by Robert Klaus
Most Christians, both Catholic and
Protestant alike, share certain presuppositions relative to the
nature of sin and its damaging effects on our relationship with
God. Conversely, there is a disconnect between Catholics and
Protestants when it comes to the Catholic belief that Mary was
conceived and born without the stain of Original Sin, otherwise
known as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
While it appears that the gap between the two opposing sides of
this controversy is insurmountable, it must be noted that the
presuppositions held in common actually provide the foundational
principles that can build a bridge between the two.
Before we explore what these presuppositions are – and how
they can be applied in a manner that reconciles two seemingly
disparate perspectives – we must first define the nature of
the controversy itself.
Nothing short of outright explicit Biblical evidence will
convince many hard-core Fundamentalists of the veracity of the
Immaculate Conception. For such people only direct and plain
Scriptural support will suffice to convince them –
particularly for any doctrine that is distinctively Catholic.
Many Protestants, however, will easily recognize that not
everything they hold to is explicitly taught in the Bible.
These people, correctly, understand that the Bible indirectly and
implicitly supports many other concepts such as the Triune God
(three divine persons with one nature), the Hypostatic Union
(Christ is one person who is both fully human and fully divine),
and numerous other ubiquitous orthodox Christian beliefs. Such
concepts must be carefully gleaned from Scripture and deduced
since they are not explicitly stated as such within the Bible
itself. Ironically, of course, many of the same hard-core
Fundamentalists who would reject the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception because it is not explicitly taught in Scripture are
also the first people who will jump to the defense of the
implicitly taught doctrine that God is One Deity, but Three
Divine Persons.
This essay is directed toward people who recognize that an
implicit Eternal Truth is just as true as an explicit one even
though something that is only implied, and not explicit,
frequently requires the utilization of deductive reasoning and
long periods of reflection before one can recognize a
doctrine’s genuine orthodoxy. That is precisely why several
implied Trinitarian and Christological definitions, such as the
terms Hypostatic Union and Trinity, took centuries for the Church
to formulate. That is also why the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception took centuries before it was formally dogmatized by
the Catholic Church.
So, aside from the supposed difficulty regarding a lack of
Biblical explicitness on the topic, a couple of common objections
from Protestants come to the fore, the first of which is this:
Objection #1 - If Mary at the time of her conception was
free of original sin then wouldn't her parents also have to be
free from original sin and likewise her parent's parents have to
be free of it and so on...?
It is only natural that this objection comes up from time to
time. Why? Because it is, on the surface anyway, a very logical
question given the set of presuppositions that a majority of
Christians commonly bring to the table.
What are some of these typical Christian presuppositions?
First and foremost is the presupposition that Original Sin exists
and keeps us separated from God unless, and until, it is somehow
removed from our very nature.
Secondly is the common belief that all humans inherit Original
Sin from their parents and will, likewise, pass this along to
their children. Most Christians believe this.
To be fair it must be noted that there are some Christian sects
that do not admit to the existence of Original Sin, but all agree
that mankind is inclined to sin nonetheless (assuming one has
attained the faculty of reason through age and/or natural
ability). It is not within the scope of this essay to explore all
of the variables, but for those Christians of the majority
opinion, that is to say those who recognize that the human
condition is inherently flawed as a result of Adam’s sin,
this essay will attempt to draw upon those common
presuppositions.
Therefore it is only logical to conclude – given the two
above presuppositions – that a person who is
"fallen" due to Original Sin MUST have inherited this
state from likewise "fallen" parents...
and...conversely...
...a person who would be conceived without Original Sin (as
Catholics claim with regard to Mary), and therefore not under a
state of fallen-ness, must have inherited this un-fallen nature
from their own parents. Therefore, if one is consistent, the
parents MUST also likewise be "un-fallen" too. The word
"MUST" is, of course, the key word that we will be
exploring.
Let's note – before we get too far ahead of ourselves –
what Original Sin is and what it is not. The orthodox view of
"Original Sin" is that it is distinct from "actual
sin" in that the doctrine speaks to Original Sin’s
damaging effects on our nature and not to the personal guilt for
the sins we have actually committed. Original Sin is often
confused with Original "Guilt." Simply stated, we are
not guilty of Original Sin.
And what, exactly, is "Original Sin"? Please consider
that when God created Adam and Eve He did so without our
"original" parents having any sort of sin within them
naturally. They were created as God intended for us to be: free
of sin and filled with the light of grace. After all, it
wasn’t until AFTER their first sin that they became fallen.
This is a theological point that all Christians agree on.
When Adam and Eve, due to their own willful actions, sinned
against God everything changed for themselves - and for us.
Instead of having a nature filled with grace, their disobedience
caused their nature to be changed into one that lacked the
fullness of grace. In other words, rather than having a nature
that was filled with the LIGHT of God's grace, they "threw
away" and rejected God's Will for them (God Willed them to
be as He created them: filled with grace) and therefore the grace
– the LIGHT that filled their souls – left them. What
remained was a nature that was fallen and incomplete.
