Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Dr. Robert Gagnon vs. the Immaculate Conception

Dr. Robert Gagnon vs. the Immaculate Conception

Last updated on: September 17, 2024 at 11:46 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Dr. Robert Gagnon vs. the Immaculate Conception 2024-09-17T23:46:00-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Examination of Various Failed, Fallacious, & Misguided Arguments

Photo credit: Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Facebook profile picture, as of 9-15-24.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.

After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”

His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I’m responding to Dr. Gagnon’s public Facebook article, “A Note on the ‘Immaculate Conception’ of Mary” (9-13-24).

The Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. For if Mary’s parents did not need to be sinless in order for her to be free from the stain of original sin, then neither did Jesus need Mary to be sinless in order to be born free from the stain of original sin, and all the more so since (per Matthew and Luke) Joseph had no involvement in Mary’s conception.

In making his argument, Dr. Gagnon is wrongly presupposing that Catholic dogma teaches that Mary was necessarily immaculate in order for Jesus to be sinless. It was not necessary at all: first of all because God’s nature can’t possibly be contingent upon attributes of creatures that wouldn’t exist but for Him. Jesus was sinless because He is God and couldn’t be otherwise, by nature. It wasn’t dependent on whether Mary was sinless or not. See my article, Could Jesus Have Possibly Inherited Original Sin? (Was Mary’s Immaculate Conception Necessary to Prevent Such a Scenario, or Only “Fitting”? Jesus’ Two Natures & Impeccability) [11-11-21].

If this isn’t part of the dogma in the first place, then it can’t be the basis of the supposed “seeds of its own destruction”. It’s a false premise that Dr. Gagnon utilizes, in other words, which means that he is warring against a straw man of his own making. Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 declaration on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus) wrote:

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness . . .

she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, . . .

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

In his treatise “On the Virginal Conception,” St. Anselm expounded the principle on which the doctrine rests in the fallowing words: “It was fitting that the conception of that man (Christ) should be accomplished from a most pure mother. For it was fitting that that Virgin should be resplendent with such a purity, . . .” The Catechism teaches the same:

#722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. . . .”

Likewise, in Munificentissimus Deus, Venerable Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption in 1950, we find seven examples of the concept of fittingness, which is derived from the New Testament:

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Ephesians 5:3-4 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead, let there be thanksgiving.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting …
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
1 Timothy 6:15 and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Titus 1:3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior …

Dictionary.com defines “fitting” as “suitable or appropriate; proper or becoming.” Thesaurus.com provides 21 synonyms for “fitting” including “apt,” “proper,” “correct,” “desirable” and “seemly.” We see that supposedly exclusively Catholic “fittingness” is a frequent and explicit biblical teaching, and that Catholic thinking is thoroughly, comprehensively, and deeply biblical. For more on this, see my article, ““Catholic” Notion of “Fittingness”: Quite Biblical! [2-2-23; expanded on 7-25-23].

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

If Jesus’ sinlessness was not dependent on Mary being sinless, then there is no reason to postulate a doctrine that not only has no support in the NT witness but also surely would have been mentioned as a sign of God’s miraculous work in Jesus’ birth, had Matthew or Luke been aware of it.

It’s untrue that the only rationale for the doctrine is supposed necessity in order for Jesus to be sinless and impeccable (incapable of sin). Propriety or fittingness is an essentially different concept, and it is the Catholic Church’s rationale, following the biblical espousal of it in at least ten verses (shown above). Arguments from silence carry little force. Besides, we Catholics agree that Mary received fairly small amount of notice in the New Testament.

See my Facebook article, Why So Little Mention of Mary in the New Testament? (9-14-24). Nor is it absent from the Bible altogether. I contend — exclusively utilizing biblical arguments — that Luke 1:28 contains data sufficient to establish her sinlessness, which is the kernel of her being immaculate and freed from original sin. See my articles (especially the first one):

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Why Would a Sinless Mary Offer Sacrifices? (vs. Matt Slick) [10-29-20]

Moreover, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in tension with the fact that the NT witness depicts Jesus alone as sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 John 3:5; 1 Pet 2:22), with all the rest of the world being sinners (e.g., Rom 3:9, 19-20; 23; 5:12-21),

This is quite debatable. See my articles:

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Sinless(?) Joseph, John the Baptist, Anne, & the Incarnation [7-18-23]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

and thus the only one who can save people from their sins.

That doesn’t technically follow, either. He doesn’t save us only because He is sinless (though that was part of it), but first and foremost because He is God and our Creator, and has the prerogative to do so — or not do so — as He pleased. The unfallen angels and Adam and Eve are and were sinless, respectively, but it doesn’t follow that either could save the human race. That fact alone proves that there are sinless creatures and sinless beings besides Jesus.

Presumably, had Mary been sinless, she could have died to make amends for the sin of the world (though I suppose that one could argue that even in a sinless state her life would not have been of sufficient value to offset the lives of all others).

She could not because she was not God. Period. God saves us. We don’t save ourselves (which would be the heresy of Pelagianism).

At any rate, there would have been no need for a Savior on her part since one who is without sin does not need amends to be made for her sin.

That doesn’t follow, either, because Mary would have been subject to original sin like every other person, but for a special preventive act of God’s grace. Jesus saved Mary from her sins by preventing them from ever occurring, at her conception. It’s still saving her from her sins. If, for example, someone locked a thoroughly drunk person (an alcoholic) who wanted to drive, in a closet, that would be “saving” him or her from a potential fatal accident.

