{"id":36759,"date":"2019-08-12T11:24:37","date_gmt":"2019-08-12T15:24:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=36759"},"modified":"2019-08-12T11:24:37","modified_gmt":"2019-08-12T15:24:37","slug":"immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html","title":{"rendered":"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/p>\n

This dialogue came about as a result of\u00a0Jack DisPennett<\/strong>\u2018s critique of my paper,\u00a0The Blessed Virgin Mary:\u00a0Biblical & Catholic Overview<\/a>. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

This seems to contradict what Paul wrote in Romans 3:23, \u201cFor all have sinned\u00a0and fall short of the glory of God.\u201d One could try to argue that since Jesus\u00a0Christ Himself is an exception to this universal statement, then perhaps there\u00a0are other exceptions also. This, however, is a weak objection. For the only\u00a0reason Jesus Christ did not sin and fall short of the glory of God was because\u00a0he was<\/em><\/strong> God. Indeed, Paul Himself would agree: just read verses 24-25. But to\u00a0add that Mary also did not sin seems to commit special pleading, because Mary\u00a0<\/span>was mortal just as the rest of us are.<\/span><\/p>\n

If your argument is merely or primarily a\u00a0linguistic<\/i>\u00a0one, based on the meaning of\u00a0all<\/i>, it fails, not only by other uses of\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0in Scripture, and the latitude of meanings for it in Greek, but because an absolute\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0would indeed include Jesus Christ, He being a true man as well as true God,and a conscious being. It would also presumably include good angels who never sinned, and miscarried children, aborted babies, newborns, and severely retarded or brain-damaged persons, who do not have sufficient knowledge to commit actual sin.<\/p>\n

Therefore, if the meaning is\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0absolute \u2014 i.e., now allowing\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0exceptions whatsoever, your argument collapses. But it can also be overcome on exegetical grounds. I presented that argument in the following paper:\u00a0\u201cAll Have Sinned\u201d vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary?<\/a><\/p>\n

Paul is obviously referring in this context to human beings who have sufficient understanding\u00a0so as to either choose or reject God.<\/span><\/p>\n

Then your argument collapses, because if\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0doesn\u2019t mean\u00a0absolutely all, without a single exception<\/i>, then Mary could be an exception (as indeed she is).<\/p>\n

Note the preceding verses: \u201cJews and Gentiles\u201d in verse 9\u2013this passage is not talking about angels\u2013 \u201cwith their tongues they deceive\u201d-13 \u201cTheir feet are swift for shedding blood\u201d-15 \u201cThere is no reverence for God before their eyes.\u201d-18 All these verses lead us to conclude that the \u201call\u201d in verse 23 refers to mature human beings who have reached the age of accountability, since their rejection of God is portrayed as blatant and willful. <\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, the exceptions you listed (infants, mentally handicapped folk, angels) do not apply to the obvious context of this passage, since Romans 3:9 straight on through past Romans 3:23 is based on the same line of thought regarding mature human beings. I think on these grounds alone it is unlikely that there would be any exception other than Christ, who was able to avoid such sin precisely because He was God.<\/span><\/p>\n

I reiterate that the linguistic argument collapses as soon as more than one meaning of\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0is conceded, as it must be, if anyone pursues the matter in biblical Greek linguistic reference books. The exegetical argument is very important, and of course, it is entirely biblical. I will reproduce a portion of the above-cited article:<\/p>\n

Jesus says: \u201cNo one is good but God alone\u201d (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: \u201cThe good person brings good things out of a good treasure.\u201d (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English \u201cgood\u201d the Greek word is the same:\u00a0agatho<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God\u2019s, but He doesn\u2019t deny that we can be \u201cgood\u201d in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:<\/p>\n

Psalm 14:2-3<\/strong>\u00a0The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely,\u00a0that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good,\u00a0[Hebrew,\u00a0tob<\/em>] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)<\/p>\n

