tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post116354009543804012..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Tim Perry: Mary for EvangelicalsBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163994210665763072006-11-19T22:43:00.000-05:002006-11-19T22:43:00.000-05:00the virgin birth would be more accurately called t...<I>the virgin birth would be more accurately called the virginal conception</I><BR/><BR/>Well, virgin birth in addition to virginal conception was contemplated at length by the Fathers of the Church...Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01262662173303042998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163900429569621572006-11-18T20:40:00.000-05:002006-11-18T20:40:00.000-05:00Hi Dennis.I didn't actually say anything about Luk...Hi Dennis.<BR/><BR/>I didn't actually say anything about Luke 11:27-28, but now that you mention it, the Greek <I>menoun</I> requires that v.28 be taken as a correction of the woman's statement in v. 27, and the polemical context of Luke 11 supports the rendering as "no, rather". And there are the texts I <I>do</I> mention.<BR/><BR/>But let's not argue the exegesis further, let me rather thank you for what you say subsequently, particularly your allusion to Luke 1:38, to Mary as a paragon of faith and obedience, right up there indeed with Abraham, who you might call the Protestant Mary.<BR/><BR/>Could I also, with Karl Barth, put in a good word for Joseph? Barth said: "I find this biblical figure, so moving and obedient and subservient, much more appropriate as a <I>protector (et exemplar) ecclesiae</I> than Mary." Though I don't suppose that you'd go <I>quite</I> that far!<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163898807705219202006-11-18T20:13:00.000-05:002006-11-18T20:13:00.000-05:00Thanks for all that, Janet, it's really helpful. ...Thanks for all that, Janet, it's really helpful. I'll reply to just a few points.<BR/><BR/>First, re. the "silly" arguments: I don't think I said anything about the first; the second has actually been used in Roman apologetics; and the third is serious enough - in the form of the doctrine of papal infallibility - to be worrying the Archbishop of Canterbury as he prepares to meet the Pope.<BR/><BR/>Second, re. the assumption: there is a whole discussion to be had on the nature of the OT texts you deploy to support your belief in bodily assumption; few NT scholars would take Matthew 27:52-53 literally, rather it is an example of eschatological symbolism; while it is a serious theological error to assume the resurrection of Jesus into the category of assumption; and as for the "rapture", well that's better, to coin a phrase, "left behind".<BR/><BR/>What you say about the immaculate conception, on the other hand, is good stuff and needs to be heard. I am a great admirer of the late Herbert McCabe, and he writes very sensibly and convincingly about the doctrine. It's not in scripture, he admits, nor can it even be deduced from scripture, "and as a doctrine it was unknown to the early Church." But the doctrine, he says, cashes in like this in the difference it makes: "We are not to look for this difference in the biography of Our Lady, in her character or behaviour. In this sense the doctrine is not <I>about</I> that. It is not, for instance, about the fact that she committed no sin. . . The Immaculate Conception does not make that sort of difference to Mary; it did not make <I>any</I> noticeable difference to her - . . . there is no reason to suppose that she knew about it. What it makes a difference to is our understanding of what it means for her to be redeemed and therefore what it will eventually mean for us to be redeemed. . . that we too are to become radically holy." Good stuff.<BR/><BR/>But, finally - and this gets to the heart of the matter - to deny a <I>dogma</I> like the immaculate conception is not <I>necessarily</I> to deny what it is saying - though it may be - but it may be only to deny that it should be said <I>like that</I>, and for any number of reasons. And your final paragraph: it seems to assume that those who deny the basic tenets of traditional Mariology thereby deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus, reject the notion that the reality of heaven may have something to say about the nature of bodily existence, and think that sex is just about physical gratification. Though I may disagree with you about Mary, I do not disagree with you about <I>these</I> things at all, nor (I dare say) would most Protestants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163890040831239452006-11-18T17:47:00.000-05:002006-11-18T17:47:00.000-05:00For Kim Fabricius: actually the Synoptic passages ...For Kim Fabricius: actually the Synoptic passages (particularly Luke 11) you cite support "Mary as ideal disciple" if one looks carefully at the conjunction with which Jesus begins his response. It supports well a translation as "yea rather" blessed are those who hear and keep the word; combined with the infancy narratives it can be understood as pointing precisely to Mary as the one who kept and pondered the word and kept the Word also for 9 months in her womb.