Defending the Faith: sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition - Part 3

Finally, we come to the last part of this weighty debate on sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition: should we look to the Church or ourselves as the authoritative interpretation of the Bible?

The Evangelical Stance - Many Evangelicals who believe strictly in the "Bible alone" mentality, will say that this is one of the main areas of contention that they have with the Catholic church and any other denomination that professes an authoritative belief in apostolic succession. They are quick to cite Proverbs 8:9 ("They are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.") and 2 Corinthians 4:2 ("Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."), using these passages to assert that since Scripture is God-inspired and given to man, God expects the readers to comprehend it. Because of this, God can privately communicate his message to the reader in such a way that they can comprehend it if they are seeking truth. Evangelicals contend that doctrine must be based squarely on the Bible and not on tradition or what the magisterium (the authoritative teaching of the Church) says. John Calvin asserts that, "...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit."

The Counter Argument - This sounds good and paints a glowing example of the 21st century, "it may work for you, but not for me" mentality. There's only one problem. The Bible and they mysteries of God are not open to private interpretation. Who said so? The apostle Peter: "...knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..."(2 Peter 1:20).

In 2 Peter 3:15-17 ("Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position."), Peter is discussing Paul's letters concerning the doctrine of salvation. And as we continue through the passage, Peter goes on to recognize that some of Paul's teachings are "hard to understand". This passage is quite damning for those who do not believe in an authoritative Church. Why? Because a major tenet in personal interpretation of the Bible is perspicuity (clearness and understanding) of Scripture and that each believer has the right to interpret the Bible as they see it. The only problem with this is this passage. It negates some beliefs that the central tenets of Scripture are totally clear enough to understand and that we do not need the authoritative Church to help us. No one in Christianity would say that the doctrine of salvation is not essential to our faith. And yet, this doctrine is "hard to understand" and, in fact, many were distorting this doctrine and not fully understanding it.

So, according to Peter, because we can find ourselves "ignorant" of even some tenets of the most basic doctrine in our faith and can potentially have the opportunity to "distort" some Scripture to our "own destruction" (consciously or unconsciously) then is there a testimony that we can looks to and on to NOT twist or be ignorant of the Scriptures as a whole? 

The problem with the "Bible alone" mentality is it holds that the self is the final authority on Scripture and interpretation. But this implies a subjective opinion that is based on feeling and emotions - not fact. This form of personal interpretation leads itself to religious subjectivism - which means that there is no subjective truth independent from what you yourself subjectively believe. So, if there is no subjective standard of Truth (to which we conform to, are under authority of, and will eventually be judged by) and your opinion is as adequate as someone else's, then we are only one step closer to Christian anarchy with no single voice of Truth, authority, or order. If private judgment and interpretation is true, then the only criteria we can go by to discern what is the original word of God is this litmus test, as the Mormon Church teaches, "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (Mormon Doctrine and Covenants 9:8)

