December 10, 2004
The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Bible
I keep hearing the claim that Mary is “invisible” or “faint” within Scripture, which I disagree with. As we near Christmas, Catholics often think of a woman with God actually within her body. As any parent understands, mothers have an automatic and intimate connection with their newborn children that arises from developing the child for nine months. It is worth considering why God chose Mary to carry Jesus out of all women who had ever lived. No one, I repeat, no one has a more intimate connection with God than Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant that held the Word of God within her human body.
So, we get back to Scripture. I wanted to point out the numerous passages in the Bible that refer to the Mother of God and focus on how she is depicted.
Mary in the Old Testament
Genesis 3:14-15. The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you should go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
This is referred to as the protoevangelium or “first gospel” since it is the first mention of how God will restore the world – through a “woman” and her “seed.” Everyone agrees that the “seed” referred to is Christ, so the “woman” must be Mary. It’s also important to note that God didn’t say “my seed,” even though this would also be true. God chose to refer to Christ as “her seed” and immediately suggests the title “Mother of God” for Mary. Mary is often referred to as “woman” in Scripture (as we shall see), since she is the ideal holy woman: she trusts God so completely she consents to whatever He wishes.
Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.
God included Mary as an inseparable part of the sign he will give to the faithful. We believe that God’s plan for the world was perfect, not good, not great, perfect. Thus, God’s choice of Mary as Jesus’ mother was also a perfect decision made by an all-knowing God. God could have chosen to raise Jesus up from a rock (remember: God can make sons of Moses from a rock, Christ said), but instead He chose to use Mary as an earthly vessel of Christ; she bore Him as He developed His humanity. And God chose to make her an integral part of the sign He gave to His people.
Micah 5:2-3. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel.
This is the tradition prophecy of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. But it’s interesting that Mary is even noted here: she who is in travail.
In addition to these clear references, Mary has often been associated with the Ark of the Covenant, which holds the Word of God. There are many similarities between Luke’s account of Mary’s pregnancy and Old Testament accounts of the Ark of the Covenant.
The New Testament
The New Testament refers to Mary many times. The Gospel of Luke is often referred to as “Mary’s Gospel,” since much of it is the recollections of Mary to St. Luke. It is the only Gospel that details Mary’s side of her pregnancy.
Luke 1:26-31. In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.”
This passage is packed with theological ramifications. First, instead of saying “Mary,” Gabriel replaces her name with “full of grace.” Remember, this is pre-Holy Spirit. Sin exterminates Grace in you. In fact, until baptism (which removes original sin), no one could be full of grace – original sin would have removed the grace they could have had. In other words, Mary was without sin. Otherwise she could have never been full of grace. Does this mean Mary did not need a Savior? No. Mary was human and required salvation. But, since God made His mother, He had the option of doing things a little differently. The Church has always stated that Mary simply received the graces we all receive earlier than most. She was cleared of original sin before conception and freed from sin at the same time.
Mary is the “New Eve.” As Eve was created perfectly without sin and brought death. Mary was created perfectly without sin, but she brought Life through the birth of her Son. As St. Jerome noted, “death through Eve, life through Mary.”
Note also that Gabriel tells Mary she has “found favor with God.” Remember, God chose her to deliver His Son for a reason, because of her holiness.
Luke 1:41-49, 56. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leapt in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord shall come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name . . .” And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home.
The entire first chapter of Luke tends to focus on Mary. First, it’s interesting that when the pregnant Mary arrives, Elizabeth is “filled with the Holy Spirit.” If those around Mary are singularly blessed by God (remember the Holy Spirit doesn’t arrive for most until Acts), how much more so is Mary? Again note that Elizabeth emphasizes that Mary is “blessed” and calls Mary the “mother of my Lord.” Mary also notes that “all generations shall call me blessed,” which involves honor and importance, not just mentioning that Mary is “blessed,” but realizing what that means.
Because there is so much here, I’ll highlight a few points to keep this reasonably brief:
- Luke 2:4-20. Note that Jesus is referred to as Mary’s first born Son (God’s first-born Son would have been accurate as well).
- Matthew 2:10-12. Again Scripture notes that the child was with “Mary his mother.” If you believe Jesus was God, it is not a stretch to say Mary is the “mother of God” – this is a perfectly true statement.
- Luke 2:22-38. Simeon prophecies that Mary’s soul will be pierced by a sword, obviously referring to the crucifixion of her only Son.
- Matthew 2:13-15. Joseph is told to take “the child and his mother” to Egypt. This emphasizes that Mary is repeatedly referred to as Jesus’ mother.
You can also note Mary’s presence in Matthew 1:18-20, Luke 2:51, and Matthew 2:19-20. Once we leave the early years of Christ, Mary continues to have a visible role. In fact, she intercedes to get Jesus to perform His first miracle (something Catholics suggest she continues to do today):
John 2:1-5. On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
This is a fascinating passage for several reasons. First, Mary goes directly to her Son for help when the wine is out. Second, she never doubts that Jesus will fix the problem – she simply turns to the servants and continues on. Third, Jesus seems to be saying that this isn’t necessarily part of God’s plan (“what have you to do with me” is a way of saying that this problem doesn’t involve Jesus or Mary), but as a faithful Son He obeys His mother’s wishes. Mary is often referred to in Scripture as “Woman.” In this particular place, at the start of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Christ is likely using the word “woman” to refer us back to the protoevangelium in Genesis. It should be noted that in Christ’s time “woman” was not a derogatory word – it was similar to “lady” or “ma’am”.
As well, this passage contains the words Mary is always trying to tell us: Do whatever he tells you. Mary always leads us closer to Christ, not away from Him. St. John does something interesting in his gospel, he places Mary at the start of Jesus’ public ministry and at the end:
John 19:25-27. So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Another profound set of verses. First, if Jesus had brothers, this would be a terrible mistake he had made; his brothers would have taken Mary in (see John 20:17-18 for more proof Jesus had no brothers). This is another indication of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Second, John doesn’t name himself, but calls himself the “beloved disciple.” Historically it is believed St. John did this to clarify that the command was to all disciples of God and not just to him. After all, aren’t all disciples “beloved” by Jesus? Of course. Again Jesus uses the term “woman” to refer to His mother.
Next we jump to Acts. Mary didn’t disappear after the Crucifixion – she was actively involved in the infant Church. At the start of Acts (1:12 ff), the Church gathers awaiting the Holy Spirit and Mary is there. In other words, she didn’t sit home at St. John’s house, but actively participated in the life of the Church – here they are gathered together praying. What became of Mary after this?
Revelation 12:1-6. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great read dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
I think we can all agree that the Child is Jesus Christ. So who is the woman that gave birth to Him? It is the Blessed Virgin Mary clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. Like a queen, huh? I would agree that this verse can have alternate meanings, but I think the core, basic meaning is clear: Mary is the “woman” – called such in the first and last book of the Bible. She gave birth to the Christ child and God has prepared a place for her.
Conclusion
A couple of things I think are important to take from this. (1) Scripture is full of references to Mary, the mother of God. (2) She is always treated as “blessed” and given special honor in Scripture. (3) We can learn much from her humble obedience to God.
How do you honor Mary as the specially chosen mother of Jesus? We can start by praying to God for her humility, her obedience, and her faith. Clearly the Bible attests to these.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
"God chose to refer to Christ as her seed and immediately suggests the title Mother of God."
That is where the problem lies. God did not declare this.
Could it be that this passage was a prophecy to be fulfilled. That out of the woman would come a child that would defeat Satan.
Mary was an honorable servant of the Lord. She was obedient. These are characteristics of her displayed in the Bible. However, nowhere in the Bible is the immaculate conception of Mary, no where in the Bible does anyone teach about the importance of Mary. Peter did not teach about praying to Mary or the importance of Mary, nor did any other apostle. Using Genesis to prove the validity of Mary's profound role in Roman Catholicism is fishing at best.
God Bless
Jay,
I think that Mary should be given the honor she is due, nothing more nothing less.
Below is my random thoughts on the subject of Mary for any of your who are interested.
The problem I see with the Catholic Mary is that she tends to cause the faithful to take their eyes off of Christ. For many Catholics, she has replaced Christ in their adoration. We must always guard against placing the created at the center instead of the creator. Isn't this always the way Satan attacks us. The theory that the more one honors Mary the more one honors Christ, is hogwash. There is a point where Mary looms so large in one's mind and thoughts that she eclipses Christ.
Prayers to Mary etc. Is Mary such that she can hear the prayers of all those who pray to her at the same time? Is she omniscient? Is she omnipresent? Can Mary perform miracles or command Christ to do so at her whim? Is she also omnipotent? These are the characteristics of God. To ascribe characteristics of God to creatures is idol worship by its very definition.
On the subject of praying to Mary, The answer I have receive on this blog is that somehow we are really praying through Christ to have Mary pray for us. Or something like this. Why can't we just cut out the middle man? I've heard it said that we should just think of it as asking someone living to pray for us. Except that when we ask someone here on earth to pray for us, there is not a million other people also asking for the same thing of that person. When Christ was teaching his disciples to pray there was no mention of praying to anyone but God. Prayer is mentioned so much in the Bible, the Psalms are pretty much nothing but prayers to God, and yet there is no reference to prayers to the dead, except in some obscure verses in the apocrypha. Why isn't the Rosary (I believe the most important prayer to a Catholic) at least, a prayer directly to God? Do Catholics actually ever pray directly to God or Christ? Or must they always go through another intermediary? Why do they feel that they need yet another layer of people (dead ones) between them and God?
It is clear to me that the early church did not center its existance around Mary. When Paul spoke about humility and obedience in his letter to the Phillippians he did not raise up Mary as the example we should follow. No Paul and the other apostles repeatedly pointed to Christ. In fact in all the letters to the various churches, Mary is not even mentioned once. It seems to me that she had done her role, her part to play, important as it was, had passed. She was to receive honor but nothing more.