<BR/><BR/>In that reading, Jesus endorses the anonymous woman from the crowd who venerated his mother qua His mother.<BR/><BR/>Of course this "reads into" the text but so too does the alternative reading of these passages which has Jesus rejecting the anonymous woman's veneration of His mother. Given the way ancient writers deliberately used subtle intertexuality, I think the first reading of the passage, in which Jesus subtly endorses the woman while making an even larger point about discipleship is the more credible one.<BR/><BR/>Even so, the claim that Mary is the ideal disciple rests not on these synoptic passages so much as on simple historical fact (which is found in Scripture): Mary was the first to hear the word about the Incarnation, the first to be informed of the fulfillment of the types and shadows of the OT. And she believed the word. She was simply in fact the first disciple of Christ--at the moment of his conception. She believed when she could have disbelieved. Precisely for those who value "faith coming by hearing and hearing by the word of God" she was the first. And she remained steadfast to the Cross in her faith.<BR/><BR/>Abraham doubted. Paul praises his faith as exemplary. Surely Mary's discipleship and faith exceeds his because she was given the inside word on the exact manner of our salvation in these last days and she accepted it. John Paul II developed this (drawing on long tradition of exegesis of the synoptic passages and the infancy narratives) in his encyclical, Redemptoris Mater.<BR/><BR/>Not a bad set of characteristics for the "ideal disciple."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163887356275455882006-11-18T17:02:00.000-05:002006-11-18T17:02:00.000-05:00Kim,Sadly, I have to agree with you-- Mariology is...Kim,<BR/><BR/>Sadly, I have to agree with you-- Mariology is very contentious. Christians have been arguing about Mary since at least the third century. The funny thing is, none of the arguments are <I>really</I> about Mary. They are usually either about <I>Christ</I>-- as in the Theotokos controversies-- or about human nature-- about what it means to be truly human, embodied souls, and what God wants humans to be. These are fundamentally important questions, ones with real and serious consequences for daily life... and we disagree.<BR/><BR/>Since we have serious things to talk about, I'd like to clear out the silly arguments-- the Pope doesn't know where babies come from, nobody noticed the phrase "the brother of the Lord" before now, the Pope said so now you shut up, etc.<BR/><BR/>I don't actually believe that I can bring anyone to faith in anything-- only the Holy Spirit can. At most, I can be an opportunity for His action in another; usually, though, my role is simply to avoid putting more obstacles in the other person's path! So the comments below are merely my poor attempts to give you a straight answer to the questions you have raised.<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that a bodily assumption begs some theological and biblical questions. You can't avoid those questions just by denying the Catholic doctrine, however. The Bible clearly states that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed bodily into heaven [2 Kgs 2:11, Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5], and hints that Moses was too [Jude 9]. Also, Matt 27:53 states that after Jesus died, OT saints were raised from the dead and went walking through Jerusalem. Then what? I can't imagine they walked back to their tombs and died again-- so where did they go? For that matter, what happened to <I>Jesus's</I> resurrected body at the Ascension? And how do you explain the rapture that St. Paul describes in 1 Thess 4:16-17? <BR/><BR/>PS: one way to describe the Assumption of Mary is exactly that-- that she was "raptured" at the end of her life on Earth. Some "flavors" of Protestants are more comfortable with that word choice.<BR/><BR/>As for <I>semper virgo</I>, I'll let St. Jerome lay out the case; see his "Letter to Helvidius" at www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm (sorry, can't get the HTML link to work; just cut and paste). His wording is, um, <I>brisk</I>, as always. Your specific comment about St. James is addressed in paragraph 15.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, regarding the Immaculate Conception... you're right, both St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question of whether Mary's soul could have been sanctified before being infused into her body. Logically, this would mean that she would need no savior, since a just God would never condemn a truly innocent soul. Both men realized that that was just the Pelagian heresy reformulated; also Mary herself refers to "God my Savior" in Lk 1:47. So they both plumped for option #2, that Mary was sanctified a moment after her conception instead. It was Duns Scotus who realized that there was option #3, that she was sanctified at the moment of conception. And that is the way the dogma is phrased today; the essential roots of the doctrine extend back to the time of the Fathers, however.