One point I would like to add, if I may. Since God respects the free will He gave to humanity, He required (in a sense) that a member of humanity give consent to His Divine Plan so that salvation would not be forced upon us. Also, God desired to give to us a true Mediator between us and Him. Someone both truly human and truly Divine; the only Being that can be a Representative of both God and man. For this Mediator to be truly human, He needed to be born of a Woman, not raised from the dirt or simply sent down from Heaven, for this would make Him something separate from humanity. It had to be so that He would begin as a zygote in His Mother’s womb, grow for nine months, and be born just like the rest of us. But this Woman also had to be completely human, a creature made by the Babe which grew in Her womb. Therefore, without Jesus, Mary (nor any of us) can exist; but without Mary, God would not have been incarnate in the Person of Jesus.
I think it's also intensely beautiful (and therefore perhaps offering what is good and true as well) how the beginning and the end of Jesus' incarnate life are complementary mirrors.
The mortal life of God incarnate (Jesus) begins with a woman (Mary) saying 'yes' to life in perfect obedience to God. The mortal life of God incarnate (Jesus) ends with a man (Jesus) saying 'yes' to death in perfect obedience to God. Both events bring salvation to the world. When I frame it this way, it seems impossible to separate them from each other....
Great response Matt. Modern Protestantism is greatly reductionist and minimalistic by nature so anything more than the Seed of Faith is perceived as a threat to the Seed itself.
Great job, Matt. The doctrine of the Incarnation similarly "limits" God. God willingly emptied Himself by taking the form of a human being when the Second Person of the Trinity chose to enter the world by way of a woman's womb. Glory to God! ♥️
Did they freak out because they thought that you think that the Second Person didn't exist before the Incarnation? You obviously don't think that, because you specifically used the name Jesus. The name Jesus doesn't refer to the Divine Person from all eternity, but only the Divine Person AFTER He took on a human nature. I don't really see why that's controversial.
We would have Jesus for "In the. Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God."
What we wouldn't have is the Incarnate Jesus as He became. As you mentioned, if Mary refused the Angel, God would have still found another way to bring about Christ.
With that said, Mary, to play her role in Salvation history ought to be admired and most highly esteemed for even in her Canticle she proclaims "All generations will call me blessed." To not honor Mary is disrespectful towards her prophecy.
With that said, there is no biblical proof, from the mouth of Christ, to pray to Mary nor is there biblical validation to use something like a medium (the Rosary) to pray to Mary. Of course Catholicism proclaims authority of this via the visions of the children whom Miriam visited.
As a Catholic, you ought to acknowledge that it's entirely reasonable that a sincere Protestant object to an unbiblical vision as validation for a certain ritual.
Of course Catholicism doesn't mandate practitioners pray the Rosary, but you ought to be empathetic towards the objection.
May that I be the chosen one to give insight on the Blessed Virgin Mary from the perspective of one who was once a Catholic hater, now a convert AND a REVERT Who NOW leads a ministry for the conversion of souls. (Tell me God does NOT have a sense of humor along with GRAND plan)
Mary IS the most exalted of all creatures! Why else would the evil one despise her so?
Yes, we should GO TO Mary in prayer. Jesus HIMSELF chose her above ALL women to be the Vessel of Grace to carry the Lord of All Eternity in her human womb.
Yes, we turn to her as Our True Spiritual Mother. As Jesus was dying for your sins and mine, He gave HIS mother TO us by way of His beloved disciple’s sonship.
We honor the Lord by going to HIS choice of all creatures to be our intercessor. We honor His choice.
The Rosary is NOT a “medium”!!! The Rosary is a deeply meditative BIBLICAL prayer to draw poor sinners closer to the life of Jesus. The beads we “rattle” are “placemarkers”. Prisoners have used their FINGERS to pray the rosary. Are their FINGERS mediums!?!?
Eph 6 reminds us to put on the full armor of God. Praise be that we have the rosary to arm ourselves in the spiritual battle in which we are entrenched.
Today are the Glorious Mysteries, and I will pray during my rosary today that God’s mysteries of the Holy Rosary are revealed to you.
I woke up this morning and saw your brief post, and had a similar reaction to many of your other Protestant readers. But I laughed about it, showed my wife in bed (you ever think about how your actions on the internet can have physical impacts on people around the world?), and cheerfully noted that our friends the "Catholics err on the side of veneration, not denigration." God bless you all.
But here I think your explanation has not shed further light for us. You write:
"Her fiat—her free consent—was the instrumental means by which the Word became flesh. Without her, we would not have Jesus."
