- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post31 Days of Wisdom - Day Thirty One
- Next Post »The Death of Jesus
Gibson’s Passion and Mary "Co-redemptrix"
- 03/31/04
- 39
Dr. Mark Miravalle has written a fascinating article for the Catholic Information Network that speaks about Mary’s portrayal in The Passion of the Christ. Miravalle is Professor of Theology and Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, so obviously something of an expert on the subject. Here are some interesting quotes:
In a recent interview with Mel Gibson, Christianity Today referred to Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic who “likes the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary Co-redemptrix.” There's another well-known Catholic who also calls the Mother of Jesus the Co-redemptrix: His name is Pope John Paul II. He has done so on six occasions during his post Vatican II pontificate.
In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son's heart. This mother's heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.
Mary Co-redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it's a hit.
You can read the article in full here.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (39)
Whoa! That is interestesting. I’ve never actually seen the Mary as co-redemptrix laid out like that.
I was aware of the doctrine but certainly this man gives credibility to his description since he is not only Catholic, but is an expert in Mariology. Had this article been written by a Protestant I probably would not have bothered posting it here…
Tim quoting Miravelle:
In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son’s heart. This mother’s heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.
I respectfully suggest that everyone read the entire article at http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20040311.html before jumping to any hasty conclusions:
Tim left out a very crucial part of Miravelle’s article —the second paragraph (not to mention nine more paragraphs!)— before skipping all the way down to the last two paragraphs.
In that second paragraph (and in the ones that follow it) Miravelle explains that “co-redemptrix” does NOT mean that Mary is “another redeemer,” to borrow the way James White phrases it (bold text added for emphasis):
———[begin second paragraph]————-
What does the Co-redemptrix title mean? From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary’s unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin. Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or ‘buy back’ the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.
—-[end second paragraph]——-
So it needs to be understood what Catholics mean by “co-redemptrix” and, more importantly, what Catholics does NOT mean by it.
First, The English prefix “co-” (from the Latin cum, “with”) can be used in two different and distinct ways:
(1) to mean “equal to;” or
(2) to mean “with,” specifically in a subordinate way as an unequal participant.
An example of the latter is when one of us prays for another’s salvation. In that very limited spiritual sense we too become, in effect, “co-redeemers.”
Second, “co-redemptrix” does NOT mean that Mary suffered and died for our sins, for only Christ as the Lamb of God could do that. It merely means that she spiritually participated in His suffering in much the same way the Apostle Paul said he participated in His suffering to a lesser degree. The only real difference is that Mary just happened to do it first, and on a much more intimate level because of her role in the Incarnation and her unique relationship with Jesus —e.g., they shared the same flesh and blood.
Here’s another quote by Miravelle which makes clear what Catholics mean and do not mean by the term “co-redemptrix” (bold text added for emphasis):
“…Again it must be stated that Mary’s participation in the redemption of the human family was completely and in every way secondary and dependent to the sacrifice of Jesus the Savior. Hence, the title Co-redemptrix should never be interpreted as Mary having an equal role in the salvation of the world with Jesus. At the same time, her truly meritorious act of giving flesh to the Redeemer and of participating uniquely in Jesus’ painful sacrifice rightly won for her the title of Co-redemptrix….” (Miravalle, page 70, An Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion)
This is in clear alignment with the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which can be read by anyone:
“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it. No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful [1 Peter 2:9; Rev 1:6], and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.” —(paragraph 970, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican: 1994)
John,
I did not post this article in order to comment on the doctrine of Mary’s role as co-redemptrix. I posted it to show that Mel clearly expressed Catholic theology in his film.
I did not post this article in order to comment on the doctrine of Mary’s role as co-redemptrix. I posted it to show that Mel clearly expressed Catholic theology in his film.
Okay, Tim. Gotcha. My apologies. I did indeed read too much into your post and mistook it as a segue to discussing Gibson’s Marian beliefs. Musta been some [ahem] Harmonizing on my part. ;-)
Tim, Have you seen this article on James White’s site by Chad Bresson - it covers some of the same ground you are talking about here. http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.htmlIf you care, here is an article I posted on my blog on the Passion - http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2004/03/some_of_the_bet.html. Thanks for your blog - you are a good writer and I appreciate it very much. David Wayne
Just read your blog, David, and you make some fair-minded and thoughtful comments. However, I find some problems with some of them, mostly in the context of relevance. For example:
MacArthur raised a problematic issue with the movie itself. He said that one effect could be to make people feel sorry for Jesus because of all the suffering. This would be a mistake since thousands of people suffered similar tortures at the hands of the Romans in that day. But none, besides Jesus bore the wrath of God. The value of the crucifixion is not in the magnitude of the suffering Jesus endured, but in His bearing of the wrath of God.
