Marian Doctrine and the Church Fathers

The reason why many Evangelicals and Baptists and Pentecostals do not like to be labeled Protestants even though we are mostly considered under that umbrella by outsiders is because the Reformation and those today who revere the early Reformers are not rejecting the traditions of men entirely, they just want to identify a specific point on the timeline were things went wrong and reform back to that, even if they tout Sola Sciprtura as a tag line they don't truly follow it.  They still have their own variation of the Doctrine of the Nicolatians.

See my Appealing to the Early Church Fathers.

Triablogue is a Calvinist blog that dedicates much of it's time to trying to prove how the Pre-Nicean fathers favored what we today call Reformed theology over Catholic theology.  They have some good research I occasionally draw on, like in the above post.  But this appeal to the Pre-Nicean fathers ultimately works out far more consistently for non Calvinist Protestants.

What's interesting is how I've come to see the Marian doctrines as where this desire to interpret the Church Fathers as Protestant is most blatantly flawed.  Their view of Mary is one of the most easy Catholic Dogamas to refute scripturally.  It's one of the goals I had in my post on the Brothers of Jesus.

Triablouge has a series of posts trying to prove the the Early Fathers were against that doctrine.  Saying Specifically it was unheard of before Hilary.  It is true you won't find it fully formed among the Pre-Nicean fathers being expressed in exactly the same terms it is today.  But the seeds were there, and in my view those seeds were just as in conflict with Scripture as what Catholics today teach.

And yes that they took so long to fully develop it could hurt the Catholic position to an outsider.  But because of the Catholic view on Tradition and Church authority and Apostolic Succession it wouldn't necessarily matter to them if it was developed yesterday.  My point here is these same Church Fathers protestants want to revere deserve plenty of blame for these doctrines developing at all.

And the Reformation didn't reject the Perpetual Virginity right away.  Luther and Calvin (who took all his ideas from Augustine) both upheld it.  And it was upheld in the footnotes of the Geneva Bible that certain sects of Calvinism still revere.

There are two main doctrines, with links to lesser ideas.  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception/Sinlessness of Mary.  The former could be viewed as merely a symptom of the latter, that one can reject while believing the latter depending on how they view Sex.  And that's how I had defined it very recently in comments I've tried to leave on other blogs.  But as I've thought about it, one could stress the latter without caring about the former, especially since some Catholics take the notion that denying the perpetual virginity might as well deny the Virgin Birth all together.  If anyone questions my belief in The Virgin Birth they can read this and this.

The point of the above digression is, there could have been examples of one believing some of the Marian concepts but not all.

The claim that the Perpetual Virginity idea didn't exist at all before Hilary is absurd in the face of the Infancy Gospel of James which is dated to the Second Century.  It has it's title character, James the brother of Jesus, as the product of a prior marriage of Joseph.  And it depicts Mary's own Birth in a scene that strongly stresses an Immaculate Conception.

It wasn't a Gnostic text, it's over all Theology is legit.  Besides it's endorsement of Marian heresies it has nothing majorly objectionable.  It can even be used in a round about way to back up viewing Heli of Luke's genealogy as the father of Mary.

Tetullian is often cited by Catholics as the one and only Church Father to ever argue against the Perpetual Virginity.  And he also clearly says he viewed Mary as having sinned.  But he is still cited by Catholics due to in one work showing some support for the idea of viewing her as the new Ark or Tabernacle.

One post on the Triablogue blog seeks to laugh off Jerome's discrediting Tertullian as not a true Church Father.  But it is well known independent of Jerome that Tertullian was a supporter of the Montanists, who came to be viewed as heretics.  I for one think much of the accusations against the Montanists may have been false and that they were as valid Christians as modern Pentecostals.  But how many mainline Protestants would be ok with that view of the Montanists?  It implies the Early Fathers, even before Constantine, sometimes lied about and persecuted fellow believers for petty reasons, just as the Post-Niceans fathers did.

Tertullian does seem to be alone among the Church Fathers in arguing for the brothers and sisters of Jesus as being sons and daughters of Mary.  As early as Origen we see people who are adamant about them being Joseph's children by a prior Marriage.  And many others also seemed to be for some reason very uncomfortable with the issue of his siblings.

Maybe there were reasons independent of the Perpetual Virginity or one's view of Mary at all to be uncomfortable with it.  The notion that there were flesh and blood human beings who were siblings of God in The Flesh, who shared his DNA, can be a deep thing to contemplate.  But also even well past the Bar-Kochba revolt Jewish-Christian communities in the Middle East were lead by the decedents of Jesus siblings, and there seems to have often been conflicts between them and the Greek fathers.  Maybe people like Origen were motivated by nothing more then wanting to discredit the lineage of those descendants.

Ireaneus refers to the Mary as the New Eve concept, and Hippolytus to her as the New Tabernacles/Ark concept.  Triablouge rejects the notion that any of those typological speculations need to have anything to do with either doctrine.  But I do view them both as inappropriate, and view those kinds of games being played with Mary as inevitably being at the root of the Catholic heresies.

