The Immaculate Conception Error

[Cassian]

BradC,

If man is born without sin or original sin then why did God have his son conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of a virgin and not through the copulation of Joseph?

Because Christ was both God and Man. He gets his humanity from Mary. If Joseph is involved we have just an ordinary man and not Christ. It is a mystery, but seems quite straight forward.

If he had been conceived like unto us, between à man and a woman, would he have been God's only begotten son or just the son of man? Would he have been born of sinful flesh instead of 'like unto sinful flesh'. God could have had Jesus born of a man and woman, not even a virgin, given him the Spirit and grace and let Jesus live in perfect obedience as a man, be tempted in all points as we are and be without sin.

this is the problem with the Original Sin theory. It does not actually solve the problem of man which is death. If it was ONLY sin then God could very easily used any human being, in fact, it could have been a Cannanite like Samson. He could have endowned him with the ability to not sin thus providing the perfect sacrifice for sin. However, the sacrifice for sin ONLY requires blood. It does not require a resurrection to life. It does man no good to have his sin forgiven and still be dissolved by death, dust to dust. It was Christ Incarnation becoming man, taking on our very human nature so that through death and His resurrection He could give man and the world life, an eternal existence.

Without His resurrection there is no heaven or hell. Death is dust to dust. This is explained quite clearly in I Cor 15:12-22. If Christ is not raised, then man is not raised. If man is not raised then those who believed did so in vain. Vs 18. In other words, all the faith in the world does not grant life. It took the giver of life to restore life to man and the world.

Let me give you a little theology regarding the fall and man's salvation from that fall. God knew already in creating Adam in His image to be free that Adam would disobey the command. God permitted Satan to take man captive through death to our human nature. Since man was created from the earth, thus intrinsically connected to the earth, the world suffered death as well.
God also knew that Christ would be the solution. Christ would be born of a women to become man so that through man's nature He could defeat death, the power of Satan through His resurrection.

This is why it is called Christ recreation of the world. God gave man life, but man lost it to death. Christ restored, recreated, recapitulated the world back to its original purpose. Neither man nor the world will be destoyed by Satan through death. God knew it was unjust to condemn all men permanently to death and that Satan could thwart God's purpose. God restored all men to the free choice of whether they will be united with Him the original purpose of creating Adam, or choosing to deny Christ. It is heaven or hell and it is man's free choice. Since Christ restored this world, Adam is no longer a factor. God so loved the world...John 3:16,. or while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly Rom 5:6-10.

God did not remove sin or death from our life in this world for two reasons. One sin through our human nature is a test of our commitment to Him. We are under the same commandment as was Adam. This time it is not physical death but spiritual death that is present and will determine our eternal destination.

Secondly, sin dies with the body. Thus man dies is buried so that Christ because of His resurrection will raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:52-54, John 6:39. Rev 20:13, Acts 24:15.

 

[valiant]

Secondly, sin dies with the body. Thus man dies is buried so that Christ because of His resurrection will raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:52-54, John 6:39. Rev 20:13, Acts 24:15.

If sin dies with the body we would not be judged. It is WE who have sinned not just our bodies. Christ will not raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility. He will only raise to immortality and incorruptibility those who have been united with Him in His body. All others will suffer the Second Death. The reason that true Christians will be freed from sin is because of Christ's transforming power. not because it dies with the body.

 

[valiant]

this is the problem with the Original Sin theory. It does not actually solve the problem of man which is death.

It is not intended to solve the problem. Rather it reveals the problem. The reason we experience death is because of our sinful nature, which makes us children of wrath (Eph 2.3)

If it was ONLY sin then God could very easily used any human being, in fact, it could have been a Cannanite like Samson.

What nonsense. How could one ordinary man die for another? That would be unjust. The One Who died had to have had responsibility for the one He died for. Only Christ could DIE FOR OUR SINS.

Incidentally Samson was NOT a Canaanite. Don't you read your Bible?

He could have endowned him with the ability to not sin thus providing the perfect sacrifice for sin.

He was born a sinner. Thus God could not have endowed him with the ability not to sin. He sinned from birth.

However, the sacrifice for sin ONLY requires blood. It does not require a resurrection to life.

You do invent a load of nonsense. The sacrifice for sin requires both death and resurrection. Without resurrection it would be ineffective. Resurrection demonstrated that the sacrifice had been accepted.

It does man no good to have his sin forgiven and still be dissolved by death, dust to dust.

