The Immaculate Conception Error

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
Psalm 58:3-6: The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. They have venom like the venom of a serpent; like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear, So that it does not hear the voice of charmers, or a skillful caster of spells. O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth; break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.
Firstly, you need to learn how to rightly divide the word of God. [2 Tim 2:15]. You need to know the difference between literal and figurative language. Psalm 58 is in the form of Hebrew poetry, where the language is figurative.


Hebrew poetry was not like English poetry. It stated FACTS. So it is YOU who needs to learn to rightly divide the word of God.

There is nothing figurative about the language. It is straightforward and clear.

If we take it literally then v3 contradicts itself, because "from the womb" and "from birth" mean two different things.
LOL what nonsense. Are children not born from the womb?

If you take these verses literally, a child is like a cobra spewing venom and is not able to be trained.
Now that is simply dishonest. An occasional metaphor does not make a whole passage metaphorical. In fact a child does 'spew venom' (have you listened to your children or grandchildren sometimes in a bad moment?) and they certainly 'cannot be trained'. All we can do is do what we can. So the Psalmist is being realistic and practical and talking about life as it is.


Also, the narrator is telling God to shatter their teeth and break their fangs.
Sooo? Everyone knows what that means. Shattering teeth and breaking fangs rendered beasts enable to cause damage. Why was it needed? Precisely because those children really were literally sinful from the womb.

Does this describe you at birth? Does that sound like you?
Very much like both you and me. We both constantly deceived those who looked after us in order to gain their attention. A baby learns to do this from its earliest moments because it is totally selfish. Do you think Jesus did that?
 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38


That is not what Heb 2.17 says. It says He was made like His brothers so He could act on their behalf. That means that He came as a human being. It does not say He was 'fully human in every way'.

Jesus was not 'fully human in every way'. He did not have a human spirit. His spirit was divine. He was GOD made man. He was not just a human being.

Read what my bible says. Maybe your bible does not say it.
For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.[Heb 2:17]
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63

Yes, blame your sins on your sinful nature!
Romans 5:1112 says "many" were made sinners. Not "All."
Read again, it says "many" not "all"


But instead of twisting it like you do I read it in context. It is NOT saying 'many but not all'. It is comparing the one with the many. Thus in this context many means ALL.


Yes, blame your sins on your sinful nature!

No I blame them on MYSELF with a sinful nature. It is MY nature.

Read the verse again and tell me where it says Adam's sin applies to us or that Adam passed sin on to us.

'Through one man's disobedience many (the whole human race) were made sinners.' Now that either means that we are blamed for Adam's sin or it means that as a consequence of that sin we became sinners by nature. DON'T DODGE THE QUESTION. WHICH IS YOUR CHOICE?

When you have answered that I will discuss with you further.!
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0


But instead of twisting it like you do I read it in context. It is NOT saying 'many but not all'. It is comparing the one with the many. Thus in this context many means ALL.




No I blame them on MYSELF with a sinful nature. It is MY nature.



'Through one man's disobedience many (the whole human race) were made sinners.' Now that either means that we are blamed for Adam's sin or it means that as a consequence of that sin we became sinners by nature. DON'T DODGE THE QUESTION. WHICH IS YOUR CHOICE?

When you have answered that I will discuss with you further.!
Neither one.
We all became sinners because we inherited a mortal nature from Adam. Rom 5:12.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3: 10, 23

As I begin to debunk this erroneous doctrine of ‘the immaculate conception of Mary’, let me quickly submit that I’m not out for religious bashing.


People_Laughing.jpg

(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])
Charles Chiniquy (1809-99) is a favorite source for anti-Catholics – throughout the 19th and 20th centuries – for his spiteful and entirely unfounded accusations against the Church. The basis for his anti-Catholicism stemmed from his own removal from Catholic ministry for inappropriate behavior.

The facts are: Chiniquy was ordained a priest in 1839 in Quebec City and became known as a powerful orator and the so-called Canadian “Apostle of Temperance.” In 1846, however, his scandalous and immoral activities led to his departure from Quebec, from the Oblate novitiate at Longueuil in 1847, and from the diocese of Montreal in 1851.