I am uncertain about the theology of the Catholic's definition of grace, but I have always been told that grace is receiving something good that one does not deserve. More specifically Grace is God's unmerited favor. "Unmerited" being the key word here. In other words if sin had never entered into the world, God would not had needed to show any of us His grace. Everyone would have achieved God's favor by their own merit. Thus if Mary was sinless, she would have had no need for God's grace. Grace had nothing to do with it. Maybe "full of grace" means here that even though Mary was sinful God gave her an extra measure of His grace in that not only did he save her, but that he used her to bring salvation to the rest of humanity. Like many other "key" verses, I think that Catholics read way too much into it.
In Christ,
Thomas
Jay:
you mention MAry was born without the stain of original sin. That means, she was born without the stain of being of the First Adam, the fallen nature.... In essense, what is being said is that altho "Christ Himself" learned obedience thru the things he suffered, Mary had no need to learn obedience since she had not the stain on her at birth, (the birth into the first Adam) that would cause disobedience.
is that what I am reading, in essense?
Ther is an intricate relationship that goes on. First, we, as christains are all born from above. What is this birth? it is the rebirth.. born from the waters from above.... (not the waters from below)....
We are born of the Holy spirit.. in the old testament, the holy spirit was called the "wisdom of God" even tho many in catholicism say Mary is prefigured as this wisdom or Sophia of God, (the book of wisdom, deutercanonical)...
We have to be VERY CAREFUL however..
Altho Chrsit Himself had two natures reflected in the one man.. (born of woman below... MARY, born from woman above, Holy spirit), MAry is not the Holy Spirit.
Th TWO came together at the time of MAry's conception... (the divine from above overshadowed the woman from below.. MAry), yet, MAry was never the materialization of the Holy Spirit as Chrsit wsa the materialization of the Word....
My concern is that many have "replaced" the Holy Spirit with MAry and have, for all intensive purposes, state indirectly, that MAry and the Holy Spirit are one as Christ and the Word are one and the same...
In places where the spirit is our intercessor, we now have Mary, where we have the spirit's role as mediator, calling us to God, we now have MAry... where we have the woman from above travailing, giving birth to all the spiritual sons, we have now replaced this with MAry. Altho MAry gae birth to Chrsit, it wsa the Holy Spirit's overshadowing MAry that provided the seed... thus, the woman from above and the woman from below...Our birth from above dos NOT come from being birthed thru MAry, it comes by being birthed thru the spirit.... MAry prefigures the Holy Spirit thru her representing the earthly pattern, just as the earthly tabernacle of Moses was NOT the spiritual tabernacle or temple in heaven, (it was a pattern) Mary was patterned after the heavenly woman....
WE have to be very careful of falling too far into using our conclusions as premises for furthur dogma and doctrine... How would you Jay, seperate out MAry and the Holy Spirit? In all the above examples, how is Mary's function different , inique and seperate from taht of the Holy Spirit. can you give me a timeline, a fremework....
What I perceive is this an dstoip me if I am wrong...
That the end all of Mariology is the final declaration tht As Chrsit was teh embodiment of the Word, MAry was the embodiment of the Wisdom of God or the Holy Spirit... MAry's nature wsa both spiritual and human as you can't seperate out the spirit from MAry, (being full of grace).... She wsa born sinles because her nature was not of the first ADAM, she was begotten) and was miraculiously set apart in that end... Thus, the overshadowing of MAry is likened to the overshadowing of Chrsit at his baptism...
This is where I see Mariology leading to in time and many have already done so and believe so.... I cannot say for sure we can cross that line but many have already by applying spirit attributes....
This is where it creates a theological problem....
How about drawing a line down the middle of a pagae and to the left, place MAry as heading, and to the right, place the Holy Spirit. Then, take every single attribute of the spirit, that is unique to the spirit alone from the bible, then take al the atrributes we have assigned in Mariology and place them to the left. I am willing to BET the overlap is proabably over 90%..... When there oght to be none, other than that which we all share in common, with the inidwelling spirit in us..... IS it MAry or is it the spirit in MAry that we all share?
Good question and vague for most to come to grips with.
Carmine
I hope you guys clicked the "Read the rest of" link and read the remainder - It has New and Old Testament citations. At some point I'll examine how the early Church Fathers viewed Mary.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Believe me,I have read the links and I have read previous articles in which you cite Scripture to validate the Marian doctrine. I still don't see the correlation. So I will ask you to demonstrate with Scripture, the following:
1. The Immaculate Conception of Mary. Is this in the Bible or did the Vatican reason this theory out?
2. Prayers to Mary. If the early church is in the Bible...did they ever practice this? Were they ever taught the importance of Mary?
3. Since millions can pray to Mary at once...is she omniscient and omni present? Is this in the Bible.
I'll ask more after you demonstrate with Scripture the following questions.
God Bless
I can answer the last quetion you offered regarding MAry being omniscient, etc.. if many pray to her at once.
The answer is found in understanding bible prphecy.
Most bile prophecy students are "dispensational".. this is a heresy and is very provable from REvelation alone, rquiring no my word against yours.... (I'll leave that for another thread). But in REvelation, it speaks of us ruling with Christ in heavenly places during a so called millenium.
What do you think it means to rule with Christ? IF we rule with Christ, don't out think he will equip you ? HEck, we say he equips us for whatever we do now, how much more, when we are in spiritual heavenly places. Are you saying we are limited in the spirit as we are in the flesh.
The millenium is the two days since the first advent of Christ.. THER IS PLENTY of witness in the bible tht this is so. THe DAy of atonement is already two days., (we are atoned to God thru Chrsit and this dayu has not yet ended.... Since we rule with Christ, then we receive and are equiped to rule.....
I didn't say it, Christ did....
So, youhav eto clear up when you think thi is to come to pass. If you believe it is in some date in the future, then you have many issues that need to be resolved from revealtion alone.. but like I said, that is for another time....
Posted by: carmineb at December 11, 2004 5:52 PMJeff,
I just happened upon your earlier comment, so I'll address:
1) In the Bible. Please read the post where I address this directly (no reason for me to retype it).
2) Mary was still alive at the time. But they did make sure she was included at key points, like when the Holy Spirit came down upon them.
3) Is this a joke? How do all those in heaven know to rejoice when a sinner returns to God? Can they see in our hearts? Maybe, just maybe, Jeff, you should accept that we are likely to have additional faculties once we are in heaven. Do we know the scientific answer to this? No, of course, the Bible doesn't explain how the sun works, either.
I really hope you read the post, Jeff, but these questions suggest you didn't.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
I will make this short. By the way, did anyone catch CNN's special on the 2 Mary's. Interesting points were bought up.
No one is arguing that Mary was the mother of Jesus. However, all the Scripture you quote proves this. However, the passages you refer to fail to show Mary to be sinless or someone to pray to.
AS for your reference to Revelations...you either accept all of it to refer to Mary or it is not Mary. My church teaches that queen in heaven to be Israel. However if you accept it to be Mary, then you have a problem. FOr that woman went through birth pains. The RCC teaches that Mary did not experience birth pangs because she is believed to be sinless. The woman in the Rev. passage you refer to is not a hybrid. So either the whole description applies to Mary or that woman in the Rev. passage is not Mary.
" Mary was still alive at the time. But they did make sure she was included at key points, like when the Holy Spirit came down upon them."
What Scripture are you referring to?
"Is this a joke? How do all those in heaven know to rejoice when a sinner returns to God? Can they see in our hearts? Maybe, just maybe, Jeff, you should accept that we are likely to have additional faculties once we are in heaven. Do we know the scientific answer to this? No, of course, the Bible doesn't explain how the sun works, either."
Jay, I don't know what faculties I will have in my new body, but for now I won't assume. More importantly, Marian doctrine and prayers to Mary is nowhere taught in the Bible. To validate Mary answering the millions of prayers due to "new faculties" given to us in Heaven is just an assumption and is not in Scripture.
When a sinner confesses the name of the Lord, it is an outward expression. However, if it is a prayer of the heart...only God and God alone can ascertain that.
I hope that you did catch that CNN special on the 2 Mary's. It clearly showed why Marian doctrine is dangerous. On this special they clearly show Marian idolatry and worship.
Pilgrimages to sights where there was a crying Mary statue or a vision of Mary. The statues they carried and bowed down to and prayed to.
Despite all of this, you will say that it is not worship.
It sure looked that way.
God Bless
Jeff, your criticism is "naive realism". Many Catholics practice "devotion" to Mary by choice. The Catholic Church recognizes the devotion. But nowhere in the Church are Catholics taught to idolize anyone. Your confusion between the doctrine of devotion and idolotry is a matter of superior critical realism.
If you were to read what the doctrine is on devotion to Mary in the Catholic Catechism, you would realize we are not taught whatever it is you may have found "interesting" on CNN. And I'll bet you will still turn your back on the truth of what you see. Because if you do it to the bible you idolize, (oops, this may be a "false" accusation huh?), you will no doubt do it to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. You criticize without reason.
Want to buy a piece of burnt toast with the image of your bible on it?
Eric.
Posted by: Eric Reyes at December 13, 2004 9:56 AMEric,
Like I've said before, the Catholic Church may not officially support the idolization of Mary, but they certainly don't attempt to stop it when it happens. And by the way it does happen, no matter what you would like to believe otherwise.
Protestants do not pray to the Bible, we do not sing hymns to the Bible, we do not kneal before the Bible, we don't make pilgrimages to the places were we believe the Bible was written, we don't invoke the Bible's name as a mantra that saves, we don't call the Bible another mediator between God and Man, we don't equate the Holy Spirit with the Bible, and we do not ascribe god-like qualities to the Bible. As such, as much as you would like to think that we idolize the Bible, there really is no evidence of this. Unfortunately you cannot say the same for Mary. We can't look into someone's heart to know what they are doing, but it if looks and smells like idolization it probably is.