The whole point of forgiveness is so that he will not be dissolved by death. Forgiveness nullifies the sin which causes death to occur. You are so, so wrong

 

[Cassian]

If sin dies with the body we would not be judged. It is WE who have sinned not just our bodies. Christ will not raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility. He will only raise to immortality and incorruptibility those who have been united with Him in His body. All others will suffer the Second Death. The reason that true Christians will be freed from sin is because of Christ's transforming power. not because it dies with the body.

The act is done by the person, but it is the body, the flesh, our mortality, our human nature that causes us to sin.
Scripture disagrees with you once again. You make assertions without any evidence. I Cor 15:52-53 is addressing all the dead, not believers. Christ's transforming power is life. He will raise our mortal bodies to immortality.

 

[Cassian]

valiant,

It is not intended to solve the problem. Rather it reveals the problem. The reason we experience death is because of our sinful nature, which makes us children of wrath (Eph 2.3)

You are continually backwards. Scripture says we sin because of our mortality. We sin because we are mortal. The sting of death is sin, not the other way around as you claim. Typical agian, an assertion with no evidence.

What nonsense. How could one ordinary man die for another? That would be unjust. The One Who died had to have had responsibility for the one He died for. Only Christ could DIE FOR OUR SINS.

pure Anselmian. Comes straight out of the satisfaction theory of atonement.

He was born a sinner. Thus God could not have endowed him with the ability not to sin. He sinned from birth.

which is what the Original Sin theory states, but contradicts scripture. Man is not born a sinner. One must do sin before he is a sinner.

You do invent a load of nonsense. The sacrifice for sin requires both death and resurrection. Without resurrection it would be ineffective. Resurrection demonstrated that the sacrifice had been accepted.

One wonders if you even read the Bible. Sacrifice does not require resurrection. Did the animals in OT need to be resurrected in order to be accepted? Resurrection accomplished much more than mere acceptance. It gave life. Rom 5:12, I Cor 15:12-22, Heb 2:14-17, II Tim 1:10. It is why we can even speak of a ressurrection in the last day.

The whole point of forgiveness is so that he will not be dissolved by death. Forgiveness nullifies the sin which causes death to occur. You are so, so wrong

and just where is that assertion confirmed in scripture. Sin does not cause death to us. Man cannot die, become mortal twice over. You are confusing physical death with spiritual death. We are not speaking about spiritual death. This is all about the fall, the salvation from the fall, not our personal salvation through faith.
how come you don't have the scripture to back up your assertions? So far, you have not proven scripture incorrect as I have explained it.

 

[valiant]

valiant,

It is not intended to solve the problem. Rather it reveals the problem. The reason we experience death is because of our sinful nature, which makes us children of wrath (Eph 2.3)

You are continually backwards. Scripture says we sin because of our mortality. We sin because we are mortal. The sting of death is sin, not the other way around as you claim. Typical agian, an assertion with no evidence.

pure Anselmian. Comes straight out of the satisfaction theory of atonement.

which is what the Original Sin theory states, but contradicts scripture. Man is not born a sinner. One must do sin before he is a sinner.

One wonders if you even read the Bible. Sacrifice does not require resurrection. Did the animals in OT need to be resurrected in order to be accepted? Resurrection accomplished much more than mere acceptance. It gave life. Rom 5:12, I Cor 15:12-22, Heb 2:14-17, II Tim 1:10. It is why we can even speak of a ressurrection in the last day.

and just where is that assertion confirmed in scripture. Sin does not cause death to us. Man cannot die, become mortal twice over. You are confusing physical death with spiritual death. We are not speaking about spiritual death. This is all about the fall, the salvation from the fall, not our personal salvation through faith.
how come you don't have the scripture to back up your assertions? So far, you have not proven scripture incorrect as I have explained it.

goodbye..........

 

[onlinebuddy]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

But Psalm 51 does say that we were conceived in sin through our parents.

One of the biggest mistakes you are making is that you do not understand that all of the Bible is for us, but not about us.

 

[onlinebuddy]

The whole argument of Rom 5.11 ff is that sin was passed on in some way.

Nowhere in the entire passage is it mentioned that "sin was passed"......
Please take a closer look at the verses and study the scriptures with an unbiased mind, instead of harping on the same things...

 

[onlinebuddy]

So you are an unbeliever.

You call me an unbeliever, when you identify yourself with the wicked of Psalm 58. You thus accuse yourself.

 

[onlinebuddy]

yes and they also believed in original sin which made all men sinners. Otherwise how did they know that all men were sinners?



Of course they did.



we would hardly expect it too. It was a history not a doctrinal treatise. But Roman certainly did.

.

They never preached original sin. They knew all men were sinners because they were with the only one who never sinned. Saying "all have sinned" is different from saying, "Adam's sin was transferred to all."

They did not advocate the doctrine of Original Sin.

Of course they did.

Show me where in the Book of Acts.

