Immaculate Conception

[Neal4Christ]

Of all the doctrines of Mary, this one and her sinlessness give me hardest time in my head. Where did this doctrine find its roots and why is it that important? Forgive me if I seem naive, but I truly do wonder. I am getting ready to read a book about Mary, so I may find my answers there, but I wanted to see if I could get any good tidbits here.

Thank-you in advance and may God bless!

In Christ,
Neal, a devout seeker for Truth

[voiciblanche]

I'm sure everyone will add everything they know, and I'm no Church Scholar, but I'll stick in my .02.

Jesus Christ, of course, is perfect. He's God.

The Father has known for all eternity of His Plan. He knew that He was going to send His only Son to save us. He also knew that He had chosen Mary to give birth to His Son.

He did not want His perfect Son born of a "dirty" Mary. He wanted the Mother of His Son to be immaculate. Pure in every way. Hence, the Immaculate Conception. At the moment of conception, Mary was created without the stain of original sin.

MARY WAS NOT A ROBOT. She could have sinned! She didn't, but she could have if she wanted to. God, however, preserved her from sin. I've given this analogy before, and I think it works well. Sin is like a hole. We fall in the hole. With Mary, God steps in and says, "Mary, there's a hole there." This isn't to say that God doesn't lead us away from sin. I don't really know how to fit that in.

[Crusader_4]

Also she was the "Ark of the New Covenant" she carried Jesus into this world. One only needs to take a look at how the early Jews who carried the Ark had to be clean and purified and such. I dont have the verse on me right now but imagine how clean someone has to be who not only is carrying the ark but who Jesus takes his form after...think about it imagine seeing Jesus with the eyes of his mother God did not want jesus to for lack of better words as voici mentioned "be born of someone dirty".

[Hananiah]

Many early Church fathers, most notably St. Irenaeus, described Mary as the New Eve, just as Christ was the new Adam. As a woman's disobedience brought death into the world, so a woman's obedience brought salvation (Jesus Christ) into the world. And since Adam, Eve, and Christ were all born sinless, so it would only make sense that the fourth member of this quartet, Mary, be born sinless.

[Cure of Ars]

The angel also called Mary “full of grace”. (luke 1:28) The Greek word that is used refers not just to the past or the present or the future but to all three. If Mary is graced for the past, present, and future, it leaves no room for sin.

[Apotheoun]

When the angel Gabriel greets Mary he calls her "full of grace," and this phrase is a translation of the Greek perfect passive participle [i]kecharitomene[/i]. The form of this Greek term indicates the continuance of a completed action. Thus, when Gabriel greets Mary he is not bestowing grace upon her; instead, he is recognizing her already existing condition of being in a state of grace. Based on the form of the Greek word used in this verse, the angel is recognizing that Mary has possessed this grace perfectly from the beginning of her existence, and that she continues in it, and that it is a perfectly enduring condition of her life.

[Bruce S]

I like to use the RED LETTER words in scripture the best, those are where we can see what our LORD, Jesus said:

So, how did Jesus Himself address Mary, his earthly 'Mother'?

Jesus referred to His mother when Mary asked to see Him one day:

[quote]"Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:48-50[/quote]

Jesus did not say, "Usher in this blessed woman."Rather, He replied that anyone who obeys God' s Word is equal with Mary. Jesus refused to exalt her. That means, to me, that Jesus knew EXACTLY the degree of "Veneration" that one should attach to Mary, and the biblical Mary is now quite a different Mary, at least according to my interpretation of this CRITICAL and INFORMATIVE passage from scripture.


Mary, Sinless?

CURRENT, Catholic doctrines make the claims, that Mary never sinned and, hence, was redeemed and different from the moment of her birth:

[quote]
"Espousing the divine will for salvation whole-heartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son..." Pg. 124, #494 CC

"By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." Pg. 124, #493 CC

[/quote]


Are these derived from HISTORICAL SCRIPTURE, no, just by evolving, changing traditions.

[quote]"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception." [/quote]

"EVER MORE AWARE?" That dear friends, is what this is about, more and more, over the intervening centuries the Marialis Cultus, has become a larger thing, evolving and redefining itself to a current point that certainly was not that of the Apostolic era.

The Bible identifies Jesus as the ONLY sinless One, not Mary:

[quote]"For he hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 [/quote]

That passage pretty much puts forth Jesus alone, as the only sinless human [God] that has ever lived.

