The Marian Doctrines Pt 1 (White vs Matatics)

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:00

What an excellent crowd. We were very worried about how many people were going to show up tonight, and we're stunned at all the people that are here.

00:08

Catholics, Protestants, we see them all here. My name is Austin Bruce. A lot of people were saying to me, who organized this?

00:15

Well, nobody really organized this. A couple of guys organized this because we wanted to see a great debate. Two Catholics and a

00:24

Protestant decided that they wanted to see a great debate, and this is it. We wanted to see a great debate on an important topic, the

00:32

Marian dog visit to Catholic Church. Over the past few weeks, I spent a lot of time going around New York City putting up posters, as a lot of other people did.

00:41

One of the things that I discovered among some liberal priests is that they were a little worried about the word debate.

00:48

It kind of scared them. Poor dear. It reminded me of a story.

00:54

When I was a little boy on the playground, there was another little boy, and I hated him, and he hated me, and it was inevitable that we'd fight, and we did fight.

01:03

And we rolled around on the ground, punching and kicking, and we eventually ran out of gas.

01:11

And then something magical happened. The kind of magical thing that happens all the time in the world of little boys.

01:17

We became best friends. And it occurs to me that, as I was thinking about tonight, what

01:23

I experienced that day a long time ago was ecumenism. It seems to me that ecumenism is, in fact, little boys rolling around on the ground, and then becoming best friends.

01:33

I would bet that almost every man in this room has a similar story to tell. It's kind of the code of little boys.

01:39

At first they fight, before they become friends. Our little friend will tell us that ecumenism as a kid is something like conflict resolution.

01:48

There are probably loads of homeschoolers here who ran away from the public schools precisely because of words like that.

01:56

We would believe that ecumenism is nothing so fragrant nor sissified as that, that ecumenism is the red -blooded yet unbloody disputation of strongly held beliefs among people who respect each other.

02:11

In fact, we might say that ecumenism travels the road from bruises to respect and sometimes even to love.

02:18

I have in mind a Catholic man standing next to a Protestant man in the south, today probably, rebuilding a church burned down by drunken teenagers.

02:30

I can see them hammering the nails in, whack, whack, whack, and the Catholic man says, this is what we believe about the real presence.

02:37

Whack, whack, whack, this is what we believe about the real presence.

02:48

Possibly the Protestant man gets sold a scripture and goes sideways. It seems to me that this is ecumenism.

02:57

Liberal churchmen believe that ecumenism means making Catholicism a little bit more like Protestantism and Protestantism a little bit more like, and he says now, my miserable religion is

03:14

Buddhism, what's yours? We would say, what is the good of a faith that is weakly held?

03:27

It is only good for the secularizers and the evil ones. Those in this room would say that ecumenism is not making

03:34

Catholicism more like Protestantism, it is more like making Catholics into Protestants and vice versa.

03:41

That after bruises, respect, and love, sometimes comes with worship. During the planning of this event,

03:49

I worked with an Evangelical Protestant by the name of Chris Arnton. And as we got to know each other on the telephone, we only met face -to -face tonight for the first time,

03:59

I said to him, you know, we're coming for conversions. And he said, oh good, so will we.

04:07

This is ecumenism. And it seems to me that this is precisely what we want to put on, and I suspect this is precisely what you want to see.

04:15

Let me briefly thank a few people that made this night possible. I will be talking about people on the

04:20

Catholic side. Greg Lloyd from the

04:25

National, he's tremendous in this, he gave wise counsel, and he put me in touch with a number of Catholic activists on Long Island who sold tickets, beat the bushes, did private mailing, and all sorts of things.

04:41

Specifically, I'd like to thank Greg, Saddam Hussein, Dorian Frank, Imelda Jensen, Frank and Ginger Churston, and others that I don't know about.

04:53

I welcome all of you here, Protestants and Catholics alike. We're going to have an enormous amount of fun.

05:00

Let me introduce you to the man who did most of the work for this evening, my friend, from WMCA Radio, Chris Arnton.

05:09

Good evening.

05:18

It is exciting to see so many people who care about what they believe.

05:24

And I just thank God that he is ushering you all into this room tonight. Before I say anything further,

05:30

I have some people to thank who are also very instrumental in making this evening possible, by the grace of God.

05:37

Ray Toga of Paradise Limousine, we'd like to thank him. Spirit of the Dove Christian Bookstore in Baldwin, who is selling tickets for us.

05:46

New Color Christian Bookstore in Farmingdale, another ticket location. New Life Christian Variety Store in Jamaica, Queens.

05:54

And Maria Monte Religious Shop in Huntington. And there is a very, very special consideration that we should all be giving to the

06:04

Rock Christian Bookhouse in Wanto, Long Island, who not only was a ticket sales location, but who spent over $2 ,000 on radio advertising just for this event.

06:25

I also would like to give thanks to Andy Anderson of WMCA, who interviewed

06:31

James White. Ken Grimble and Bruce Clark of WMRS Family Radio, who aired numerous messages and interviews to promote this evening.

06:41

Brad Crook of the Christian Lifetimes, who wrote an article on this event. And Vince Sawyer of Faith Baptist Church in Corona, Queens, who also promoted this event on his radio program,

06:54

WMCA Radio. Perhaps many of you recognize these words.

07:02

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom.

07:09

It was the age of foolishness. It was the season of light. It was the season of darkness.

07:15

And those words are the opening of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. That passage that I read to you from A Tale of Two Cities, I think, perfectly reflects our modern age in regard to the relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.

07:36

In many ways, it's the best of times. Never before in history have

07:42

Catholics and Protestants united in such force to oppose such evil as abortion, pornography, the gay rights movement, and many other things.

07:53

And that is to be commended as a righteous thing. It's a good thing. It's a necessary thing. But I'm afraid it's also the worst of times.

08:03

These are times when people not only cannot defend or articulate what they believe, whether they're a

08:09

Catholic or Protestant, but these are times when people don't care, which is much worse.

08:16

I was a bit shocked by some of the reaction I got from people, both

08:21

Catholic and Protestant, in opposition to this event. And I thank God that despite their opposition, we are all here, nearly 500 in this room.

08:30

And I give praise, honor, and glory to God for that. We have got to stop being what we are just because we were born that way.

08:40

Many people may be born into an Irish Catholic family, or a white Anglo -Saxon

08:46

Protestant family, or an African Methodist Episcopal family, and just by sheer virtue of their upbringing and nationality and ethnicity, they are embracing a faith just on those terms alone.

09:01

That's dangerous for anyone. No one should be believing in the thing that cradles in its hands their eternal destiny, just because of what country their ancestors were born in.

