necessary (and, as some people have stated here in this thread, neither does the Church teach that it was necessary) for Mary to have been completely sinless to have conceived and borne (or even raised, thanks to Joseph’s example) the sinless Son of God, because if it were necessary for Mary to have been without sin to carry Jesus in her womb, then it would have been necessary for Anna to have been without sin to carry Mary in her womb, and on and on all the way back to Eve, whom we know had sin of her own. So the necessity argument has long since evaporated. If Mary’s humanity could have been granted a perfect state from the moment of conception merely by divine fiat and without any regard to the sin-stained state of her mother, then so could Jesus’ humanity have been granted perfection without any regard to Mary’s state.

You have difficulty with the idea of free will.

Not at all. Adam and Eve had wills which were perfectly free, having no stain of original sin to pressure their wills in the direction of sin. Additionally, they lived in a perfect world in which there was one tempation but no existing examples of sin to influence them externally. In that ideal environment, they fell. But the claim is made that Mary did not sin her whole life even in an environment that was absolutely riddled with temptations and examples of sin. So why didn’t God create Mary first, put Mary in Eden, and save us human beings the trouble of all this sin and suffering?

Jesus, Who is God, chose, out of love, to suffer to redeem us. You appear also to have a problem with that.

I asked this question before: Do you think that God could have redeemed us without sending His Son to suffer and die for us? That He could have just said to Adam and Eve, “Never mind that whole thing with the apple, it’s all water under the bridge”? Is God a divine masochist, choosing to suffer when he could have freely forgiven instead – and likewise a sadist for having us follow in His footsteps when He didn’t actually need to tread in those steps Himself?

All over the map - from Jesus is God and man, to Jesus is man alone, to Jesus is God alone and not man, to Jesus is the Archangel Michael, to ??? There are an unlimited variety of responses once you place the ego in charge of interpreting God’s Word.

None of the answers you have proposed do anything to explain why the humanity of Jesus alone would not have contracted original sin. Seriously, let’s go into the realm of pure speculation and take the Immaculate Conception off the table – Mary’s humanity inherited original sin in her conception just like everyone else. But Jesus’ humanity didn’t inherit original sin in His conception. Why? Give me a rational answer.

–Mike

P.S.: Just FYI, I’m about to go on vacation for a week, so I might not be able to respond in a timely fashion.