The Instigator
radz
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Geogeer
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Immaculate Conception: Bible & Patristics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Geogeer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 51967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

radz

Con

Serious takers only. This debate is for Catholics or for Devil's advocate that is knowledgeable about the dogma of Roman Catholicism about Immaculate Conception.

RULES:

"Both the Protestant Bible and ECF ( sub-apostolic and pre-nicene church Fathers) can be used in this debate challange).

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Conclusion

NOTES:

http://www.ewtn.com...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.philvaz.com...
Geogeer

Pro

While I initially turned down the debate, I can see that nobody else has stepped forward. As such, I will not let Our Lady go undefended.

I find Con's sources needlessly constrictive, but will endeavor to work within them.

As no burden of Proof has been stated I believe that the burden of proof is equal.


I look forward to Con's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Con

Thank You for accepting my debate challenge. The following are common Roman Catholic arguments for Mary as immaculately conceived (i.e. begotten without the taint of the original sin).

Mary as Second Eve: Just as Eve is born without sin and so is Mary for he is the second Eve just as Jesus is the Second Adam.

Response:

If Mary was the second Eve then she must be 1) sinless 2) impeccable ( i.e. unable to sin).

The Scriptures never records that Mary was the second Eve.

According to the scriptural data, Mary is infected with the original sin and hence, she’s not sinless and that her ability to sin wasn’t from her being the Second Eve but from being the offspring of Eve per se (Luke 1:28, Romans 8:3).

In fact, Mary cannot be the second Eve at all because Jesus wasn’t the second Adam. The Scriptures never records Jesus as the “second Adam” but as “the last Adam”:

1 Corinthians 15:45- “And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”

Jesus as the Last Adam evinces that there’s no second, third and fourth Adam. It means that Jesus cannot fail (i.e. impeccable) because if he did fail then it means that he is not the Last Adam.

Conclusion:

For Mary to be a greater antitype of Eve, she must be 1) sinless 2) impeccable but these were not demonstrated in the Scriptures but on the contrary, the Scriptures present plain teaching about Mary: She’s both the New Testament Ark and the one who’s Full of Grace, both which are predicates that explains her need of a Savior just like the rest of humanity ( Luke 1:28, Romans 8:3).


Mary as Ark of the New Covenant: Just as the Ark of the Old Covenant is sacred and so Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, is also sacred.

Response:

I agree that Mary is a type of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:1-12; Luke 1:39-56). She conceived within her the Word of God, the Bread of Life ( John 1:14; 6:35).

Premise 1: Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant
Premise 2: The Ark is of corruptible nature.
Coclusion: Mary is of corruptible nature.

In what sense was the "Ark" Holy?

It can't mean in the sense of substance because the entire creation is cursed ( Genesis 3). Hence, those are Holy in subjective sense only. The term holiness should be qualified as " to set apart, sacred" to avoid nuances.keness of the flesh of sin" ( Romans 8:2-3, Philippians 2:7-8).The original sin is passed through the fertilization of a female human egg with a male human sperm which are both contaminated with the original sin. Jesus has his human nature not from Adam's infected nature but from the power of the Holy Spirit ( Luke 1:35).

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is made of cursed materials (Rom. 8:22) but still, it is considered " sacred or set apart" because it contains " divine stuffs" related to YHWH.


Mary as the Mother of God the Son: the Holy Lord cannot be conceived by a sinner. She was exempted to inherit the original sin so that Jesus would not acquire it upon the Virgin birth.

Response:

1)
How could Mary contain within her the Holy God?

For with God nothing shall be impossible ( Luke 1:37). It is through the hypostatic Union and virgin birth. Jesus "became in the likeness of men, was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin" ( Romans 8:2-3, Philippians 2:7-8).The original sin is passed through the fertilization of a female human egg with a male human sperm which are both contaminated with the original sin. Jesus has his human nature not from Adam's infected nature but from the power of the Holy Spirit ( Luke 1:35).

2)
Job 14:4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

When related to the New Testament, it comes to our mind the question: How could Mary beget God (who is pure) from herself ( impure)? Naturally, no one! but supernaturally, it is possible! (Luke 1:37).

The answer is pretty obvious. It's the Virgin birth (Matthew 1:23).

