Last week I started a parallel series to my series on Romanism and Ales Rarus. In this series, I’m comparing what the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) says about Mary to what the Bible says about her.

A Reply From Anonymous

Before I get back to the comparison, Ales Rarus has posted a reply from an anonymous writer.

1. Ed’s first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she’s no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ’s life.

That’s a fair summary, with one exception…

In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17.

Yes, God did make promises to Abraham. But Abraham did not live to see them fulfilled.

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

(Heb. 11:13, NASB)

In fact, in the biggest test of his life, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac — which would have ended the promised descendents via Isaac — without giving him any new promises.

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

(Gen. 22:1-2, NASB)

Yet Abraham’s faith was so strong that he obeyed God without question.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

(Heb. 11:17-19, NIV)

Anonymous continued with:

But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will.

On the contrary, Mary received a promise very similar to the one Abraham received in Genesis 17:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.”

(Luke 1:31-33, NASB)

In general, I think Anonymous missed the main point. The CCC teaches that Mary’s faith is superior to Abraham’s. Yet the Bible praises Abraham’s faith as being superior (Hebrews 11:11–19) but says very little about Mary’s faith.

Success? Or Failure?

And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that “you yourself a sword will pierce,” Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites.

What are doubts, if not weak faith?

And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NASB)

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NIV)

In some translations, “unbelief” is translated as “lack of faith” because the greek word απιστια (apistia) means both. From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

2. want of faith, unbelief: shown in withholding belief in the divine power, Mark 16:14, or in the power and promises of God, Rom. 4:20; Heb. 3:19; in the divine mission of Jesus, Matt. 13:58; Mark 6:6; by opposition to the gospel, 1 Tim. 1:13; with the added notion of obstinacy, Rom. 11:20, 23; Heb. 3:12. contextually, weakness of faith: Matt. 17:20 (where L T Tr WH oligopistian); Mark 9:24. (In Greek writings from Hesiod and Herodotus down.)*

Emphasis mine

If I had acted as Mary did — going with Jesus’ brothers to help bring Him home because they thought he was out of His mind — I would not consider that a high point of faith in my life especially when Jesus said, in essence, that they were not His mother and brothers because they were not doing “God’s Will.” Remember, this woman was told by an angel that Jesus was the “Son of the Most High” yet she at least entertained enough doubts about that fact to go help bring Jesus home. The Bible doesn’t say whether Mary also thought Jesus was out of His mind, but it is possible that she may have thought so as well. One thing is for certain, she did not oppose Jesus’ brothers, therefore her faith in Jesus was lacking.

As for a sword piercing Mary’s soul, yes, the scriptures do indicate that Mary would be tested. Compare that phrase in its context with Hebrews 4:12.

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed — and a sword will pierce even your own soul — to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

(Luke 2:34-35, NASB)

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

(Heb. 4:12, NASB)

I had thought that the image of a sword piercing Mary’s soul was merely referring to the mental anguish she would suffer when Jesus was tortured and crucified, and that appears to be part of what Simeon was saying. Yet the word order of the NASB translation (which is the word order of the original Greek) indicates that Mary’s thoughts and intentions would also be tested. However, there is no indication or promise that she would always pass. And in the two instances I’ve cited, if (or more accurately, when) I’ve reacted to God as Mary did, my lack of faith in God are failures, not successes.

“Sinless New Eve”

And as for Mary being a “sinless New Eve”, Anonymous wrote:

2. Ed’s second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless “New Eve” because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless “New Eve.”

In response, I would note that: a) you can “save” people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.

But what about the scripture passages that say all have sinned and the ones which state that only Jesus was without sin?

And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless “New Eve.” But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don’t demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.

Emphasis mine

This is the heart of the matter. Is it legitimate for “the church” to proclaim a doctrine which has no scriptural support or not? The answer to that question is where I am headed with both this series and “Romanism and Ales Rarus”. But I am not yet ready to provide the answer. That will require its own post. For now, I am content to point out that the RCC teachings about Mary do not have “explicit scriptural support.”

Doggone it! This was just supposed to be a quick response before returning to the CCC. But, seeing as this post is already exceedingly long, that will have to wait for Part 3.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1

Before I get into this reply, I would like to note that Ales Rarus has won a Warnie award. Congratulations Funky!

After my last posting on Mary, Funky Dung posted a brief reply noting my essay and posting two articles from his archives. Neither article was a direct response, and no additional discussion took place in comments, so I can’t really identify where we might agree or disagree on what I last wrote.