Keeping alcohol away from the same person is “saving” them from their besetting sin: drunkenness, much more so than black coffee and a cold shower getting them sober after the fact. Sessions at Alcoholics Anonymous can “save” an alcoholic from his or her “sins.” So can disallowing them to have alcohol in the first place. Both involve “saving them.”

Mary was subject to inheriting original sin, as a member of the human race, that had been fallen since Adam. God simply took away at her conception what would have been inevitable, had He not done it. In that sense, then, in effect, He “forgave her of original sin.” Had original sin not been inevitable in her case, He wouldn’t have had to do that to preserve her from it. But in so doing He saved her from the sin and is thus properly called by Mary, her “savior.”

In fact, I submit that Mary was saved more completely or thoroughly than any human being has ever been saved. She, above all, can and did call God her “savior” since she received more grace for salvation and a life without actual sin, than anyone else ever has. It was 100% grace and 100% monergistic, since Mary couldn’t even accept it in faith (it being the moment of her conception).

Luke notes that Mary, after her time of “purification” (40 days) had been completed, she brought two doves or pigeons to the temple, “according to the law of Moses,” specifically Lev 12:6-8 where the offering is designated a “sin offering” (Heb. hattath), which a priest offers “to make atonement (Heb. kipper) on her behalf.” Now some recent translations change “sin offering” to “purification offering” based on the piel-conjugation meaning of the cognate verb. Yet hattath when not referring to an offering simple means “sin”; and the piel of the related verb means purification from sin, the opposite of the qal conjugation, “to sin.” Why a “sin offering” in connection with childbirth? It may be insurance for one’s child, in case of an unknown, previously un-atoned sin of the mother. This suggests that Mary did not view herself as sinless.

Nonsense; for the simple reason that Jesus also engaged in ritual purification rituals and was baptized, which everyone else was doing — under John the Baptist — for the forgiveness of sins. Does that “prove” that He was not sinless, or didn’t view Himself as sinless, too? Jesus offered sacrifices at the temple, which were ordinarily for the atonement for sins, and observed Passover, which was for (again, ordinarily) the same purpose. So this proves nothing by analogy and reductio ad absurdum.

I understand the “anticipatory grace” excuse, but it doesn’t hold in the NT witness. No one received the effects of Jesus’ atoning death until after he died for them on the cross. And those effects don’t make one sinless or eliminate the sinful impulse in the flesh prior to the reception of the resurrection body. So, no, Mary could not have been free from the stain of original sin (which is not just a juridical declaration but involves the transmission of the sin impulse in the flesh) through Christ’s death prior to Christ’s death.

Here, in effect, Dr. Gagnon argues that it was impossible for God to act in the manner that we believe He did in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But it’s not intrinsically impossible at all. God can make exceptions to His own “norms” if He wills to do so. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out to a NT scholar that God can do whatever He wants.

The “fitting but not necessary” distinction is a distinction without much of a difference.

It’s an essential difference. They simply don’t mean the same thing. So this is really grasping at straws.

when you say that Jesus “wouldn’t want to be born of something tainted by sin,” you are just making stuff up. There is nothing even remotely close to that in the NT witness.

Actually, there is quite a bit about holiness being part and parcel of proximity to God (as a matter of fittingness): much of it in the Old Testament. See:

Blessed Virgin Mary & God’s Special Presence in Scripture [1994; from first draft of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism]
*

Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant [National Catholic Register, 2-13-18]

if Mary could be free of the stain of original sin even though her parents contributed to her the matter that went into making her flesh, why couldn’t Jesus be free of the same original sin despite Mary having sin?

It was possible that Mary could have sinned in another hypothetical “alternate” scenario ordained by God, but God chose that she be sinless, because it was fitting and proper for the Mother of God the Son.

And doesn’t the Spirit of Christ dwell in us who are not sinless?

Indeed. That’s why the Immaculate Conception was not of necessity, but only of fittingness.

kekharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη) [Luke 1:28] does not mean “full of grace.” It means “favored one,” which does not imply sinlessness. You are absolutely wrong on that.

Not everyone agrees about it not meaning “full of grace.” The great Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, citation from Vol. II, 13)

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception. Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears.

Presbyterian Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons]; citation from Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940; citation from Vol. II, 171). And he concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vol. II, 170). All of these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. I go on from these points to construct an entirely biblical argument for Mary’s sinlessness. It goes like this:

The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin. To put it another way:

Grace saves us.

Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

What function then does the doctrine serve, consistent with the NT witness to Mary?

It produces an altogether fitting mother of the incarnate God. I would expect no less from God. It makes perfect sense to me, and nothing in the NT contradicts it.

Related Reading (still unreplied to as of this writing; and Dr. Gagnon was notified in several ways):

Mariolatry in Ubi Primum (1849)? (vs. Dr. Robert Gagnon) [8-24-24]

Jesus Rebuked Mary at Cana? (vs. Dr. Robert Gagnon) [8-24-24]

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Facebook profile picture [link], as of 9-15-24.

Summary: Wide-ranging reply to one of NT scholar Robert Gagnon’s articles, where he simultaneously “attacks” & misunderstands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Anti-Catholicism

Blessed Virgin Mary

Catholic Mariology

Immaculate Conception

Mary & fittingness

Robert Gagnon

sinlessness

Previous Post

September 13, 2024

Treviño Misrepresents My "Peter the Rock" Argument