But more recent Roman apologists in an attempt to win over evangelicals have tried to defend the doctrine immaculate conception from the Scriptures. On page 178 of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong discusses the use of the term "full of grace" and says:
It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.In the book, Armstrong does not treat the above as a direct quotation from any particular source but he does provide a footnote that says
Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), sect 1852:b.The book does not cite Blass and DeBrunner as a direct quotation but if you search the internet, you'll find plenty of people quoting this as if it were a direct quotation from Blass and DeBrunner including Dave Armstrong on his blog. But page 166 doesn't say anything that resembles what Armstrong is saying here. Blass and DeBrunner simply mention that the perfect stem is used to denote "a condition or state as the result of a past action." The passage cited by Smyth says, "Completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem." None of this sounds anything like what Armstrong is saying. The passage clearly says that God graced Mary but it's rather insane to try to derive the doctrine of the immaculate conception from that.
The ever-virgin Mary can truly be called the Queen of Heaven. She was given the most important position of any human being by being chosen by God to be the Mother of God. But Mary was a sinner who needed Christ to suffer and die for her just as well all do.
Hi Chuck,
ReplyDeleteI have made a thorough, point-by-point reply to your post on my blog:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2013/02/dialogue-on-immaculate-conception-with.html
It's cross-posted on my Facebook page, too:
https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/157587511064440
I would welcome further discussion, should you desire that.
Jesus was both Son of God and "son of man", fully Divine, and fully human. Part of our human condition is tied to the concept of original sin. We all share in this connection. If Mary had no "share" in or connection to original sin, then she was MORE than human in some sense. This completely negates the mystery and import of the Incarnation.
ReplyDelete