The Book of Acts never taught Original Sin.


we would hardly expect it too. It was a history not a doctrinal treatise. But Roman certainly did.

Now you conveniently contradict your previous statement! Whether it is a doctrinal treatise or not is out of the question. You are just arguing for the sake of it. Should I call you slippery now?

And you prefer to stick to Romans, because it has been misinterpreted by your teachers to suit your false doctrine of Original sin.

 

[onlinebuddy]

my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

The many who comprise all sinners apart from Adam. In that verse many is used adjectivally to signify a contrast with 'one'. It is not limiting how many are included. The previous contrasts show that it is the equivalent of all but Adam.

You twist words, and you think you have done a good job. No sir! That first line was pathetic. You are avoiding answering my question.
When "many" is used as an adjective it never means "all." A school kid can understand that.

 

[onlinebuddy]

Hebrew poetry was not like English poetry. It stated FACTS.

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

You keep on saying that :
a) these verses are not figurative but facts.
b) these verses are about you, (and that you sing this psalm about yourself.)

Tell me then:
Did hyssop clean your sins? If yes, that would be the hottest selling product on Amazon.
I have never seen you, but you must be a snowman (whiter than snow)?
When did God crush your bones, and why? What did you do?
Do your bones rejoice? I mean, do they have tongues and vocal chords to rejoice? Can your bones jump up and sing and dance and rejoice?

You know that Psalm 51 uses poetic language, which is figurative and symbolic in many places? Not all verses state facts.
You accept the metaphor in some verses, but you deny the hyperbole in others.
You twist scripture in order to maintain your false doctrine of Original Sin.
You thus place the teaching of man above that of God.

 

[onlinebuddy]

he Book of Acts never taught Original Sin.
we would hardly expect it too. It was a history not a doctrinal treatise. But Roman certainly did.

And would you categorize Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 as "doctrinal treatise?" Why then can't you prove your false doctrine of OS without leaning on these poetic chapters. Can't you see the difference between teaching and poetry?

David had been literally "smoked" by Nathan for his sins of murder and adultery. As a result, David was begging God for forgiveness, probably in "sackcloth and ashes."
In verse 14, he is begging for deliverance from his sin of murder, and not the sin of his mother or the sin of Adam. His focus was on his sin, and not on any uncontrollable sinful nature that OS believers often blame. Thus they do not accept full responsibility for their sin. Whoever taught you that he was talking about his "sinful nature" is a false teacher. This teaching has become a part of your mentality, probably because you have accepted it and have been teaching it for too long.

 

[epostle]

Both of these citations puts death as the cause of our sin. Truth is not relative which is why the Church, Christ's Church, has not moved away from the original revelation given to man, once. Jude 3.

Did God establish a means to determine truth from error, and what year did this mechanism allegedly collapse? The Council of Ephesus?

The RCC with development of Revelaton and Protestants with sola scriptura have made revelation relative. It is what man wants it to mean to suit their particular understanding.

There's no sense explaining development of doctrine a third time.

As to Augustine, he went way outside of the Church's understanding at the time. His whole explanation begins with sin being the element of transfer to man instead of what scripture states is clearly death. The idea that man is imputed sin and guilt of Adam is wholly Augustinian. It is strange that Rome who was still part of the Church during the three Councils dealing with Christ's Incarnation apparently forgot what it actually means. [/quote] We like Augustine. So do many Protestants. So did the Orthodox Church until the 19th century. The Church forgot what the Incarnation means? Then the Church must have taught it right the first time, and continues to do so. When did the OC re-write Incarnation theology to "correct" the Church?

Why would the RCC adopt/develop the IC doctrine since by scripture it is not necessary nor based on the Councils understanding of the Incarnation.

I've shown scripture repeatedly. Along with the fundamentalists in here, you just don't like them.

 

[BradC]

Nowhere in the entire passage is it mentioned that "sin was passed"......
Please take a closer look at the verses and study the scriptures with an unbiased mind, instead of harping on the same things...

Rom 5:12

12 Wherefore, as by one man (ADAM) sin entered into the world, AND DEATH BY SIN; and SO...death passed upon all men, for that ALL (not some who disobeyed) have sinned:

Death which is by sin and according to sin PASSED (all inclusive with no exceptions) UPON ALL MEN...FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.

Conclusion: By one man ADAM, sin entered into the world, including DEATH BY SIN. SO...DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN (with no exceptions)... for that reason and that reason ONLY... ALL HAVE SINNED.

Death is the result and the by product of sin, so you can't separate death from sin anymore than you can separate the works of the flesh from the flesh, for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We who were dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13).

