=Reuben J;7150886]Thanks Jon, that’s all that I wanted to know. As always, it always encourages me to know how close your position with the Catholic Church is.
I’d certainly not want to change your mind on what you’d consider sufficient in the scripture for it to ‘bind the conscience of the believers’.
I note that you take seriously the angel’s greeting of ‘full of grace’ on Mary though not sufficient for a doctrine on the Immaculate Conception to be based on.
Just a couple of thoughts, Reuben.
1st, thanks for your kind words.
2nd, as I just told Joe, were there a unity of belief on the doctrine, east and west, like there is on the Theotokos, etc, I would be more inclinded to see doctrine here. As it is, I can’t say for sure which position is correct, as scripture can reasonably be used to support both.
Just a thought. Very often we cannot find Christian doctrines having explicit scriptural verses on which they can be categorically based on. I hope you agree with me on that. Where scriptural verses are used they have to be expounded in other that they support the doctrines.
Frankly I had trouble defending Christian doctrines solely based on the scripture. That’s why argument with non-Christians can never ends with a conclusion. Ultimately it is a matter of our faith in believing the said doctrines.
An example: There are no explicit scriptural verses on the resurrection (let alone the Trinity). Nobody saw Jesus actually rose from the dead. Though to us it is as obvious as anything; it is not so for the non-believers. They will ask you, ‘tell me where it says Jesus rise from his death?’ With the illusion that people can perform, even his death can be an illusion, a trick.
I understand your position, though perhaps not your example. Matt.28:6 is pretty clear.
*He is not here,
for he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid. *
So, I would say denying His resurrection, which is explicit in scripture, is to deny scripture itself. All that said, the Lutheran reformers did rely greatly on the early councils and ECF’s, which we very much need to understand scripture.
If Gabriel the archangel who brought the message of God replaced the name Mary with ‘Full of grace’, would that not saying anything about what she is in the eyes of God? Would God not sustain that, in view of the fact that it is God who asks? God sustained even for less (example Gideon) what more to say about his own plan of salvation that involves his Son?
In my personal opinion, even if I am not a Catholic, to deny the Immaculate Conception, is to deny God sustaining power in keeping to his word – full of grace.
So, let me ask you, do apply this to the Orthodox view, at least as it is explained here:
web.archive.org/web/20070728015648/http://www.philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html
Does this seem a reasonable understanding of accepting “full of grace”. I do, and hence, my reluctance to agree with your statement, even though I’m, again, more inclined to agree with the IC, based on my (western) understanding of Original Sin.
His peace, my friend,
Jon