Which consisted of both His spiritual suffering and His physical suffering, the lattter of which was that much more magnified by the former. IMO, MacArthur’s objection waxes quasi-Gnostic here for it presupposes an unbiblical “either-or” dichotomy between Jesus’ suffering as a sinless but fully human man and Jesus’ suffering as the fully divine Second Person of the Trinity.
Contra MacArthur, the two very distinct yet unified forms of suffering Jesus endured were symbiotic and therefore equal in intensity by virtue of the fact that the Incarnated Son was (and remains) both 100% human and 100% divine. That is why for the past 2,000 years countless Christians of all stripes from the Apostle Paul onward who have regularly meditated on Jesus’ Passion have also experienced greater and deeper spiritual growth thereby.
Perhaps the massive lack of such meditation on the part of we pampered and spoiled modern Western Christians —who seem much more interested in the warm fuzzies of Gospel Lite than in the holy suffering of Jesus’ challenge to take up our crosses and follow Him— may explains why the Body of Christ has had almost no impact in a country which claims to be predominantly Christian. We can’t even get abortion reduced, much less eliminated! But I digress…
IMO, MacArthrur’s objection is inconsistent with the classical ancient orthodox understanding of the Incarnation, if not an implicit rejection of that understanding.
Also, the movie is an uninterpreted account of the story of the crucifixion which is insufficient to lead someone to a knowledge of Christ. A movie like the Passion cannot and should not be allowed to stand on its own, the story of the sufferings of Christ must be interpreted and explained and this is what the gospel accounts do.
Agreed —completely. But, David, that is to be expected since the film Gibson made is called “The PASSION of the Christ,” not “The THEOLOGY LESSON of the Christ” nor even “The MISSION of the Christ.” Nevertheless, there was a fair amount of soteriological data expressed in (a) the opening sequence, in which Gibson uses the Devil to “explain” why Jesus was about to die —apparently as a bold and deliberate practical joke played on Satan himself (a “whoopee cushion for Old Nick,” in Gary North’s words); and (b) in the flashback sequences, in which Jesus reveals to His disciples what He was about to undertake and why.
It must be kept in mind that Gibson’s stated intention was not to make an evangelistic tract-on-film but rather an artistic personal meditation on Jesus’ last hours as an expression of gratitude to the Lord for what He did for him 12 years ago when he had reached a very dangerous, and almost fatal, place in his personal life.
IMO, far too many of the objections being raised along the “it’s-not-complete” line utterly misses the point.
Um, that should be “utterly miss the point.” :-)
I seen the movie very intense movie well done but parts i couldnt sit still in was a little to much for me to sit though ..:)
Despite everything that John says to defend the Mariology professor this point is so clear and so wrong and it is really what the professor likes to think in his heart despite his effort to hide it with clever wordsHers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin. She cannot have an immaculate heart for she is a sinner needing redemption!Bill
Bill opines:
Despite everything that John says to defend the Mariology professor…
Actually, all John did was provide clearer and more in-context quotes by the Mariology professor juxtaposed with the RCC’s own official teaching in its own words. So I didn’t really say that much. I didn’t have to. What the Mariology professor really thinks as opposed to Bill’s caricature of what the Mariology professor thinks are appparently at odds, and that’s a problem for Bill, not for either John or the Mariology professor. :-)
…this point is so clear and so wrong and it is really what the professor likes to think in his heart despite his effort to hide it with clever words.
That’s odd. Until now, I thought the only one could read another man’s heart —much less what he is “hiding” in his heart with “clever words”— was God Almighty. But now we can include Bill Cooper on the list. ;-)
…She cannot have an immaculate heart for she is a sinner needing redemption!”
Unless, of course, she was redeemed (and restored to a pre-Fall state) retroactively, i.e., before she had a chance to be a sinner —which, btw, is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter (italics added for emphasis):
491: Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
492: The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.
493: The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
So, as the above official teaching of the RCC indicates, Mary was indeed redeemed by Jesus Christ and was indeed in need of that redemption —just like everyone else. The difference between her salvation and ours is that she was saved by the Son of God before her birth rather than after. After all, He was (and remains) the Lamb of God “slain before the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 3: 18). Don’t forget that God is not confined to the limits of time and space (both of which He created!) as we are so retroactive redemption is not outside His power.
Even Augustine (in his tract On Nature and Grace: Against Pelagius, Chap. 42) agreed that the retroactive redemption of Mary was likely in order to better prepare her to be the medium for the Son’s Incarnation. IOW, if Jesus had not died on the cross for her (and the rest of us), Mary would not have been born free of original sin.