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims,\u00a0\u201cI have trusted in thy steadfast love\u201d (13:5), which certainly\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>\u201cseeking\u201d after God! And in the very next he refers to \u201cHe who walk blamelessly, and does what is right\u201d (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that \u201cGod is with the generation of the righteous.\u201d So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.<\/p>\n

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the \u201crighteous\u201d (Heb.\u00a0tob<\/em>), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words \u201crighteous\u201d or \u201cgood\u201d (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word,\u00a0tob<\/em>, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to\u00a0righteous\u00a0men 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.).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Romans 3:23\u2013I think you misunderstood my point. When someone uses the word \u201call,\u201d it is our responsibility to look back and see what the antecedent is. I argued that the antecedent of the \u201call\u201d is \u201call Jews and Gentiles who have reached the age of accountability.\u201d I gave arguments for this. Jesus Himself is an exception, yes. But this is assumed in that very text, because Jesus Himself is the one who the \u201call\u201d come to for salvation (v. 22). <\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, since Jesus Christ in that very text is differentiated from the \u201call\u201d who have sinned, there actually are no exceptions to the all, once we figure out exegetically who the antecedent is; All Jews and Gentiles, except Jesus,who have reached the age of accountability and have the witness of conscience in them. Hence, your objection that stated, \u201cSince there is one exception, why couldn\u2019t there be more?\u201d fails once we properly establish the antecedent, of which Mary is obviously a part, being an adult Jew. Indeed, we should assume a priori<\/em> that there are no exceptions from within the antecedent group, unless someone has good positive proof otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for the argument \u201call doesn\u2019t always mean all,\u201d it is a decent point, but I think it fails exegetically. Notice Paul\u2019s words, \u201call have turned away\u2026there is no one who does good, not even one<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d-v.12, emphasis mine. Paul said that this was written \u201cso that\u2026the whole world (may be) held accountable to God.\u201d And that \u201cno one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.\u201d Paul emphasizes the depravity of all mankind too much for there to be any exceptions within the antecedent group.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for your exegetical argument, I think that even though David may have understood his words as hyperbole when he wrote them, applying only to the desperately wicked majority, Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, seemed to take those words quite literally insofar as they apply to all people. His point is that, at some point in everyone\u2019s life, people sin and go astray from God, and that we don\u2019t naturally seek Him in our flesh (unless we are led by His Spirit.) Paul is emphasizing the universality of sin. No human being (save Christ) who has understood the difference between right and wrong has always chosen the right. <\/span><\/p>\n

Notice especially, \u201cthere is no one who does good, not even one.\u201d This means that everyone (and remember the antecedent) has\u00a0broken God\u2019s laws As he said, \u201cNo one will be declared righteous by obedience to the law.\u201d Christ is the only exception, but not really an exception, since the text itself places Him outside of the antecedent of \u201cno one.\u201d To say that Mary was sinless would mean that she was declared righteous by obedience to the law, which seems to contradict this passage.<\/span><\/p>\n

The whole doctrine of the immaculate conception also raises other problems: For\u00a0example, why does God not simply immaculately conceive everybody and remove the\u00a0stain of original sin from everybody as a result of the merits of Jesus Christ?<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know. He hasn\u2019t told us, just as we don\u2019t understand many things about Him and what He does, particularly with regard to the Problem of Evil. God gives grace as He wills, and it is not for us to question why He does, but to believe in faith that He does so fairly and justly, and with some profound purpose, whether or not we comprehend it. God could have chosen to save all men by grace, due to the Cross, or to utterly annihilate the devil and his demons long ago, even before man\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n

Or He could have prevented the Fall itself, but He would have had to restrain human free will, to make it impossible for man to rebel. So this argument is simply an appeal to things we can\u2019t fully know, by the nature of things, hence, of little relevance to our present discussion (because it would apply to many, many mysteries of Christianity).<\/p>\n

This would seem to be much more merciful than allowing all men to sin and a large portion to go to hell simply because they were born with original sin.<\/span><\/p>\n

