Surrejoinder to Clayvessel

Continuation of a discussion from Michael Hoffman's weblog, http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html

PART ONE OF THREE

Dear Clayvessel, I am, by temperament and by training, used to long and sometimes (even often!) tedious arguments. It’s easy for me to forget that not everyone shares these traits.

My text-length is not an attempt to "win" by attrition. My efforts were primarily and sincerely centered on defending my Catholic belief against your claim that "If [Mary] had no sin, she had no need for a savior."

This concern of yours is simply not a tenet of Catholic Mariology. Nor, I respectfully suggest, is it communicated by any of the 30,102 verses in the Protestant Bible. It is simply based upon the deliverances of the "human reasoning" of various non-Catholics (and, in some circles, it has become something of a non-Catholic tradition).

I am sensitive to the worry that the relevant Catholic doctrine renders Mary such that she wouldn't need a savior. What I have personally come to believe is that Mary's need for a savior is grounded in the contingency of her sinlessness, granted to her at the Grace and pleasure of God - and not the outgrowth of any essentially good nature, as Jesus's sinlessess is.

This resolution is attractive to me because the distinction between contingency and necessity is not ad hoc and because I can find no biblical datum that causes me disquiet. I submit that your interesting (albeit enthymematic) argument that if "it was ...required that [Jesus's] mother be without sin[,] then the same requirement becomes necessary for her mother, and her mother, etc" is effectively blocked with this distinction.

Now you speak of burden of proof. It is not entirely clear to me where the "burden of proof" lies, in this case. But since burden of proof might be thought to attach to positive assertions or predications (i.e., to assertions that say things like "S is f") as opposed to negative assertions (such as "S is not-f"), "Mary is sinless" would indeed need evidence in its support.

One trouble with Catholic-Protestant dialogue is brought into sharp focus, here. What standard of evidence shall we use? Non-Catholics (chiefly, Protestants) either expressly affirm or implicitly adopt an evidential stricture known as "sola scriptura." This "formal principle of the Protestant Reformation" essentially limits allowable evidence to, as you put it, "Scriptural supports." Your request that I "support [my] stance ...with any verses you can find" seems to be an endorsement of sola scriptura.

Catholics do not endorse sola scriptura (at least, not on what is sometimes called its formal reading). Given the idea that positive assertions stand in need of justification, those who explicitly affirm or operationally assume sola scriptura - which asserts that "only Bible verses are allowable evidence" - also bear a burden of proof. What is the argument for sola scriptura?

(End 1/3)

PART TWO OF THREE

It is clear that Catholics have a more expansive set of evidence than do Protestants. Catholics nowhere deny that the Bible is God's Word. But I, for one, do deny that "the Bible is God's Word" is an identity statement. I think that it is a predication. The notion that the definite description "the Bible" and "the Word of God" are coextensive is not anywhere clearly expressed in the aforementioned 30,102 verses.

Is it the case, then, that Catholics and non-Catholics can never have any evidence in common? It depends, in part, on what "Scriptural support" comes to. Let me take a moment to try to get clearer on what that phrase plausibly involves - and does not involve.

On a narrow construal, one might require a "prooftext." As Hoffman has just noted, though, most - but not all - Protestants affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no "prooftext" for this in the narrow sense of some passage that says "God is Triune." But there are certainly "Scriptural supports" in the broader sense of passages that: (a.) do not contradict the notion, and (b.) serve as premises from which the Trinity can be inferred. From this consideration (and others like it), I am impressed that "prooftexting" cannot be relied upon to provide "Scriptural supports" for all the doctrines that Christians affirm to be true.

Hence, I understand "Sciptural support" in a broader sense. For the sake of defending the Catholic belief, I will suggest a "Scriptural support," in a broad sense, for the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. By "broad sense," I mean that I will state what I take to be biblical truths as premises of an argument, the conclusion of which will be (at least close to) the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. (This argument is not due to me, but has been adapted and expanded by me from David Armstrong, The Catholic Verses, Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Inst. Press, 2004, pp. 181ff.)

Sketched *very roughly*, a broad defense might look like this.

1. Grace is that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (Scriptural supports include Eph. 2:8, "For by Grace you have been saved..." and Rom. 6:14, "sin will have no dominion over you, since you are ...under Grace.")

2. Mary was "full of Grace" [kecharitomene]. (According to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Lk. 1:28.)

3. Therefore, Mary was full of that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (From 1 and 2.)

4. To be "full" of something is to be unable to accommodate any more of whatever that something is. (This just seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word "full.")