Conclusion: Mary does not need to be immaculately conceive in order to conceive Jesus without sin but rather, only the Virgin birth suffice in order to conceive Jesus without sin.As to why the Virgin birth suffice, Romans 8:3 elucidates it:


3)
Romans 8:3

Jesus experienced the consequences of the original sin. Why? It is because he was " sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" ( Romans 8:3). If Mary is not infected with O.S. then Jesus can't experience pain and death.

According to church fathers (i.e. Augustine and Ambrose to name a few) original sin is passed on via male progenitor and female progenitor both who are infected with sin.

Jesus did not inherit original sin because his flesh is not made of both male and female progenitors of sinful nature but only of Mary.

Mary's original sin was not passed on her offspring because Mary's egg wasn't fertilised by a sperm cell of a Male progenitor with original sin.

Philippians 2:6 said that the Son became in the likeness of men. Why likeness? It is because he is not infected with original sin.

Romans 8:3 says that God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

Mary has " the flesh of sin" ( i.e. She's infected with original sin). Jesus is the "likeness" of the flesh of sin. Therefore, he could experience the effects of sin ( i.e human pain and human death) without having the original sin.

Premise 1: Jesus is in the likeness of the flesh of sin.
Premise 2: Mary is Jesus' mother
Conclusion: Mary has the flesh of sin and Jesus is her likeness.

I only concurred with one definition of the word "likeness" which according to scriptural context is "similarity".

The Son "became similar to men" (Philippians 2:6). In what way did he become similar to men? Context implies that he became similar to men regarding the "effects of original sin" which is human pain and human death ("death on a cross. Philippians 2:8)

Romans 8:6 is explicit too. It says that the Son was sent by God "similar to the flesh of sin".

If Mary is not infected with original sin then how could Jesus experience human pain and death?

Premise 1: Only humans with original sin could experience pain and death (Genesis 3).
Premise 2: Mary has original sin (Romans 8:3).
Premise 3: Mary got pregnant without a sperm with original sin (Matthew 1:21).
Conclusion: Mary"s offspring could experience pain and death without having original sin (1 Peter 3:18).

Mary as Full of Grace: Mary is complete of grace. Hence, she does not have any sin.

Response:

I believe that Mary is perpetually full of grace. Full means she doesn't lack any grace. Grace means undeserved kindness. Hence, Mary " doesn't lack any undeserved kindness " from the Holy Trinity. But this led to the question of WHAT are those graces given to her? St. Luke didn't specify it. He just recorded Gabriel's greeting: kecharitomene.

The autographa reads literally as:

Greetings! You who have been graced!

Vulgate is not literal translation of kecharitomene but a dynamic equivalence.
Kecharitomene is not a title in Greek.

Charito in kecharitomene is a VERB ( past participle).

The Latin Vulgate translates it as NOUN whereas the english translation of latin vulgate is " full of grace" ( a noun also not a verb like what St. Luke originally wrote).

Full of Grace in itself came from the Latin Vulgate not from the Greek MSS.

kecharitomene is the Greek word found in Luke 1:26 and it is used by the church in Rome for proof about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. To find out if this is plausible let's have a little grammar of the said word:

ke- present perfect tense ( an action happened in the past that continues up to the present time).
charito- grace, undeserve kindness
mene-passive participle( Mary Receiver not giver of grace)

The Greek literally means " You have been graced".

Mary has received grace from God both in the past and in the present. What she has received in the past is just continuing to be in her possession at Gabriel"s greeting. Hence, she is complete of grace at the time of the Annuniciation.

In the Vulgate, Luke 1:28 says that Mary is "full of grace" and according to the Scriptures, only sinners are given grace.


Grace means "undeserved kindness" .

The Holy Angels can't be given grace because they are elected by God according to their works ( 1 Tim. 5:21).

The Saints are given grace because they are elected by God not according to their works but according to God's grace ( Romans 11:5).

Premise 1: Mary is given grace
Premise 2: grace is given only to sinners
Conclusion: Mary is a sinner

Mary as the Woman in enmity with Satan: How could Mary be a sinner if he is an enemy of Satan? Ergo, Mary must be holy for he is in enmity with Satan.She crushes Satan's head. It cannot be evil versus evil (Matthew 12:25) but only evil ( Satan) versus good (Mary).

Response:

Eve in the Vulgate of Genesis 3:15 crushes Satans' head through her offspring ( Jesus) while Romans 16:20 God ( contextually, it's the second person of the Trinity) crushes Satan's head through his church. Why? because the church is the body of Christ, yes, the church is IN CHRIST as Paul reiterates in his epistles.