But this is untrue in the first place. They don\u2019t go to hell \u201csimply because they were born with original sin.\u201d They go there because they choose to live in disobedience to God\u2019s commandments and refuse to accept Jesus as their Redeemer and Savior. Anyone can be saved who chooses to be, and perseveres to the end, by God\u2019s grace. Catholics are not supralapsarian Calvinists.<\/p>\n

Go argue with them about the injustice of\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0doctrine. In any event, baptism removes the penalties of original sin (although concupiscence remains, and must be overcome through a lifetime of spiritual struggle and moment-by-moment obedience, aided by the power of the Holy Spirit and enabling grace).<\/p>\n

It is clear from the case of Mary that He is able to do such a thing: It must follow that He is unwilling to remove the stain of original sin. But how can this be if He desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? (1 Timothy 2:4)<\/span><\/p>\n

Because they can still be saved\u00a0despite<\/i>\u00a0original sin. What your argument amounts to is the silly thought-experiment of: \u201cwe know how God should have done things, better than God Himself.\u201d No Christian can make that argument. This is really, then, much ado about nothing: mere philosophizing, and proves little one way or the other concerning the plausibility and biblical support for the Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n

I am dropping my points regarding why God did not then create everyone without original sin, because I would rather this not turn in to a philosophical free-for-all with counterfactuals flying all around. I think it was a mistake for me to even make those points, because that whole part of the issue is really very moot.<\/span><\/p>\n

I will admit that Mary is \u201cfull of grace.\u201d\u00a0[Luke 1:28]\u00a0I\u2019m not a Greek scholar so I\u2019m not sure how to translate things, and will thus accept the Catholic interpretation at face value. The problem with this argument is in what it reads into the text. Catholics chide Protestants for reading into texts like 2 Tim 3:16 to prove\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>, and yet I think that I could raise a similar objection here.<\/span><\/p>\n

You make that claim, yet the Catholic view is arguably derived straight from the Greek meaning of\u00a0kecharitomene<\/i>; thus I don\u2019t think it involves as much \u201creading into\u201d the text (eisegesis) as you and many Protestants suppose. You have not dealt adequately with my biblical and linguistic arguments, so I will expand upon and strengthen my case presently. In my paper, The Blessed Virgin Mary:\u00a0Biblical & Catholic Overview<\/a>,\u00a0which you are critiquing, I wrote:<\/p>\n

Kecharitomene<\/i>, in any event, is derived from the root\u00a0charis<\/i>, whose literal meaning is\u00a0grace<\/i>\u00a0(it is translated as\u00a0grace<\/i>\u00a0129 out of 150 times in the KJV). The angel is here, in effect, giving Mary a new name (full of grace<\/i>), as if he were addressing Abraham as\u00a0full of faith<\/i>, or Solomon\u00a0full of wisdom<\/i>\u00a0(characteristics which typified them). Throughout the Bible, names were indicative of one\u2019s character and essence, all the more so if God renamed a person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To pursue the linguistic argument further, I shall consult the highly-regarded Protestant Greek reference work,Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words\u00a0<\/i>(edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; translated and abridged in one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1985, 1304-1305,\u00a0charis<\/i>,\u00a0charizomai, charitoo, acharistos<\/i>):<\/p>\n

Distinctively\u00a0charis<\/i>\u00a0in Paul expounds the structure of the salvation event. The basic thought is that of free giving. In view is not just a quality in God but its actualization at the cross (Gal. 2:21) and its proclamation in the gospel. We are saved by grace alone . . . it is the totality of salvation (2 Cor. 6:1) that all believers have (1 Cor. 1:4) . . . Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . . In Col. 1:6\u00a0charis<\/i>\u00a0means the gospel . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Charis<\/i>\u00a0(grace<\/i>) often means\u00a0favor<\/i>, it is true, but it can also refer to a state. The latter is how Catholics usually think of grace: or more specifically, as a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as well, as seen in the above citation, and in the following, from Greek scholar W. E. Vine:<\/p>\n

