MacArthur's Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching

[DHK]

Mary's "full of grace" announced by the angel is from her beginning " that is where the belief in the Immaculate Conception is indicated. Stephen's "full of grace" was "at that moment" and can't be compared to the Blessed Mother's.

I have been told that the greek word 'kecharitomene' is not used in Stephens reference but some kind of variation of 'charitoo' and would relate to a certain point in time.

The following was copied from Catholic Answers as posted by 'Jimmy':

Luke 1:28 reads:

kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

The word kecaritwmenh is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically "you who have been graced" or "you who have been filled with grace". This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

It is a different word because it is not the word for grace.
I already showed you how other translations translate it.

Perhaps your understanding is wrong.

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art *thou* amongst women. (Darby--very literal)

Luke 1:28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. (ASV)

Luke 1:28 Having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!" (WEB)

Luke 1:28 And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;' (Young's Literal)

One translation after another does not support your opinion.

It does not translate "full of grace" because there is no "grace" in the expression. Why not try translating the word properly instead of relying on RCC propaganda.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Mary's "full of grace" announced by the angel is from her beginning " that is where the belief in the Immaculate Conception is indicated. Stephen's "full of grace" was "at that moment" and can't be compared to the Blessed Mother's.

I have been told that the greek word 'kecharitomene' is not used in Stephens reference but some kind of variation of 'charitoo' and would relate to a certain point in time.

The following was copied from Catholic Answers as posted by 'Jimmy':

Luke 1:28 reads:

kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

The word kecaritwmenh is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically "you who have been graced" or "you who have been filled with grace". This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

If this is true of Mary, then it is also true of every believer. The same greek word that is used in Luke 1:28 is also used in Ephesians 1:13 referring to all believers.

Luk 1:28 AndG2532 theG3588 angelG32 came inG1525 untoG4314 her,G846 and said,G2036 Hail,G5463 thou that art highly favoured,G5487 theG3588 LordG2962 is withG3326 thee:G4675 blessedG2127 art thouG4771 amongG1722 women.G1135

Eph 1:6 ToG1519 the praiseG1868 of the gloryG1391 of hisG848 grace,G5485 whereinG1722 G3739 he hath made us acceptedG5487 G2248 inG1722 theG3588 beloved.G25

G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to'-oFrom G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

 

[BobRyan]

Apparently the Catholic teaching on Luke 1:28 comes from the Latin Vulgate - and not the greek text.

The Vulgate has - "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'"

In Greek that would be - plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) - and that is not what we have in Luke 1:28

Which gets back to my initial question.

If the reason for the doctrine on the immaculate conception of Mary by her mother is based on the need to provide a sinless environment for Christ - and yet Mary is sinless and born to a sinful mother -- then there is no need for Mary to be immaculately conceived since Christ can be born "sinless" from a sinful mother even more efficiently than Mary can - by virtue of the fact that Christ is "incarnated" from a previously existing being - but Mary is "procreated" from her sinful mother and father.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

St. Anne

Born: unknown
Died: unknown
Canonized: pre-Congregation
Feast Day: May 4
Patron Saint of: Christian mothers, Canada, housewives, women in labor
Also known as Hannah & Ann.
What we know of Saint Anne is a matter of legend and dispute. The biography that follows was derived from the Protoevangelium, as summarized in The Catholic Encyclopedia.
In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: "Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world". The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary).

• The Catholic Encyclopedia

• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

http://www.scborromeo.org/saints/anne.htm

The supposed grandmother of God. Was she immaculately conceived also; sinless also? Why not? Why not perpetuate the myth right back to Eve, or at least to Noah's wife, from whom we all came from.

 

[billwald]

The battle of the myths. <G> "Myth" = story/tradition of beginnings.

 

[lori4dogs]

[/URL]
[/LIST]
http://www.scborromeo.org/saints/anne.htm

The supposed grandmother of God. Was she immaculately conceived also; sinless also? Why not? Why not perpetuate the myth right back to Eve, or at least to Noah's wife, from whom we all came from.

Thinkingstuff also covered this: " . . . .then does it stand to reason there must be a whole line of untainted people? Else if Mary's mother was sinful then isn't the trait passed on to Mary by virtue of birth?"

No, that is why it is called 'Immaculate Conception'. My God is big enough to do this.

 

[DHK]

Thinkingstuff also covered this: " . . . .then does it stand to reason there must be a whole line of untainted people? Else if Mary's mother was sinful then isn't the trait passed on to Mary by virtue of birth?"

No, that is why it is called 'Immaculate Conception'. My God is big enough to do this.

Then why perpetuate a myth such as the IC?
What you are saying is God is not big enough to bring about the virgin birth with a sinner such as Mary--which she was, and that is how the Bible describes her:
1. One who had to offer a sin offering after the child was born.
2. One who admitted in prayer that she needed a Savior. Only sinners need a Savior.

So you believe in a small and powerless God that He cannot bring about the Virgin Birth of Christ without the Immaculate Conception of Mary? That is quite amazing! You have limited the power of God.

 

[lori4dogs]

Then why perpetuate a myth such as the IC?
What you are saying is God is not big enough to bring about the virgin birth with a sinner such as Mary--which she was, and that is how the Bible describes her:
1. One who had to offer a sin offering after the child was born.
2. One who admitted in prayer that she needed a Savior. Only sinners need a Savior.