The first posting from his archive discussed the issue of praying to the dead as a justification for praying to Mary. Since such a topic encompasses more than just Mary, I’m going to set that discussion aside for another day so I can focus on the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) view of Mary.

Not only did Funky post the two articles, he also posted a link to an online version of the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) — the official teachings of the RCC. Because the entire point of this discussion is the teachings of Romanism in comparison to the Bible, I’ve decided to go right to the source.

The CCC is a very long and scholarly document. It consists of 2,865 numbered paragraphs. Most paragraphs include multiple footnotes detailing the source of each teaching. So let’s take a look at what Romanism teaches about Mary and the source of those teachings.

Mary’s Faith

The first mention of Mary (based on the subject index) is paragraph 144:

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

This paragraph is actually a summary statement containing no footnotes. The detailed explanation of Mary’s faith is offered in paragraphs 148-149:

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”12 Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.

For the most part, these teachings match scripture. But there are differences. The idea that Mary’s faith never wavered doesn’t match Mark 3:21, 31-35.

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
…

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:21,31-35, NIV)

Notice that Mark specifies that his family went to collect Jesus because they thought He had lost it. But when they — including Mary — arrived to take Jesus home, He refused because they were opposing “God’s will.”

Furthermore, to claim that Mary’s faith was better than Abraham’s is severely overstating the case. If her faith truly was superior, then it should have been mentioned at least once in the theological books of the New Testament when faith is discussed. But after the book of Acts mentions that Mary and her sons were praying with the apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentacost, she is never mentioned again. If her faith was superior/perfect, then she should certainly have at least been mentioned with other heros of faith in Hebrews chapter 11.

On the contrary, Jesus himself caused her anxiety and confusion by obeying God’s will when He was 12 years old. (See the entire story in Luke 2:41-52.)

And when they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

(Luke 2:48-50, NASB)

Notice that Mary forgot that God was Jesus’ father and that Jesus’ rebuke went over her head. And anxiety is a sign of weak faith:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

(Phil. 4:6, NASB)

In short, the Bible never states that Mary’s faith was superior, perfect or unwavering. On the other hand, it definitely shows that Mary worried that Jesus was doing the wrong thing in at least two instances.

New Eve

Mary is next mentioned in paragraph 411:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. 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.306

305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.

Take a look at the footnotes again. The description of Jesus as the “New Adam” is well supported by scripture. However there is no scriptural support for calling Mary a “New Eve.” That doctrine is a pure invention of the RCC. It also places Mary on the same level as Jesus Christ as having some part in our salvation.

Not only that, the claim is made here that Mary was sinless for her entire life. Quite simply, the Bible never says that! In fact, it says the opposite:

And Mary said:
“My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

(Luke 1:46-47, NASB)

The sinless do not need a savior.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Rom. 3:23, NASB) Emphasis mine

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;”

(Rom. 3:10, NASB) Emphasis mine

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

(1John 1:10, NASB)

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

(Rom. 5:19, NASB) Emphasis mine

Did you catch that? One not Two.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(2Cor. 5:21, NASB)

Again, Jesus is the only (singular) one without sin.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

(1Pet. 2:21-22, NASB)

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

(1John 3:5, NASB)

As you can see, there is plenty of scriptural support for Jesus being sinless. (This sampling only scratched the surface.) There is also plenty of scriptural support for all of humanity being sinners. (Again, I only scratched the surface.) There is a reference where Mary calls God her savior. And there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea that Mary never sinned.

I’ve also already discussed that it was necessary for Mary to have a sin nature in Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply.

Without scriptural support, raising Mary (or anyone) to equivalence with Jesus amounts to blasphemy. It’s possible that later portions of the CCC may offer scriptural support. But the lack of such references right next to solid references for Jesus’ position makes such a possibility highly unlikely.

More To Come

Obviously, the CCC has much more to say about Mary. My copy of the CCC has 13 tabs marking spots which discuss Mary. I’ve only hit the first four.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

Two weeks ago Rand of a pattern of sound words wrote a short piece slamming Roman Catholicism. Understandably miffed, Funky Dung of Ales Rarus posted this response. I think it’s important to discuss the issues involved. Therefore, I started a response which has expanded into a full blown series.

Faith And Works

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus saves men by a combination of faith and works of righteousness.
Biblical Christianity - Jesus saves men by faith alone (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

Funky Dung’s response:
“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. “ - James 2:14-26

It’s no wonder some of the reformers wanted to expunge James from the canon of Scripture. It doesn’t fit with their theology.

First of all, James does meet the criteria of being scripture. I don’t know about some reformers wanting to remove James, but as a Bible Believing Christian, I accept it as part of the cannon of scripture. Therefore, the relationship between both the passage in James which Funky Dung quoted and Ephesians 2 must be clearly understood. In fact, all the scriptures dealing with salvation must be considered.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

(2Tim. 3:16, NASB)

Let‘s start with Ephesians:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

(Eph. 2:8-9, NASB)

Okay, we have an apparent conflict here between James 2:14-26 where works is mentioned as part of salvation and Ephesians 2:8-9 where works have nothing to do with salvation.

The best short explanation I’ve heard of this comparison goes like this, “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone.” In other words, it’s only our faith in the work of Christ on the cross which gives us salvation. That faith, in turn, compels us to act differently than we would have without that faith. Jesus put it more simply when he said:

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”

(John 14:15, NASB)

The Bible often compares our relationship with God with that of a husband and wife. A strong marriage is based on the love between a husband and wife. You might say that love is the foundation of the marriage. It’s that love which prompts a husband to crawl out of bed three AM to take of the baby so his wife can sleep. It’s her love for her husband that prompts a wife to prepare his lunch each morning. These and thousands of other small, selfless acts of love are not the basis for the marriage. They are the result of the love on which the marriage is based.

Now some loveless marriages do survive, with spouses going through the motions and performing those acts of love. The same is true of those who claim to be Christians. So what is Christ’s response to those who perform religious works without the faith?

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”

(Matt. 7:21-23, NASB)

Quite simply, doing good works by themselves will not get anyone into heaven. On the other hand, there are numerous passages which show that faith is the key to salvation:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

(John 6:40, NASB)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die.”

(John 11:25-26a, NASB)

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

(Rom. 10:9-10, NASB)

“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

(Acts 4:12, NASB)

Notice that it’s the name of Christ which produces salvation, not the works done in Christ’s name.

In Acts 15, there was a group that started teaching that Christians must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses in order to be saved. Here is Peter’s answer to this false teaching:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.  Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

(Acts 15:7-11, NASB)

In short, the law was a burden which men could not bear in the past and through which salvation could not be acheived. Nothing about living under the law has changed. Instead, salvation comes through the grace of Jesus.

Once again, Romans 5:12-21 and Galations 3-4 are appropriate passages. Pay special attention to these verses in Galations:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” — in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

(Gal. 3:10-14, NASB)

In other words, if a person is attempting to gain God’s favor by following the law (works), they have placed themselves under the curse of the law and are required to fulfill every single requirement in order to achieve salvation. On the other hand, Christ’s redemption from the curse is available only through faith.

Finally, in 1 Corinthians, Paul also raises the issue of works.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

(1Cor. 3:11-15, NASB)

We’re now back down to the Foundation again. Jesus Christ is to be the foundation of our relationship with God. As long as we have the foundation, we “shall be saved.” Form that point on, what we do in response to that salvation will either be excellent work (gold, silver, precious stones) or shoddy work (wood, hay, straw). The work we build on that foundation will be tested and the results will matter; I just have no idea what the reward will be. Knowing God, it will be AWESOME!

In any such discussion, I would be remiss to not point out Hebrews chapter 11, which is often called “The Faith Chapter.” In this chapter, the author points out that Old Testament heroes all obtained justification through faith. Even more interesting in the context of this discussion is how their faith prompted their actions. For example:

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

(Heb. 11:7-8, NASB)

It was Noah’s faith in God which prompted him to build the ark. It was Abraham’s faith in God which prompted him to pack up and leave his country when God told him to. And faith even made all the difference in purely “religious” activities. Consider the story of Cain and Abel as discussed in Hebrews 11:

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

(Heb. 11:4, NASB)

Both Cain and Abel made offerings. Abel’s was accepted while Cain’s was rejected. The key difference was Abel’s faith vs. Cain’s lack of faith.

As the author of Hebrews is wrapping up his point, he starts his final sentence of the chapter like this:

And all these, having gained approval through their faith,

(Heb. 11:39a, NASB)

All the Old Testment heroes mentioned performed tremendous feats in God’s name, ranging from overcoming their enemies against impossible to bearing their sufferings with perseverance as true servants of God. Yet those works are not what brought them God’s approval. It was their faith in God which earned His approval, faith which prompted the feats for which they are famous.

There is more to come in part 4…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

Update: Funky Dung has posted a brief reply.