All of these arguments presupposes that Mary was saved by anticipation. To better understand this sort of salvation, Roman Catholicism teaches these:

* Mary ( a human of the post-Fall): saved from inheriting the oriaginal sin.
* All humans of the post-Fall ( except Mary and Jesus): saved from the consequences of having the original sin.

Mary's salvation is different from the salvation the rest of humanity receives. She is immaculately conceived by virtue of being the "theotokos" ( God-bearer), that is, of conceiving in her womb, the Holy God but as we have seen in the responses we have, this is unbiblical and not taught in the early church ( sub-apostolic).


Geogeer

Pro

Preamble

As per Con's Rules I will not offer a rebuttal to any of his arguments in this round. There obviously will be some overlap in arguments as there is a limited volume of material to address and Con has made preemptive attacks on what he figures my arguments will be.

Additionally Con has imposed very rigid sources by only permitting 66 of the 73 books of the Bible and the pre-Nicene Church Fathers. It is ironically noted that the canon of the bible itself was not established within this time period, nor was the definition of original sin fully established.


Introduction

This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially pronounced on December 8, 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

Pius IX pronounced and defined 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." [1]


Opening Arguments

1. Honour thy father and thy mother - 4th commandment [2]

This is the first commandment that does not deal with our relationship with God, but with our relationship with our fellow man. That God ordered it first is very telling that he places great emphasis on it. Is God to honour his earthly mother less than we, his creation, would honour our mother?

It is within his power to singularly honour his mother with the gift of preventing her being stained with original sin. If he did not honour her in this specific manner it would show a deficiency in God's own ability to follow the very commandments he proscribes for us. This is of course illogical. If your mother was disfigured in some way, would you not do what you could to save her from this? Then why should God do less than you would for his earthly mother?


2. Christ is the New Adam, Mary the New Eve

The apostle Paul refers to Christ as the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47:

45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) [3] argued that Mary was the New Eve. [4] The virginal Eve disobeyed God, the Virginal Mary humbly submitted to God. As his summary to the argument Irenaeus wrote:

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. [4]

Tertullian (160-225 AD) [5] also argued that Mary was the New Eve:

Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; while Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to securesalvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation. [6]

This concept is supported by Christ's own words. In Genesis when God is cursing the serpent he says:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed... - Genesis 3:15

However, there is only one woman then - Eve, thus implying the woman will be a new Eve. And the word enmity means that they are always in opposition. To always be in opposition means that they have never agreed. To never agree with Satan means to have no sin.

How does Christ address his mother?

And Jesus said to her,“Woman, what does this have to do with me?" - John 2:4

He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
- John 2:26

In those days, using woman was akin to calling her "Lady". It is both respectful [7], but full of a deeper theological meaning - being that Mary is the Woman of Genesis.


3. Hypostatic Union

Following from the argument in 2 above: as the flesh of Eve was produced from Adam's rib, the flesh of the New Adam was Produced from the New Eve.

From the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ in the Incarnation, Jesus' divine nature comes from being one of the three persons of the Trinity and his human nature comes from his human mother Mary. I believe this is a theological belief common to both the Presbyterian (Con) and Catholic (Pro) faiths.

Now logically, if Jesus received his humanity from Mary, and He was without the stain of original sin, then Mary must have been absent of all sin (original or personal) otherwise she would have imparted this on stain onto Jesus.

Now let's see if we can find support for this assertion elsewhere in the bible.

And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” - Revelation 21:5

“Nor do people
put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.” - Matthew 9:17

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. - Mark 14:23-24

By Jesus' own words in Revelations He is making creation new again. However, for this to happen according to Matthew 9:17 it was necessary to start over fresh. As Jesus institutes the new Covenant he transubstantiates wine into his blood (or as Con will argue uses wine as a symbol for his blood).

If Jesus is to make all things new, then He must be the New Adam, in that the world needed "New Wine". If He is the New Wine then His flesh required a "New Wineskin" in the form of Mary, the New Eve. If Mary was a fresh wineskin that means that she was without sin like Christ and like Adam and Eve before the Fall.


4. Full of Grace

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. - Luke 1:28

It should be noted that the angel did not address Mary by name, but instead by a title: full of grace. Thus there is great meaning to what the angel said, and it strongly implies something special, or a uniqueness.

