Mr. Isahel Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defenders continues his attempt to refute the book written by Pastor Jun Ballesteros titled, Important Questions and Answers. This time his article tackles the response of Pastor Ballesteros concerning the alleged sinlessness of Mary, aka Immaculate Conception.
Now before we proceed to show how Isahel contradicted the position of Atty. Marwil Llasos (a defender of Marian doctrines), we must first respond to the former's so-called rebuttal on the writing of Pastor Ballesteros for the sake of those who want to learn how to deal with the opposing arguments.
I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros' false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers.
Really? Sigh. That means more work for me.
This time we'll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.
Looking at the Tagalog version of the book, there is a very brief explanation for the two biblical passages cited. In fact the wordings of the cited verses were not written at all, just the explanations.
Now before we proceed to show how Isahel contradicted the position of Atty. Marwil Llasos (a defender of Marian doctrines), we must first respond to the former's so-called rebuttal on the writing of Pastor Ballesteros for the sake of those who want to learn how to deal with the opposing arguments.
I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros' false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers.
Really? Sigh. That means more work for me.
This time we'll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.
Looking at the Tagalog version of the book, there is a very brief explanation for the two biblical passages cited. In fact the wordings of the cited verses were not written at all, just the explanations.
Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21
Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
2nd Peter 1:20-21 simply means the Scriptures originated from God and not from men. There is no prohibition of using private interpretation in reading the Scripture. Your mind processes whatever information is given to you whether orally or in writing. This is private on every individual. What Isahel is using here is some faulty, non-sequitir logic.
And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception.
The irony here is that Isahel quotes Scripture to prove his point. If one cannot exercise private interpretation of the Bible then how do you expect someone to browse over the Bible to confirm his biblical references?
Of course for Isahel, the infallible church is the Church of Rome. It makes me wonder how he managed to decide that Rome was the infallible church over the other churches without using private interpretation of the Bible. Maybe he just accepted what was fed to him without questioning.
2nd Peter 1:20-21 simply means the Scriptures originated from God and not from men. There is no prohibition of using private interpretation in reading the Scripture. Your mind processes whatever information is given to you whether orally or in writing. This is private on every individual. What Isahel is using here is some faulty, non-sequitir logic.
And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception.
The irony here is that Isahel quotes Scripture to prove his point. If one cannot exercise private interpretation of the Bible then how do you expect someone to browse over the Bible to confirm his biblical references?
Of course for Isahel, the infallible church is the Church of Rome. It makes me wonder how he managed to decide that Rome was the infallible church over the other churches without using private interpretation of the Bible. Maybe he just accepted what was fed to him without questioning.
The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;
And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47
Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross.
What? Mary claimed Christ as her savior in Luke 1:46-47? She was referring to God the Father, duh!
Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin.
Which of course the text doesn't warrant no matter what direction you read it.
Sure there are exception to the rules. Yes, take advantage of that to justify that Mary is sinless. While you're at it, try to find out who else are sinless. Please, don't stop at Mary because it would be obvious that you're biased. And when you identify the other sinless humans, award the immaculate conception for them.
Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God's glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John 1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you". Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.
Isahel makes use the phrase "full of grace" to justify the immaculate conception of Mary. Unfortunately, the phrase "full of grace" in John 1:14 is pleres charis while Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene. While kecharitomene is in the perfect passive participle, it doesn't tell us when the object (Mary) possessed that attribute and how long the attribute will last. So granting that Mary is indeed full of grace, it is not necessarily permanent from her conception. Modern translations like the New American Bible translates kecharitomene as highly favored.
By the way, in Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived?
THE MAIN EVENT
In the subject of the immaculate concpetion, Atty. Marwil Llasos made this response to the book titled The Truth Encounter by Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who is a former Roman Catholic priest:
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).
I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).
For Atty. Llasos, it is not a Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless. He challenged Dr. Pezzotta to show evidence of this allegation.
Well, let's take a look how Mr. Isahel Alfonso, a worthy ally and comrade of Atty. Llasos, has to say about it:
Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.