As for everyone else, including Mary:

[quote]
"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

[/quote]

ALL have sinned, ALL. That includes Mary, of course, especially since when this passage was written, Mary was quite alive, and known to the author Paul, if Mary was ANOTHER exclusion to ALL HAVE SINNED, Paul would have modified those passages, wouldn't he?

And we have the WORSHIP *OF* Mary too to contend with:

[quote]"The Church' s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." Pg. 253, #971 - CC [/quote]

Just some scriptural food for thought here, best to everyone.

And God speed and God bless.

[Aloysius]

Mary was not in Rome, Paul was writing to ROME, saying: "Hey rome, you're all sinners, as the rest of mankind is" there was no point in saying "except Jesus and His mother"

for Mary was humble and would not want such a big fuss made out of her while she was alive. she was content teaching the apostles about the great events of the Birth of the Lord, of all the wisdom she had received from Him living with Him for 30 years.

In the passage, Jesus does not renounce His mother, besides that, He clearly tell the disciple to behold as their mother Mary.

ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΟΥΝ ΙΔΩΝ ΤΗΝ ΜΗΤΕΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ [b]ΜΑΘΗΤΗΝ [/b]ΠΑΡΕΣΤΩΤΑ ΟΝ ΗΓΑΠΑ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΤΗ ΜΗΤΡΙ ΓΥΝΑΙ ΙΔΕ Ο ΥΙΟΣ ΣΟΥ ΕΙΤΑ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΤΩ ΜΑΘΗΤΗ ΙΔΕ Η ΜΗΤΗΡ ΣΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΠ ΕΚΕΙΝΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΩΡΑΣ ΕΛΑΒΕΝ Ο [b]ΜΑΘΗΤΗΣ [/b]ΑΥΤΗΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΙΔΙΑ


John may have been refering to himself with ΜΑΘΗΤΗΣ (disciple, pupil, learner) but He clearly still used the world ΜΑΘΗΤΗΣ to show us all that Mary is our mother.

This is sooo clear to unclouded eyes that Jesus is acting as the new Adam (as First Letter of St Paul to the Corinthians 15:22 says He is) and calling Mary the mother of the Church, as Adam called Eve the mother of all who would be born in their sin(Genesis 3:20), Jesus calls Mary the mother of all those who would be freed from sin (John 19:27)

Pax Amorque Christi, Bruce

[VeraMaria]

An amazing book to read on this is "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Also, here's a website

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate...n_and_Assum.asp[/url]

[Neal4Christ]

Thank-you for all of your quick, kind responses. They are helpful, especially the discussion of the "full of grace" phrase used by the angel. I am reading a book that is helpful, [i]The Catholic Answer Book of Mary[/i] edited by Peter Stravinskas.

Bruce,

Let me just address a couple of things. First,

[quote][b]That means, to me, that Jesus knew EXACTLY the degree of "Veneration" that one should attach to Mary, and the biblical Mary is now quite a different Mary, at least according to my interpretation of this CRITICAL and INFORMATIVE passage from scripture.
[/b][/quote]

Do you think that Jesus did not "honor his mother" any differently than any other person? Wouldn't he then break one of the commandments and have sinned?

Second,

[quote][b]That passage pretty much puts forth Jesus alone, as the only sinless human [God] that has ever lived.
[/b][/quote]

Actually, this passage does not do what you say it does. It does not say "only." It is fact stated about Jesus. That's it.

And for all,

Wouldn't it be true that Mary still [i]could[/i] have sinned, but chose not to?

God bless you all,
Neal

[voiciblanche]

Neal -

You're right. Mary [i] could [/i] have sinned. She chose not to. She still had free will; she was not a robot.

Bruce -

You're making it sound as if Mary was redeemed by her own sinlessness. I dont think that's quite right. She was redeemed by the death of her Son. To say otherwise would be to say that she did not need God, and that she was the instrument of her own salvation. Which would put her on the same level of God. [i] Which Catholics do not do! [/i] Can anyone back me up on this?

[Neal4Christ]

[quote][b]You're making it sound as if Mary was redeemed by her own sinlessness. I dont think that's quite right. She was redeemed by the death of her Son.[/b][/quote]

You are correct in your assessment.