The Greek word used for full of grace is Kecharitomene. This word is found nowhere else in the bible.

This is perfect past tense of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14) [8]

Now this is a very different word than echaritosen seen in Ephesians 1:6

"to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass... Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action. [8]

Thus:

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." [8]

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 - 270 AD) [9] wrote in his "first Homily": [10]

Today is Adam made anew...
For she proved herself prudent truly in all things; neither has any woman been born like her in all generations...

But in the holy Virgin alone is the fall of that (first mother) repaired...
You have heard, O purest one, things of which even the choir of inspired men was never deemed worthy...
Yet you alone, O purest virgin, are now made the recipient of things of which all these were kept in ignorance, and you learn the origin of them...
Appropriately, therefore, did the angel say to Mary the holy virgin first of all, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with you; inasmuch as with her was laid up the full treasure of grace. For of all generations she alone has risen as a virgin pure in body and in spirit; and she alone bears Him who bears all things on His word...
so also our Lord Jesus Christ proceeds, without fusion and without mutation, from the pure, and chaste, and undefiled, and holy Virgin Mary; perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, in all things equal to the Father, and in all things consubstantial with us, apart from sin.


As you can see from the above homily excerpts, Bishop Thaumaturgus gave all the attributes of Mary being immaculately conceived. She was the purest one, undefiled, no other woman born like her in all generations, etc...

Thus it is obvious that Kecharitomene is in perfect agreement with and reveals the immaculate conception.


Conclusion

In this round I have shown a variety of reasons that the Immaculate conception is true and necessary according to scriptures and the Early Church Fathers.

In the next round I will offer rebuttals to Con's arguments.


[1] http://www.newadvent.org...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.newadvent.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.newadvent.org...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://www.philvaz.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.newadvent.org...

P.S. Wishing Con a Blessed and Happy Easter!
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Con

I am glad at Pro that he followed the rules. Here's my rebuttal to his arguments:

1)
There is no scriptural proof that Jesus honored Mary as her mother by means of making her sinless in the womb. In fact, there are scriptural evidence that speaks of Mary's "flesh of sin" ( Romans 8:3) and that she's a slave of sin just like eveyone else in the post-fall because she received "grace" and only sinners were given grace ( Luke 1:28) as I have pointed out on Round 1.

Pro is wrong that the original sin wasn't yet codified into systematic theology in the pre-Nicene period:

St. Irenaeus writes toward the end of the 100's:

....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we arefrom him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

Later we find Tertullian (c. 200 AD)

Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

Origin (c. 244 AD):

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD):

If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus).


2) Mary as New Eve does not have a scriptural warrant.

Pro quotes Irenaeus yet the church father did not say Mary was the "New Eve" verbatim. The church father simply exegete the parralel between the salvific plan of God both in the New Testament setting:

And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

Pro also quotes Tertullian who ,likewise, did not say Mary was the "New Eve" verbatim. In fact, the church father is not aware of the Immaculate Conception ( notice what Tertullian wrote:)

nto a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; while Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to securesalvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.


Genesis 3:15 is only talking about one Woman: Eve. The one who came from Adam. She's the wife of Adam. She has no human father or mother. She alone is the mother of all the living for through her came forth offspring.

Mary can't be a New Eve unless she's born without sin and have a husband who is born without sin too.

Christians were "slaves of righteousness" ( Romans 6:18) and they never agree with Satan (Matthew 6:13) and they are not without sin ( 1 John 1:10).

Jesus calls Mary "Woman" because he advances God's kingdom based on Mark 3:33 and Luke 11:28.


3)

Pro took Matthew 9:17 out of context. It's not about Mary.

Presbyterians concur that Jesus has Mary's very flesh. I agree with Pro about that. On the other hand, Pro must agree with the Bible that Mary's flesh is the "flesh of sin" (Romans 8:3) which Jesus became similar with according to the same verse and Philippians 2:6.

Augustine's version of the Original sin is what the true church has followed ( post-Nicene):

"It was Augustine ( 4th century) promoted the idea that; "the fallen nature of Adam was transmitted biologically through sexual procreation."

http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com...

Human male (w/ O.S.) + Human female ( w/ O.S.) = offspring ( w/ O.S.)

In Jesus' case:

Sperm made by the Holy Ghost (w/ O.S.) + the Virgin Mary ( w/ O.S.) = offspring ( w/out O.S.)