Paul makes it known that he found a law, that when he would do that which is good, evil was still present with him (Rom 7:21).. Evil is Kakos (not poneros), intrinsic evil. Where did that come from and why was it a law that Paul found in him. He also said in (v.17,20) that when he did what he would not, it was not him but the sin that dwelt in him.

The large print is not yelling but for emphasis, to take special notice.

 

[BradC]

And would you categorize Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 as "doctrinal treatise?" Why then can't you prove your false doctrine of OS without leaning on these poetic chapters. Can't you see the difference between teaching and poetry?

David had been literally "smoked" by Nathan for his sins of murder and adultery. As a result, David was begging God for forgiveness, probably in "sackcloth and ashes."
In verse 14, he is begging for deliverance from his sin of murder, and not the sin of his mother or the sin of Adam. His focus was on his sin, and not on any uncontrollable sinful nature that OS believers often blame. Thus they do not accept full responsibility for their sin. Whoever taught you that he was talking about his "sinful nature" is a false teacher. This teaching has become a part of your mentality, probably because you have accepted it and have been teaching it for too long.

Here a little and there a little... line upon line and precept upon present...all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine and for instruction in righteousness (Is 28:13, 2 Tim 3:16).

BTW - the focus on David concerning his sin was that God had put away his sin (2 Sam 12:13). David never begged for forgiveness but rather cried our for mercy (Psalm 51:1). How some of you learned what you have learned is beyond me. Psalm 51 is full of doctrine because David knew the Lord and was acquainted with God's heart unlike some here on this site.

 

[epostle]

Rom 5:12

12 Wherefore, as by one man (ADAM) sin entered into the world, AND DEATH BY SIN; and SO...death passed upon all men, for that ALL (not some who disobeyed) have sinned:

Death which is by sin and according to sin PASSED (all inclusive with no exceptions) UPON ALL MEN...FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.

Conclusion: By one man ADAM, sin entered into the world, including DEATH BY SIN. SO...DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN (with no exceptions)... for that reason and that reason ONLY... ALL HAVE SINNED.

Death is the result and the by product of sin, so you can't separate death from sin anymore than you can separate the works of the flesh from the flesh, for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We who were dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13).

Paul makes it known that he found a law, that when he would do that which is good, evil was still present with him (Rom 7:21).. Evil is Kakos (not poneros), intrinsic evil. Where did that come from and why was it a law that Paul found in him. He also said in (v.17,20) that when he did what he would not, it was not him but the sin that dwelt in him.

The large print is not yelling but for emphasis, to take special notice.

It doesn't work, large print is just annoying.

DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN (with no exceptions)...

"All" does not mean "every single one".

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Thus the "all have sinned" argument to prove Mary was concieved with sin FAILS.

 

[Cassian]

epostle,

Did God establish a means to determine truth from error, and what year did this mechanism allegedly collapse? The Council of Ephesus?

yes, He did and it is still in operation today, His Body the Church.

So did the Orthodox Church until the 19th century. The Church forgot what the Incarnation means? Then the Church must have taught it right the first time, and continues to do so. When did the OC re-write Incarnation theology to "correct" the Church?

The Church before we split never held any of the new innovative ideas that Augustine developed, Original Sin, total depravity of man, predestination, and irresistable grace.

I've shown scripture repeatedly. Along with the fundamentalists in here, you just don't like them.

It is not a matter of not liking them. They just don't align with scripture has it has been understood from the beginning. You should know by now that man can make scripture mean what he wants it to mean. The RCC has a lot of new innovative dogmas and doctrines that have never been the teaching of scripture.

 

[Cassian]

It doesn't work, large print is just annoying.

"All" does not mean "every single one".

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Thus the "all have sinned" argument to prove Mary was concieved with sin FAILS.

Lots of rationalizaions to prove a point that is not even in scripture. Not only Mary but all men are born without sin. Sin is not what is passed on, never has been and never will be.

 

[BradC]

if that is so, why do you still sin? And if that is what He did, then all men no longer have this sin nature. So all men's sins have been put away.

I have a very difficult time in following your arguments via scripture. It seems you are reading a different book.
Where does it say we have a sin nature in scripture? Where does it say Christ bore our sin nature?

We must reckon ourself to be dead indeed onto sin but alive unto God. We still have a sin nature until the redemption of our bodies. Then the old sin nature will be put away forever and corruption will put on incorruption. We must walk in the spirit to not fulfill the lust of the flesh. This is how we abstain from the lust of the flesh. Without the effects of the cross crucifying the old sin nature man has no way to be free from sin or from the desires and appetites of the flesh. We walk by faith in the finished work of the cross and put off the old man and put on Christ, the new man. The life that we live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God who died and gave his life for us.