The Mormon approach is purely subjective - and purely dangerous because that burning could just as easily be heartburn from dinner. This leads to the uncomfortable realization that, following that guideline, there is no objective criteria for us to known which documents are even inspired by God. Personal interpretation leaves the door open to argue that not only is the Bible inspired, but the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses as well. Of course, we know that the latter is not true and shouldn't be true - but that is the problem with relying on personal Biblical interpretation: this subjectivism is not a criteria for determining God's revelation of the Scriptures - not everyone who reads a passage receives a burning bosom - so someone must be in error. The problem with this mentality is that if we must rely only on the secret testimony of the Spirit, as Calvin believed, we can never know absolutely what the inspired words of God are because we would have reason to doubt someone else's independent self-subjective judgment.
 So is private interpretation and judgment a form of religious agnosticism? Proponents of sola Scriptura assert that there is no infallible testimony outside of what is found inside the Bible. If a group is sitting together reading out of the Bible, what happens if some choose to disagree with a majority interpretation? No one's interpretation is infallible and 100% absolutely truthful because the self is subject to fallible error. The Bible is the only thing infallible to them - not the person(s) making the interpretation. Therefore, I could not have faith in Person A's subjective interpretation of the Bible because he is fallible (and under the evangelical Protestant doctrine, only the Bible alone is infallible) and subject to error - but faith and error cannot coexist. Faith and doubt cannot coexist. And because of this, if Person A, and not the Bible, is fallible and subject to error, I have reason to doubt his assertions and I cannot put faith into his interpretation of the Scriptures. Likewise, because I am fallible and subject to error, then I cannot put absolute faith in my own judgment of the Bible. If there is no infallible and over-arching authoritative testimony to rely on in order to know the authentic meaning of Christ's words as revealed in sacred Scripture, then we must conclude religious agnosticism, that is, this interpretation might be true - but it very well might not be because interpretation is of equal value and one is not superior or inferior to another. Because of this, if private judgment lends itself to not being able to know what is the Truth either way, what is true Scripture? The Gospels? Epistles? Apocrypha? Old Testament? New Testament? "Bible alone" advocates contend the only infallible testimony comes from God himself. But has God himself ever say anywhere in the Bible  what documents are inspired by Him? NO. Believing in sola Scriptura means never being able to discern absolutely what part(s) of Scripture are inspired by God because believers say we must rely only on ourselves for a God-inspired interpretation and yet each one of us is subject to error and fallibility.

But fear not. There IS an infallible voice to which we can appeal to, to discover which documents have God as their author and inspiration. Without that authority and that infallible voice of interpretation we could never rely fully upon ourselves because we are fallible and subject to error. The closest any of us could get would be to say, this might be the word of the Lord or this might not be.

So if it's not a matter of private interpretation, the most obvious question would be, who does the interpreting? Matthew outlines the answer to this explicitly: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17) He is quite clear here, we should first try to find a resolution between each other if a doctrinal or Scriptural opinion difference arises, but if we are not satisfied with what our "brother" says, Scripture does not say we both can have different dissenting opinions and go about on our merry way, no, Scripture commands us to take it to the CHURCH as the final authoritative arbitrator. Peter makes it even more clear when he writes, " So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention..." (2 Peter 1:19). Taken into context with the rest of this section of Scripture and the timeframe in which it was written, the "we" Peter is referring to was not a collective "we" of individual believers who could interpret as they individually saw fit. No, the "we" describes Peter, James, and John who were the leaders of the CHURCH at this time.

Because of this understanding, we must read the Bible not apart from the Church, but from the heart of the Church. We must realize that if this was not the case, there would be no verse 17 in the aforementioned Matthew 18. But Matthew makes it quite clear that there is a final court of appeals for all Biblical interpretations outside of ourselves and it is not the individual believer. It is the Church and we are commanded to look to it for what interpretation is right, correct, true, and authoritatively binding. The Church is the high standard of authority we must mold to fit and not try to force a mold of our own personal interpretation.

To build upon that, the authoritativeness of the Church is expounded upon in v. 18 where that type of power is granted to it when Christ commands, "...whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This directive denotes the authoritative voice of the Church - evidence of the source of the authority granted to the Church to be in Heaven.

We do have an infallible voice. Matthew names it, Peter instituted it, his apostles evangelized it, their teachings voiced it and confirmed it, apostolic succession solidified it, and the Bishop of Rome today lives it. It is Holy Mother Church.

AMEN.

Defending the Faith: sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition - Part 2

In Part 1 of this discussion, we covered the major aspects of sola Scriptura and how it relates to the idea of a co-equal balance of relying on Scripture AND the Sacred Tradition of the Church. We're now going to discuss the tradition part of this equation.