<BR/><BR/>So you can see, we're not really disagreeing about Mary. We're disagreeing about the physical resurrection of human beings; or what "heaven" means for embodied creatures; or whether sex is simply the satisfaction of a bodily need (like eating or sleeping), or does it have an effect on the soul as well; or what is sanctification and how does it happen; and lots more where these came from. Big stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163800206487032412006-11-17T16:50:00.000-05:002006-11-17T16:50:00.000-05:00Hi Janet.Thanks for the clarification. It's a com...Hi Janet.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. It's a common confusion (though the virgin birth would be more accurately called the virginal conception).<BR/><BR/>But, well, a lot of us - and not only Protestants - have problems with many things that Roman dogma declares about Mary, though I respect the <I>intentio fidei</I> of the magisterium. St Bernard and the Angelic Doctor himself, of course, actually rejected the immaculate conception. Mary's bodily assumption begs all kinds of biblical and theological questions. And as for the <I>semper virgo</I>, no reputable biblical scholar would now try to finesse the fact that Jesus had siblings (as used to be done with the suggestion that they were cousins) - not least his brother James, who became the head of the church in Jerusalem!<BR/><BR/>I'm afarid that Mariology continues to be one of <I>the</I> great ecumenical stumbling blocks - especially if the reply, open or implied, is that what Rome says is the case - because Rome says it is the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163795504779290722006-11-17T15:31:00.000-05:002006-11-17T15:31:00.000-05:00Re: One of Freedom's comments on the immaculate co...Re: One of Freedom's comments on the immaculate conception... you're confusing two separate Catholic doctrines, the immaculate conception of Mary and the virgin birth. (That's VERY common, actually.)<BR/><BR/>The Catholic teaching is that Mary's conception and birth, from a biological standpoint, were totally normal-- i.e. the result of sexual intercourse between her mother and father. However, as far as the state of her soul is concerned, she was preserved from any stain of original sin. Here's the exact quote: "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." Not that she didn't need a Savior; rather, that her Savior (Jesus) acted in a totally unique way in granting her saving grace, due to her totally unique role in salvation history. In the act of creating her soul and infusing it into her body, God simultaneously infused her with saving grace to prevent any stain of original sin touching her. <BR/><BR/>A related point is that Mary never committed a personal sin during her lifetime, again due to God's gifts of grace. Another, separate but related doctrine is the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e. that she remained a virgin throughout her life, had no other children, etc.) You've been patient to read this far, so I won't go off on the tangent of presenting the evidence for that...<BR/><BR/>... because we still have to talk about the virgin birth. That refers to the conception of Jesus, not Mary. The doctrine means that the Catholic Church holds that the story of Jesus' miraculous conception as told in the Gospels is literal truth (i.e. it was not as a result of sexual intercourse). However, you can't speak of Jesus' "immaculate conception" since, if He is truly God, and God is truly all Good, then there can be no question of sin (original or personal) in Him... that's not a miracle granted to a creature, that's a definition of Who He Is.<BR/><BR/>I hope that clarified that there is no "bad reproductive science" involved with the doctrine of the immaculate conception, nor any "immaculate conception" of Jesus. I don't so much mind you disagreeing with me, as long as you are disagreeing with what I actually believe, not a hand-me-down mistake. (Likewise, I try not to fall into that myself with respect to you!)<BR/><BR/>Now as for whether the Catholic beliefs on original sin are "excessive", or taking on that old "Mariolatry" strawman... well, those will have to wait for another day, I think. I'm consuming enough bandwidth on someone else's blog. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163658222180657932006-11-16T01:23:00.000-05:002006-11-16T01:23:00.000-05:00I've actually read part of Truly our Sister, Johns...I've actually read part of Truly our Sister, Johnson is a Lutheran so you are right it is Protestant (I don't like that label myself) friendly.One of Freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479227411431959461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163633723047215562006-11-15T18:35:00.000-05:002006-11-15T18:35:00.000-05:00Hi W.Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "dialog"....Hi W.