Canon to the right of them, canon to the left of them, canon all around them1
“Now, brothers and sisters . . . ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ ”
— 1 Corinthians 4:6
What allows Satan to infiltrate the hearts of individuals and of whole churches is the sin of minimizing and deviating from the Bible, God’s inspired word. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy and others that, eventually, many professing Christians would “reject the truth and chase after myths.” (2 Timothy 4:4)
And that’s exactly what happened. An entire wing of Christianity came to believe that “[t]he Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth[.]”2 Catholics have long held that there are, in fact, two “Canons: Scripture and Tradition,”3 and that “[b]oth Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”4
Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft5 argues that the Protestant concept of sola scriptura—“Scripture alone”—“is self-contradictory, for it says that we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this!”6
Kreeft is a very smart man—but that’s a very bad argument. It’s like saying we shouldn’t buy the doctrine of the Trinity just because the Bible doesn’t use the word “Trinity.” It doesn’t—but it certainly teaches the concept that theologians label “Trinity.” Scripture teaches that (a) there’s one God; (b) the Father is God; (c) the Son is God; (d) the Holy Spirit is God; and (e) these Three are distinct from each other. Logically, then: a triune Being.
The same principle applies here: the Bible doesn’t use the specific technical phrase “Scripture alone,” but from cover to cover the opinions and ideas of mere mortals are consistently tested against Scripture. Even when new Scripture was in the process of being developed—especially when the Apostles brought new revelation that built on the foundation of the Old Testament—critical thinkers like the Bereans “studied the Scriptures every day to find out if these [new] things were true,” one of the reasons they were considered “more noble.”7
“Berean” Catholics would recognize that the principle of testing all things against the authoritative word of God is, most definitely, a Biblical principle.
It’s also a logical principle, and a very simple one: if God has said something, and then somebody who’s not God comes along and says something else, guess what? . . . What God said trumps what that person says.
Not too complicated, right?
The same logic gets re-applied when we look again at how Kreeft argues his position:
. . . [S]ola scriptura violates the principle of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture, and the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.8
Several problems here. (1) The Church didn’t “cause” the word of God to be the word of God. Again: if God says something, it’s automatically authoritative just because God said it—not because someone later declared it authoritative. In order for Kreeft’s point to be true, the Church would have to possess greater authority than God, so as to be in the position to “sign off on” what God said. Merely “declaring” something “infallible” doesn’t make it infallible. It either is, or it isn’t.
I’m continually amazed that some of the most intelligent people in the world can’t recognize 2+2 when it’s staring them right in the face. Somehow they get 5.
(2) Notice that Kreeft equates “the Church” with “the apostles” and “the successors of the apostles.” Question: Who said the Apostles had any successors? When/where was that established . . . ?
Catholics like to think “Apostolic succession” comes from Jesus himself:
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. . . . Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” [Matthew 16:16-19]
According to the organization Catholic Answers,
Peter [w]as the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church; [and] this gave Peter a special primacy . . . . [T]he bishop of Rome—the pope—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.
But Matthew 16 does not establish “Apostolic succession.” At most, it elevates Peter as a unique, singular leader in the Church; the leading Apostle.
Jesus didn’t say Peter’s Apostolic authority would be passed on (even if someone took over his work as the bishop of a particular congregation);
In recounting this episode, Matthew used two distinct but related Greek words. Peter’s name is pĕtrŏs, “rock,” a masculine noun. The second word, pĕtra, is used in the phrase “this rock”—but it’s feminine. If Jesus had meant that he was going to build the Church on Peter, then the phrase “this rock” would likewise use masculine Greek words, to match the gender of Peter’s name in Greek. But it doesn’t. Therefore Peter isn’t the foundation in view here. Jesus is almost certainly referring to himself.
Basically, then, the foundation of “Apostolic succession” is just “somebody said so.”
Now, Irenaeus wrote something along these lines, but not precisely. He wrote that in order to guard the churches from heretics, “the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches [and] the succession of these men to our own times[.]” The Catholic Catechism cites this portion of Irenaeus’s statement under the subheading “The Apostolic Tradition.”
There’s some truth to what Irenaeus said: the Apostles (at least some) did appoint certain individuals to lead the churches after the Apostles were gone.9 However, it doesn’t follow that the “successors” were infallible; i.e., divinely inspired, as the Apostles were when they wrote Scripture or uttered prophecies. The Bible indicates that Apostles needed to be (a) personal eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, and (b) personally commissioned by Him.10
Last I checked, popes and priests don’t meet those qualifications.
