Baptist sermon on Mary. need help

[dmar198]

For those who don’t want to watch the video, here is my somewhat detailed summary:

The part about Mary starts at 24 minutes. For the first minute the preacher introduces Mary as his topic. At 27:25 he finishes reciting a long passage from Luke 1 about Mary.

At 27:50 he calls Mary a perfectly ordinary person because she is not a queen or a princess, but a poor, unmarried Jewish girl who was engaged to a carpenter. He gives examples of people who he thinks were perfectly ordinary but who had an important role in the Bible, including a shepherd boy who became King David and the woman Deborah (or Jael?) to lead the armies of Israel.

At 30:45 he says “There is something about Mary” and questions whether Baptists have demoted Mary, and says perhaps they went too far. He says that Mary almost has a status of divinity in Catholicism. He says that there are more Catholic churches dedicated to Mary than to Jesus, and he recites a list of Catholic titles for Mary.

At 31:45 to 32:55 he says Catholics have developed doctrines about Mary: her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption. He also notes the apparitions of Mary in Catholic tradition and prayers to Mary, and says Baptists are squemish about it.

At 33:00 he says the Bible indicates that Mary had a subordinate role. He cites John 2:4, and says it is not harsh, but implies distance between Jesus and Mary. He cites the phrase “Who are my mother and my brothers?” and Jesus’ statement “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” He also says that nobody in the Bible went to Mary for a miracle and Mary appears along with the disciples in Acts 1:14 praying to Jesus, not to Mary.

At 35:00 he asks if Baptists have swung too far from recognizing Mary. He cites the passage where Mary is called blessed among women, the passage where the angel says she has found favor with God, the passage where Mary sings the Magnificat, and he focuses on the verse that says all generations shall call her blessed. Then he asks why she is important.

At 36:10 he examines Luke 1 more closely to answer that question. He says there is evidence that Mary was poor, and that makes her more accessible to us. He notes that women’s duties in the time made their hands dirty and that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable with hay. At 37:40 he says that Mary did not merit God’s grace through her own virtue, because that would make her less accessible to us.

At 38:00 to 39:45 he says that the Hail Mary comes from Luke 1. “But the question really is, why is she blessed?” And he says it’s either because she has proved to God her gracefulness, or because God has given her grace. And he says that’s the rub between the Catholic view of being faithful like Mary versus the Protestant view that Christ makes one holy. Then he says there may be an element of truth to both views.

From 39:45 to 41:00 he talks about the rich young man and how he is an example for us and helps us understand Mary.

At 41:00 he says there are three distinctive things about Mary that indicate her specialness. One is that she remained a virgin before marriage, and he says the Bible underscores her purity. He says her virginity was very important for understanding Jesus’ divinity. At 42:15 he says that Mary seemed to be very well-versed in the Bible and gives examples of where her words echo the Old Testament.

At 43:00 he says Mary was not only righteous, but obedient. He cites her phrase: “May it be to me as you have said.” He contrasts this with Moses, who tried to excuse himself from obeying God’s call.

At 44:25 he says Mary was very sacrificial, and gives examples. Among them are the fact that Mary offered herself to have Jesus, that she fled from persecution by Herod, and that she witnessed the Crucifixion. He movingly cites the movie The Passion of Christ and says he was very moved by viewing the Crucifixion through Mary’s eyes.

At 46:44 he emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice for us is reflected in Mary’s sacrifices. Then he says that Mary’s good qualities came from God. He even says that Mary’s acceptance of God’s will is the beginning of our redemption. He says we should imitate Mary and follow her example, “so that Mary’s story might become our story.”

At 48:50 he concludes with a prayer and thanks God for Mary, asking God to help us follow her example.

 

[Good_Fella]

Is there anywhere in the Bible that Jesus ever calls her mother?

The evangelist has only recorded Jesus having called his mother Mary “Woman”, to emphasize that she is the New Eve, the spiritual mother of us all (cf. Gen 3:15). The word is used even much more than as a title of respect. Our Lord uses it in allusion to Mary’s intimate and personal association with him in his work of redemption (cf. Lk 1:42). It’s not incidental that Jesus calls his mother “Woman” at the beginning and the end of his divine mission. Nothing recorded in the gospels is.But I’m sure that Jesus called her ‘Mother’ (Em ) in his hidden life with Mary.

Is He being rude on the cross when He says **“woman behold your son”? **

If Jesus was sinless, as all Christians believe, then to be rude to a parent would be breaking the commandment to honor thy father and mother. I guarantee you, that no matter how much we honor Mary, it pales in comparison to how Jesus honors her. (As a side note, I have heard that in the Jewish tradition, the commandment is taken up a notch, where we say honor, they say glorify).