Amphilochius of Iconium ( 4th century) supports this:

O Mary, O Mary, the Maker of all things was your firstborn Son! O humanity, who became the bodily substance of the Word and for that reason became more honorable than the spiritual virtues of heaven! For Christ did not want to clothe himself in the form of archangels or in the form of the immaterial figures of the principalities, virtues, and powers; rather, through you, he clothed himself in your form, which had fallen and become like that of the brute animals. …but where now is that hostile and bewildered dragon? Where is that cursed and execrable dragon, who had claimed that this throne would be raised to the heights of heaven?

Conclusion:

The early church, for a thousand years, adheres to the doctrine of original sin and only Jesus was born without it because only him was born of a virgin.

4) Mary as Full of Grace: Mary is complete of grace. Hence, she does not have any sin.

Response:

I believe that Mary is perpetually full of grace. Full means she doesn't lack any grace. Grace means undeserved kindness. Hence, Mary " doesn't lack any undeserved kindness " from the Holy Trinity. But this led to the question of WHAT are those graces given to her? St. Luke didn't specify it. He just recorded Gabriel's greeting: kecharitomene.

The autographa reads literally as:

Greetings! You who have been graced!

Vulgate is not literal translation of kecharitomene but a dynamic equivalence.
Kecharitomene is not a title in Greek.

Charito in kecharitomene is a VERB ( past participle).

The Latin Vulgate translates it as NOUN whereas the english translation of latin vulgate is " full of grace" ( a noun also not a verb like what St. Luke originally wrote).

Full of Grace in itself came from the Latin Vulgate not from the Greek MSS.

kecharitomene is the Greek word found in Luke 1:26 and it is used by the church in Rome for proof about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. To find out if this is plausible let's have a little grammar of the said word:

ke- present perfect tense ( an action happened in the past that continues up to the present time).
charito- grace, undeserve kindness
mene-passive participle( Mary Receiver not giver of grace)

The Greek literally means " You have been graced".

Mary has received grace from God both in the past and in the present. What she has received in the past is just continuing to be in her possession at Gabriel"s greeting. Hence, she is complete of grace at the time of the Annuniciation.

In the Vulgate, Luke 1:28 says that Mary is "full of grace" and according to the Scriptures, only sinners are given grace.


Grace means "undeserved kindness" .

The Holy Angels can't be given grace because they are elected by God according to their works ( 1 Tim. 5:21).

The Saints are given grace because they are elected by God not according to their works but according to God's grace ( Romans 11:5).

Premise 1: Mary is given grace
Premise 2: grace is given only to sinners
Conclusion: Mary is a sinner

5) Gregory Thaumaturgus did not speak of Mary as New Eve verbatim and he, like most of the Fathers, speaks of Mary as Holy in the sense of "free of personal sin" NOT of original sin. On this matter, even the Orthodox church concur because it is explicit in the context of the writings of the Fathers that Jesus alone was botn without sin.



Geogeer

Pro

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 Rebuttals

1. Second Eve

Con 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. Grace

Con 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 Rebuttals

1. Honour Thy Mother and Father

Con 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 Union

Con 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 Grace

Con 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 Thaumaturgus

Gregory 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.


Conclusion

Con's arguments have been shown to be fallacious in nature. I look forward to his closing arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Con

Biblical hermeneutics allows typology as a Biblical means of interpretation but there is no way it allows contradictions to occur. Therefore, if X contradicts X, it is not Biblical:

X=X

The Word = God by nature (cf. John 1:1).

X=/=X

( RCC dogma)Mary,born w/out sin=/=Mary, born with sin ( Rom. 8:3,Lk. 1:28)

Pro wrote:

This is just splitting of hairs in terminology. Whether you say second, last or new they are all the same.

Response:

To say that Jesus is the "Last Adam" means that there is no other "Adams."This means that Jesus must be impeccable because he must not commit the same error the first Adam did (cf. Genesis 3).Hence, the appelations second Adam and Last Adam are not the same.In fact, the Apostles never records a phrase "Second Adam"in the entire NT Scriptures.

Pro wrote:

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.

Response:

Pro's argument clearly, explicitly and obviously contradicts the Scriptures:

Romans 5:19

New International Version
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

New Living Translation
Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.

English Standard Version
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

New American Standard Bible
For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Compare Pro's argument with Romans 5:19:

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.

