Anonymous (via GotQuestions)
For follow-up discussion and general commentary on the topic. Comments are sorted chronologically.
Ezekiel Kimosop
This is a great answer by Bro Houdmann. I had all along thought it was about Christ. I just wonder what difference there is between a dogma and a doctrine because if this is an RCC teaching then I believe it informs one of its fundamental doctrines of their faith. Sadly, as Michael has observed the idea of lifting Mary to divine status is unbliblical. Only Jesus bears divinity and not Mary, his blessed mother. By their teaching the Catholics suppose that Mary did not require the atoning blood of Jesus to be washed of her Adamic sin! This is a very difficult theological standpoint that will bring into question the humanity of Mary and entire works of the Cross!
Vincent Mercado
Dear Ezekiel,
Doctrines are official teachings of the Church. Not all doctrines are taught with the same level of certainty. Some are taught more certain than others. There are 8 levels of certainty, the highest is called de fide - divine revelations and infallibly asserted.
Dogmas are doctrines of the Church that are taught with de fide certainty. Dogmas are a subset of doctrines. Not all doctrines are dogmas, but all dogmas are doctrines.
Hope this helps.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Vincent
You have cleverly avoided the question. We are addressing the Immaculate Conception claim by the Roman Catholics. The argument is that this doctrine contradicts scripture. You have not rebutted this fact. The distinction you are attempting to draw between doctrines and dogmas is irrelevant to non Catholics.
The biblical truth is that the Immaculate Conception doctrine (or dogma) is not consistent with the express teaching of Biblical scriptures. It does not matter that it is an official teaching of the Roman Catholics. By the way when you mention "Church" be specific on which church you have in mind to avoid confusion.
Vincent Mercado
I have avoided the question. Yes, you are right. I just thought you should know that these are words used in Catholic Theology. If you want to use these words, then it helps if you knew what these mean.
As for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, while from the surface it is not found in scripture, it does not contradict scripture. You say that it is not consistent, moreover, it contrary to scripture, yet you didn't provide any reference. Provide yours, and I will provide mine.
This doctrine is irrelevant to Non-Catholics, that is fine. As for Catholics, this is a must-believe.
As for the word "Church", Christ established only one when he said to Peter, "I will build My church". (Matthew 16:18)
Ezekiel Kimosop
Dear Vincent,
It is nowhere taught in the Bible that Mary was sinless. Jesus, Mary's son, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, came to die for all men including His mother Mary.
Romans 3:23-25 declares "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; It is upon you to supply the scriptures to back your doctrine."
This scripture clearly teaches that ALL have sinned since Adam. Only Christ does not bear the sin nature because Hebrews 4:15 teaches "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
I challenge you to provide the scriptures upon which the Immaculate Conception doctrine rests.
Vincent Mercado
I agree to both Romans 3:23-25 and Hebrews 4:15 and for that I can say that Mary was saved from sin by the Lord himself.
She sings her wonderful magnificat, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!" (Luke 1:46-47)
Can you agree with me that the virgin Mary was saved by God?
Ezekiel Kimosop
Dear Vincent,
I agree with you that Mary was saved from sin by the Lord Jesus, because she placed her faith in him along with other NT believers.
Acts 1:13-14 teaches "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
Mary was part of believers and Luke clearly mentions her name alongside the brothers of Jesus who are not named here.
The immaculate conception doctrine clearly teaches that Mary was made sinless during her conception, and did not need to be saved by means of the atoning works of Calvary. This claim by Roman Catholic Church is nowhere taught in the Bible. If you accept that the passages I cited describe the sinful condition of ALL men before Christ (Romans 3:23), there is no biblical basis to argue that Mary was excepted from this divine requirement of salvation through Christ. Her motherhood of Jesus did not obviate her need for salvation through Christ (John 14:6).
You have failed to cite any concrete scriptures in support of your doctrine. The Magnificat you cited does not teach that Mary was sinless, but in fact describes her need for his redemption.
Vincent Mercado
I agree she needs redemption. She said so herself when she sang, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!" (Luke 1:46-47)
However, this meeting with Elizabeth, and her song, happened long before Mary met with the apostles in the upper room, in Luke 1, not in Acts 1 as you suppose.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Dear Vincent
You are mixing up things here. I never said that Mary sang the Magnificat in Acts 1. I quoted Acts 1 to indicate to you that Mary was listed among belivers who were present when Mathias was elected to replace Judas. I believe she was also among those present in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost. This means she was an ordinary believer in Christ even though we know that she was blessed among women. Nowhere the Bible is it taught that she had a divine status as suggested by Roman Catholics.
I can see that you are trying to build a theology out the Magnificat to suggest that Mary was already saved by the time she sang that song. That teaching is not consistent with Scripture. The praise song was a hymn of thanksgiving on being found worthy among women to be the mother of Jesus.