Over at Ales Rarus, Funky Dung posted a brief portion of my response from Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1. The resulting discussion in the comments (over there) has been intelligent, respectful, fascinating and thought provoking. The thoughts triggered by that discussion just won’t let me go, so it’s time to do some more exploring of the topic.

Intimate Contact With Mary

Tom Smith started things off by writing:

Christ’s intimate contact with Mary in the womb was far deeper than the contact He had with any of the disciples—Christ wasn’t physically attached via a placenta to any of them. Along that same vein, if Christ took up a human nature alongside His divine nature (contra-Monophysitism), which most agree on, He would have taken it from Mary. If Christ’s human nature (via Mary) was sinful, it would have been in conflict with His divine nature, and He would’ve either been two persons, or one will would’ve taken over (monophysitism, condemned virulently by Athanasius at Nicea).

Yes, it is true that Christ’s contact was more intimate with Mary than with others. It’s also an interesting and somewhat logical thought that if Jesus was going to have such intimate contact with woman that she should be pure. However, only God can institute such a requirement, no matter how cool the idea may seem to us. So did He state such a requirement in scripture? I am not aware that He has done so.

Also, if Christ was floating around in Mary’s womb for nine months while she was sinning, would Christ not be somehow complicit in Mary’s sins?

In a word, no.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

(Ezek. 18:20, NASB)

In this passage, Ezekial is delivering a word for word message from the Lord. In fact, God’s exposition on this point is much more thorough than the snippet I’ve posted here. Read all of Ezekial 18 for the full impact of God’s point. Put succinctly, each person is responsible only for their own sins, not the sins of others.

What exactly is meant by “under the law?” While I’m not intimately familiar with the theology regarding the new and old covenants, I’d say that, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the law, all were bound to follow it, regardless of what sins had been committed by believers.

As I said in my comment, Paul explains this concept more fully throughout Galatians chapters 3 and 4 and Romans 5:12-21, but I think Tom has the gist of it.

What Is “Sin Nature?”

The conversation then quickly moved into discussing what the sin nature actually is and Jesus’ relationship to it. There are a lot more good thoughts than I have room to post here, so I’ll try to pick out the highlights.

Andrew wrote:

Two thoughts:

1. The sin nature is descended through Adam, through the man. Hence the whole point of the virgin birth in the first place—-Christ would not have receieved the sin nature.

2. Christ’s human nature, got from Mary, had to be capable of sinning, had to be temptable, since otherwise Christ would not have been “tempted in every way” just as we are.

There’s every reason to believe that Christ was sinless and without the sin nature, since he had no human father, but Mary, who had a human father, must have had the sin nature.

Christ in his divine nature was not capable of sinning, in his human nature was capable of sinning, and there lies his mystery. But he emphatically did not have a sin nature, since in that case he could not help but sin.

Funky Dung responded with:

I’d point out, however, that there are two kinds of sin - original and actual. To be totally sinless is to be without both. Original sin is the “stain” upon humanity because of the fall that objectively keeps us out of heaven … Actual sin is the sin that is attributed to each individual as the result of his actions. Though Jesus’ human nature was not stained by original sin, He could have (at least in theory) still sinned, though to do so would conflict with His divine will and a logical impossibility.

Tom Smith then asked:

First off, we should probably start by agreeing exactly what is meant by “sin nature.” Do you mean concupiscence, the inordinate attachment to sin (not to be confused with simple temptation), or original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace? Where does the notion that the fallen state passes seminally come from?

Jerry chimed in with this insightful post:

To supplement Tom’s comments: one thing that the Orthodox find irritating about original sin is that Catholics seem to imply that original sin or concupiscence is some inheritable trait or stain that we pass on to the next generation. This seems to be a stumbling block with Protestants as well.

A clarification of the doctrine of original sin that I prefer is that original sin is just a state of being apart from God’s grace. Because of Adam’s sin, we are by default at a certain remove from God’s grace, and thus vulnerable to sin, which drives us further yet. Thus, original sin is not a physical thing (which does sound rather Manichean), but rather a pervasive lack of grace, or distance from God.

My Thoughts on Sin Nature

“And that’s where I got stuck, your honor.” The rest of this post (including the last two sections) were written quite quickly. At this point, I was all set to tie my understanding of sin nature based on Galations and Romans back to the ideas which were being discussed here. It seemed like we were just using different language for the same ideas. But the more I read through Romans and Galations, the more I searched for a single verse or two to highlight and the more I thought about it, the less well my understanding of the ideas discussed here cleanly matched up with what I was reading in scripture. Two days later, I’m finally ready to continue.

That’s not to say that all the ideas discussed are off track. In fact, Jerry has nailed our position in respect to God. We are either under the law or under grace. The two are mutually exclusive. (Though the law highlights why grace is necessary.)

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”

(Rom. 7:5, NASB)

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

(Rom. 6:14, NASB)

Sometimes when the landmarks get confused, it’s time to go back to familiar territory and retrace your steps. So that’s what I’ll do to explain my understanding of what the Bible says about our sin nature. In this case, it means going back to the beginning; to Genesis, chapter 1.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

(Gen. 1:27, NASB)

And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

(Gen. 1:31a, NASB) Emphasis mine.

When I think of God’s standards, there is one word that stands out: perfection. In order for God to think of something as “very good” it had to be perfect. Adam and Eve weren’t just physically perfect, they also had to be morally perfect. The tree they weren’t to eat from was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which suggests they didn’t even know what evil is. When I think of a perfect person (as God measures perfection) I think of someone who is not even capable of sinning, which means they would also not be capable of conceiving of what sin is.

God only told them there was one thing they could not do. Does that mean that it was okay for them to do things which we now know as sins? Let’s say… murder? Not bloody likely!

Imagine with me that you are a professional reporter. You have been given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to go back in time to interview Adam. You’ve been sitting in the garden talking with this perfect specimen of a human being. He has the rippling muscles, perfect proportions, chiseled good looks, a brain that can run circles around today’s geniuses, the works.

Adam has been telling about life in the garden. How the fruit on the trees is always perfectly ripe. How beautiful the flowers are. About his gorgeous wife who is just as brainy as he is. He even tells you how wonderful it is to walk with God through the garden each evening discussing the day’s events.

Then you ask a question you think your readers back home might be able to relate to. “Adam, the Bible tells us that your second born son, Cain, will murder your first born son, Abel. How does that make you feel?”

Adam’s face, which has been so animated for your entire interview changes to a blank stare. After a few uncomfortable moments he asks, “What is murder?”

When Adam & Eve ate the fruit, three basic things happened. First, they were separated from God (they hid when they heard God walking in the garden), experiencing spiritual death. (Gensis 3:8) Second, they became capable of suffering physical death. (Genesis 5:5) Third, they gained the ability to know — and therefore commit — evil, otherwise known as the ability to sin. (Genesis 3:7 and the entire rest of the Bible)

The word “sin” is literally an archery term which means “to miss the mark.” The law is like the rings and other markings on an archery target. Hitting the mark means living up to the requirements of the law. Missing the mark means that we have stepped outside the lines. That’s what it means to be under the law. The law itself gives the yay or nay verdict.

Inheriting Mary’s Traits

Sixty two generations later, God physically returns to earth in the form of baby Jesus. Only instead of being incorruptible God, he is now “under the law” in that it is possible for Him to sin, He knows what evil is (though I suspect that was always true) and He is capable of dying. The big difference between Him and us is that He was also capable of obeying not just the law, but His Father’s will in exacting detail.

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

(Heb. 4:15, NASB)

So what traits did Mary share with Adam and Eve in regard to sin?

• She was capable of sinning. If she was not capable of sinning, she could not have passed that capability to Jesus. That would certainly not be a trait He could receive from God the Father.
• She was capable of dying. I know I’m stating the obvious, but Mary was certainly not immortal. Again, Jesus needed to be able to die so His blood could pay the price for our sins. God is immortal and incapable of dying, so Jesus had to inherit this trait from Mary.
• She was separated from God. This one is essentially impossible to quantify. Was Jesus just as separated from God when He walked this earth as we are now? I don’t really know. His prayer life — our primary relationship with God — certainly exceeded that of every human in history, with the possible exception of Adam before the fall. What we do know for sure, is that he was fully separated from God the Father upon His death. We also know that the apostles were capable of performing many of the same miracles which Jesus did, and they certainly started with as much separation from God as we do today.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

(Matt. 27:46, NASB)

Conclusions

Tom Smith stated his conclusion about Mary like this:

I’m not saying he and Mary weren’t temptable; I’m saying they didn’t have concupiscence. There is a difference.

Jerry agreed, stating:

Mary, however, being “full of grace” avoided concupiscence, which brings us back to Tom’s point that while Mary could sin, being blessed by God, she avoided it, thus being a pure tabernacle for the Christ Child.