. . . in another objective sense, the effect of grace, the spiritual state of those who have experienced its exercise, whether (1) a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18, or (2) a proof thereof in practical effects, deeds of grace, e.g., 1 Cor. 16:3 . . .; 2 Cor. 8:6,19 . . . the power and equipment for ministry, e.g., Rom. 1:5; 12:6; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:2,7 . . .\u00a0(An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/i>, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940, vol. 2, 170, \u201cGrace\u201d \/ \u201cCharis\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For Paul, grace (charis<\/i>) is the antithesis and overcomer of sin (RSV):<\/p>\n

Romans 5:20-21<\/strong>\u00a0Law came in, to increase the trespass<\/span>; but where\u00a0sin<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>increased, grace<\/span>\u00a0abounded all the more, so that, as\u00a0sin\u00a0<\/span>reigned in death<\/span>,\u00a0grace<\/span>\u00a0also might reign through\u00a0righteousness<\/span>\u00a0to eternal life<\/span> through Jesus Christ our Lord.*<\/p>\n

Romans 6:14<\/strong>\u00a0For\u00a0<\/b>sin<\/span>\u00a0will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under\u00a0grace<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Romans 5:17\u00a0<\/strong>If, because of one man\u2019s trespass, death<\/span> reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of\u00a0grace<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>and the free gift of\u00a0righteousness<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

2 Timothy 1:9<\/strong>\u00a0who\u00a0saved<\/span>\u00a0us and called us with a\u00a0holy calling<\/span>, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the\u00a0grace<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>which he gave us in Christ\u00a0Jesus ages ago,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

2 Corinthians 1:12\u00a0<\/strong>For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with\u00a0holiness<\/span>\u00a0and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the\u00a0<\/b>grace\u00a0<\/span>of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

*<\/strong><\/p>\n

2 Corinthians 12:9<\/strong>\u00a0but he said to me, \u201cMy\u00a0<\/b>grace<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>is sufficient for you, for my power is made\u00a0perfect<\/span>\u00a0in weakness.\u201d I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the\u00a0power of Christ\u00a0<\/span>may rest upon me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We are saved, of course, by grace, and grace alone:<\/p>\n

Acts 15:11<\/strong>\u00a0But we believe that we shall be\u00a0saved\u00a0through the\u00a0grace\u00a0<\/b>of\u00a0the Lord Jesus, just as they will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ephesians 2:5<\/strong>\u00a0even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by\u00a0grace\u00a0you have been\u00a0saved),<\/p>\n

Ephesians 2:8-10<\/strong>\u00a0For by\u00a0grace\u00a0you have been\u00a0saved\u00a0<\/b>through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God\u2013 not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for\u00a0good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.<\/p>\n

Titus 2:11<\/strong>\u00a0For the\u00a0grace\u00a0of God has appeared for the\u00a0salvation\u00a0of all men,<\/p>\n

1 Peter 1:10<\/strong>\u00a0The prophets who prophesied of the\u00a0<\/b>grace\u00a0that was to be yours searched and inquired about this\u00a0salvation;<\/p>\n

Romans 3:24\u00a0<\/strong>they are\u00a0justified\u00a0by his\u00a0grace\u00a0as a gift, through the\u00a0redemption\u00a0which is in Christ Jesus,<\/p>\n

Romans 11:5\u00a0<\/strong>So too at the present time there is a\u00a0remnant,\u00a0chosen\u00a0by\u00a0grace.<\/p>\n

Titus 3:7\u00a0<\/strong>so that we might be\u00a0justified\u00a0by his\u00a0grace\u00a0and become heirs in hope of eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, the implications of all this for Luke 1:28 and the Immaculate Conception of Mary ought to\u00a0be obvious by now.<\/p>\n