PS: I negelected to include the name of the source for my quotes (in bold) from RCC’s official teaching. That source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, released by the Vatican in 1994, which can be found on-line here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/
A topical A-Z index to the Catechism can be found here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm
At these links Bill or anyone else can look up what the RCC actually says about its beliefs and practices easily and quickly.
OK, John… that’s just freaky. And, it’s a great example why I don’t accept some of the Catholic teachings. Nothing in the Bible indicates that Mary was “retroactively redeemed”. The Bible is silent on the issue of Mary’s sin-state. Therefore, I have to assume that aside from being Jesus’ mother, Mary was like everyone else. I am aware that the Bible is silent on many issues, but where the Bible is silent, I should probably be silent (and maybe speculate to myself at best. However, from what you said, Catholic teachings have taken Mary way beyond speculation.
It sounds to me like someone way back in history had the bad idea of making Mary out to be more than she was - and the idea evolved and grew and now it just kind of seems bizarre. Almost as if we can use Mary’s help to get to Jesus. I don’t get to Jesus through Mary… and it’s worked out well - me and Jesus are pretty tight.
Mary died and didn’t come back again (I am forced to speculate). Maybe I’ll see her in heaven, maybe I won’t… but you can bet I’ll be there - because of what Jesus did for me. If Mary did something for me too (other than birth Jesus), that’s awesome! I just wonder why the God didn’t care to bring that to my attention in His Word.
Sure, Mary was Jesus’ mother. If that fact somehow makes Mary “retroactively redeemed”, then I suppose that means that Mary’s mother was retroactively redeemed as well… and Mary’s grandma, and her great-grandma. If that’s not in the Catholic teachings, then it sounds like the Catholic teachings say that Mary was somehow sin-free upon conception - a little sin-free baby in the womb of a sinner. If Catholics can accept that fact, why is it so hard to accept that the Son of God was sin-free in the womb of a sinner?
Thanks for your very reasonable response, Doug.
Of course since you’re not a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox, I wouldn’t expect you or any other non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian to agree with the insights about Mary (or any other subject) developed by those churches during and since the early churh era.
I only ask that those who disagree with such things at least try to fully know and understand what those things really are as opposed to caricatures of them.
As for the New Testament being silent or scant on some things, specifically Mary, I agree. But many of those things were also developed by the early church based on Old Testament prophecy and typology together with New Testament teaching.
For example, in ancient times, even as early as the early 100s AD, ancient Christian Bible scholars and theologians began to understand Mary as the New Eve. Others regarded her as the Ark of the New Covenant. But they didn’t find such interpretations explicit in the NT documents. They saw them as implied in the NT when read in light of the OT.
It sounds to me like someone way back in history had the bad idea of making Mary out to be more than she was - and the idea evolved and grew and now it just kind of seems bizarre….
But bizarre is a matter of perspective and perception, right? To me, the endless speculations about the Last Days as expressed in the countless Dispensatioanlist prophecy books —many of which end up being proven wrong by yet other prophecy books— and “end times” novels also seem bizarre since I take a largely preterist approach to those things.
There has certainly been an awful lot of speculating and development in those circles about other things the Bible is silent on. So not all speculation about things the Bible is silent or scant about come only from Catholics or Orthodox.
As for “someone way back in history …making Mary out to be more than she was” that was most certainly the case: In the early 4th century the Christian leadership had to crack down on the Collyridians, a heretical sect which took devotion of Mary to the extreme of making her into a deity.
The rest of the ancient Christian community, in both the East and the West, regarded her as worthy of special honor as the Theotokos, the “God-bearer,” which of course did not in any way make her divine.
…Almost as if we can use Mary’s help to get to Jesus…
Actually, all of us have had someone’shelp getting to Jesus, both before and after making a personal decision to follow Him. Our pastors, spiritual counsellors, and Christian friends and family members who pray for us. For Catholics and Orthodox, Mary’s help to get to Jesus consists of the same thing —praying for us. Again, I don’t expect you to embrace that view, but that’s what it means.
A friend of mine wrote a very succinct summary of Mary’s role in Heaven: “Mediatrix of all Graces: All Graces means Christ himself. He chose as the Medium (‘mediatrix’) of His Incarnation, Mary. That’s it.”
I don’t get to Jesus through Mary… and it’s worked out well - me and Jesus are pretty tight.
I’m glad! :-) That’s as it should be and guess what? Mary wouldn’t want it any other way! Her role is to be subordinate to her Son as His gebirah, not replace Him or be His equal.
I, too, go directly to Jesus in my prayer life and through Scripture. Mary comes into the picture only occassionally for me when I ask her to pray for me on some matter I’m concerned about. But guess what? I ask all my Christian friends here on earth to do the same thing! She just happens to be in Heaven —along with all other Christians who’ve passed away— rather than on earth. For the Christian, the barrier between Heaven and earth was done away with by Jesus on the cross, not only in terms of salvation but also in terms of fellowship: The Body of Christ isn’t only on earth (Catholic and Orthodox refer to that as “the communion of saints”).
