![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/08\/Catholic-Verses-550x834-1-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis is taken from a lengthy dialogue<\/a> from the initial version of my website, dated 23 January 2002. Portions of it were utilized in chapter 13: \u201cThe Blessed Virgin Mary\u201d from my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants<\/a><\/em> [see: Luke 1:28 (\u201cFull of Grace\u201d) & Immaculate Conception<\/a>]. Here I preserve the parts of the original dialogue that were not<\/em> included in my book. My opponents\u2019 words (from the old<\/span>\u00a0God Talk<\/a><\/em>\u00a0public\u00a0Internet Bulletin Board) <\/span>will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Acts 6:8 \u201cAnd Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.<\/span><\/p>\n The argument [is] that if the Immaculate Conception is implied by Mary being \u201cfull of grace\u201d, then why isn\u2019t Stephen?<\/span><\/p>\n In Acts 6:8, the phrase is\u00a0pleres charitos<\/em>, not\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>, as in Luke 1:28. I have already noted what the latter phrase means, according to Greek scholars.\u00a0Greek scholar Marvin Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament<\/em>) notes that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no fanatical supporters of the Catholic Church, they) both rendered\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0in Luke 1:28 as \u201cfull of grace,\u201d in their Bible translations. The Revised Version of the KJV (1885) had \u201cendued with grace\u201d in the margin, and this is the literal translation of\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>, according to Vincent (vol. 1, 259).<\/p>\n So it appears that many Bible versions are not applying the principle of literal translation when it comes to Luke 1:28 A.T. Robertson concurs with Vincent, in holding that\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0means \u201cendowed with grace\u201d or \u201cenriched with grace\u201d (Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>, vol. 2, 13). Likewise, W.E. Vine, who defines it as \u201cto endue with Divine favour or grace\u201d (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em>, vol. 2, 171). These are all Protestant reference works, and cannot, therefore, be accused of Catholic bias in translation or definition.<\/p>\n The bias (if there is any here) would seem, however, to be evident in some Protestant commentaries (on Lk 1:28):<\/p>\n \u2018Favoured\u2019 means simply that God graciously chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus and not that she was \u2018full of grace\u2019. (Eerdmans Bible Commentary<\/em>)The mistake of the Vulgate\u2019s rendering, \u2018full of grace,\u2019 has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church . . . let them listen to the Lord\u2019s own words. \u2018Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.\u2019 (See on ch. 11:27).\u00a0(Commentary on the Whole Bible<\/em>: Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is what happens when one looks at Bible commentary (or translation, for that matter) as a polemical tool to promulgate prior theological predispositions, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself, and following it wherever it leads.<\/p>\n If Mary\u2019s name was changed to \u201cfull of grace\u201d why is she called Mary in every other place she is mentioned in the NT? Simon was called Peter elsewhere, Abram was called Abraham, Sarai was called Sarah etc. etc. etc. It seems to me that if your name is really changed, your new name would actually be used.<\/span><\/p>\n The argument was not, technically, that Mary\u2019s name was\u00a0changed; just that she was called this name by an angel (in the sense of a title, or additional identifier), and that that act could not possibly be without significance, in the Hebraic (and biblical) worldview. Consider this analogy: \u201cIf Jesus\u2019 name was \u2018Prince of Peace\u2019 [Isaiah 9:6] why is He called \u2018Jesus\u2019 in most places He is mentioned in the NT?\u201d<\/p>\n This is the only time that I know of that Jesus is called \u201cPrince of Peace.\u201d It isn\u2019t even used in the New Testament. Yet in Isaiah 9:6, the text (RSV) says that \u201che shall be called . . . Prince of Peace\u201d (and three other titles which weren\u2019t used all that often referring to Jesus, if at all \u2014 two seem to apply more directly to the Father and the Spirit).<\/p>\n The same holds true for \u201cEmmanuel\u201d (Matthew 1:23), derived from Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8. Is 7:14 states \u201c. . .. shall call his name Immanuel.\u201d Mt 1:23 quotes this passage: \u201c. . . \u2018his name shall be called Emmanuel\u2019 (which means, God with us).\u201d Yet the title (name?) appears nowhere else in the New Testament, not even in the other Gospels. It doesn\u2019t have to. Once is more than enough, in biblical thought.<\/p>\n The point is that all names in Scripture have a high symbolic and descriptive significance, usually indicative of a person\u2019s character, nature, or leading personality trait (one need only look up \u201cNames\u201d in any Bible Dictionary). A person\u2019s name doesn\u2019t\u00a0have\u00a0to be changed \u2014 in terms of exclusive use of a different name thereafter (or the specific title used often) for this to apply, as the examples above concerning Jesus have shown.