5. Therefore, Mary's being "full of Grace" is for her to have been unable to accommodate any more Grace. (From 2 and 4.)

6. If she had lacked Grace at any time, then she would have been able to accommodate more Grace. (Admittedly, this is the least obvious premise. However, I think that it is plausible. Although, with something like water, a bucket's being full-today does not prevent it's having been empty yesterday, in the case of God's Grace, things are arguably different. God is able to view and consider our lives in toto - from their beginnings. It is reasonable to think that if Mary had lacked Grace at any time, then she wouldn't really have been "full" with it.)

(End 2/3)

PART THREE OF THREE

7. Therefore, Mary did not lack grace at any time. (From 5 and 6 by modus tollens.)

8. Therefore, Mary did not lack the the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice at any time. (By 1 and 7.)

However, in its basic form, the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness just is the declaration that Mary was saved - by Grace - from the moment of her bith.

I have to add that "Mary sinned" is also a positive assertion and, by this standard, would also place a burden of proof on its asserter. What is your evidence that Mary sinned? Here you have given verses such as those well-known passages in Romans indicating that "all have sinned." (E.g., 3:23 and 5:12.)

The problem, here, is straightforward.

9. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)

10. Jesus was fully human. (From Christian theology.)

11. Therefore, Jesus sinned. (From 9 and 10.)

Obviously, 11. is unacceptable. As you point out, we have good reason - from other Bible passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15 and so on - to think that the word "all" in passages like Romans 3:23 (et alia) really does not mean "each and every human without exception."

Catholics simply believe that we have good reason to think that Mary is an exception also. Mary is not on the "same level" as Jesus. As I argued previously, Jesus's sinlessness was essential to him, whereas Mary's was (on the Catholic view) contingent. Jesus was the savior. Mary was saved by Grace (it's just that she was so caved from the moment of her birth).

Why is the New Testament not more explicit about this? I should say that there is a fairly straightforward reason. The New Testament is primarily about Jesus (in the Gospels) and about Jesus's church (from Acts onward). Therefore, we receive the most information in the New Testament regarding Jesus and the Church. However, I am a Catholic because I do not believe that the New Testament is entirely silent about Mary's sinlessness. I believe that the New Testament's clear references to Mary as the "highly favored daughter" who is "full of Grace" and who will, by all future Christians, be called "blessed" are best-explained by the doctrine that Mary was sinless.

Still, for me anyway, no Catholic "convinced" me of this so long as I still believed in sola scriptura. So I understand your hesitation and can only recommend to you that you pray and think about the doctrine of sola scriptura.

All the best to you, Clayvessel.

Sincerely,

Matthew J. Bell

(End 3/3)

Rejoinder to Clayvessel

Discussion from Michael Hoffman's weblog, http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html

>>[M]y intention ...was to have a conversation with [Hoffman] about his own words.<<

Hoffman's personal email address is posted on the right-hand side of the page. I would respectfully suggest that you use that convserational method if you wish to discourage the entry of other discussants. If you post publicly, then you invite public replies.

>>...I am not interested in an exchange that leads to "I said the most words therefore I win."<<

Nor am I interested in such an exchange. Albert Einstein reportedly once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." What I write about at length (and I deny that these comment-sections of 1,400 characters are "lengthy") I do so because either: I believe no fewer words can clearly communicate the point that I am making; or, what is perhaps more likely, (to paraphrase Blaise Pascal) "I haven't the time to make my replies shorter" by editing them down.

>>If [any other revelation] in any way contradicts God's Word it is not embraced as doctrine.<<

I appreciate and agree with this. But what you apparently do not consider it that most Catholics, myself included, deny that Catholicism embraces doctrines that "contradict God's [Written] Word".

Before I address your parting shots, however, I have to say a few words about your recurring use of phrases such as "human logic" and "human reasoning."

You provide no definition for these terms, possibly in the (mistaken) belief that no definition is required. I will therefore suggest one for you. In the broadest sense, "human reasoning" (and the like) would merely be "reasoning carried out by human beings."

Unless, Clayvessel, your responses were dictations from On High, your replies - no less than any Catholic's - were the products of "human reasoning" - namely, your own. The majority of your words are not Scripture quotations, and of the words that *are* Bible quotations, they are not given as they are in the Bible.

You have therefore used human reasoning to join together various Scripture passages in order to make your points - just as have the other responders used human reasoning to join together Bible verses to make their points.

To deny this is simply disingenuous. Those who cast aspersions on "human reasoning" only seem to protest when the reasoning issues from a camp other than their own. Their own reasoning is either, and fallaciously (since it would be special pleading), immune from this "criticism," or else, and implausibly, it poses as non-human (or perhaps, outrageously, as divine) reasoning.