That last sentence, "Without her, we would not have Jesus" is surely false even by your own lights and doctrines. It is false that without Mary we would not have Jesus, because God would surely have chosen another woman if Mary had said "No". Perhaps He would not have chosen Mary at all, given a fore- or middle-knowledge that she would have not chosen? That would make His choice of Mary depend on Jesus' existence, not Jesus' existence dependent on Mary's choice!
This is why your analogy with the cross does not hit the target. While no Protestant would object to thanking God "for the cross, through which salvation was given to us", the proper analogy would be to us saying "Thank you for this very particular cross, through which salvation was given to us and without this particular cross salvation would not have come."
Perhaps you could offer further clarification?
My prayers for you, Cameron, the kids, and the ministry. God bless.
Both the blessed Virgin Mary and the cross upon which Christ died were relatively necessary for the salvation of the world. One had a choice in the matter. You said that my crucifixion analogy didn’t help but I’m not sure you explained why. Do you want to elaborate?
The crucifixion analogy makes analogues of the following statements:
1) "No Mary, no Jesus"
2) "Through [the cross] salvation was given to us" (or: No cross, no salvation).
You say that since we wouldn't read (2) as claiming that "a particular piece of wood was, in an absolute sense, necessary for God’s salvific work" we shouldn't read (1) as saying that it was absolutely necessary that Mary be the mother of Jesus for Jesus to be incarnated.
The problem seems to me to be that picking out an individual like "Mary" in a sentence like this creates implicature whereas a generic noun like "the cross" does not. The conversational implicature is that without this individual, this specific person Mary, there would be no Jesus. The same implicature is not there for the cross, nobody would assume you meant the individual, these specific pieces of wood.
As an aside, this implicature is strengthened by the full quote: "No Jesus no Mary; no Mary no Jesus". You have to swap from logical necessity in the former to relative necessity in the latter. Is it any surprise that Protestants read you as saying that both carry the same necessity?
You're responding to offence here, so you have to read it on the level of how people react to English sentences. Even if your intended reading is logically consistent, it won't be how people read it.
Hope that elaboration cleared up what I was trying to say and didn't kick up further dust!
That's an interesting way of looking at things! For myself I certainly deny that God's actions are logically necessary, I do think God's will could have been different and that He "changes" by taking on contingent properties such as the belief that "The current time is 4:47pm in England" or "My hometown is Nazareth".
To take your view seems to commit you to an odd logical fatalism where this world -- exactly this world -- is logically necessary. The side of the bed you rolled out of this morning was necessary, it is logical nonsense to speak of you doing otherwise.
For me this divorces conceivability and possibility in a way that I can't wrap my head around. It's quite the philosophical bullet to bite! On the same sort of level as solipsism I think. So I do think it makes sense to talk about past hypotheticals when it comes to God's will. God could have chosen otherwise. He could have chosen a woman other than Mary.
As well your drawing attention to the fact that sci-fi concepts have infected our culture to the point that well meaning Christians are unknowingly incorporating anti-Christian concepts into their view of reality is appreciated. I can attest to this from personal experience. Daniel O'Connor's books on the topic have helped me discern and remove these fictional concepts from my worldview. Highly recommend "Only Man Bears His Image".
I’m sorry to come back to this so late. In truth your comment confused me and I decided to read it again later. You use four different terms to refer to a proposition about what God could have otherwise done. You are clear that this isn’t a *logical* impossibility as I had assumed, meaning that this is not a contradiction. But it is a:
(1) “Metaphysical impossibility”
And then — this is where my confusing sets in — speaking of the alternative logical possibility (but metaphysical impossibility) is:
(2) “Nonsense”
(3) “The words… are effectively meaningless”
(4) “Speaking about ‘non-reality’ which is meaningless”
This is confusing to me because we typically speak of logical impossibilities as meaningless or nonsense — married bachelors, rocks too heavy for omnipotent beings to hoist, and so forth. And of course we speak of "non-real" things all the time quite sensibly. For example, it is non-real that I went to the gym today. But had I done so, I would have felt muscle soreness.
The sense I get from the example you give as analogous (what if Oreos were actually healthy?) is that your intention is more akin to it being
(5) Pointless
To talk about what God could have done, but didn’t. If that is what you mean (is it?), then I disagree on other grounds than originally. It seems entirely purposeful to enquire what would have happened to Tyre and Sidon if God had performed miracles in them (which He didn’t). Jesus tells us that under those counterfactual circumstances then they would have repented. (Matt 11:21).