<\/p>\n Thus, the fact that Mary is called \u201cFull of Grace\u201d one time does not lessen the significance of this address at all (particularly since it came from the angel Gabriel). But the fact that this title was applied to her, uniquely, as an individual, is supremely important, and altogether in line with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (though not an airtight \u201cproof\u201d in and of itself \u2014 Catholics deny\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0anyway, so our view doesn\u2019t absolutely\u00a0require<\/em>\u00a0such \u201cproof texts\u201d).<\/p>\n Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation \u201cfull of grace\u201d as a nonviable rendition of charitoo<\/em>. BAGD, for instance, translates the word as \u201d one who has been favored by God.\u201d Louw and Nida has \u201cyou to whom (the Lord) has shown kindness.\u201d Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the\u00a0 translation \u201cfull of grace,\u201d opting instead for the less theologically loaded phrases \u201cendowed with grace; dearly loved.\u201d The MNT taskforce translates it as \u201cgraciously favored by God,\u201d while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, \u201cfull of grace,\u201d \u201cis not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators.\u201d The most recent standard Catholic translations, the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions ( NAB, \u201cO highly favored daughter\u201d; JB, \u201cSo highly favored\u201d . . .<\/span> [citation from Dr. Eric Svendsen: Who is My Mother?<\/em><\/a>(Calvary Press: 2001), 129]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Translation controversies will go on till kingdom come. In a linguistic dispute such as this, it is necessary to look at the phrase or word in question more closely, which we have done. It may be rendered variously, but the meaning is a deeper project of inquiry: more particular, specific, and nuanced (as words have different meanings in the first place, according to context, the writer\u2019s purpose, type of language or style being used, and exegesis).<\/p>\n Catholics have nothing to fear on this issue from either linguistics or exegesis, whereas the Protestant objections are easily overcome by recourse to both sources of knowledge. Nothing in Scripture is contradictory to the Immaculate Conception. It cannot be shown to be unbiblical or anti-biblical. But it\u00a0can\u00a0be shown to entirely consistent with biblical teachings as a whole. I suspect that this is one reason that even such a one as Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t claim that these biblical and linguistic arguments support Catholic belief with regard to the\u00a0time<\/em> of the Immaculate Conception. The exact time of the miracle is not of the essence of the doctrine, which is that Mary is sinless, and was sinless\u00a0when\u00a0the Annunciation occurred and the angel Gabriel addressed her in this extraordinary way.<\/p>\n Catholics, it must be understood,\u00a0 are only arguing that the Immaculate Conception is\u00a0harmonious<\/em>\u00a0with Scripture and matters of Greek language and grammar. I don\u2019t accept\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, and I don\u2019t believe that all doctrines have to be proven, whole and entire, and explicitly from Scripture (neither do Protestants, in the final analysis, when it comes to\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0itself, and the canon of the NT). I have never denied that there is a speculative, deductive element to the doctrine (just as there is with the Trinity and many other Christian doctrines).<\/p>\n But Protestants are compelled by their own belief-system and opposition to so-called \u201cextra-biblical\u201d Catholic doctrines, to demonstrate how the Immaculate Conception is\u00a0unbiblical<\/em>\u00a0or contrary to anything else in Holy Scripture. My observations and apologetic arguments are undertaken always with that perspective in mind, according to Paul\u2019s evangelistic principle, \u201cI have become all things to all people.\u201d \u201cTo the Protestant I became as a Protestant.\u201d Etc.<\/p>\n All I have been arguing is that the Immaculate Conception is\u00a0consistent<\/em>\u00a0with the biblical data. Protestants often try to show that it can\u2019t be\u00a0absolutely proven<\/em>\u00a0from the Bible, in a\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0sense. Since I never claimed that it could be (nor does any apologist I am aware of), those contentions are completely irrelevant to the \u201ccase\u201d I have set forth.<\/p>\n Yes, the words are different, but Dr. Svendsen explains how they are from the same Greek root.<\/span><\/p>\n So what?<\/p>\n And he points out that Sirach 18:17 uses the exact<\/em> same word, same tense, everything that Luke uses, which completely disproves your point.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. That verse is in a general sense. In my RSV translation it refers to a \u201cgracious man.