Hi JohnJesus is in those He is in and He saw what was in men’s hearts so because He is in those He is in they too can see. It is called the spirit of discernment. Peter by that power saw what was in Ananias and Saphira’s heart. “Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit…”He also discerned what was in another man’s heart saying Ac 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity. Paul nailed Elymas Acts 13:8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.Acts 13:9 But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.Our churches have fallen a long way from the truth faith.Bill
John,
Thank you. While I do not agree with many of your positions from a Biblical perspective, it is important that my disagreement is based on a clear understanding of what Catholics believe, rather than disagree with some rumor of what they believe. And on that point, I think we are in full agreement. Agreed?
Agreed! :-)
God bless you, Doug! I hope you and yours have a very joyful Easter!
Bill replies,
Jesus is in those He is in and He saw what was in men’s hearts so because He is in those He is in they too can see. It is called the spirit of discernment. Peter by that power saw what was in Ananias and Saphira’s heart. “Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit…”He also discerned what was in another man’s heart saying Ac 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity. Paul nailed Elymas Acts 13:8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
Of course, all of that is true, Bill. But Peter’s level of discernment —and that of all the rest of the Apostles who were present in the upper room on Pentecost— was exercised by the power of the Holy Spirit given to them on that day. Thus their spirit of discernment was far and away much more efficacious and accurate than that of modern-day rank-and-file Christian.
After all, they were Apostles and we are not. If we were, then there would not be thousands of denominations and millions of preachers, theologians, and Bible teachers all claiming to be “led by the Spirit” yet are in contradiction of each other.
Also, Peter and Paul, unlike you or I, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and placed in positions of legitimate Apostolic authority by Jesus Himself. You and I and all Christians do indeed have Jesus in our hearts (we could not be believers otherwise!) and enjoy the Holy Spirit’s guidance regarding our personal lives, our walks with the Lord, and our challenges to the world. But that is hardly the same thing. We do not and cannot have all of the same charisms He gave the Apostles, least of all the ability to read another person’s heart.
Hi John I see that to get a pure church that will overcome Satan there has to be discernment of those who are hypocrites. That power of Pentecost in Peter was a sign of the power needed by those who follow Christ. The world is very deceitful, able to put on clever masks and Paul lamented that after he left religious thieves would arise of their own ranks to spoil the flock. This would happen he infers because it was not seeking sanctification through which it would have pure eyes to see the wolves in sheeps clothing. Christ reproved the church of Laodicea through John because it presumed it could see when it couldn’t. He said I counsel you to buy of me eyesalve so you can see, other wise I will spew you out of my mouth. This shows that Christ demands purity and purity involves ability to judge. “Knew you not the saints shall judge the world” “He that is spiritual judges all things, its says” otherwise Christ does not get the companions he seeks to rule the world with him. He is not going to take on the unworthy for such a high and holy task. He will spew out the carnal believers.BillBill
whoever repents and is baptized will be saved.
something tells me Mary wasn’t exempt from this. But if someone chooses to believe she was, is that not a different gospel than the one laid out in the scriptures.
since repentence requires action on our part, I have a hard time understanding how Mary could have done that before she was born.
very short and simple answers only please, I have a small brain. :)
whoever repents and is baptized will be saved.
…if someone chooses to believe she was, is that not a different gospel than the one laid out in the scriptures.
How so? You forget that Baptism has *two* functions: (1) to remove sins committed by the person and (2) to remove original sin, the moral state into which everyone is born.
Cornelius and his whole household were baptized after Cornelius repented. By implication, those baptized would’ve included any infants therein. Infacts can’t repent since they’re not capable of doing so. Yet at their Baptism the Holy Spirit regenerated them anyway.
since repentence requires action on our part,…
True —but not of infants: One has to have done something to repent of in the first place. Since newborn infants are incapable of committing sins, they do not fit into that category.
The salvific effects of Baptism have nothing to do with human will or wishes but with God’s power and sovereignty.
Dude Man - What John has written represents the Catholic view of baptism which Protestants hold as a false view. The Bible does not support the belief that baptism 1) removes sin and 2) removes original sin. The Bible says that baptism is a symbolic act which represents the washing away of sins and the gift of new life. The act in and of itself has no power - it is merely a symbolic act. It is regarded as the first act of obedience upon salvation. Those who believed were immediately baptized to symbolize the transformation that had take place in them.
Mary was born a sinful human being like any other so required repentance just like the rest of us. Without repentance and belief she would have perished. So yes, saying Mary was exempt from sin is an erroneous belief.