And as we can tell from Paul’s letters, there was a distinction between Timothy’s ministry role and Paul’s unique Apostolic role. Timothy was Paul’s “successor” only in the sense that he performed similar ministry work—but this didn’t make him another Apostle; it didn’t grant him equal authority.
There are good analogies to this within the Bible itself. The first is Joshua as the successor to Moses. God told Moses to “[t]ransfer some”—not all—“of [his] authority to [Joshua] so the whole community of Israel will obey him.” (Numbers 27:20) This demonstrates that “succession” doesn’t mean “equal authority.”
Another Biblical analogy is the Old Testament priesthood. The priesthood as a whole functioned as a collective “successor” to Moses, spanning generations—yet even a cursory look at OT history amply demonstrates how corrupt the priesthood became. “Succession” doesn’t mean “equal authority” or guaranteed protection from corruption.
Irenaeus himself recognized this. Immediately following the line of his that I quoted—and which the Catechism cites as evidence for Apostolic succession—Irenaeus warned that the Apostles
were desirous that these men [the Apostles’ “successors”] should be very perfect and blameless in all things . . . ; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Interesting that the Catechism doesn’t quote that part.
What the above considerations tell us is that—
Succession doesn’t grant Apostolic authority; and,
Successors don’t necessarily remain faithful or consistent. Therefore what they write or teach isn’t infallible—unlike Scripture.
(3) Peter Kreeft argues that if the Church “decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible,” then the Church “must also be infallible.”
Another bad argument. Yes, Church leaders were involved in finalizing the Biblical canon, but this hardly makes them infallible. It just means they recognized which books were divinely inspired and which ones weren’t. We can do a simple thought-experiment to illustrate the principle:
Imagine God tells you to do something, and you know it’s God telling you.
If you accept and obey what He’s told you—does that mean you, by your own infallibility, gave God authority over you?
Of course not! Recognizing authority doesn’t equal having or granting authority.
Back to the ancient process of canonization: I would be willing to entertain that ancient Church leaders and theologians were directly, miraculously led by the Holy Spirit in making the right selection of canonical books. However, it doesn’t follow that the Holy Spirit would grant them Apostolic authority, so that whenever they theologized or issued orders, it meant that those theologies and orders were “divinely inspired” and obligatory for Christians. Nor would the Spirit’s guidance in the canonization of Bible books necessarily mean that such “authority” was passed on to leadership successors.
All it would mean is that the Spirit guided ancient theologians to accurately finalize the Biblical Canon. Done. Finis.
But of course, whatever the Holy Spirit was doing invisibly, there was also a scholarly and logical side to this process. The selection of books to be included in the Canon essentially boiled down to two factors:
Authorship by, or association with, an Apostle
Universal application to/usage by the Church at large (i.e., not restricted to one or two local communities)11
However, Catholics will argue that the very process of canonization proves that the “Church” is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” This quotes a version of 1 Timothy 3:15. What did the Apostle Paul mean by this?
Well, for starters, here’s what he can’t mean: he can’t mean that the Church makes the truth true. Truth is truth whether or not anyone recognizes it. That’s just 2+2 (but remember that some smart people think 2+2=5). Secondly, Paul can’t mean that it’s the Church that gives the Bible its authority: if the Bible is divinely inspired, then its authority comes from God, not human beings. Again, this is basic logic (which even smart people can overlook when it suits their agenda).
So, what does this verse mean? The word “pillar” in Greek also appears in Galatians 2, where Paul tells us that “James, Peter, and John . . . were known as pillars of the church” (v. 9). Does this mean they created or controlled the Church? No, it just means that, by their Apostolic ministry, they upheld the Church; supported it, kept it advancing.12
“Pillar” occurs again in Revelation: “All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God” (3:12). Note that this is a promise to all believers, not just pastors or theologians. Does this mean those who are victorious will create or have authority over the Temple? No. The book of Revelation depicts a heavenly “temple” to symbolize special closeness to God beyond this life; the idea is that God is inviting so-and-so into His inner sanctum. The word “pillar” in such a context obviously doesn’t imply creation or control.
