Staples sophistry, take 2.
Having exposed
Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel,” Morgana simply
proceeds to provide another opportunity to expose cultic Catholic
devotion which drives them to deny what Scripture reveals and compel
Scripture to support teachings which are part of the many traditions of
men that developed over time. While RCs cannot see Scripture as the only
supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard for faith
as described in my prior rebuttal, yet in-credibly they see the
“Immaculate Conception” in Scripture, which is neither taught nor
required in Scripture.
In
my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of
the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate
Conception..Here, I will present some snippets from three of these
biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my
Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the
Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
However,
Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the
grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even
the slightest transgression... Scripture indicates that salvation can
also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.
Here the sophistry begins by arguing that since salvation and God being
a Savior can mean being protected from sinning then this supports the
premise that Mary never sinned. However, the former does not equate to
the latter, and which remains to be established.
But
what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a
liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man”
include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of
thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in
the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that!
And the reason “No [true] Christian would dare say that!” is actually a
refuting argument against the Immaculate Conception! For the reason why
no true Christian would dare say that Christ sinned is because He is
plainly declared to be without sin many times. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:45; Heb. 7:26)
And which is consistent with how the Holy Spirit characteristically
mentions notable deviations from the norm — which the sinless state of
Mary certainly would be — even of far less primary persons. from From
extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast,
to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg)
or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel)
to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of
celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin
birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the sinlessness of Christ,
to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc.
Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either
sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And
instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having
sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.
Thus the argument for unrecorded Marian exception has no warrant, but
instead only warrants her being as others in these aspects.
Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin...Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited.
Actually, we inherit a spiritually dead Adamic nature that is prone to
sin, and thus all do sin in time, except one who was God incarnate. And
while we enter into the effects of the actions of others, yet we are not
judged for what we are not culpable for, but judgment is always
according to what we ourselves have done in the respective judgments of
redeemed and lost, (2Cor. 5:10; . 20:11-15) and in accordance with light and grace given. (Lk. 12:48)
The
question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of
“all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for
this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support,
Which audacious claim is typical of RCs who are all to willing to see
whatever is needed or desirable to support Rome, and as if this support
was the basis for their veracity, which they are not. And even to
relying on arguments their own church does not officially teach, but who
will dismiss ours on that basis and tell us we need to rely on Rome to
interpret Scripture.
And
[the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the
Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and
considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the
angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor
with God.”... First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope
St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel
actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting
was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.”
Wrong. His own RC Bible for America does not say this “full of grace,” as the word for “full” is not even there. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
CARM finds,In
Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ
σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is
the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make
accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle
derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely
filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos =
Grace) in the Greek.... More technical data from source here: In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8)
said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace
(charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other
places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as
bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs
charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious
extrapolations in seeking to justify this invention.
However,
seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28
was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly
favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible,
“Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB
correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."
When
you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive
participle...The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has
been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being...But
only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense
indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
Mary
is not given a name (see below) and nor said to be “full” of grace, and
uniquely so, nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect
passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or
distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form
of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6,
as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action,
"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us
accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)
See more on this issue here as
White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that
the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex
theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great
deal in and of itself.)
Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:
"This
is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation
for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence
would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say,
"This is something where I said previously, we need the additional
source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the
magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning
the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition
becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.
Moreover,
while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored
according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of
supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!
Generally
speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would
almost be expected to be found in the immediate context.
And indeed, in context that the angel was simply telling Mary she was graced of the Lord is confirmed in v. 30, “And
the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour
[charis] with God,” (KJV), or as in the RC DRB: “hast found grace with
God.”
The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common...
The fact is that the angel simply does not, but simply tells her that
she is graced, as she was. Which is like the greeting given to Daniel,
“O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be
strong,” (Daniel 10:19)
Likewise, literally in Greek, the angel tells Mary “Hail” [rejoice],
graced [one], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women.”
In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named...What’s in a name? A lot according to Scripture!
But
there is no name change here, as unlike cases such as “Neither shall
thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham,” (Genesis 17:5) “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel,” (Genesis 32:28) ”Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone, (John 1:42) Mary is never addressed as “full of grace,” but
is said to have found grace with God, and thus it is said of her,
“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,”
and “henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,” (Lk. 1:42,48)
And which does not say “more blessed than all women” due to Mary having
surpassing virtue. And in fact, as Ratzinger admits, Mary “in the
gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (God and the world, p. 296) while
the Holy Spirit is far far more descriptive of the sacrificial labor of
Paul, to whom He never manifestly attributes sin after his conversion.
Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” (Judges 5:24)
Thus there is nothing in Lk. 1:28
that teaches or even infers Marian sinlessness, which we can be sure
the Holy Spirit would have stated if that was the case as He did with
other notable exceptions to the norm, especially among principal
persons.
2. An Ancient Prophecy—Genesis 3:15:..I
will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and
her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Not
only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the
Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally
of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of
the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition
to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,”
i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as
St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3.
Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the
woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her
Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in
that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can
be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary
and their absolute opposition to the devil.