I do not wish this to turn into a discussion of the Catholic vs Protestant view of baptism, so John, please do not make this so.
Dude Man - What John has written represents the Catholic view of baptism which Protestants hold as a false view.
But not all Protestants hold “the Catholic view of baptism” to be false. The Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, also hold essentially the same “baptismal regeneration” view which Catholics and Eastern Orthodox hold. So it would be more accurate to say that “some Protestants hold [the “Catholic view of baptism] as a false view.”
In fact, the only Protestants who take a strictly symbolic individualistic view of Baptism-is-for-adults-only are the minority of Protestants who interpret Scripture along various non-Covenantalist, Dispensationalist, or Anabaptist lines. Those lines do not represent historic Reformation interpretations of Scripture. Since other Protestants do not agree that such a view of Baptism is “what the Bible teaches,” it’s rather presumptuous IMHO to insist that it does.
…So yes, saying Mary was exempt from sin is an erroneous belief.
Unless, of course, God exempted her by securing her redemption through the cross retroactively, before her birth. Since Scripture is essentially silent vis that possibility, the notion can’t be “unbiblical,” much less “anti-biblical.”
I do not wish this to turn into a discussion of the Catholic vs Protestant view of baptism, so John, please do not make this so.
I had no intention of doing so, but it was necessary to bring it up in order to respond to Dude Man’s “false gospel” objection since he openly based that objection on his view of Baptism. So he, and not I, raised the Baptism issue.
you guys are pretty cool and obviously know your stuff - but no worries - my understanding of baptism isn’t about to change because I have experienced it twice. First when the Holy Spirit came apon me, which was totally incredible, and second when the pastor dunked me in the baptism tank.
you guys are pretty cool and obviously know your stuff..
Thanks, Dude Man. :-) You’re very kind. :-) In all honesty, Christians have been debating the Baptism issue —and innumerable other issues— for centuries. We’re certainly not going to resolve it —or them— here. So I for one will respect Tim’s wish that it not be debated here.
- but no worries - my understanding of baptism isn’t about to change because I have experienced it twice. First when the Holy Spirit came apon me, which was totally incredible, and second when the pastor dunked me in the baptism tank.
That’s so cool! I’m so happy for you! May God continue to shower you with many more such blessings.
John wrote:
“Unless, of course, God exempted [Mary] by securing her redemption through the cross retroactively, before her birth. Since Scripture is essentially silent vis that possibility, the notion can’t be “unbiblical,” much less “anti-biblical.”
John, it is too simplistic to draw the conclusion that it “can’t be unbiblical” simply because the scripture is silent on the issue.
The scripture is also silent on Buddah & Hinduism.
Wouldn’t the historical, one and only, unique, amazing, theology-altering retroactive redemption of Mary qualify for documentation in the Bible? Even one or two words? It’s not there. Using your words, the Bible is silent on the issue. The typology arguments of Mary’s retroactive redemption are too much of a stretch. The concept is completely unbiblical. It is also illogical. If Mary needed to be sin-free to have a sin-free Jesus, than Mary’s mom would have needed to be sin-free to have sin-free Mary… and back and back.
Wouldn’t it be safer to stick to the Bible and not add all the extras? You seem like an intellegent guy. Why do you defend a retroactive redemption? More importantly, why do you believe it?
so ya
*this is just me*
like a number of times in the past I have heard stuff come off the pulpilt in different churches that it isn’t scriptural. It isn’t necessarily directly “anti-scriptural” but it isn’t scriptural, and because of that I personally won’t accept it. Because I will not trust another man with my salvation. In Revelations it says whoever adds to the words of this book… I am sure you guys know the rest. So ya, there is multiple ways you can interpret that verse, but the fact is that message is throughout the whole Bible in various forms - maybe worth a study sometime. So when I notice something that is “Extra” biblical I keep my distance, because obviously even if it was “possibly” true, it is of no importance! Otherwise Jesus would have wrote it down.
If you disagree with that, whether your Christian or Catholic, your left with the very difficult task of discerning which men, popes, fathers, preachers are right, and which are wrong, if the Bible is not your “plumb-line”. A little more study in the Catholic Church, and even Protestant, will show you that Popes disagreed and made war with each other, rules and doctrines continually changed, and similar things happened on the Protestant side.
The only thing unmoved is the word of God. And yes I understand the issues involving interpretation and translation of the scriptures, and I am still fully convinced that God has provided His Word for us, and that it is accurate.
“Unless, of course, God exempted [Mary] by securing her redemption through the cross retroactively, before her birth. Since Scripture is essentially silent vis that possibility, the notion can’t be “unbiblical,” much less “anti-biblical.”
The scripture is also silent on Buddah & Hinduism.