\u201d Besides, this is proverbial, or wisdom literature, and it is a standard hermeneutical principle that this is not exactly the sort of biblical literature that one builds doctrines or systematic theology (or even precise meanings of words) upon. On those grounds alone, it is quite easy to decisively overcome Dr. Svendsen\u2019s rather weak argument. The classic example which illustrates the \u201cnon-Greek\u201d nature of proverbial Hebrew literature is the following coupling of verses (RSV):<\/p>\n Proverbs 26:4<\/strong>\u00a0 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Proverbs 26:5<\/strong>\u00a0 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a proverbial framework, what may appear to be contradictory is not, because application depends on the situation, timing, prudence, discretion, discernment, the wisdom to know when which response is called-for, and so forth. So use of such a verse in the present context of cross-reference to Luke 1:28 and an angel\u2019s salutation of the Blessed Virgin is no disproof at all.<\/p>\n . . .\u00a0 you can glean the proper meaning from\u00a0fool\u00a0in the whole context. This in no way mitigates the usefulness of Sir. 18:17 in understanding what\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0means.<\/span><\/p>\n It does (even if I grant your point, which I do not grant, since meaning still depends on context, as any lexicon will prove in a minute), because the application is of a general nature. Thus, the cross-exegesis runs into the same insuperable problems that Ephesians 1:6 did. Nor do any of these supposed \u201cdisproofs\u201d have anything to do with the fact that Mary was addressed as a title (with all that that implies in the Hebrew and biblical mind).<\/p>\n The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em> (ed. James Orr, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1939, 1956, vol. 4, 2807), confirms my understanding of Sirach, in its lengthy article on the book:<\/p>\n The book follows the lines of the canonical Book of Prov[erbs], and is made up of short pithy sayings with occasional longer discussions . . . Most of the book is poetical in form and even in the prose parts the parallelism of Heb[rew] poetry is found . . . an examination of the book itself confirms, that the compiler and author put his materials together with little or no regard to logical connection . . . The Hebrews never developed a theoretical or speculative theology or philosophy: all their thinking gathered about life and conduct . . . This is the only philosophy which the\u00a0 Bible and the so-called Apoc[rypha] teach, and it is seen at its highest point in the so-called Wisdom Literature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And so we find the same sort of non-systematic, practical, \u201cempirical\u201d wisdom in the following pair of couplets from Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus \u2013 RSV):<\/p>\n 29:14<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0A good man will be surety for his neighbor . . .29:18<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Being surety has ruined many men who were prosperous . . .<\/p>\n And:<\/p>\n 25:19, 24<\/strong>\u00a0 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife\u2019s iniquity; may a sinner\u2019s lot befall her . . . From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die. (cf. 25:13, 16-18, 20, 23)<\/p>\n 36:24\u00a0<\/strong> He who acquires a wife gets his best possession, a helper fit for him and a pillar of support.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t know about the exact term used in Sirach 18:17, but I\u2019ll take Dr. Svendsen\u2019s word for it. The type of literature still must be taken into account. I didn\u2019t pursue this argument primarily because my Greek reference works don\u2019t include the Deuterocanonical books in their analysis, since they don\u2019t regard them as Scripture. And there is no sense arguing about a verse in a Deuterocanonical book with Protestants because if one succeeds, they will always simply say, \u201cbut that ain\u2019t Scripture, anyway.\u201d If Protestants and Catholics are to argue about Bible interpretation, they can only limit themselves to books both parties agree are biblical books.<\/p>\n Of course, whether or not a type of literature is developed \u201ctheologically or speculatively\u201d has nothing to do with the definition<\/em> <\/strong>of a term. Words have meaning. All we\u2019re interested in is the meaning of the word\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>. Sir. 18:17 gives us an example of the word in use. If <\/span>the word\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em> has to mean \u201cfull of grace\u201d then this must be applied to the \u201cgracious man\u201d. If\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0does not have to mean \u201cfull of grace\u201d then your argument collapses.<\/span><\/p>\n Words indeed have meaning, but the variance in precise definition, according to context is quite wide, as any lexicon makes abundantly clear. When Little Kittel discusses\u00a0charis<\/em>\u00a0(grace) \u2014 it places\u00a0charitoo<\/em>\u00a0under that category \u2014 it goes on for seven large pages, giving a host of nuanced meanings of the word. It is not, then, just a simple matter of coming up with one definition and applying it to all usages, across the board. If you believe\u00a0that, then you are truly a rookie Bible student and have tons of things yet to learn.