Well to be fair comparing Mary to Eve is perhaps necessary to fully understand the Seed of the Woman doctrine.  But the Ark/Tabernacle issue is very dangerous, giving that as a title to an individual absolutely opens the door to deifying that individual. 

The Tabernacle/Temple analogy is unambiguously Anti-Biblical because The New Testament does apply that to the Body of Jesus (John 2) and to The Church, and to the Body of each individual NT Believer.  Because of how since Pentecost the Holy Spirit indwells within us.  Mary was at Pentacost, but the Catholic logic comes from applying it to her right from the Annunciation.

The Eve thing may seem Biblically supportable because of the way the Virgin Birth doctrine has it's roots in Genesis 3:15.  But my study on The Bride of Christ doctrine shows that Eve too is a type of The Church.

Mary does relate to typological themes of The Bible, but she does so because she herself is a Type.  In the context of their relation to both Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 I view both Eve and Mary are types of Israel.  I view The Church and Israel not as distinct as Full Dispensationalism does, but not as completely the same like most opposing Dispensationalism do.  Mary and Eve are both among women who could be viewed as a type of either one in different ways.

One Triablogue post puts the Assumption of Mary right up there with these two doctrines.  I don't believe Mary was Raptured early, but I don't care so much because it doesn't contradict scripture the way the other two do.  The concept of her as the Queen of Heaven should be more important to object to, as that is what full blown makes her a Goddess whether the Catholics admit that or not.

The Life begins at First Breath argument

I've argued strongly for Life Begins at Conception before, but I'm someone willing to change my views after further study of Scripture.  I've also talked about how nuanced the Abortion issue is here.

First disclaimer however is that I know many making the Life at First Breath argument do so treating that as synonymous with Life beginning at Birth.  That is an error, we now know scientifically that the fetus develops lungs & nostrils and begins breathing at about six months.  And undeniable Biblical proof that it is alive before birth is provided by Jeremiah 1 and Luke 1:39-45, that's two witnesses.  We don't know at what point in the pregnancy it was that God spoke to Jeremiah, but we know the visitation was six months into Elizabeth's pregnancy, exactly the point the fetus develops lungs is when John leaped for Joy in his mother's womb.

Passages like Psalm 139 and Isaiah 44 may refer to conception, but not in a context that in any way helps define when Life Begins.  Psalm 139 is about God's foreknowledge, it's entire context is about how God knew you BEFORE your life began, not when it began.  Same btw with the references to Conception in Jeremiah 1.

 In this study of mine from a few months ago, some Biblical significance to the fact that the lungs are formed six months after conception is discussed.

Genesis 2:7 says that Adam became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.  

Also Ezekiel 37: The Dry Bones vision, which is contrary to some people's insistence is about the literal Bodily Resurrection as David being there proves.  The same imagery is used, God Breaths the Life into the dry bones to Resurrect them.

In both Hebrew and Greek the word for "spirit" often translated "ghost" also means "breath".  

In the New Testament believers are never refereed to as dead, we have Eternal Life, the time our bodies are clinically dead is just refereed to as a sort of sleep.  Repeatedly the moment of physical death is defined as "gave up the ghost", that can equally accurately be translated "gave up the breath" as an idiom for "stopped breathing".  This phrase is used both of Jesus Death on The Cross, and Stephen's stoning in Acts 7.

Psalm 33:6 could also be seen as backing up this doctrine.  As well as Job 34:14-15.

There is the counter argument I'm aware of that Blood is The Life and the fetus' heart starts beating at less then a month.  But the heart is not pumping it's own blood yet at that point but the Mother's.  The Fetus begins producing it's own blood about 5 days before the Lungs are formed.

When Pro-Choicers who are Ok with Abortion being illegal at a certain point refer to a fetus becoming "viable", this is the point in the pregnancy they are referring to.  It is after the lungs are formed that the child could survive if it's born prematurely, but if it's born before that it usually doesn't make it.

The State, The Church, and Marriage

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

The Law of Moses was imperfect

Hebrews 8:7

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

James 1:25 called the "Law of Liberty" perfect, that is our New Covenant.

Christians point this out a lot addressing Soterology, Salvation by Faith Alone.  But ignore it in Apologetics, feeling they need to defend every single imperfect part of the Torah's Civil Law code for Ancient Israel against modern skeptics.  Instead of simply simply acknowledging that it was a Law Code written under God's guidance but still for imperfect people in an imperfect world.

So yes, it has a lot of problems when it comes to laws related to slavery and rape and virginity.

 It does not deny the infallibility of God's Word to acknowledge that.  The Masoretic Text of The Hebrew Bible remains a perfectly infallible record of what The Law of Moses was.

We are Born Again at the Resurrection not when we're Saved

The casual terminology of saying we are Born Again when we're Saved is a misunderstanding of John 3.  Doesn't mean I think everyone who uses it understands Salvation incorrectly, it just means we need to clear up some terminology.

Before I explain this view, I want to distance myself from certain others teaching this same thing but tying it into other bad ideas.

Some over emphasize the use of the word "Spirit" in John 3 to support viewing the Resurrection as only Spiritual and not a physical Bodily Resurrection.  That is Gnostic Heresy.

