I have been raised my entire life to accept the stories of the Bible as literally true. I was biology major in College and had my beliefs tested at every turn. On what basis do I believe? Do I really believe in the story of Moses parting the Red Sea? Do I believe that Daniel was really in a den of tamed lions? Do I really believe in the story of a man swallowed by a huge fish? My answer to all of those questions is yes. It is the stories of the Bible that spark my relationship with God. It is the incredible stories of power, intervention, and faith that create the hope I have for eternity. Since we are about to celebrate another Christmas, it might be good to look at the story of the Virgin Birth. If Jesus could be born by the power of the Holy Spirit, then I have no doubt he could walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind man, and by all means be raised to life on the third day.
The Meaning of Virgin
In Matthew 1:23, Matthew quotes from the prophet Isaiah, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel.” To better understand what the word Virgin means, let us look back at two Old Testament passages. First, we will look at the passage in Isaiah 7. As we do, let us first remember our biblical history. By this time, the nation of Israel had long been divided (931 BC). There was the northern Kingdom of Israel with her 10 tribes and a series of wicked kings. After many attempts of repentance through the preaching of the prophets, God brought judgment to the northern nation of Israel in 722 B.C. at the hands of Assyria. The Southern Kingdom of Judah was established with two tribes. They had an up and down history of good and bad kings. In the year 586 B.C., God brought judgment to Judah at the hands of Babylon. However, God remembered His promise to David and was not done with Judah. There would indeed be a King from David’s line upon the throne forever. The nation of Judah would return through the ministries of Ezra and Nehemiah. Isaiah 7 took place during the divided Kingdom phase and more specifically, during the Syro-Ephraimitic War (734 – 732 B.C.) Syria and Israel had joined alliance against Assyria. Both nations had hoped Judah would join their alliance. Judah, however, declined and Syria and Israel attacked Jerusalem. It was at this point that Jerusalem was surrounded and all seemed hopeless for King Ahaz and Judah. How could Judah withstand the might of the army surrounding Jerusalem? Would God intervene to aid Judah? Could God intervene? Through Isaiah, God reminds Ahaz that He would indeed intervene. He encouraged Ahaz and the nation of Judah to keep the faith. Through Isaiah, God reminded Ahaz, that “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” Then God told Ahaz that he will give them a sign. In verse 14, God himself will give them a sign. Please note, the “you” in verse 14 is plural. The sign will be a virgin will give birth to a son.
What is a sign? Many people would like to say the word virgin means “young maiden.” It very well could mean that and does in a couple of places in scripture. But logically, what kind of sign is a young maiden giving birth. It would be like you and I saying, “A teenage girl will give birth…” Not much of a sign is it? Since God was going to give a sign, it had to be unique and unavoidable. An actual virgin is the only thing that makes since and fits the context of scripture.
Look also at Jeremiah 31:22. It says, “The Lord will create a new thing on earth a woman will surround a man.” What does “a woman will surround a man” mean? Maybe a good question would be, “How did the rabbis view this scripture?” Before the time of Christ, Rabbis wrote the following concerning this verse:
Messiah is to have no earthly father
The birth of the Messiah will be without defect. The birth of Messiah will be like that of no other man.
The birth of the Messiah will be like the dew of the Lord as drops on the grass without the action of man.
In the time of Christ’s birth, the Jewish people were expecting a “virgin birth.” I have every confidence that Matthew’s account meant Jesus would be born simply by the power of the Holy Spirit to a virgin named Mary.
The Mandate of Scripture
What if Jesus were not born of a virgin? What would it do to the Gospel?
First, it Weakens the Word. It we don’t accept the virgin birth, or if it is not literally true, what stories are true? Barna has come out with some interesting numbers: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=286
- Three out of four adults (75%) said that they believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin
- Seven out of ten adults (69%) embraced the story of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana as being literally true
- Two out of three people (68%) view the story of the loaves and fish factually accurate.
- Most Americans (64%) have no trouble believing that the planet-altering flood actually happened, in which Noah,
- In total, 56% of adults believe that the story of the devil, disguised as a serpent and tempting Eve to sin by eating the forbidden fruit, is literally true
- Only half of the population (49%) accepts the story of Samson and his strength as completely accurate.
- Born again Christians were far more likely than non-born again adults to accept each of the six narratives as fully accurate
- Protestants were more likely than Catholics to accept each of the six stories as literally true.