First of all, Buddhism and Hinduism are two separate belief systems. They are not Christian theological theories or speculations (the ONLY context in which my point about biblical silence is in any way relevant).
Second, the subjects of Mary and her role(s) in salvation history —whatever it/they were— fall within the larger subjects of Christianity and Judaism while Buddha and Hinduism do not.
Also, let’s not forget that Scripture is silent on whether or not abortion is murder. In fact, some Evangelicals —R. C. Sproul, for example (at least back in the 70’s)— are “pro-choice” precisely because (1) the New Testament says nothing on the subject and (2) the penalties proscribed in the Mosaic Law for accidental miscarriage caused by a third party are so vague that they can be interpreted to refer to the death of the unborn child as either manslaughter or loss of the parents’ property.
Yet other Evangelicals —who get their pro-life position primarily from ancient Christian tradition and the early church fathers (who condemned it unanimously!) and not from any explicit Bible passage— have no trouble at all insisting that God condemns abortion as murder.
Then there’s that tiny matter of the NT canon: None of the New Testament writers provided a list of which of the dozens of Gospels and Epistles actually belonged in the New Testament. Yet —once again— Evangelicals have no trouble at all accepting the list of 27 Gospels and Epistles handed down to them by ancient Christian tradition and the early church fathers.
So, yes, since Scripture is essentially silent vis the proposition that abortion is murder or that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews really belongs in the New Testament those notions can’t be “unbiblical,” much less “anti-biblical,” either.
So that other stream of valid doctrinal and historical data —namely, ancient Christian tradition and the biblical studies and commentaries of the early church fathers— also needs to be taken into account; not to replace the Bible but rather to enable us to correctly understand what the Bible says, especially implicitly.
Wouldn’t it be safer to stick to the Bible and not add all the extras? You seem like an intellegent guy. Why do you defend a retroactive redemption? More importantly, why do you believe it?
Because it was the consensus of almost all Christians in the West and East for the past 2,000 years —a tiny 400-year-old minority of them being the sole exception. Unlike modern-day American Protestants, they didn’t interpret the Bible in an individualistic fashion completely divorced from both Christian history and ancient Christian tradition.
John,
That answers it then. You have no problem relying on extra-Biblical or non-Biblical sources in order to base your key theological concepts. I believe that is potentially a deadly mistake. You don’t agree.
Mary and her role in salvation history only fall into the subject of Christianity if you stick to the Bible. Once you assign non-Biblical importance to Mary, or suggest that she was retroactively redeemed, or begin praying to her, you’ve moved from Biblical Christianity into a realm as far removed from Christianity as Buddah, or Hinduism or Mother Goose.
We won’t agree on this. For me, it’s the Bible, period. For you, it’s the Bible, plus… For example;
Abortion: My thoughts? 1) I don’t know. The Bible is silent. 2) I have a notion, but could very well be wrong because the Bible is silent. 3) My notion about abortion has zero impact on my salvation.
Mary: Your thoughts? 1) You are certain she was sinless, you pray to her, you believe she was retroactively redeemed. Yet, the Bible is silent. 2) Yours is more than a notion, you are certain. 3) You pray to Mary. You assign a non-Biblical importance to her and her role in the salvation of mankind.
A critical difference in approach on two issues, about which the Bible is silent.
I’m playing it a little safer, don’t you think?
…You have no problem relying on extra-Biblical or non-Biblical sources in order to base your key theological concepts. I believe that is potentially a deadly mistake. You don’t agree.
AH! But, Doug, you’re doing exactly the same thing when you interpret the Bible thru a Protestant lens —i.e., the theological presuppositions/assumptions and hermeneutics concocted by (for example) Luther or Calvin— rather than thru the orthodox Christian lens of ancient Christian tradition and the early church fathers.
IOW, no one comes to Scripture without a worldview or set of principles by which they read its words. So you aren’t any more “sola scriptura” than I am, and for the simple reason that, epistemologically speaking, it’s not possible to be.
Mary and her role in salvation history only fall into the subject of Christianity if you stick to the Bible….
Agreed. But once again the issue is how that Bible is to be interpreted! The early church fathers, especially the Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Eastern fathers drew their conclusions about Mary from the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which was the only Bible early church had until the New Testament canon was determined and finalized in the early 4th century. Until then, there was wide disagreement about which of the Apostolic and Apostolic-era writings were to be regarded as inspired, infallible, inerrant Scripture. Did you know, for example, that until the canon was established in the late 300s AD many Christians regarded as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Thomas as Scripture and regarded the Epistle of James and Revelation, as well as Hebrews, as not Scripture?