“For God said, ‘Honour your father and your mother.’ Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
Matthew 15, 4

Yes, the Hebrew word for “honour” is kabodah, meaning to bestow glory. It is derived from the word ‘glory’: kabod. For me this verse most strongly supports our belief in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven.

‘From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.’*
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX *

‘Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.’
*Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius Xll *

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Shaolen]

For those who don’t want to watch the video, here is my somewhat detailed summary:

The part about Mary starts at 24 minutes. For the first minute the preacher introduces Mary as his topic. At 27:25 he finishes reciting a long passage from Luke 1 about Mary.

At 27:50 he calls Mary a perfectly ordinary person because she is not a queen or a princess, but a poor, unmarried Jewish girl who was engaged to a carpenter. He gives examples of people who he thinks were perfectly ordinary but who had an important role in the Bible, including a shepherd boy who became King David and the woman Deborah (or Jael?) to lead the armies of Israel.

At 30:45 he says “There is something about Mary” and questions whether Baptists have demoted Mary, and says perhaps they went too far. He says that Mary almost has a status of divinity in Catholicism. He says that there are more Catholic churches dedicated to Mary than to Jesus, and he recites a list of Catholic titles for Mary.

At 31:45 to 32:55 he says Catholics have developed doctrines about Mary: her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption. He also notes the apparitions of Mary in Catholic tradition and prayers to Mary, and says Baptists are squemish about it.

At 33:00 he says the Bible indicates that Mary had a subordinate role. He cites John 2:4, and says it is not harsh, but implies distance between Jesus and Mary. He cites the phrase “Who are my mother and my brothers?” and Jesus’ statement “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” He also says that nobody in the Bible went to Mary for a miracle and Mary appears along with the disciples in Acts 1:14 praying to Jesus, not to Mary.

At 35:00 he asks if Baptists have swung too far from recognizing Mary. He cites the passage where Mary is called blessed among women, the passage where the angel says she has found favor with God, the passage where Mary sings the Magnificat, and he focuses on the verse that says all generations shall call her blessed. Then he asks why she is important.

At 36:10 he examines Luke 1 more closely to answer that question. He says there is evidence that Mary was poor, and that makes her more accessible to us. He notes that women’s duties in the time made their hands dirty and that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable with hay. At 37:40 he says that Mary did not merit God’s grace through her own virtue, because that would make her less accessible to us.

At 38:00 to 39:45 he says that the Hail Mary comes from Luke 1. “But the question really is, why is she blessed?” And he says it’s either because she has proved to God her gracefulness, or because God has given her grace. And he says that’s the rub between the Catholic view of being faithful like Mary versus the Protestant view that Christ makes one holy. Then he says there may be an element of truth to both views.

From 39:45 to 41:00 he talks about the rich young man and how he is an example for us and helps us understand Mary.

At 41:00 he says there are three distinctive things about Mary that indicate her specialness. One is that she remained a virgin before marriage, and he says the Bible underscores her purity. He says her virginity was very important for understanding Jesus’ divinity. At 42:15 he says that Mary seemed to be very well-versed in the Bible and gives examples of where her words echo the Old Testament.

At 43:00 he says Mary was not only righteous, but obedient. He cites her phrase: “May it be to me as you have said.” He contrasts this with Moses, who tried to excuse himself from obeying God’s call.

At 44:25 he says Mary was very sacrificial, and gives examples. Among them are the fact that Mary offered herself to have Jesus, that she fled from persecution by Herod, and that she witnessed the Crucifixion. He movingly cites the movie The Passion of Christ and says he was very moved by viewing the Crucifixion through Mary’s eyes.

At 46:44 he emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice for us is reflected in Mary’s sacrifices. Then he says that Mary’s good qualities came from God. He even says that Mary’s acceptance of God’s will is the beginning of our redemption. He says we should imitate Mary and follow her example, “so that Mary’s story might become our story.”

At 48:50 he concludes with a prayer and thanks God for Mary, asking God to help us follow her example.

I must say that is a wonderful breakdown and will help me a lot. thank you

 

[Ed_Silvia]

"you should watch the Dec 7 sermon from Dr. Brewer.
Can someone help me dissect and refute this preacher?

I have to say I really liked Dr. Brewer’s talk. He showed a lot of good will toward Our Lady. I think as catholics we forget many protestants can’t wrap their heads around the concept of prayer to the saints that preceded us into eternity or that departed saints can aid us in our earthly pilgrimage.

I continue in my belief that God made his will about St. Mary known to the world at the beginning of the 20th Century but, it seems at times fruitless to point to Fatima even after more than 70,000 witnessed a predicted miracle “so the people would believe.”

We have Our Lady’s own words to St. Lucy on June 13, 1917 “… you must stay here for a long time. Jesus wants to help Himself of you to make Me known and loved. God wishes you to remain in the world for some time because He wants to use you to establish in the world a devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I promise salvation to those who embrace it, and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by myself to adorn His throne.”