It really fascinates me to see the number of people who believe certain stories of the Bible and not others. Is the entire Word of God inspired or just parts of it? The heretical group, Jesus Seminar, has taken it upon themselves to decide which of the stories and words of Jesus are true, fictitious, or simply legend and fables. The group of scholars vote with colored marbles as to the authenticity of our Lord’s words and actions. Do you see the slippery slope we put ourselves on when we try to decide which stories are true or false? If Jesus was not born of a virgin, what stories can we accept? I believe the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God and is reliable and accurate. Can I explain every story; Of course not. But would I really want to explain the actions of God? God is too big and awesome to have His works explained by a finite human mind like mine. Therefore, I believe every story from Noah’s flood to Jonah and the big fish is historically accurate and true. Furthermore, since I believe in the entire Word of God, I am able to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin; He lived a sinless perfect life; He was God in flesh; He died a substitutionary death for my sins; He is the atoning sacrifice for my sins and the sins of the entire world; He was raised to life on the third day, and He will come again.
Here is an interesting question: If 75% of the adults in America believe in the virgin birth, why does that believe not correlate into action? We have a nation who believes in the Bible yet far too many have an indifference to the things of God. If you believe in the Word of God, it must begin to change and shape your behavior. Your belief in God will always affect your behavior. If you behavior does not change, your belief is only superficial and shallow.
Secondly, if the Virgin Birth is not literal, it Waters down the Gospel. No longer could we accept the Deity of Christ. The belief of the sinlessness of Jesus would be far harder to accept. The power of Christ would even come into question. The very nature of Jesus would come into question if He had been born by natural means. But there is not doubt that Jesus is God in flesh, He was sinless, and He has divine power. The Virgin Birth supports and explains the unique claims of Jesus.
Message of Hope
The Virgin Birth reminds me of four very simple truths. First, God is able. What is impossible for man is possible for God. Secondly, God will intervene for His Glory and our good. Thirdly, God is always able to do the unexpected. Finally, God is able to “break our plans.” If there is one great lesson from the life of Mary it is this: God is looking for people who loosely hold their plans in their hands in order to allow God to intervene and break their plans. Do you think Mary grew up expecting to be the mother of God’s Son? Do you think she longed to be looked down upon by everyone in town? But God had different plans for her. God did not have an easy plan for Mary, but He had a much better plan. Mary was willing to forgo her dreams and let God do whatever He would choose to do for His glory and man’s good. How about you? What plans are you holding on too tightly? If God came to you today, would you be willing to let your future dreams die so you could align yourself with God’s plan for your life? Imagine if all those people who really believe the virgin birth would also have their behavior conformed into that of Christ’s behavior. Could you fathom what God could do? Let me assure you, if God had the power to have Mary give birth as a virgin, don’t you think He has the power to take care of you? Pray and ask God to break your plans for His glory and the good of others.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Virgin Birth
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Immaculate Conception
I have a quick quiz for you. I’m sorry if you are just now waking up and your mind is a little blurry. I’m sure the last thing you want to do is take a quiz. Don’t worry, grab a cup of coffee, dust off the cob webs and dive into this one question quiz:
The Immaculate Conception deals with:
a. The birth of Jesus Christ.
b. The amazing reception by Franco Harris
c. The conception of Mary without the stain of original sin
Well, how do you think you did? If you answered b, you watch way too much football and need to seek immediate council. Before I began preaching and studying matters of faith, I believed the Immaculate Conception dealt with the birth of Jesus. I knew it was a Catholic doctrine and believed it was an area we could both agree on: the Virgin Birth of Christ. The problem is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary. The doctrine believes simply that Mary was conceived in the “usual way” but without the stain of original sin. “The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception).
The History of the Immaculate Conception
There is no way for me to completely deal with this topic. Nonetheless, I am going to outline what I have learned and give you my ideas on this topic. Around the end of the 15th Century, Catholic Popes began to make statements that would begin to clarify and be the basis for the future dogma of the church. In 1477, Sixtus the IV “praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Sixtus also condemned those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception in 1483.
In 1567, Pope St. Pius V, condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. In 1568, St. Pius V, put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Throughout the following years, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was worked out by the Popes. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX defined “ex cathedra” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope stressed that Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own merits but truly by the merits of the son, Jesus. The dogma was written as follows:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privildge and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
“Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original of first sin at the beginning of human history” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
Two Errors
As I studied this issue, I realize that, as an Evangelical, I have errored in two frequent ways when thinking about the Catholic faith. First, most Evangelicals, would say that the Catholic theology of Mary would state she was not in need of salvation. However, the Catholic stance would be Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. She was a recipient of “Preventative redemption.” Preventive means anticipatory: “the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace” (www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm). In other words, Mary received redemption at the moment of her conception before her conception – before her soul joined her body and was stained by sin.