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity (which can be more or less defined by applying deductive reasoning to various passages of scripture) the Catholics are using a few very indirect verses to prove what is to them an important doctrine. I deny that one can prove the immaculate conception using only the Bible and deductive reasoning. An example of a legitimate deductive argument from the Bible to prove, for example, the Trinity:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4)<\/span>
\n2. The Father is God (2 Thes. 1:1)<\/span>
\n3. The Son is God (John 1:1, John 20:28)<\/span>
\n4. The Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)<\/span>
\n5. These Three are distinct Persons with distinct roles (Ephesians 2:14, Matthew<\/span>
\n28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14)<\/span>
\n6. Therefore, we conclude that there is one God who exists as three distinct<\/span>
\nPersons.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I will accept the Immaculate Conception as soon as such a conclusive deductive argument for it is\u00a0presented to me. Notice that there are no analogies or speculations of any sort in the argument, and that the conclusion (6) follows logically and inescapably from the premises.<\/span><\/p>\n

All of the above instances of \u201cgrace\u201d in English are translations of the Greek\u00a0charis<\/i>, the root of the word used by an angel in Luke 1:28 to describe Mary:\u00a0kecharitomene<\/i>. From the above we learn two things, and they are biblically certain:<\/p>\n

1. Grace\u00a0saves<\/em>\u00a0us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

*<\/p>\n

2. Grace gives us the power to be\u00a0<\/b>holy<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0righteous<\/em>\u00a0and without\u00a0<\/strong>sin<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Therefore, for a person to be\u00a0full<\/i>\u00a0of grace\u00a0is to both be saved and to be exceptionally, completely holy. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions as follows:<\/p>\n

1. To be\u00a0full<\/em>\u00a0of the grace which saves is to\u00a0surely<\/em>\u00a0be saved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

*<\/p>\n

2. To be\u00a0full<\/em>\u00a0of the grace which gives us the power to be\u00a0<\/b>holy<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0righteous<\/em>\u00a0and without\u00a0sin<\/em>, is to be\u00a0fully without sin<\/em>, by that same grace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or, we could make the following deductive argument, with premises (#1 and #2) derived directly from Scripture:<\/p>\n

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God\u2019s grace.
\n2. The Bible teaches that we need God\u2019s grace to live a holy life, above sin.
\n3. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace, then, is to be saved.
\n4. Therefore, Mary is saved.
\n5. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace is also to be so holy that one is sinless.
\n6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
\n7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
\n8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, is directly deduced from the strong evidence of many biblical passages, which teach the doctrines of #1 and #2.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The logic would seem to follow inexorably, from unquestionable biblical principles. The only way out of it would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold that either (1) grace doesn\u2019t save, or that (2) grace isn\u2019t that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. In this fashion, the entire\u00a0essence<\/i>\u00a0of the Immaculate Conception is proven (alone) from biblical principles and doctrines which every orthodox Protestant holds.<\/p>\n

The only possible quibble might be about\u00a0when<\/i>\u00a0God applied this grace to Mary. We know she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so as to avoid the original sin which she inevitably\u00a0would<\/i>\u00a0have inherited, being human,\u00a0but<\/i>\u00a0for God\u2019s preventive grace, which saved her from falling into the pit of sin by avoidance rather than rescue, after she had fallen in.<\/p>\n

In a very simple sense, the Immaculate Conception is God giving Mary the grace to be as sinless and innocent as Eve originally was, a thing quite fitting and not at all strange or implausible for one chosen to bear the Lord God in her own body.<\/p>\n

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of\u00a0charis<\/i>\u00a0elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on\u00a0grace alone\u00a0<\/i>for salvation (with which we Catholics fully agree \u2014 we merely deny the tenet of\u00a0faith alone<\/i>, as contrary to the clear teaching James, and Paul, when closely scrutinized). If grace saves, then to be full of it is to be not only saved, but without sin, according to biblical principles and Protestant beliefs concerning sanctification. For no one can have more grace than to be \u201cfull\u201d of it. It\u2019s as simple as that.<\/p>\n

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are \u201cspeculative\u201d (an insinuation that they go far beyond the biblical evidence) but once one goes deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, it is not all that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively ignored grace when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary, but trumpeted it when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers.<\/p>\n