Isn’t it ironic that St. Lucy who was used by Jesus to establish in the world devotion to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart became a cloistered nun

If we presented this Dr. Brewer scenario to St. Lucy she would no doubt (at least IMO) retire to her cell and offer prayers and little sacrifices to Our Lady on his behalf knowing that’s how Our Lady operates.

 

[Darryl_B]

My Baptist brother told me

“you should watch the Dec 7 sermon from Dr. Brewer. He talks about Mary and mentions examples of how the Catholic church looks at her and then contrasts it with “extreme” baptists and then says there’s no reason why it can’t be middle of the road as far as how highly she is held.”

His Baptist church in Round Rock TX records their Sunday services and posts them online here fbcrr.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=334912 (go to dec 7 and 24 minutes in)

Can someone help me dissect and refute this preacher? There’s surprisingly a lot he eventually agrees with Catholics on later on in his sermon but he pastes such a stereotypical view of how protestants view Catholic’s view on Mary in the beginning.

And can someone give a good refutation on why we shouldn’t seek out a “middle of the road” with Mary.

What would be interesting is if there was a church called “St Marys Baptist Church”.

 

[ahs]

What would be interesting is if there was a church called “St Marys Baptist Church”.

There IS!!

stmarysbaptist.org/

There are actually a few of these in different states. The one above is in DC.

 

[Darryl_B]

There IS!!

stmarysbaptist.org/

There are actually a few of these in different states. The one above is in DC.

Veneration?

 

[cisco_1]

Almost every Baptist I’ve met has mentioned their repulsiveness against Catholic Marian dogmata, and most say something along the lines of “She was just a vessel”.

For your Baptist brother to point out a sermon by a Baptist preacher who says, in essence, that Mary is more than a vessel, but less than “Mediatrix of all Graces” I would consider a quite welcome evolution in belief. I wouldn’t try to refute what was said simply because I’m flabbergasted by the fact that this preacher didn’t condemn the cult of Mary outright.

If I were you, I would count this as a step in the right direction, and I wouldn’t press the issue too much. I would respond by telling him “Hey brother! I know of some good books/sermons/videos that might interest you”. I would tell him that you very much appreciated the example of a Baptist preacher who seemingly is defying historic Baptist doctrine!

In other words: Don’t press this! Your brother is pointing out a tempered understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on Baptist principles which is more Catholic than previously thought!. Praise God that Ecumenism has come so far that a Baptist might admit that the Catholics may be “kind of right”.

It is more like this.
First, on praying to Mary and the other saints you can show an example through the Prophet Elijah. If you read the NT and parts of the OT, the Jews did pray to Elijah. They invoked him and Enoch from what i recall, because they believed those 2 were with God in heaven.

Second, on the title Mother of God you can use the verse in Luke (forgot the specific verse) where Elizebeth - the Mother John the Baptist, said to Mary “the Mother of my Lord”. There is the first biblical reference of the title, now since LUKE an Apostle wrote the gospel of Luke that also concludes what the writers (the Apostles) viewed Mary. To deny the title will force the Baptist to deny that Jesus was fully God and Man at the same time. If they say “since God is trinity… so that renders as Mother of the trinity” just like Walter Martin did to Fr Mitch Pacwa, then they are forced to stop using terms as “God gave his life/died on the cross to save us for our sins…” because that will also render as the “Trinity died on the cross”.

Third, Mary being with out sin is all based on the Angel Gabriel’s visitation, saying Mary is full of Grace. So the Baptist will use Romans 3:23 to counter that “this verse says for ALL…”… once that is mentioned, you will have to use the same scriptural logic used in the doctrines such as the Trinity. If “ALL” means EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the history of earth, then that must mean Jesus had the mortal sin… that verse does not say “For all have sin except for Jesus” however we know regardless of it not being mentioned that Jesus is an exemption. Due to the verse of St Gabriel saying Mary is Full of Grace, plus the verse in Revelation where it compares Mary to the arc of the covenant. The New Arc of the Covenant.

Forth, the Argument of Mary being a Virgin through out her life. This is going to be hard to defend because in all honesty there is no back up for this other than “The Church says so…”. The verses that say Jesus had brothers could be due to maybe St Joseph having a wife prior to Mary therefore making those brothers half brothers or because due to ancient translations, cousins where also called brothers/sisters. We don’t know. IMO, Mary being a virgin all her life or not doesn’t minus out the 3 factors stated. So what if she wasn’t all her life? Having sex with the person you are married is not a sin anyway… Catholics are very sensitive to this but in reality being right or wrong with this is not a big deal and it does not minus the honor and status of Mary any bit.