The Evangelical Stance - Many Evangelicals who believe strictly in the "Bible alone" mentality, are quick to judge those who rely just as equally on Sacred Tradition as they do sola Scriptura. Why? Because, they contend, Jesus himself condemns religious tradition (as is found heavily in Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, and Methodism):

• "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions....Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." (Mark 7:8,13)
• " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' "(Matthew 15:8-9)

The Counter Argument - So is Jesus condemning tradition as the "Bible alone" believers assert? If He is, we have a serious problem - because in doing so, Jesus would be condemning the exact tradition that He Himself is bound to. What does this mean, you ask? Jesus and His followers were devout Jews and of this, there is no question. Jesus is not condemning ALL tradition because He Himself is following binding and sacred traditions of the Jewish faith in effect during His lifetime. And, like the Torah and Septuagint, there traditions were considered authoritative. So is Jesus confused? Of course not - so there has to be an exception to this rule. What is that exception? Before we get there, we will also address the verse in Mark quoted above - and we will do it by first looking at Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 ("Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."), Paul commends the Christian community in Corinth for adhering NOT to the scriptures but to the tradition that Paul has given to them. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter."), Paul says for the people to hold fast to both written and spoken traditions. Note that written scripture contains some but not all of the apostle's teachings. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ("Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother who walks irresponsibly and not according to the tradition received from us.") Paul commands that all believers keep away from anyone who does not hold fast to - not the Bible alone - but to tradition in the name of Christ. And because of this command in the name of Christ, this is a set standard that believers must be bound to and abide by, regardless of what we believe or interpret.

So Mark 7 and Matthew 15 cannot be condemning tradition in an absolute sense because there is a tradition (illustrated in the three Pauline examples above) that is not only praiseworthy but sacredly binding. So what does Jesus mean in these chapters?

The Corban Tradition

 

Corban is the Greek word for "offering". This was a man-made tradition of the time before and during Jesus' life and ministry. According to Jewish law and custom, the male head of the household was, during the course of his working life, required to save up a certain amount of money based upon his income to be used in eventually taking care of his parents when they became too elderly to be self-sufficient and live by themselves. The Corban tradition stated that if a son gave up the money he had saved to be used to take care of his parents and gave it all to the Jewish temple, that son was free from adhering the Mosaic Law of being bound to financially supporting your parents. The phrase "passing the buck" comes to mind here. But this is why this loophole was bad - this option was simply not one according to God's word (the Torah and Septuagint). It was a man-made tradition instituted by greedy Pharisees that nullified not only the word of God but also flew in the face of the Mosaic Law. This is the tradition that Jesus is condemning - not the sacred tradition millions of Christians identify with today. How can we be for sure? The problem with many Evangelists is that they see one stand alone verse that they can use to support their opinion. In this case, the singular verses in Matthew and Mark. What they rarely do is pay attention to the context in which the single verse is written in. If one who believed that Jesus was speaking of all religious traditions, looked just three verses after Mark 7:8, they would find that Christ himself clarifies and makes the distinction known between sacred traditions and Corban: "But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift committed to the temple), you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. You revoke God’s word by your tradition that you have handed down." (Mark 7:11) ) All you have to do is read the whole chapter in its intended context. End of story.

If one needs any more convincing, let's revisit 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 from Part 1. In it, Paul states that the gospel was RECIEVED. The word here for "received" in Greek is a technical term of oral tradition alone. This tradition was the original good news - not our codified Bible. Paul also teaches us in this chapter that we will be saved if we hold fast to, what? The sacred oral tradition - no mention is ever made of salvation coming only through sola Scriptura. Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 when Paul says, "you received the word of God", in the Greek, the "word" of God is literally translated to mean the oral tradition of God - not written words.

So where does this leave us? Obviously, or rather, hopefully, we can see the need and importance of a reliance of both the Bible and our Sacred Traditions as a Church. But there are many out there that believe they can/should be allowed to interpret scripture from the Bible the way they see fit - that the Churches interpretations of some passages to not align or parallel with their own belief structures. So the next question that must be asked is, should we look to the Church as the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and the Bible.

 

We'll answer that in Part 3!

Defending the Faith: sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition - Part 1

Nearly as powerful of a debate as anything to do with Mary is, is the age old battle between sola Scriptura (the Bible alone for guidance) versus Scripture AND Sacred Tradition used co-equally. So Biblically, who's got it right?