Pro wrote:

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.

Response:

1. None of the Fathers quoted made explicit statements about Mary as New Eve.Contextually, we see that they simply discussed her role as opposite to Eve's action not that she's an another Eve (i.e. the New Eve).In fact, no church father is infallible, that is why if these fathers found to be contradicting the writings of the Apostles( Romans 5:19), then, they're teaching a false doctrine ( 2 Peter 2:1-3).

2. Pro's argument is null and void because no where in the Scriptures is Mary taught to be impeccable. Mary wasn't impeccable for she received "grace" ( Luke 1:28). Her flesh is the "flesh of sin" in which the Son of God was made like unto ( Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7).

In fact, we have an early church father's teaching, which he received from the church before him, that Mary sinned ( citing Luke 2:35). His name is Origen ( A.D. 184-253).

Source: Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii"

The New Ark

Pro's argument holds no water. Mary wasn't holy in the sense that she was without sin in her conception because if Pro is really consistent in his argument , then, the pre-existing materials needed to make the OT Ark must be sacred too before its usage. This is abdurd. The acacia and gold used were consubstantial (of same substance) with the source it came from and clearly all creation were under God's curse ( Genesis 3, Romans 8:28) and therefore, Mary must have been born with sin for she was the NT Ark.

Pro wrote:

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.

Response:

The New Testament never ever speaks of a "New Adam." If Pro continually supports this notion, then, he is following a "different Christ" other than the Christ of the Scriptures ( 2 Corinthians 11:4).Pro flatly contradicts Romans 8:3, Phil. 2:7 and Luke 1:28 and obviously contradicts the ark-hood of Mary when he affirms that Mary's a New Garden of Eden as a reason of her being immaculately conceived.

Pro misundersstood my arguments on Romans 8:3. Therefore, I will again explain it in another form:

Romans 8:3 The Son was sent in the likeness of flesh of sin.
Philippians 2:7 The Son became the likeness of men

Who is Jesus' mother?

Mary ( Acts 1:14).

Is Mary's flesh holy or a flesh of sin?

Romans 8:3 says it's flesh of sin.

Did Jesus got his flesh from Mary?

Yes. By means of the Holy Spirit's power. Mary conceived miraculously without natural means (Matthew 1, Luke 1).

Did Jesus inherit he original sin?

No.

Why did Jesus did not inherit the original sin?

It is because he was made in the likeness only not sameness of Mary's sinful flesh.

The early church fathers agree.

O.S. free sperm + the Virgin's O.S. infected egg = Jesus the Messiah

Pro did not refute my arguments about Luke 1:28. He just quoted Jude 1:24 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 ( both which do not even talk about grace preventing us to sin but God himself).

Pro misunderstood my quotations of the post-nicene fathers. I merely used them to support that ( as I have already quoted an early church father) they received the same unbroken line of succession of doctrine just as it is written," the faith that was once delivered unto the saints" ( Jude 1:3).

I already shown that Pro's arguments on the following as unbiblical:

1) Luke 1:28
2) Romans 8:3
3) New Eve: Mary
4) New Adam: Jesus

Pro insisted that to be in enmity with someone means to be always opposed to that someone. I never found any English dictionary that has the adverb "always" in its meaning.

Lastly, Gregory T. may share the belief of the post-nicene fathers because as Pro argues, the original sin wasn't yet systematized but later. Therefore, we cannot make a supporting argument using this church father, knowing that his timeline and the scriptural eisegesis (he might have taught if in case he viewed I.C.), are all irrelevant to the Biblical truths evinced.

Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!


Geogeer

Pro

I wish to thank any readers who have made it this far through the debate. Thanks for sticking with us, you're almost done!

Rebuttals

1. Mary Born with Sin

Let's look at Con's quotes again:

Romans 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.

Luke 1:28

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Neither of those phrases state that Mary had sinned. It says that Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh. And that Mary was full of Grace.

As Jesus did not come in the glorified flesh of his resurrection, he came in human flesh - like that which is sinful. However, his flesh was without sin. It does not describe how his flesh came to be without sin. The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception describes perfectly how he came to have a sinless flesh - he received it from his human mother.

As shown in the previous round Con agreed that Mary didn't lack any grace. It was also shown that grace can protect from sin. Thus it is intuitively obvious that that perfect grace would perfectly preserve the person from sin. Thus Mary was not impeccable by her own power, but by her perfect submission through having the fullness of grace granted to her.


