Mary is NOT Immaculate Conception ( Scriptural Argument)

Please note, this debate is on a Catholic dogma, so naturally my arguments will be Catholic in nature. ARGUMENT #1 Grace indeed is the free and unmerited favor of God. I contend that God extended this favor in the fullness of Grace (Lk. 1:28), namely Sanctifying Grace, to Mary at the very moment of Her conception, and She was thus immune from the stain of original sin. The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It is used as an expression of a fundamental characteristic quality of Mary. This grace given to Mary is immediately effective and a unique intervention of Almighty God. Kecharitomene is a perfect past participle of another Greek word that means, "to fill or endow with grace". It is used in the present tense, which implies that Mary was full of grace in the past with continuing effects into the present, not as a result of the Angel Gabriel"s visit. With regard to the two scriptural passages put forth, I must agree with Saint Ambrose. "What is greater than the Mother of God? " Though by no means on par with Christ, Mary, as the Mother of God, ranks above the angels and the saints as the fullness the grace within her is in between the fullness of grace peculiar to Christ (Jn. 1:14) and that of the holy angels and saints (outranking the latter). As for my opponent"s first premise under his first argument, I agree. However, the grace was given by the special intervention of Almighty God to the one who would carry and give birth to the God-Man, at the moment of her conception. Thus she was without original sin (unlike any of the saints). This precludes his second premise. ARGUMENT #2 God is of course the only Savior. My opponent states that God commonly rescues his people from hell, but in his opinion, this was not the case with Mary. I disagree. As I mentioned in argument #1, Mary"s soul was blessed with Sanctifying Grace at the moment of conception, which is indeed what one needs to attain heaven and consequently avoid hell. My opponent then argues that the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-48) proves the Immaculate Conception false because Mary states that her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior". In order to be conceived without sin, Mary indeed needed a Savior " her Son. Mary was redeemed, or saved, by the grace of Christ at the moment of conception in an anticipatory manner. Christ"s sacrifice was and is redemptive both forward and backward in time as God is not fixed to operating in a linear, chronological fashion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). In Luke 1:48, the "humble servant" is one translation of the original Greek word, tapeinosis, which means lowliness or the status of being unimportant, not humility in the sense that my opponent has made use of it. The first premise here is false, which renders the second false as well. The common analogy used in this scenario is one of pulling someone out of a mud pit. The mud pit in this case is the pit of sin, the dominion of satin. We are all born mired in the mud by original sin. Through Christ, one can be pulled out of the mud pit through baptism. Mary, however, was rescued from ever falling into the mud pit by the hand of God at her conception, so she was never subject to sin. ARGUMENT #3 I agree with my opponent on his first premise, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Bible, the verbs "to cover" and "to overshadow" are used metaphorically to represent God"s presence and glory. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives some insight here: "In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory " with Moses on Mount Sinai, at the tent of meeting, and during the wandering in the desert, and with Solomon at the dedication of the temple. In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures [types]. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and "a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him! "' Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord "overshadowed" the ark and filled the tabernacle (CCC 697). " There is a direct parallel between the overshadowing of the ark and the Holy Spirit"s overshadowing of Mary, the Mother of God. The Ark of the Old Covenant was the dwelling place of God and Mary, being similarly "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit is shown to be the new dwelling place of God. God was extremely specific about the fine details of the Ark (Ex. 25-30) as it was to be a perfect container for Him to dwell within (Ex. 25:8). Jesus, the God-Man, the Word made flesh, was to dwell within Mary. I contend that God would not have His Divine Son " the Second Person of the Holy Trinity " dwell in a less-than-perfect tabernacle and thus created the human who was to carry Jesus without flaw, completely untainted by sin " indeed, immaculate. Further scriptural evidence is found in the Apocalypse of St. John: "The temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. " And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun. " (Rev. 11:19, 12:1) This is widely held by the Church Fathers to be a type of Mary as the Ark of the New and Eternal Testament. The Old Testament types are recognizable in Luke"s Gospel, sufficiently so to show that Mary, the Mother of God, is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant. The conjecture that Hippolytus of Rome was mistaken about the "incorruptible" nature of the Ark of the Covenant is speculation and does not violate scriptural data about the Ark as evidenced in Psalm 131:8: "Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. " While it has been pointed out and it is true that some Church Fathers did not fully accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, one should take note that the majority of them did. Here are just a few examples: Origen: This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A. D. 244]). Ephraim the Syrian: You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]). Ambrose of Milan: Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A. D. 387]). Gregory Nazianzen: He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A. D. 390]). Yes, even St. Augustine can be quoted as supporting the Immaculate Conception: We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A. D. 415]). I look forward to responding to my opponent"s rebuttal in round 2.