“Ground” translates a Greek noun that comes from another word meaning “firm” or “immovable.” Used along with “pillar,” it means to support, because that’s what a pillar does.
“Pillar and support” is a hendiadys for “supporting pillar [foundation].” Each local church supports the witness of each believer in it and holds that testimony up before the world in which untruth abounds.13
Echoing this, the ESV Study Bible comments:
Identifying the church as a pillar and buttress of the truth is a way of saying that God has entrusted to the church the task of promoting and protecting the gospel [cf. 2:4]. The architectural imagery presents the church’s responsibility of “holding up” the gospel before a watching world, probably with a view to repelling the attack of false teaching.14
The Church “supports the gospel message by affirming and conforming to sound doctrine.”15 The Church does not “make” the Bible inspired or authoritative.16
The essence of the Catholic position on divinely inspired authority can be simply but accurately summed up in a hypothetical dialogue:
Catholic: The “Church” [i.e., the Pope and the Magisterium—not the peons!] is the ultimate authority.
Protestant: Says who?
Catholic: Says the “Church.”
Protestant: On whose authority?
Catholic: The “Church’s.”17
If they attempt to break this circular reasoning by appealing to Scripture—such as the exchange between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16:16-19—then at that moment they’re implicitly acknowledging that Scripture, not the “Church,” is the ultimate authority.18
The Canon before the “canon.” There’s something we need to realize when we think about how certain books came to be included in the Bible: the actual Canon—i.e., the divinely inspired books themselves, before they were collected into one volume—already existed.
That’s because they were all written in the first century. So when John set down his quill and ink after finishing the book of Revelation—the Bible was done. It’s just that the early Church didn’t yet know it was done.
Scripture’s virtual completion is indicated (albeit not directly) in Jude 3: “Dear friends, I . . . urg[e] you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people.” The word “faith” by itself means “belief” or “trust.” But the phrase “the faith” (unless context dictates otherwise) refers to the things believed; i.e., doctrinal content.
Jude 3 doesn’t imply that there wouldn’t be more special revelation. Jude was written maybe around 70-80 AD; the book of Revelation, and likely also 1-3 John, were yet to come. Jude’s phrase “once for all time” is one word in Greek: hăpax, found also in these key passages:
But now, once for all time, [Christ] has appeared . . . to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice. . . . Christ was offered once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. [Hebrews 9:26, 28]
Christ suffered for our sins once for all time . . . to bring you safely home to God. [1 Peter 3:18]
Jude seems to have in mind the specific, core message of salvation in Christ. Or, more precisely: mediation by Christ. As Peter says, it’s Christ—not Mary or a priest or anyone else—who “bring[s us] safely home to God.”19
There is in [the Gospel] an unchangeable quality . . . an unchanging nucleus in it—and the permanent centre of it is that Jesus Christ came into the world and lived and died to bring salvation to men.20
This basement-level truth applies to any attempt by cultists to insert an additional layer of mediation between us and God—whether that additional layer is a person, such as Mary, or a thing, such as religious rituals.
Jude 3 negates any and all attempts to manufacture a “Christ-plus”-type of religion.
Jesus himself, and the Apostles he personally selected, were responsible for conveying that message to the public. Ever since, that body of knowledge sits in judgment on all human ideas and traditions.
Similarly to Jude’s urging his readers to “defend the faith,” Paul says that believers are “fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News.” (Philippians 1:27) And this “fighting” stance
differs from the Roman Catholic view that official church tradition (in addition to Scripture) also has absolute divine authority. Since the letter of Jude was included in the NT canon, his letter must also have received early apostolic endorsement for inclusion, and everything in Jude’s letter is in complete accord with apostolic teaching and writings of the early church and with “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”21
Adding human ideas to Scripture—or replacing Scripture with those ideas—is a very common, human thing to do. The religious establishment in Jesus’ day had been doing it, and religious institutions will keep doing it. That’s why “the faith” must always be fought for.
So, with all that in mind, when a cultic, outside-the-Bible mentality begins to manifest, how should others immediately respond? . . . “Where are you getting that???”
Twisted Scripture
Of course, it goes without saying (but I’m still saying it) that even when the Bible is appealed to, there’s still the matter of whether or not it’s being correctly interpreted.
Scripture twisted = Scripture resisted, because then we’re not listening to what God is really telling us.