Instead of God's Light filling their nature entirely (as He
originally created them) a DARK SPOT filled the void and entered
their nature. This "dark spot" – lacking God's
Light – meant that their wills were weakened, their
intellect was darkened, their appetites were disordered, and they
were, therefore inclined to sin. In Latin the word for "dark
spot" is macula.
Therefore, in a stark contrast, a soul that overflows with the
fullness of God's Light – as God originally created Adam and
Eve – a soul without a dark spot – is called
immaculate.
Since our original parents, Adam and Eve, became the original
sinners, and hence were no longer immaculate, they were the first
humans to have acquired a fallen nature due to sin and it is this
fallen nature that we all inherit. Thus it is called
"Original Sin."
Therefore we are not "guilty" of original sin (in the
same sense that we are guilty of actual sin when we commit it),
rather we inherit it as part of our nature. It is precisely
because we have a fallen nature (with all of its attributes such
as our disordered appetites) that we commit actual sin. And those
sins – the actual sins – are sins that we are
personally guilty of.
Again, these are presuppositions held in common by a great
majority of Christians on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant
divide.
So now this begs a very serious question. We, as Christians,
presuppose that the "macula" – the dark spot that
inclines us to commit sin – is something that keeps us
separate from God.
How, then, can we restore our nature so that God's Light (grace)
fills our nature and thus enables us to maintain a RIGHT
relationship with God?
The answer, simply, is that there is NOTHING that WE can do. We
are incapable of restoring our own nature.
But, with God, nothing is impossible.
While WE cannot restore our fallen nature and fill the void with
Light - God CAN. And God DOES. He does this through the saving
work of Christ on the Cross. This is also a commonly held
Christian presupposition. Thus, once we are joined to Christ
through faith we are then born again into His Life of Grace. When
we die-to-self and commit our lives to Christ, the Holy Spirit
acts to remove Original Sin (by indwelling us with God’s
Light and Grace) so that we can forever become children of God
and part of the New Covenantal family.
Even though Original Sin has been removed from the nature of
Christians (i.e., those joined by grace to the New Covenant) we
are still inclined to sin because we still suffer from the
effects of Original Sin. The theological concept which explains
this mysterious phenomenon is called "concupiscence."
The lingering effects of Original Sin can damage us by continuing
to incline us to sin even after the indwelling of God’s
Grace has eliminated the macula within us. This can happen for
the simple reason that, while our having joined the New Covenant
through grace DOES mend our state and our natural standing with
God, it DOES NOT erase our past. Therefore, due to the nature we
inherited at birth (from Adam), we came to have personal inherent
"knowledge" of sin even though we, as regenerated
Christians, no longer remain fallen. Even though our
"right" relationship with God is repaired when we are
born again into the New Covenant we still, in a very mysterious
sense, "know" sin and are therefore inclined toward its
illicit pleasure.
What is meant by the term "born again"? Many
Christians, including Catholics, believe that this
"regeneration" happens during Baptism, while other
Christians believe that the term "born again" refers
exclusively to when a person first comes to faith, especially
within the context of a charismatic epiphany. Regardless of which
camp one belongs to, all Christians agree that there is a moment
when a Christian is born again into the New Covenant. And while
Original Sin itself is vanquished forever for those who are born
again, concupiscence and its knowledge of sin, and its
inclination toward sin, rolls merrily along.
All Christians, at least those who adhere to the doctrine of
Original Sin, agree that we are saved from our fallen nature by
God alone and not through anything that a human can do for
themselves. Most Christians, especially those who do not deny the
existence Original Sin, reject the beliefs of Pelagians (an early
heretical sect) who taught that we humans can somehow affect our
own salvation through our own efforts outside of God's grace.
And that brings us back to the original question at hand. Since
it is the intervening work, and free gift, of the Holy Spirit
whereby we are restored to Light and "saved" from the
dark spot – the macula – of our fallen nature, we can
see that it would not be necessary for Mary's parents to have
been likewise "immaculate" themselves at the time of
Mary's conception.
And just as each of us receive this gift of divine intervention
regardless of the state our parents happen to be in (and
therefore a pagan, for example, can become an adopted son or
daughter of the New Covenant even if their parents remain
unregenerated pagans), so too Mary’s reception of her gift
was not dependent on the state of her parents.
It is certainly true that many Christians, both Catholic and some
Protestants alike, believe that their children can become part of
the Covenantal Family of God based on the faith of the parents
(which is why many Christians baptize infants and why
non-Christian Jews circumcise baby boys at the age of eight
days), but the thing to be grasped here is that it is NOT us who
repair our own fallen states, but rather it is the work of the
Holy Spirit – not ourselves – who affects this
restoration. This restorative intervention by the Holy Spirit
applies to all humans whether the Immaculate Conception really
happened or not. Thus, to answer Objection #1, Mary's parents did
not have to be immaculate for her to have been made immaculate
via the actions of the Spirit.