Fifth, the Assumption. To tell you the truth, there are a number of Baptists who do believe in the Assumption of Mary. My father was a religious Baptist, he believed it…a few Pastors i knew believed it to be possible. The reason why is, since Mary was a historical fact her remains should have been found. There would be no doubt that the Church of 100ce would have taken that body or would have given it a great tomb, however we don’t have any remains of her. Where did it go? So we go to the conclusion - and we admit that it is an Assumption- that she was taken into heaven just like Elijah, Enoch, and Jesus. If Elijah and Enoch were taken up, Mary should have been being the bearer of God’s Son.

 

[Good_Fella]

The Argument of Mary being a Virgin through out her life. This is going to be hard to defend because in all honesty there is no back up for this other than “The Church says so…”.

There is ample proof of Mary being Ever-Virgin from Scripture, besides Tradition, if it is read in a spiritual (anagogical and moral) sense.

*Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?*

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and** the power of the most High shall overshadow thee**. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1, 31-35

The intimate union between the Holy Spirit and Mary is redolent of a marriage in a spiritual and mystical sense just as the relationship between YHWH and Israel is.

Though God calls Israel his servant (cf. Isa. 41:8), the relationship between YHWH and His chosen people is much closer than that between a lord and his servant. In the OT we find that the relationship between God and Israel was essentially a covenantal one as between a husband and his wife (cf. Isa. 54:5). A kind of wedding vow was made at the time Moses received the Divine laws on Mount Sinai for the people of Israel. (cf. Ex.19:5-8).

At this moment in Jewish history Israel became God’s virgin bride. As her husband’s chaste spouse, she was committed to remain faithful to him. First and foremost, she was not to have other God’s before YHWH (cf. Ex. 20:1-3). Unfortunately, however, even as Moses was descending the mountain with the two stone tablets, the Israelites had made and were worshipping the brazen image of the golden calf. This was just the beginning of how unfaithful a spouse Israel would prove to be in her marital union with God even after His chosen people had reached the Promised Land, where they adored and made sacrifices to the false gods of surrounding nations. Israel’s infidelity toward her husband was in principle a violation of their wedding vow, and her worshipping of false Gods was tantamount to acts of adultery in the eyes of God. Thus God had to send many judges and prophets to declare His word to Israel and bring her back into their covenantal relationship with Him. Jeremiah was called to admonish the Israelites for having ignored and even persecuted the prophets that God had sent to them because of their infidelity towards Him (cf. Jer. 24:4-6).

By this time it would appear that the husband’s patience towards his wife had run out, however reluctantly, to the extent that God had presented Israel with a writ of divorce. This was after God had pleaded with His chosen people for seven centuries to heed His voice and return back to Him and be faithful, but they would not listen as they should in keeping with their vow (cf. Jer. 3:8),

Still this decree of divorce did not in any way annul the marriage covenant between YHWH and Israel. It did not liberate the nation from observing the terms of their covenantal relationship with God. His intention was to compel the Israelites to come back to Him by removing His protection over them from the surrounding hostile nations which, as a result of Israel’s infidelity, took God’s virgin bride in bondage. The people of the Northern Kingdom or House of Israel ended up in Assyrian captivity, (Judah would soon join them.) As long as God’s writ of divorce was still in effect, His bride couldn’t return to Palestine or, in other words, her husband’s house. The writ served as a means of discipline exacted from an offended husband to his wife to enable her to realize how much she needed him over all the others she had placed before him in violation of their indissoluble covenant. God had no intention to disown, but to restore Israel and renew His covenant with her despite her unworthiness, because of His faithfulness. In accordance with Mosaic Law, a divorced woman could be taken back into her husband’s home provided she wasn’t remarried at the time. God willed to take Israel back into His house, notwithstanding her adulterous past, provided she dissolved her marriage with the false gods of Assyria and Babylon and willingly came back to Him (cf. Ezek. 20:33-37; Jer. 31:31-33).

The OT frequently depicts Israel as God’s bride, who is expected to be pure and chaste in her nuptial relationship with Him, faithful and loving. It is God who espouses Israel, removing her from her lowly origin, her fornication and prostitution, and purifying her to be His worthy spouse (cf. Hos. 2:19-20). That God should renew His covenant with Israel is best explained by the fact that Israel was elected to be the people from whom the Divine Word would take his flesh. And thus Mary was chosen to bring Him to birth as Saviour of the world. Both Israel and Mary had the divine privilege of bringing the Messiah into the world. And because of their common vocations, both of them had to be specially prepared by God. Because the people of Israel were to receive God Incarnate in their midst as one of them, they would have to be made exclusively worthy by means of a special holiness imparted by the Old Covenant.

“You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.”
Leviticus 20, 26

To be continued.

