Steve Christie<\/a>\u00a0was 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,\u00a0Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon<\/span><\/em><\/a>\u00a0in 2019. If my memory is correct, I have not interacted with him until now.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See the first installment:<\/p>\n Reply to Steve Christie on Catholic Mariology (Part I: Steve\u2019s 15-Minute Opening Statement, Covering the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, & Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary)<\/a>\u00a0[7-10-23]<\/p>\n I will be responding to Steve\u2019s portions of his two hour long audio debate with Catholic apologist Trent Horn (it originally appeared on\u00a0Pints with Aquinas<\/em>\u00a0with Matt Fradd): posted in transcript on the\u00a0Catholic Answers<\/em>\u00a0website (5-2-22), under the title,\u00a0\u201cDebate: Do the Marian Dogmas Contradict Scripture?\u201d<\/a> I have not read Trent\u2019s replies, so mine can be completely \u201cfresh.\u201d Steve\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. My biblical citations are from RSV, unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n This is a response to Steve\u2019s seven-minute rebuttal.<\/p>\n As I had mentioned, the way a dogma can contradict scripture is if it\u2019s 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, \u201cMy Lord and my God.\u201d 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n And I believe I refuted all of those assertions in my reply. I\u2019d be interested \u2014 as always in all my debates and dialogues \u2014 to see a counter-reply from Steve.<\/p>\n When the Bible talks about all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it\u2019s a Greek word \u201cpas,\u201d which means, \u201ceveryone,\u201d which would include Mary. There is no exception there.<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue, as I documented from Scripture. Steve needs to check up on the Greek lexicons in this regard.<\/p>\n this argument [is the] logical fallacy referred to as the argument by exception.<\/span><\/p>\n The fallacy has to do with general principles or generalizations. An article on this<\/a>, on the site Lean Logic<\/em>, states:<\/p>\n The argument that a principle is contradicted (not merely qualified) by exceptions.<\/p>\n The possibility of understanding an issue can be blocked by an instance in which it does not apply. Example: \u201cToo many exams make children depressed and demoralised.\u201d \u201cNot at all\u2014our Prudence\u00a0loves<\/em>\u00a0her exams!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholics need not deny the general principle that pas<\/em> very often means \u201cabsolutely all \/ all without exception.\u201d This is true. But it can also<\/em> mean \u201cmost, with exceptions.\u201d Most biblical words have multiple meanings, and can also be used figuratively or hyperbolically. That it can indeed literally mean \u201cmost\u201d 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<\/em> very well be (and we say, is<\/em>) one such exception. Here are five more examples where \u201call\u201d clearly doesn\u2019t mean \u201cabsolutely all without exception\u201d (lest anyone doubt it):<\/p>\n \u201call men marveled\u201d (Mk 5:20)<\/p>\n \u201call men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ\u201d (Lk 3:15)<\/p>\n \u201cWoe to you, when all men speak well of you\u201d (Lk 6:26)<\/p>\n \u201call men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another\u201d (Jn 13:35)<\/p>\n \u201call men praised God for what had happened\u201d (Acts 4:21)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And of course, [Catholics] might say, \u201cWell, what about Jesus?\u201d Well, as I mentioned, the Bible\u2019s explicit [when] it says that Jesus is an exception. It says that, actually, I believe in First Corinthians.<\/span><\/p>\n And the angel Gabriel said that Mary was \u201cfull of grace\u201d which means (when analyzed from Paul\u2019s usage: argumentation that I provided last time) \u201cwithout sin.\u201d That\u2019s an explicit passage, too, indicating that she is an exception to the rule.<\/p>\n Elijah and Enoch . . . were assumed bodily into heaven, but they had inherited original sin, just as Mary did.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Citing them with regard to Mary\u2019s Assumption is a partial analogy. The similarity is bodily going up to heaven in an extraordinary way. It doesn\u2019t follow that everything<\/em> about them \u2014 including having original sin \u2014\u00a0 is analogous to Mary. Therefore, Mary could have died first, like the Two Witnesses in Revelation (another analogy).<\/p>\n [Trent] had mentioned about, in the book of Jude, about Moses [actually the archangel Michael]<\/span> and the devil contending for the body, . . . it doesn\u2019t say anything about him being bodily assumed or anything.<\/span><\/p>\n Jude 9<\/strong> 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, \u201cThe Lord rebuke you.\u201d<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 34:5-6<\/strong> 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\u2019or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/em><\/a> (on the former passage) notes \u201cFurther details in Josephus (Ant.<\/span> 4:8, 48<\/a>) [\u201cas 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\u201d], . . ., Philo i. p. 165, and Clem[ent of] Al[exandria]. (Str. vi. \u00a7 132, p. 807) [Book VI, ch. 15<\/a>] 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.\u201d 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).