09:14

It's extremely dangerous. And I have a, just to give you an idea of some of the opposition that we received for this debate,

09:24

I just want to read you a quick note. Just a very quick note that says,

09:30

Dear Mr. Arrington, I think you and your moronic ways of cooking up this Catholic -Protestant debate scheme should be ashamed of yourself, more than that, in prison.

09:40

To put it bluntly, you sicken me. No, that's not enough. You repulse me. In this day and age of enlightenment, sleazebags like you, whose only desire is to reopen old wounds and pour salt in them, should be condemned for the evildoers that you are.

09:55

With torches in hand, we good, decent, and wholesome citizens should chase your prehistoric deformities back into your caves with the rest of the

10:04

Neanderthals and forever seal your tombs shut. The day that your wretched stench no longer pollutes the air, and your hideous shadow no longer darkens the earth, will be a day worthy of the most festive celebration the earth has ever known.

10:20

P .S. Don't forget to stop at the dairy barn on the way home, grab milk and bread, love your wife dearly.

10:40

By saying that, I commend each and every one of you who are fighting abortion, because it's a wicked and hideous thing that this country is stained with.

10:51

I commend each and every one of you who are involved in the fighting of pornography, and the gay rights movement, and many other things that Catholics and Protestants unite on.

11:00

We must remember one very important thing. That is not the gospel. It is not the gospel.

11:10

If anyone ever tells you, whether they're Protestant or Catholic, that there's no difference, run from that person as far as you can run.

11:22

Okay, I'd like to introduce to you all the speakers that we've been blessed to have here.

11:30

First to my right, James White, as the leading

11:36

Protestant representative engaged in Roman Catholic politics and debates across the United States.

11:43

He knows the issue as well. In addition to being a scholar in residence in the College of Christian Studies at Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor teaching

11:53

New Testament Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, he is director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which is a theologically reformed

12:02

Christian apologetics organization in Phoenix, Arizona. He has written eight books, including

12:08

Answers to Catholic Claims and The Roman Catholic Controversy. He is also the critical consultant for the

12:16

New American Standard Bible. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. James White. Jerry Matisek, as founder and president of Biblical Foundations International, a

12:38

Roman Catholic apologetics organization in Front Royal, Virginia. I believe it moved to Scranton, Pennsylvania.

12:44

It just recently moved to Scranton, Pennsylvania. Jerry Matisek's work has taken him all over the globe.

12:50

His conferences have drawn audiences of several thousand people. He has publicly debated well -known critics of Catholicism in academic settings, both

12:58

Catholic, such as Boston College, and Protestant, Denver Seminary and Baptist Bible Seminary in Indianapolis.

13:05

In addition to being a frequent guest on radio and television worldwide, including Mother Angelica Live!, he co -hosts a nationwide radio program where Catholics meet.

13:13

Mr. Matisek is the very first minister of the Protestant denomination Presbyterian Church in America ever to convert to Roman Catholicism.

13:22

Mr. Jerry Matisek. Someone once told me that if you really want to settle a dispute, get a

13:39

Jewish attorney. The man behind me is a very dear friend of mine, and when

13:49

Greg Lloyd and I were trying to think of who should be a moderator, we said, we've got to pick somebody who's completely neutral on both issues to be qualified.

14:00

He could either be Protestant or Catholic, but someone is always going to claim that the moderator is biased. It's going to ruin the whole thing.

14:06

Not only is Bob Unger Jewish, but he's also a close friend of both myself and Greg Lloyd, who helped coordinate with Austin Bruce, the

14:15

Roman Catholic Scientist. Bob Unger is a talk show host who was formerly heard on WMCA radio.

14:22

He's a conservative political activist. And it's my hope that next year,

14:28

Bob Unger will no longer be qualified to be the moderator. Bob Unger, ladies and gentlemen.

14:50

We're going to be bowing for a moment of silent prayer in a second.

14:58

I just wanted to quickly read a very short portion of James White's book. Even Jerry Matisek would agree with it.

15:04

The relationship between Roman Catholics and Protestants is an emotionally charged issue. Feelings run high on both sides.

15:12

Therefore, I ask that from the start, we make a commitment to hear out both sides, to think clearly, and to keep

15:21

God's truth at the forefront. I've done my best to avoid offense, but I know some will be offended nonetheless.

15:29

I ask that you remember one thing. Christian love cannot be separated from Christian truth.

15:35

True love rejoices with the truth. True love tells the truth. I am convinced that it is an act of love to speak the truth to someone, especially when it will cost you to do so.

15:48

Let's bow for a silent moment of prayer. All right, the debate will begin.

16:06

Before I walk away, I would not be a good and righteous man if I did not thank very sincerely two people that really were instrumental in making this a huge success.

16:21

Michael Rotolo of the Calvary Press and Claire Murphy, his assistant, who did an enormous amount of work on behalf of this event.

16:28

If you could please give them a round of applause. Okay, before we start on the debate,

16:41

I just wanted to point out one thing. The old story is the bad news and the good news. The bad news is there is a disagreement.

16:48

I guess that's bad news. The good news is that everyone in this room and the debaters also agree on this point, that there is truth.

16:58

And there is an enemy out there that doesn't believe there is truth in the first place.

17:04

Now, of course, there is no truth to seek if truth doesn't exist. And just to show you what

17:09

I mean, I'm looking at a quote from a fellow named Benjamin Bloom, who is more influential in education, which, of course, is probably more important than anything else since it's dealing with our kids, than any man in the history of America today is influenced, is felt in every single public school in this country, and, sadly to say, a good proportion of all religious schools in this country, so -called, quote -unquote, religious schools.

17:40

And here's what he had to say in 1956, quote, We recognize the point of view that all truth and knowledge are only relative, and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places.

17:59

So I think we can certainly take solace that, at least in this room, there are people that disagree with that statement.

18:06

And that, ultimately, is where the battle lies, in my opinion. And that's the end of my part of the debate.

18:15

Okay, we're going to start off with Mr. Matics. He's going to do an opening statement, which will be 15 minutes, and 10 of it will be on the

18:26

Immaculate Conception. Correct? We have 15 minutes. Okay, 15 minutes on that topic.

18:37

Yes, you're off the podium and we timed it. Oh, I see.

18:48

I think that you'll have to stay there while I record this. I want to begin by thanking, first of all,

19:01

Austin Roos and Greg Boyd for all their hard work, and Chris Armisen and the people that helped him.

19:06

I want to thank James White, once again, for being willing to engage in a debate on these all -important issues.

19:13

We've debated many times before in the past. And I want to confess to you this evening that I approached this debate with quite a bit of apprehension.