[quote][b]To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace." In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.  -CCC, 490[/b][/quote]

and

[quote][b]Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was [i]redeemed[/i] 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, [i]by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race[/i], preserved immune from all stain of original sin."  -CCC 491[/b][/quote]

and

[quote][b]The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes [i]wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son[/i]."  -CCC 492[/b][/quote]

and one more

[quote][b][i]By the grace of God[/i] Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.  -CCC 493[/b][/quote]

Also, from the book I am currently reading:

[quote][b]Mary is not intrinsically superior, in essence, to the rest of us. She receieved from God all of the grace that she posessed in abundance...She was merely given more of it at one time, and earlier, than we.  -[i]The Catholic Answer Book of Mary[/i], edited by Peter Stravinskas[/b][/quote]

It is clear that the Church does not teach that it is by Mary's own merits she was sinless, but by an act of God's grace and by the merits of her son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, if you think about it, the only way she could have had a "free" choice was if she was sinless. If she had the taint of sin in her life her choice would not have been free, but rather biased, bent towards sin.

[i]Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." [/i]Eph. 2:3, RSV

And until the grace of God enters our lives, we are slaves to sin (See Romans 6).

God bless you and may the peace of Christ be with you!

In Christ,
Neal

Edited June 10, 2004 by Neal4Christ

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Bruce,

That passage in Romans says that all have sinned and fall short; however, that passage cannot be all-inclusive. After all, Jesus never sinned, so "all" cannot possibly refer to all people in a numerical sense, i.e., it is certainly possible that Mary wasn't included in that passage. How, then, would one know if Mary truly was without sin? Well, the early Christians said that she was without sin. That's important evidence.

Like everyone else, Mary needed a Savior. In the first chapter of Luke, Mary calls God her Savior. I've heard an analogy that explains this. For us: Someone walking through the woods falls into a pile of mud. A man sees this, reaches down and takes the person out of the mud, and then brings the person home to clean up. For Mary: A man sees a woman walking in the woods and tells her to avoid the pile of mud. She does, so she doesn't end up falling into the mud like everyone else does.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='voiciblanche' date='Jun 10 2004, 01:55 PM'] You're making it sound as if Mary was redeemed by her own sinlessness. I dont think that's quite right. She was redeemed by the death of her Son. To say otherwise would be to say that she did not need God, and that she was the instrument of her own salvation. Which would put her on the same level of God. [i] Which Catholics do not do! [/i] Can anyone back me up on this? [/quote]
You're absolutely correct about that.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Jun 10 2004, 09:44 AM'] And we have the WORSHIP *OF* Mary too to contend with [/quote]
In all due respect, that quotation has nothing to do with the worship of Mary. Catholics are forbidden from worshipping Mary; however, what that passage is saying is that honoring Mary as our Mother (and as the Mother of God) brings us closer to Jesus. Mary presents her Beloved Son to us just as she presented Him to her cousin, Elizabeth, when He was in her womb. Jesus is God. He didn't [b]need[/b] to be born of a woman, but He chose to be. He doesn't need to be presented by His Mother, but He's chosen to do so. And as Mary said in the first chapter of Luke, future generations shall call her "blessed."

God bless,

Jennifer

[Apotheoun]

We receive a 'liberative' redemption, in other words, Christ the Lord liberates us from a condition of slavery to sin; while Mary receives a 'preservative' redemption, in that, by a prevenient grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ preserves Mary free from all stain of sin. In either case Christ is the sole cause of the grace given and the redemption received, only the manner of reception differs.

[phatcatholic]

shew! this doctrine is definitely fresh in my mind, considering i've spent the last 2 months defending it in a rather hostile environment. i will first propose why this doctrine is "needed" and in another post address the biblical defense.

of foremost and fundamental importance is the fact that ALL marian doctrines are "Christo-centric." this means that, though they are about mary, they are centered on Christ, and any honor we give Mary is only b/c of the power and glory of Jesus Christ in her life and this honor always ultimately goes to Him.

and so it is w/ the immaculate conception. in this case, stating that mary was born w/o sin defends the righteousness of Jesus Christ. the Son of God deserves only the greatest dwelling place. in the OT, the "Word of God" as it was manifested in the ten commandments was placed in an ark overladen w/ pure gold and jewels--as God Himself commanded. it was the pride and glory of all who possessed it--and death upon all those who disgraced it!

