Logic that Isn’t
August is one of my wife’s favorite months to have a husband in apologetics ministry. Her personal theological entertainment is the unbiblical Catholic devotion Mary, especially when it gets weird, like seeing Mary in a drop of chocolate. So, in honor of my wife, who puts up with a lot for me to conduct this ministry and work full time, I thought I’d look at Steve Ray, Catholic apologist, who has posted some logic behind the Marian dogmas. Let’s take a quick look.
Follow the logic: 1) The kings of Israel raised their mothers to Queenship which became established as an official office; 2) the mothers were referred to as the Queen Mothers or the Great Lady; 3) they sat on a throne near their sons (1 Ki 2:19); 4) Jesus is the quintessential Jewish King with an eternal kingdom; 5) Jesus is the fulfillment if the Israelite offices of Prophet, Priest & King; 6) As the Davidic king, Jesus would honor his mother more than earthy kings honored their mothers; 7) It is biblical, historical, and reasonable to expect the perfect Jewish king to follow in the stead of the kingdom and his fathers by assuming his mother to a throne at his right hand.
It is proper and biblical to consider Mary in a position of intercessor. (source)
Well, item 1 is a leap since we only know of one king that did it. Item 2 means nothing. Item 3 again has only one historical example. Items 4 and 5 I very obviously agree with. As a side note on item 5, though, if Jesus is the fulfillment of the office of priest, then why do Roman Catholics continue to have priests? Item 6 is a leap as he pretends to know the mind of Christ, which of course, no human can. Item 7 has no basis in reality, since it is not reasonable to expect someone who achieves perfection to follow the model of the earthly, sinful kings that came before. And finally, even if I followed the logic up to item 8, that point is still irrelevant because all that has been argued is that Mary should receive the title of Queen Mother, not that any responsibilities would be conferred upon her.
So, even if the logic of 1-7 washed, would Mary have any responsibilities in this position as Queen of Heaven? Well, the very Bible that these guys are using to back up the dogmas says that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. Therefore, I would have to say that it is unlikely that she would be granted authority that usurps Christ’s authority.
The Reformed Catholic blog, which follows most Catholic teachings but has a decidedly Calvinistic soteriology, has this to say in response to Steve:
Here’s a tip for all our Catholic friends. When you’re defending the traditional doctrines of Catholicism, just admit it. You’re working with traditions. Not biblical doctrine. And you’ve accepted such things by faith in the Magisterium. Whether or not the traditions are present in Scripture is really immaterial. There is no Queen Mother tradition in the Scriptures that would allow you to take these sorts of logical leaps . . . . (source)
This echoes some of James White’s response, here. But the best part of that post is its conclusion:
I would dearly love to see Rome’s popular, traveling apologists stand up before a live audience and actually defend Rome’s dogmas on this topic. They love to crank out the books and CD’s on the topic, because, quite obviously, they sell. But you won’t find them rushing to defend these things against knowledgable opposition, and for good reason. They know that this kind of argumentation collapses under serious examination, and the only folks who find it convincing in the long run are those who want to believe.
So would I, Dr. White.
Hi
There are a lot of these wrong practices in the Philippines, my country. People are even duped by spiritists using religious entities and objects. Thats’ why people seem not to get the real essence of Christianity, as seen by the plunge of moral values that lead to corruption and crimes, because they focus more on Mary and the devotion to her instead of knowing the Will of God the Almighty Father through Lord Jesus Christ or worshiping, adoring and loving Him more than anybody else.
I read the catholic newsletter, The Examiner, that in China people know Mary more than Lord Jesus Christ. This became a big problem for the priests themselves. How much, then, do these people know about Who Lord Jesus Christ represents when He came here on earth more than 2000 years ago and even now?
By introducing Mary and all those saints and the devotion to them people seem to become lost in this maize of personalities instead of understanding deeply the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ about the Will of His Father and God Almighty in heaven. That’s why some catholics I know of who are even very active church goers do not even believe that there are evil spirits.
There is more to religion than meets the eye that people need to understand. Evil spirits are for real especially because they comprise that rebel group that went against the Will of God the Father Almighty.
We need to respect Mary, okay, because she is a model for women especially as a follower of our Almighty God. But when she is given more attention and devotion…even more than our Almighty Gof and Father, that’s where the problem comes in. when people focus more on these personalities rather tha studying and follwing the Will of our Almighty God the Father then there will be a lot of error.
Lord Jesus Christ came here to fulfill the Will of God the Almighty Father. He, our Almighty God, must be the only focus of our wordship, adoration and love!
Joel Ferraris
Cory,
Your posts seems to assume that anything described once in Scripture is insufficient for you per your disregard for points #1 and #3. Do I understand you correctly? If so, might I suggest that it demonstrates a poor regard for Scripture itself. What multiple of experiences need to be cited for them to suggest a possible pattern? Do you know this from Scripture itself?
Your use of “one mediator between God and man” seems to fall flat in the face of having inspired authors of the Bible other than Jesus Christ. Why use people to propogate and write down the good news? Couldn’t a completely bound book have fallen from the sky on a golden tablet in Reformed Egyptian that only you could read be a more probably direct cause than having the message mediated through humans? My tone is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I think you see my point.
Talk about a “maize of personalities” getting in the way. Let us not forget that the first God-bearer, the first to say yes to carry the Gospel, the one picked among all women in history is Mary. She deserves more mention than “Mary Did You Know” at Christmas. Looking at Mary only gives us a greater appreciation of her Son!
Larold,
First of all, I don’t need a multitude of historic examples to deem something “sufficient.” But there is no evidence that anyone other than Solomon did this, so the chain of logic falls flat because this wasn’t a standard practice. I would say that taking a single incident, calling it a historic practice with no evidence–Scriptural or otherwise–and then using it to elevate a mere human to a role intended only for Christ is the poor regard for Scripture itself.
I fail to see how my use of mediator falls flat. Your understanding of what a mediator does, and the fact that this is Jesus Christ’s unique role, seems to be sorely lacking. Jesus’ role of mediator has nothing to do with revelation, but with salvation (cf. Heb 7:25). Inspired writers merely reveal God’s will and His nature. Having Mary intercede for us with Christ who intercedes with the Father on our behalf not only seems hideously complicated, but also diminishes Christ’s unique role as Mediator in 1 Timothy.
I can agree in spirit on your last point, however. I see nothing wrong with remembering Mary, and with using her as an example of Christian devotion. However, elevating her above the average human just isn’t called for.