2. Second/Last/New Adam

As we are both agreeing that there are only 2 Adams - Jesus and Adam. I never referred to Jesus as the second Adam so I am unsure what this argument is about. I did quote 1 Corinthians 15:47 - which states "...the second man is from heaven." Thus in the very same Chapter that Con uses, Paul refers to Adam as the first and Christ as the second.


3. New Adam and New Eve

Con claims that Romans 5:19 disproves my assertion about a new Adam and new Eve making all things new.

Romans 5:19

For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. - Douay-Rheims Translation

And yet this is an illogical conclusion by Con. Both Adam and Eve sinned and both received punishments for their actions (Genesis 3:16-17):

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

Thus, yes only one man sinned and only one man was able to make reparation for that sin. That Christ played the primary role because he was God is not in question. However, God relied on Mary's perfect submission to enter the world. On this topic St. Irenaeus (c. 180) stated:

....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3) [1]


Thus the Church fathers do not accept Con's argument on this. It shows that a Woman was required to succeed where Eve failed and a Man to succeed and pay the price of sin where Adam failed.


4. Nowhere did the Fathers or Bible Explicitly Teach that Mary was the new Eve or the Immaculate Birth.

Nor did they explicitly deny it. That is why it took centuries to formalize this doctrine. Con goes on to use Luke 1:28 again, which as we noted was the fullness of grace enabling the perfect prevention of sin.

Con argues Romans 8:3 stating that her flesh is the flesh of sin. And yet nowhere in the bible is it stated that Mary's flesh was a flesh of sin.

Here Con adds Philippians 2:7 -

But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.

Once again this says nothing about the debate we are having. That Christ was God who united himself with physically with humanity in our flesh in order to save us is not in question. That he received that flesh from Adam through Mary is not in question. If Mary was prevented from original sin she would still have the same flesh as all the other descendants of Adam. Thus Christ would be in the likeness of sinful flesh without the flesh being sinful.

Con claims that Origen claimed that Mary sinned. However, he provides no quote from the author thus this argument is null and void.


5. New Ark

As this was Con's argument to begin with I'm not particularly concerned with it in this debate. However, Con continually asserts: 'with God nothing shall be impossible" ( Luke 1:37) and then goes on to say why God cannot have done xyz.

Moses is also a prefigurement of Jesus. And yet nobody argues that Jesus cannot be perfect and the second person of the Trinity because Moses wasn't. It is a fallacious argument on the part of Con. The Church fathers went to great lengths to show how Mary was the opposite of her prefigurement Eve.


6. New Adam

Con is once again getting his britches in a knot over the use of the "New Adam" for Christ. If there were only 2 Adams the first was the old and the second or last was the new. I fail to see any argument here.


7. Likeness of Human Flesh - Again

Con assumes that I do not understand his argument, however that is incorrect - I have refuted it. He brings up the same verses again which I am disinclined to rehash again. Please refer to my arguments against them in both this and the previous rounds.

Con goes on to once again use arguments from Post-Nicene fathers about sperm, etc... but without quoting or naming them this time. Once again in clear violation of his own rules. He then goes on to attempt to justify their use in that they received the same unbroken line of doctrine. If he truly believed this he shouldn't have limited the debate to the pre-nicene fathers.

In fact if I were to use this reasoning I would have argued that the Pope and bishops are their successors who have received this doctrine as well. However, that is not what the rules were and I have kept from using these fathers for my own arguments.


8. Enmity

Enmity with the devil can only mean to be always opposed because the devil represents sin. Thus if you sin you are not enemies with it, but sometimes combatants.


9. Gregory Thaumaturgus

Con's argument is essentially, yeah well he doesn't count because original sin wasn't fully defined. Which is true. That doesn't mean that what he taught was in error, only that the doctrine wasn't yet fully formalized.

The teachings of the Church Fathers do not deny the Immaculate conception, only not fully define it.


Dropped Arguments

Below is a list of the arguments dropped by Con.

1. Grace

Con has fully dropped my argument that Grace can prevent sin and that thus Kecharitomene - full of Grace - would prevent all sin.


2. Honour Thy Mother and Father

Con has failed to address the necessity of God to obey his own commandments. If God is God, then it is incumbent on him to honour his mother. As such he would be faulted for not granting her every grace. If she were granted every grace and grace can prevent sin, then it is only logical that she was preserved from original sin by being the only human be granted grace so perfectly.