 

[Good_Fella]

And coming to her, the angel said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”
Luke 1, 28

In ancient Jewish culture the expression “to lay one’s power over” (resuth) a woman was a euphemism for marital relations. The word “overshadow” or to “lay one’s cloak (tallith) over” was as well. Ruth intended to have marital relations with Boaz when she said: “I am your handmaid. Spread the corner of your cloak over me, for you are my next of kin” (Ruth 3:9). Tallith, literally “wing” (kannaph), is derived from the word tellal, which means shadow: “Cover me with your shadow,” or “Overshadow me”. In the words of Mary: “Let it be done to me, according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Like Ruth, Mary was at first concerned about her chastity, when the angel said to her “You will conceive and bear a son.” But she consented to have the child upon learning that the conception would be supernatural. Ruth would only lay with Boaz on the condition they were related as bride and groom. Their firstborn son was Obed. Jesus referred to Israel as his bride when he said: “How many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her children under her wing” (Lk 13:34).

Luke presents Mary as God’s bride and spouse of the Holy Spirit. A marital relationship, even in a mystical sense, requires the mutual exchange of vows and entering into an exclusive covenantal relationship between partners. Boaz desired that his servant Ruth become his wife so that she would lay with him. Only then would she give her consent for the sake of her chastity and in faithfulness to God. Mary would not have consented to conceive and bear Jesus if she intended to consummate her marriage with Joseph. Nor would the angel have come to her if she had. The personal union between God the Holy Spirit and Mary in this case would have constituted a violation of the principles of the Divine Law given to Moses for the people of Israel. Mary thus would have proved herself unfaithful to God.

Apparently Mary had already made a vow of chastity to God by the influence of His grace and entered into an exclusive covenantal relationship with Him, unaware at the time as a young girl living in the temple of what her oath entailed. God sent the angel to her with the good news because she was His virgin bride. Legally she was betrothed to Joseph, but morally she was betrothed to God. Mary responded in a similar vein as Ruth had as Boaz’s servant and bride by agreeing to have a child together provided it was in keeping with her covenant with God. Ruth refused to lay with Boaz only as his servant, which would have been immoral in accord with the precepts of the Torah. Nor would God expect Mary to beget a child with Him simply as His servant. Spiritually she had to belong exclusively to Him as His very own bride and possession for the sake of His goodness and steadfast love which ought to be mutually returned, seeing that her offspring was His divine Son.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

PAX
:heaven:

 

[cisco_1]

There is ample proof of Mary being Ever-Virgin from Scripture, besides Tradition, if it is read in a spiritual (anagogical and moral) sense.

*Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?*

The argument that Protestants make is that Mary was a virgin during the annunciation and until the birth but sometime AFTER Jesus’ birth, she had other children hense the bible saying Jesus had brothers.

 

[Good_Fella]

The argument that Protestants make is that Mary was a virgin during the annunciation and until the birth but sometime AFTER Jesus’ birth, she had other children hense the bible saying Jesus had brothers.

Mary does not say that she has not had any relations with Joseph until then, since the angel hasn’t told her that she has conceived, but rather she will conceive at some indefinite time in the future. She is speaking in the simple present tense, not the present perfect: ‘I do not know a man.’ Mary must have thought that the angel meant she would conceive and bear Jesus once the term of betrothal would come to an end. The Jews expect the Messiah to be of human Davidic paternal lineage. So she asked what could be the meaning of all this, for she had no intention of having normal marital relations with Joseph. She planned to have a celibate marriage. Some Protestant NT versions have Mary speaking in the present perfect tense: ‘I have not had any relations with a man.’ Such a translation is obviously faulty, since the angel doesn’t even remotely imply that Mary has already conceived Jesus. This translation simply accommodates what many Protestants choose to believe about Mary’s virginity.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[dmar198]

Forth, the Argument of Mary being a Virgin through out her life. This is going to be hard to defend because in all honesty there is no back up for this other than “The Church says so…”. The verses that say Jesus had brothers could be due to maybe St Joseph having a wife prior to Mary therefore making those brothers half brothers or because due to ancient translations, cousins where also called brothers/sisters. We don’t know. IMO, Mary being a virgin all her life or not doesn’t minus out the 3 factors stated. So what if she wasn’t all her life? Having sex with the person you are married is not a sin anyway… Catholics are very sensitive to this but in reality being right or wrong with this is not a big deal and it does not minus the honor and status of Mary any bit.

I think Mary’s perpetual virginity is very defensible from Scripture. Here are a few of the basic passages that support Mary’s perpetual virginity:

1. Luke 1:34 - “Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, for I do not know man?”

There are two reasons this supports Mary perpetual virginity. First, the phrase “I do not know man” carries a sense of permanence, like “I do not smoke.”