The last removal stemmed from his improper relationships with women. He journeyed to Chicago and was so unwilling to curb his behavior and sexual indiscretions that he local bishop, Anthony O’Regan suspended him and, with regret, eventually excommunicated him for refusing to cease his behavior or desist in administering the sacraments.

In 1859, he and 1,000 followers gathered at St. Anne, Illinois and became affiliated with the local Presbyterian Synod. In 1862, the Presbyterians also cast Chiniquy from their community – going so far as to defrock him – for conduct unbecoming a minister.

He then went with his gullible followers to Canada. There he embarked upon a long career as a vicious anti-Catholic polemicist in order to gain favor with the various anti-Catholic Protestant groups in the country and as a means of explaining away his own excommunication. His writings are so blatantly untruthful that they are not worth critiquing.

One other area of Chiniquy’s writing that is worth mentioning is his absurd effort to claim that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 by a conspiracy of the Jesuits. Such a notion, propagated by anti-Catholics even in to the 20th century, is completely unsupported by historical fact.

Chiniquy claimed to be a close friend of Lincoln, using the one-time legal assistance given to him by the future president to claim that he had visited Lincoln during the civil war, in 1862 and 1864. Such visits were not noted in any of Lincoln’s papers, nor were they ever mentioned by Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. The story was also thoroughly rejected by Lincoln’s own son who attested to the fabrication by Chiniquy of quotes supposedly made by the resident relating to the Jesuits and a Catholic cabal.

For useful reading, you might consult “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P.T. Chiniquy,” by Joseph George Jr., in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Feb. 1976, vol. 69, pp. 17-25. The article documents Chiniquy’s lies and distortions. Given his lack of credibility on this major issue, one can easily see why his other anti-Catholic claims are considered so preposterous.

EWTN.com - Charles Chiniquy

(As quoted in Rebecca Brown’s ‘Prepare For War’)

Dear brethren in the Lord, it is very clear that this doctrine of the immaculate conception blah blah blah
Emeke Odili
"...The testimony put forth in this book has been found to be completely false and was written by a woman who had her medical license revoked and has been diagnosed as having serious mental issues such as “acute personality disorders including demonic delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia.”

Rebecca Brown (Yoder is her married name) is a former doctor who has written a series of controversial Christian books about Satanism and a former Satanist named Elaine who was apparently the bride of Satan. Her books were published by the notorious anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick of Chick Publications. He published two of her books, He Came to Set the Captives Free (1986) and Prepare for War (1987).

Among her many far-fetched claims, Brown believes Roman Catholicism is witchcraft, that American Indian reservations are cursed, and that violence in the African American community stems from inherited family curses originating with African tribal warfare. She also claims to know of the existence of large, Satanic covens in America performing various evil works, rituals and sacrifices and the teaching in her books that born-again Christians can be inhabited (not possessed) by demons.

... Elaine is the central character in Brown’s book and even though her surname is never given, the woman has been identified as Edna Elaine Moses, a mentally unstable woman who met Brown during her residency at Ball Memorial Hospital. Brown and Elaine eventually moved in together along with Elaine’s developmentally challenged daughter, Claudia.

The friendship proved to have a negative effect on Brown who started out as a well-respected doctor but gradually digressed into bizarre behavior such as conducting exorcisms on patients, which led to her being dismissed.
It was during this time that Brown began treating Elaine and her daughter, as well as other women for a variety of conditions such as brain tumors, leukemia, gall bladder disease and blood disorders, all supposedly caused by demons. At one point, she was treating Elaine for what she believed was leukemia by drugging her with massive doses of Demerol and Phenobarbitol. The complaint also states that she allowed Claudia to inject herself with Demerol. Thankfully, this all led to the revocation of her medical license.

It should also be noted that both of her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization, and they concluded that the stories were false, with many inconsistencies between the books and other teaching tapes and testimonies produced by Brown.
- See more at: The Strange Story of Rebecca Brown, MD | Women of Grace

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true.
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more.
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC.
It's the same Church.

The doctrine hinges on Luke 1:28 which is a very packed verse.

 
Last edited:
B

BradC

Guest
I agree that Jesus was never born with a sin nature.
I disagree that man was born with a sin nature, that was passed on by the father.
I am not defying anyone, but just asking for scriptural evidence.