3. Wineskins

Con did not rebut my arguement that you need new wineskins for the new wine. Thus to bring about the new wine of the new covenant you needed to remake creation with a new Adam and a new Eve.

His only rebuttal was that this verse did not apply with no supporting argument.


Conclusion

I have conclusively shown that the Church Fathers wrote about Mary as a counter to Eve just as Christ was a counter to Adam.

Additionally, I have shown how the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is logical in explaining the hypostatic union that Christ is able to fully receive his humanity from Mary and his divinity from being God creating someone who was both fully God and fully man. If you follow Con's argument you get a Jesus who is fully God and part man and part not humanity as he would only receive part of his humanity from Mary and the other part from a new creation that is like humanity, but not. God did not raise Eve from the earth like Adam, but brought her forth from Adam.

I have also clearly shown from the Bible that Grace can prevent sin and that God fully honoured his mother by applying the grace of salvation at the moment of conception preserving her from original sin and granting her every grace. Thus in keeping with the work Kecharitomene meaning: "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." [2]

As such the bible and the Pre-Nicene fathers are in full accordance with the immaculate conception.


I wish to thank Con for a spirited debate, and for any readers who took the time to read through this.


[1] http://forums.canadiancontent.net...
[2] http://www.philvaz.com...;- same as [8] in round 2.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Thanks to dsjpk5 for his vote.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Thanks to YYW for taking the time to vote.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Thanks to gordonjames for taking the time to vote.

However, I am confused by your vote. There was no clear question thus the resolution is pretty open. As such I am not sure that the burden of proof falls fully on me. It is like having a debate that says "
Abortion: Science and Philosophy. And then saying that the BOP falls fully on Pro. That does not make sense.

Additionally, I gave logical proofs as to why the doctrine of the Immaculate conception is true. I fail to see where Con actually disproved any of my arguments. Could you elaborate a bit?

Thanks again.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
It's really difficult to tell who won.
Posted by grandmaster108 3 years ago
grandmaster108
I know a good bit about Roman Catholicism. My grandparents and stepdad and my mother were raised in a Roman Catholic Church. I even have a friend that is a Roman Catholic Priest.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Wow the editor really butchered the Greek word I wrote...
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Ultimately, this is an argument that misrepresents what Catholicism is. Catholicism is not a Sola Scriptura religion. It is impossible to *prove* the immaculate conception from these sources. One can find supporting evidence, but then the debate will ultimately be narrowed down to the exact meaning of _4;^9;`7;^5;`1;_3;`4;`9;_6;^1;_7;_1; (kecharit!3;menē) when the angel proclaims "Mary to be full of Grace".

Lamentably I do not know Greek and as such am not truly qualified to debate this. As all I could do is rest upon the shoulders of greater men and hope to quote them with accuracy.

Other than that, I would have to really twist the debate. And I don't like to debate like that.

I am very sorry to disappoint you.

If this was about the logical consistency of the immaculate conception, then it might be possible to debate.

Now if you old like to discuss whether sola scriptura is correct, or the fact that Protestants use a 66 book bible instead of the 73 book bible, the Eucharist, etc... Those are some issues that I would be qualified to debate.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
you're welcome
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
@Wylted Thank You :)
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
you should just close this right now and directly challenge geogeer.

I don't think you find anyone more familiar with Roman Catholicism on this site.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
radzGeogeerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting theological debate, and not one which I think I've seen on DDO. Split/equal BOP, for reasons I'll be happy to explain if necessary in comments. PRO wins because his argument that Mary could not be both with original sin and have given birth to Christ, if Christ was the Son of God. CON could not reconcile the contradiction. As a disclosure, I do not have strongly held theological beliefs on this subject.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
radzGeogeerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: It was unfortunate that CON put such restrictions on the debate. It might have been better to give PRO freedom and then debate his full argument. Conduct points to PRO for abiding by these restrictions. Since the Bible is silent on the many modern Papal ideas around Mary there is little clear Biblical evidence for PRO's position. Pro could have used more example of God revealing thins to man. Deuteronomy 29:29 ?The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. I disagree that BOP is shared, as PRO needs to give convincing evidence for his position. Arguments to CON who points out there is no clear Biblical evidence. Romans 3:10-12 states "There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.?