Grammatically there is no lack of a parallel between the sentences:
“Who would have been chosen to be Jesus’ mother if God hadn’t chosen Mary?”
And
“What would have happened if God had performed miracles in Tyre and Sidon?”
Jesus was happy to use counterfactuals parallel to the one I gave, so I don’t think it could possibly be insulting to God.
I may not be equipped to argue on the level of Jacob or yourself but I felt compelled to respond to your sincere (but perhaps myopic) reply.
Quite simply Jesus Christ IS God. His stating what would have been had He chosen differently is perfectly within His purview. This is what I meant by "myopic", not in an insulting way but to say that perhaps you overlooked Who was doing the speculating in your desire to prove out the point.
The disagreement between Jacob and I appears to be about what the status of propositions (/statements of fact) concerning God's actions are. Can you say anything meaningful/purposeful/sensible about God's choice to do X instead of Y? To choose Mary instead of Susannah, to show miracles to Bethsaida but not Tyre, etc.
It is true that I am not God and Jesus is. But it seems to me that if God affirms there are sensible propositions about what He could have done but didn't (i.e. he expects His audience to understand Him), then I can also make sensible propositions about such things. Now I might be *wrong*, maybe God is somehow constrained in certain actions? But I don't think I could be saying something incoherent or purposeless.
It's also worth reflecting that since we are called to imitate Christ, and since we have the mind of Christ, it is not insignificant to consider how Christ speaks about the actions of God and to imitate that as well.
I continued this discussion with you while taking great care to attempt to understand exactly what it was you meant, reading you as closely as I could and leaving open the possibility that I was wrong by asking if I had understood you correctly. I did so with humility to learn something from someone with a different viewpoint on God's creative activity.
In response, for you to call me "condescending", to be accused of ulterior motives, and of lecturing you, is complete whiplash to what I believed our conversation to be and is something I find to be so disrespectful that I will be terminating this conversation.
I believe that as Christians we are called to do online discourse better than the world does. I always try to approach online conversations with strangers, especially fellow Christians with charity. Now, there is the possibility that the lack of visible body language, voice tone, etc, has somehow communicated what I thought were extremely polite, careful responses to you as somehow insulting. If that is the case, then I apologise for having caused you some annoyance. It was truly not my intention. If you realise that you have misread me and my intentions, I will gladly receive an apology for your insults.
Thank you so much, @Matt Fradd, for your illuminating post and response to the questioner of it! And yes, he or she was fairly charitable; oftentimes refutations are very angry and prideful, as every Christian believes his faith is correct.
Protestants view Jesus as the entirety of the picture, and they find it takes away from Jesus to entertain the concept that Mary might have anything at all to do with God’s plan of salvation. To them , the Blessed Mother is like a water carrier, or a receptacle to be cast aside once its purpose is served.
It’s a travesty that Christianity has any division (i.e. the 50,000+ Protestant faiths), but as far as this reluctance to honor the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos goes, it would be wonderful if Protestants could delve into the roots of their early “reformers” enough to see that Luther, Calvin, and I believe even Zwingli all accepted Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all Christians, and revered Her to varying degrees.
Thank you for your explanation. I think you are logically correct. The cross analogy is apropos.
But I think the issue is one of veneration. We certainly don’t venerate the cross. It was a horrible instrument that, wielded by executioners, brought about an excruciating death. Necessary in God‘s plan, yes, but unworthy of veneration.
Also, I disagree that Mary is nothing in comparison to God. She is something. She is a human being created in the image of God. That makes her vastly valuable (and, of course, so are all we human beings created in that image). Yes, I understand the concept of the assymtopic approach to infinity, and God being infinite, the limit of 1/X as X approaches infinity is zero, but that’s human logic and I get the sense that God isn’t bound by that limitation.
Many Catholics, in my opinion, venerate Mary to idolatrous levels. See, the statues, the prayers, the rosary, etc. They trust in her - they are devoted to her. Likewise, in my opinion, many Catholics have been taught to venerate The Church itself in the same manner. When I challenge Catholics on these points, their defense usually is “veneration is not worship” and “what good son or daughter doesn’t love his/her family?”
It’s my belief, though, that many Catholics (and I think you can find quite a number of Protestants as well), worshiping adjacencies to God and to Christ. Why? I think it’s our nature to ultimately hate God (why do we sin in the first place?) and, therefore, we (who are convicted enough of the reality of God, the reality of our sin, and hence, the reality of our need for salvation) seek out human adjacency to worship rather than God himself. Thus, the Church, a human creation and Mary, a human creation, are more palatable substitutions. And yet… and yet, they sound very Christian. (Ironically, Jesus, a human creation in part, was intended to be, in part, that human bridge back to the Father). It reminds me of this:
“These people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Can you point me to the original article, “No Jesus, no Mary; no Mary, no Jesus,”? Maybe it was deleted, or I’m just overlooking it. I recently read another article titled the same thing (I think - I need to go back and look) and I’m just curious.