Mary spoke under the anointing of the Spirit but the words do not imply that she was already saved before Christ died on the Cross or that she did not require the redeeming blood of Christ to cleanse her sin.
The Immaculate Conception doctrine is therefore unbiblical. You have failed to offer a convincing theological argument in its support.
Vincent Mercado
"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!" (Luke 1:46-47)
Mary was saved from sin. She needed redemption. We both agreed to this.
Catholics never suggest that Mary had divine status. We love and honor her, just as her son did, but we don't worship her.
I am trying to be respectful here. It is exhausting correct people with "what they thought as Catholic teaching". Read Catholic documents if you are unsure what we really teach.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Thanks Vincent
I do not seek a correction but facts based on Scripture. This is a theological debate which calls for forbearance even where our theological convictions are questioned. This is hopefully my final comment. I have just one question to ask you.
Do you agree with Michael Houdmanns answer on what the Immaculate Conception teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is?
A Yes or No reply will do.
Blessings.
Vincent Mercado
Yes.
I agree with Mr Houdmann's answer, although not completely. Here's why.
He didn't quote Mary's magnificat. "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!" (Luke 1:46-47) It would be complete if he pointed out that Mary was saved from sin, or that she needed redemption.
-----
Is your understanding of the Immaculate Conception the same as what Mr Houdmann explained?
A Yes or No reply will do.
Blessings.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Now let me conclude by citing what Michael quoted from the official RCC teaching and his statement with which you have not disagreed ... " An official statement of the doctrine reads, "The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin." Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature, and was, in fact, sinless.'
Even without the benefit of any citation from the Magnificat, the doctrine clearly teaches that Mary was preserved FREE FROM ANY STAIN OF THE ORIGINAL SIN from the conception of Christ going forward. She therefore did not need the cleansing of Christ's blood for her salvation. This teaching clearly contradicts Romans 3:23-25 which declares "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"
The biblical position is clear that Mary as other humans needed the blood to cleanse her. Jesus was preserved by divine means in her womb so that sinful blood could not stain him (impeccability). To teach otherwise is to manipulate scripture.
Vincent Mercado
Thank you for taking the time to read what the RCC actually teach. You might not agree with what it says, but I am glad you took time to read and understand before you make any judgement.
---------
In my quiet time, I found this doctrine a good topic for meditation - If I were Christ, and I had the power to make my own mother, would I make her beautiful? Would I make her good? Would I make her unblemished? Would I protect her from sin?
Bruce Morgan
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
We focus too much on the human contribution to the makeup of Jesus, through Mary, at our eternal peril.
The fact is the GOD was the Father, imparting His sinless state to the child, making the child HOLY. It is a direct and grievous insult to the Holy Spirit to reapportion His personal involvement and contribution to attribute it to the human being Mary.
To try to make a human being equal to God is the very definition of sin.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Thanks Bruce for stepping into this theological debate.
Your reflection is splendid. The trouble with a number of RCC doctrines is their penchant to speak extra biblically. Once a doctrine contradicts scriptures, its legitimacy is doubtful.
When Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit God must have preserved His sinless blood from contamination from the sinful blood of Mary. It is by the same way the Holy Spirit can dwell in us who are sinful vessels.
We cannot rationalize God's ability to do or make the impossible things possible because His ways are higher than ours and so are His thoughts (Isaiah 55:9).
Mary placed her faith in Christ. and in that context the relationship changed from mother/son to sinner/savior. She saw Jesus die on the cross and understood the divine purposes of His atoning death. She shortly therefter joined believers in proclaiming the message of the Risen Christ. (Acts 1-2).
The Bible does not tell us what became of her later but we can confidently declare that Mary along with all saints of yore are awaiting the first ressurection of the dead in Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
Ben Jones
In 1854 when the Immaculate Conception was declared a dogma in the RCC it was believed that all humans had the exact same blood flowing through their veins so therefore the blood of the child would be identical to the blood of the mother I.e, sinful. It wasn't until 1901 that Karl Landsteiner discovered that infants may have a completely different blood type than that of the mother.
The RCC saw a problem, how could a sinful woman's blood flow through the veins of a sinless son? The entire "problem' was based on an incorrect assumption and the "answer" was also incorrect, that answer was the immaculate conception.
Protestants solved the problem quite easily, by Federal Headship, The sinful nature is only passed on to the infant through the father, so since Christ's Father was God He had no sinful nature. Why don't women pass on the sinful nature? Because of the headship of Adam. The bible never says Adam's and Eve's sin, it says either Adams sin or the sin of Adam, see Romans 5:12, 5:15, 5:16 and 5:17. Jesus received His human nature from His mother Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit.