Steve’s Seven-Minute Rebuttal: Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption, Perpetual Virginity, and Calling God Her “Savior”
Steve Christie was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools up through college. He became a Protestant in 2004 at age 34, and is a frequent lecturer at Protestant churches and events, has led home Bible studies for sixteen years, and is a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio. He has participated in many oral debates with Catholics, and authored the self-published book, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon in 2019. If my memory is correct, I have not interacted with him until now.
*****
See the first installment:
I will be responding to Steve’s portions of his two hour long audio debate with Catholic apologist Trent Horn (it originally appeared on Pints with Aquinas with Matt Fradd): posted in transcript on the Catholic Answers website (5-2-22), under the title, “Debate: Do the Marian Dogmas Contradict Scripture?” I have not read Trent’s replies, so mine can be completely “fresh.” Steve’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV, unless otherwise noted.
This is a response to Steve’s seven-minute rebuttal.
As I had mentioned, the way a dogma can contradict scripture is if it’s explicit, implicit, or partial. For example, a Mormon dogma that says that Jesus is not God contradicts scripture explicitly, such as in John 20:28, when Thomas sees Jesus and calls him, “My Lord and my God.” Implicitly would be liberal Catholics and Protestants who condone abortion, which contradicts scripture stating that life begins at conception, and scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood. And another is a partial contradiction, such as the dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses on the identity of Jesus. While scripturally affirming Jesus is the son of God, they contradict scripture by claiming that Jesus is Michael the archangel, because scripture affirms Michael is a created being while Jesus is the eternal deity. And this is what I did in the opening statement.
And I believe I refuted all of those assertions in my reply. I’d be interested — as always in all my debates and dialogues — to see a counter-reply from Steve.
When the Bible talks about all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it’s a Greek word “pas,” which means, “everyone,” which would include Mary. There is no exception there.
This is untrue, as I documented from Scripture. Steve needs to check up on the Greek lexicons in this regard.
this argument [is the] logical fallacy referred to as the argument by exception.
The fallacy has to do with general principles or generalizations. An article on this, on the site Lean Logic, states:
The argument that a principle is contradicted (not merely qualified) by exceptions.
The possibility of understanding an issue can be blocked by an instance in which it does not apply. Example: “Too many exams make children depressed and demoralised.” “Not at all—our Prudence loves her exams!”
Catholics need not deny the general principle that pas very often means “absolutely all / all without exception.” This is true. But it can also mean “most, with exceptions.” Most biblical words have multiple meanings, and can also be used figuratively or hyperbolically. That it can indeed literally mean “most” in the Bible has been shown with examples, and by lexical references. An exception is an exception, and that is precisely our argument, that Mary, therefore, could very well be (and we say, is) one such exception. Here are five more examples where “all” clearly doesn’t mean “absolutely all without exception” (lest anyone doubt it):
“all men marveled” (Mk 5:20)
“all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ” (Lk 3:15)
“Woe to you, when all men speak well of you” (Lk 6:26)
“all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35)
“all men praised God for what had happened” (Acts 4:21)
And of course, [Catholics] might say, “Well, what about Jesus?” Well, as I mentioned, the Bible’s explicit [when] it says that Jesus is an exception. It says that, actually, I believe in First Corinthians.
And the angel Gabriel said that Mary was “full of grace” which means (when analyzed from Paul’s usage: argumentation that I provided last time) “without sin.” That’s an explicit passage, too, indicating that she is an exception to the rule.
Elijah and Enoch . . . were assumed bodily into heaven, but they had inherited original sin, just as Mary did.
Citing them with regard to Mary’s Assumption is a partial analogy. The similarity is bodily going up to heaven in an extraordinary way. It doesn’t follow that everything about them — including having original sin — is analogous to Mary. Therefore, Mary could have died first, like the Two Witnesses in Revelation (another analogy).
[Trent] had mentioned about, in the book of Jude, about Moses [actually the archangel Michael] and the devil contending for the body, . . . it doesn’t say anything about him being bodily assumed or anything.
Jude 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, [6] and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe’or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day.
Expositor’s Greek Testament (on the former passage) notes “Further details in Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 48) [“as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley”], . . ., Philo i. p. 165, and Clem[ent of] Al[exandria]. (Str. vi. § 132, p. 807) [Book VI, ch. 15] where it is said that Caleb and Joshua witnessed the assumption of Moses to heaven, while his body was buried in the clefts of the mountain.” There was such a tradition mentioned both by historians and by Clement of Alexandria (also, Origen). We know that Moses died on earth, from the Bible, so if he was also assumed, then it is directly analogous to Mary (death followed by an assumption into heaven).