Nicely put. I spend a lot of time in Protestant Bible studies and ministry groups so this question comes up…..every single time. I try to use a similar explanation but I love the use comparison of the cross. Thank you.
All well and good, although if this (as I think I see in comments) is used as some kind of justification or conferred status to pray to Mary, (a totally unscriptural habit) then it should be clarified that Mary is not divine, Mary cannot forgive sins, and Mary is not capable of intercession between man and God -- that in fact, is Jesus's position (Romans 8:34) and Jesus is the only one. (1 Timothy 2:5)
Mary was as human and fallible and faulty as any other person on earth. She was truly blessed as to be chosen and agreed to be the earthly mother of our savior, but there's no conveyance of divinity or God-equal elevation anywhere in scripture.
So, sure, in that context, no Mary, no Jesus but I might also simply point out that had Mary refused, I'm sure God had other young ladies to choose from, but if you follow the concept that God is outside of time, then He already knew Mary would accept...
So if Mary had said "no no I can't do that my family will stone me please no!" , which would have been an unfortunate but understandable response in that culture, what would have happened? God would have used another. Of course being God, he knew she would consent before he asked, but just like Jonah, she had the opportunity to refuse. Would He have said "Oh well no Jesus for you then."? Of course not. So is Mary of more status giving birth to Jesus than say Abraham, who first believed, or Joseph, who saved his family from famine that would have ended Israel before it even really began?
You obviously missed the part where I stated that of course God already knew what her answer would be. God foreknew, and she was predestined, but to Mary, it was her making a decision to obey God. I’m not trying to make any assumptions or claiming that I know anything about what He would do in any situation. That in fact is my point. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit are all eternal, omniscient, omnipresent. They knew, and know and will know everything about everything in existence. We however, including Mary, Abraham Joseph and all other humans are not any of those things, so we make decisions based on our limited experience and knowledge. Mary making the correct decision to obey God makes her Blessed but doesn’t make her any closer to God than anyone else that makes a decision to obey. She had the amazing blessing of giving birth to our Saviour, and raising HIm as a child, but Joseph was there also doing the same things except for the birth of course, where is he in our praise?
If God in his Infinite Wisdom was to use you or I or anyone else as the two witnesses in revelation, would that make us more than any other human God has used for His purposes throughout history? We would be remembered and written about maybe, but we ourselves are only vessels for Him to use for His plans, nothing more. Nothing God uses any human (or animal even, i’m thinking of the donkey here) for is us doing anything, it’s God working through us.
I pray that God would continue to reveal to us His mysteries and use us in His plans. That He would keep us on the correct path to His Kingdom and though we may disagree, He would guide us to the correct answers we seek and to a fuller understanding of His Glory.
@Lawrence Ramsay Mary is most certainly higher than any of the other biblical men you mention. The Angel Gabriel (via God Himself) addresses Her with, “Hail, Full of Grace!” in the early chapters of the Gospel of Luke. *No one else* receives this salutation, and no one else gives birth to the Christ child! Therefore her distinction higher above the other Old Testament fathers you mention. A world of difference.
If you really are interested in God revealing the fullness of His mysteries to you, the place to look is the Catholic Church.
You can’t just accuse people of committing theological, gymnastics, to shoehorn, etc. etc. You would have to make an argument for why the Catholics and orthodox are mistaken. And if they are, you should wish to correct them if they aren’t, then I think your version of Christianity will become a lot more beautiful in short order.
One point I would like to add, if I may. Since God respects the free will He gave to humanity, He required (in a sense) that a member of humanity give consent to His Divine Plan so that salvation would not be forced upon us. Also, God desired to give to us a true Mediator between us and Him. Someone both truly human and truly Divine; the only Being that can be a Representative of both God and man. For this Mediator to be truly human, He needed to be born of a Woman, not raised from the dirt or simply sent down from Heaven, for this would make Him something separate from humanity. It had to be so that He would begin as a zygote in His Mother’s womb, grow for nine months, and be born just like the rest of us. But this Woman also had to be completely human, a creature made by the Babe which grew in Her womb. Therefore, without Jesus, Mary (nor any of us) can exist; but without Mary, God would not have been incarnate in the Person of Jesus.