Isahel's argument is similar to the one being asserted by Dr. Pezzotta. Now, will Isahel take Atty. Llasos' challenge to show official documents using this reasoning? Gentlemen, let's get it on!
By the way, Isahel is not the only one who contradicted Atty. Llasos. Click here to find out another comrade of Atty. Llasos who gave a similar argument.
The problem with defending an unbiblical doctrine is that you can't have a consistent method applied due to personal biases.
What? Mary claimed Christ as her savior in Luke 1:46-47? She was referring to God the Father, duh!
Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin.
Which of course the text doesn't warrant no matter what direction you read it.
Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23
There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for "all" is "pantes" which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from "all" and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is "hapas". But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic.
Sure there are exception to the rules. Yes, take advantage of that to justify that Mary is sinless. While you're at it, try to find out who else are sinless. Please, don't stop at Mary because it would be obvious that you're biased. And when you identify the other sinless humans, award the immaculate conception for them.
Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God's glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John 1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you". Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.
Isahel makes use the phrase "full of grace" to justify the immaculate conception of Mary. Unfortunately, the phrase "full of grace" in John 1:14 is pleres charis while Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene. While kecharitomene is in the perfect passive participle, it doesn't tell us when the object (Mary) possessed that attribute and how long the attribute will last. So granting that Mary is indeed full of grace, it is not necessarily permanent from her conception. Modern translations like the New American Bible translates kecharitomene as highly favored.
By the way, in Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived?
THE MAIN EVENT
In the subject of the immaculate concpetion, Atty. Marwil Llasos made this response to the book titled The Truth Encounter by Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who is a former Roman Catholic priest:
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).
I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).
For Atty. Llasos, it is not a Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless. He challenged Dr. Pezzotta to show evidence of this allegation.
Well, let's take a look how Mr. Isahel Alfonso, a worthy ally and comrade of Atty. Llasos, has to say about it:
Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.
Isahel's argument is similar to the one being asserted by Dr. Pezzotta. Now, will Isahel take Atty. Llasos' challenge to show official documents using this reasoning? Gentlemen, let's get it on!
By the way, Isahel is not the only one who contradicted Atty. Llasos. Click here to find out another comrade of Atty. Llasos who gave a similar argument.
The problem with defending an unbiblical doctrine is that you can't have a consistent method applied due to personal biases.
""The problem with defending an unbiblical doctrine is that you can't have a consistent method applied due to personal biases.""
ReplyDeleteLike personal interpretation of the scripture?
2 Peter 1:20-21
> touto prOton ginOskontes hoti pasa prophEteia graphEs idias epiluseOs ouginetai.
The verse does not deal with personal interpretation of Scripture. It simply says the Scripture did not originate from private intepretation.
DeleteEvery doctrine has to be in the bible?
ReplyDeleteJust the ones that has to do with man's salvation.
DeleteJust the ones that has to do with man's salvation.
ReplyDeleteis it complete?
Yes.
Deletegood analysis Mr. Soliman!
ReplyDeleteObjective and well reasoned.
However, you have argued to wrong persons, or to be more accurate, the arguments and explanations of those catholic apologists are wrong. They only made the doctrine of Immaculate conception weak.
I am also a catholic and was an active CFD apologist before, and I hope soon I can join your debates.
But here is my tentative comments: First, Informed theologian knew very well that there is no explicit verses that supports the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But it can, nonetheless, be shown to be in the spirit of scriptures. These catholic apologists unfortunately do not know much of academic (scholarly) theology. The dogma is a theological conclusion, which means that it is a product of theological appropriation. In catholic theology, we are allowed to reflect from scriptures and tradition to arrive at other truths concerning our christian faith. One them is the dogma of Immaculate conception.
Classical theologians also used as standard argument, namely, that "Mary must be sinless because Christ is sinless", but this is not a logical argument. Theologians knew this very well. Rather, in catholic theology, there are different kinds of warrants or arguments. One is the so called "moral argument" or "argument of fittingness". Meaning to say, that Mary should be sinless because Christ is absolutely perfect and holy is fitting or morally necessary, but not logically necessary. To elaborate more, it is repugnant to our moral reasoning and moral sentiment that Mary, being the mother of Christ and the one closest to him in grace, love, life, communion, and intimacy, should be defiled by the malice of sin something which is never in Christ. Thomas Aquinas is very clear on this.