On this front, well, let’s just say that as I perused Catholic sources, I found some real doozies. For example, according to priest Stefano Manelli,
The presence of the mystery and of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the pages of Old Testament biblical revelation is . . . well founded, significant and suggestive.22
Pius IX, among other convincing arguments adduced in support of the Immaculate Conception as a truth of faith, also includes the testimony of the rich Marian symbolism found in the pages of the Old Testament. In the [Ineffabilis Deus] he cites a discrete number of the more expressive symbols of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. These include the “Ark of Salvation [i.e., Noah’s ark],” “Jacob’s Ladder [or “stairway“],” the “Burning Bush of Sinai,” the “Impregnable Tower,” the “Enclosed Garden,” the “City of God,” the “Lily Among Thorns,” the “Virgin Earth,” the “Incorruptible Wood [Exodus 25:10, Greek OT],” the “Strong Box of Immortality,” among many others.23
Here are two more Old Testament allusions made by Pius that Manelli overlooked:
Mary’s alleged immaculate state is allegedly perceptible “in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine splendors, is full of the glory of God”;
“[T]he most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself”
In relation to the Tabernacle, another Catholic source claims that
by studying Scripture, we can learn about the new Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and how God gave her a most essential role in our salvation.
In Exodus, God gives Moses very specific directions on how to build the Ark. After all, His presence would dwell there. . . . If God wanted His Commandments housed in a perfectly constructed container, how much more would He want the Word, Jesus, to have a perfect dwelling place? That's why He chose for Mary to be conceived without original sin.24
Note that absolutely nothing in the context of any of these passages, or in the larger context of the Canon as a whole, leads the reasonable person to conclude that these Old Testament items symbolize or foreshadow Mary.25
Probably the single most mangled, maimed and manipulated Bible verse I’ve come across in relation to Mary is Ezekiel 44:1-2, which says:
Then the man [in the prophet’s vision] brought me back to the east gateway in the outer wall of the Temple area, but it was closed. And the LORD said to me, “This gate must remain closed; it will never again be opened. No one will ever open it and pass through, for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered here. Therefore, it must always remain shut.
One guess as to how Mariolaters interpret the “gate” here.
“[T]he Blessed Virgin Mary is perpetually a virgin—she did not have relations with Joseph after Christ’s birth in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel,” writes Dr. Taylor Marshall. He cites ancient theologians Ambrose, Augustine, “and most of the Eastern Fathers” in support. Echoing Marshall, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong adds Thomas Aquinas, Lutheran Johann Gerhard, and Anglican John Mayer (no, not the singer).
But the thing is, even if you lined up a million proponents of this view, it wouldn’t make a difference if they were all making the same mistake.
Ignoring context.
In any communication—regardless of form, era, audience, or communicator; human or angelic or divine—context is king. Theologians have forever debated the entire prophecy of Ezekiel 40-48; there are several possibilities. But one thing’s for sure: whatever its meaning, it must be supported by the context.
Like a lot of principles in life, this is easy to grasp if we make it personal: would you rather have people take something you say in context, or out of context?
See? Easy.
I won’t get bogged down in the debate over what Ezekiel’s prophecy “must” mean—but I’ll definitely, without hesitation, insist on what it can’t mean. If there’s nothing in Ezekiel’s own context, or the larger context of the whole Canon, that points us to Mary—then it’s not about Mary.
I assure you: there’s nothing in Ezekiel’s own context, or the larger context of the whole Canon, that points us to Mary.26
The notion that Ezekiel is foreshadowing Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is entirely suppositional; there isn’t a shred of contextual support. There just isn’t. Somebody, somewhen, fabricated an analogy between Ezekiel’s “temple gate” and Mary’s . . . you know. (Hey, I’m just trying to stay in keeping with the analogy!) Their imagination told them that one thing was like the other. And that’s all they had to go on: a fictional analogy.
Maybe if these ancient theologians had been able to watch Sesame Street’s “One of These Things Is Not Like the Other” segments, they’d have clued in. Because remember what I quoted earlier from Catholic theologian John McHugh: “one cannot seriously expect those unconvinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary to accept” the view that Jesus “brothers” are really his “cousins.”27
Apply that to Ezekiel 44: if an interpreter didn’t already believe in Mary’s “perpetual virginity” before approaching the passage, there would be nothing in the passage itself to point them in that direction.
