Many people mistakenly believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate, but the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus at all. The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. An official statement of the doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature, and was, in fact, sinless. The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception originated out of confusion over how Jesus Christ could be born sinless if He was conceived inside of a sinful human female. The thought was that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. In contrast to the Immaculate Conception, the biblical solution to this problem is that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary’s womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical. The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because without it, Jesus would have been the object of His own grace. The thought goes like this – for Jesus to have been miraculously preserved from sin, which itself would be an act of grace, would mean God essentially “graced Himself.” The word grace means “unmerited favor.” Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.” In no sense could Jesus possibly be infected with sin. He was perfect and sinless humanity joined with sinless divinity. God cannot be infected or affected by sin, as He is perfectly holy. This same truth applies to Jesus. It did not take “grace” to protect Jesus from sin. Being God incarnate, Jesus was in His essence “immune” from sin. So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the biblical concept of the virgin birth. The Bible does not even hint that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the Immaculate Conception is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.
“Immaculate Conception?”
10 Comments:
1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry:
-
[…] “Immaculate Conception?” (altruistico.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
Interestingly put. Be blessed
LikeLike
Thank you for visiting and for your comment. May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not quite what the Catholic Church teaches. If you would like me to try to explain it better, I would be glad to, but I don’t want to impose myself on you any more than I already have.
LikeLike
Joseph it would be fine were you to explain it further. I merely presented what I considered the high-lights. I am here to learn, as well as, pass alone information concerning the Bible. Please, anytime you see an error or want to add something, please do. God bless.
LikeLike
While I do want to explain this better for you, I think right now we have an even more fundamental question — this business (apparently) that Catholics are not Christians. Is that what you meant to say?
LikeLike
Where on earth did you derive such a premise as this? I have not stated, anywhere, that Catholics are not Christian.There are several fundamental differences, however, between Catholicism and Protestantism. if that is what you mean. I presume from your language you are Catholic? Might I ask: “how do you define Christianity?” if you define it as I do, that Christ is the head of the Church, then we are on the same page. If, however, you believe that the Pope is Vicar, or a substitute for Christ (taking His place), then we are apart on that issue.
It seems, Joseph, you are seeking a greater debate with me….. God bless.
LikeLike
Okay. I’m very glad to hear that. This is what you said, on the other post, that caused me to be concerned:
I’m not looking for debate. I’m glad to discuss these things with you if you’d like. But I’d just as soon not.
LikeLike
I see nothing wrong with that portion of my comment that you high-lighted. I am going to post an article on the differences for you, and others, Joseph. I trust it will not offend you – my pointing out some of the differences.
Of course we can discuss….. we’ll allow the readers to determine what is appropriate and what is not. Okay?
God bless you my friend.
LikeLike
The problem is that you said there is a difference between “Christianity and Catholicism.” If you acknowledge that Catholics are Christian, then Catholicism is a part of Christianity, and there can be no “difference” between the two of them. There is a difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. But both are parts of Christianity.
LikeLike
I went and checked and you are absolutely correct. I did make the statement “There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism.” When I did mean to say “A difference between “Protestantism and Catholicism.”
There is only one true church, that built on Jesus Christ. In todays society there are so many denominations and off-shoots of religions that one has to question the true nature of all and whether, or not, they follow the truest form of that One True Church. My mission, if I can use that terminology, is to get people back to worshipping the One True Church built on Christ and His Word.
LikeLike