And yes, I agree that the Catholic church (that benefits the most from the doctrine of Original Sin) is a threat to the Word of God. Remove the concept of original sin, and the catholic doctrine collapses.
If man was not born with a sin nature, what kind of nature was he born with?
 
B

BradC

Guest
Adam was created and transgressed. We were born and we sin because of a sin nature within. Once Adam transgressed sin got in to his heart and soul before he knew his wife Eve. She conceived her son Cain and Abel and both were conceived in sin through Adam's transgression. It was passed onto all men, for all have sinned through Adam. Abel was a sinner for he had to offer sacrifice unto the Lord. Pretty easy to understand don't you think?
 
Apr 14, 2011
1,515
66
48
33


Charles Chiniquy (1809-99) is a favorite source for anti-Catholics – throughout the 19th and 20th centuries – for his spiteful and entirely unfounded accusations against the Church. The basis for his anti-Catholicism stemmed from his own removal from Catholic ministry for inappropriate behavior.

The facts are: Chiniquy was ordained a priest in 1839 in Quebec City and became known as a powerful orator and the so-called Canadian “Apostle of Temperance.” In 1846, however, his scandalous and immoral activities led to his departure from Quebec, from the Oblate novitiate at Longueuil in 1847, and from the diocese of Montreal in 1851.

The last removal stemmed from his improper relationships with women. He journeyed to Chicago and was so unwilling to curb his behavior and sexual indiscretions that he local bishop, Anthony O’Regan suspended him and, with regret, eventually excommunicated him for refusing to cease his behavior or desist in administering the sacraments.

In 1859, he and 1,000 followers gathered at St. Anne, Illinois and became affiliated with the local Presbyterian Synod. In 1862, the Presbyterians also cast Chiniquy from their community – going so far as to defrock him – for conduct unbecoming a minister.

He then went with his gullible followers to Canada. There he embarked upon a long career as a vicious anti-Catholic polemicist in order to gain favor with the various anti-Catholic Protestant groups in the country and as a means of explaining away his own excommunication. His writings are so blatantly untruthful that they are not worth critiquing.

One other area of Chiniquy’s writing that is worth mentioning is his absurd effort to claim that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 by a conspiracy of the Jesuits. Such a notion, propagated by anti-Catholics even in to the 20th century, is completely unsupported by historical fact.

Chiniquy claimed to be a close friend of Lincoln, using the one-time legal assistance given to him by the future president to claim that he had visited Lincoln during the civil war, in 1862 and 1864. Such visits were not noted in any of Lincoln’s papers, nor were they ever mentioned by Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. The story was also thoroughly rejected by Lincoln’s own son who attested to the fabrication by Chiniquy of quotes supposedly made by the resident relating to the Jesuits and a Catholic cabal.

For useful reading, you might consult “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P.T. Chiniquy,” by Joseph George Jr., in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Feb. 1976, vol. 69, pp. 17-25. The article documents Chiniquy’s lies and distortions. Given his lack of credibility on this major issue, one can easily see why his other anti-Catholic claims are considered so preposterous.

EWTN.com - Charles Chiniquy


"...The testimony put forth in this book has been found to be completely false and was written by a woman who had her medical license revoked and has been diagnosed as having serious mental issues such as “acute personality disorders including demonic delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia.”

Rebecca Brown (Yoder is her married name) is a former doctor who has written a series of controversial Christian books about Satanism and a former Satanist named Elaine who was apparently the bride of Satan. Her books were published by the notorious anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick of Chick Publications. He published two of her books, He Came to Set the Captives Free (1986) and Prepare for War (1987).

Among her many far-fetched claims, Brown believes Roman Catholicism is witchcraft, that American Indian reservations are cursed, and that violence in the African American community stems from inherited family curses originating with African tribal warfare. She also claims to know of the existence of large, Satanic covens in America performing various evil works, rituals and sacrifices and the teaching in her books that born-again Christians can be inhabited (not possessed) by demons.

... Elaine is the central character in Brown’s book and even though her surname is never given, the woman has been identified as Edna Elaine Moses, a mentally unstable woman who met Brown during her residency at Ball Memorial Hospital. Brown and Elaine eventually moved in together along with Elaine’s developmentally challenged daughter, Claudia.