In-credible! The RC again examples he can see what he wants to if it
can support his Roman religion. Note first that though I agree the seed
of the women is Christ, both Hagar and Rebekah are said to have seed. (Gn. 16:10;24:60)
. Meanwhile the Hebrew words in this entire verse actually only says,
“put/place enmity/hostility between woman between seed seed it/he bruise
head thou shalt bruise heel.” And much commentary has been written
about how this is best translated and what it precisely means. Thus the
“little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary”
being both sinless is based upon a text for which there is much doubt
about its precise rendering and meaning,
And while I agree with the text Staples quotes, yet nowhere does it say
the women is uniquely different from the rest of mankind, as it only
distinguishes between the seed of the devil and seed of Eve, which
prophetically would be between the lost and Christ coming ultimately
through Mary, or perhaps between demons and Christ. “Seed” is singular,
but it can refer to a single line of decedents. And as Christ genealogy
is full of souls who were lost at least at one time, the only exclusion
of any seed that is not fallen is the sinless Christ. The seed of the
women no more excludes her from being fallen then it does the parents of
Mary.
Behind the Roman reasoning is the premise that a sinless vessel is essential for Christ to be sinless, but which is fallacious. 1 Sam.2:2 and Rev.15:4 states that there is "no one holy as the Lord" and "Thou only art Holy." Yet God
used impure men to bring forth His pure expressive word to men, and if
God could preserve Mary from sin then it is certain He could preserve
Christ from being contaminated from the impurity of the vessel through
which His body was supplied. For Hebrews 10:5
states that “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me.”
And it is also argued,
that "The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance
into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the
expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg
duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the
result is female" D. Hocking from his Christology course (animal
studies). And thus “The blood type of the Son of God was a separate and
precious type unlike any other, it had no sin. Because of this method of
conception, it is not possible that Mary could have supplied any of her
Adamic blood for Jesus who was to be the spotless lamb of God.” “The
Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son
entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human
nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity Phil. 2:5-8). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity.” (http://www.letusreason.org/rc11.htm)
I am not sure if I agree that the sin nature is dependent on the male
seed, but if God can produce a male from a female virgin then He can
certainly bring forth a perfect sinless male from a fallen vessel
tainted by sin.
Note also here that Staples is not arguing for a binding, infallible interpretation of Gn. 3:15,
while Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God")
which defines the infallible (which presumed status only pertains to the
actual pronouncement) dogma of the Immaculate Conception relies upon a
Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15
which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head,” and thus that
“the most holy Virgin” “was, with him and through him, eternally at
enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him,
and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.”
(http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)
However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The
translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after
the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror
from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is
Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,
“I
will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring
and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their
heel.”
The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying,
“They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their”
is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the
woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)
RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.
...The
reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference.
Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage
says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found
in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the
original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the
Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a
scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted
from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the
verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has
been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and
heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript
variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.
(www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)
The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:
“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15
speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the
offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to
the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek
translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal
pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a
masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The
Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun
supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become
traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)
The
Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the
Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the
Latin.
As a reformed source states,
“He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and
can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective
offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX,
however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should
be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing
the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
More here.
The
Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head
is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention
Mary of doing this, but that “Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took
part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of
death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14,15) Glory be to God.
3.
Mary, Ark of the Covenant: The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a
true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God
fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely
associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would
contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming
Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be
most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).
In
the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate
object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the
new and true Ark be...
This is another
attempt to glorify the creature rather than the Creator, God blessed for
ever, as it is Christ who best fulfills the typology of the ark of the
Covenant.
• God commanded Moses to “make an ark
of shittim wood,” which wood represents the humanity of Christ, “And
thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou
overlay it,” (Ex. 25:10,11)
and which gold can be seen to represent glory. And thus the wise men
brought gold as a gift to Christ (not Mary), and was girded about His
loins and breast with a golden garment, (Dan. 10:5; Rv. 1:13) which also is never said of Mary.
• The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9),
yet which men Mary was touched by, as well as Christ. And the former
was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required
days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8)
and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin
offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the
priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for
her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (Leviticus 12:6,7)
But
the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ,
who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” (Hebrews 7:26) “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” (1 Peter 2:22) “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Which
is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was
sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it,
and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and
especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the
sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable
aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.
•
And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on
the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will
meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat,
from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22)
On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud
signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek
word (Hebrews 9:5) for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”
This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5,
in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can
be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a
bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with
Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9)
appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this
call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is
to the church.
• “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” (Exodus 25:21)The
Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT
becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was
“full of grace and Truth.” (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)
• And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” (Mt. 4:19) and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)
• “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)
Therefore
it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be
undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of
glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud
of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes
before believers.
And
thus by God grace Staples compulsion of Scripture to support vain
traditions of men is once again exposed, which he inventively adds to
within the rest of his book (which is not dealt with here), promoting
the Mariolatry of the false Mary of Catholicism, thinking of mortals above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6)
to his own condemnation and those who sadly subscribe to this. It is
the Lord who is high and lifted up, not any Queen of Heaven, which is
only found among pagans. But despite what Scripture says and fails to
say, likewise many Catholics basically insist,
“But
we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth,
to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink
offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and
our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of
Jerusalem...” (Jeremiah 44:17)
" width="200" height="350" alt=" " border="1"> Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
- https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2020/fast_facts20.html#page24
