Baptismal Ecumenism: A New Evangelistic Paradigm\u00a0<\/a>(Rod Bennett).<\/p>\nFellow apologist and friend Nick Hardesty joined in:<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve \u201cdiscussed with believers in it a lot\u201d and lineage is your sticking point, then you haven\u2019t been speaking with anyone very knowledgeable in this doctrine. Jesus\u2019 sinlessness doesn\u2019t depend on Mary being sinless. Jesus is sinless because He is\u00a0God. His sinlessness flows from his divinity. Mary was preserved from sin so that:<\/span><\/p>\n\u2013 she would be the most fitting \u201cark\u201d for the New Covenant that is Christ;\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u2013 she would be equipped and emboldened to give the \u201cYes\u201d that brought Jesus into the world.<\/span><\/p>\n\u2013 her Son, who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, would be able to honor her in the best possible way, being, as He is, the perfect follower of His Commandments.<\/span><\/p>\nVery well-stated ! Thanks.<\/p>\n
Your points were pretty much what the article said. And I have heard it many times. I do not see that Mary was ever treated any different than any other person in Jesus\u2019s life in scripture. Perhaps the early fathers created the idea of perfection for her (which is unbiblical) but I do not see it or accept it. Doesn\u2019t make her less of a woman or mother to God just because of it. She is remembered as faithful and a good mother\u2026I don\u2019t see why perpetual virginity makes sense. It was a curse to a woman to be childless, so having many children would be God\u2019s gift to her. I do not get the whole notion of the Catholic view of Mary\u2026I love her as much as anyone, but she was just like anyone else that God chose to work through\u2026a faithful testimony to us all. The fact that you think because I do not agree with you means I haven\u2019t talked to the right people is annoying and insulting to me. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat we are saying is that you have not talked to people who accurately understand what the Catholic Church teaches. It does not<\/em><\/strong> teach the caricature and straw man of \u201cmany generations needing to be sinless\u201d that you have set up to shoot down and disbelieve in.<\/p>\nIf Yahweh wants me to come to your way of thinking the Holy Spirit will bring me (as I am not closed off to it if it is true). But like you will never come to my way of thinking, I will not come to yours. Jesus is the mediator and propitiation for our sins that is enough for me\u2026<\/span><\/p>\nBy the way, I use the name Yahweh because I find that the word \u201cGod\u201d is often used for false gods and I prefer to make sure people know which God I worship.<\/span><\/p>\nSo, just to make sure I\u2019m understanding you, you still believe that perfect holiness must go back through the generations, even though several people have told you that it doesn\u2019t work that way?<\/span><\/p>\nFor humans, yes. Jesus was God incarnate man\u2026Mary was a human woman therefore for her to be perfect she would either have to be God or have no sin. People have told me that global climate change is caused by men too, doesn\u2019t mean that I accept it.<\/span><\/p>\nShe could have no sin, if God willed that by a very special gift of His grace (and Mary cooperated with the grace), by simply being like Eve before the fall and original sin. Eve (like Adam) was a sinless, perfect human being at that time, just as the non-fallen angels have always been sinless and perfect (though not human; but still creatures).<\/p>\n
This is why the fathers called Mary the \u201cnew Eve\u201d or \u201csecond Eve.\u201d That goes back at least as far as St. Irenaeus. She undid human rebellion and the fall by saying \u201cyes\u201d to God in contrast to Eve\u2019s \u201cno.\u201d<\/p>\n
Earlier, you portrayed the Catholic position as declaring that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. I (and I\u2019m guessing countless others) have told you that this is not what Catholics believe. So, are you willing to abandon that characterization of the Catholic position?<\/span><\/p>\nI have heard those arguments before as well, and I disagree with both of you\u2026<\/span><\/p>\nYour task is to document that the Catholic Church teaches the straw man caricature that you have set up.\u00a0You can disagree with the doctrine<\/em>, of course, but if you disagree with the (alleged)\u00a0reasoning behind it<\/em>, you first have to properly understand<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0and document it.<\/p>\nWhy do Catholics have so many different interpretations of your teachings if your teachings are clear? I have heard from faithful Catholics in different parts of the world that yes, they worship saints, that no, they don\u2019t worship saint, that Mary is the way to Jesus, that Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless and so on and so forth. I am always told by apologists that \u201cthis is what the church really teaches\u201d. Well, why are the people being taught incorrectly then? And are they good Catholics if they are praying to saints or believe all those other things? Catholicism is so much like Protestantism because it seems that each apologist has their own interpretation of cannon and tradition etc. What can we look to to understand when we get so many different teachings? The bulls? The Bible? Other writings? <\/span><\/p>\nI choose to look toward the Scriptures if I am confused; and prayer. I