The Evangelical Stance - The most used, most heard, most quoted text Evangelicals use to defend the belief that the Bible alone is all anyone needs to emulate the Lord as a good Christian is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." And that's about as black and white as you can get. Other verses that are regularly used to support the idea of sola Scriptura are -

• "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
• Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

 

Most Evangelicals even go so far as to condemn those who do not see eye-to-eye with a "Bible alone" belief because, they contend, Jesus himself condemns religious tradition (as is found heavily in Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, and Methodism):

• "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions....Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." (Mark 7:8,13)
• " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' "(Matthew 15:8-9)

The Counter Argument - To answer the claims of sola Scriptura that Evangelicals glean from the Biblical texts, we will address the scriptural claims first before moving on to the overall issue of human, Christian tradition.

In today's world, when we go to church - most carry a Bible. If we don't, there's a strong guarantee that one is waiting for us in the pew rack in the sanctuary or on a shelf in a Sunday school classroom - either is easily accessible and ready to be read. No one alive today living in America has ever had an issue with never being able to own, have, borrow, or rent a Bible. Go back hundreds of years, and still Biblical texts were available. But go back in time prior to the year  AD 325 and you run into a problem - the Bible, codified Scripture, as we understand it today, simply did not exist as such. And this immediately brings major problems to the table for "Bible alone" believers. Why? Because Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy in the first century. When Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.", HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BIBLE. Did you just hear the audible crack in sola Scriptura's foundation. If you didn't listen, because the building is about to collapse.

Indeed, in every single one of the major examples used above (and all minor examples not included here) every mention of scripture or the gospels are not talking about the Bible as we know it today!

**crash crumble crash**

The only "scripture" that existed at this time was the Jewish Torah and the Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek) - both of which Jesus, all his disciples, and every God-believing human followed in that area. The "word of God" Jesus talks about has nothing to do with the New Testament but with apostolic preaching - the oral preaching. Which, understandably, is not restricted to scriptural writings. 

So what about when Paul refers to the gospels? Well, it certainly cannot be the gospels as we identify them today because they were only identified and codified as such hundreds of years after Paul penned these words - so unless Paul is omniscient, we have to look elsewhere for this answer besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The gospels, as he refers to them, is another way of referring to the oral preaching. Note, Paul always implies the vocal preaching of the gospels - never reading the written gospels. When Paul states that he has "received" the gospels, he has not received them written down but from a vocally passed down oral tradition. How can we know this for certain? When Paul says to the Corinthians, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures", the scripture he is referencing is Isaiah 53 - the famous Passion scripture about the suffering servant. And therein is the linchpin: nowhere in Isaiah 53 (part of the Torah and Septuagint that was Scripture during this time) is Jesus Christ identified as the suffering servant. Paul is not relying only on chapter 53 but on new Christian heritage and tradition that detailed Jesus' death. Likewise, he draws the same conclusion (which is based in tradition) when he makes reference to the resurrection at the end of this verse.

1 Peter 1:25 is important to make mention here for one main reason. In it, he writes, "...but the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word that was preached to you." We have identified that the "word" being discussed here cannot be the codified Bible, but the apostolic oral tradition. Peter says that it "endures forever" - and because he means the oral tradition, we must understand that this sets tradition apart from but does not exclude the written word of the future codified Bible.

If you are still reading and still not convinced one single verse in Acts may sway you. The verse and the saying are well known to anyone over the age of a toddler: "In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ". There's only one problem - there is not one single record of Jesus ever saying this in any other part of the Bible, except for right here, coming from a second-hand source. Matthew, by the time of Acts being written down had already been written and this beyond-famous directive was not included. Neither is included in any of the New Testament gospels. This is an oral tradition and quote that had been passed down for years as binding and authoritative from Christ before it was written down by Luke in Acts.