It is one more instance of ignoring some parts of Scripture, and pure bias against Catholic distinctives, causing a corresponding bias and unacceptable subjectivity in hermeneutics and exegesis. Thus, it is not so much a matter of Catholics\u00a0reading into\u00a0<\/i>Scripture, as it is Protestants in effect reading certain passages\u00a0out of\u00a0<\/i>Scripture altogether, because they don\u2019t fit in with their preconceived notions.<\/p>\n

I appreciated very much your deductive argument for the Immaculate Conception. It allows an easier analysis of the points and facilitates good discussion. I think your error lies somewhere in the following points:<\/span><\/p>\n

5. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace is also to be so holy that one is sinless.<\/span>
\n6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think that point \u201c5\u201d is far from obvious. Given the free will of humans, it might be that even a person who is completely full of God\u2019s grace might still commit sin, since God\u2019s grace does not nullify free will. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother\u2019s womb (Luke 1:15) yet he later doubted that Christ was the Messiah. In 1 Samuel 13:14, we learn that God will choose a king after His own heart. We later find out that this is David. So we could construct an argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

1. God\u2019s heart is perfect and sinless.<\/span>
\n2. To be a man after God\u2019s own heart is to be sinless.<\/span>
\n3. David is a man after God\u2019s own heart.<\/span>
\n4. Therefore, David is sinless.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This argument is obviously fallacious, since David did do sinful things, such as commit adultery with Bathsheba, kill Uriah the Hittite, and take an unauthorized census of the people. I would argue that this ad-hoc argument I\u2019ve constructed here commits the same fallacy that your argument for the Immaculate Conception does. I would call this fallacy \u201cover-application of a generalization.\u201d That is, you take a statement or title meant to apply to the actions or character of a person in general, and you try to apply that to every single circumstance in that person\u2019s life.<\/span><\/p>\n

I could construct other deductive arguments to, such that \u201cJohn the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth,\u201d becomes \u201cJohn the Baptist always followed the Spirit\u2019s leading and remained without sin.\u201d Of course these saints who are described as \u201cblameless\u201d commit sins. But they avoid sin more than most of us, and that is the whole point. To say that Mary is \u201cfull of grace\u201d and therefore sinless is therefore overapplication of a general description of her and is not proof of the Immaculate Conception.<\/span><\/p>\n

You are overlooking several things here. The whole point of my going into many other verses having to do with grace, was to show that grace seems to be presented as the\u00a0antithesis<\/i>\u00a0of sin. In other words, it is a zero-sum game: the more grace one has, the less sin they have, because the two are mutually exclusive: like oil and water. Or, one might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us!). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air.<\/p>\n

My argument was that grace in Scripture seems to be portrayed in this fashion, vis-a-vis sin (see also, e.g., similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). I don\u2019t claim that this is an airtight biblical argument, but it seems clear to me, at face value. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost in common sense, I would say) from notions that Christians already hold in common.<\/p>\n

Mary is the only person in Scripture who is defined (called, in the sense of a descriptive title) as \u201cFull of Grace\u201d (kecharitomene<\/i>). This must be significant. I think that makes her unique in some sense, anyway you look at it (I contend that the uniqueness is sinlessness, as well as \u2014 obviously \u2014 being the\u00a0Theotokos<\/i>).<\/p>\n

Furthermore,\u00a0I\u2019m not sure that an honest doubt by John the Baptist in the midst of possible despair (after all, he was in prison at the time, and probably knew he would be executed) is a sin. It may have been, but it may not have been, too. God \u2014 and courts of law \u2014 take into account our states of mind and emotion when we say and do certain things.<\/p>\n

As for the analogy with David, this fails, because \u201cbeing a man after God\u2019s own heart\u201d and committing sin are not presented as\u00a0antitheses<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0contraries<\/i>\u00a0in Scripture, the way being \u201cfull of grace\u201d and sin are. My whole exegetical\/analogical argument above really turns on that, and this example of yours is not really analogous at all because the two ideas are not in the same relation to each other (based on other biblical support) as my two ideas were. Nor is there any such title given to David in an extraordinary sense of \u201ccomplete and enduring, with permanent result.\u201d So my reasoning involves both exegesis and linguistic analysis.<\/p>\n