<\/p>\n If it doesn\u2019t have to mean \u201cfull of grace\u201d then how do you know that in Mary\u2019s case it means \u201cfull of grace\u201d but for the \u201cgracious man\u201d it only means gracious? Why can\u2019t it mean that Mary is merely a \u201cgracious woman\u201d? We all can agree with that.<\/span><\/p>\n Because of context, and because of how the word is applied to her as a title or name.<\/p>\n However, kecharitomene\u00a0<\/em>in Luke 1:28 is rendered in English does not nullify or change the fact that it is still a form of\u00a0charitoo<\/em>, a word whose root (charis<\/em>) has the meaning (and translation) of\u00a0grace<\/em>\u00a0in dozens of places in Scripture. That fact cannot be denied, whether one wants to render\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0as \u201chighly-favoured\u201d or what-not. Nor does this overcome my exegetical argument.<\/p>\n If all you are trying to show is that Luke 1:28 does not contradict the IC, then I don\u2019t think anybody would disagree with that. But we\u2019re under the impression that you are trying to present an argument for<\/em><\/strong> the IC.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it is a Catholic biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, but Protestants must understand that we are not presupposing\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/em>as we argue points from the Bible. I don\u2019t adopt a stance just for fun, or for rhetorical purposes only. I try to relate to the view of my opponent as much as possible, but I always argue (even if I am doing an occasional explicitly satirical piece) within my own framework of authority and theology, until someone shows me a superior framework to adopt.<\/p>\n My framework is the acceptance of the material sufficiency of Holy Scripture (within an overall schema or paradigm of development of doctrine within Scripture itself, and in the post-apostolic era, continuing in perpetuity, guided by the Holy Spirit on an ecclesiological level), but not its formal sufficiency, which is what\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0entails.<\/p>\n I could contend, for example, based on my argumentation, that Lk 1:28 suggests the IC, is harmonious with it, is perfectly consistent with the notion; that the IC is the best interpretation of that verse, taken in conjunction with other related cross-references, that nothing there or elsewhere in Scripture contradicts it or makes it impossible to hold, etc., without logically falling into a category of claiming that the doctrine is absolutely proven<\/em>\u00a0by Luke 1:28, in the way that many doctrines are unarguable from Scripture by itself.<\/p>\n Possibly Mary\u2019s sinlessness could be proven by the verse, but I\u2019m not sure I would even (decisively) claim\u00a0that\u00a0at this point: only that it is very strongly suggested to me, after studying other instances of\u00a0charitoo<\/em>, and the meaning of this particular form of it:\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em>. I feel that my present argument is an exploratory one, and I find the opposing arguments thus far very weak, so that confirms my present tentative opinion (as to the merits of\u00a0this\u00a0particular biblical argument), and makes it all the stronger, for now, anyway. This is one of the blessings of apologetics. :-)<\/p>\n I thought time was absolutely essential to the IC. I thought for the IC it was important that Mary was endowed with special grace at conception<\/strong><\/em>. I\u2019m not too well read on this, but I thought the whole debate between the Dominicans and Franciscans regarding the IC came down to just a few hours. The Dominicans rejected the IC, but actually believed that Mary was still cleansed in utero<\/em>, just a few hours after conception.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, that is the doctrine itself. But \u2014 this is crucial \u2014 I am distinguishing between the full definition as now held, and the\u00a0kernel<\/em>, or essence<\/em> of the doctrine. For example, the kernel of transubstantiation is the Real Presence. The former is a development of, and elaboration upon the latter. Likewise, the IC is a development of the notion that Mary is sinless, which was held by the Fathers, and is held by the Orthodox today.<\/p>\n I would deny that the essence of the IC is sinlessness. We think the essence of the IC is that Mary was immaculate at conception.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, you are thinking in terms of the present definition. I am looking at the doctrine as it developed through history, and at possible biblical kernels, or implicit indications of it (Luke 1:28 has long been a primary Catholic argument for it, as far as I know). The kernel or essence is clearly sinlessness, in conjunction, particularly, with the New Eve, or Second Eve motif in the Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus). The IC developed from that.