In discussing the scriptural aspect of this argument, many Evangelicals say that you can throw out all the other verses because they still have 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and it says that "All Scripture is God-breathed..." - end of story. ..... Only it's not. We've already proven that Paul is not talking about codified Biblical scripture in this instance as all evangelicals believe, but the Torah and the Septuagint - what we now refer to as the Old Testament. Looking more into the context of this verse, Paul writes to Timothy just one verse before this that,"...you know that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Note that these sacred scriptures are not in reference to the New Testament but to the Torah and the Septuagint.

 

Finally, let's take the side of the sola Scriptura believers for a moment. Let's say that this verse in Timothy does mean the codified Bible as we know it today - the same one we take back and forth to church every Sunday and use in our weekly devotionals. Paul choses the word "profitable" in verse 16. Why is this important? Because "profitable" is defined as, "beneficial or useful" according to Mr. Webster. It is not defined as 100% sufficient or absolute for a belief in Christ. This is supported scripturally as well in 2 Corinthians 12:9 where Paul offers that it's not the Bible alone that is most important, "But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore, I will most gladly boast all the more about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may reside in me."

The bottom line is this, scripture, the Bible, alone is profitable, yes. Important? Absolutely! Beneficial? Beyond a doubt! But 100% absolute and sufficient for our walk with Christ?  No. Scripture helps lead us along the road to heavenly perfection but it is not the only means to that end.

 

How we find that balance will be covered in our next installment.

Defending the Faith: Mary Without Sin? Part 2: The New Eve

We continue the last part in our two part series on one of the longest fought issues out on the theological battlefield - is Mary sinless?

We tackled the All Argument that so many evangelicals tend to raise in Part 1. Today, we dig deeper into the Word and seek to discover if Mary is the culmination of what perfected grace should look like on Earth. And is it possible that God intended for her to be the perfected Eve - the New Eve.

The Evangelical Stance - Since we have seen numerous examples throughout the Bible that "all" does not always mean "all" in the absolute (and indeed, the original word used was more understood as "most" instead of the absolute "all"), we have identified exceptions to the "all". So we can discount Romans 3:10, 12, 23 as a justifiable argument. At this point, we must turn to the Word to see if any examples exist of Mary sinning. The evangelicals turn their sights on the wedding feast at Cana: "When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' And Jesus said to her, 'O woman, what have you to do with me?' " (John 2:3-4)

It is the belief, in our day and culture, because of Jesus' use of the word "woman", we understand it to be used disparagingly - as if Mary had hurt or upset Jesus' plans thereby doing something contrary to Jesus - thereby sinning and making her imperfect, just like you or I.

The Counter Argument - To answer this argument most effectively. We have to look back and build up to it. And to do that, we must look to Biblical typology - the predictive relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, or, the line(s) of parallel we can directly trace between people, events, or symbols in the Old Testament to their fulfilment or likeness in the New Testament. One of the most glaring and black-and-white is found first in Genesis 3:14b, 15b - 

 

    ^"The Lord God said to the serpent...

'I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.' "

 

 

This verse (v. 15) is known throughout most of Christian theologies as the protoevangelium - which is understood more clearly as the "seed of woman" concept which gives Messianic and Marian interpretations and typological parallels to Jesus and Mary.

The word "enmity" means 'not under dominion' - in the case of v. 15, apart completely from the serpent, who is Satan. We read on that "she" is not from Satan's seed - a total opposition from it. It is also important to note that before the Fall in Genesis 3, who we now know as Adam and Eve were never referred to as that. In their pre-Fall perfected state, they were known only as Man and Woman. It is not until after the Fall when sin enters into the Garden that God renames Man as "Adam" in v. 17 and Woman as "Eve" in v. 20. Woman is translated by theologians to be understood as perfection in a pre-fall condition. Because Eve only received that new name after the Fall, it can be concluded that the "woman" mentioned in v. 15 will be like the first Woman (who we know by her post-fall condition name, Eve) before the Fall who was crated by God in perfection. 

