Against the Immaculate Conception

Catholics have often proposed that Mary was immaculately conceived. This doctrine is wrong, but I feel as though many who speak out against the doctrine rely primarily on strawmen. So I am writing this post against the doctrine.

Now, if Mary was immaculately conceived, as many say, then it necessarily follows that she was born without original sin (I know that some people deny the doctrine of original sin, including myself, but for the sake of this post, let us assume that the doctrine of original sin is correct).

I shall argue against the Immaculate Conception on two points: one, it denies the humanity of Mary; two, it denies that Jesus is our Savior.

Now, on the first point, the nature of all humans is necessarily fallen. Because Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, going against the will of God, all have fallen short of the glory of God. In other words, the fallen nature of man is inherent in existing. If one is without the fallen nature, then they are not, by definition, a human. Therefore, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception elevates Mary above humanity.

Concerning the second point: if Jesus never inherited a fallen nature, then He could not be our Savior. For, as the Bible says, the one who knew no sin was made to become sin itself, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. And, furthermore, Jesus has became a curse for us, liberating us from the ministry of death, for a hanged man is cursed by God; cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree. Now, while saying these things, it is important to note that Jesus Himself never sinned--to say so would be a most blasphemous and sacrilegious thought. But, as Gregory of Nyssa has said, "[a]lthough Christ took our filth upon Himself, nevertheless He is not Himself defiled by the pollution, but in His own self He cleanses the filth, for it says, the light shone in the darkness, but the darkness did not overpower it." Jesus cannot redeem our fallen nature, unless He takes the fallen nature upon Himself; because our fallen nature condemns us as believers, we need a Savior who Himself had a fallen nature. For "that which is unassumed is unhealed." And although I say that He assumed a fallen nature, it is clear that He did not assume a nature of sin, except that He became sin at the Cross. In order for Jesus's Incarnation to be meaningful, and in order for His crucifixion to have salvific value, He needed to be like us, His brothers, in every respect (and, again, when "every respect" is said, it is clear that our sinfulness is excepted). For only after He became like us in every respect was He able to make propitiation for our sins--that is, to make peace by the blood of the Cross.