<\/p>\n The Church as a whole pondered what it meant to be sinless and what was entailed in being the Theotokos<\/em>. It was thought that the Mother of God (the Son) would be properly sinless, and that (with the Assumption) she would be immediately resurrected after this life in order to be the \u201cfirstfruits\u201d of the resurrection all (created) saints will attain eventually.<\/p>\n And this is the Apostolic Tradition which was handed down, along with the Virgin Birth, perpetual virginity, and other beliefs. So the sinlessness is the essence. Then it develops to pondering how original sin (itself another development) enters into the equation (as opposed to actual sin alone), and in what sense Mary called Jesus her Savior (which was Aquinas\u2019 argument\u00a0against\u00a0it \u2014 but he was, in point of fact, arguing against something different than our present definition).<\/p>\n Then the notion was arrived at that one can be saved by being prevented from entering into sin from the outset by the grace of God, as well as by being pulled out of the pit of sin (redeemed), having already fallen into it, as we all do, due to original sin. That was how the fully-developed doctrine came about. The propriety (and inevitability) of development of doctrine itself is, of course, another huge subject. I believe I have more material about that on my site than can be found anywhere else on the Internet.<\/p>\n It looks like we agree that Luke 1:28 is not evidence that Mary was immaculate at conception, and for this reason we don\u2019t think it provides any evidence for the IC.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, it may not for the belief\u00a0in toto<\/em>, but it does in the sense I have described above, which was my intent in the first place. It supports the essence. Most Protestant thinkers and opponents of Catholic doctrine would, I think, all things being equal, assume that the IC could easily be disproven<\/em> from Scripture. My point is that I don\u2019t think it can be; not that it can be absolutely proven<\/em>\u00a0from Scripture alone. This is another crucial point to understand about my argument, and what I claim for it. But if you approach the argument as insufficient because it doesn\u2019t prove every particular aspect of the IC, then\u00a0in that sense<\/em>\u00a0it will not provide \u201cany evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet consistency with Scripture and exhaustive, \u201cairtight\u201d evidence are two different things. Protestants are on shakier ground even in that sense, because they can\u2019t prove Scripture Alone from Scripture alone, yet they make that tenet one of their pillars. It\u2019s a self-defeating endeavor. Catholics, never having accepted the unbiblical notion of Bible Alone as the Final Authority above authoritative Councils, Church, and tradition, do not have any such self-defeating dilemma to grapple with.<\/p>\n For the sake of brevity, please answer this question. Is it your position that Luke 1:28 positively teaches<\/em><\/strong> that Mary was immaculately conceived?<\/span><\/p>\n No. I have never stated that. You have superimposed that understanding into my argument, presumably because of your prior commitment to sola Scriptura<\/em>, which leads you to believe that all biblical arguments present doctrines whole and entire in the pages of Holy Writ.<\/p>\n If\u00a0kecharitomene\u00a0<\/em>means highly favored and not<\/em><\/strong> full of grace your argument has been disproven.<\/span><\/p>\n The word comes from the root word which is used tons of times in Scripture for \u201cgrace,\u201d so it is not impermissible to render it as \u201cfull of grace\u201d (as even Wycliffe and Tyndale did). Vine, Robertson and other lexicons support this interpretation.<\/p>\n The root word\u00a0charis<\/em>\u00a0is translated in the KJV (I cite\u00a0Young\u2019s Concordance) as follows:<\/p>\n benefit 1 The more closely related charitoo\u00a0<\/em>is rendered \u201cmake accepted\u201d once and \u201chighly favoured\u201d once (at Lk 1:28). It is noted that the marginal rendering is \u201cgraciously accepted or much graced\u201d. But you wish to argue that a word derived from a root Greek word which is translated as \u201cgrace\u201d 87% of the 149 times it occurs in the KJV, cannot\u00a0possibly<\/em> be translated with \u201cgrace\u201d anywhere in it? Even in your \u201cproof text\u201d Sirach 18:17, kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0is rendered as \u201cgracious,\u201d so obviously, such a translation is permissible.<\/p>\n I\u2019m much more interested in replies to my exegetical argument, whereby grace is shown to be antithetical to sin, and is in relation to it as water is to the air in an empty glass. The more you pour the water in, the less air there is. A full glass of water has no air. A person full of grace has no sin. Why would that be an impermissible opinion, given what we know about grace in Scripture? Even A.T. Robertson thinks that \u201cfull of grace\u201d is a perfectly permissible rendering of\u00a0kecharitomene<\/em> in Luke 1:28.<\/p>\n 1) Nobody has argued that Lk 1:28 is not harmonious or is inconsistent with the IC.<\/span><\/p>\n Good.<\/p>\n 2) Some argumentation has been presented to indicate that the IC is not the best interpretation of that verse.<\/span><\/p>\n From a Protestant framework, we would expect this. Everyone has a theological paradigm within which they operate.