Immaculate Conception: Bible & Patristics

Thank-you Con. I will try to be succinct in my rebuttals. It is important to remember that in biblical interpretation, the Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New.Round 2 Rebuttals1. Second EveCon argues that Mary was never addressed as the second eve in scripture and quotes that Jesus was called the last Adam and not the second Adam.This is just splitting of hairs in terminology. Whether you say second, last or new they are all the same. The symbolism is of only two Adams. As the fall of mankind came about by the disobedience of both Adam and Eve it is logical that there be a new Adam and a new Eve to "make all things new." Together Adam and Eve changed creation, together Jesus and Mary changed creation.In my last round I clearly showed how the Church Fathers alluded to Mary as the new Eve.Con goes on to state that for impeccable to be applied to Mary that she need to be sinless in both original sin and personal sin yet it is clear that she needed a saviour just like the rest of Humanity. To which the Catholic doctrine of Infallibility perfectly aligns. The Catholic teaching is that by a singular grace (returning to my argument about honouring thy father and mother) Mary's salvation was applied at the moment of conception saving her even from the stain of original sin. Thus there is no conflict between Con's argument and what the Catholic Church teaches about the immaculate conception.2. Mary is the Ark I thank Con for making this argument as this shows the importance of Mary. Additionally, Con shows that she is the Ark in that she carries within her Jesus (the Word of God, the Manna, and the High Priest).Con argues that since the old Ark was made of corrupted nature that the new Ark must also be of corrupted nature. However, these are assumptions on Con's part.In 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 "Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, because the oxen nearly upset it. The anger of the LORD burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God." God killed Uzza for merely touching the Ark with unsanctified hands. Thus, God obviously made the Ark Holy.As Christ is the New Adam he required a New Garden of Eden (a place of perfection). The womb of a New Eve protected from even the stain of sin would be the new Garden of Eden in which the new Adam spent his first days on earth. Con further argues that Luke 1:35"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." proves that Christ's human nature came from the Holy Spirit and not from Mary. However, this is a theologically dangerous argument for Con to make. First of all, the quote says no such thing. Second of all God would not be humbly uniting himself to humanity, but instead this would be God manifesting himself as a human. Thus God would not truly share our humanity because he was not of our humanity, but of a different humanity. As such he would not have cleansed humanity through his passion. Con's argument would destroy Christianity as a whole.Job 14:4 - Who can make the clean out of the unclean While this seems reasonable, Con just argued above that with God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37). Thus it was not impossible for God to preserve Mary from original sin and thus he does not bring the Clean (Jesus) out of the unclean, but out of the Clean (Mary). 3. Original Sin In this argument Con breaks his own rules and refers to Augustine (354-430AD) and Ambrose (340-397 AD) both of whom are post-Nicene Fathers.Con makes an illogical argument. He states that Jesus does not inherit original sin because, he only receives half of his human nature from Mary. He then goes on to state that though he did not have original sin, it was because of his corrupt Mary half that he could experience pain and suffering.Romans 6:23 - The wages of sin is death.So you're perfect so you cannot experience death, but your imperfect so you can. Either Christ was without sin or he was a sinner. There is no half way on this. Now, that is not to say that the one with out sin cannot accept punishment and death voluntarily on behalf of another.Con bases a great deal of his argument on Roman 8:3:For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. In the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus didn't come in glorified flesh, but in human flesh. However, that flesh was without sin. Thus it was like sinful flesh, but it wasn't. This in no way has any impact on Mary's immaculate nature. Jesus' flesh was not sinful. That does not mean that Mary's was. It actually agrees with my argument that it wasn't and that Jesus received his human nature solely from Mary, who was preserved from sin in order to give Christ a sinless humanity.4. GraceCon argues that Grace is an undeserved kindness, which I will agree with to an extent. Con goes on to argue that Angels cannot be given grace according to 1 Timothy, but Angels could become sinners in that Lucifer rebelled and took a great number of Angels with him. However, Angels have perfect will and do not need grace to sustain their decision as they are spiritual beings not physical beings. Once they decided one way or the other they remained in that state forever.We know that grace can also prevent us from sinning:Jude 24 - Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy 1 Thessalonians 5:23 - Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. So if God's grace can preserve one from sinning, it means that one who is always kept from sinning is Kecharitomene - full of grace.Round 3 Rebuttals1. Honour Thy Mother and FatherCon fails to actually answer this. He does not address the necessity of God to honour his mother. He pulls out Romans 8:3 again which, as we previously showed, merely says that Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that he had received sinful flesh from his Mother.Con additionally states that only sinners receive grace, but I have previously shown that God's grace is also to avoid sin. Thus grace is given to those who can sin. As Mary was human she could sin, but she was given the fullness of grace which enabled her to fully avoid sin.Con goes on to show that some aspects of original sin had been flushed out, just as some understanding of Mary's immaculate nature was known. However, we would disagree with regards to the Total depravity of Original Sin.2. Mary as New Eve Yes the Church Fathers compared the first Eve with the New Eve because they are making the parallel. It is like how the media talks about all the similarities between Princess Kate and Princess Diana. They don't directly come out and say she is the new Diana, but that is what they are saying. In the Gospel of Matthew he doesn't come out and say Jesus is the new Moses! He details it - the slaughter of innocents, the flight into Egypt, etc. Thus if Mary parallels Eve, but obeys instead of disobeys, she is shown to be the new Eve.Con argues that Mary cannot "be the New Eve unless she's born without sin and have a husband who is born without sin too." This is precisely what the Catholic Church is saying. She has been granted this privilege of being born without sin precisely so that she could be the new Eve and give Christ a human nature in the likeness of sinful human flesh, but which is not sinful. And Mary's spouse was God because she never moved beyond betrothal with Joseph. And I'm sure Con will agree that God is without sin.Does not properly address my comment about there being enmity between the Woman and the serpent. Instead he advances a different term of "Slaves of Righteousness" and pretends equivalency with enmity - enmity is always opposed.I will return to Con's Woman argument in the next round.3. Hypostatic UnionCon is once again quoting post-Nicene Fathers St. Augustine and St. Amphilochius in direct contravention of the rules he set forth for this debate. If he cannot abide by the overly stringent rules he should not have made them.Con argues that Matthew 9:17 is not about Mary, however it is about Christ and the new Covenant. I am merely extending the logic of Christ's own words. If the new covenant needs a new Adam, then the new Adam needs a new Eve.He brings up Romans 8:3 again. However I believe that I have fully dealt with Romans 8:3 above and will not repeat it again.Con goes on to conclude that for a 1000 years Christians only Jesus was without original sin. Once again Con has broken the rules as we are only allowed to use Church Fathers up to 325AD.4. Full of GraceCon agrees that "Mary is perpetually full of grace" and that "she doesn't lack any grace." If she doesn't lack any grace that means that she has the fullness of every grace. As I showed previously grace can also prevent us from sinning.Thus if she was perfectly full of grace she would be full protected from every sin. As the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that I provided stated:that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." Thus this is a singular Grace given to Mary, as she was the only one with the fullness of grace.5. Gregory ThaumaturgusGregory makes it abundantly clear that he is comparing Mary to Eve. Gregory does not mention personal sin he merely say that she alone is pure in body and spirit. Con argues about the Orthodox Church, but there was only one Church when this was written.ConclusionCon's arguments have been shown to be fallacious in nature. I look forward to his closing arguments.