<\/p>\n Keeping alcohol away from the same person is \u201csaving\u201d 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 \u201csave\u201d an alcoholic from his or her \u201csins.\u201d So can disallowing them to have alcohol in the first place. Both involve \u201csaving them.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The phrase, \u201csave his people from their sins\u201d occurs, apparently, only once in the Bible: in Matthew 1:21 (in RSV). Steve mentioned Acts 5. 5:31 states: \u201cGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.\u201d 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 \u201cforgave her of original sin.\u201d Had original sin not been inevitable in her case, He wouldn\u2019t have had to do that to preserve her from it.<\/p>\n But in so doing he saved her from the sin and is thus properly called by Mary, her \u201csavior.\u201d In fact, I contend that Mary was saved more completely or thoroughly than any<\/em> human being has ever<\/em> been saved. She, above all, can and did call God her \u201csavior\u201d 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\u2019t even accept it in faith (it being the moment of her conception).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 1:\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f79\u03c2<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n (Strong\u2019s #3924<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 Adverb \u2014 soter \u2014 par-ek-tos\u2019\u00a0)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201ca savior, deliverer, preserver,\u201d is used (a) of God,\u00a0Luke 1:47<\/a><\/span>;\u00a01\u00a0Timothy 1:1<\/a><\/span>;\u00a02:3<\/a><\/span>;\u00a04:10<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(in the sense of \u201cpreserver,\u201d since He gives \u201cto all life and breath and all things\u201d);\u00a0Titus 1:3<\/a><\/span>;\u00a02:10<\/a><\/span>;\u00a03:4<\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Jude 1:25<\/a><\/span>; (b) of Christ,\u00a0Luke 2:11<\/a><\/span>;\u00a0John 4:42<\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Acts 5:31<\/a><\/span>;\u00a013:23<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(of Israel);\u00a0Ephesians 5:23<\/a><\/span> (the sustainer and preserver of the church, His \u201cbody\u201d);\u00a0Philippians 3:20<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(at His return to receive the Church to Himself);\u00a02\u00a0Timothy 1:10<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(with reference to His incarnation, \u201cthe days of His flesh\u201d);\u00a0Titus 1:4<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(a title shared, in the context, with God the Father); 2:13, RV, \u201cour great God and Savior Jesus Christ,\u201d the pronoun \u201cour,\u201d at the beginning of the whole clause, includes all the titles; Titus 3:6,\u00a02\u00a0Peter 1:1<\/a><\/span> , \u201cour God and Savior Jesus Christ; RV, where the pronoun \u201cour,\u201d coming immediately in connection with \u201cGod,\u201d involves the inclusion of both titles as referring to Christ, just as in the parallel in\u00a02\u00a0Peter 1:11<\/a><\/span>\u00a0, \u201cour Lord and Savior Jesus Christ\u201d (AV and RV); these passages are therefore a testimony to His deity;\u00a02\u00a0Peter 2:20<\/a><\/span>;\u00a03:2,18<\/a><\/span>;\u00a01\u00a0John 4:14<\/a><\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Isaiah 49:1\u00a0<\/b>. . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . .<\/p>\n Jeremiah 1:5\u00a0<\/b>\u201cBefore 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.\u201d (KJV: \u201csanctified thee\u201d)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Galatians 1:15\u00a0<\/b>. . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d (adelphoi<\/i>) are the children of Jesus\u2019 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 \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d and \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d and\u00a0only He<\/i>\u00a0is referred to in this way. The others (four \u201cbrothers\u201d named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:<\/p>\n Acts 1:14\u00a0<\/b>\u00a0All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers<\/p>\n See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and \u201chis brothers,\u201d who are\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0called Mary\u2019s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0read in a \u201csiblings\u201d way.\u00a0In the New Testament, none of these \u201cbrothers\u201d are\u00a0ever<\/em>\u00a0called Joseph\u2019s children, anywhere, either.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, in the case of Jesus\u2019 relatives, called \u201csisters\u201d (Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3) they are referenced as Jesus\u2019 \u201csisters\u201d \u2014 not as Mary\u2019s 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 \u201cthe daughters of Mary the mother of Jesus\u201d or some such, we wouldn\u2019t be having this discussion at all. No one<\/em> (including Catholics) would disagree that Jesus had siblings, were that the case.<\/p>\n Go to Part III<\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/07\/Jesus27.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n*
\nJesus \u201cpreemptively\u201d 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 (\u201cif you do x<\/em>, you will save yourself\u201d). As noted last time (but repetition is a great teacher), God preemptively saved the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the Apostle Paul:<\/div>\n