19:22

I've just been, as was implied by the moderator, mentioned that we've moved to Scranton, Pennsylvania through a very grueling move.

19:30

I've just gotten done driving a U -Haul back and forth from Virginia, where we were living, to Scranton four times in the last week, loading it and unloading it.

19:40

And I've had about two hours sleep at night over the last week. I haven't eaten at all today. I had a can of soda on the way as I was racing here, and I had to pack up my wife and kids and send them on to her parents in Massachusetts.

19:51

Because after this, I drive back to White Plains to class in Portland, Oregon, and speak at a conference there for about three days.

19:58

So I spent all of last night, all through the night, unpacking. I have 10 ,000 books in my personal library, dozens and dozens of boxes, trying to find the books

20:08

I needed for this debate. And I had to leave at the very last minute, as you saw, I got here just in time, without having found those books.

20:14

So I come rather unprepared for this debate, without the books that I think are most helpful for a debate on Mary, without any of the notes that I normally use.

20:24

To top it all off, of course, Mr. White is a superb debater. In all honesty, I think he's far better than I am.

20:30

So I do feel very much a little bit like David, with his five foolish little small stones here, going up against Goliath, or like Gideon, through all these setbacks and handicaps

20:40

I've had, that God has whittled his army down and down, until he's wondering if he can even accomplish anything at all.

20:47

And yet, despite the many setbacks that we've had this past week, and the handicaps that I labor under this evening, I remain convinced by the grace of God, nevertheless, that Mr.

20:56

White cannot, with all due respect to his prodigious gifts and his abilities and his sincerity, cannot really win a debate on these four topics.

21:06

For one simple reason. What the Catholic Church, that Jesus Christ founded, teaches about Mary, is quite simply the truth about Mary.

21:20

And the truth, ultimately, by the power of God, always triumphs. The Catholic Church is simply proclaiming, by the authority of Jesus Christ himself and his holy apostles, what

21:31

God has done for and to the mother of our Savior, Mary. As she herself said in her inspired song,

21:39

Praise Magnificat, The Lord has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

21:46

You're going to see me squinting once in a while. I was actually writing this on the road as I was driving my coffee to Scranton, so I hope

21:52

I can read my writing as I was getting here. And what God has done for Mary, the one and only mother of our

21:58

Savior, what God has done for Mary, no man, woman, angel, devil, preacher,

22:05

Protestant, reformer, or anyone can undo. Now I'm going to admit to you up front, whether you're

22:10

Protestant or Catholic, I'm going to admit to you up front that what the Church teaches about Mary is outrageous.

22:19

Absolutely outrageous. And as an evangelical Protestant for 14 years,

22:24

I had no prior background in Protestantism or Catholicism until the age of 14 when I responded to an evangelistic call at a

22:31

Billy Graham crusade that I watched on television. For the 14 years that I was an evangelical Protestant, I was convinced that there was no scriptural support for what the

22:41

Catholic Church taught about Mary, let alone any of the other doctrines. And Mary, in the course of my deeper understanding of scripture and my ultimate conversion to Catholic faith,

22:52

Mary was the last and the greatest hurdle for me to overcome. And I understand, with great sympathy, how difficult it is for a

22:59

Protestant to sit out there or sit there or sit anywhere and to really try to assimilate what the

23:06

Catholic Church says about Mary and say, how can there be any biblical basis for that? I have sat where you are now sitting, if you are in that situation.

23:13

And I understand that, I appreciate that, and I empathize with that. And I'm going to admit that it's outrageous.

23:20

It is contrary to human wisdom, it is contrary to human expectation, it is contrary to human inclination to say that God would, from the very beginning of this woman's existence, so infuse her with the grace that God gives us through Jesus Christ, that he already did for her, at the outset of her life, what he will eventually do for all the members of Christ's body, that is, make them sinless and fill them with his grace and glory forever and ever in heaven.

23:49

It's contrary to human wisdom to think that she would be called to a married life and yet remain perpetually virginal, that she would be assumed into heaven at the end of her life in a way that is different than the way that you and I normally end our lives, that she would then be given a special status in heaven.

24:06

But these things are no more outrageous than the gospel itself, the gospel of which all these things are part.

24:13

The incarnation, if you stop and think about it, is outrageous. The claim that Christians make to an anti -Christian world, that God became man, that the infant became an infant, that the invisible became visible, that that little babe in Bethlehem was none other than the creator in the cosmos, that is an outrageous claim.

24:34

And the redemption is outrageous to say that a mutilated criminal hanging bloody upon a cross is actually effecting the redemption of the world.

24:44

That, too, is outrageous. And it's no more outrageous to see in Scripture that Mary had a part to play in these great mysteries, these things that outrage and offend human expectations.

24:56

Now, as we proceed this evening, first here at this opening to look at the Immaculate Conception, and then in the three subsequent segments to look at the other dogmas that we'll be looking at.

25:05

As we proceed this evening to look at the biblical evidence for these great privileges that God has bestowed upon his mother,

25:12

I want you to keep in mind three things. First of all, that Scripture itself does not operate with the expectation that everything that Jesus Christ himself, our

25:25

Lord, and his apostles taught would be explicitly committed to writing as the only possible way of preserving and propagating the good news.

25:35

Scripture itself testifies to the fact that there are many things that our Lord said and did that were not written down, either in St.

25:41

John's Gospels, as he says in John 20, 31, and 31, 25, or in any of the other Gospels, that there were many things not written down in the epistles.

25:49

And yet these, everything the Catechist teaches, I want to say this loud and clear, can be supported from central

25:55

Scripture, and I will do that tonight. I am going to meet Mr. White on his own grounds. I am not going to quote papal encyclicals or church fathers as in any way proving any of the things that Catholics believe.

26:05

We're going to look to sacred Scripture. But sacred Scripture can suggest and can indicate certain things, as even

26:12

Protestants admit, and so I want you to keep in mind that this is a principle that Protestants themselves operate on the basis of.

26:18

If I ask Mr. White whether the Scriptures explicitly teach in just those words that God's trinity, he would have to admit no.

26:26

It is an inference that he draws, and rightly so from sacred Scripture, and I applaud him for drawing that inference.

26:32

We draw it ourselves. The Bible never says God is three persons in one being in just that compact and easy -going statement, and yet that is the biblical truth.

26:43

The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, for a gradual fertility, or a bodily assumption that there is going to be a coronation.