likewise, the "Word of God" as it is manifested in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ must have (for he rightly deserves) a pure dwelling place. so he dwelt, for nine months, in the pure womb of his mother mary. granted, this was not an absolute necessity. Jesus in his great power could have been born of a sinful woman, for the devil will never overtake him. but, the point here is that the devil should not even be given the opporunity to dwell w/ the Lord! he had his chance before the formation of the world and he made his decision to never dwell w/ the Lord again. he quite frankly does not deserve the honor, while, on the other hand, Jesus Christ deserves only the most sacred ark.

also note, that, just as God chose the ark in which his OT covenant would reside, Jesus Christ--who exists since the beginning of time--chose the ark in which he would reside. now, this is not explicit in the bible, but a logical deduction of biblical truth reveals this reality. afterall, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). likewise, it is God's very commandment that we "honor our father and mother." now, take these truths and apply them to Jesus Christ, as he exists some time before man, pondering the ark in which he will eventually reside. to reject that He chose for himself a sinful woman--a pure ark--is to suggest one of the following:

--either he had the power to honor his mother the greatest way he could--but he didn't, or
--he didn't have the power to honor his mother in such a way

the first conclusion makes jesus a transgressor of his own commandment. the second conclusion makes jesus a weak savior. both are entirely dangerous premises indeed!

so, why is the Immaculate Conception needed? Because it upholds the power, glory, righteousness, and perfect foreknowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

[b]a second reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed is b/c it upholds the timelessness of Jesus' salvific work on the Cross. afterall, his sacrifice was "once for all," not just for those who would come after him. so, in a unique and spectacular way, Jesus saved Mary from the stain of sin before he even mounted the cross to save the rest of us.

"mere speculation" you may say. yet, this too is a logical deduction of biblical truth. first off, we know from the lives of Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) that God can send his Spirit upon persons who are still in the womb. it is this same Spirit that saved mary while she was yet unborn, and saves each and every one of us after our birth. secondly, mary--even tho she is sinless--calls God "her savior." but how could this be if she is sinless? a popular illustration answers this question:

person A and person B are walking in the wilderness. there is a pit up ahead, of which person B is invariably in danger. person A can save person B in two ways. he can allow person B to fall in, and then rescue him from the pit. or, he can divert the path of person B and keep him from the pit all together. in both instances he has saved person B. so it is w/ God and sin. the normative way in which God saves mankind is by saving us from sin once we have been stained by it--b/c of original sin and/or sin we commit. however, he saved mary by protecting her from sin alltogether. it is really only in this way that mary can be sinless and God still be her savior.

[b]this leads to a third reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed: the immaculate conception upholds the perfect work of Christ on the cross. the perfect savior is the one who does not merely appease sin, but--at least in one example--anticipates it as well. this is what Jesus has done in mary. by protecting mary from the stain of sin, He anticipates its effects w/ his perfect foreknowledge and proves it to be of no avail. he perfects his work on the cross and can thus say w/ perfect truth that he has all power and dominion over sin, and has conquered it in every single way. Christo-centric indeed!!

[b]the final reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed is b/c it comprises an element of the Truth that God has revealed to His Church through the One Sacred Deposit of Faith. i want to know all the truths that God has revealed, and to never be lacking in that regard. i contend that God will look down upon me for not upholding one of the truths that he has revealed to me. it is the challenge and responsibility of my Confirmation in the Holy Spirit to defend ALL the truths of God and His Holy Church, especially when it comes to his own Holy Mother. what will He say to me on the Last Judgment, if he looks back upon a life that did not give proper honor and reverence to his greatest creature and his dearest mother?!?! i take the duty of my Confirmation very seriously, and so it is paramount both that i believe in and defend the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

this should suffice at least as an introductory defense for why the doctrine is needed. in my next post, i will defend the validity of the doctrine.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

now, for the basis of the doctrine.

i find it first helpful to examine the parallels between the the ark of the old covenant--which was a pure vessel--with the mary, the ark of the new covenant. these parallels solidify mary as a "pure vessel" as well.

[b]Parallel #1: Luke 1:39 and 2 Sam. 6:2[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:39 [/b]And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
--[b]2 Sam 6:2[/b] And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
--[b]note: [/b]in both instance the ark rose to be placed in a new location

[b]Parallel #2: Luke 1:41 and 2 Sam. 6:16 [/b]

--[b]Luke 1:41 [/b]And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
--[b]2 Sam 6:16 [/b]And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.
--[b]note:[/b] here, both david and john leap in joy before the ark

[b]Parallel #3: Luke 1:43 and 2 Sam. 6:9[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:43 [/b]And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
--[b]2 Sam 6:9[/b] And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
--[b]note:[/b] this is by far the most striking parallel!