I myself happen to believe that Ezekiel 40-48 is figurative—just not a symbol of Mary. Here are some of the more pertinent clues:
Numerous times the prophecy refers to animal sacrifices for sin—but we know from the New Testament that, once Jesus had died to pay for our sins, the earthly, Jewish sacrificial system became obsolete. It’s inconceivable that God would bring that system back after what Jesus has accomplished.
In the New Testament, the word “temple” is explicitly used to symbolize four things: Jesus’ body, the Church as a whole (the spiritual “body of Christ”), the individual believer, and, in the coming New Universe, the triune God in full, unobstructed communion with His people.
Ezekiel makes no mention of the Messiah’s mother, nor does any New Testament writer connect Ezekiel’s prophecy with Mary.
Tentative conclusion? . . . I could go for one of two options:
Either Ezekiel was prophesying a reconstituted Israel before the first coming of Christ, with expanded territory and a redesigned temple—and which should have materialized after the exiled Jews were freed from Babylon to return to their homeland; but the prophecy wasn’t realized because they didn’t fully return to God in their hearts—or . . .
It’s a massive, complex and colorful symbol of the Church in fellowship with God in a restored creation.
As I was skimming through these nine chapters, I had to chuckle when I came to the first two verses of chapter 46:
“This is what the Sovereign LORD says: The east gateway of the inner courtyard will be closed during the six workdays each week, but it will be open on Sabbath days and the days of new moon celebrations. The prince will enter the entry room of the gateway from the outside. Then he will stand by the gatepost while the priest offers his burnt offering and peace offering. He will bow down in worship inside the gateway passage and then go back out the way he came. The gateway will not be closed until evening.
So, um, yeah . . . this raises a host of questions—that is, if we’re sticking with the “Ezekiel 44 symbolizes Mary’s virginity” idea.
If the outer east gate (Ezk. 44:1-2) symbolizes Mary’s being sexually off-limits—does the inner east gate mean there was some kind of loophole whereby she could have sex “on Sabbath days and the days of new moon celebrations”?
Who’s the “prince” who—lucky guy—gets to “enter” the “gate”? Cuz if you read the entire prophecy, God is consistently distinguished from the “prince,” so obviously the “prince” can’t be Christ. I mean—that’s gotta be Joseph, no? (And if the “prince” isn’t Joseph, well, then we’ve got other problems to address.)
How might Joseph (that saint of saints) have applied this passage to his marriage?
(**Asking for a friend.)
My sarcasm has a very serious point: subjective, context-be-damned interpretations of Scripture lead to absurd and ridiculous conclusions. Which can be refuted simply by looking at the context and demonstrating the absurdity of the erroneous “interpretation”!
This is, in fact, how God-honoring Bible-study is always done: we follow the train of thought through a passage, noting whatever clues we find along the way, until we arrive at a conclusion that fits all the clues, and doesn’t leave us with some contradiction, either in that very passage or with some other part of Scripture.
Throughout history, without fail, sloppy theology and outright cults have arisen when context is ignored. The only way to refute a cultic teaching is to demonstrate where and how Scripture was twisted out of context.
Again, make it personal: if you heard that people were believing something false about you, based on something you said being taken out of context—how would you refute the falsehood? . . . Only by showing how what you said was taken out of context, and thereby pointing people to the actual meaning of your words.
It’s theology—the knowledge of God—not manology or meology. Bad theology, especially if it’s outright cultic—i.e., contradicting the Gospel in some way—always moves the spotlight away from God Himself to a human being or human ideas. In the case of Mary, Stefano Manelli observes (approvingly) that Pope John Paul II, following in the footsteps of pontiffs before him, makes
many references to Abraham and his sacrifice as type of Mary and of her coredemptive sacrifice . . . . Abraham [in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac] is not a figure of the Father, but is a figure of Mary: it is she who, like Abraham, offers her Son to the Father; not the Father, but she, as Co-redemptrix, suffers the co-crucifixion with her immolated Son.28
Remember: Scripture twisted = Scripture resisted. The above examples fly directly in the face of the way the Bible connects its own dots:
No mention is made anywhere in Scripture of Mary as either “sacrificing” her son, or sharing in his redemptive suffering. If such a thing were real, it would be pretty important for us to know about it, don’t you think? So why, then, would none of the first-century writers of the Bible itself ever talk about it?