Secondly, I had a false view of Papal infallibility. I had always heard about the Papal infallibility and believed they used this power often. However, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. Interesting enough, both occasions dealt with a doctrine concerning Mary. First, was the “Ineffabilis Deus the definition of Pope Pius IX in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Munificentissimus Deus, the definition by Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption of Mary” (http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Dogmatic_definition).
Support for the Immaculate Conception
As one studies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is glaringly evident that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this teaching. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, there is “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So the best one can do is to make an argument from silence. There are a few biblical ideas the Catholic Church puts out to support this teaching. First, they go to Genesis 3:15 and teach that there is a parallel between Mary and Eve. The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55). They go on to say, “if there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception” ((www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm).
Luke 1:28 is also used as a textual support for the Immaculate Conception. On one hand, the church says, “chaire kecharitomene, ‘Hail, full of grace’ indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary” However, they then qualify their statement by saying, “But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).
Most people know the importance of the church teaching and traditions in the Catholic Church. The early church fathers no doubt had a very high view of Mary. However, you will not find the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church point to two positions brought forth by various Church Fathers: her absolute purity and her being named the second Eve. Even so, to build an entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on these two ideas is a great leap. Not only to have they seen Mary as the Second Eve, but also as the “Ark of the Covenant” or the Tabernacle of God. All of these ideas put forth by the church can only be reasoned from the Bible and taught from the silence of scripture.
My Objections
When dealing with a topic like this, it is important that we do not simply believe something or not because of our religious inclinations. I actually could care less what Southern Baptists believe about the Immaculate Conception. I could care less what the Catholics believe. But I am very concerned with what the Bible teaches in this area. There must be a standard of truth that we must all accept. Truth is not truth simply because someone believes it. In fact, truth can be truth even if no one believes it and a falsity can be false even if everyone believes it. There must be a standard in which we can test whether or not something is true. For the Catholic Church, the standard of truth is the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. For me, it is scripture alone.
In my study, I found a very disturbing quote. It said, “The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf Matt 28:16-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15)” (http:/www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp). Does anyone else have trouble with this idea? If one were to look at the example of scripture, it would not take long to find the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15). Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians for they received the message with great eagerness and examined scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This is the classic example of how we are to handle teachings. We must receive it, examine it, test it and see if it is true. John tells us “…You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). This is the competency of every soulin whom the Spirit of God lives. We must test everything that is said alongside the Scripture. This is the greatest error members of cults make; they are not allowed to think on their own nor do they test what is said. They must accept everything simply because it has been said. I tell my church often, test what is said behind the pulpit. Do not test it with your personal feelings or Baptist tradition, but test it against the Living and Active Word of God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not withstand the Scriptural test.
Not only does it fail the scriptural test, but it also fails the time test. What is one of the great arguments we give for the resurrection of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells the reader to go find the eyewitnesses. For a legend to become accepted, there must be time and distance. Everyone who knows the truth must be gone and their can be no one who could refute the teachings. By 380 AD, Ambrose had to already caution people not to direct to Mary the adoration due only to God. Mary was a temple of God; not the God of the temple and therefore, God alone is to be worshiped. The Apostles were gone. All eyewitnesses to the truth of Jesus’ ministry had long before died but the teachings of Mary had just begun. By 430, Mary was called the “Mother of God.” 700 it was written, “There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given except through Mary. By 1100, we have the first “Hail Mary.” In 1153, it was said that Mary is the dispenser of Grace. God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary. For those of you who know your church history, you realize how many extra biblical books were written during those early years. But the Apostles were not alive to refute the message. It has been written, “in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very cautious; some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.). It was easier to say men like Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrystotom were in error than they were standing to the truth of the Word.
As you study the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one can also see a very heavy Gnostic influence. One of the basic Gnostic beliefs is that Jesus never could have carried sin because all matter was evil or sinful and hence God could not have become man nor carried sin upon him. Since Mary was going to be the “Temple of God” she could not have the stain of sin upon her. Therefore, God made allowances for her so the stain of sin would not touch Jesus.
The early Fathers had a very high view of Mary but not a worshipful view of Mary. It is only after time that this belief began to surface. While I was very encouraged the Papal Infallibility has been rarely used; am I the only one who finds it interesting that in both cases it dealt with doctrines of Mary. Since there is absolutely no biblical support, dogma had to be created and affirmed ex cathedra by the Pope. Again, if a person would use the Word has the plumb line of truth, there would be no problem.