26:51

We can apply the same standard, so there should be no double standard tonight. A second thing I want you to keep in mind is the Bible does not operate with the either -or dichotomy that all too often characterizes some

27:01

Protestant thinking. That it's either faith or works, but it couldn't be both. Or that it's either we're baptized with water, or we're baptized with the

27:10

Holy Spirit, and therefore water baptism is not essential. Or that we're saved by Jesus, and therefore not by the things that he uses to bring us salvation.

27:21

Sacred Scripture, his body, the Church, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind that we can avoid either -or mentalities we go through tonight.

27:29

Now, the first thing that we need to talk about is the Immaculate Conception. We know that every human being is commanded by God in the

27:38

Ten Commandments to honor his mother. We know that Jesus was a perfect, sinless human being, so that he perfectly honored his mother.

27:44

He gave her all the honor that any son could ever give his mother. His perfect humanity required him to do so.

27:50

But Jesus was more than a perfect man, he was also God the Creator. And God, who can do anything, can create a sinless woman.

27:56

We know he did in the case of Eve, the first woman. He can keep a body from corrupting, as he did in the case of Jesus' body while it was in the tomb.

28:03

Now, if you were God, and you could preserve your mother from sin, would you do so?

28:11

Jesus was God, and so he could do these things. He was also a perfect man, and so he would want to.

28:17

And whoever would deny that Jesus could have done this for his mother, Mary, is either denying that Jesus could do these things for Mary, or that he really wants to.

28:24

In other words, he's either denying Jesus' divinity, or his humanity. In other words, he's ultimately, implicitly denying the Incarnation.

28:31

The Scriptures are clear that God predestined our salvation before the foundation of the world.

28:39

Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world. It was all foreordained in the mind of God.

28:45

Now, Mary didn't just happen to be the mother of the Messiah. And God, who had all eternity to contemplate and to consider how exactly he would shape our plan of salvation, desired to, since God himself,

29:01

God the Son, would be born of a woman, to honor her, to bestow special privileges and favors upon her.

29:09

And the first of these is what we call the Immaculate Conception. Let me define what it is.

29:16

The solemn definition, the scientific definition of it, is probably most prominently known in the decree in Epiphaelus Deus of Pope Pius IX in A .D.

29:26

54, where he says, quote, that Mary, from the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the

29:35

Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.

29:41

Notice that. This was a privilege. It was a grace given her by God. In and of herself, she had no entitlement to this, any more than you and I have any entitlement to salvation.

29:53

But God willed that Mary would be the prototype of the Church. Nothing is predicated of Mary by the

30:00

Catholic Church that will not one day be true of the Church as a whole. The Church is this huge feminine entity, the

30:09

Bride of Christ, the Spouse of the Lord, that will one day be a St. Paul's Confession, a spot or a wrinkle or blemish.

30:17

And God willed that Mary would be a foretaste, a sneak preview, a prototype of the Church's destiny.

30:22

It should be a microcosm, a miniature model, a small -scale model of the Church's call to that complete holiness from the very beginning of her existence.

30:32

And it was done by Jesus Christ. He saved her. He saved her from contracting the disease of original sin.

30:39

So I want to pre -empt at this point automatically what Protestants might say, which is, wait a minute.

30:45

Mary said in the Magnificat, my soul does magnify the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my

30:51

Savior. If she were sinless from the moment of her existence, how would she call God her

30:56

Savior? Simply because God did save her in that way. St. Augustine used the analogy of a man who falls into a tar pit and is pulled out and says to the person who pulls him out, thank you for saving me.

31:08

And then a woman who might be caught by the Savior before she even fell in. Would she say he hadn't saved her unless he let her fall in a wall in the field for a while first?

31:17

Of course not. You would far prefer, I know, as would I, to be given some vaccination by a doctor that would prevent you from contracting some dread disease that was decimating our population rather than go to some other doctor who could only give you a remedy after you had suffered horribly at this debilitating disease for a number of years.

31:36

You would not say that the first doctor with this greater vaccine was less of a Savior than the Savior.

31:43

So God did save Mary in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, who had not yet been incarnate yet, but God, of course, who is above time could see.

31:53

The Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. There is nothing in scripture, either in this statement of Our Lady or in the statement of St.

32:02

Paul in Romans 3, I think, that all had sinned that contradicts this special privilege that God gave.

32:08

Because, as I'll show, the statement is not intended to be an absolute universal that applies to every single human that could ever walk the face of the earth.

32:16

It certainly doesn't apply to Jesus Christ, who is a true human being, descended from Adam. He is an exception that is not mentioned by St.

32:23

Paul. So Mr. White will have to admit that there is at least an implicit exception there, even though it is not spelled out by name.

32:31

So there could, at least in principle, be a second one. In fact, there are several others, because St. Paul, when he says all had sinned, certainly would not include infants, non -infancy.

32:39

They're all guilty of original sin, but that's not what St. Paul is saying. He's saying all had sinned. So everyone must admit that that statement does not literally mean every single human individual ever conceived personally committed sins.

32:51

It cannot be used in proof text against. And that's the only proof text used by Protestants against the

32:58

Immaculate Conception of Mary. On the contrary, there are things in favor of her Immaculate Conception.

33:04

The statement in Genesis 3 .15 that God foresees a woman who would be in total opposition to the devil.

33:09

Every time you and I sin, you do not oppose him. We correspond and cooperate with him. But more beautifully, the type of the

33:16

Ark of the Covenant, I won't have time to develop it any further now, since my time is almost up, but I will in my closing statement, or perhaps in the questions and answers that come after that, or in the cross -examination.

33:28

But we know that when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, he said,

33:34

Hail, full of grace, in caritomeni. And that perfect passive participle means that Mary has been already in a state, based upon a past action, which has been filled with the grace, which is the antithesis of sin.

33:50

And he goes on to say that the power of the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, the Holy Spirit would come upon her. Echoing the words found in Exodus 40, verses 34 and 35, that describe the coming of the

34:00

Shekinah, the glory cloud, down upon the Ark of the Covenant. To show that Mary, by analogy, is as holiest, that most sacred object upon earth, as the

34:10

Ark of the Covenant was in the Old Testament. Okay, time is up. Thank you. And by the way, just in case, you haven't been good so far, there's going to be no applauding, no interrupting, no yelling out, everyone's going to be cool.

34:25

Okay. Thank you.

34:31

I do appreciate the opportunity of being here, though I have to admit, maybe Jerry would notice the same thing, being this close to wood and fire.

34:38

The Catholic -Protestant dialogue is a little bit uncomfortable, so you might not be able to see the fire. While serving as a chaplain in a major hospital in the

34:49

Phoenix area, I came across a pamphlet that I have right here, published by the Redemptorists, sitting on a seat in the chapel.

34:55

On the back was the slogan, that no true child of Mary is ever lost. At first, my mind provided a biblical translation to a true statement, that is, no true child of God is ever lost.