Now, why is that important to understand? Because of the Biblical typology used in John's gospel. The first point of typology John uses is his parallel to the Creation Story in Genesis. John 1:1 begins with the words, "In the beginning..." as does Genesis 1:1. John 1:4-5 describes the light coming into the world as does Genesis 1:3. John also describes the dove descending just as it is described in Genesis 8. The similarities to each creation day continues throughout the first chapter of John. Four days are mentioned in the first chapter, when the wedding feast at Cana happens in chapter two, verse one begins with, "On the third day...." Four plus three equals seven. Seven days of creation. Is this a coincidence accidentally made by John or was it a purposeful example of Biblical typology used by John to clue in his Jewish readers to reveal the beginning of the new Creation Story that was to begin again with Jesus Christ's coming? We assert that it is most certainly the latter and not the former. 

We see the typology occurring in Genesis 3:15 where the author identifies the conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ. We now must ask who is the woman at enmity with the serpent that is Satan? John, because of his strong use of typology answers that question for us - with a little help from Luke.

John uses the parallels of the creation story in his opening chapter to show the parallel to his Jewish readers and the new creation story begins at the wedding feast. For as you had the old creation with the old Adam, you now have the new Adam who is identified typologically as Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:45, and following this typology, Christ calls Mary WOMAN. The exact word that is used in Genesis 3:15 to denote the perfection of the pre-fall condition. She is the new Eve. Jesus' seemingly (in today's culture) unapproving use of the word "woman" is meant not to berate but to distinguish her, as Luke does, as blessed among all other women. These are no more random coincidences that just magically parallel by happenstance than are the over 300 prophecies that Jesus himself fulfilled. These parallels, these examples are Biblical typology in action that point us to a deeper understanding of our faith.

As a post-script, how does Luke provide fodder for this assertion that Mary is without sin? In Luke 1:28, we read the angelic address of Mary given by Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" In today's world, that doesn't mean too much, other than giving honor. But in the original Greek, it means so, so, so very much more. For an angel to say "Hail" to a lowly human is a very, very big deal. In fact, no where else in the entire Bible is anyone addressed in this way except for Jesus Christ himself. Gabriel is addressing Mary with the highest form of royalty and honor possible - truly, on the same level as Christ Himself. Then he says something even more profound and unique in this one verse out of all the others in the entire Bible. Gabriel address Mary not as Mary but as, "full of grace."

Why is this important? The original Greek word for "full of grace" used here is kekaritomene. Luke choses not only this word but the conjugation carefully and deliberately. When we read "full of grace" we are reading the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as Luke's "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced". But most importantly, because of the conjugation used it means that in a completed sense. "Full of grace" is not just describing a simple past action. There is actually an entirely different conjugated tense for that. The tense used by Luke is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Gabriel's name for Mary. So what does it tell us about Mary? It means she is different than most anyone who walks this earth because we know, according to Philippians 3:8-12, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense. But according to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28, Jesus Christ himself in John 2:4, and the writer of Genesis 3:15, MARY IS. As Christians though we try hard, we sin, and when we sin we have a lack of grace or cooperation with it. Grace simply cannot be complete in our lives because we sin. These three passages give us great insight into the unique character and calling of Mary. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent sinless state of Mary was completed.

 

Read Mary Without Sin? Part 1: The "All" Argument here.

Defending the Faith: Mary Without Sin? Part 1: The "All" Argument

This next issue is one of the big ones that has been fought out on the theological battlefield for countless years...

The Evangelical Stance - There are two main verses that most all Protestants attack the belief that Mary was sinless with

1. "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)
2. "There is no one righteous, not even one...all have turned away..." (Romans 3:10, 12)

In our modern day culture, this in and of itself is very absolute. The word "all" is 100% inclusive in our English language...or at least that's what many Protestant theologians would want us to believe. When one takes that word and adds in "not even one" as extra theological ammunition, it seems pretty cut and dry. Every one on earth are sinners and fall short of God's glory. You can't get much more black and white than that.
 
Or can you?