Keeping alcohol away from the same person is “saving” them from their besetting sin: drunkenness, much more so than black coffee and a cold shower getting them sober after the fact. Sessions at Alcoholics Anonymous can “save” an alcoholic from his or her “sins.” So can disallowing them to have alcohol in the first place. Both involve “saving them.”
The phrase, “save his people from their sins” occurs, apparently, only once in the Bible: in Matthew 1:21 (in RSV). Steve mentioned Acts 5. 5:31 states: “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” There is a very real sense in which that can apply to Mary, too. She was subject to inheriting original sin, as a member of the human race, that had been fallen since Adam. God simply took away at her conception what would have been inevitable, had He not done it. In that sense, then, in effect, He “forgave her of original sin.” Had original sin not been inevitable in her case, He wouldn’t have had to do that to preserve her from it.
But in so doing he saved her from the sin and is thus properly called by Mary, her “savior.” In fact, I contend that Mary was saved more completely or thoroughly than any human being has ever been saved. She, above all, can and did call God her “savior” since she received more grace for salvation and a life without actual sin, than anyone else ever has. It was 100% grace and 100% monergistic, since Mary couldn’t even accept it in faith (it being the moment of her conception).
1: παρεκτός
(Strong’s #3924 — Adverb — soter — par-ek-tos’ )
“a savior, deliverer, preserver,” is used (a) of God, Luke 1:47; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10 (in the sense of “preserver,” since He gives “to all life and breath and all things”); Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 1:25; (b) of Christ, Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23 (of Israel); Ephesians 5:23 (the sustainer and preserver of the church, His “body”); Philippians 3:20 (at His return to receive the Church to Himself); 2 Timothy 1:10 (with reference to His incarnation, “the days of His flesh”); Titus 1:4 (a title shared, in the context, with God the Father); 2:13, RV, “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” the pronoun “our,” at the beginning of the whole clause, includes all the titles; Titus 3:6, 2 Peter 1:1 , “our God and Savior Jesus Christ; RV, where the pronoun “our,” coming immediately in connection with “God,” involves the inclusion of both titles as referring to Christ, just as in the parallel in 2 Peter 1:11 , “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (AV and RV); these passages are therefore a testimony to His deity; 2 Peter 2:20; 3:2,18; 1 John 4:14.
Mk. 8:35 and parallels refer to the saving and losing of life with an eschatological reference. In Mk. 10:26 being saved is equivalent to entering the kingdom or entering or inheriting life. . . . Lk. 13:23 equates salvation with entering the kingdom.
Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.*Mark 10:24-27 . . . But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! [25] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [26] And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” [27] Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”*Luke 13:23-24 And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, [24] “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
*
Jesus “preemptively” told him what he had to do to be saved, and that this act would indeed save him. Mark 8:35 above is a general application of the same idea (“if you do x, you will save yourself”). As noted last time (but repetition is a great teacher), God preemptively saved the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the Apostle Paul:
Isaiah 49:1 . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . .
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (KJV: “sanctified thee”)
Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,
None of the three men could have consented in an act of will before they were born. Therefore, God saved them by giving them these graces that prevented them from falling from salvation or grace.
Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi) are the children of Jesus’ mother Mary, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mark 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). So for example, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Jesus is called “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son” and only He is referred to in this way. The others (four “brothers” named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers
See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and “his brothers,” who are not called Mary’s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do not read in a “siblings” way. In the New Testament, none of these “brothers” are ever called Joseph’s children, anywhere, either.
Likewise, in the case of Jesus’ relatives, called “sisters” (Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3) they are referenced as Jesus’ “sisters” — not as Mary’s daughters. That leaves open the possibility of more distant relatives, based on the terminology of Hebrew culture at that time, whereas, if the Bible had ever called them “the daughters of Mary the mother of Jesus” or some such, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. No one (including Catholics) would disagree that Jesus had siblings, were that the case.
***
***
Photo credit: Istanbul: Chora Church Museum (Kariye Cami). Nartex. A mosaic showing the Virgin Mary beside Jesus. Photograph by Giovanni Dall’Orto, May 29, 2006. Released into public domain by the photographer [Wikimedia Commons]