Amen!
VERY well said.
Synergeia: Divine Grace +Human FreeWill 🤱🏻🪽
I think it's also intensely beautiful (and therefore perhaps offering what is good and true as well) how the beginning and the end of Jesus' incarnate life are complementary mirrors.
The mortal life of God incarnate (Jesus) begins with a woman (Mary) saying 'yes' to life in perfect obedience to God. The mortal life of God incarnate (Jesus) ends with a man (Jesus) saying 'yes' to death in perfect obedience to God. Both events bring salvation to the world. When I frame it this way, it seems impossible to separate them from each other....
@Mark Kutolowski simply beautiful!
Thank you
Great response Matt. Modern Protestantism is greatly reductionist and minimalistic by nature so anything more than the Seed of Faith is perceived as a threat to the Seed itself.
Holy Orthodoxy is the BIG DANCE FLOOR! 🪩🎶
Maximalist x both/and
Polarity without Duality ✔️
Know Mary, know Jesus ⛲☦️🔥
Great job, Matt. The doctrine of the Incarnation similarly "limits" God. God willingly emptied Himself by taking the form of a human being when the Second Person of the Trinity chose to enter the world by way of a woman's womb. Glory to God! ♥️
♥️ Σοφία Χάρης Αγάπη Δόξα! 🔥
Did they freak out because they thought that you think that the Second Person didn't exist before the Incarnation? You obviously don't think that, because you specifically used the name Jesus. The name Jesus doesn't refer to the Divine Person from all eternity, but only the Divine Person AFTER He took on a human nature. I don't really see why that's controversial.
We would have Jesus for "In the. Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God."
What we wouldn't have is the Incarnate Jesus as He became. As you mentioned, if Mary refused the Angel, God would have still found another way to bring about Christ.
With that said, Mary, to play her role in Salvation history ought to be admired and most highly esteemed for even in her Canticle she proclaims "All generations will call me blessed." To not honor Mary is disrespectful towards her prophecy.
With that said, there is no biblical proof, from the mouth of Christ, to pray to Mary nor is there biblical validation to use something like a medium (the Rosary) to pray to Mary. Of course Catholicism proclaims authority of this via the visions of the children whom Miriam visited.
As a Catholic, you ought to acknowledge that it's entirely reasonable that a sincere Protestant object to an unbiblical vision as validation for a certain ritual.
Of course Catholicism doesn't mandate practitioners pray the Rosary, but you ought to be empathetic towards the objection.
Sincerely,
A brother in Christ Jesus.
May that I be the chosen one to give insight on the Blessed Virgin Mary from the perspective of one who was once a Catholic hater, now a convert AND a REVERT Who NOW leads a ministry for the conversion of souls. (Tell me God does NOT have a sense of humor along with GRAND plan)
Mary IS the most exalted of all creatures! Why else would the evil one despise her so?
Yes, we should GO TO Mary in prayer. Jesus HIMSELF chose her above ALL women to be the Vessel of Grace to carry the Lord of All Eternity in her human womb.
Yes, we turn to her as Our True Spiritual Mother. As Jesus was dying for your sins and mine, He gave HIS mother TO us by way of His beloved disciple’s sonship.
We honor the Lord by going to HIS choice of all creatures to be our intercessor. We honor His choice.
The Rosary is NOT a “medium”!!! The Rosary is a deeply meditative BIBLICAL prayer to draw poor sinners closer to the life of Jesus. The beads we “rattle” are “placemarkers”. Prisoners have used their FINGERS to pray the rosary. Are their FINGERS mediums!?!?
Eph 6 reminds us to put on the full armor of God. Praise be that we have the rosary to arm ourselves in the spiritual battle in which we are entrenched.
Today are the Glorious Mysteries, and I will pray during my rosary today that God’s mysteries of the Holy Rosary are revealed to you.
With Christ’s Peace,
Josie
Amen, @Monica’s Hope Ministry! I’m so happy you a convert/revert, and thank you for your lovely words on the Catholic faith!📿
I'll pray directly to Jesus that you realize He is all you need.
Jesus IS my everything!al I’m just eternally grateful he gave us his mother♥️ and a”cloudful” of companions with whom to share our journey.☺️
Thanks Matt for this.
I woke up this morning and saw your brief post, and had a similar reaction to many of your other Protestant readers. But I laughed about it, showed my wife in bed (you ever think about how your actions on the internet can have physical impacts on people around the world?), and cheerfully noted that our friends the "Catholics err on the side of veneration, not denigration." God bless you all.