And some try to connect this to their denial of Eternal Security.  I don't base my Belief in Eternal Security on the verses about being Born Again, or Born of God, or any of that.  That's Calvinism not true Eternal Security.  I base it on the verses in John 3 about "Whosoever Believeth on him shall not Perish but have eternal life", it's not Eternal if it can be lost.  And other verses showing that even the seemingly professing Christians who are damned are all those who NEVER knew Him.  And how none shall pluck them out of His hand.  And 1 Corinthians 3:15 showing that at the Bema Judgment there will be people who's works are burnt up but are still saved.

Since the moment we Believe is the conception not birth, they'll point out that sometimes babies miscarry.  A child Begotten of God cannot miscarry.  I think the Man-Child of Revelation 12 can represent The Church and individual Believers as much as it does Jesus himself.  We are the Body of Christ and also promised to "rule the Nations with a Rod of Iron".  Satan wants to prevent the Child from being Born, which is why he accuses us when we Sin.  But it is impossible for him to succeed.  The Man-Child is then Raptured, same Greek word as in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is when we are Resurrected.

We are already Begotten of God

1 Peter 1:3 says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead".  Begotten is a word that refers to conception, not to birth.

1 Peter 1:23 is mistranslated in the KJV "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."  The Greek text here does not use the same word used describing the Born Again concept elsewhere, it should read begotten again, Peter's instead using the same word he used in verse 3.  The two Greek words are similar but distinct.  This is not based on Alexandrian manuscripts, I'm using the Textus Receptus.

We are God's Children already just as a parent considers a baby still in the womb their child already.  But Son of God as a technical term applies when we're completely redeemed in the Resurrection, like how it applies to Angels and to Adam before The Fall.

Romans 8:16-21 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

We are fully the Children of God when we are free from The Curse of Genesis 3, which is what Romans 8 is all about.

James 1:18 "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."  "First Fruits" is a term linked to the Resurrection, that's why Jesus Resurrection was on the Feast of First Fruits.

1 John uses various forms of the same root that the word for born and begat come from, that the Strongs all label one word, and how the KJV renders it can cause confusion.

1 John 3:9 is correct in the KJV, it's abused by those trying to say a Believer cannot Sin.  But this same Epistle John explains we Lie if we say we do not Sin.

1 John 4:7 it should read begotten, it's showing how anyone following the Biblical Law of Love is saved and knows God.

1 John 5:1 is also correct.  John 5:4 should be Begotten, everyone who's Saved has Overcome the World in once sense according to John.  But that can be distinct from Overcoming to the End.  1 John 5:18 is also correct, but what it means is also abused, but it shows the distinction between being Born and Begotten.

In John 3 itself Jesus says that those who are Born Again are those who can see The Kingdom.  To say that is true of Believers already takes what he means a lot less literally.  When we are Resurrected we will no longer be limited to our current 3 dimensional perception.

Calvinists think Free Will somehow contradicts the Sovereignty of God

Let me make myself clear.

God can override our Free Will, he can make us all do what he wants, he can force us to accept Jesus.

But he chooses not to, he wants everyone to come to him, but he would prefer to accept as his Children only those who want to be his Children.

It has nothing to do with the Sovereignty of God.

Calvinists are a lot like many Atheists and others who reject Christianity all together.  They think in order for God to be Sovereign then what does happen must be what he wants to happen.

Teaching Men not to Rape

Among those conservatives who choose to object to modern Feminism and it's talk about "Rape Culture", the most popular argument is taking offense at the notion that men need to be "Taught not to Rape", that it's somehow insulting to men to suggest Rape in inherent in them.

It's most amusing to me when I see people who are Evangelical Christians do this.  Because among the arguments we make when attempting to explain the doctrine of Original Sin (the true Biblical doctrine, not what it means to Catholics or Calvinists), will be to ask parents if they needed to teach their children to lie or steal?  The answer is no, they had to teach them not to lie and not to steal.

Rape is also part of the Sin nature, and not all forms of it are obvious.  Many men, as surprising as this may seem, have trouble comprehending that it's wrong to have sex with a woman who's passed out.

Perhaps many "Traditional" Christians think since they're teaching their kids not to have sex outside marriage at all that Rape isn't an issue then.

1. Rape can happen within marriage. Some Bible verses may get misused to justify/deny marital rape by making it seem one spouse is obligated to fulfill the needs of the other.  But none of that makes it right to force yourself on someone who doesn't want to right now.  And since the Torah has laws against lying with your wife while she's menstruating, it certainly knows people can't simply have sex on demand.

2. I've argued elsewhere forcing an overly strict moral standard on people can wind up leading to them abandoning trying to be moral altogether.  Especially if on sexual morality your teaching children based on an imaginary Bible verse that masturbation is somehow worse then prostitution.

So no matter how legalistic you are, at least begin your lessons on Sexual Morality by explaining that the worst Sexual Sin is Rape.  Mainly because it's more then a Sexual Sin, it's a violation of someone's personal Liberty.  And so any sexual act that is fully and unambiguously consensual would be preferable.

I will say it would be helpful to rephrase "Teach people not to Rape" because women can rape also, The Bible even records an example with Lot's daughters.