As to your offer of a Bible on toast, only if it has Mary's image on the flip side and then only if I were Catholic . . . Oh wait that one has already been sold on eBay ;)
By the way, even if all of this Mary stuff is true, why is it even necessary? Isn't Christ all sufficent for our needs? Why does Mary need to be involved?
As a side note. Our church did a Christmas cantata this past Sunday morning. I came away with a new respect for Mary and what she must have gone through. I also went to a Sunday evening service where we baptized several former Catholics and I came away from that with a sense that for all of the Church's good qualities, the Catholic Church does an absolute terrible job at discipling her people. One of the main reasons for her existance.
In Christ,
Thomas
Eric,
Like I've said before, the Catholic Church may not officially support the idolization of Mary, but they certainly don't attempt to stop it when it happens. And by the way it does happen, no matter what you would like to believe otherwise.
Protestants do not pray to the Bible, we do not sing hymns to the Bible, we do not kneal before the Bible, we don't make pilgrimages to the places were we believe the Bible was written, we don't invoke the Bible's name as a mantra that saves, we don't call the Bible another mediator between God and Man, we don't equate the Holy Spirit with the Bible, and we do not ascribe god-like qualities to the Bible. As such, as much as you would like to think that we idolize the Bible, there really is no evidence of this. Unfortunately you cannot say the same for Mary. We can't look into someone's heart to know what they are doing, but it if looks and smells like idolization it probably is.
As to your offer of a Bible on toast, only if it has Mary's image on the flip side and then only if I were Catholic . . . Oh wait that one has already been sold on eBay ;)
By the way, even if all of this Mary stuff is true, why is it even necessary? Isn't Christ all sufficent for our needs? Why does Mary need to be involved?
As a side note. Our church did a Christmas cantata this past Sunday morning. I came away with a new respect for Mary and what she must have gone through. I also went to a Sunday evening service where we baptized several former Catholics and I came away from that with a sense that for all of the Church's good qualities, the Catholic Church does an absolute terrible job at discipling her people. One of the main reasons for her existance.
In Christ,
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
So if I can find someone in your congregation that says abortion is okay, then you're church is failing miserably, right? It would be obvious that they weren't "stopping" this from happening, right?
Frankly, you should judge a church by those members who are actively living out what it teaches. Not by those fringe players who believe whatever they want. The Catholic Church has repeatedly taught that Mary is not to be worshipped and explained her proper place. Can they do more? What would you have them do, Thomas?
If there were Masses held where the "body and blood of Mary" were used, you might have a point. A lot of this discussion is ultimately surrounding our notion of "worship." Prayer, in and of itself, is not worship, it is conversation. Worship is the Mass and the Eucharist. Prayer can become worship, but it isn't always worship, just as singing isn't always worship.
Finally, why do you pray for your friends? Isn't Jesus all that is necessary? Aren't you interceding in some way? Why did God use angels in the Bible? Aren't they unnecessary? What was the point of Jesus speaking to two dead people (even if they were holy) during His transfiguration?
Jesus is the one mediator between God and man, but God has repeatedly chosen to allow other mediators between man and Jesus. For example, when you pray for others you are acting as a mediator. In Revelation when the Saints in heaven pray for us on earth, they are acting as mediators. When God uses Angels to carry messages (see the nativity story) they are acting as mediators. Does God need these Angels? Absolutely not, but in His infinite wisdom, God chooses to use them. So, if you insist that Mary is not necessary, please stop praying for others - you're not necessary in this regard, Thomas, so that makes it error, right?
God bless,
Jay
one last thing to look at, and this is a strong theological line we have to draw.... AS far as MAry goes ans omniscience, protestants say, no , she can't do that for she is not God.
AGREED, she is NOT GOD..
however, by what power do you lay hadns and heal? is it you witht he power OR the spirit in You that is omniscient, (offer words of knowledge), is it the spirit in that intercedes., is it the spirit in you that knows all? AS such, you have to understand that all this is NOT Mary, but the spirit of God worjing thru Mary that gives her the ability for omniscience, etc... it is the intercession of the spirit in her.. When you pray for alnoteher, are yo omniscient or is the spirit in you omniscient? Since you are stil in teh flesh, the flesh is still a veil you have to doeal with, Mary is no longer in the flesh... THAT MEANS she is not"veiled" as we are in the flesh.. THat goes for any saint of God who goes to reside in heavenly places..
MAry's role given her by God is different from your role given to you by God, diffeent parts of the body, yet, still ONE BODY....
WE have to be careful of going too far as some in the RCC do, beyond what the church teaches, but at the same time, we have to be careful of not going far enough and understanding the riches in glory, reigning with him includes.
CArmine
Jay,
Your comment about abortion is a little misleading. The proper analogy would be if a member of my church was a doctor who worked in an abortion clinic, and actively performed abortions, and my church not only allowed it to happen without any ramifications, but owned the building from which the abortion clinic ran. My church had the opportunity to denounce these actions, but did nothing except propagate teachings that made me question if the abortion doctor was in fact in the wrong. I think that at that point your analogy would be right on the money.
When I ask someone to pray for me, I also pray myself. Is that the case for Catholics? I rarely see a prayer that is directed directly to God. I also pray for myself much more than I ask others to pray for me. If all I did was ask someone to pray for me and did nothing more then how can I truly be answered by God?
You also can pick prayer out of the lineup of items I listed and pick it apart, but when viewed in conjunction with everything else it lends one to question.
In Christ,
Thomas
Jay,
As far as praying with friend, that is taught in the Bible. However, and we have been through this before, you cannot find in the Bible where someone on Earth prayed to someone in Heaven for help. You cannot find it at all. We have been through this. In the past you have bought up Samuel as a poor example, you have also claimed that in the apocrypha it was shown, yet even that story you referred to clearly shows in a prior chapter that the prayer was directed to God. You have even claimed the angels with the bowl of prayer was proof. Yet this was challenged by the question was when God's wrath was in a bowl, was it also directed at the angels.
Prayers to those in Heaven was not practiced nor was it taught at all in the Bible. Unless you can show me.
Lastly, Jeff does bring up a valid point with the the woman in Revelations.
Either that is Mary or that is perhaps Israel...as my church also teaches. However if it is Mary, then why the birth pangs? Mary was exempt from this because of her believed sinless nature. I agree, you can't say that part of this is Mary, and yet reject the other descriptions in the same text all so that you can fit a doctrine.
Be blessed
Posted by: Marc at December 13, 2004 6:03 PM"As far as praying with friend, that is taught in the Bible. However, and we have been through this before, you cannot find in the Bible where someone on Earth prayed to someone in Heaven for help. You cannot find it at all." You can't find where the Bible says that once a Christian has gone to Heaven that (1) he can't pray for those still on Earth and (2) that those on Earth cannot ask for the prayers of those in Heaven. Seeing as how it is expected that we pray for one another on Earth, and there is no indication in the Bible that it's to stop after death, Catholics quite naturally conclude that it is to continue. (Besides, the Bible doesn't say that everything has to be in the Bible, either.)
Posted by: ELC at December 14, 2004 3:50 PMMarc (and Jeff),
The Church hasn't taught that Mary did not suffer birth pangs. Sorry. If you insist that those who are sinless do not suffer pain on earth, then you have to assume Christ never suffered pain, which is outright silly. Some early writers considered this a possibility, but it was more a question of virginity (at that time they believed Mary's virginity might be lost through traditional birth - we now know this to be untrue). In addition, God doesn't create birth pain in Genesis, He "greatly multiplies" it.
I don't think it is possible to say the Child in Revelation is Jesus (which everyone agrees) and argue the woman is not Mary! Did she or did she not give birth to Christ? We aren't pagans and we aren't ignorant of the rest of history. The only reason anyone would suggest it isn't Mary is because they don't agree with what Revelations is saying - in other words, "It doesn't fit what I believe, so I'm going to ignore that part." Right?
God bless,
Jay
"In addition, God doesn't create birth pain in Genesis, He "greatly multiplies" it."
Would anguish be caused by multiplied pain?
AS for birth pains, the Catholic church as usual changes the meaning of words and goes beyond what is written.
Pope John Paul II does teach that Mary did not have any labor pains at birth, that they were delayed. Delayed until she was at the foot of the cross. Mind you, the concept of delayed birth pangs is nowhere found in Scripture. It is made up simply to support the Marian doctrine. So what is taught by the Catholic church is that Revelations is not talking about actual birth pangs that occur during birth, but actually they are pangs that occur post partum...33 years later. Rather, they really weren't birth pangs in the sense of pain during delivery but that it was pain of sorrow. So the birth pangs according to Pope John Paul II is really Mary's sorrow. So Jay contrary to your statement, the Catholic Church does teach that Mary did not suffer labor pains.
" If you insist that those who are sinless do not suffer pain on earth, then you have to assume Christ never suffered pain, which is outright silly."
I never insisted on any such thing. I merely pointed out a RCC belief.
How about this quote?
"St. Thomas Aquinas said of Mary:
"Painlessly, and without change in Mary's virgin body, her Son emerged from the tabernacle of her spotless womb, as He was later to emerge from the tomb, without moving the stone or breaking the seal of Pilate." --Summa Theologica, III, Q. 28, a. 2."
As far as the imagery in Revelations 12. Lets look at Genesis 37:9 discussing Joseph's dream.
"Then he had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
This was followed up by the Joseph's father asking whether he(sun), his wife(moon) and the other children(stars) would bow down to Joseph(the 12th star).
From this family you have the 12 tribes of Israel. We go back to Revelations and we see the relationship between the 2 texts. So, from one of the 12 tribes(Judah) is the tribe Jesus is from. Israel went through plenty of suffering(birth pains) before the Messiah had come. Satan did indeed try to devour Jesus be it by tempting our Lord or by operating through Herod and having all males killed for fear of the Lord being born. After the Lord was taken up to heaven...the woman fled into the wilderness.