35:07

But then I realized what the passage actually said. And as I looked at the pamphlet, I encountered the following prayer, which I'm going to read for you.

35:14

O Mother of perpetual health, Thou art the dispenser of all the good which God grants to us miserable sinners.

35:20

And for this reason He has made me so powerful, so rich, and so valuable, that Thou mayst help us in our misery.

35:25

Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to Thee. Come then to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to Thee.

35:34

In Thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to Thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among Thy most devoted servants, taking under Thy protection, and it is enough for me.

35:44

For if Thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing, not from my sins, because Thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because Thou art more powerful than all hell together, nor even from Jesus, my

35:57

Judge Himself, because by one prayer from Thee, He will be appeased. But one thing

36:02

I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on Thee, and thus perish miserably.

36:08

Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to Thee, O Mother of perpetual health.

36:17

Now this prayer embodies all the elements that Protestants reject concerning Roman Catholic veneration of Mary.

36:24

Note the petitioner prays for deliverance from three things, his sins, the devils, and Jesus.

36:29

And the prayer is addressed to Mary whose hands the petitioner places his hope of salvation.

36:35

When I read this prayer to my opponent a few years ago on WECV radio in Boston, his response to me was,

36:41

Mr. White, I truly hope that someday you will be able to pray that prayer with me. The Marian doctrines form the foundation of this kind of religious expression.

36:50

We gather this evening to honestly discuss the tremendous gulf that separates Protestants and Catholics on the issue of Marian devotion and teaching.

36:57

I ask from the outset that we place our feelings and emotions aside and face the truth without hesitation.

37:05

The doctrines concerning Mary introduce us to the most basic and fundamental issues that separate us. These doctrines are pronounced and defined by the authority of the teaching magisterium of the

37:14

Roman Catholic Church drawing, it is alleged, from Scripture and tradition. I submit to you that the

37:20

Marian doctrines, more than anything else, illustrate to perfection what happens when sola scriptura is rejected and the ultimate authority of Scripture is denied.

37:30

What is more, the idea of Mary as a co -mediatrix with Christ, Queen of Heaven, dispenser of graces, strikes the very uniqueness of the work of Jesus Christ and mitigates the saving power of his gospel.

37:41

My friends, it is not an act of love or charity to hide the truth. I will pull no punches with you this evening.

37:47

If Mr. Matic's is right, then Protestants are guilty of rejecting God -ordained authority and of refusing to give due honor to the very

37:54

Mother of God. But if I am correct, then we can only conclude that Rome is guilty of adding to the gospel, detracting from the authority of Scripture, and in the

38:02

Marian doctrines themselves, engaging in nothing less than rank idolatry of the most heinous sin.

38:08

The stakes are high this evening. At least we should all be thankful that rather than engaging in worldly pursuits tonight, we have gathered to discuss something with eternal gratification.

38:19

This evening, you, the audience, will be asked to act as the judges. I, for my part, am here in line with the words of the

38:25

Apostle Paul to Timothy, who indicated that he pursued the ministry for the sake of the elect that they might obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.

38:33

I know that many of you will not agree with me tonight. Others will agree with almost everything I say. But to those who find themselves simply wanting to know the truth and weigh the claims of Rome and the balance, it is to you that I speak now.

38:45

As you listen to the arguments put forward this evening, ask yourselves some key questions. Number one, whose arguments are eternally consistent?

38:53

Does one person argue in circles, assuming what has yet to be proven? If so, that person is not serving the evidence of truth this evening.

39:01

Number two, who is dealing honestly with the text of Scripture tonight when definitions of words are used?

39:06

Is the person always or even often using obscure and secondary meanings of the words of the text, or is he using the primary meanings and going to other meanings only in force to do so by the context itself?

39:18

Is the person using meaningful methods of interpretation to take into account the language, the context, and the historical setting?

39:26

If a person claims that x is a type of y, or this person is the anti -type of that person, does the text make this connection?

39:34

Did the New Testament writers give us this idea? Did anyone in the early church see the same type and anti -type?

39:39

Or are you being given a modern idea that is utterly disconnected from the text itself? And finally, what it is said that tradition says this, or tradition says that.

39:49

Are you given evidence that this is the case? Are you told when the earliest appearance of such and such a belief is in historical records?

39:56

Keep these things in mind. It is very important, for my opponent said to the late

40:01

Dr. Greg Bonson in 1992, quote, I find that my most effective talks about Mary are talks that simply stick to explicit statements of Scripture.

40:09

I think that you can reduce the full -orbed Catholic doctrine on Mary just by quoting Scripture alone, not even having to go into church fathers whatsoever, end quote.

40:17

And Jerry has said pretty much the same thing. It's overstated. This evening I am asked to go first in two of the four presentations, and this is a little strange, since that forces me both to define as well as to rebuff

40:28

Roman Catholic position in those instances. In defining the position, I hope all here this evening realize that I have been faced with a dilemma.

40:36

Which of the various Roman Catholic presentations do I respond to? My opponent this evening uses arguments that are, to say the least, a little bit unique at times.

40:44

He goes well beyond someone such as Ludwig Ott or John Harden, or I dare say the majority of American Catholic scholars today, in insisting that the

40:52

Bible actually presents the Marian doctrines at least as a means of types and shadows, and some of those types and shadows are most interesting.

40:58

I have chosen to respond primarily to Mr. Manateeck's position, even when I am given the opportunity of going first.

41:04

If you don't happen to agree with Mr. Manateeck's, you may need to present your favorite arguments to me in another venue. But for this evening, there are only two of us up here with the job of debating, and just as I would not wish

41:13

Mr. Manateeck's to respond to a position I do not hold, so I will debate his position not the position of someone else.

41:18

I will, however, make reference to individuals such as Ludwig Ott, especially when they comment on the arguments used by my opponent this evening.

41:26

Now, my fundamental objection to all of the Marian doctrines is simply this. These traditions of men, born to the text of Scripture as well as to its spirit, created a great parallel between the sinless

41:37

Son of God and the blessed but redeemed creature, Mary. Think about it.

41:43

Rome parallels Christ with Mary in the following ways. He is Redeemer. She is Redemptrix. He is Mediator.

41:48

She is Mediatrix. He is King. She is Queen. He is Sinless. She is Immaculately Conceived. He is

41:53

Bodily Resurrected. She is Bodily Conceived. So deeply has this functional denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ entered into the fabric of modern

42:01

Roman Catholicism that on October 17, 1904, Pope Pius X calling Mary the spouse of the

42:07

Holy Ghost, announced that, Already Adam saw her in a distance as the destroyer of the servant's head, and the sight of her dried up his tears over the curse which had struck him.