[b]Parallel #4: Luke 1:56 and 2 Sam. 6:11[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:56 [/b]And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
--[b]2 Sam 6:11 [/b]And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household.
--[b]note:[/b] both arks resided for 3 months in their new locations.

[b]Parallel #5: Luke 1:28, 31, 48 and Psalms 93:5[/b]
--[b]Luke 1:28, 31, 48[/b]
[b]31 [/b]And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women....
[b]41 [/b]And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS....
[b]48 [/b]For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
--[b]Psalms 93:5 [/b]Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever.
--[b]note:[/b] in both instances, the house of the Lord is forever holy, and testimonies of this are sure indeed (this will be made more clear by the following comments)

with these parallels in mind, lets now turn to the angel gabriel's salutation to mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lords is w/ thee. Blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims Version). some versions translate this as "hail, thou that art highly favored" but this is an inaccurate translation. The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes "grace". A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action. for more on this, go [url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm"][b]here[/b][/url].

So kecharitomene means "you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace". Now grace is not mere unmerited favor, but God's gift of spiritual life and communion with Himself. Sin and grace are opposed (Romans 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5, 8). So Mary's fullness of grace indicates a complete absence of sin. Thus Luke 1:28 provides further evidence of Mary's sinlessness.

in my next post i will address the objections that are often raised against the information that has been provided so far.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

now, on to the common objections.

in response to this evidence from scripture, the most often cited rebuttal is Roman 3:23[list]
[*]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
[/list]while on the surface this may appear to clearly contradict the doctrine of mary's sinlessness, further disection of the greek (the original language) behind this passage as well as an examination of the context of the verse w/in the letter to the Romans and Psalms (from which it was taken) reveals that Rom 3:23 is not as plain as one may think.

first, the greek. the Greek word for "all" used here is "pas." while on occasion, it can be used to apply to every single person, it is also used to mean "the majority of people." this is made evident by other verses in Scripture in which the same Greek word for "all" is used. they include the following:

--[b]1 Cor 15:22 [/b]For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
--yet we know that those who do not accept the grace of Christ will not be made alive in Him
--not every single person has died physically either (Enoch in Gen 5:24; Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11)

--[b]Rom 11:26 [/b]And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
--yet we know that not every person of Israel will be saved

--[b]Rom 15:14 [/b]And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
--yet not every Roman could be filled w/ every ounce of knowledge.

--[b]Mat 2:3 [/b]When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
--yet surely not every single person in Jerusalem was troubled

--[b]Mat 3:5[/b] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan
--every single person in Judea?

--[b]Mat 21:10 [/b]And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
--every single person was moved?

now that we have established that "all" can in fact just mean "the majority," our next question is, "well is that the intent of all in Rom 3:23?" to anser this question, one must look at the context of the verse.

first, we'll look at the verse w/in the context of the letter to the Romans. while Paul is most recognized here for his defense of salvation by faith, he is also interested in how this salvation relates to the tensions between the Jews and the Gentiles. each group claims that the other is better, or more favored by God. the Jews in particular boast of being under the law and God's chosen people. the verses that lead up to verse 23 are basically a hypothetical dialogue between the Jews and Paul. the Jew is here trying to find ways in which his sin cannot be counted as unrighteousness, yet Paul rebukes every one. the "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" (a protestant commentary by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown published in 1871) articulates this exchange rather well:
[quote]CHAPTER 3

[b]Romans 3:1-8. JEWISH OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.[/b]

[b]1, 2. What advantage then hath the Jew?[/b]--that is, "If the final judgment will turn solely on the state of the heart, and this may be as good in the Gentile without, as in the Jew within, the sacred enclosure of God's covenant, what better are we Jews for all our advantages?"

[i]Answer:[/i]

[b]2. Much every way; chiefly, because[/b]--rather, "first, that."
[b]unto them were committed the oracles of God[/b]--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.

[b]3, 4. For what if some did not believe?[/b]--It is the unbelief of the great body of the nation which the apostle points at; but as it sufficed for his argument to put the supposition thus gently, he uses this word "some" to soften prejudice.
[b]shall their unbelief make the faith of God[/b]--or, "faithfulness of God."
[b]of none effect?[/b]--"nullify," "invalidate" it.