But here I think your explanation has not shed further light for us. You write:
"Her fiat—her free consent—was the instrumental means by which the Word became flesh. Without her, we would not have Jesus."
That last sentence, "Without her, we would not have Jesus" is surely false even by your own lights and doctrines. It is false that without Mary we would not have Jesus, because God would surely have chosen another woman if Mary had said "No". Perhaps He would not have chosen Mary at all, given a fore- or middle-knowledge that she would have not chosen? That would make His choice of Mary depend on Jesus' existence, not Jesus' existence dependent on Mary's choice!
This is why your analogy with the cross does not hit the target. While no Protestant would object to thanking God "for the cross, through which salvation was given to us", the proper analogy would be to us saying "Thank you for this very particular cross, through which salvation was given to us and without this particular cross salvation would not have come."
Perhaps you could offer further clarification?
My prayers for you, Cameron, the kids, and the ministry. God bless.
Thanks Jacob
Both the blessed Virgin Mary and the cross upon which Christ died were relatively necessary for the salvation of the world. One had a choice in the matter. You said that my crucifixion analogy didn’t help but I’m not sure you explained why. Do you want to elaborate?
Both Mary and Jesus had a CHOICE!
HUMAN FREEWILL (🤱🏻🪽 & 🩸☦️)
JESUS has both a Human and a Divine Will. - Saint Maximus the Confessor ✔️📖🌐🕊️⛪⚖️
The crucifixion analogy makes analogues of the following statements:
1) "No Mary, no Jesus"
2) "Through [the cross] salvation was given to us" (or: No cross, no salvation).
You say that since we wouldn't read (2) as claiming that "a particular piece of wood was, in an absolute sense, necessary for God’s salvific work" we shouldn't read (1) as saying that it was absolutely necessary that Mary be the mother of Jesus for Jesus to be incarnated.
The problem seems to me to be that picking out an individual like "Mary" in a sentence like this creates implicature whereas a generic noun like "the cross" does not. The conversational implicature is that without this individual, this specific person Mary, there would be no Jesus. The same implicature is not there for the cross, nobody would assume you meant the individual, these specific pieces of wood.
As an aside, this implicature is strengthened by the full quote: "No Jesus no Mary; no Mary no Jesus". You have to swap from logical necessity in the former to relative necessity in the latter. Is it any surprise that Protestants read you as saying that both carry the same necessity?
You're responding to offence here, so you have to read it on the level of how people react to English sentences. Even if your intended reading is logically consistent, it won't be how people read it.
Hope that elaboration cleared up what I was trying to say and didn't kick up further dust!
That's an interesting way of looking at things! For myself I certainly deny that God's actions are logically necessary, I do think God's will could have been different and that He "changes" by taking on contingent properties such as the belief that "The current time is 4:47pm in England" or "My hometown is Nazareth".
To take your view seems to commit you to an odd logical fatalism where this world -- exactly this world -- is logically necessary. The side of the bed you rolled out of this morning was necessary, it is logical nonsense to speak of you doing otherwise.
For me this divorces conceivability and possibility in a way that I can't wrap my head around. It's quite the philosophical bullet to bite! On the same sort of level as solipsism I think. So I do think it makes sense to talk about past hypotheticals when it comes to God's will. God could have chosen otherwise. He could have chosen a woman other than Mary.
Let me know if I haven't understood you rightly.
Well said.
As well your drawing attention to the fact that sci-fi concepts have infected our culture to the point that well meaning Christians are unknowingly incorporating anti-Christian concepts into their view of reality is appreciated. I can attest to this from personal experience. Daniel O'Connor's books on the topic have helped me discern and remove these fictional concepts from my worldview. Highly recommend "Only Man Bears His Image".
I’m sorry to come back to this so late. In truth your comment confused me and I decided to read it again later. You use four different terms to refer to a proposition about what God could have otherwise done. You are clear that this isn’t a *logical* impossibility as I had assumed, meaning that this is not a contradiction. But it is a:
(1) “Metaphysical impossibility”
And then — this is where my confusing sets in — speaking of the alternative logical possibility (but metaphysical impossibility) is:
(2) “Nonsense”
(3) “The words… are effectively meaningless”
(4) “Speaking about ‘non-reality’ which is meaningless”
This is confusing to me because we typically speak of logical impossibilities as meaningless or nonsense — married bachelors, rocks too heavy for omnipotent beings to hoist, and so forth. And of course we speak of "non-real" things all the time quite sensibly. For example, it is non-real that I went to the gym today. But had I done so, I would have felt muscle soreness.