If grace is defined as \u201cunmerited favor,\u201d then we could see Mary as an extreme example of God\u2019s favor; I would say that (and I don\u2019t mean to offend anyone by this, but I must state my view clearly) that despite Mary\u2019s unworthiness and sin, that she was chosen by God to carry His Son.<\/span><\/p>\n

The alleged \u201cunworthiness\u201d and \u201csin\u201d of Mary does not follow from Luke 1:28 and the above exegesis and linguistic analysis. So I contend that it is contrary to Holy Scripture. It is a Protestant bias, superimposed onto Scripture.<\/p>\n

I admit that she was a very righteous person, insofar as people go. But since \u201call have sinned and come short of the glory of God,\u201d it was an act of pure grace for God to choose her (or any other eligible female He could have chosen had He desired) to bear His Son.<\/span><\/p>\n

The argument from \u201call have sinned . . . \u201d has been dealt with in another paper, and above, to some extent.<\/p>\n

I see no reason to leap from \u201cfull of grace\u201d to \u201ccompletely sinless\u201d; it is simply not there.<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe I have shown above that it certainly\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0there. One merely has to make straightforward deductions from very clear Bible passages, precisely as one does with regard to the Holy Trinity.<\/p>\n

<\/p>

In response to my lengthy, Bible-filled exegetical arguments related to Luke 1:35:\n

<\/p><\/center>Your argument is not convincing, because we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity (1 Cor 3:16) and yet we are not sinless. There is no more need for Mary to be sinless from birth as the bearer of the second Person of the Trinity than there is a need that those in whom dwells the third Person of the Trinity be sinless from birth.<\/span>\n

God is everywhere, and every Christian has the Holy Spirit inside of Him. This is true, and a decent point. The uniqueness of the Incarnation, on the other hand, was that only\u00a0one\u00a0<\/i>person was chosen (with her willing consent) to be\u00a0Theotokos\u00a0<\/i>and have the incarnate God: God made flesh, inside of her body for nine months. Though the Immaculate Conception was not, strictly speaking, necessary for the Incarnation, yet it was fitting and entirely appropriate, based on the arguments I gave having to do with proximity to God, and it is based on biblical reasoning.<\/p>\n

I think that the analogy between the ark of the covenant and Mary ends where Mary\u2019s humanity begins. The ark of the covenant was a thing, not a person. You could try to draw some sort of an analogy between the \u201ccleanness\u201d and \u201choliness\u201d of that ark and the sinlessness of Mary, but ultimately, this is just your speculation., and nothing more.<\/span><\/p>\n

No; it is based on several instances of explicitly-biblical parallels drawn between the ark of the covenant and Mary (noted by the Fathers as well). Again, you try to reduce to \u201cspeculation\u201d what is clearly a biblical thought-pattern, which you choose to ignore as of no special significance. Catholics don\u2019t ignore it; we apply it in our overall theology.<\/p>\n

Yes, God told Moses to take off his shoes when he was standing on Holy Ground, but it was by God\u2019s grace that Moses didn\u2019t drop dead right then. Moses was, after all, a sinner. Peter himself couldn\u2019t believe that he was worthy to be near with Christ (Luke 5:8), yet he became one of His apostles. I agree that Mary must have been very righteous to bear the Son of God, just as the High Priest had to be very righteous to enter the Holy of Holies. But one could apply similar logic to that you are applying to conclude that the High Priest should have dropped dead as soon as he entered the Holy of Holies, since he was only ritually pure, but not actually free from sin.<\/span><\/p>\n

Parallels and analogies need not be\u00a0absolutely exact<\/i>\u00a0in each particular (just as Jesus\u2019 comparison of His Resurrection with Jonah and the whale was not exact in every detail). What I was getting at is a very common motif or way of thinking in Scripture. One either grasps the point or they do not. But it is not the sort of \u201chistorico-grammatical\u201d biblical interpretation which is the usual Protestant modus operandi<\/em>, so we would expect that these arguments do not appear plausible to a Protestant. This type of hermeneutic is very Hebraic, rather than rationalistic or strictly \u201clogical.\u201d<\/p>\n

