Immaculate Conception

I have a quick quiz for you. I’m sorry if you are just now waking up and your mind is a little blurry. I’m sure the last thing you want to do is take a quiz. Don’t worry, grab a cup of coffee, dust off the cob webs and dive into this one question quiz:

The Immaculate Conception deals with:

a. The birth of Jesus Christ.
b. The amazing reception by Franco Harris
c. The conception of Mary without the stain of original sin

Well, how do you think you did? If you answered b, you watch way too much football and need to seek immediate council. Before I began preaching and studying matters of faith, I believed the Immaculate Conception dealt with the birth of Jesus. I knew it was a Catholic doctrine and believed it was an area we could both agree on: the Virgin Birth of Christ. The problem is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary. The doctrine believes simply that Mary was conceived in the “usual way” but without the stain of original sin. “The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception).

The History of the Immaculate Conception

There is no way for me to completely deal with this topic. Nonetheless, I am going to outline what I have learned and give you my ideas on this topic. Around the end of the 15th Century, Catholic Popes began to make statements that would begin to clarify and be the basis for the future dogma of the church. In 1477, Sixtus the IV “praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Sixtus also condemned those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception in 1483.
In 1567, Pope St. Pius V, condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. In 1568, St. Pius V, put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Throughout the following years, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was worked out by the Popes. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX defined “ex cathedra” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope stressed that Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own merits but truly by the merits of the son, Jesus. The dogma was written as follows:

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privildge and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

“Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original of first sin at the beginning of human history” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Two Errors

As I studied this issue, I realize that, as an Evangelical, I have errored in two frequent ways when thinking about the Catholic faith. First, most Evangelicals, would say that the Catholic theology of Mary would state she was not in need of salvation. However, the Catholic stance would be Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. She was a recipient of “Preventative redemption.” Preventive means anticipatory: “the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace” (www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm). In other words, Mary received redemption at the moment of her conception before her conception – before her soul joined her body and was stained by sin.
Secondly, I had a false view of Papal infallibility. I had always heard about the Papal infallibility and believed they used this power often. However, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. Interesting enough, both occasions dealt with a doctrine concerning Mary. First, was the “Ineffabilis Deus the definition of Pope Pius IX in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Munificentissimus Deus, the definition by Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption of Mary” (http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Dogmatic_definition).

Support for the Immaculate Conception

As one studies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is glaringly evident that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this teaching. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, there is “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So the best one can do is to make an argument from silence. There are a few biblical ideas the Catholic Church puts out to support this teaching. First, they go to Genesis 3:15 and teach that there is a parallel between Mary and Eve. The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55). They go on to say, “if there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception” ((www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm).
Luke 1:28 is also used as a textual support for the Immaculate Conception. On one hand, the church says, “chaire kecharitomene, ‘Hail, full of grace’ indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary” However, they then qualify their statement by saying, “But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).
Most people know the importance of the church teaching and traditions in the Catholic Church. The early church fathers no doubt had a very high view of Mary. However, you will not find the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church point to two positions brought forth by various Church Fathers: her absolute purity and her being named the second Eve. Even so, to build an entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on these two ideas is a great leap. Not only to have they seen Mary as the Second Eve, but also as the “Ark of the Covenant” or the Tabernacle of God. All of these ideas put forth by the church can only be reasoned from the Bible and taught from the silence of scripture.

My Objections

When dealing with a topic like this, it is important that we do not simply believe something or not because of our religious inclinations. I actually could care less what Southern Baptists believe about the Immaculate Conception. I could care less what the Catholics believe. But I am very concerned with what the Bible teaches in this area. There must be a standard of truth that we must all accept. Truth is not truth simply because someone believes it. In fact, truth can be truth even if no one believes it and a falsity can be false even if everyone believes it. There must be a standard in which we can test whether or not something is true. For the Catholic Church, the standard of truth is the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. For me, it is scripture alone.
In my study, I found a very disturbing quote. It said, “The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf Matt 28:16-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15)” (http:/www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp). Does anyone else have trouble with this idea? If one were to look at the example of scripture, it would not take long to find the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15). Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians for they received the message with great eagerness and examined scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This is the classic example of how we are to handle teachings. We must receive it, examine it, test it and see if it is true. John tells us “…You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). This is the competency of every soulin whom the Spirit of God lives. We must test everything that is said alongside the Scripture. This is the greatest error members of cults make; they are not allowed to think on their own nor do they test what is said. They must accept everything simply because it has been said. I tell my church often, test what is said behind the pulpit. Do not test it with your personal feelings or Baptist tradition, but test it against the Living and Active Word of God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not withstand the Scriptural test.
Not only does it fail the scriptural test, but it also fails the time test. What is one of the great arguments we give for the resurrection of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells the reader to go find the eyewitnesses. For a legend to become accepted, there must be time and distance. Everyone who knows the truth must be gone and their can be no one who could refute the teachings. By 380 AD, Ambrose had to already caution people not to direct to Mary the adoration due only to God. Mary was a temple of God; not the God of the temple and therefore, God alone is to be worshiped. The Apostles were gone. All eyewitnesses to the truth of Jesus’ ministry had long before died but the teachings of Mary had just begun. By 430, Mary was called the “Mother of God.” 700 it was written, “There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given except through Mary. By 1100, we have the first “Hail Mary.” In 1153, it was said that Mary is the dispenser of Grace. God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary. For those of you who know your church history, you realize how many extra biblical books were written during those early years. But the Apostles were not alive to refute the message. It has been written, “in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very cautious; some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.). It was easier to say men like Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrystotom were in error than they were standing to the truth of the Word.
As you study the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one can also see a very heavy Gnostic influence. One of the basic Gnostic beliefs is that Jesus never could have carried sin because all matter was evil or sinful and hence God could not have become man nor carried sin upon him. Since Mary was going to be the “Temple of God” she could not have the stain of sin upon her. Therefore, God made allowances for her so the stain of sin would not touch Jesus.
The early Fathers had a very high view of Mary but not a worshipful view of Mary. It is only after time that this belief began to surface. While I was very encouraged the Papal Infallibility has been rarely used; am I the only one who finds it interesting that in both cases it dealt with doctrines of Mary. Since there is absolutely no biblical support, dogma had to be created and affirmed ex cathedra by the Pope. Again, if a person would use the Word has the plumb line of truth, there would be no problem.

What Should We Do With Mary?

We must continually work on a balanced view of Mary. Too often, as Evangelicals, we throw the baby out with the bath water. We are so worried of worshiping Mary that we degrade her or too often do not give her the due she is credited. The simple truth is Mary was a great woman of God. She would have had to have lived a life of purity, honor, and was found to have received great honor from God. Sadly for many of us, we could never speak of our lives in that fashion. Luke 1:28 has been misinterpreted. It simply is saying, not that Mary was a source of grace but had received grace from God. Mary was a remarkable lady and an amazing vessel of submission and surrender. We could do well to emulate the attitude of Mary when it came to surrender. Is there no greater passage of surrender than Mary’s beautiful words, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said.” Wow! God really came into Mary’s life and broke up her plans. Do you think she was planning on being the Mother of Jesus? Do you really think her plans included a virgin birth? We get angry and aggravated at God when he breaks up our dinner plans for a ministry opportunity. We could do well to learn how to receive God’s break through as ministry opportunities and God glorifying occasions.
Go back to the word and discover Mary for yourself. While you will learn that she is not a co-medatrix (1 Tim 2:5), she was a mother of other children, and that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6, Acts 16:31, 15:11) you will be challenged by the wonderful life Mary lived and will be encouraged to place the same attitude of willingness into your life that Mary so gracefully lived.