Christmas is on the horizon, and recently I came across some discussions of the "Immaculate Conception." Not being Catholic, I had to figure out just what that meant because I wasn't sure those who were discussing it actually knew. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not about the Virgin Birth. That is, it isn't about how Mary got pregnant without sex. It's about Mary herself. The Roman Catholic claim is that Mary herself was sinless ("Immaculate") before, during, and after Jesus. We understand that all have sinned except Jesus, but the Roman Catholics disagree and argue that Mary was another exception. Add to that the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and you have what the Roman Catholics refer to as a "Co-Redemptrix," a Virgin Mary who participates in the redemption of all people. But I'll let you folks who contend for such a role to squabble among yourselves. Not my problem.
It is true that the Virgin Birth is non-negotiable in Christian teaching. It is stated clearly (Luke 1:26-38 -- especially Luke 1:34-37). It was predicted (Isa 7:14). And it has been the accepted understanding of Scripture since Christ. But when we end up with a perpetual virgin Mary, we end up with a contradiction of Scripture. "Oh, no," the Catholics assure me, "those weren't brothers; they were spiritual brothers." Nice idea, but in John 2:12 John distinguishes between His brothers and His disciples. His disciples were His spiritual brothers, so why are these distinct? In John 7:3 His brothers urged Him to go to Judea so His disciples could see His works. Again, aren't those the same? In Mark 6:3, the people of His hometown opposed Him, saying, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" That can make no sense if "spiritual brothers and sisters" were in view. They were clearly talking about physical brothers and sisters in their midst.
Mary was, in a very real sense, the "mother of God." Jesus was God Incarnate; Mary was His mother. But the godhood of Jesus wasn't endowed by Mary; it was God. God is the originator of God (as it were). Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28), but if grace is unmerited favor and Mary was "full of grace" because she was sinless, we have a problem -- grace is not unmerited favor. Even in the early church the first suggestion of Mary as sinless didn't come about until the 4th century ... oddly enough right around the rising of the Roman Catholic Church. From the Roman Catholics, the claim is that the first to teach about the sinlessness of Mary was Pelagius. Hmmm. And if Mary was without sin, why did she refer to God as her "savior" (Luke 1:47)? People without sin need no savior. Further, if Mary was without Original Sin and, therefore, without sin for life, who else is there? How many were/are there? Who says "all have sinned" when there could be a considerable list of those who haven't? In the end, we have to consider, if the Bible is that unclear and that unreliable, what else do we need to question? Jesus was born from a virgin, and His mother experienced great grace. Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live and His sinlessness qualified Him to pay for our sin. Be careful when others try to mediate that away. It is neither a biblical nor reasonable place to go.
3 comments:
I wrote about this over a decade ago:
Immaculate Conception: Catechism Para. 411: “Mary…was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.” Para. 491-93 “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary…was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ,…preserved immune from all stain of original sin.’…By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.”
Once the church had decided on Mary’s divine motherhood and perpetual virginity, there needed to be another way to show her complete holiness. Early church fathers said Mary was guilty of many sins, but by the early 4th century “the Latin fathers refrained from charging Mary with sin.” (The Cult of the Virgin, by Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, p. 31) At first it was taught that Mary had no personal sin, but at the beginning of the 12th century the idea that Mary was preserved from original sin (the sinful nature) was first propagated by a British monk, Eadmer. Virtually all the leading theologians opposed the idea because it contradicted Scripture’s truth of the universality of sin. “A major portion of the credit for establishing the immaculate conception as Catholic dogma goes to John Duns Scotus (1264-1308). He argued that to hold that Mary was preserved from original sin would not depreciate the atonement but rather would magnify it: it would be an even greater work of redemptive grace for Mary to be born without sin than to be given the power to rise above it.” (The Cult, pp.31-32)
This doctrine remained controversial for several more centuries until 1854 when Pope Pius IX defined it. This was the first dogma ever pronounced on the authority of a pope without official sanction of a council. Pius’ statement claimed this “was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” As a result of this dogma, the church says “Mary possesses all gifts, knowledge, and fruits in their fullness, and is exalted above all men and angels.” (The Cult, p.32).
For Mary to have been born without Original Sin, there would have to be a line of women all born without fathers and be a separate line from Adam, making Jesus not in the line of Adam, as Scripture claims. And I'm terms of redemption, Mary doesn't need to be perpetually a virgin because sex within marriage does not defile us. That idea doesn't come from Scripture, but from the Gnostics.
The convoluted Roman Catholic dogma about Mary, the mother of Jesus--including her sinlessness, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption into Heaven upon her death, role as “co-redemptrix” and “Queen of Heaven,” etc.--was among the many unbiblical teachings I had to unlearn when I was born again 47 years ago. You pointed out some problems with a few of these; here’s another point about her supposed sinlessness: In order for Mary to have been sinless, she would have had to descend from a long line of other sinless humans--since the Bible teaches that we inherit our sinful nature from Adam (Rom. 5:12); so Mary’s human father would have had to be sinless and his father and his father and on and on--all the way back to before Adam (which is impossible). If there had been a long line of sinless men down through the ages, I think it would be very well known--for the cultural anomaly it clearly would have been--plus the apostles would have mentioned them in the New Testament books. As you point out, God’s Word clearly tells us only Jesus was sinless (Rom. 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10). (I understand that the Catholic teaching is that Mary “chose not to sin,” but there is no biblical support for such an ability on her part--not even being “highly favored” or “blessed” [Luke 1:28].)
To avoid any such twisted notions about Mary, one can focus on these relevant biblical truths: Eternal God has no beginning so has no mother or father; God the Son came to earth and took on human form to do so; Mary (a sinful mortal like all of us) was the human “vessel” God utilized to bring forth that physical form; God the Son died for my sins (and Mary’s too); Mary lived out her earthly life in fellowship with the new followers of Jesus in faithful devotion and obedience to God (Acts 1:14). A very blessed woman indeed but not any of the extra-Biblical things the RCC claims. As one who now walks in the light, I thank God for His illuminating truth today and every day!
Post a Comment