Second, there is the context. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when the angel told her she would conceive a child. But her question shows that she knew she would not conceive a child with him. By asking how she was to conceive, she shows that she was not planning to.

1. John 19:25-27 - “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, Woman, this is your son! Then He said to the disciple, This is your mother!”

There are three reasons this supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. First, Jesus’ dying action was to do something to provide for Mary. That suggests that He had no brothers and sisters to take care of her.

Second, the fact that he chose St. John instead of a brother or sister suggests the same thing.

Third, in Greek the words Jesus uses contain a definite article: “This is the son of you,” not “this is a son of you,” suggesting that Jesus was Mary’s only son.

1. Isaiah 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

There are two reasons this supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. First, Mary’s virginity is supposed to be a “sign.” The reason God chose a woman who didn’t have children is because the presence of other children would obscure Jesus’ divine origin. That same reason would continue if the children were born either before or after Jesus.

Second, the passage says she will still be a virgin once she has given birth to Jesus. That can only happen by a miracle. But this supplies us with an argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity: why would God have used a miracle to preserve Mary’s virginity at the time of Christ’s birth, if she was only to lose it soon after? This suggests she was not going to lose her virginity.

 

[cottice]

I guess one specific thing about what the preacher said was about the wedding at cana where he calls Mary “woman” and seems to be kinda rude in tone. i know that we connect his use of woman as the woman in genesis after the fall, but what about the rest of what Jesus said to Mary in that passage? What did he mean and why did it seem harsh. I swear there was a tract on her that mentioned it but I don’t remember which.

I wrote up something about the wedding at Cana because it intrigued me. Actually it is part of a larger article I wrote. It has to do with Mary as Queen of Heaven. And I know how Baptists love to get off on that one but showing them how the scriptures support the title is awesome. Here is what I wrote:

Devotion to Mary
There are two incidents in the Gospels that seem insignificant or at most nice little human interest stories that have no relationship to the gospel message. They seem to be little sidebars to the main storyline. The two incidents are the mother of James and John asking Jesus to allow her sons to sit on his right and left and the story of the wedding feast at Cana. Here are the passages:

“35 And James and John, the sons of Zeb’edee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
[Mark 10:37-40] [RSV]

Matthew’s gospel has the mother of James and John making the request. [See Mt 20:20-23] The wedding feast at Cana is recorded in John‘s Gospel:

“1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” [John 2:1] [RSV]

Now what do these events have to do with the gospel? Apparently nothing other than in the first either the mother of two of the Apostles or the two apostles themselves make a rather selfish request whereas in the second a request is apparently made but it is not a selfish request. So is that it? On the surface it seems so. But I was intrigued by the first one. Who does sit at Jesus left and right? In recalling the creed I know it states that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. That is also stated in Mark 16:19:

“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” [Mark 16:19][RSV]

So if Jesus sits at the Father’s right then the Father sits at Jesus left. No wonder neither James nor John could sit there. But who sits at Jesus right? The obvious answer is the Holy Spirit. But I could not find anything in scripture that stated that. So the question of who sits at Jesus’ right went unanswered.

Then there is the story of the wedding feast of Cana. Two things here I pondered. First, why is this in the scripture and second there seems to be parts of the conversation missing. The conversation as recorded by John is as follows: [NOTE: I added missing parts. They are in brackets}

Mary: “They have no wine.” [Can you do something?]
Jesus: “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” [but for
you I will.]
Mary: (to the servants) “Do whatever he tells you.”

Again a nice human interest story but so what? What does that have to do with the gospel message? Again outside of one request being selfishly and the other unselfishly there appears to be nothing.

Continued…

 

[cottice]

Continuing…

Then one day while reading the Old Testament the old proverbial light bulb came on. The passage I was reading was :

“12 So Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established. 13 Then Adoni’jah the son of Haggith came to Bathshe’ba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peaceably?” He said, “Peaceably.” 14 Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” She said, “Say on.” 15 He said, “You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the LORD. 16 And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me.” She said to him, “Say on.” 17 And he said, “Pray ask King Solomon–he will not refuse you–to give me Ab’ishag the Shu’nammite as my wife.” 18 Bathshe’ba said, “Very well; I will speak for you to the king.” 19 So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” [1 Kings 2:12-25] [RSV]

The part that intrigued me was verse 19 -20:

“19So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.”

Here King Solomon, a king of the line of David has his mother sitting at his right hand. But there is something else. Solomon says to his mother that he would not refuse her request. When I looked elsewhere in the OT I found that the queen in the Davidic kingdom was not the king’s wife but rather the king’s mother. Suddenly a lot of things that protestants object to in Catholicism made sense. Mary sits at Jesus right hand just as Bathsheeba did with Solomon and the other Davidic queens did with their sons. Jesus is of the line of David and has a kingdom which is heaven. Therefore his mother, following the Davidic tradition is the queen of the kingdom and thus when Catholics call her Queen of Heaven it does have biblical support. Intercessary prayers and devotions to Mary make a lot of sense, especially if the requests of the queen [Mary] will not be refused by the king [Jesus].