The Counter Argument - The first problem that arises with the argument of an imperfect Mary are in the exact verses that claim that she was imperfect. What does that mean? Let's break down each verse:

•  "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)


• At first, this seems absolute - but we must ask ourselves, is it? Does all literally mean all in the absolute? Could this all include exceptions? And the answer is a resounding yes. How do we know? Firstly, it's common sense. If Paul means all (every single person on earth has sinned - and remember, Paul is only speaking of personal sin here ) have sinned, he believes that an 11 week old baby has sinned. He believes that a severely disabled person who is not in control of their decisions or faculties are sinful. He also believes that Jesus himself was a sinner.
  
  But is that what Paul means? Of course not. Can a baby that young sin? No. Can a severely disabled person sin? No. And here comes the wow factor - Christians believe that Jesus was 100% divine, yes. But he was also 100% human through and though. So per Paul's statement, that "all" would apply to Christ himself because of His 100% humanity. But of course we know that Jesus never sinned. So based on this, there are exceptions to Paul's "all". So knowing that there is one exception to the absolute "all", can there be others? Yes. Tons of them.
• Matthew 3:5 speaking about John baptizing in the River Jordan says that, "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan..." Did literally all the inhabitants of all three of those countries and regions come to be baptized by John? No of course not. He couldn't ker-plunk 'em fast enough. And certainly the Pharisees of those areas who were solidly against his teachings would never have shown up to be baptized.
• In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul says that, "For as in Adam all die..." Does he literally mean all people die? No. Because we see in 2 Kings 2 and in Genesis 5:24 that, respectively, Elijah and Enoch both did not die but instead, we taken into heaven by God himself.
• In Romans 11:26 we read that, "all Israel will be saved." Is this literal? Of course not. There are those in Israel then and now who denounced and do not believe in Christ. So again, we see major exceptions to the "All" Argument.

And perhaps the biggest deconstruction of the "All" Argument is found in the original translation of Paul's letter to the Romans. Our English translates as "all" what the original Greek means as "most". And that, should put to bed the "All" Argument to bed once and for all as nothing more than a simple misunderstanding of a word that was used in Romans 3:23 and throughout other parts of the Bible as only a generic universality to stress a very important point.  


•  "There is no one righteous, not even one...all have turned away..." (Romans 3:10, 12)
• Again, we see Paul (though he is not using "all") using a style of generic universality for the purposes of proving his point. We can deconstruct this in the same way that we deconstructed the absoluteness of Romans 3:23. We can deconstruct it even more once we realize that Paul is actually quoting the Old Testament in this moment - Psalms 14:3 to be precise. This Psalm at is core is about the denunciation of Godlessness but it is written in the literary sense of universality and not absoluteness.

The question of, "Is Mary without sin", cannot be simply answered in once succinct blog post. It is much too in depth for that. So for today's post we have answered a very important foundational question that will pave the way to answering the ultimate question of her sinlessness - are there exceptions to the "All" Argument. And the answer, proven through multiple examples of Scripture is yes.

So if there are exceptions, could Mary actually be sinless. We will find out in Part II!

Defending the Faith: The Crucifix and the Cross

The next issue that this series will focus on is one that my brothers and sisters in the Church of God take contention with. And much like the "Father" title, this was an objection that I had no idea why or how it could be an objection. But apparently as I have discussed and studied this topic more, it does seem to be a growing objection. Now let's hope we can stem the growth before it becomes as prevalent as the "Father" objection.

The Evangelical Stance - This stance is more of a group of related contentious questions: Why keep Jesus on the cross when he has risen and defeated death? Why dwell so much on the cross, it's only half of the story? They go on to bolster their objects by citing Exodus 20:4 (the second commandment about graven images), John 4:24 (about worshipping in spirit and in truth), and by making the claim that since the cross was adopted as the official symbol of Christianity during the reign of Constantine (which occurred some 300 years after the death of Christ) and because the Bible does not say anything about the apostles or early Christians representing their faith by displaying crosses - then we should not do so either.