The friendship proved to have a negative effect on Brown who started out as a well-respected doctor but gradually digressed into bizarre behavior such as conducting exorcisms on patients, which led to her being dismissed.
It was during this time that Brown began treating Elaine and her daughter, as well as other women for a variety of conditions such as brain tumors, leukemia, gall bladder disease and blood disorders, all supposedly caused by demons. At one point, she was treating Elaine for what she believed was leukemia by drugging her with massive doses of Demerol and Phenobarbitol. The complaint also states that she allowed Claudia to inject herself with Demerol. Thankfully, this all led to the revocation of her medical license.

It should also be noted that both of her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization, and they concluded that the stories were false, with many inconsistencies between the books and other teaching tapes and testimonies produced by Brown.
- See more at: The Strange Story of Rebecca Brown, MD | Women of Grace

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true.
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more.
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC.
It's the same Church.

The doctrine hinges on Luke 1:28 which is a very packed verse.

First of all, not everyone who is against Catholicism is an anti-Catholic. I love Catholics, I just don't see how their traditions fit with Scripture. Also, they are not Sola Scriptura when they should be. Since otherwise what is the purpose of the Bible if it is not used to discern truth from error. I do not hate Catholics. Also, I don't subscribe to Jack Chick and his publications, though in the midst of craziness he does have pamphlets that have spiritual truth from the Bible in them. I believe he is saved but there is too much cultish stuff including KJV-only nonsense. God bless. Have a beautiful day!
 
Last edited:

AngelFrog

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2015
648
58
28
:eek: This same thread is making the rounds in most Christian forums. And by this same author in the OP.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
FAULT LINES
Original sin is the term we use to describe mankind’s first transgression –Adam’s fall. It is also the term we use to describe the consequences or effects of that fall. For Adam, original sin was a personal, actual sin. For us, it’s an impersonal sin, not an actual sin. But here we distinguish; we do not separate, because it’s all of a piece. There is a bond that unites sin in all its forms.

When teachers discuss the mystery of original sin, they often use the metaphor of a “stain on the soul”. But that’s only a metaphor.Sin isn’t essentially a stain; it isn’t a spiritual substance. It isn’t a thing at all. It is, rather, the lack of something, theabsence of something, namely sanctifying grace. The indwelling lifeof the Trinity was evacuated from human nature by Adam’s sin. That’s what original sin is. We have to get at it by explaining what it isn’t. It’s the absence of something necessary for human beings to reach their divinely appointed end. The absence of sanctifying grace certainly does plunge us into darkness and blindness and death.

But it’s critically important for us to recognize that original sin isnot something that’s transmitted biologically or psychologically. Yet at the same time we can speak of original sin as being something hereditary...

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think offault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in theearth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastatingearthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants:One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, ina sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him,based upon two realities: biologically, we’re his descendants; andtheologically, he’s our covenant head. As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences.

Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.


In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and,therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, andpeople in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternallife is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed;and we contract original sin without consent. That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent...

The same thing can be said for actual sin. Actual sin can only be committed through informed consent. And so it can only be removed through informed consent. That’s why we need...

“Lord,Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn,Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
The ONLY one that scripture states, a MORTAL nature.
You have a sin nature don't you? I mean you lie, lust and covet like the rest of mankind does don't you?
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
First of all, not everyone who is against Catholicism is an anti-Catholic. I love Catholics, I just don't see how their traditions fit with Scripture. Also, they are not Sola Scriptura when they should be. Since otherwise what is the purpose of the Bible if it is not used to discern truth from error. I do not hate Catholics. Also, I don't subscribe to Jack Chick and his publications, though in the midst of craziness he does have pamphlets that have spiritual truth from the Bible in them. I believe he is saved but there is too much cultish stuff including KJV-only nonsense. God bless. Have a beautiful day!
Hate speech is the OP. It should not be allowed in any Christian forum but since it's Catholic bashing extreme...

"I just don't see how their traditions fit with Scripture" sums up a main reason for so many misunderstandings. I can't convince you to see, you have to look for yourself.
“Tradition” Is Not a Dirty Word

:eek: This same thread is making the rounds in most Christian forums. And by this same author in the OP.
Yes, I found the same post in Christianity Board.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
You have a sin nature don't you? I mean you lie, lust and covet like the rest of mankind does don't you?
I think the words you need or meant to say is that we have a sinful nature. Two entirely different things.