The key difference is that those ancient godly men understood and interpreted the Bible far better than you or I do or every can, in part for the simple reasons that (a) they weren’t educated in 20th-21st Western schools infected with post-modernism, rationalism, and subjectivism; (b) they weren’t restricted to reading the Bible in English, and in fact their own everyday languages were the same ones the Bible was written in; and (c) they weren’t raised in a culture that was as far removed from ancient biblical culture as Venus is from Pluto.
Once you assign non-Biblical importance to Mary, or suggest that she was retroactively redeemed, or begin praying to her, you’ve moved from Biblical Christianity into a realm as far removed from Christianity as Buddah, or Hinduism or Mother Goose.
But only in your personal subjectivist opinion which has no more weight or authority than either mine or that of the average secular humanist.
Again, the ancient church fathers who drew their Marian understandings from the Bible —because they knew how to interpet it biblically!— would scoff at your definition of “non-Biblical importance.” In fact, they did just that when the Nestorians raised virtually the same objection of “non-Biblical importance” being assigned to Mary in 431 AD.
We won’t agree on this. For me, it’s the Bible, period. For you, it’s the Bible, plus…
…the lens of the historic, classical, orthodox Christianity preserved in ancient Christian tradition and taught by the early church fathers, some of whom were trained by the Apostles themselves!
For you, it’s the Bible plus the theologies and interpretations of Reformation and post-Reformation dissenters.
Abortion: My thoughts? 1) I don’t know. The Bible is silent. 2) I have a notion, but could very well be wrong because the Bible is silent. 3) My notion about abortion has zero impact on my salvation.
Unless, of course, you support or endorse it.
Nevertheless, you by-passed the other issue I raised, which certainly would have a huge impact on your salvation, namely the matter of the New Testament canon: How can you as a “sola scriptura” Protestant know that any of the writings placed by fallible men into what we call the “New Testament” really belong there in the first place? (I know they belong there because 1,700 year ago the Holy Spirit guided the leadership of my “denomination” to infallibly make that determination.)
Since you’ve decided to be silent on abortion since the Bible is silent on abortion, are you likewise silent on the New Testament canon since the Bible is silent on the New Testament canon?
Mary: Your thoughts? 1) You are certain she was sinless, you pray to her, you believe she was retroactively redeemed. Yet, the Bible is silent. 2) Yours is more than a notion, you are certain. 3) You pray to Mary. You assign a non-Biblical importance to her and her role in the salvation of mankind.
But not “non-biblical” according to all Christians from at least the 2nd century AD until the 17th century AD, and according to most Christians (i.e., those outside the tiny Protestant and Anabaptist minority) today.
A critical difference in approach on two issues, about which the Bible is silent.
I’m playing it a little safer, don’t you think?
Not really, since apart from ancient Christian tradition and the conclusions arrived at by the early church fathers, you have no way of knowing whether or not any of the 27 books in the second Testament of your Bible really belong there. Even R. C. Sproul admitted that based on Protestant premises the NT canon is “a fallible list.” IOW, based on Protestant premises that list could be wrong, either in part or in whole!
John,
It’s always an education. Thank you.
Doug
You’re welcome. (I think. LOL)
John
There are other issues surrounding your premises of interpreting the scripture through the tradition of the “Fathers.”
Some of the “Fathers” of the faith that have been ordained as Saints in the Catholic Church have a theology that more accurately matches the Christian doctrine of today, than the Catholic Doctrine. - Saint Augustine for example.
Also from your prior writings I get the impression that you feel the Christian doctrine was only present in a very small group back in the early hundreds.
The deception there is that many of the people groups that were deemed “pagan” and wiped out by the Catholic/Governments would classify as Christians by todays standards. A book like Foxes Book of Marytrs (excuse me if I can’t spell) sheds more light on that subject.
Furthermore, the doctrines, and traditions of the Fathers, Popes, and Priests of the past do not maintain a unity that would warrant the faith of any man.
Now, I agree with you that Christians of today are in similar boat in that we interpret Scripture through protestant tradition. However, it is more than that as the Scripture itself says. And I may hold to some teachings, being an aware, that I picked up from tradition an nowhere else, but my focus is to only accept those things which the Holy Spirit reveals to me through the Word of God.
For instance, no need to debate these, just examples of my own personal life.- I don’t believe tithing is for the Christian (giving definitely is.)- I don’t believe observing the Sabbath is a requirement for the Christian.
Some Christians will disagree, some will not, but I have learnt these things as well as many others through time spent in the prayer closet. But as a final point to punch one more blow in the traditions of men theology.
“And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.”
1st John
—-
More than theology, Jesus is teaching me on a daily basis, how He wants me to live to please Him, and to be an effective minister of His gospel, and He is teaching me how to LOVE Him and others. I don’t believe a doctrine because the masses believed it (unless I am unaware), I believe a doctrine when the Holy Spirit teaches it to me.