I have to disagree with these conclusions on these grounds:

• Mary had to be capable of sinning so that Jesus would be capable of sinning.
• Mary had to be capable of dying so that Jesus would be able to die.
• Mary had to be able to be fully separated from God so Jesus could also be separated.
• As shown in Ezekial 18:20, each person is responsible for their own sins. Mary could sin without her sins being charged to Jesus.
• There is no scripture (which I am aware of) which states outright — or even implies — that Jesus’ mother had to be sinless.

If you know of scriptures which actually show otherwise, by all means, point them out to me. My goal is to draw nearer to God with the aid of the authority of scripture. If I’m wrong, I need to know it. But without scriptural support, the idea that Mary was sinless — no matter how marvelous that idea may seem to us — is flatly wrong.
(I’m reluctant to use the word heresy, but the definition seems to fit.)

Who Were Mary’s Ancestors?

Along the way, the question of who Mary’s ancestors was raised. This is just a side issue, but I know the answer. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from King David. The genealogy in Matthew is for Joseph and the one in Luke is for Mary. In 1 Kings 9:4-5, God promises Solomon that if he stayed faithful to God, his throne would be established “forever” which would be fulfilled in Jesus. 1 Kings 11:9-11 records that Solomon failed to hold up his end of the bargin. Therefore, Mary was a descendent of King David, but not Solomon.

And a Little Humor

Tom Smith also tossed in a joke that I have got to remember!

Christ was drawing a line in the sand before the adulterous woman. He said, “May he has not sinned throw the first stone.” Christ then sees a little rock whizzing through the air over his head, hitting the adulterous woman. “MO-OMMM!!!” he shouted.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

In Part 1, I started to respond to a discussion on Romanism vs. Biblical Christianity taking place between Rand of a pattern of sound words and Funky Dung of Ales Rarus.

Continuing on…

Jesus’ Brothers And Sisters

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus did not have half-brothers and half-sisters.
Biblical Christianity - Mary and Joseph had sons and daughters after the birth of Christ (Luke 8:20).

Funky Dung’s response:
The Hebrew and Aramaic words for “brother” and “sister” have broader meaning than most modern languages. There are frequent uses of those words to mean “cousin”, “uncle/aunt”, or even the incredibly vague “relative”. There are frequent uses of the imprecise meanings of those words in the Old Testament. I don’t know them off the top of my head. Perhaps one of my readers can help out. You may ask, though, “Since the New Testament was written in Greek, shouldn’t the Greek forms of those words mean precisely what they say?” It is not uncommon for a speaker/writer of a second language to use idiomatic expressions and/or words meanings from his primary language. There are examples of this phenomenon as well, but I must again appeal to my readers for references.

This strikes me as “reading into the text” a meaning which is desired. There are many passages where the Bible mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters. For example:

While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

(Matt. 12:46, NASB)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

(Mark 6:3, NASB)

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

(John 2:12, NASB)

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

(Gal. 1:19, NASB)

Both accounts of Jesus’ birth also imply that Jesus was not an only child:

and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

(Matt. 1:25, NASB)

I.e., Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born.

And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

(Luke 2:7, NASB)

Note that “first-born” is specified. Such a designation is only meaningful if there is also at least a “second-born”.

And finally, from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

αδελφως (adelphos) (from a copulative and delfus, from the same womb; cf. agastoœr) (from Homer down);

1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matt. 1:2; 4:18, and often. That ‘the brethren of Jesus,’ Matt. 12:46,47 (but WH only in marginal reading); 13:55f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19f; John 2:12; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N.T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i.e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which adelfos like the Hebrew [it looks like ‘ah] denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Gen. 14:16; 1 Sam. 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chr. 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matt. 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of huion proœtotokon, the expression huion monogeneœ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord’s brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Iakoœbos, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word Brother; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N.T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matt. 13:55.)

Jesus’ Hairstyle

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was a long-haired, bearded, skinny guy.
Biblical Christianity - Jesus knew that it was shameful for a man to have long hair, so he had short hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Funky Dung’s response:
Now this is just silly. First century Jewish culture and 21st century American or European culture bear little resemblance to each other. In Jesus’ time, it was not uncommon for men to wear their hair to their shoulders. That was still considered short because women often had hair to their buttocks or lower. Besides, if you’re going anathematize Roman Catholics for depicting Jesus with “long hair”, etc, then you’re going to have to send a whole lot of Protestants packing with them. Granted, I’m not fond of seeing Jesus looking less like a 1st century Jew from Nazareth and more like a Caucasian hippy, but it’s hardly an issue to be damned over.

Simple question for Rand: Why does this matter? (Remember Samson?)

More to come in Part 3…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2