What Should We Do With Mary?
We must continually work on a balanced view of Mary. Too often, as Evangelicals, we throw the baby out with the bath water. We are so worried of worshiping Mary that we degrade her or too often do not give her the due she is credited. The simple truth is Mary was a great woman of God. She would have had to have lived a life of purity, honor, and was found to have received great honor from God. Sadly for many of us, we could never speak of our lives in that fashion. Luke 1:28 has been misinterpreted. It simply is saying, not that Mary was a source of grace but had received grace from God. Mary was a remarkable lady and an amazing vessel of submission and surrender. We could do well to emulate the attitude of Mary when it came to surrender. Is there no greater passage of surrender than Mary’s beautiful words, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said.” Wow! God really came into Mary’s life and broke up her plans. Do you think she was planning on being the Mother of Jesus? Do you really think her plans included a virgin birth? We get angry and aggravated at God when he breaks up our dinner plans for a ministry opportunity. We could do well to learn how to receive God’s break through as ministry opportunities and God glorifying occasions.
Go back to the word and discover Mary for yourself. While you will learn that she is not a co-medatrix (1 Tim 2:5), she was a mother of other children, and that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6, Acts 16:31, 15:11) you will be challenged by the wonderful life Mary lived and will be encouraged to place the same attitude of willingness into your life that Mary so gracefully lived.
The Immaculate Conception deals with:
a. The birth of Jesus Christ.
b. The amazing reception by Franco Harris
c. The conception of Mary without the stain of original sin
Well, how do you think you did? If you answered b, you watch way too much football and need to seek immediate council. Before I began preaching and studying matters of faith, I believed the Immaculate Conception dealt with the birth of Jesus. I knew it was a Catholic doctrine and believed it was an area we could both agree on: the Virgin Birth of Christ. The problem is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary. The doctrine believes simply that Mary was conceived in the “usual way” but without the stain of original sin. “The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception).
The History of the Immaculate Conception
There is no way for me to completely deal with this topic. Nonetheless, I am going to outline what I have learned and give you my ideas on this topic. Around the end of the 15th Century, Catholic Popes began to make statements that would begin to clarify and be the basis for the future dogma of the church. In 1477, Sixtus the IV “praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Sixtus also condemned those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception in 1483.
In 1567, Pope St. Pius V, condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. In 1568, St. Pius V, put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Throughout the following years, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was worked out by the Popes. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX defined “ex cathedra” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope stressed that Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own merits but truly by the merits of the son, Jesus. The dogma was written as follows:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privildge and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
“Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original of first sin at the beginning of human history” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
Two Errors
As I studied this issue, I realize that, as an Evangelical, I have errored in two frequent ways when thinking about the Catholic faith. First, most Evangelicals, would say that the Catholic theology of Mary would state she was not in need of salvation. However, the Catholic stance would be Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. She was a recipient of “Preventative redemption.” Preventive means anticipatory: “the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace” (www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm). In other words, Mary received redemption at the moment of her conception before her conception – before her soul joined her body and was stained by sin.
Secondly, I had a false view of Papal infallibility. I had always heard about the Papal infallibility and believed they used this power often. However, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. Interesting enough, both occasions dealt with a doctrine concerning Mary. First, was the “Ineffabilis Deus the definition of Pope Pius IX in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Munificentissimus Deus, the definition by Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption of Mary” (http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Dogmatic_definition).
Support for the Immaculate Conception
As one studies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is glaringly evident that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this teaching. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, there is “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So the best one can do is to make an argument from silence. There are a few biblical ideas the Catholic Church puts out to support this teaching. First, they go to Genesis 3:15 and teach that there is a parallel between Mary and Eve. The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55). They go on to say, “if there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception” ((www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm).
Luke 1:28 is also used as a textual support for the Immaculate Conception. On one hand, the church says, “chaire kecharitomene, ‘Hail, full of grace’ indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary” However, they then qualify their statement by saying, “But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).
Most people know the importance of the church teaching and traditions in the Catholic Church. The early church fathers no doubt had a very high view of Mary. However, you will not find the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church point to two positions brought forth by various Church Fathers: her absolute purity and her being named the second Eve. Even so, to build an entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on these two ideas is a great leap. Not only to have they seen Mary as the Second Eve, but also as the “Ark of the Covenant” or the Tabernacle of God. All of these ideas put forth by the church can only be reasoned from the Bible and taught from the silence of scripture.
