Immaculate Conception of Mary (Biblical and Historical Analysis)
Introduction
What is the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Immaculate
Conception of Mary”?
Let me quote the
Pope Pius IX (1854):
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the
doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first
instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by
Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original
sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore
to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”[1]
· Mary is free from original sin. Mary was
protected from original sin. She did not have a sin nature and was sinless.
The seriousness with which the Roman Catholic church
takes this dogma can be seen from the following quotes:
Hence, if anyone shall dare
- which God forbid! - to think otherwise than as has been defined by us,
let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment;
that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated
from the unity of the church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he
incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express
in words or writing or by any other outwards means the errors he think in
his heart[2]
·
To
think otherwise is inviting eternal hell……
·
To
write against it is to invite penalties established by law
What the doctrine “Immaculate Conception of Mary” does
not mean?
·
This
doctrine is not about the sinless nature of Jesus Christ. I firmly believe in
the orthodox Christian doctrine of the sinless-ness of Jesus Christ. The
conception of Jesus Christ was immaculate.
Why Roman
Catholic View is False
(Biblical Evidence,
Historical Analysis)
Biblical Evidences:
1.
Bible explicitly states that Jesus was sinless (2
Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:18, 19; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews
7:26, 27)
2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to
be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God.”
1 John 3:5: “You know that he appeared in
order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.”
1 Peter
2:18, 19: “you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your
forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”
Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high
priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in
every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
Hebrews
7:26, 27: “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high
priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from
sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He
has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices
daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since
he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”
If it was necessary that we should believe that
“Mary is free of original sin and is sinless” in order to be in true faith (and
receive eternal life), then why it is not explicitly stated in the Word of God?
John 20:30:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which
are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, and that by believing you may
have life in his name.”
If the doctrine of “immaculate conception of Mary”
was necessary for salvation (as Roman Catholic dogma asserts), why did John
forgot to mention it when he wrote the Gospel, which is “written so that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name.” Was the content of John’s
gospel insufficient for one’s salvation?
2.
Bible explicitly states that all others was sinful and
needed a Savior (Luke 1:46, 47; Romans 3:10-12; 1 John 1:8)
Luke 1:46, 47: “And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47and
my spirit rejoices in God my
Savior”
· Jesus Christ is the Savior of Mary. Mary recognized that she
needed a Savior, just like others. Jesus Christ paid the penalties of sin of those for whom he came to
save. And Mary recognized that she is in need of a Saviour. God sent His Son to
save Mary.
· If Mary is free from Original Sin and has no sin
nature and is sinless, Jesus Christ cannot be the Savior of Mary in the sense
that He bore her sins on the cross.
Romans 3:10-12: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one
seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no
one does good, not even one.”
Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin came
into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men because all
sinned”
Historical Analysis:
I don’t believe that we can prove a doctrine from
church history. Doctrines has to be proved from Scripture. I believe in Sola Scriptura.
Then why I am listing the church fathers? It is to show the emptiness of Roman
Catholic argument that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an “ancient
doctrine”.
1. Irenaeus
Does not hesitate to charge Mary with 'unseasonable haste' or 'urgency,' which the Lord had to rebuke at the wedding of Cana (c.f. John ii. 4) (Iren. Against Heresies. iii. c. 16)
2. Origen
“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized,
the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal
during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and
redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized
by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of
unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Homilies
on Luke, 17.6-7).
3.
Tertullian
Tertullian references certain flaws of Mary in his discussion of the unbelief
of Jesus’ family. Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a
controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the
unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue,
as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.)
4.
Basil
“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when
standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the
voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine
conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her
soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to
become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood.
Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the
Lord, shall be reached by some doubt.
This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He
indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing
shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their
heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been
offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).
5.
John Chrysostom
“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying
her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed
through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless
she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she
had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the
people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as
yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Homilies
in Matthew, Homily 44.3).
6.
Hilary of
Poitiers
Once
again on Luke 2:35, interprets Simeon’s words as a judgment upon Mary: “if this
virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this
judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Tractatus in Ps. 118).
7.
The freedom of Mary from actual sin (not original sin) was first clearly taught in the fifth
century by Augustine. Augustine, for the sake of Christ's honor, exempted Mary
from willful contact with actual sin; but he
expressly included her in the fall of Adam and its hereditary consequences.
Therefore Augustine rejected Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., He believed
that Mary was with original sin).
Some quotes from Augustine:
“Mary died because of inherited
sin, but Christ died for the destruction of sin.” (Sermo 2 in Psalm. 34)
In his last great work, Opus
imperf. contra Julian. IV. c. 122 (ed. Bened. X. 1208), Augustine speaks of the
grace of regeneration which Mary experienced. He also says explicitly that
Christ alone was without sin. These and other passages of Augustine clearly
prove, to use the words of Perrone (l.c. pp. 42, 43 of the Germ. ed.), that
'this holy Father evidently teaches that Christ alone must be exempt from the
general pollution of sin; but that the blessed Virgin, being conceived by the
ordinary cohabitation of parents, partook of the general stain, and her flesh,
being descended from sin, was sinful flesh, which Christ purified by assuming
it.'
The pupils of Augustine were
even more explicit. One of them was Fulgentius.
8.
Fulgentius of
Ruspe as late as the 6th century
that Mary was “conceived in
iniquity in accordance with human practice” [Epistula 17.13]).
Fulgentius (De incarn. c. 15),
says: 'The flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human
way, was truly sinful flesh.'
9.
Pelagius, who denied hereditary sin, went
further, and exempted Mary (with several other saints of the Old Testament)
from sin altogether. Pelagius denied hereditary sin (original sin) and if Pelagius were not a condemned heretic,
he might be quoted as the father of the modern dogma.
10. Seven different popes taught doctrine that was
contrary to what was defined as “Christian dogma” by the Roman Catholic church
in 1854. Those were Gregory I, Innocent III, Gelasius I, Innocent V, John XXII,
Clement VI (Please read Philip Schaff, The
Creeds of Christendom).
11. Leo I, the great bishop of Rome, from A.D 440 to 461,
rejected the idea that anyone but Christ was sinless.[3]
SUMMARY
· The Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly taught in the
Scriptures.
· Early Church Fathers rejected the doctrine of Immaculate
Conception of Mary.
·
If belief in Mary’s
immaculate conception was common in the early church, why did no one rise up and
censure Origen or Basil or John? This, combined with the absence of clear
support for the immaculate conception in the first or second century (it
possibly begins in the third, but is still very scant then), suggests that this
dogma is an accretion, rather than a development of the apostolic deposit.
· This fact demonstrates the emptiness of the claim often made of
modern Roman dogmas such as Immaculate Conception, that they are based on
“ancient traditions”
· This proves that Roman Catholic church does not follow
either Scriptures or ancient tradition but their own desires and thoughts. And
by anathemizing (cursing) those who deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary,
they are cursing themselves.
· As James White said, “this shows us with glaring
clarity what happens when you deny the truth of sola scriptura, that is, the
sufficiency of the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith for the
church.”
References (Recommended Readings):
1.
James
R. White, Mary – Another Redeemer?
2.
Philip
Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom,
1:108-128
3.
https://gavinortlund.com/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/
Comments
Post a Comment