speak to as many priests or pastors as I can and still get different explanations. It must come down to something. I hold to the creed and just pray that Yahweh knows my heart to be true to Him. I do not feel less because I am not a member of the RCC, as I believe I am a member of the true Catholic faith. All the bits and pieces are adiophra (sp). Christ (being God) come in the flesh, dying, rising, and ascending is what my faith is in\u2026the good works I do must come from Him to be worthy and I receive the sacrament (albeit Lutheran) to receive his body and blood into my human flesh to keep me in the way. <\/span><\/p>\nI confess in church and as I sin to receive forgiveness. I do not pray to passed-on saints, but to Christ. I can only do what I am led to do. If I\u2019m wrong, then I\u2019m either doomed to hell or as so many now believe, oblivion. Only Yahweh knows, and I do feel that many of our \u201creligious\u201d arguments are unnecessary and useless. I pray all the best for you and Dave and all true believers. But I don\u2019t have time to debate unnecessary points\u2026even you guys seem to think it doesn\u2019t matter to God, so why do we have to argue the point?<\/span><\/p>\nStill waiting for an answer to my question. I\u2019ll state it again: Are you willing to abandon that characterization of the Catholic position? In other words, are you willing to admit that Catholics don\u2019t in fact believe that Jesus\u2019 sinlessness requires Mary to be sinless (and her mom, and her mom, and so on)?<\/span><\/p>\nIf you are resolute in tearing down a strawman, then there\u2019s really no point in continuing the conversation. In order to prove your case, you have to refute what we actually believe, not a caricature of what we believe.\u00a0<\/span>It\u2019s also not enough to say, \u201cWell, I disagree.\u201d You have to actually marshal evidence that disproves our arguments.<\/span><\/p>\nAs for the \u201cmany different interpretations of [my] teaching,\u201d certainly its not inconceivable that, with 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, you\u2019re going to come across some, and even many, who misunderstand certain teachings. That\u2019s just humanity for you. But, if you want to know for sure what the Catholic Church teaches, just consult the Catechism<\/em>. That is the authoritative presentation of what we believe. What you\u2019ll find in there is everything that Dave and I have been saying.<\/span><\/p>\nSorry I meant to say \u201cno\u201d to your question in my last answer, just left it out. When so many Catholics tell me different things I do not know that I can say that the characterization of the catholic position is wrong\u2026so many different interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\nYou are asserting that \u201cthe Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception because<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0of presuppositional \/ foundational reasoning x<\/em> . . .\u201d We reply that \u201cthe Catholic Church does not teach x<\/em> as a basis of the Immaculate Conception.\u201d X<\/em> is your straw man: a piece of fiction.<\/p>\nThat\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to get you to see, but so far, you will have none of it. You think you understand Catholic dogma on this point better than a Catholic catechist \/ apologist (Nick is the Coordinator of Content and Evangelization for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati) and a Catholic apologist.<\/p>\n
You claim that [Catholic] \u201capologists\u201d are telling you these things. Very well, then: please name<\/em> them. There are good and bad apologists, and so-called \u201capologists\u201d who have no business defending Catholicism. They have no credentials.<\/p>\nI\u2019m not gonna play Bible hopscotch and do the silly \u201c100 topics at once\u201d routine. That\u2019s simply a way for you to avoid the dilemma that you have gotten yourself into.\u00a0If you want to have a serious discussion about any of that, pick one, and we will do so in a separate thread. Right now, the topic is the Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t really care what the RCC believes on the immaculate conception. I don\u2019t think it matters one iota in the scheme of salvation so it is a vain and useless argument to me.<\/span><\/p>\nYeah, we can see that. This is why you keep misrepresenting<\/em> what we believe. You feel that it is okay for you to lie about a fellow Christian\u2019s belief, and to not care whether you are doing so or not, as long as you oppose<\/em> the thing you disagree with. Anything goes. The end justifies the means . . . Last I checked, all Christians agree that lying is wrong.<\/p>\nI am not misrepresenting, I simply am say what other Catholics say to me. Not my fault that they were taught wrong. And you tagged me. I did not jump on the discussion.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nBut, you are<\/em> <\/strong>misrepresenting. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has the final say on what the teaching of the Catholic Church is, and it contradicts what you claim the position of the Church is. If speaking the truth about what others believe is important to you at all, then consider what the Catechism says:<\/span><\/p>\nArt. 490 says, \u201cIn 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 \u2026\u201d by a sinless mother? No, it says, \u201c\u2026 by God\u2019s grace.\u201d Art. 491 says, \u201cThrough the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, \u2018full of grace\u2019 through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception.\u201d Through God<\/em><\/strong>, not her own mother. Art. 722 uses the language of fittingness<\/em><\/strong>, not necessity. It says, \u201cIt was fitting that the mother of him in whom \u2018the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily\u2019 should herself be \u2018full of grace\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt should be clear from this that the Church teaches that Mary\u2019s sinlessness comes from a special gift of grace, from God, at the moment of her conception, and not<\/em><\/strong> from a lineage of sinless people.<\/span><\/p>\nAs for Jesus\u2019 own sinlessness, the Catechism says that this comes, not from Mary, but from the perfect union of His two natures within the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Art. 468 says, \u201cThus everything in Christ\u2019s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death.\u201d That would include His sinlessness. Art. 470 says, \u201cEverything that Christ is and does in this [human] nature derives from \u2018one of the Trinity\u2019.\u201d Art. 475 says that Jesus has two wills \u2014 divine and human \u2014 and they are not opposed because they belong to the Word.<\/span><\/p>\nYou will not find anywhere in the Catechism or in any of the authoritative documents of the Church any statement which says that Jesus\u2019 sinlessness came from Mary, or that a lineage of perfectly holy people was necessary for either Mary or Jesus to be sinless. It\u2019s time for you to banish this misrepresentation of why the Church believes in the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary.<\/span><\/p>\nG. K .Chesterton wrote about this sort of attitude:<\/span><\/p>\nSo many people are at once preoccupied with it and prejudiced against it. It is queer to observe so much ignorance with so little indifference. They love talking about it and they hate hearing about\u00a0it . . . I fancy there is more than meets the eye in this curious controversial attitude; the desire to ask rhetorical questions and not to ask real questions; the wish to heckle and not to hear. (The Thing<\/em>, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1929, 81-82)<\/span><\/p>\nI could not understand why these romancers never took the trouble to find out a few elementary facts about the thing they denounced . . . Boundless freedom reigned; it was not treated as if it were a question of fact at all . . . It puzzled me very much . . . to imagine why people . . . should thus neglect to test their own case, and should draw in this random way on their own imagination . . . I never dreamed that the Roman religion was true; but I knew that its accusers, for some reason or other, were curiously inaccurate. (The Catholic Church and Conversion,<\/em> New York: Macmillan, 1926, 36-38)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n***<\/span><\/p>\n(originally 11-14-14; expanded on 5-20-19)<\/span><\/p>\nPhoto credit:<\/strong><\/span> Immaculate Conception<\/em>, by\u00a0Giovanni Battista Tiepolo (1696-1770)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kim Bishop is a member of the Charismatic Episcopal Church. This discussion came about on my public Facebook page. Her words will be in blue. ***** Don\u2019t care what your traditions say [about] this [Mary\u2019s sinlessness and Immaculate Conception and in partu virginity] is totally ridiculous. Mary herself admitted she needed a saviour. Jesus was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":33155,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[2357,508,4495,4492,4493,46,677,2356,680,961,504],"class_list":["post-33152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-catholic-mariology","tag-duns-scotus","tag-fitting","tag-fittingness","tag-immaculate-conception","tag-marian-doctrines","tag-mariology","tag-mary-mother-of-jesus","tag-marys-sinlessness","tag-virgin-mary"],"yoast_head":"\n
Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-20T17:43:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-05-20T20:50:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/Mary47.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"404\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html\",\"name\":\"Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-20T17:43:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-05-20T20:50:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian","description":"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian","og_description":"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2019-05-20T17:43:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-05-20T20:50:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":404,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/Mary47.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html","name":"Mary's Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-05-20T17:43:15+00:00","dateModified":"2019-05-20T20:50:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"The Immaculate Conception was not strictly necessary. Jesus was God and therefore *would* be without sin in any event: indeed *could* not ever sin (impeccability), since He was God.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/marys-immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-episcopalian.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Episcopalian"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33152\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/Mary47.jpg\")
<\/p>\n