42:17

He also said that Noah recalled her as he was preparing the ark. Abraham was astopped from sacrificing his son.

42:22

He thought of her. Jacob saw her in the ladder on which the angels ascended and descended, and Moses looked up to her at the burning bush.

42:32

My friends, there is one indeed who is seen in the Old Testament in this way, but it is not Mary. It is Jesus Christ, the one about whom the prophet spoke from the beginning.

42:40

The human traditions that have developed over time regarding Mary have functionally, in the lives of many, many followers of Rome today, eclipsed

42:48

Jesus Christ and made him a secondary figure, overshadowed by the glorious Queen of Heaven.

42:55

All errors start small. As we shall see tonight, again with a small error built upon it, eventually you will have a massive structure built upon a small pebble.

43:03

And so we see with the starting point, that being the Immaculate Conception. And Mr. Mattox has presented just a couple of passages.

43:10

He had very little time. He did, however, I believe attempt to make a parallel with the Doctrine of the

43:15

Trinity, the idea that this is not explicitly stated in Scripture. My friends, we must differentiate between the argumentation before the

43:23

Marian Doctrine and the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity is to be found throughout conspired Scripture.

43:28

The depth of the argumentation starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation. It's found on almost every single page.

43:35

It allows us to do in -depth exegesis that is consistent with the language of the text. And we are able to find references to it from the earliest fathers straight on through.

43:44

You will not find any of that to be true with the Marian Doctrines. And therefore, to parallel the two, simply has no merit whatsoever.

43:52

It is interesting that I find myself, in regards to the Immaculate Conception, taking the same position of as many as seven posts of their own

44:01

Catholic Church. It is barely discussed, but Leo I says that Christ alone was free from original sin, and Mary obtained her purification through her conception of Christ.

44:11

Gregory I, Innocent III, Galatians I, who interestingly is also the one who condemned the very same literature in which we find the first mention of the bodily assumption as heretical.

44:22

Innocent V, John XXII, and Clement VI all taught contrary to the concept of the

44:27

Immaculate Conception, as did most of the Church Fathers, even in the medieval period, who addressed this particular issue and discussed it themselves.

44:37

They had a lot of problems with this, but I want to focus primarily upon the arguments that are presented from Scripture, even though we will deal with Church history when it is relevant to do so.

44:46

Mr. Mathews asked, if you were God and you had the ability to do so, would you preserve your mother from sin?

44:52

Well, I would also ask, why not preserve your father, your disciples? Certainly, teaching disciples would have been a lot easier if they had been free of original sin, and so on and so forth.

45:02

Mary's grandmother, Bernard Clairvaux, made the same argument. We might as well take it all the way back to a sinless

45:07

Eve whomever fell. This type of argument could be used to prove almost anything at all. We are also told that the term

45:16

Picaritomene in Luke 1 .28, right toward the end, Mr. Mathews was hurrying, maybe you didn't have time to turn there in your Bible, but Luke 1 .28

45:23

is going to be the key Mary in doctrine. Stick your finger in there if you've got your Bible with you, make sure to look at it, because it is used to defend all four doctrines, really.

45:33

And the idea is based upon the form of the term that is used here, where Mary is described as blessed.

45:42

Now, the problem that we have as we look at this, and I have very little time to deal with it, but I think it's important that we do so to some level.

45:50

The argument that is being presented is that this perfect passive participle means that Mary has always been graced.

45:59

It brings about a fullness of grace. The problem is the same term is used of believers, for example, in Ephesians 1 .6

46:07

where it says, to praise the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed, literally graced on us in Christ.

46:15

The term caritato, from which it's taken, does not mean sinlessness in any lexical form you might find it.

46:23

And I would invite Mr. Matzik to show us a lexicon anywhere that says that this word means sinless. So the argument is not being made so much from the word itself, but from the form it's in, a perfect passive participle.

46:35

And this is supposed to indicate the perfection of this grace that is her. The problem is that that really doesn't work too well either.

46:43

If you look at Matthew chapter 25, verse 34, it talks about believers.

46:49

Come you who are blessed by my Father with a perfect passive participle. So that means that everyone who has come unto

46:56

Jesus Christ has been blessed from the beginning of their life back from conception with a perfection of blessedness.

47:04

If that's what we're going to make this participle mean, that's what we're going to have to deal with. See again, when you start listening to the arguments,

47:11

Mr. Matzik just made it again. Maybe he was hurrying. But he just made a bold assertion. It means this.

47:17

Mr. Matzik has a bachelor's degree in Greek. I teach Greek. Mr. Matzik well knows that it requires far more than just simply the perfect passive form of the participle to indicate what is being asserted by the

47:31

Roman Catholic Church in the meaning of this passage. In point of fact, this is simply a greeting.

47:37

The angel is simply greeting Mary and is indicating that she has indeed been blessed by God, as are all believers blessed by God.

47:46

To turn it into a title and to read into it the immaculate conception and eventually the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption and queenly coronation of Mary is to demonstrate that one is having to look really hard for passages in the

47:57

Bible that even address any of these issues. Think about it yourself. I hope you'll take the time to take your

48:03

Bible, sit down with it, read the text, read the context, try to read it in the historical situation in which it was written and ask yourself the question, did

48:14

Luke mean to indicate, when he wrote Luke 128, that Mary was immaculately conceived?

48:22

Or when he records the Magnificat and Mary talks about God my Savior, did

48:27

Luke mean to indicate, did Mary mean to indicate that she actually knew that she had been preemptorily redeemed, a concept that did not develop for a thousand years after the writing of the

48:39

New Testament, that was rejected by the majority of the fathers when it was brought up?

48:44

Are we to actually understand that that's what she understood? We have to put ourselves in the context of the writers themselves and ask ourselves the question, is this what they meant?

48:54

Or is someone taking a doctrine that comes from another source? Remember, Mr. Maddox does not believe in sola scriptura.

49:00

I mean, I've debated it more than once. I think I can say that without further misrepresenting it. He does not believe in sola scriptura.

49:06

He believes in tradition. He believes in the magisterium of an infallible church. So Mr. Maddox has another source of theology and the question you're going to have to keep before your mind all evening is, is that other source of theology determining the exegesis of Scripture or the other way around?

49:22

That is what happens when you look through my session. Thank you. Okay, now we're going to have some cross -examination.

49:32

We're going to first have Mr. Maddox question Mr. White for five minutes and then vice versa.

49:39

And I'm going to back up out of the way because I forgot my bulletproof vest. Mr. White, you warned the audience to beware of circular reasoning this evening and yet you provided a beautiful example of just that.