 

[Cathoholic]

Shaolen. You said:

QUOTE:
Please if you can elaborate on the idiom you mentioned regarding cana

I’ll see what I can do. Scott Hahn discusses this in detail on his Gospel of John Series (here and here) but I will have to dig it up and re-listen to it before I try to elaborate. I don’t want to lead you or some other reader of this thread astray in this (or any other) area.

You also said:

QUOTE:
Some other parts I’d like to know about is where he mentions Jesus being asked where’s his mother etc. and he states all the people following His word. What’s the context for that passage and why did he say that?

And

QUOTE:
Also it really is silly but what would you say about the preacher’s charge about us having too many churches devoted to Mary and only a few devoted to Christ.

I’ll try to get to these things.

Responding to the charge about “Churches devoted to Mary”, . . . .

. . . . You or I might ask them: "Why are there so many Protestant Church’s devoted to “Community” or “First” or “Faith”, or their own city, etc. etc.?

• First Baptist Church of wherever
• Dallas United Church (If such a Church exists it is by accident I mention this. I am just using the city of Dallas as it randomly popped into my head).
• Faith Lutheran Church of whatever town.
• First Community Church (of wherever)

They have the same problem . . . . or NON-problem.

(I’ve never seen it as an issue against Protestants. WHY some of them would see this as an issue against Catholics makes me wonder what their motivation is)

Perhaps it is because we make such a big deal out of the Incarnation of Jesus. And since the Blessed Virgin Mary was made (by the grace of God) a very intricate part of the Incarnation, and is the ONLY mere human to be involved in such a fashion, we think it is pretty special. A lot more special than the mere name of my home town or the fact that we were the “first” Lutheran (or whatever) church established in this city.

Another reason may be humility in our approaching the Lord. A sort of indirect approaching of God at times. The Seraphim in Heaven seem to have this idea too.

ISAIAH 6:2-3 (NIV) Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."

St. John of the Cross talks about this aspect (humility) concerning an intimate encounter with God (and he exemplifies Moses here).

ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS “This is what happened to Moses: When he heard God speaking to him, he was blinded by that gratification and desire and without any further thought would have dared to approach God, if he had not been ordered to stop and take off his shoes (Ex. 3:4-5). This instance denotes the respect and discretion, the nakedness of appetite, with which one ought to commune with God. Consequently when Moses was obedient to this command, **he was so discreet and cautious that Scripture says he not only dared not approach but did not even dare look **(Ex. 3:6; Acts 7:32). Having left aside the shoes of his appetites and gratifications, he was fully aware of his misery in the sight of God, for this was the manner in which it was fitting for him to hear God’s word.”

- St. John of the Cross
The Dark Night Book 1, Chap 12, Section 3.​

We see St. Peter in Luke chapter 5 display this type of “humble approach” saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."

I’m not saying that it is wrong for Catholics to name a Catholic Church directly after God. Sacred Heart of Jesus or “Holy Spirit” or many other such names ARE given.

But you can’t expect Catholics to name ALL their Churches the same either.

Some Catholic communities find various devotional names or events worthy of naming just like St. Paul did when he mentioned the apparently passed Onesiphorus in the Scriptures (2nd Tim. 1:16) or Jesus Himself giving praise and honor when He told the woman who anointed His sacred feet that part of the Gospel would be preached in memory of her! Was Jesus out of line?

MATTHEW 26:6-13 6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. 8 But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13 **Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” **

If **Jesus Himself **honors this woman in the Gospels themselves in this way, is it too big an issue if we name Churches after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Incidentally. We see above the Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus or Holy, Holy, Holy at Mass, united to the Heavenly Seraphim for those who have eyes to see it.

ISAIAH 6:3b (NIV) "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."

 

[Memaw]

The Holy Eucharist is the CENTER of every Catholic Church no matter what the name of that Church is. Many are named after Saints too. One wonders why there is so much hatred for the Catholic Church among non-catholics. If they only knew what they are missing. If they only understood what we truly believe instead of insisting we believe what they “think” we do. They need to spend more time loving Our Lord and learning his TRUTH and much less time fighting HIS Church. I wonder if they remember the 8th Commandment. Thou Shalt NOT Bear False Witness against Thy Neighbor. God Bless, Memaw

 

[slh3016]

Since you were asked to listen to a podcast, how about asking him to listen to one in return? Scott Hahn’s The Virgin Mary Revealed through Scripture on youtube would be a great place to start.

It’s fabulous and will blow the mind of any Protestant (myself, for the moment, included!)