In the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, he tells his son ahead of time that “God will provide a sheep for the burnt offering” (Genesis 22:8)—which God ultimately did (v. 13). Generations later, when he “saw Jesus coming toward him,” John the Baptist proclaimed, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
Two chapters later is the most famous verse in the Bible: “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) God gave; not “Mary gave.”
And it wasn’t Mary who offered the Son to the Father as payment for sin; no, Jesus offered himself, playing the roles of both priest and sacrifice.29
Again: if Mary really does play the role Catholics imagine for her, then that’s super-important—so why did the Apostles and their contemporaries never mention it? Didn’t the Church in their time need to know such an astounding doctrine?
Well . . . apparently not.
Which means the doctrine is fabricated.
“So-called ‘deep secrets’ ”
In the book of Revelation Jesus warned the churches about “false teaching,” or “ ‘deeper truths,’ as they call them—depths of Satan, actually” (2:24). This is a common trap for all human beings, including—or perhaps especially—Christians.
We don’t know if Jesus was referring to the school of thought known as “Gnosticism,” which was then only at embryonic stage, but it sure sounds like he was. At the very least, what Jesus had in view is a mentality that is common to gnostic types and cultists in general: esoteric knowledge.
Remember the “Christ-plus” idea discussed in Part 2: Satan continuously tries to entice God’s own people to add other sources of “knowledge” or “spirituality” to what we already have in Jesus and the Bible. The Apostle Paul likewise addressed this trap:
Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. [Colossians 2:8]
For in Christ—not anyone or anything else—“lie hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Verse 3) And it’s the Bible that tells us all we need to know about Jesus and how to conduct a relationship with Him.
But recourse to other spiritual sources was a common problem not only in the early Church, but in the Judaism that came before it. Gnosticism has been a common religious mindset for eons,
that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, . . . often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.
You’ll never guess who said that. It was Pope John Paul II.30 It’s a very fine statement. The problem is that John Paul failed to discern Gnosticism’s infiltration of his own religion.
Which brings us back full circle: Where are the Mariolaters getting their conception of Mary from? Biblical authority is paramount: “Look to God’s instructions and teachings! People who contradict his word are completely in the dark.” (Isaiah 8:20)
If those in the cult of Mary had relied on the word of the God whom Mary gladly obeyed—
They would have avoided the view of sex as “dirty”;
They would have avoided the Satanic impulse to effectively replace Jesus while still appearing “Christian.”
Mary the hero
Surprisingly, Marianism arose before Jesus had even gone to the cross:
As he was speaking, a woman in the crowd called out, “God bless your mother—the womb from which you came, and the breasts that nursed you!”
Jesus replied, “But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.” [Luke 11:27-28]
I can’t help thinking that Catholics must be discomfited by that passage, because it puts Mary in her place. Jesus steers the attention of his audience from God’s servant to God’s Word.
Mary wouldn’t have felt at all “demeaned” or “demoted” by her son’s words here; it’s not as if he “slammed” her. Indeed, the Lord implied that Mary herself is “blessed,” for she “hear[d] the word of God and put it into practice.” Remember what she said to the angel Gabriel when he announced that she would give birth to the Messiah: “I am willing to be used of the Lord. Let it happen to me as you have said.” (Luke 1:38)
Jesus’ mother was no “Proud Mary“ “rollin’ on the river” of life. She epitomized humility and submission to her Maker.
Consider the fact that she was very likely just 15 or 16 years old when her life was upended; her normal expectations utterly exploded by God’s assignment to her.
Despite her youth, Mary showed a great sense of faith and maturity by carrying the Son of God in her womb. Teenagers today are preoccupied with social media, trends, and celebrities. Mary was focused on the Lord and serving Him with all her heart. . . .
. . . [T]o see Mary pregnant would have raised suspicious glances and ridicule from the other people in town. Mary would have known this when she accepted the responsibility of carrying the Lord in her womb. She did not question Gabriel or try to run away from God’s plan for her life.