Jay, when one reads the text in Genesis and compares it to Rev 12, it is not a matter "It doesn't fit what I believe, so I'm going to ignore that part." Simply put, the Bible interprets the woman in Revelations for us. The woman is a symbolic representation of Israel. Not necessarily a queen or a queen in heaven.
In addition, Mary did not flee into the wilderness after Jesus ascended into Heaven.
A quick review:
1. Gen 37 shows the relevance of Rev 12
2. From Israel is Judah which gives rise to Christ.
3. Israel did suffer before the Messiah came.
Despite all of this, there are no instructions to praise this woman in Revelations 12. Assuming that this woman is a queen and ought to be "adored" and prayed to is going beyond what is written.
At my church we are taught that a false teaching won't stand on the Word of God. I am sorry Jay, but you have yet to show me anything solid that teaches that Mary or any other dead saint is to be prayed to. The references you have made so far do not implicitly show us that we can pray to dead saints or seek Mary for prayer. Reasoning that "a believer on Earth doesn't cease to be a believer when they get to Heaven, so that means I can still seek them in prayer" is just assuming. Saying that Mary was born without sin, is creative thinking rather than biblical fact. With all that said. We should all strive to be like Mary.
Mary was obedient and humble. She was a courageous woman who despite the social thinking of her time, was brave enough to still be obedient to the Lord. Finally Mary was a worshipper of the Lord. My church teaches this about Mary.
God Bless
Posted by: Marc at December 14, 2004 8:32 PMThe woman in REvelation is "sion", the new jerusalem, the mother of us all, but in particular it is the Holy Spirit, NOT MARY.
Is is not true to say that Christ was birthed by the overshadowing of the spirit and Mary, TWO got together. Mary didn't do it alone. Thus, two women, which one is the one in REvelation? it is the Holy Spirit... However, MAry is the earthly pattern. Isaiah tells us the following that REvelation speaks of:
Isaiah 66:
------------
7: Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
8: Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
9: Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Zion is the dwelling place of God. it is NOT the jews or israel, it is not Jerusalem, altho on earth, Zion did dwell in Jerusalem for a season.....
CArmine
The woman in REvelation is "sion", the new jerusalem, the mother of us all, but in particular it is the Holy Spirit, NOT MARY.
Is is not true to say that Christ was birthed by the overshadowing of the spirit and Mary, TWO got together. Mary didn't do it alone. Thus, two women, which one is the one in REvelation? it is the Holy Spirit... However, MAry is the earthly pattern. Isaiah tells us the following that REvelation speaks of:
Isaiah 66:
------------
7: Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
8: Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
9: Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Zion is the dwelling place of God. it is NOT the jews or israel, it is not Jerusalem, altho on earth, Zion did dwell in Jerusalem for a season.....
CArmine
I have searched every reference book I have. It took quite a while. I found no indication whatever that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary's deliverance of her Son was painless. In fact, I found no reference whatever to this idea in the half-dozen or so books I consulted. It is, I think, a pious opinion. It might even be a theological consensus. It is not, however, Catholic doctrine. Please don't quote me more popes or saints: being written up by a pope or saint doesn't make it doctrine, thank you very much.
Posted by: ELC at December 17, 2004 11:16 PMELC,
Despite the Pope saying it, it does not make it so, is that what you are saying.
We can ignore all that...but find me this.
FInd for me in the Bible where prayers to Mary are practiced. If you believe that woman in Revelations to be Mary, find for me where we are to worship and/or pray to that woman.
Either way, there is no instruction to do so in Scripture. We can debate on who the woman is and quote various RCC scholars as well as Protestant scholars. But the bottom line is, can you find where there are instructions to pray to Mary? Can you find an example in the Bible of anyone praying to a dead saint or Mary?
If you can find it in the Bible...please do point it out.
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at December 18, 2004 2:50 PMEnjoying the thread. Just a note. Having given birth 4 times I know that pangs and pains can be different things. My third child was pretty much a pain free birth. Looking at the pictures of my face at the time you could tell I what I was doing. There is a lot of pressure and pushing involved. The RCC does not officially teach that Mary did not experience pain though. As Jay pointed out, opinion, even if it comes from the pope, is not Catholic teaching.
Also, for an instance of Mary interceding for us.... Mary was alive at the time, but it was through her intercession that Jesus performed his first miracle . Mary noticed the needs of the people, she requested that Jesus do something about it, and Jesus turned the water into wine. It appears from the passage that he was not inclined to do that originally. I am not saying that Mary coerced him into doing it, but because of her request Jesus did it to honor her. Also, we know that Mary ( certainly sinless in heaven) will not ask for anything outside of the will of God. And those in heaven are not dead. They are more alive than we are. They are the great cloud of witnesses cheering us on. Don’t you think that they are praying too? Don’t you think that we can let them know what to pray about?
My husband and I are currently in the RCIA program at our local parish. Last July my husband left his job as a music pastor at a Baptist church because we discovered the truth of the Catholic Church. I will stick to the interpretations of those who sat under the teaching of the apostles of the apostles. It makes me a little nervous to see all the Protestant doctrines and divisions that have sprung up in the past 500 years. There has to be an absolute truth. I don’t see that absolute truth coming out in any of the many protestant denominations that I have belonged to through the years. I have found it in the solid teaching of the Catholic church. Consistant teaching for 2000 years, but that is getting of the subject. Sorry. :^)
In Christ,
Rachel
I am amazed how you refer to Mary as without sin. My goodness. Look at all of the scripture that say no one is good, not even one. "Mary full of grace" is full of grace because God gave her the grace needed for a human to be able to mother Jesus. Mary was a very honerable woman but she was not without sin. If you believe this then you can't believe any of the Old and New Testiment versus that says all have sinned. The Bible makes it very clear that there is only one mediator between God and man and one who has not sinned, He is Jesus. Not Mary!
Posted by: Dan at May 7, 2005 3:11 PMto learn about the misunderstanding about the verse "all have sinned". I also suggest you read the rest of the page to see more biblical evidence for The Blessed Virgin Mary
Posted by: Hin-Hey at June 1, 2005 5:09 PMIf the pope is the shepherd then wouldnt his opinions be that of an unwaivered faith. would it not be false doctrine to tell children something you believe and not what is left by scripture in Rev.22:17-21 John through an angel of Christ said that whatever you add will be added to you in plague and whatever is taken away will be taken away in your share of the tree of life. Also in heaven mary would be cheering us on but if she knows to cheer us on she knows what to pray about also. Im just a kid but I know enough history to know that America began because of freeodom from the catholic church and where I fellowship began as a break from the Presbyterian musical church and I believe that it is all apart of my Lords, the God of Abraham,Isaac,Jacob,and Jesus, divine plane for his people. The reason for the lose of truth is MEN not the protestant faith. We all want something to follow but instead of following man follow Christ and Christ is the New Testament. If by Christ are we spared from eternal pain through sin(true death) why would I pray to my God through anyone but him. Im pretty sure mother Theresa has a place in Heaven what makes her deeds any less greater than Mary when Christ was with I Am and was I Am before the beginning of time. Rachel you have found many protestant churches but why haven't you found the true body(strength) of Christ where He is the Founder and there are no opinions just doctine from his testiment. 2000 yrs of consistant teaching is great but alot of that teaching could be man made or tradition. Read what my God had to say about that type of teaching in matt15:1-20
Through Christ,
Ed
Ed,
Interesting comments, but you miss quite a bit. Jesus created the Catholic church in Matthew 16:18 - so why aren't you following God in the Church He created?
By the way, you read a Bible that has had parts "taken away" from it - books are missing because Martin Luther decided to remove them. But even your Bible tells us we must also follow the "oral Word," which is Tradition, as well as the "written Word" of Scripture.
I hope you continue reading through the articles on our site, Ed.
God bless,
Jay
Ed, America was founded by Puritans (Calvinists, Presbyterians) fleeing persecution from Anglicans in England. The monarchs of England wanted control over religion and took control of the Church of England. The monarchs were suspicious of Catholics for the allegiance to the Pope and suspicious of Calvinists for their dabbling with democracy.
Neither Catholics nor Calvinists ackowledged the monarch of England as the visible head of Christ's Church in England and they suffered persecution and were accused of treason. Many fled to America with the belief the religious people of all types should be allowed to participate freely and fully in government.
In short the founding of America had little to do with freedom from Rome and everything to do with freedom from Britain.
Posted by: Broken Record at June 21, 2005 11:04 AMAll,
I've got a couple of questions on Mary.
1. In Catholic Theology, why must Mary be sinless? Was it because the Son of God had to be carried in a "clean" vessel? Could she have been sinless during the pregnancy and sinned before and/or thereafter? This would then satisfy protestant (and biblical) objections that "All have sinned." and Catholic objections that Christ be carried in a sinless woman.
2. What historical background is there to the Assumption of Mary? I have read in some Protestant books that Catholics just made that doctrine up in around 1850 without one shread of proof or historical backing.
Just curious.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at July 19, 2005 12:52 PMThomas,
It is not that Mary must have been sinless. As you suggest, it is theoretically possible that she might have been without sin only while she carried Christ. That is what most Orthodox theologians teach (the Orthodox Church has a different understanding of original sin).
In Catholic theology, the issue is simply the appropriateness of Mary's state. It is not necessary that she be sinless, but it is beautiful and appropriate that God would choose a pure vessel in which He would be carried (much like the Ark of the Covenant). The cleansing from original sin was a gift (e.g. Gabriel's greeting "Hail, full of grace").
As to historical basis, the Assumption was formally adopted by the Church in 1854, that is true. However, there is a long history surrounding the doctrine. Catholic Encyclopedia states as follows:
Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation."
Note that some of the Church fathers also made comments indicating that Mary may have sinned when she questioned Christ, or during the crucifixtion. Nonetheless, the greater weight of historical writings testifies to Mary's immaculate conception. As the Church's understanding and conviction of this teaching was refined over the years, it was formally adopted in 1854.
I hope all of this helps.
In Christ,
Dave
Thomas, nice to see you again.