[b]4. God forbid[/b]--literally, "Let it not be," that is, "Away with such a thought"--a favorite expression of our apostle, when he would not only repudiate a supposed consequence of his doctrine, but express his abhorrence of it. "The Scriptures do not authorize such a use of God's name as must have been common among the English translators of the Bible" [HODGE].
[b]yea, let God be[/b]--held
[b]true, and every man a liar[/b]--that is, even though it should follow from this that every man is a liar.
[b]when thou art judged[/b]--so in Psalms 51:4, according to the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew and in our version, "when thou judgest." The general sentiment, however, is the same in both--that we are to vindicate the righteousness of God, at whatever expense to ourselves.

[b]5, 6. But if[/b], &c.--Another objection: "It would appear, then, that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear; and in that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God."

[i]Answer:[/i]

[b]6. God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?[/b]--that is, "Far from us be such a thought; for that would strike down all future judgment.

[b]7, 8. For if the truth of God[/b], &c.--A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this--which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching--that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a damnable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense).[/quote]
Paul's obvious intent here is to affirm that neither group is greater then the other. all the objections of the Jew are denied. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin ([b]Rom 3:9[/b]).


Some may again assert the sinfulness of every human being by citing verses 10-12:[list]
[*][b]10 [/b]As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[b]11 [/b]There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[b]12 [/b]They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[/list]however, Rom 3:10-12 is a reference to Psalms 14:2-3, which is a direct address to the sinfulness of the Jews. Paul cites the Psalms to further affirm his point that the Jews are just as sinful as the Gentiles, and in that way, no better. Psalms 14:2-3 reads as follows:[list]
[*][b]2 [/b]The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
[b]3 [/b]They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[/list]besides the context of of these words both w/in Romans and Psalms, surrounding verses from Psalms show that not even these words are as all encompassing as the objector may desire. let's look at the verses from Psalms again:

[b]Psalm 14:2-3[/b]
[b]2 [/b]The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [b]and seek God[/b].
[b]3 [/b]They are [b]all gone aside[/b], they are [b]all together become filthy[/b]: there is [b]none that doeth good[/b], no, not one.[list]
[*]Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims "I trusted in your steadfast love...." (13:5), which certainly is "seeking" after God!

And in the very next Psalm he refers to "those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right...." (15:2). Even two verses later he writes that "...God is with the company of the righteous."

Psalms 112:5 refers to a "good man" (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 Pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).
[/list]
so, as is easily seen, scripture refutes the second objection as well.


a third set of proof that refutes both objections comes from everyday examples. even in the world today we do in fact find persons who have not sinned.

[b]--a baby in the womb:[/b] a baby not yet born is still a person, just like us, yet he has not sinned. this is even affirmed, in [b]Rom 9:11 [/b]when Paul says "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;"
[b]--a newborn baby:[/b] likewise, a baby new to this world, who must have every care addressed for him and cannot even understand the world in relation to himself, cannot commit a sin.
[b]--a vegetative, severly mentally-retarded individual:[/b] i have a cousin who falls into this category. she cannot walk. she cannot talk. all she does is grunt. she is just as old as me, but forever confined to a wheelchair. one can only speculate how aware she is of what goes on around her. she cannot think nor can she make any decision for herself. all of her needs must be met by other people. she has never committed a sin. she never will.

in response to this, it is often said, "well the sin in question is not actual sin (sins we commit) but original sin. all men are under the sin of Adam."

to this i say, "AMEN." mary too was under the sin of adam. she was due to recieve the stain of original sin just like the rest of us, and were it not for the intervention of her Savior she would have indeed been born a sinner. however, God protected her from sin--diverted her from the pit--and in so doing saved a person who was under the sin of Adam. actually, Jesus saves ALL people under the sin of adam. the only difference is when he has decided to do so.

so, this objection too fails.

unfortunately, many more objections have been raised against this doctrine. however, i must for the sake of brevity direct you to other sources that address these objections, instead of addressing them here myself. i therefore highly suggest the following articles:
--[url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian4.html"]Immaculate Conception[/url]
--[url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian5.html"]Mary's Sinless Life[/url]

at the end of each article you will have objections given, and then the answers to them.


well, i hope all this helped. i'm sure i have forgotten some critical points. i pray that it will suffice. if you have any questions, please let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dUSt]

And this is why you're the phatmass apologetics director... lol.