<\/p>\n 3) Nobody has made any efforts to show that other things in Scripture indicate that the IC \u00a0is false.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay.<\/p>\n From what you have posted elsewhere, it seems you have concluded that nobody has responded to you.<\/span><\/p>\n No. Mainly I have been saying that no one has responded to my own specifically exegetical argument, having to do with the 14 passages I presented, which showed the (ostensibly uncontroversial notion) that grace is the antithesis of sin and the source of salvation. How I connected that to Luke 1:28 (as a variant of charis<\/em>\/grace) is what I thought was the (perhaps) \u201cnew\u201d element of my argument, and what would be fit for vigorous discussion.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the\u00a0heart<\/em> of my argument. And, to my knowledge, no one has offered any commentary on that whatever (at least no lengthy, significant reply). What\u00a0was done was an immediate appeal to arguments against Luke 1:28 by offering Ephesians 1:6, Acts 6:8, and Sirach 18:17 as countering examples of charitoo<\/em>.<\/p>\n I make a distinction between a self-contained \u201cargument against proposition x\u201d and \u201ccounter-reply to an argument\u00a0for\u00a0proposition\u00a0x.\u201d People seem to often get that confused. To me, in a true dialogue, each party will directly reply to the other\u2019s assertions and show how they do not follow (personally, I think that is the most, fun, stimulating, challenging aspect of dialogue). They don\u2019t simply give\u00a0their arguments without reference to the first person\u2019s argument. I call the second method \u201cmutual monologue.\u201d Maybe this is a weird way of dialoguing; I don\u2019t know. To me it is simply honestly facing the opponent\u2019s challenge and either trying to refute it or conceding ignorance or defeat in that particular.<\/p>\n But I always seem to have trouble getting across analogical arguments. People apparently are not trained in that way of thinking and have a hard time with it, which is strange because it isn\u2019t all that different from OT Hebrew parallelism and NT parables.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t you think it is a significant concession for a Protestant to grant that Mary was, or might be\u00a0sinless? To me that would be a giant step back towards apostolic tradition, as we view it, and accepting the \u201cessence\u201d of the doctrine, as tied in to the New Eve concept of Irenaeus and others, and the early development of the Theotokos<\/em>. That\u2019s why I think there is some importance. If a Protestant agrees that the verse is\u00a0consistent\u00a0<\/em>with the IC, Mary would have to then be sinless (for to not be would be an inconsistency with the IC). To me that would be a huge \u201csuccess\u201d on our part, since that is basically all we\u2019re trying to establish from Scripture, given that there was much development of the doctrine which cannot be explicitly tied to Scripture.<\/p>\n However, if you could show that this kernel inevitably leads to the IC, that would be significant.<\/span><\/p>\n It would be quite difficult to convince someone coming from a Protestant perspective of that. One possible way would be to say that she needed a savior, based on her statement in the Magnificat; secondly (if my argument, or the linguistic one succeeds), she is sinless. Connected with those two factors is original sin (which also developed relatively slowly in the early Church, and isn\u2019t even in the Nicene Creed). How a Catholic harmonizes all that, taking into consideration Mary\u2019s role as Theotokos<\/em>, is to eventually arrive at, or deduce the Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n But this is all inextricably bound up with (in addition to Scripture) apostolic Tradition, the mind of the Church, the sensus fidelium<\/em>, the inter-relationship of various doctrinal beliefs, development of doctrine, Christology, pious reflection and practices of veneration, spiritual ponderings, prayer, and so forth. It is a very \u201cun-Protestant\u201d way of \u201cdoing\u201d theology. Yet we contend that this was how it was in the early Church.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Good discussion about the meaning of \u201cfull of grace\u201d in Luke 1:28 & the implications of that for the sinlessness of Mary: suggesting her Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is taken from a lengthy dialogue from the initial version of my website, dated 23 January 2002. Portions of it were utilized in chapter 13: \u201cThe Blessed Virgin Mary\u201d from my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants [see: Luke 1:28 (\u201cFull of Grace\u201d) & Immaculate Conception]. Here I preserve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":65839,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[2357,2382,959,46,1634,2356,961],"class_list":["post-65836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-eric-svendsen","tag-full-of-grace","tag-immaculate-conception","tag-luke-128","tag-mariology","tag-marys-sinlessness"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nfavour 6
\ngrace 129
\nliberality 1
\npleasure 2
\nthank 3
\nthanks 4
\nacceptable 1
\ngracious 1
\nthankworthy 1<\/p><\/blockquote>\n