1. As we both know, Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that at least three people entered this world without the stain of original sin (constituting at least 3 exceptions to "all have sinned"). Namely: Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Both Adam and Eve sinned and because of this death entered the world. We also know that Paul calls Jesus the "new Adam". Like Adam, he entered the world without original sin. Unlike Adam, he remained sinless through his life. Genesis 3 contains a promise from God that a woman and her child will vanquish crush the head of the serpent. Catholics and Protestants know this child to be Jesus, the "new Adam". Thus, Catholics believe that the "new Eve" or "the woman" is the mother of the "new Adam". So if based on the promises of Genesis 3, Mary is the "new Eve", then like Eve, she entered the world without original sin. Unlike Eve, she remained sinless through her life. The old Adam bears all the blame for bringing sin into the world yet the old Eve played an important, secondary part. The "new Adam" conquered sin alone yet the "new Eve" played an important, secondary part. So the short answer is that Genesis 3 contains a promise of a woman (sinless because she is enemies with the serpent) who will bear a child that will crush the serpent.
2. The historical belief in the Assumption is an ancient and universal belief of the Catholic Church. It was after 1800 that Popes Infallibly declared that Mary entered the world without sin and was assumed bodily into heaven after she died. While you may believe the doctrine to be false, it certainly is not by any of stretch of the imagination new. What is new is its status as falling under "papal infallibility". The theological basis stems from Mary's sinlessness (see previous point), which then in turn suggests that God will not allow the sinless to experience decay or corruption. In addition, both Catholics and Protestants believe that those who die in the Lord's friendship will one day ascend to heaven just as Our Lord did. Catholics believe that as the "first Christian", Mary ascended to heaven early.
I have some questions for you, Thomas:
1. Does "all have sinned" apply to babies who have just been born? Did it apply to Adam and Eve before the fall?
2. If someone has faith in Jesus, but does not believe in "justification by faith alone", are they justified or not?
3. Did you read my post which responded to your statement "Catholics could shut Protestants up on Sola Scriptura simply by saying the Bible is the sole source of divine revelation and that the Catholic Church has interpreted it correctly."? Namely, Catholics can and do hold such a position and remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
I begin to wonder if there is less division on this issue than people think. After all, who besides Pope John Paul II would have guessed before 1997 that Catholic and Lutherans could come to a mutually acceptable understanding of "Sola Fidei"?
Posted by: Broken Record at July 20, 2005 3:11 PMThomas,
I'll add my initial thoughts and perhaps Joe or Broken can add anything I missed.
First, the reason anything must be true is because it is true. We believe Mary is sinless only because she was, if you follow my direction.
In Catholic theology, when the Angel Gabriel replaced Mary's name with "Full of Grace" we believe he clearly indicated this. Only someone sinless could be full of grace. We simply believe that Mary received all of the gifts we will receive (assuming we go to heaven), earlier than we did.
In the Assumption, again we believe that this is simply true. It is another case of Mary receiving a gift all those in heaven will receive (bodily assumption), only she received it now, rather than at the final judgement. The Church has not stated that Mary did not die, only that she was immediately assumed into heaven. It's valid to note that no where on earth claims to have the body of Mary or even the birthplace of Mary. Relics from Mary would be highly valued, yet there are none.
Tradition, the "Oral Word" St. Paul spoke of teaches us that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. There are others that were also bodily assumed into heaven (Enoch and Elijah). Often doctrines are only defined once someone attempts to teach otherwise (this is even why the doctrine of the Trinity was defined). Thus, the doctrine was only defined plainly in the 1800's.
Remember, when we look at why Mary is special, we can only look to Christ. Jesus glorified her in special ways to point at his divinity and explain what God would have us strive for.
Mary is a tough subject for every protestant looking at the Church.
God bless,
Jay
Just wanted to elaborate on Jay's point about doctrines being defined only after denied.
That is, of course, the usual case both in the Catholic circles and Protestant circles. For example, Evangelical Protestant statements of faith since the 19th century typically include an explicit belief that Jesus Christ will personally return (aka second coming of Christ). Why? Because liberal Protestants started denying this in the 19th century. Protestant did not "start" believing in the second coming of Christ in the 19th century. They clarified matters which were up until then unchallenged.
Same thing with many Catholic teachings, Mary "Mother of God" was always believed but only solemnly defined after bishop Nestorius denied it. When it comes to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, they were universally believed before their solemn proclamations.
The unusual part about these two doctrines is that there was no controversy or doctrinal debate at the time they were defined. The Popes at these two times were simply noticing a truth universally held by all the faithful and declaring it. What this means is that the only two times Papal Infallibility has ever been invoked was to reaffirm what was universally believed by the faithful to begin with.
In precise theological language, these doctrines moved from the third level of Catholic teaching (universally held by the faithful) to the first level of Catholic teaching (solemly defined by the Teaching Authority of the Church).
Thomas, I have a question for you: If Mary is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, does that make Mary the Mother of God?
Posted by: Broken Record at July 21, 2005 11:15 AMDave, Jay and Broken:
Wow I wasn't sure that I was going to get a response and then I get three in a row.
I'll respond to each of you as soon as I can. I don't think that Evangelical Protestants (at least this one) have the same definition of Sin and Grace as Catholics do and maybe that is part of the problem. We are using the same words, but are not speaking the same language.
In Christ,
Thomas
Just to set the record straight:
Immaculate Conception formally defined: 1854
Papal Infallibility formally defined: 1870
Assumption formally formally defined: 1950
Thus the Immaculate Conception definition came before the Papal Infallibility definition but the definition still applies to the Immaculate Conception. In all cases these teachings were already believed by the faithful before the formal definition.
Cardinal Newman has some profound meditations on the role of Mary in the Christian life.
I believe Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 constitute the Scriptural basis for the sinlessness of Mary. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are natural consequences of this concept.
Posted by: Broken Record at July 21, 2005 6:55 PMDave
You first:
I must say that the list of quotes is impressive. I’d like to see some dates attached to the quote as I don’t recognize more than half of the people quoted. (Ie It would carry more weight if the quote were from 150-400 AD as opposed to 1200- 1500 AD.)
You stated “Note that some of the Church fathers also made comments indicating that Mary may have sinned when she questioned Christ, or during the crucifixtion. Nonetheless, the greater weight of historical writings testifies to Mary's immaculate conception. As the Church's understanding and conviction of this teaching was refined over the years, it was formally adopted in 1854.”
What I don’t understand is if Tradition was handed down from the Apostles and taught to the Church, and remains equal in authority to Scripture, then how do we get a divergent view on issues such as this? Did some of the Early Church Fathers miss the day that this was taught in seminary? Or was it more likely various individual didn’t really know for sure what was true, but stated what they thought was true to fit their own formulation of theology? The Church then got together later and said “You know what this guy said makes the most sense to us so we will go with his beliefs on this issue, although we really have no idea whether he’s right or not.”
One other thing you and the others mentioned was that “there is a long history surrounding the doctrine [of the assumption].” However I have yet to see a quote from any of the early church fathers on this. If it is a historical belief surely one of them would have mentioned it somewhere in their writings.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thanks, Broken Record. I mistakenly referenced the Assumption in my post--I meant to say Immaculate Conception (the third Marian Dogma being Perpetual Virginity, formally adopted in the sixth century).
In Christ,
Dave
Broken,
You stated, “As we both know, Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that at least three people entered this world without the stain of original sin (constituting at least 3 exceptions to "all have sinned"). Namely: Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Both Adam and Eve sinned and because of this death entered the world.”
If Adam and Eve sinned then how can they be an exception to the word “All”. Christ being fully God and well as fully man would be naturally excluded from the word “All” due to his divinity. Obviously Paul never intended to say that God had sinned, or that every sentient being has sinned. So the exception for God and thus Jesus is understood. However, you still haven’t given me a good reason why Mary should be excluded from the word “All” except that the Catholic Church and her theology say it must be so. It's funny how Augustine (from the quote from David above) makes a point to excude Mary when talking about sin, but Paul never does. Just an oversight? I don't think so.
You stated, “We also know that Paul calls Jesus the "new Adam". Like Adam, he entered the world without original sin. Unlike Adam, he remained sinless through his life. Genesis 3 contains a promise from God that a woman and her child will vanquish crush the head of the serpent. Catholics and Protestants know this child to be Jesus, the "new Adam". Thus, Catholics believe that the "new Eve" or "the woman" is the mother of the "new Adam". So if based on the promises of Genesis 3, Mary is the "new Eve", then like Eve, she entered the world without original sin. Unlike Eve, she remained sinless through her life. The old Adam bears all the blame for bringing sin into the world yet the old Eve played an important, secondary part. The "new Adam" conquered sin alone yet the "new Eve" played an important, secondary part. So the short answer is that Genesis 3 contains a promise of a woman (sinless because she is enemies with the serpent) who will bear a child that will crush the serpent.”
And yet Paul never mentions a “new Eve”. It was a later invention of the Church. I can see where it is a very appealing idea to have Mary sinless, except for the fact that it goes against the rest of the teachings of Scripture.
You stated, “The historical belief in the Assumption is an ancient and universal belief of the Catholic Church. It was after 1800 that Popes Infallibly declared that Mary entered the world without sin and was assumed bodily into heaven after she died. While you may believe the doctrine to be false, it certainly is not by any of stretch of the imagination new. What is new is its status as falling under "papal infallibility". The theological basis stems from Mary's sinlessness (see previous point), which then in turn suggests that God will not allow the sinless to experience decay or corruption. In addition, both Catholics and Protestants believe that those who die in the Lord's friendship will one day ascend to heaven just as Our Lord did. Catholics believe that as the "first Christian", Mary ascended to heaven early.”
So was she bodily assumed into heaven or not?
To answer your questions:
“Does "all have sinned" apply to babies who have just been born?”
Yes. We are all born with a fallen nature.
“Did it apply to Adam and Eve before the fall?”