49:55

You said, are we really to believe that Mary understood these special privileges? Well, since you or I have no immediate insight into exactly what

50:05

Mary was aware of, our whole burden tonight is not to simply say, come on folks, it couldn't have been to show just that.

50:16

My question is this. Since rather than simply reading into or presupposing as a circular reasoner's used word does, the idea that Mary could not have understood it in this way, could you since, would you agree that it is a fundamental axiom of justice that someone should be innocent until proven guilty?

50:39

Uh, yeah. Now you want to indict Mary with being a sinner. Can you provide for us please any evidence in scripture, any statement that she did commit any particular sin?

50:52

Well, I said yes or no. Oh, no. There's no passage in scripture that says Mary sinned. Okay, thank you.

50:59

Now, that being the case, aren't you perhaps a bit, uh, being, well I'll let you guys with that on your own terms later on, but you admit that there is no statement that Mary is guilty of sin.

51:10

There is no explicit words in scripture that say Mary specifically sinned. You took the audience to Ephesians chapter 1 verse 6 and said look, nothing is said about Mary in Luke 1 20, it isn't said about us.

51:22

No, I said the term karatalo is used of us just as it's used of Mary in Luke 1 20. But isn't it in fact the case that there was a different, uh, term actually being used in Luke 1 28.

51:33

Does the term does the perfect passive participle, kikaritomeni translated inhale full of grace, or however you wish to translate it,

51:43

I realize you would want to look at that translation. Yes, it's a passive, not an active. Having been filled with grace.

51:50

It's a condition based upon past action. Is that statement, excuse me, here's my question.

51:57

Is that verb, kikaritomeni, is that ever applied to any other person, any other

52:03

Christian, anywhere in the New Testament? No, it's not. Exactly. So to say that, to quote

52:09

Ephesians 1 which says that God gave us grace is really not the point, is it?

52:14

Since no Catholic denies, no Catholic denies that God has given us grace, but the question is he hasn't filled us with grace.

52:22

Well, first of all, there's nothing in the term that talks about filling. Secondly, you're making the positive assertion that the term has a particular meaning.

52:28

It is not circular to say you need to back up the positive assertion that this term carries everything that you are asserting it carries within it.

52:36

And therefore, as you know, Jerry, when you examine a term of the Greek, you examine not only the lexical form of the root, but you also examine its grammatical form.

52:44

And I have simply pointed out very basically that the root word karataho does not mean sinlessness. It has nothing to do with the assertion that this has anything to do with sinlessness.

52:52

And the second point that I made is that the perfect passive -participle also does not carry that meaning. That is simply how you do expertise.

52:58

Of course, I understand that. But my point is that something is said about Mary in Luke 1 .28

53:05

that is not said in that same way about any other believer on earth. You will agree that that phrase used in Hagia Sophia nowhere else occurs in the

53:13

New Testament. Now, do you agree or disagree that there is a parallel drawn as many

53:21

Protestant scholars are willing to admit, although they won't fall into this type of conclusions, that the language used by the

53:28

Archangel Gabriel that the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and the power of the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, is language found only one other place in the entire

53:37

Bible, namely the references to the descent of Serpus and Juni upon the

53:42

Ark of the Covenant, upon the Tabernacle, in the Exodus chapter 40? I strongly disagree. You strongly disagree? I strongly disagree.

53:48

Could you name for us, therefore, one other passage in the Bible where those two verbs are used together in that same way?

53:53

Well, you didn't identify the verbs. The problem that I think we're having here, Jerry, is that you're operating upon the assumption that the words that Luke uses are consciously drawn from Exodus chapter 40 in Septuagint.

54:03

Is that not the statement that you've made in other talks to me? I'm simply saying that the language used by the angel, those two

54:10

Greek verbs used there are, in fact, yes, do only show up in one place in the Old Testament, and that is Exodus chapter 40.

54:16

The problem is, you're in error there. They are not found in Exodus chapter 40. In fact, the stronger case could be made that Luke is specifically avoiding parallelism there because, first of all, there is nothing about the

54:26

Holy Spirit coming down on anything in Exodus chapter 40. That is, the glory cloud comes down on the Holy Spirit. Secondly, there is no term overshadowing in the text.

54:33

The term that Luke uses in Luke 135 is ephelusetai, which comes from the Erechelon. The terms used in the

54:38

Septuagint of Exodus 40 -34 are ephelusetai, from Kaluzzo, and ephelusetai, which comes from Biblion.

54:45

Therefore, if Luke was specifically attempting to parallel the two things, it's very strange he wouldn't even use the terms that are used in the

54:51

Septuagint with which he was so intimately familiar. Well, I'm simply going to have to refer people to Dedecock and Septuagint and see for themselves.

54:58

Yes, please do. I have them up here if you'd like to check them. Good. The verb episkiaze, overshadowing, is found there, and the point is that there is a parallel, therefore, between the descent of the glory cloud, which

55:14

I agree is not supposed to be identified as the Holy Spirit, but nonetheless is, in terms of Trinity in the

55:20

Old Testament, coming upon Mary. Now, is that parallel not arguable? We're going to have to cut you off.

55:26

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Mr. Matzek, in regards to the teaching of the

55:34

Immaculate Conception, is it not true that a number of the early Church Fathers were willing to assert that Mary had, in fact, sinned?

55:45

You'd have to give me some specific examples. Well, is it not true that Origen, John Chrysostom, and Silas of Alexandria, and Basil, all thought that she had engaged in such sins and doubt, vanity, and ambition?

55:58

They never indict her for committing sin, no. Well, I hope everyone will look into those citations.

56:05

I'd be glad to provide them to anyone. Why would you require them? Well, there's a number of them we provide, and unfortunately, most of them are in Latin, but these particular early

56:14

Church Fathers, such as Origen's Commentary on John, provide those types of things. I was a little surprised by that. Now, are you familiar with what happened when the

56:24

Feast of the Immaculate Conception began, and Bernard de Clairvaux encountered this in the

56:31

City of Lyon? Yes, I am, Mr. White. Are you aware that some of the controversies about the

56:38

Immaculate Conception revolved around the growth in psychology as to when exactly a human being's body is informed by the soul, and so forth?

56:48

Can you name a single Church Father who argues that Mary was born in a sinful condition?

56:56

Born in a sinful condition? Yes. Is there a single Church Father who taught that Mary was born?

57:03

They might disagree as to when exactly whether she was immaculate conceived, whether her soul, whether she was cleansed by the

57:10

Quickening, but would you agree that there is no Church Father who argues that she was sinful after her?