The sense I get from the example you give as analogous (what if Oreos were actually healthy?) is that your intention is more akin to it being
(5) Pointless
To talk about what God could have done, but didn’t. If that is what you mean (is it?), then I disagree on other grounds than originally. It seems entirely purposeful to enquire what would have happened to Tyre and Sidon if God had performed miracles in them (which He didn’t). Jesus tells us that under those counterfactual circumstances then they would have repented. (Matt 11:21).
Grammatically there is no lack of a parallel between the sentences:
“Who would have been chosen to be Jesus’ mother if God hadn’t chosen Mary?”
And
“What would have happened if God had performed miracles in Tyre and Sidon?”
Jesus was happy to use counterfactuals parallel to the one I gave, so I don’t think it could possibly be insulting to God.
I may not be equipped to argue on the level of Jacob or yourself but I felt compelled to respond to your sincere (but perhaps myopic) reply.
Quite simply Jesus Christ IS God. His stating what would have been had He chosen differently is perfectly within His purview. This is what I meant by "myopic", not in an insulting way but to say that perhaps you overlooked Who was doing the speculating in your desire to prove out the point.
God Bless
Thank you! No insult taken.
The disagreement between Jacob and I appears to be about what the status of propositions (/statements of fact) concerning God's actions are. Can you say anything meaningful/purposeful/sensible about God's choice to do X instead of Y? To choose Mary instead of Susannah, to show miracles to Bethsaida but not Tyre, etc.
It is true that I am not God and Jesus is. But it seems to me that if God affirms there are sensible propositions about what He could have done but didn't (i.e. he expects His audience to understand Him), then I can also make sensible propositions about such things. Now I might be *wrong*, maybe God is somehow constrained in certain actions? But I don't think I could be saying something incoherent or purposeless.
It's also worth reflecting that since we are called to imitate Christ, and since we have the mind of Christ, it is not insignificant to consider how Christ speaks about the actions of God and to imitate that as well.
God bless!
I continued this discussion with you while taking great care to attempt to understand exactly what it was you meant, reading you as closely as I could and leaving open the possibility that I was wrong by asking if I had understood you correctly. I did so with humility to learn something from someone with a different viewpoint on God's creative activity.
In response, for you to call me "condescending", to be accused of ulterior motives, and of lecturing you, is complete whiplash to what I believed our conversation to be and is something I find to be so disrespectful that I will be terminating this conversation.
I believe that as Christians we are called to do online discourse better than the world does. I always try to approach online conversations with strangers, especially fellow Christians with charity. Now, there is the possibility that the lack of visible body language, voice tone, etc, has somehow communicated what I thought were extremely polite, careful responses to you as somehow insulting. If that is the case, then I apologise for having caused you some annoyance. It was truly not my intention. If you realise that you have misread me and my intentions, I will gladly receive an apology for your insults.
Thank you so much, @Matt Fradd, for your illuminating post and response to the questioner of it! And yes, he or she was fairly charitable; oftentimes refutations are very angry and prideful, as every Christian believes his faith is correct.
Protestants view Jesus as the entirety of the picture, and they find it takes away from Jesus to entertain the concept that Mary might have anything at all to do with God’s plan of salvation. To them , the Blessed Mother is like a water carrier, or a receptacle to be cast aside once its purpose is served.
It’s a travesty that Christianity has any division (i.e. the 50,000+ Protestant faiths), but as far as this reluctance to honor the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos goes, it would be wonderful if Protestants could delve into the roots of their early “reformers” enough to see that Luther, Calvin, and I believe even Zwingli all accepted Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all Christians, and revered Her to varying degrees.
MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS SAVE US! ⛪🌐☦️🕊️
Thank you for your explanation. I think you are logically correct. The cross analogy is apropos.
But I think the issue is one of veneration. We certainly don’t venerate the cross. It was a horrible instrument that, wielded by executioners, brought about an excruciating death. Necessary in God‘s plan, yes, but unworthy of veneration.
Also, I disagree that Mary is nothing in comparison to God. She is something. She is a human being created in the image of God. That makes her vastly valuable (and, of course, so are all we human beings created in that image). Yes, I understand the concept of the assymtopic approach to infinity, and God being infinite, the limit of 1/X as X approaches infinity is zero, but that’s human logic and I get the sense that God isn’t bound by that limitation.
Many Catholics, in my opinion, venerate Mary to idolatrous levels. See, the statues, the prayers, the rosary, etc. They trust in her - they are devoted to her. Likewise, in my opinion, many Catholics have been taught to venerate The Church itself in the same manner. When I challenge Catholics on these points, their defense usually is “veneration is not worship” and “what good son or daughter doesn’t love his/her family?”