 

[zz912]

At 27:50 he calls Mary a perfectly ordinary person because she is not a queen or a princess, but a poor, unmarried Jewish girl who was engaged to a carpenter. He gives examples of people who he thinks were perfectly ordinary but who had an important role in the Bible, including a shepherd boy who became King David and the woman Deborah (or Jael?) to lead the armies of Israel.

So do perfectly ordinary people receive a royal greeting from a messenger of God?!?!?! Does this happen often??? Do perfectly ordinary people get greeted by a messenger of God declaring them completely FULL of grace?!?!?!

At 30:45 he says “There is something about Mary” and questions whether Baptists have demoted Mary, and says perhaps they went too far. He says that Mary almost has a status of divinity in Catholicism. He says that there are more Catholic churches dedicated to Mary than to Jesus, and he recites a list of Catholic titles for Mary.

Good that he’s reassesssing his views about Mary, and seems to be open to the truth, although he hasn’t reached it yet. And about the naming of churches, that is something Baptists just won’t understand until they come into the Church. They think it detracts attention from Who is most important, when instead it focuses the faithful to emulate the high devotion that saint has towards Who is most important.

At 31:45 to 32:55 he says Catholics have developed doctrines about Mary: her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption. He also notes the apparitions of Mary in Catholic tradition and prayers to Mary, and says Baptists are squemish about it.

Doctrines develope, but aren’t created. We understand better over time as the Holy Spirit guides us into fuller understandings about eternal truths.

At 33:00 he says the Bible indicates that Mary had a subordinate role. He cites John 2:4, and says it is not harsh, but implies distance between Jesus and Mary. He cites the phrase “Who are my mother and my brothers?” and Jesus’ statement “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Everyone is subordinate to Jesus, even Mary. Mary herself would tell you this. But Jesus has also elevated her to above the angels. And there is no distance, just a different way of speaking than what we know today. He is reading our views into the exchange instead of trying to understand how Jesus meant them. Look what actually happened. Mary just tells the stewards to do what Jesus says, and Jesus performs the miracle. At NO POINT do you EVER see a miracle being performed like this anywhere else in the Gospels.

As to the second statement, well who most perfectly obeyed God’s word when they heard it??? Mary.

He also says that nobody in the Bible went to Mary for a miracle and Mary appears along with the disciples in Acts 1:14 praying to Jesus, not to Mary.

The wedding party in Cana did. And Mary prayed for them to Jesus and the prayer was answered.

At 35:00 he asks if Baptists have swung too far from recognizing Mary. He cites the passage where Mary is called blessed among women, the passage where the angel says she has found favor with God, the passage where Mary sings the Magnificat, and he focuses on the verse that says all generations shall call her blessed. Then he asks why she is important.

That is a wonderful question to ask. The answer is that she is the Ark of the New Covenant. And if the Baptist preacher were to open his mind further, and see how Mary is prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant, and how she is the New Ark, his understanding would rise considerably. The Ark was not God, and yet it was sacred, it was prayed before, it was honored. It was the holiest object in all the world prior to Jesus and Mary.

At 37:40 he says that Mary did not merit God’s grace through her own virtue, because that would make her less accessible to us.

We can agree with this. God saved Mary before she sinned, and she cooperated with that grace. She is not the source of light, but her soul magnifies the Lord.

At 38:00 to 39:45 he says that the Hail Mary comes from Luke 1. “But the question really is, why is she blessed?” And he says it’s either because she has proved to God her gracefulness, or because God has given her grace. And he says that’s the rub between the Catholic view of being faithful like Mary versus the Protestant view that Christ makes one holy. Then he says there may be an element of truth to both views.

Here he shows his ignorance of Catholic teaching on Mary. The Catholic view is both of those. God has given her grace, and she has proven that grace by cooperating with it.

At 44:25 he says Mary was very sacrificial, and gives examples. Among them are the fact that Mary offered herself to have Jesus, that she fled from persecution by Herod, and that she witnessed the Crucifixion. He movingly cites the movie The Passion of Christ and says he was very moved by viewing the Crucifixion through Mary’s eyes.

It is a very Catholic movie, and a powerful witness to Mary and her importance.

At 46:44 he emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice for us is reflected in Mary’s sacrifices. Then he says that Mary’s good qualities came from God. He even says that Mary’s acceptance of God’s will is the beginning of our redemption. He says we should imitate Mary and follow her example, “so that Mary’s story might become our story.”

Sound good here.

At 48:50 he concludes with a prayer and thanks God for Mary, asking God to help us follow her example.

Hopefully more of this will come.

 

[ahs]

There IS!!

stmarysbaptist.org/

There are actually a few of these in different states. The one above is in DC.

Veneration?

Of course! Even if they don’t call it that.