No. However they did subsequently sin, and thus sin entered into the world.
“If someone has faith in Jesus, but does not believe in "justification by faith alone", are they justified or not?”
If you believe that you can by some merit (even if you believe that it is only .01% of the reason why you are saved) of your own, achieve or obtain salvation, then you have not accepted God’s free gift, and I believe you are not justified before God.
“Did you read my post which responded to your statement "Catholics could shut Protestants up on Sola Scriptura simply by saying the Bible is the sole source of divine revelation and that the Catholic Church has interpreted it correctly."? Namely, Catholics can and do hold such a position and remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”
First of all I don’t think I said “sole” but “ultimate”. Yes I read your post. How do they get around the whole Tradition as being co-equal with Scripture thing?
You stated, “I begin to wonder if there is less division on this issue than people think. After all, who besides Pope John Paul II would have guessed before 1997 that Catholic and Lutherans could come to a mutually acceptable understanding of "Sola Fidei"?”
From what I’ve heard about modern day Lutherans it doesn’t surprise me that much.
In Christ,
Thomas
P.S. Jay I will address your post when I can.
Posted by: Thomas at July 22, 2005 1:37 PMJay,
You said, “First, the reason anything must be true is because it is true. We believe Mary is sinless only because she was, if you follow my direction.”
I understand your point.
You said, “In Catholic theology, when the Angel Gabriel replaced Mary's name with "Full of Grace" we believe he clearly indicated this. Only someone sinless could be full of grace. We simply believe that Mary received all of the gifts we will receive (assuming we go to heaven), earlier than we did.”
Depends what your definition of “Grace” is. To me one can’t receive Grace unless one has sinned. If one has not sinned then the Grace of God is not needed. This has been said before but I think Catholics stretch this verse to mean and say things that it was never intended to say or mean. If you want to believe that Mary was sinless because that is what Tradition teaches then by all means do so but to use this verse to back that belief seems to me to be dishonest with Scripture and hurts your argument more than helps.
You said, “In the Assumption, again we believe that this is simply true. It is another case of Mary receiving a gift all those in heaven will receive (bodily assumption), only she received it now, rather than at the final judgement. The Church has not stated that Mary did not die, only that she was immediately assumed into heaven.”
So the Church does not teach that she was bodily assumed alive?
You said, “It's valid to note that no where on earth claims to have the body of Mary or even the birthplace of Mary. Relics from Mary would be highly valued, yet there are none.”
It is one thing to say that there is no place that claims to have the body of Mary quite another to make the leap and say she was assumed.
You stated, “Tradition, the "Oral Word" St. Paul spoke of teaches us that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. There are others that were also bodily assumed into heaven (Enoch and Elijah).”
I agree that God can bodily assume someone into heaven. I just haven’t seen any proof of this belief about Mary before 1800’s.
You said, “Often doctrines are only defined once someone attempts to teach otherwise (this is even why the doctrine of the Trinity was defined). Thus, the doctrine was only defined plainly in the 1800's.”
It is one thing to define an issue by the Church, it is another to have no proof that the early church believed this.
You said, “Remember, when we look at why Mary is special, we can only look to Christ. Jesus glorified her in special ways to point at his divinity and explain what God would have us strive for.”
The problem is that Catholics have a tendency to not look at Christ, but look exclusively at Mary.
For example I copied this prayer from a post on the Curt Jester:
O, most beautiful flower of Mount Carmel,
Fruit of the Vine, splendorous of Heaven.
Blessed Mother of the Son of God,
Immaculate Virgin,
assist me in this my necessity.
O, Star of the Sea, help me
and show herein you are my mother.
O, Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and earth,
I humbly beseech you from the bottom of my heart
to succour me in my necessity.
There are none that can withstand your power,
O, show me here you are my mother.
O, Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
Sweet Mother, I place this cause in your hands.
Amen.
This prayer gives this Protestant chills, and they are not the good kind. Did you see any mention of Christ in there anywhere? If I didn’t know better I would swear that this is a prayer to the divine.
You said, “Mary is a tough subject for every protestant looking at the Church.”
Boy you got that right.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
Let me start with the Catholic definition of Grace:
CCC 1996. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
Even Mary required Grace, it would have been impossible for her, a mere human, to be sinless without it. As the Catechism also explains it "Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life" (CCC 411).
Sin drives grace out of our souls - including original sin. Which is the purpose of baptism: to cleanse us from original sin and restore us in grace. But for Mary to be "full of Grace" (note that the Angel used this instead of her name, suggesting that she was uniquely able to carry this title), she could not have had any sin on her soul. As Broken indicated above, Genesis also suggests that Mary was sinless, but it is a more nuanced, subtle argument.
The Church has not defined whether Mary died or not before her Assuption - most that I have read argue that Mary did die first, as the sinless Christ did. Also note that the lack of a grave isn't the proof that she was Assumed (Tradition is the proof), it just also agrees with the argument (we have the bodies of all of the apostles (I believe) and we know where Christ was buried).
I just read an excellent explanation of how the Saints really give Jesus honor, rather than take it away. The explanation started with a King's Court full of dukes, knights, etc. Each of these men are special in their own right, and should be recognized as such. However, ultimately they owe their position, place, and even honor to the King, who put them there and whose position keeps them there. When we ask friends to pray for us, we aren't dishonoring God or lessening his role. This is the same with the Saints. We recognize their acheivements and their holiness and we ask for their assistance (through prayer) to help us. They help us through asking God that we be helped. In other words, without Jesus that prayer would never have been written and would never be said. The mere fact that it exists is a testament to God that He could create a human woman who gave her assent to bear the Christ Child. And thus we ask this holy woman to pray for us (who better to ask for a King's favor than the mother of the King?).
Hope this helps.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Does Mary possess supernatural powers? I point to the line in the prayer above which says:
"There are none who can withstand your power."
I assume that also means God himself.
All hail the omnipotent Mary!
Not only is she omnipotent, but also all knowing, all wise, and even perfectly sinless.
If within the next couple of hundred years Mary is not "discovered" to be a part of the Godhead in Catholic theology, it really will be a miracle.
Really, what godly characteristics does she lack?
In Christ,
Thomas
That depends, Thomas. Would you consider the ability to change reality through prayer as "supernatural"? I would.
Don't worry about the rest of your post, Thomas. If Mary is made a deity, then we know that both Jesus was a liar and the Bible is false. After all, Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 that His Church would be protected. And 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
I think it's far more likely that in the next 50 years protestant churches will accept abortion, euthansia, homosexuality, and more as morally okay. After all, they've already accepted contraception and divorce (which clearly leads one to believe that they were not the church referred to in 1 Tim 3:15 - of course, Paul was referring to a church that existed before the 1600's).
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Sorry that degenerated into a bad post. I don't want to go back to the old "what is the defintion of church" argument again. Its just that that prayer, as with most Catholic prayers to Mary, really causes me some concern, as it should you. It's not talking about supernatural miracles, but being all powerful. That's some pretty scarry stuff.
Would you agree that that borders on heresy? (To me its out and out heresy, but what do I know. I'm not the infallible interpreter.)
All,
I'm still waiting on a historical referrence to the assumption of Mary, being that Catholic theology is steeped in history and all.
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas wrote:
If you believe that you can by some merit (even if you believe that it is only .01% of the reason why you are saved) of your own, achieve or obtain salvation, then you have not accepted God’s free gift, and I believe you are not justified before God.
Just wanted to set the record straight on this point because it is a very common misconception. The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that by some merit of our own we can achieve, earn, or deserve salvation. The Roman Catholic Church has, contrary to popular belief, declared this attitude a grave sin against the Holy Spirit and calls it the "sin of presumption".
What the Roman Catholic Church DOES teach is that believers retain the freedom to, by their word and deed, reject God's free gift of Grace and thus end up eternally damned.
Protestants themselves are divided on this issue which they call "the Assurance of Salvation" or the "Perseverance of the Saints". Calvinists, Evangelicals, and Universalists believe salvation cannot be lost and disagree with Methodists, Wesleyans, and Arminians who of course believe that salvation can be lost.
What I would like to know is how SandT can pronounce Evangelicals and Methodists to be "identical" when they disagree on this issue while at the same time you say this question is sufficiently important so as to cause anyone who disagrees with you (because they read Luke 25 or the book of James) eternally damned for never having initially accepted God's grace.
If someone comes to you worried and distraught that despite their faith in the Lord, they shudder and fear that they may hear the Lord say "away from me! I never knew you!", what would you do?
Would you tell them that their doubt means they are trying to earn their salvation and therefor never accepted God's free gift and thus were never saved to begin with?
Thus I repeat the question, after having clarified Church teaching, what is the status of someone who has faith in Jesus, does not believe they can earn deserve or merit salvation, but rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone?
What I am getting at is that many Protestants are highly unwilling to say that one can reject the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" without rejecting their salvation. But this is what "justification by faith alone" implies, namely only a lifetime lack of faith in Jesus can lead to damnation. And thus, erring on the issue of "justification by faith alone" cannot lead to damnation. Or are you justified not by faith in Jesus but by faith in the doctrine of justification by faith alone?