I would argue that Mary was washed in the blood of the Lamb through faith in God, and that she was thus justified (accounted as righteous) to bear the Son of God. This is my speculation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, Luke 1:28 says she was\u00a0full of grace<\/i>, and that means without sin, as shown. Very biblical; very straightforward.<\/p>\n

However, I think that my explanation is more sound as it does not add any new doctrine that is not taught elsewhere in scripture (i.e. based on Romans 3:23, we should assume a priori<\/em> that Mary did sin, unless someone can prove otherwise.)<\/span><\/p>\n

It will do no good to keep appealing to Romans 3:23, when I have shown that your argument is entirely fallacious. Until you overturn my counter-argument, a mere citation just won\u2019t do.<\/p>\n

I think that you would have to prove that Mary would have had<\/em><\/strong> to have been sinless to bear Christ; since your only analogy that you use to attempt to prove actual sinlessness is an inanimate object (the ark of the covenant), it is still not clear that Mary must be actually sinless.<\/span><\/p>\n

I agree that it is not\u00a0absolutely<\/i>\u00a0required (in the sense that God couldn\u2019t have done otherwise, without violating His own holiness). But it was entirely\u00a0fitting\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0appropriate\u00a0<\/i>for her role as the Mother of God.<\/p>\n

In the final analysis, my fear is that our Biblical arguments will become not unlike a debate on a\u00a0sentence such as: \u201cMy father likes shooting stars.\u201d One person says it means \u201cMy father likes to\u00a0watch meteorites penetrate the atmosphere and leave big streaks\u201d, another says it means, \u201cMy\u00a0father likes taking his .22 and aiming it at the big dipper and firing seven shots.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think the matter is anywhere near as vague as that, and so I\u2019m content to let the reader decide who brought more Scripture and deductive reasoning to the table on this issue, and which position is more biblically plausible and coherent.<\/p>\n

<\/p>

In response to more of my lengthy biblical and analogical arguments:\n

<\/p><\/center>These parallels do not really make the doctrine of the Immaculate conception any more conceivable to those of us who do not believe it. It seems that, as is the case with most apologetics in all circles these days, the \u201cproofs\u201d are only convincing to insiders.<\/span>\n

That is largely true; I have thought much about that myself, and the reasons for it would require extremely lengthy analysis. But you miss one very important consideration: if my arguments were so weak, why did you not then decisively\u00a0refute<\/i>\u00a0them, one-by-one, for all to see?<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

(originally 1-21-02)<\/p>\n

Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>The Virgin and Child with an Angel<\/em> (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This dialogue came about as a result of\u00a0Jack DisPennett\u2018s critique of my paper,\u00a0The Blessed Virgin Mary:\u00a0Biblical & Catholic Overview. His words will be in\u00a0blue. ***** This seems to contradict what Paul wrote in Romans 3:23, \u201cFor all have sinned\u00a0and fall short of the glory of God.\u201d One could try to argue that since Jesus\u00a0Christ Himself […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":36762,"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-36759","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":"\nImmaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"To be "full of" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.\" \/>\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\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"To be "full of" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.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=\"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/Mary50.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"422\" \/>\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=\"28 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\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html\",\"name\":\"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"To be \\\"full of\\\" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant\"}]},{\"@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":"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant","description":"To be \"full of\" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.","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\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant","og_description":"To be \"full of\" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":422,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/Mary50.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html","name":"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00","dateModified":"2019-08-12T15:24:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"To be \"full of\" God's grace is to be saved & to be so holy that one is sinless. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless (Lk 1:28). The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/08\/immaculate-conception-dialogue-w-evangelical-protestant.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant"}]},{"@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\/36759","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=36759"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36759\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/36762"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}