—-
In the same way that God has provided “scripture” in the past I believe fully that He has provided it for His Church. If we are required to pick up the pieces of men, and traditions, of thousands of years ago to interpret the Bible, there is really no point in having it. Unless of course we can be taught directly by the Holy Spirit how to interpret it!
It is a personal relationship with Jesus, make no doubt about it.
You can hang with Mary, Peter and the boys, but if you don’t know Jesus as your personal friend and Saviour, Mary ain’t going to do you much good.
but hey, maybe that is just protestant tradition, or maybe thats what Jesus meant when He said, “Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you!” - to a people who had devoted their life to doing good works in the name of Jesus.
—
I will live like the Bereans (Acts somewhere), - new doctrine idea, well, lets check and see if the scripture backs it up.
In the same way that God has provided “scripture” in the past I believe fully that He has provided it for His Church. If we are required to pick up the pieces of men, and traditions, of thousands of years ago to interpret the Bible, there is really no point in having it.
Unless, of course, those “men and traditions” were also provided by God for His Church and guided by the Holy Spirit to be our teachers to help us better understand that Scripture.
I don’t believe a doctrine because the masses believed it (unless I am unaware), I believe a doctrine when the Holy Spirit teaches it to me.
But what do you do when “the Holy Spirit” teaches another Christian —reading the exact same Bible “alone” (ignoring or rejecting the wisdom and guidance of the early church)— the exact opposite doctrine?
At that point, how do you determine which of you was really taught by the Holy Spirit?
…It is a personal relationship with Jesus, make no doubt about it.
…You can hang with Mary, Peter and the boys, but if you don’t know Jesus as your personal friend and Saviour, Mary ain’t going to do you much good…
Absolutely, DM! Mary, Peter and the boys would agree with you. :-) But that relationship doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, least of all as “Lone Rangers.”
Boy I knew there was something wrong with Mel Gibson in his production of the Passion. Now to confirm my estimations I found this pretty compelling article on Mel Gibson’s connection with Michael Moore’s latest scandelous movie Fahrenheit 9/11.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119253,00.html
I wonder what Mel is thinking now even though he reniged on his deal.
Posted by: Matthew Reed at July 1, 2004 02:59 AM
Mary is appearing now all over the world. Her message is unity. It is plain to see she wants to unite Muslims, Catholics and orthodox Christians.
“I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.” -Marian message
Last time I checked, there is only one savior and his name is Jesus Christ.
In another message, Mary told the seers: “Tell this priest, tell everyone, that it is you who are divided on earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox, for the same reason as Catholics, are equal before my Son and I. You are all my children.”
Mary and Jesus are important figures in the Koran. They love Mary! Apparitions have appeared in mosques.Yet, Muslims deny that Jesus is the Son of God!The bible says salvation is dependent upon this!
The apparition does not convert Muslims it merely accepts!
Funny how Buddhists and eastern religion and all new age religions wait for the return of the goddess of which Mary is a documented acceptable form for them. (one of many forms)
what about everyone else? Heck, If I didn’t know any better I’d get sucked in too. Whose going to argue with an apparition that reveals itself to everyone shinning in all heavenly glory?
Testing the Spirits Those who are familiar with the Word of God know that we are to be cautious when dealing with alleged heavenly visitors. The Apostle John reminds us: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Furthermore, the New Testament repeatedly warns of deception, in the name of Christ, in the last days.
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24).
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1).
The principal way to test these reported “Messengers From Heaven” is to test their messages with the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Look around , it doesn’t take a genius to realize that we haven’t far to go.
I believe that Mary will unite all world religions under the Roman catholic banner once she is proclaimed co-redemtrix by the pope.
She said in a message:
“When the dogma, the last dogma in Marian history, has been proclaimed, the Lady of All Nations will give peace, true peace to the world. The nations, however, must say My prayer in union with the Church. They must know that “the Lady of All Nations” has come as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. So be it!”
For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow. Therefore her plagues will come in one day; death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.” -revelations 18
The world will become a one government/one religion establishment and she will probably appoint the antichrist as its king. We all now what happens after that, the second coming.
Immaculate ConceptionCatholic doctrine says that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin, from the first instant of her conception. (Catechism 491, 492, 508). However, according to the Bible, Mary knew that she needed a savior. The Bible records Mary’s words to her cousin Elizabeth:
“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46-47, emphasis added)
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries, this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers, and theologians of the Catholic Church
Good luck with Mary, I’ll stick with the good book!
Check out these websites:
http://www.harpazo.net/Queen.html
http://www.unmaskingcatholicism.com/index.shtml#Home
Wow! So much Catholic theology! I am a protestant but still praise God at the the thought and passion that has gone into this discussion. God bless everyone of you and I am proud of your walks with God and devotion to find the truth.
Mr. Bill