That is NOT a sin nature. We have a mortal nature that causes us to sin, thus we are sinful/sinners. Sin is NOT a state of being. It is the fundamental error of the Theory of Original Sin. No place in scripture does it ever say man has a sin nature.

Christ did not assume a sin nature, but did assume our mortal nature. He died so that He could give us life, to raise our mortal natures to immortality.
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,216
3,194
113
Actually no one knows what happens to a baby when it dies. Scripture does not tell us. LOL we do like to second guess God. Any suggestions are simply hypotheses without evidence mainly resulting from our sentimental ideas.

But certainly what happens to it is not subject to the mother's behaviour. It may however be subject to the mother's nature.

Tell me, if all babies who die go to Heaven does that not make a child serial killer a hero? Should we not smother all babies at birth? Indeed should God not have ensured that all who would sin and be condemned, actually die at child birth so that they would not sin and becondemned? Then ALL could be saved.
A child serial killer????!!!!! What are you smoking dude? Look out everybody that new born baby is armed to the teeth... He is going to blow himself up in a stadium full of other 1 year olds........ :confused:

In fact the Bible is clear that a child is not accountable for the sins of the father... but the sinful nature being transferred from generation to generation is a different thing.

If a baby dies he/she will go to heaven. Don't believe the enemy. We do serve a God of grace...
 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38
Originally Posted by GandalfTheWhite

So if a baby die it will not go to heaven if the mother is a unrepented sinner?

Actually no one knows what happens to a baby when it dies. Scripture does not tell us.

You're avoiding the question.
Scripture does not tell us.

Scripture does not tell us that we are born in sin. You are using scripture that never explicitly says so, to support what your church teaches.
 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38
Originally Posted by Cassian

valiant,

being born through a sinful mother does not make you a sinner.


Actually it does. nature begets nature. But that is not the point. The point is CONTEXT. In Psalm 51 David's whole point was to connect his mother's sinfulness with his own sins. His point was that he had committed gross sins because he was born of a sinful mother.
Where in the bible does it say that being born of a evil mother makes you a sinner?
You use Hebrew poetry to prove your point. Rather than using Hebrew poetry that uses figures of speech, why don't you use instructional or explanatory passages?
Did Jesus teach original sin?
His point was that he had committed gross sins because he was born of a sinful mother.
David is not at all implying this. This is a lie that you were taught, and that you have accepted. This is the problem when you have an Original Sin bias: You take a few verses that are not consistent with scripture and you make dogma out of it.

 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38


But instead of twisting it like you do I read it in context. It is NOT saying 'many but not all'. It is comparing the one with the many. Thus in this context many means ALL.




No I blame them on MYSELF with a sinful nature. It is MY nature.



'Through one man's disobedience many (the whole human race) were made sinners.' Now that either means that we are blamed for Adam's sin or it means that as a consequence of that sin we became sinners by nature. DON'T DODGE THE QUESTION. WHICH IS YOUR CHOICE?

When you have answered that I will discuss with you further.!
When something does not agree with your preconceived ideas, you accuse others of "twisting" scripture. "Many" means "many" and cannot mean "the whole human race." Your understanding is biased.

It is NOT saying 'many but not all'. It is comparing the one with the many. Thus in this context many means ALL.
?????

No I blame them on MYSELF with a sinful nature. It is MY nature.
You should have said, "I blame them on MYSELF". PERIOD!
Why do you have to include the words "with a sinful nature"? You seem to be saying that your willful acts of disobedience are because of the both of you: you and partner-in-sin (your sinful nature)

The teachers of Original Sin lie that we have not started our lives with a clean slate; that we were tainted from the time we were born. Thus, we get an excuse, and we do not blame ourselves entirely for our sins(as evident from your words).

 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38
If man was not born with a sin nature, what kind of nature was he born with?
​A child begins life with a clean slate.
Our actions are not the result of some inherited tendencies or instincts. If so, God would never judge us for our sins.
Our natures and inclinations and tendencies are developed depending on our actions (the choice to obey God or disobey).