My Objections
When dealing with a topic like this, it is important that we do not simply believe something or not because of our religious inclinations. I actually could care less what Southern Baptists believe about the Immaculate Conception. I could care less what the Catholics believe. But I am very concerned with what the Bible teaches in this area. There must be a standard of truth that we must all accept. Truth is not truth simply because someone believes it. In fact, truth can be truth even if no one believes it and a falsity can be false even if everyone believes it. There must be a standard in which we can test whether or not something is true. For the Catholic Church, the standard of truth is the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. For me, it is scripture alone.
In my study, I found a very disturbing quote. It said, “The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf Matt 28:16-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15)” (http:/www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp). Does anyone else have trouble with this idea? If one were to look at the example of scripture, it would not take long to find the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15). Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians for they received the message with great eagerness and examined scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This is the classic example of how we are to handle teachings. We must receive it, examine it, test it and see if it is true. John tells us “…You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). This is the competency of every soulin whom the Spirit of God lives. We must test everything that is said alongside the Scripture. This is the greatest error members of cults make; they are not allowed to think on their own nor do they test what is said. They must accept everything simply because it has been said. I tell my church often, test what is said behind the pulpit. Do not test it with your personal feelings or Baptist tradition, but test it against the Living and Active Word of God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not withstand the Scriptural test.
Not only does it fail the scriptural test, but it also fails the time test. What is one of the great arguments we give for the resurrection of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells the reader to go find the eyewitnesses. For a legend to become accepted, there must be time and distance. Everyone who knows the truth must be gone and their can be no one who could refute the teachings. By 380 AD, Ambrose had to already caution people not to direct to Mary the adoration due only to God. Mary was a temple of God; not the God of the temple and therefore, God alone is to be worshiped. The Apostles were gone. All eyewitnesses to the truth of Jesus’ ministry had long before died but the teachings of Mary had just begun. By 430, Mary was called the “Mother of God.” 700 it was written, “There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given except through Mary. By 1100, we have the first “Hail Mary.” In 1153, it was said that Mary is the dispenser of Grace. God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary. For those of you who know your church history, you realize how many extra biblical books were written during those early years. But the Apostles were not alive to refute the message. It has been written, “in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very cautious; some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.). It was easier to say men like Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrystotom were in error than they were standing to the truth of the Word.
As you study the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one can also see a very heavy Gnostic influence. One of the basic Gnostic beliefs is that Jesus never could have carried sin because all matter was evil or sinful and hence God could not have become man nor carried sin upon him. Since Mary was going to be the “Temple of God” she could not have the stain of sin upon her. Therefore, God made allowances for her so the stain of sin would not touch Jesus.
The early Fathers had a very high view of Mary but not a worshipful view of Mary. It is only after time that this belief began to surface. While I was very encouraged the Papal Infallibility has been rarely used; am I the only one who finds it interesting that in both cases it dealt with doctrines of Mary. Since there is absolutely no biblical support, dogma had to be created and affirmed ex cathedra by the Pope. Again, if a person would use the Word has the plumb line of truth, there would be no problem.
What Should We Do With Mary?
We must continually work on a balanced view of Mary. Too often, as Evangelicals, we throw the baby out with the bath water. We are so worried of worshiping Mary that we degrade her or too often do not give her the due she is credited. The simple truth is Mary was a great woman of God. She would have had to have lived a life of purity, honor, and was found to have received great honor from God. Sadly for many of us, we could never speak of our lives in that fashion. Luke 1:28 has been misinterpreted. It simply is saying, not that Mary was a source of grace but had received grace from God. Mary was a remarkable lady and an amazing vessel of submission and surrender. We could do well to emulate the attitude of Mary when it came to surrender. Is there no greater passage of surrender than Mary’s beautiful words, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said.” Wow! God really came into Mary’s life and broke up her plans. Do you think she was planning on being the Mother of Jesus? Do you really think her plans included a virgin birth? We get angry and aggravated at God when he breaks up our dinner plans for a ministry opportunity. We could do well to learn how to receive God’s break through as ministry opportunities and God glorifying occasions.
Go back to the word and discover Mary for yourself. While you will learn that she is not a co-medatrix (1 Tim 2:5), she was a mother of other children, and that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6, Acts 16:31, 15:11) you will be challenged by the wonderful life Mary lived and will be encouraged to place the same attitude of willingness into your life that Mary so gracefully lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)