Posted by: Broken Record at July 27, 2005 3:21 PMRichard,
I wouldn’t get too caught up in whether one believes in “the doctrine of salvation by faith alone” or not. One is saved by accepting in faith, Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. This is a twofold consideration really. First, Christ has done all the work necessary to save the lost. There is no work, merit or ritual that needs to be done on our part in order to be saved. (including baptism) Any effort on our part to reach God, God considers filthy rags. Where the boat analogy, that was put forward elsewhere on this site, breaks down is that we in the sea are not reaching for the boat. We are not even dog paddling within arms reach of the boat. No, we instead are at the bottom of the sea completely drowned and dead. We are dead in our sins. Dead men don’t swim and they certainly don’t reach. It is only by God’s grace and his help that we even have the ability to have faith in Christ. Left on our own there is no hope. The good news is that God did not leave us to our fate, but reach down and pulled us off the bottom and laid us on the boat and breathed new life into us. Yes in a sense, all one must do is believe on Christ and accept the free gift of salvation and one is saved, but we are only able to do even this much by the grace of God. Thus Christ is SAVIOR in every sense of the word, for we contribute nothing. Second, this saving faith that God grants to us means that Christ is now and forever more Lord of your life. How do we know if Christ is Lord of our lives? We ask ourselves these questions: Are we progressing down the path of being more and more Christ-like in our daily lives? In other words are we producing spiritual fruit in our lives? Is our relationship with and knowledge of God growing? Not that we need to be perfect, for we are still human and we will still sin and fall short, nor is there anything that you can accomplish definitively where you can say “I’ve made it”, but if you can take an honest assessment of your life and see progress in these areas there should be no fear of condemnation. This is how we know if we are truly saved. Thus good works are not the thing that saves us, nor do bad works condemn us, but they are only the evidence of the actual state of our souls. Thus Christ should be LORD in every sense of the word.
The problem with the rituals/sacraments of the Church is not that they are bad in and of themselves, for they can and often do place a person in the way of Holy Spirit’s transforming power. The problem is that they have a tendency to create “boundary marker spirituality”. The thinking that if I do these certain things, if I don’t cross over these boundaries, then I will be right before God. For example I can live life the way I want to live it, I can keep my heart hidden away from God and if I am baptized, I go to Mass, I go to confession, I say the Rosary etc etc, then I will still be right before God. Unfortunately, I think that this type of thinking has been institutionalized by the teaching of the Church. Jesus preached continuously against this type of spirituality. The Pharisees prayed, fasted and kept the Sabbath. All that was required by the law. These things are very good things that can lead one to a true relationship with God, but the Pharisees set these things up as a checklist to accomplish to get in good with God, when their very hearts were far from Him. God wants our hearts more than our sacrifices or rituals. These things kept in their proper perspective can be a great tool to reach out to God’s transforming power, but if used as the means to an end, they can create spiritual deadness, which is what I believe we see throughout much of the Catholic Church. I think that this is why people look at the Church and say that it promotes the belief that one is saved by faith plus works.
What would I say to someone who has faith in Christ, but is concerned over their salvation? It’s not necessarily about whether one believes in this doctrine or that. It’s not that easy. I would tell them to go home and take a look at the course of their life, and see if they are a different person now than they have been, see if they have a closer personal walk with Christ then they did, see if they are exhibiting the spiritual characteristics of Christ more so then they have in the past. Are you more humble, selfless, patient, and kind? Are you more gentle, long suffering, and poor in spirit? Are you even more aware of your own spiritual bankruptcy outside of Christ than when you first started the journey? Are you more thankful and grateful for what Christ has done for you? Are you more joyful, loving and meek? Do you have a more intimate friendship with your Lord and Creator? If so this is a good clue that you are producing fruit and have been in fact saved, if not then you need to really take a hard look at whether Christ is indeed Lord over your life and you are saved. We should not ask these questions flippantly, but with fear and trembling, for the answer may very well reveal the state of our hearts and our souls. However, these things, or the lack thereof, do not create the state of our hearts and souls, they merely reflect what is already there.
What I would not do is tell them that they should go to mass, confession and/or say a "Hail Mary" and that afterward they will be ok before God, because they very well may not.
If what I have described to you is the doctrine of Sola Fides then I guess I believe it, if not then I guess I don’t.
I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at July 29, 2005 1:48 AMThomas,
If we contribute nothing, then why do you insist that we must have faith? Is that not a contribution?
In Christ,
Dave
Dave:
I don't insist anything. God insists.
"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Romans 3:22
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." Romans 5:1-2
Why is faith necessary when we contribute nothing? I don't know, but I would guess that it is because it somehow brings Him glory.
"It does not depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh; 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?' But who are you to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, chosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for descruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom he prapared in advnce for glory . . ." Romans 9:16-23
Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at August 1, 2005 12:48 PMI take then that you are a Calvinist? In other words, you believe that God has already decided who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and nothing we do will make any difference as to our ultimate destiny?
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
I'm merely quoting Scripture.
So let's not stoop to labels. That's too easy. I think that we assume that we can put God into a box and have everything figured out. Except for the fact that God's ways are as higher than our ways as the earth is from the heavens. Right now we are looking through a glass darkly . . .
What do you think that the above Scripture means?
In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
I didn't "stoop to labels". I explained what I meant by that term, and was hoping you would give me a direct answer so that I could know how to respond.
I think several things about the above-passage. First, it is unique in all of Scripture for the point that Calvinists use it. That is a red flag as usually (but not always) Scriptural doctrines can be found in multiple passages. Second, I note that in the surrounding chapters, Paul was specifically speaking about God's election of the Jews, not individual salvation. Third, Paul states that Pharoah was "raised up" for that purpose. I think this means that God, knowing in advance that Pharoah would reject Him, placed him in a position of power show that God's election of the Jewish people might be shown in an awesome and glorious manner.
Although I can see how the idea could be developed from this passage that God alone makes the decision of who goes up and down, no other passage in Scripture gives that impression. Moreover, there are numerous passages that say just the opposite. I can list them if you like, but I assume you know most of them already. Peter's comment that God wills that all should come to repentance is particularly apt.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
We probably should switch this over to the post on the discussion of free will and election. This originally started with a couple of questions about Mary from me, only one of which was adequately answered. Broken then asked a question, which I hoped would come back around to the issue of Mary, but it has not.
With that said let's continue this discussion . . .
A man is both fully God and fully man.
God is three persons, but only one in being. (I think I stated that right. Don't brand me a heretic if I didn't. ;) )
Neither of these statements can be fully grasp by the finite mind, but they are nonetheless true.
As are both of these passages:
"For He chose us in Him before the foundations of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight." Eph 1:4
"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
The first passage proves a couple of things:
1. That your statement that Romans 9:16-23 is unique is not true. These types of passages are found throughout Scripture, especially in Paul's writings. (Maybe Paul was a Calvinist.) For every “free will” passage that you could mention, I bet I could find a “predestination” passage.
2. That in a very real sense God predestined, we who are Christians, from before the foundations of the world.
The second passage tells us something as well:
That it is God's desire that everyone should believe and come to salvation.
Huh????
Just like we can't fully comprehend who Christ is, or who God is, we can't fully comprehend how we can both have free will and be predestined at the same time.
To our finite mind it has to be one or the other, but that's just it, we have a finite mind. We cannot begin to explain God nor explain His ways, and that's what this exercise in futility comes down to, finite man attempting to grasp the full nature of the infinite God. It can't be done . . . I shouldn't say that . . . maybe it will be explained by persons who are more intelligent than you or I. However, I'm afraid that Augustine is dead, and I don't see his like walking the earth anymore. I’m not even entirely convinced that Paul, who was writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit, understood what he was writing.
By the way if you can't already tell, I'm not a Calvinists any more than I am an Armenian. So I won’t get into this useless debate with you as to which is the right view. If you want to label me, you can call me a Calmenian.
What I want to know is why Broken asked the question in the first place, and was he satisfied by my answer?
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at August 3, 2005 11:43 PMThomas, the reason for the question is that I am coming to think that what fundamentally underlies the Free Will / predestination issue, the can you lose your salvation issue, and the sinlessness of Mary issue is this: Catholics and Protestants have a radically different idea of what grace is.
Protestants define grace as God's unmerited favor. Catholics believe that grace is unmerited and that it gives people the power to lead upright and holy lives. So when Catholics and Protestants both say they believe in salvation by grace alone, they mean very different things.
Let us take these differing definitions and apply them to free will / predestination. Catholics believe that grace empowers us to act rightly and so when people do not act rightly, they reject God's grace partially (venial sin) or totally (mortal sin) and risk hell-fire. This means that we have been given the free will to reject God and that we can do this even after "conversion" and so can lose salvation. If one takes the "unmerited favor" definition then the Calvinist idea of "irresistable grace" and the Evangelical idea of "assurance of salvation" makes sense as God's grace cannot be rejected by anyone in Calvinist theology and cannot be rejected any believer in Evagelical teaching.
Now let us turn to Mary, "full of grace" - charitao in Greek (charis = grace). If grace empowers us to overcome sin, then one full of grace is completely without sin. Sinlessness is God's free gift to those who accept God's grace, sin is what happens when people reject God's grace. For to sin would be a rejection of God's grace and so the Angel Gabriel would never call a sinful person "full of grace". With the Protestant definition of only "unmerited favor", however, the term "full of grace" has no bearing on sinlessness.
I apologize if I phrased my earlier questions poorly. Perhaps it is clearer if I speculate that debate on free will, assurance of salvation, and the sinlessness of Mary all have their root cause in a differing understanding of what grace, hence "full of grace", and more importantly "saved by grace alone" means.
Posted by: Broken Record at August 5, 2005 3:28 PMJay,
You seem not to know what you are talking about...EVER. You can't prove anything you ever say, including when you are talking to kids, for example, your June 21 2005 Entry to Ed. I also am just a kid, yet I can grasp all of these things. Jesus did not create the Catholic Church, because he wanted us to follow his commandments, not discard the ones we dislike and keep the ones that suit us. Second, that is why we should not be calling Mary blessed, or Holy, because she isn't. I have nothing against her, i just can't see why you can't just pray through Jesus and ONLY Jesus. No saints, because the people you so call saints weren't chosen by God, but by Popes. If you say all your popes are chosen by God and speak for God, then why wouldn't what they say, or what the saints say, be doctrine. I'll tell you why. It's because the Catholics have chosen these people, not God. So she was chosen to give birth to Jesus, does that make her a holy person, sinless, and equal to Jesus? Does that make her worthy of praise? Should we say "Hail Mary" to her every chance we get? Is she our God now?! She is not the mother of God because God is the beginning and the end, he wasn't born, he was already here! She can't hear your prayers, she's dead, and wont have a chance to come back until Jesus does from heaven. She is not omniscient. Think about that while i read Leviticus 11 and recall how much of the unclean food Catholics CHOOSE to eat.
