You're right, Scripture is silent on this issue - which means, we should be silent about it. Why? Because Scripture is NOT silent about adding to His Word:
[Deu 4:2 LSB] “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I am commanding you.
[Deu 12:32 LSB] “Whatever I am commanding you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
[Pro 30:6 LSB] Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.
This dogma didn't formally exist until 1950 by Pius XII. The New Testament presents Mary as a faithful and blessed woman (Luke 1:28, 42), but it never gives her a unique, exalted status above other believers. After Acts 1, Mary virtually disappears from the biblical record.
On the other hand, since Scripture is silent on this we should assume that Mary is dead and awaiting the resurrection like all other believers as Scripture does speak clearly on this.
[Heb 9:27 LSB] And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
Catholic Argument: Furthermore, we see links in the old testament that would hint at Mary's assumption. Psalm 132:8 says "Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark of thy sanctification." Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, it would be fitting that she was also risen up into Heaven.
Again, zero Scriptural support. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary referred to as the Ark of the Covenant.
Psalm 132:8 is referring to the actual Ark of the Covenant. It is a prayer for God’s presence to dwell permanently among His people in Jerusalem.
The ultimate fulfillment is not Mary, but Yeshua Himself, who is the true presence of God with us (Immanuel).
Catholic Argument: Lastly, while we have plenty of relics, such as bones, for other saints, none were every collected from Mary, suggesting that she didn't physically die on Earth.
Another argument from silence. Just because no bones were collected or venerated does not prove she didn’t die. There are many reasons why we might not have her relics. There are also many early saints of which you have no relics. Were they bodily assumed also?
Catholic Argument: The argument based on 1 Timothy 2:5 that Christ is the only mediator, therefore the intercession of saints is wrong. This is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a intercessor and a mediator. The definition of an intercessor is a person that prays for another, or on behalf of another. On the other hand, a mediator is someone who reconciles the separation between two parties.
There's no misunderstanding on definitions. The dead can't pray/intercede. Upon death we go to sheol/hades... the unseen, the imperceptible. Is there any activity in hades according to Scripture?
Life? No-- "... the dead are there... in the depths of sheol" (Prov. 9:18).
Prayer? No-- "... let them be silent in sheol" (Psa. 31:17).
Knowledge? Nope-- "... there is no knowledge in sheol..." (Ecc. 9:10).
Anything at all? No-- "... the dead know nothing" (Ecc. 9:5).
Catholic Argument: 4 verses before 1 Timothy 2:5 in 1 Timothy 2:1, we can see that Paul says intercession is made for all men. Since the saints are alive in Heaven (John 3:16, ) God will allow them to hear the requests for prayer made to them, not that the saints are omniscient and omnipresent, but that God allows the saints to hear them through his grace.
There's not a single Scripture that says saints are alive in Heaven. Saints are not alive in Heaven. They are dead. There are plenty of Scriptures stating this but only one is needed for now.
[Joh 3:13 LSB] “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Catholic Argument: Thats why we have the Eucharist! "Do this in remembrance of me."
Sure - that's what we protestants do... we remember - it's a memorial. However, that's not Rome's definition of what you're doing - is it?
The Code of Canon Law, Canon 904, says:
"Remembering that the work of redemption is continually accomplished in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice..."
Redemption is complete "... it is finished!" ... that is the reason we celebrate this Easter weekend. There is no need for redemption to be "continually accomplished".
The Code of Canon Law, Canon 904, says:
"Remembering that the work of redemption is continually accomplished in the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice..."
Redemption is complete "... it is finished!" ... that is the reason we celebrate this Easter weekend. There is no need for redemption to be "continually accomplished".
Catholic Argument: Also if we look at the original manuscripts, which, ironically were written in Greek, use literal language. This includes "to nibble on my flesh," etc. Also in John 6, we see how Christ uses literal language to describe communion: "My flesh is true food," and "My blood is true drink."
In John 6:52–63, Jesus says:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (v. 53)
The Jews took this literally and were offended, asking, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52)
However, when many of His disciples were shocked and began to leave, Jesus gave this crucial clarification: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63)
He explicitly said that the flesh profits nothing. He shifted the meaning from physical eating to a spiritual reality. Apparently, Rome didn't get the memo?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (v. 53)
The Jews took this literally and were offended, asking, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52)
However, when many of His disciples were shocked and began to leave, Jesus gave this crucial clarification: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63)
He explicitly said that the flesh profits nothing. He shifted the meaning from physical eating to a spiritual reality. Apparently, Rome didn't get the memo?
Catholic Argument: Do some more digging. Tradition isn't bad, in fact we are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to hold fast to the traditions passed down, wether by mouth or by letter. He was referring to apostolic teachings. Paul wasn't referring to pagan Greek philosophy mixed in with catholic dogma centuries later. The traditions you're speaking of didn't exist until after the Apostles were long gone. So yeah, catholicism's traditions are bad.
The Greek word is paradosis (παράδοσις), which simply means “that which is handed down” or “passed on.” In this context, it refers to the apostolic teaching — the gospel and instructions Paul and the other apostles delivered to the church. Not traditions derived by the catholic priests hundreds of years later.
Catholic Argument: Lastly regarding the sinlessness of Mary, again, we don't see that scripture explicitly tell us this, but we see multiple passages hinting at this idea. In Genesis 3:15, where a woman is prophesied to give birth to a son who will strike Satan's head and Satan his heel, which is a prophesy about Christ and his mother, we can see that the mother and the Son is seen to have the same level of enmity between the serpent (which is satan.) This implies that Mary and Christ have the same total opposition towards Satan and his fruits, which mean that since Christ was sinless, Mary was also sinless.
Gen 3:15 is clearly referring to Eve. That's quite a leap to point this passage at Mary. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary's sinless nature ever inferred. What does Scripture plainly state?
(no inference here....)
[Rom 3:23 LSB] for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
She herself knew she was a sinner and Scripture points this exact idea out.
Mary offered the purification sacrifice required for women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6–8). This was a sin offering.
We don't need to rely on inference. Scripture tells us that Mary knew was sinner and needed a Savior.
[Luk 1:46-47 LSB] And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, [47] And my spirit has rejoiced in God MY SAVIOR.
Catholic Argument: Furthermore, in Luke 1:28, we see the Archangel Gabriel greeting Mary. In the original Greek Manuscript, we see the words "Chaire, Kecharitomene/χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη.) The word Kecharitomene comes from "Charito," meaning to be or fill with grace. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle, which points to the fact that Mary was in a grace (meaning having no room for sin) since the beginning, has always been full of grace, and will always continue to be full of grace eternally. Of course, all this is done through God. We do not believe that Mary was sinless on her own accord. Think of it like this: since Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is eternal, God prevented her from falling into original sin, while for us he pulled us out of the pit of original sin. Both of these are by God's grace.
The same root word (charitoō) is used in Ephesians 1:6 to describe all believers: “…to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us (ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς) in the Beloved.”
If Kecharitomene proves Mary was sinless from conception, then Ephesians 1:6 would prove that all Christians are sinless from conception — which no one believes... not even Catholics.
No comments:
Post a Comment