Before I leave,one question for you:
In the counter arguments you raised in your article, what passage in the bible makes the doctrine of Immaculate Conception against scripture?
Red de la Rosa
My apologies for the late response. Due to the load of my work I can only manage to answer some of your comments. In fact, I even brought home some work.
DeleteAnyway, I do appreciate your insights.
Now you asked:
[In the counter arguments you raised in your article, what passage in the bible makes the doctrine of Immaculate Conception against scripture?]
Let me answer this way: I don't see any purpose why Mary is to be sinless most specially after the birth of Christ. Let's look at a parallel, Samson. Samson was given super human strength to defeat the enemies of the Jews. While he had a temporary loss of his powers, he regained it to destroy the Philistines one last time before dying with them. After the birth of Christ, what further purpose is there of Mary's sinlessness? She lived long enough to see her son's death and ressurection. The point if you make an oven, you use it to bake until it can no longer function properly.
Christ sinlessness also served a purpose, He was to be the unblemished sacrificial lamb. And His sinless continue to serve as He is the Holy God, otherwise all the things He said about sin will make him a hypocrite.
What will be your reaction if there is some other person who was born sinless?
no worries, just take your time.
DeleteBefore anything else, let me make this point:
Being temporary sinless is a common Christian experience. There were times in our lives that we were so inspired that everything that comes out of our minds and hearts are all full of love and goodness. Especially, for people who experienced conversion for the first time, they experienced a temporary days, weeks, or even months of unceasing prayer, constant meditation of the goodness of God, and their unworthiness and sinfulness.
So being sinless is not something that should surprise us. Perfection is a basic Christian vocation.
Further, according to spiritual theology, perfection is perfection in love. The nature of love (charity) is such that when the soul is perfected by it, it becomes morally impossible for the soul to sin.
Pauline theology is rich in the theology of love. Love is the end of the Gospel (not faith, not hope). Christ saved us. He saved us from sin. But is salvation for salvation’s sake alone? Is salvation from sin for avoiding sin alone? For avoiding hell alone? For enjoying heaven alone? Our answer is no. We are saved by love and for love. We are saved to be perfected by love. Love is the end of salvation.
Sinlessness is only the negative stating of moral perfection, the end of which is perfection in charity. Sinlessness alone makes no sense. Infants are born sinless, but they were not perfected by love – they were not spiritually reborn.
So what is the purpose of sinlessness? It’s love. We don’t need to ask the question “what’s the purpose of Mary’s sinlessness?” The reason is because it is the goal of Christ – to make us sinless, that is, to be perfected by love.
Only God's continuous outpouring of grace makes Mary in the perpetual state of moral perfection.
But why Mary? The answer is, there’s no other better candidate. It cannot be Moses, David, John the beloved, John the Baptist, etc.
God perfected Mary while still on earth for His glory alone. It pleases Him, it glorifies Him.
According to the reflections of many theologians, it pleases God to save Mary in the most perfect manner, that is, apply the grace merited by Christ in the cross in the most glorious way possible.
The victory of Christ in the cross, for all of us, was in a sense, failed to achieve its fullest glory because we all still fall back to sin from time to time. In the person of Mary, therefore, God the Father glorified His son. The Father sanctified Mary according to what Christ deserves. Mary’s perfection, therefore, is the highest exemplar of Christic salvation. It is in the person of Mary that the full glory of Christ’ victory over satan was realized.
Why not Christ Himself? It is because Christ did not saved Himself from Satan. So there is no comparison to Mary.
These were all theological reflections. They may not be directly proven from Scripture, yet they are fully in the spirit of Scripture. I don’t see the need to prove it in Scripture. As a catholic, I believe it as much as I believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is no less difficult to believe than believing that the Bible is true.
If there is another person born morally perfect like Mary, then to God be the glory.