>>The Scriptures do not support the doctrines of Mary's sinlessness or assumption...<<

Catholics deny this. I cited several supports from Luke (1:28 and 1:48). I furthermore deny that you have even remotely demonstrated what you pretend, namely, that the Bible "contradicts" the idea that Mary was sinless.

You cited Luke 1:47, to which citation both Hoffman and I explicitly replied by noting that the Catholic affirmation of Mary's sinlessness in no way militate against Mary having had a savior. (For the details, see above.)

To this you added a hand-waving remark about "all hav[ing] sinned," alluding to "Rom. 5:12, Rom. 3:23,Rom. 3:10, etc."

This is a case-study in the disingenuous assertion that only one side in this debate is using "human reasoning," while the other side is merely quoting Scripture.

No Christian should hold that "contradicting God's [Written] Word" should always and everywhere be decided by a woodenly-literal reading of Biblical passages. One flippant example may be found in Mark 4:31, where Jesus Himself is recorded as having asserted that "a mustard seed ...is the smallest of all seeds on earth." Should readers merely attend to the face-value of this verse and conclude that either Jesus or the Bible is in flagrant error? Is there no explanation that can keep both a high-view of the Bible and a high-regard for Christ intact? This is the comeuppance for those who bandy about words like "contradiction."

Or, more seriously, according to James "God cannot be tempted by evil..." (James 1:13b). But the author of Hebrews attested that Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are - yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15).

When resolving prima facie difficulties such as these, Christians of all stripes employ what Clayvessel disparagingly calls "human reasoning" - as, I presume, she would also. This is what the respectable and time-honored discipline of apologetics is all about.

Those who denigrate "human reason" might as well deny that theology has any place in Christianity. And forget about homiletics. Without "human reasoning" sermons and homilies would merely consist of direct biblical quotation. It would be dubious for any preacher to so much as string together verses from different parts of the Bible - for in doing so (unless string in question received direct divine sanction) they depart from one-dimensional quotation and beginning mixing in their own dreaded "human reason."

Happily for Christianity, this is a cartoonish and ahistorical view. Besides being false, it is simply unpractical. To my knowledge, no sub-sect of Christianity functions this way.

>>...or the idea that the New Adam had to be born on undefiled ground.<<

That Adam *was* born on undefiled ground may be inferred from the numerous analogies between the First Adam and First Eve and the Second Adam (Jesus) and the Second Eve (Mary), as has now been mentioned several times. If Jesus's birth on undefiled ground was indeed a "requirement," then it was a requirement instituted by God and, in any case and as far as I can tell, is nowhere contradicted in the Bible.

>>I can call Mary "blessed" (as I did in my comment above) without directing my prayers to her. (Catholics deny that they worship Mary. So? I see them bow on bended knee and pray to her "Hail!"<<

Firstly, Catholics believe that the Church Triumphant (i.e., those men and women of God who are now enjoying heaven) is connected to the Church Militant (i.e., those men and women of God who are now alive on the earth). Catholics further believe that death is the separation of the body and soul, but that the dead person has not been destroyed. Christians of all sorts request prayers on their behalf from other believers. It is simply the Catholic conviction that those who have gone before us to their eternal reward are still, by God's authorization and Grace, able and willing to pray for us.

Secondly, your semi-mocking invocation of Catholics who say "Hail" to Mary is stupefying given your professed concern for the Written Word of God. Whence do Catholics derive this greeting? It comes right out of Luke 1:28! 'Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (According to the venerable non-Catholic King James Version of the Bible.)

>>...[Y]our doctrines of tradition ...[have] no Scriptural supports.<<

The Scriptural supports extend at least from Genesis 3:15, to Luke 1 and finally through to Revelation 12 and beyond.

>>You will not convince non-Roman Catholic Christians...<<

Being "convinced" is a complicated process. It is quite sensitive to many things, including how well the person being "convinced" pays attention, how capable is the person doing the "convincing," the general level of rapport, and on and on. Ultimately, though, being "convinced" of Christian truth is between the Holy Spirit and the individual. (See John 16:13, NIV.) Perhaps the best that I can do is to invite people into the historic Catholic Church.

Ultimately, the Catholic position is: (i.) a justifiable inference from the biblical data such as Luke 1:28 and 1:48 (etc.); (ii.) not "contradicted" by the most reasonable interpretations of verses like Romans 3:23 (etc.); demonstrably a part of the earliest Church's confessions (as can be gleaned from the writings of Apostolic Fathers like St. Justin Martyr); and better-situated to defend a high-Christology than the view that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sullied with sin. I recommend this position to you.

Pax vobis.