<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "dialog". I don't think I want an <I>extended</I> discussion (not least because there are so many other interesting things to discuss on this great blog alone - and there is only so much time!). But I'm certainly happy for you to answer my queries - and by all means to set me straight if I've got it wrong. Can you do that here? Everyhting else you say I agree with wholeheartedly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163623832239320702006-11-15T15:50:00.000-05:002006-11-15T15:50:00.000-05:00Kim -Are you inviting dialog on my post? If you a...Kim -<BR/><BR/>Are you inviting dialog on my post? If you are there are some additions on which I might enjoy your feedback. It is just hard to know if folks who post comments come back or if they are disposed to dialog or not. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this if you won't be back to read or are not really interested in dialog. I think you make some points that are worth discussing, so just let me know and we'll enjoy the discussion.wnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648338508592526316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163602002543923782006-11-15T09:46:00.000-05:002006-11-15T09:46:00.000-05:00For a liberal Catholic postition that draws on Mar...For a liberal Catholic postition that draws on Mary based on the Gospels, feminst theory, and Vatican II, you should read Elizabeth Johnson's book Truly our sister. I should be amenable to Protestans of all stripes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163600732535440582006-11-15T09:25:00.000-05:002006-11-15T09:25:00.000-05:00I've actually become comfortable with the title Th...I've actually become comfortable with the title Theotokos this semester. Mary has been prominant in two classes (Ecclesiology and Eastern Studies). I have trouble with the Papal decrees on Mary, especially the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate conception (I have no problem with Jesus' immaculate conception) which seems to be based on an excessive notion of Original Sin and a bad notion of reproductive science. Lumen Gentium is actually helpful here (Vat II) as redemptrix is not named as a title and the titles that are acknowledged are couched in the caution that they should not take anything away from the role of Christ. The term Theotokos simply affirms that Mary has a crucial role in the economy of salvation by her pattern of saying 'yes' to God. I think most of my own reservations have been with regard to excesses of Mariolotry (I'm not far from Quebec and the Army of Mary movement). This looks like a book I would quite enjoy reading.One of Freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479227411431959461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163581102039436902006-11-15T03:58:00.000-05:002006-11-15T03:58:00.000-05:00Hi w. nielsen.I am sure that that the Theotokos is...Hi w. nielsen.<BR/><BR/>I am sure that that the Theotokos is correct. But how is it that Mary is the "ideal disciple"? There is nothing in the synoptics to support such an accolade - indeed Mark 3:31-35 (cf. Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21) suggests the opposite, and Mary is not even reported to have been at the crucifixion. Whence her unwaivering faith? In John, of course, Mary does appear at the cross, and Luke tells us that she was among the earliest Christians (Acts1:14), but, again, "ideal disciple"?<BR/><BR/>As for Mary being "the first witness to our resurrection hope", are you confusing her with Magdalene (John 20:11ff.)? Her son James is the only member of Joseph's family to whom the risen Christ seems to have appeared (I Corinthian 15:7).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163556712794088102006-11-14T21:11:00.000-05:002006-11-14T21:11:00.000-05:00Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge and Herman Bavinck...Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge and Herman Bavinck all seemed to have a place for Mary as θεοτόκος. <A HREF="http://nielsensnook.com/?p=55" REL="nofollow">[Read quotes here]</A> So in some respects understanding that Mary was the mother of the whole Christ, both divine and human, one person and two natures, is <I>old news</I> to historic Reformed thought. She does seem to be the ideal disciple. Her faith does not appear to waiver throughout the Gospel narratives. She is the first witness to our resurrection hope. This being said, it is Christology that informs our understanding of Mary and not the other way round. A healthy view of Mary would enhance our Chalcedonian understanding of Christ not detract from it.<BR/><BR/>You might also find John Meyendorff's work from an Eastern Orthodox Historical Theological approach to be interesting. I would suggest reading the book, <I>Christ in Eastern Christian Thought</I> by St. Vladimir's Press. I have <A HREF="http://nielsensnook.com/?cat=29" REL="nofollow">thorough chapter summaries</A> at Nielsen's Nook which might help non-Orthodox digest the dense material found in Meyendorff's work.wnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648338508592526316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1163546502090026842006-11-14T18:21:00.000-05:002006-11-14T18:21:00.000-05:00Seems Mary will be the subject of much discussion....Seems Mary will be the subject of much discussion. Scot McKnight has a book on Mary out too, and "The Nativity Story" movie will also spur the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com