It’s my belief, though, that many Catholics (and I think you can find quite a number of Protestants as well), worshiping adjacencies to God and to Christ. Why? I think it’s our nature to ultimately hate God (why do we sin in the first place?) and, therefore, we (who are convicted enough of the reality of God, the reality of our sin, and hence, the reality of our need for salvation) seek out human adjacency to worship rather than God himself. Thus, the Church, a human creation and Mary, a human creation, are more palatable substitutions. And yet… and yet, they sound very Christian. (Ironically, Jesus, a human creation in part, was intended to be, in part, that human bridge back to the Father). It reminds me of this:
“These people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Can you point me to the original article, “No Jesus, no Mary; no Mary, no Jesus,”? Maybe it was deleted, or I’m just overlooking it. I recently read another article titled the same thing (I think - I need to go back and look) and I’m just curious.
Nicely put. I spend a lot of time in Protestant Bible studies and ministry groups so this question comes up…..every single time. I try to use a similar explanation but I love the use comparison of the cross. Thank you.
All well and good, although if this (as I think I see in comments) is used as some kind of justification or conferred status to pray to Mary, (a totally unscriptural habit) then it should be clarified that Mary is not divine, Mary cannot forgive sins, and Mary is not capable of intercession between man and God -- that in fact, is Jesus's position (Romans 8:34) and Jesus is the only one. (1 Timothy 2:5)
Mary was as human and fallible and faulty as any other person on earth. She was truly blessed as to be chosen and agreed to be the earthly mother of our savior, but there's no conveyance of divinity or God-equal elevation anywhere in scripture.
So, sure, in that context, no Mary, no Jesus but I might also simply point out that had Mary refused, I'm sure God had other young ladies to choose from, but if you follow the concept that God is outside of time, then He already knew Mary would accept...
Great analogy!!!
So if Mary had said "no no I can't do that my family will stone me please no!" , which would have been an unfortunate but understandable response in that culture, what would have happened? God would have used another. Of course being God, he knew she would consent before he asked, but just like Jonah, she had the opportunity to refuse. Would He have said "Oh well no Jesus for you then."? Of course not. So is Mary of more status giving birth to Jesus than say Abraham, who first believed, or Joseph, who saved his family from famine that would have ended Israel before it even really began?
So many questions.
You obviously missed the part where I stated that of course God already knew what her answer would be. God foreknew, and she was predestined, but to Mary, it was her making a decision to obey God. I’m not trying to make any assumptions or claiming that I know anything about what He would do in any situation. That in fact is my point. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit are all eternal, omniscient, omnipresent. They knew, and know and will know everything about everything in existence. We however, including Mary, Abraham Joseph and all other humans are not any of those things, so we make decisions based on our limited experience and knowledge. Mary making the correct decision to obey God makes her Blessed but doesn’t make her any closer to God than anyone else that makes a decision to obey. She had the amazing blessing of giving birth to our Saviour, and raising HIm as a child, but Joseph was there also doing the same things except for the birth of course, where is he in our praise?
If God in his Infinite Wisdom was to use you or I or anyone else as the two witnesses in revelation, would that make us more than any other human God has used for His purposes throughout history? We would be remembered and written about maybe, but we ourselves are only vessels for Him to use for His plans, nothing more. Nothing God uses any human (or animal even, i’m thinking of the donkey here) for is us doing anything, it’s God working through us.
I pray that God would continue to reveal to us His mysteries and use us in His plans. That He would keep us on the correct path to His Kingdom and though we may disagree, He would guide us to the correct answers we seek and to a fuller understanding of His Glory.
Have an awesome blessed day!
@Lawrence Ramsay Mary is most certainly higher than any of the other biblical men you mention. The Angel Gabriel (via God Himself) addresses Her with, “Hail, Full of Grace!” in the early chapters of the Gospel of Luke. *No one else* receives this salutation, and no one else gives birth to the Christ child! Therefore her distinction higher above the other Old Testament fathers you mention. A world of difference.
If you really are interested in God revealing the fullness of His mysteries to you, the place to look is the Catholic Church.
Blessings in Christ.✨
You can’t just accuse people of committing theological, gymnastics, to shoehorn, etc. etc. You would have to make an argument for why the Catholics and orthodox are mistaken. And if they are, you should wish to correct them if they aren’t, then I think your version of Christianity will become a lot more beautiful in short order.