Rather, as Catholicism teaches, Mary was "saved" from
inheriting a "dark spot" from her parents by the
miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit at her conception in
anticipation of her unique role in Salvation History as the
"flesh-giver" and bearer of Incarnate Redeemer of the
world.
So just as all saved Christians receive the gift of the
intervention of the Holy Spirit with regard to the
"cure" for their former fallen-ness, so too Mary
received this gift.
The main difference between Mary and the rest of us Christians,
according to Catholicism, is that her gift was received at her
conception in anticipation of the New Covenant and her special
role as mother of the Incarnate Redeemer, whereas the rest of us
receive this gift through joining the New Covenant family as made
possible by the saving work (on the Cross) of Our Redeemer –
Jesus Christ.
This last point is, of course, where Christians differ in
opinion. Protestants do not agree that Mary was saved from
Original Sin at her conception in anticipation of her role as
Flesh-giver of the Incarnate Savior.
Now...all this being said...
Let's take this topic to the next logical step. The next question
from many people is this:
Objection #2 - If the Holy Spirit can intervene to
prevent someone from inheriting this dark spot and a fallen
nature why, then, would the Spirit choose to intervene at Mary's
conception instead of at Christ's conception? If the Spirit had
intervened at Christ’s conception, then Mary could have had
a fallen nature and thus the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception would be rendered moot.
Given that all Christians agree with regard to how one inherits
one’s parents’ fallen nature, and given that Christ did
not have a fallen nature even though He was fully human (as well
as being fully divine) – having acquired human flesh and a
human nature from Mary – then it naturally follows that an
intervention from the Holy Spirit would have had to occur
somewhere along the line or else Jesus would have inherited a
fallen nature.
Why, then, did this intervention happen prior to Jesus'
conception (according to Catholicism) instead of when He was
conceived in Mary's womb?
That is a good and fair question.
Let's first of all note that God chose to redeem the world
through the Incarnation of His Son. God could have chosen any
number of ways to restore our fallen nature without necessarily
sending His Son down to us and taking on flesh. He could have
Redeemed Adam and Eve right then and there in the Garden of Eden
in the blink of an eye (as easily as flipping a light switch -
zap) and then we, as inheritors of their nature, would have
inherited a nature free of any dark spots.
But God didn't do that. Instead, He chose to en-flesh His Son to
affect our salvation.
For why else would He take on human flesh and a human nature if
not to Redeem us by it? Thus Christ is THE REDEMER and SAVIOR.
This is the premier and ultimate Christian presupposition
regarding the Incarnation. Prayerfully think about that.
Just as Christian presuppositions with regard to Original Sin
provided the solution to answer the first objection, other
Christian presuppositions with regard to the Incarnation can
answer the second objection.
And so, the very Flesh that Redeems us – the Flesh of Christ
– is truly and fully human. And where did Jesus receive that
Flesh? He received it from His mother – Mary.
Therefore, if He inherited His flesh and human nature from a
human mother and IF His nature is NOT fallen then it raises some
considerations of its own.
How so? If we humans inherit the nature of our parents, and if
Christ did not have a fallen nature, then one of two possible
scenarios presents itself:
EITHER
Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior –
inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not
fallen. Her nature was "saved" from fallen-ness prior
to Christ’s conception. In this scenario it is Mary who is
the object of prior salvation. This is the Catholic view.
OR
Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s
conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e.,
"saved" from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the
intervention of the Holy Spirit. In this scenario it is Christ
who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit.
This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of
it in these terms.
In both scenarios we have the necessity of a "saving"
intervention by the Holy Spirit.
But, in scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising. Why?
Because for Jesus to have been "saved" from inheriting
Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a
savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is
something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is
an utter impossibility. For Christ Himself is "THE
SAVIOR" and He is "THE REDEEMER".
Here the hard-core Fundamentalist who requires an explicit
Biblical mandate is at total loss when asked to supply the
slightest Scriptural reference to Jesus needing to be saved or
redeemed at any time during the Incarnated earthly life of the
Messiah.
Therefore, the only logical and consistent possibility is that
Jesus inherited a human nature that existed exactly as Adam and
Eve's nature once existed – filled with the light of Grace
– devoid of a dark spot – a nature that was made
IMMACULATE through the miraculous intervention of the Holy
Spirit. Thus, Mary has a Savior even though Jesus does not since
He is the Savior.
The Christian presuppositions that naturally flow out of the
doctrines of Original Sin and the Incarnation provide the
foundational principles that can bridge the gap between those who
reject the possibility of the Immaculate Conception and those who
accept it as an orthodox Eternal Truth that is implicitly
supported by Scripture.
And now, viewed from this perspective, we can see why it was that
the Angel Gabriel said to Mary at the Annunciation, "Hail,
Full of Grace" for she was, indeed, filled with God's Light.
And it was this fullness of a grace-filled human nature that
Jesus – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His
mother.
Robert Klaus
Catholic Apologist
January 15, 2005