The Counter Argument - We'll start by taking the easiest points in this evangelical stance to correct and move on from there. Firstly, when it comes to the cross being adopted as the institutional symbol of Christianity hundreds of years after the death of Christ AND not expressly mentioned as the same in the Bible, we also should not look to it as the institutional symbol for our faith. This makes little sense. Why?

• The Bible itself is not mentioned in the Bible. A strange assertion I realize, but follow me. Before the codification of the Bible as we know it today, there was no such thing as the Word of God to follow and obey as a practicing Christian. It was not until the early Christian leaders met at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) that the Bible was canonized and even more surprisingly, there was not even the definitive list that we know today, did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).
• The concept of the Trinity, is never defined in the Bible and the exact word NEVER shows up. This belief was not officially adopted until the Council of Constantinople (360 A.D.)
• The list continues but the purpose is clear - does any Christian church discount the belief in the Trinity or the authority of the Holy Scriptures? No. Of course not. One will also note that both of these iconic examples were adopted well after 300 A.D. See what I'm saying? You can't have it both ways. That option just isn't open to us.

As far as the belief that the cross and crucifix are nothing more than graven images which are condemned by God as idolatries and that John 4:24 is the only true way to worship, we've already addressed that here in our installment about statues and icons. And, after breaking down those verses in that installment, if they held no theological weight then - when it comes to the crucifix and the cross, it certainly does not now.

Now comes the answering of the contentious questions posed at the beginning - Why keep Jesus on the cross when he has risen and defeated death? Why dwell so much on the cross, it's only half of the story?

________________________________________

If we are put into a box and can only give Christ the glory in his resurrected state (as in, without a focus on the cross), then Christmas just got a lot more boring. Because if we can only look to the resurrected Jesus, are we not allowed to worship the Jesus that was in the manger? What about the Jesus that walked on water? Or the Jesus that healed the sick? We are called to worship without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18) - not only to worship Jesus as our Risen Savior. All worship is important at all stages, but are there some worship stages that should be more elevated than others? If you ask an evangelical they will most likely say yes - the resurrected Christ. If you ask an Episcopalian or a Catholic they would also say yes - but they would say yes to the crucified Christ. So who's yes wins out? The one with the most substantial Biblical and theological support. And those who choose the crucified Christ would be theologically more correct.

In Revelation 5:6 we see Christ in his perfected state on the throne of Heaven with one very obvious attribute as it pertains to this argument, "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders." He is seen not as the resurrected Christ, but the slain Lamb.

Looking at what the original church fathers believed - those in authority closest to Christ - can give us all the most accurate view on our Christian beliefs. We can look to Paul's writings to see what the original Christians viewed as most important (not only as far as this issue goes, but most all issues of theological importance). In Romans 6:3-8, Paul emphasizes the importance of the death and crucifixion of Christ and not his resurrection: "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,  that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." Later, in 1 Corinthians 1:23, we hear him say that, "we preach Christ crucified" not Christ resurrected. And what is the best way to fulfill what Paul is asserting here? Through the visible presence of the cross and the crucifix. Because like a sacrament, the cross and crucifix are visible symbols of an invisible grace. Paul goes on to say that we should not, "know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:1-2)" When Paul writes to the Galatians, he says that they must glory only, "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Galatians 6:14)"

It is important for me to make sure that this is understood however - I am not saying that the resurrection is in any way unimportant or not paramount to our faith . It surely is. So much so that Paul also says, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)" There must be a healthy balance. And how do we get that? We first must understand as the early church did, that our emphasis must first be on Christ crucified. If it is not, we can never fully understand or appreciate the resurrection - because there can be no Easter Sunday without a Good Friday. The crucifixion won us redemption and allowed us to be put back right with God as a whole. Then, through the resurrection, we receive new life in Christ - but ONLY because it was afforded to us THROUGH the crucifixion. It is a matter of both/and not either/or. It is through the Eucharist, celebrated every day throughout the world, that Calvary becomes present - with Jesus on the cross and not off it.