Good luck!
David
Let me start by saying I think—if we all back up for a second—we can agree that it is a blessing that we are debating such a topic as the meaning of God’s word—and not, for instance, if (insert Hollywood actress here) looked better in her dress at the Golden Globes awards or the SAG awards. So, I think we can agree we at least are participating in achieving a greater understanding of The Word driven by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Let’s not lose sight of this, because it’s an important point in the grand scheme of things. In other words, WE (all Christians) have “already decided” (meaning have had the Grace of God work in us already) on the most important issue of them all – if Jesus is our Savior—and all the following issues are of little importance. Now, they are extremely important. But, just like comparing the goodness of God to any goodness we display, these issues are immeasurably minuscule compared to the primary issue. But let us move on.
Personally, I was baptized, confirmed and married (fairly young at that) in a Roman Catholic Church. The great majority of my family and friends is Catholic. Further, I’m a graduate student at Boston College, one of the oldest Catholic Universities in the country. That being said, I recently converted to Methodism. The reasons transcend this already on-going discussion, thus I feel compelled to add “my two cents”.
I strongly believe in a few things that I want to point out. The first, and in context of this discussion, the foremost, is that I believe a faithful Christian is a faithful Christian (A “faithful” Christian defined as any person who truly recognizes we all are sinners and truly believes in the death and resurrection of our Savior Jesus the Christ). Now I don’t want to or feel the need to get into what happens to the souls of the people who didn’t receive the message of the gospel for whatever reason (Acts 15:11). But for the sake of this discussion, we are all saved immediately (Acts 13:38-40, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, John 11:25-26, 2 Timothy 1:9). The second truth is God loves everyone equally, His love is immutable, and He wants above all things for everyone to receive His grace (1 Timothy 2:4). The third truth is we must use our human reasoning and will, guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand the Word of God.
I will try to clearly intertwine the first and third truth in the context of the debated issues on this board. On my first point, of course “grace” and “free will” are understood differently in the Catholic and Protestant Churches. I think we would have a hard time finding someone immersed in this issue to disagree. Let us look at grace first. I would disagree with the Protestant view that Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Gratia”. (sidebar: when I say “Catholics” and “Protestants” I am speaking about the majority of parishioners and church-members, respectively, and from my own experience). While some certainly believe they must need to confess their sins to a Priest (by the way, so do we, but of course I defer to 1 Timothy 2:5), true Catholics believe that they are saved not by their own merit but through the sacrifice of Christ. We don’t have time/space to get into all the official Vatican language, etc., but Catholics believe that good works and the sacraments occur during the on-going process of “Justification”. Of course, the initial salvation issue comes up again. But we Protestants believe in spiritual maturation and many link this with the volumetric increase of the Holy Spirit in our hearts (for lack of better words). Now, the point that we (as Protestants) believe in immediate salvation upon accepting Christ as our Savior, that we only lose if we lose our faith (2 Timothy 4:7-8), should not be lost. But what should also not be lost is these two processes are all in all not that different. That is, we (as Protestants and Catholics) agree more than we allow ourselves to admit, and I attribute the lack of recognition of this to the “bad” qualities we carry as humans, but that issue is not for now.
Now free will…. let me preface this by saying I think this is the HARDEST issue for us to understand. I really do. I think it is and will remain outside our ability to reason, and way too deep to dive into here. This may simply be one truth that is revealed to us by God after we pass on. But, overall, there is something we can say to help reconcile the Catholic and Protestant views, that may shed some light on this issue, and all other issues, that is a direct extension of my third belief. Now, I don’t have a Ph.D. in Theology, or a Master’s of Divinity. I am a scientist. My doctoral work is a world away that in no way qualifies me for understanding The Word. But, and this is a huge “But”, I am no more or less qualified to understand The Word than the guy I got coffee from the other day, or the Pastor at my Church, or the Pope, or any of the inmates at the closest prison from Boston, or the girl who lives next to me, or the elderly people at the retirement house behind me, etc, etc,. This is a very important point. Our understanding comes from our individual and honest ability to reason delivered by God through the Holy Spirit. One of the ramifications of this is we all can contribute equally and uniquely to this discussion. However, one of the ramifications of this is we all can contribute equally and uniquely to this discussion. (That is for those of us who at times think we may have all the answers). And that is a perfect segway to my next point. When all the Truth is revealed to us, I am willing to bet Catholics and Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists, etc., are all gonna have a little bit of the understanding on some of these issues and a great deal of misunderstanding on some of these (and not just these issues, homosexuality, Mary as a virgin, stem cell research, etc, etc, but again, this is for another time). And if we combine all the understandings that the different Christian groups have and combine in into one, it is still going to be very, very short of the total Truth. And I think if you think you or your Christian affiliation has it all right, that is an extremely troubling position.
I would like to make two more points on the Catholic v. Protestant viewpoints. The first, deals with the Saints and Mary mother of God issue. TO ALL PROTESTANTS. Catholics do NOT, do NOT, (one more time, do NOT, worship any saint or the Virgin Mary. If you insist on this than it is solely out of ignorance and you have gone from being misinformed to consciously not accepting the truth. Yes, most Catholics believe because of their enormous faith in God that Mary and the saints have a special place in heaven (Matthew 5:16, Luke 1:42-45), in which they can “intercede” both in Heaven and on Earth. But if you believe they do intercede, they intercede always in the name of God, and when Catholics pray to them it is ALWAYS to pray to God on their behalf. Now, I agree that the biblical Truth (in which all Truth is found) is not solid concerning praying to Jesus indirectly. However, a point we must make with our human logic is if God knows all that is and will be, as He does, why didn’t He provide further clarification on the issue (John 12:50). I suspect it is because God believes (like the Catholics are saying on this board and outside of it) that the prayers (the most notorious being the “Hail Mary”) is a direct worship of God through glorifying his Son and it is a prayer directed ultimately to God (“pray for us sinners”). How anyone can say this is a form of idolatry, to me, is not from an honest analysis using logic driven by the Holy Spirit. Again, I think it is thinking corrupted with human motives and impurities. And, by the way, if you don’t believe in the interceding powers of Mary or any of the saints, then let’s not forget you have to believe that every single person who said they saw or had an apparition with Mary is lying (e.g. 70,000 people at Fatima, and a great number of other examples). Many of these people were Christians. Think about that implication for a minute. My second point has to do with 1 John 16:19 and is tied directly into the different interpretation of Grace. I have seen this scripture come up supporting the Catholic view on “mortal sin”. Firstly (see below) the biblical evidence supporting immediate and permanent salvation through Faith is overwhelming (John 3:16, John 5:24. John 11:25, Romans 3:22, Romans 4:5, Romans 5:1, Hebrews 9:28, Acts 13:38-40, 1 Peter 8-9). Secondly, outside of this, if you honestly believe God will desert you after accepting his Son as Savior due to sin is a viewpoint that is out of necessity indicates a lack of trust in God’s Love. As the Christian writer Brennan Manning in his brilliant book, “Ruthless Trust”, points out, this is probably the attribute that most-clearly defines the most spiritually mature and faithful Christian. Ironically enough, this quality was most evident in the trust of Mary Mother of God. As Tom (E.T.) Wright points out in his doctrine on justification, “the tragedy of the situation is that there must have been countless Christians down the years in all churchs who really did believe in Jesus Christ as their risen Lord but who failed in this life to enjoy the assurance of salvation which was theirs for the taking, because they were never told that believers are declared “righteous’ in the present because of the death of God’s son.”
My final point is this (and I thank anybody who is still reading this). I think when there are issues that we as humans are having trouble elucidating (i.e. issues that true Christians cannot agree after study of God’s Word (sidebar 2: please don’t make the argument, if you’re a fellow Protestant, that Catholics don’t use the Bible as the source of their truth – some of the most in-depth analysis over the years has been from Catholic scholars. An example of many is the interpretation of John 13:13 in light of 1 John 5:15). So, what I feel is the truest code of conduct, if you will, is to take the scripture verses that after considering the entire content of God’s Word, cannot be debated in any way by any logical and honest human reasoning (now, I realize no verse can be debated as they are the very definition of truth, if we had optimal understanding, and if you can’t get past this then you should probably re-read this post because it would indicate your missing the entirety of my point). The list is too comprehensive, but here are some very important scriptures (sorry, New Century Version) and their quick implications. I appreciate you guys sticking with me for this long and think this board is truly a blessing. It is my hope in my lifetime that the Christian churches can have a better understanding (and a greater humility) and realize that the issues separating us are not as severe as we make them, there is truth in many of them on “both sides of the fence”, and it is God’s will for us to love one another as Christian brothers and sisters as we, above all callings except our personal faith, are ordered to do.
1) John 14: 6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” Conclusion: This means that without doubt Jesus Christ is the lone way back to God and our salvation. Both Protestants and Catholics believe this.
2) Romans 3:22-23 (there are many others that could be used here). God makes people right with himself through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is true of all who believe in Christ, because all people are the same. Conclusion: If you believe the Bible is true, you must believe (again, with the honest logic) that it is through faith alone we are saved.
3) Romans 4:5 But people cannot do any work that will make them right with God. So they must trust in him, who makes even evil people right in his sight. Conclusion: Trust in God’s Love (through faith in Christ), and this is how we are made right, independent of works.
4) Matthew 5:19 Whoever refuses to obey any command and teaches other people not to obey that command will be the least important in the kingdom of heaven. (emphasis added). Conclusion: This to me is one of the most intriguing verses in the Bible. There can be many conclusions here, but for the same of this posting, it is this. Let’s take the most extreme example. Let’s say there is a hitman who kills for a living; yet he has sincere faith in Christ as his Savior (you may be asking, “how can someone with true faith kill for a living?”) The answer to that is well-beyond my scope of understanding at this time). But