So you believe in a small and powerless God that He cannot bring about the Virgin Birth of Christ without the Immaculate Conception of Mary? That is quite amazing! You have limited the power of God.

How does the Church answer 'this difficulty'? Here it is: Karl Keating says: "Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47."

I believe what Paul meant in Romans 3:23 is that this applies to the vast majority of mankind. Again, Keating says: "Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn't mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Rom. 3:23? None, of course."

I was also wondering about Enoch and Elijah.

As far as Mary offering a 'sin offering'. Mary obeyed the law.

Are there other examples of this? Did Jesus need to be baptized by john?
Did Jesus need to be circumcised in order make him a part of gods people?

 

[Trotter]

But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.

I call BS. All the crap about Mary is just that... complete crap. She was just a girl who was willing to be used by God. There was nothing special about her conception, her birth, or her life other than she was faithful. Anything outside of that is RCC fairy tales.

Romans 3:23 applies to all mankind, Mary included. Jesus is the only one who ever lived a sinless life and therefore did not need a savior. Until a child is able to realize what sin is and comprehend it he is not under the Law, but once he reaches that point he falls under Romans 3:23 just like all the rest of Adam's offspring.

Mary was not Jesus. Had she not accepted salvation through Him she would be in Hell right now. We know she did accept salvation, just like all other saved sinners, because it is recorded in God's word for us to see.

 

[billwald]

All the bandwidth that would be saved if God had had the foresight and ability to correct Jesus' DNA after Jesus was born . . . .

 

[DHK]

How does the Church answer 'this difficulty'? Here it is: Karl Keating says: "Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation.

This is bogus RCC speculation and does not come from the Bible. It is anti-Bible, meaning not only unscriptural, but against the Scriptures--totally contradicting them Not even Karl Keating can work his way out of this own.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47."

I believe what Paul meant in Romans 3:23 is that this applies to the vast majority of mankind. Again, Keating says: "Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn't mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Rom. 3:23? None, of course."

So Mr. Keating just threw out the door the long held RCC doctrine of the depravity of man. How convenient. Man is a sinner from birth. At what age does he start sinning. Psalm 58:3 says it is from birth that he starts to sin. All of my children knew what it was to sin before the age of one. They knew the difference between right and wrong.

As far as Mary offering a 'sin offering'. Mary obeyed the law.
She obeyed the law because she was a sinner. Sinners offer sin offerings.

Are there other examples of this? Did Jesus need to be baptized by john?

Yes, Jesus said: "I have need to be baptized of thee."
I take him at his word. Or do you call Jesus a liar.
Later he says: It is to fulfill all righteousness, that he was baptized.
Let's keep in mind that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. It is you that has the problem with baptism not us. Jesus baptism is no problem to us because we know that it has nothing to do with salvation. Not His baptism; not ours.

Did Jesus need to be circumcised in order make him a part of gods people?

Jesus needed to be baptized because he was a Jew.
We don't need to baptized because we are not Jews.
What a scandal there would have been during the childhood and youth of Jesus if he wasn't circumcised. It would have been a scandal upon the part of Mary and Joseph.
All the community would have known it and then during his ministry it would have turned Christ into an outcast. The Jews already had a problem with "his virgin birth." They, out of scorn, said: "We be not born of fornication." That was a direct reference to the virgin birth of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

How does the Church answer 'this difficulty'? Here it is: Karl Keating says: "Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin.

Indeed - Paul says in Romans 3 "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and also in Romans 3 Paul argues that the perfect demands of the law "place the whole world" as accountable before God and in Gal 3 Paul repeats this point.

The entire world is said to be condemned as sinners based on the perfect standard of the Law of God. So "all" - even Mary, need a Savior.

But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences.

Well that is the part of the story that we don't find in scripture.

Are you claiming that it is true - because of tradition?

If so - why is it no NT writer mentions that tradition?

Or is it something that you think came up after the time of the NT writers?

I believe what Paul meant in Romans 3:23 is that this applies to the vast majority of mankind. Again, Keating says: "Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn't mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Rom. 3:23? None, of course."

In Romans 3 Paul argues that the very nature of the sinner is alienated from God when he says "there is NONE righteous no not one. There is NONE who seeks after God".

This would include that small child's sinful nature. Even an infant has to some extent a raging sinful nature that expresses anger and frustration pretty well.

They all need a Savior - they all HAVE a Savior.

I was also wondering about Enoch and Elijah.

There is no reason to believe that Enoch and Elijah are excluded from Paul's inspired statement in Romans 3 that all have sinned. But as you note - all have not sinned to the same degree and Enoch is said to have "walked with God". He was not a raging murderer that is for sure - but he was a sinner that was in need of Gospel salvation.

Thus when God took Enoch and Elijah bodily to heaven without having them die - He was demonstrating the fact that forgiveness in the OT was full and complete - just as also the New Birth of OT saints.

Did Jesus need to be baptized by john?
Did Jesus need to be circumcised in order make him a part of gods people?

Jesus as the Savior of mankind - set an example for us.

1John 2 tells us that as born-again saints we are to "walk as Jesus walked".

We are never told to "walk as Mary walked" or that Mary was sinless. In fact we are not even told that Mary was "full of the Holy Ghost" as the Bible claims for Stephen (Acts 7:55).

in Christ,

Bob