. . . . Rather than viewing this responsibility as a burden, Mary saw carrying the Lord as a great privilege and honor. It would have been scary for Mary; however, she chose to be brave, bold, and trust in the Lord.31
“She had to hold her head high and know that God was blessing her, even as her neighbors, siblings, and possibly parents shook their heads in worry, or sadness, or even disgust.”32
No question about it: “Mary’s willingness to serve the Lord in this extreme situation is the quality every Christian, every ministry leader, should emulate.”33
Tell you what: I’ve met any number of teenagers whom I really liked, or thought were really cool in some unique way. I certainly don’t “look down on” them; but I also can’t say I’ve ever “looked up to” a teen as a hero.
Except one. Her name is Mary.
†
Apologies to Alfred Lord Tennyson, author of “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”
Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (The Immaculate Conception), 8 Dec. 1854 (accessed 17 Jan. 2023).
Italics mine.
Whom I quite like when he’s defending the broader Judeo-Christian worldview, rather than Catholicism specifically.
Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 275.
See also Psalm 1:1-2; 19:7-11; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 22:29; Mark 7:7-9; Luke 16:27-31; 24:27, 44; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:23-2:2—as well as the oft-repeated phrase “it is written.”
Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 275.
Or even within the Apostles’ own lifetimes, for the simple reason that they traveled regularly and couldn’t be everywhere or stay long in one place.
Note my capitalization of “Apostle” in this context. The word apostle literally means “sent one”—but how much authority an apostle had depended on who did the sending. If a man was sent personally by Jesus, well, obviously that carried a lot of authority. But if an “apostle” was commissioned by a local congregation, then while their mission is important, they are basically traveling evangelists without Christlike authority.
Some excellent historical information on both canonicity and divine authority can be found in:
“10 Basic Facts About the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize”
“Who is the true Vicar of Christ? The Roman Catholic Pope or the Holy Spirit?”
“What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture?”
“Understanding Sola Scriptura: The Evangelical View of the Authority of the Bible”
Albeit not by human ingenuity and willpower, but through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thomas Constable, “Notes on 1 Timothy” (Plano, TX: Plano Bible Chapel, © 2022) (accessed 23 Jan. 2023).
Ray Van Neste, study-notes for 1 Timothy, ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008) (accessed 23 Jan. 2023; emph. original).
Faithlife Study Bible, note for 1 Timothy 3:15 (accessed 23 Jan. 2023).
In a similar vein, note also the verb “uphold” in Deuteronomy 27:26; 32:51; Romans 3:31.
Adapted from Faith Defenders, “The Romanist View of Authority” (n.d.; © 2022) (accessed 23 Jan. 2023).
And, as I’ve shown, that’s not what Matthew 16:16-19 is teaching anyway.
And note that it’s “home to God”—not “home to Rome.”
Doug Oss, notes on Jude, ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), Jude 3 (accessed 26 Jan. 2023).
Stefano Manelli, “The Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Old Testament,” in Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books, 2007), 4.
Ibid., 35.
Emphasis mine.
Another noteworthy listing of alleged Old Testament symbols or foreshadowings of Mary is found in “The Catholic Defender: Mary's Fiat and Typologies found in the Old Testament.” I challenge anyone to go through the items they list and see if the Bible really makes any connection between these things and Mary.
But don’t take my word for it! Please do search the Bible for any clues, anywhere at all, that indicate Mary is who Ezekiel was talking about.
John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, 246. Quoted in Laurent A. Cleenewerck, Aiparthenos: Ever-Virgin? (Washington, DC: Euclid Univ. Press, 2015), 177 (italics mine).
Stefano Manelli, “The Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Old Testament,” in Mark Miravalle, ed., Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books, 2007), 34 (italicized “type” original; other italics mine).
Although the Bible doesn’t mention any suffering by the Father and the Holy Spirit in company with the Son, nonetheless there’s every reason to believe that when Jesus experienced Hell on Earth—“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (Matthew 27:46)—the Father and the Holy Spirit, who loved Jesus more than anything, must have experienced suffering of Their own as well.
John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Knopf, 1994), 90 (bold-emph. mine). Online here.
Vivian Bricker, “Do We Know How Old Mary Was When She Had Jesus?” Christianity.com, 3 Dec. 2021 (accessed 21 Jan. 2023).
Jacqui Jackson, “Was Mary an At-Risk Teen?” FocusOnTheFamily.com, 16 Dec. 2020 (accessed 21 Jan. 2023).
Caroline Newheiser, “A Look at Mary’s Example This Advent Season,” FocusOnTheFamily.com (9 Dec. 2022) (accessed 26 Jan. 2023).