57:16

Obviously, all those who thought that she committed sin would have been correct. And you still haven't given us an example of one. They say

57:22

Mary sinned. I'll be glad to provide those specific references to you and write them out for you if you'd like to look at them.

57:28

So just read one now, since you haven't since you haven't yet written one. That is true.

57:33

I will do so when I have the opportunity of doing it. Now let me ask you something, Mr. Mantoux.

57:39

When you say that is there any one place in the Bible that says

57:45

Mary sinned, is there any one place that says that that is sin?

57:52

No, not to my knowledge. Is there any one place that says that I have sinned?

57:59

No, of course not. So to simply say that, well, there's not a single place, is it not true that the great father of Augustine had a real hard time with this whole issue in regards to Mary because he saw it as violating the universality of original sin in his arguments with Plato?

58:19

No, that's not true. In fact, on this very point, St. Augustine said, I do not wish anyone to dispute over this matter since there is no scriptural evidence that Mary ever did sin.

58:31

And my point, you're misrepresenting my argument. My argument is not simply because there's an omission of the statement that she sinned, but therefore we conclude that she was sinless, any more than we conclude that he is was.

58:42

My statement and my contention, the Catholic contention, is that there is a tradition going back to the time of the apostles that Mary was indeed without sin.

58:52

There are indications in Scripture and there's nothing in Scripture to contradict that. You are accusing a woman of sinning with no evidence.

58:59

And that, to me, at least, at the very least, is unchivalrous, and I think I'm Christian. Well, again, the problem is you're making a positive assertion that, well,

59:09

Mary is an exception to the rule of universality of sin. No, you agree there's a tradition that she was special, and there's no tradition about Jesus.

59:19

Yes, that's my point. The problem is, when you claim a tradition, can you trace this tradition beyond old?

59:28

Can you trace it before and I see it? I don't have to, but I certainly could. Of course I could.

59:34

Since you're asking for references for me, how could I help? Well, there's various Assyrian fathers, like Ephraim the

59:40

Assyrianite and so forth, who speak about Mary as being the ultimate, the lovely one without any blemish or stain, and they see the references in the

59:50

Song of Songs as being fulfilled typologically. Did they? Off the top of my head,

59:56

I couldn't give it to you. But my point is, can you show me anyone in the Apostolic Fathers?

01:00:03

That's a hell of a question. Irenaeus. Can you show me an Apostolic Father who taught that Mary is an exception? I'm asking you the questions.

01:00:09

Irenaeus, Ignatius. You're making a positive assertion. So, Papias, Irenaeus, Ignatius, did any of them even address the issue, even talk about Mary?

01:00:18

Well, Irenaeus certainly does when he compares Mary to Eve, and he says, through the disobedience of the first woman, sin and death was loosed into the world.

01:00:28

By contrast, he sees Mary as a second Eve, and through her constant obedience, he says, sin and not talk about the

01:00:37

United and Second. But he had the opportunity to do so, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to indicate that she was sinner, and he didn't.

01:00:44

He spoke in Romanians. Now we're going to have a three -minute closing from Mr.

01:00:53

Mathis. Because we wanted to deal with all four dogmas, you can see that we're having to gallop through these in,

01:01:00

I think, a very unfortunate way. I think it would be much better if we had one evening for each of these.

01:01:07

But in any case, let me sum up by simply saying this. I think it's highly absurd to suppose that the

01:01:17

Catholic Church would have taught, and in fact solemnly defined, a little over a hundred years ago, and bound the consciences of Christians with the teaching that Mary was, by the grace of God, saved by Jesus Christ from the moment of her conception.

01:01:33

If this teaching was so contrary to Scripture that anybody could pick up a Bible, flip it open, and say, well, obviously there's no biblical basis for it.

01:01:42

You need to see how absurd that is. On the other hand, there is a teaching constantly coming down through the centuries that God gave this special privilege to Mary.

01:01:56

Church fathers attest to it. We have a feast of the Immaculate Conception. We have hymns that would celebrate the good things that God has done for Mary.

01:02:03

And there is no Scriptural evidence to the contrary. That is my point.

01:02:10

My point is that Mr. White, if he is going to stand on Scripture tonight and say, I'm a

01:02:16

Bible -believing Christian, has no biblical basis to stand before you and say, Mary is a sinner.

01:02:23

Because there's no verse that says that. On the contrary, as I said, we have indications that God called her to a very special vocation of holiness.

01:02:33

She was found by the Archangel Mary already having been filled with grace. Mr. White agreed that we will all be full of grace in heaven.

01:02:42

And there will be no place for sin in being filled with grace. And therefore, if Mary is already found by the angel on earth in that state of being full of grace, there's no place for sin there.

01:02:54

The argument coming in parallel is not something that can be easily dismissed as true, I would like to think. Because even if someone says, well,

01:03:01

I dispute, as Mr. White did, whether this language really indicates that she is the Arch of the

01:03:06

New Covenant, if you move on in Luke chapter 1, you find too many parallels to simply abandon.

01:03:15

First of all, Mary, after immediately receiving these special statements, goes to visit her cousin

01:03:21

Elizabeth. And Elizabeth says, when she greets her, hail.

01:03:30

And she says, blessed are you among women. And she says that the baby in my womb leapt for joy at the sound of your voice.

01:03:41

We read that Mary traversed the hill country of Judea to get to her. And we read that she breaks forth in a sacred song.

01:03:50

All of these things are said in 2 Samuel 6 about the Arch of the Covenant, that David leapt before the

01:03:55

Arch, as John of Acts leapt before the entrance of Mary. That David broke in a sacred song, as Mary does.

01:04:03

That the Arch stayed in the house of Obed for three months, as Mary stayed in the house of Elizabeth. And the parallels, as you continue, there's about eight of them, are so strong that even the

01:04:11

Proximal Commenters admit that Mary is indeed portrayed in the Arch of the New Covenant the holiest thing on earth.

01:04:17

Remember what happened to Uzo when he touched the Arch. He was stricken on the spot. Mary, to be in close conjunction with her divine son, the

01:04:24

Holy of Holies, God only himself, was similarly named as Holiesman by the grace of God.

01:04:31

Go ahead. Just very quickly, since I said I'd provide them, all you have to do is pick out the literary past fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

01:04:38

Look at page 203 in the list. Origin, Basil, Chrysostom, and Alexander. As taught, Mary suffered from menial personal faults, ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of Daniel, and so on and so forth.

01:04:48

If you want an entire list, I can give you references specifically here in Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and many other places, including specific references in Derrida on page 117, if you'd like to look them up.

01:05:01

Now, in regards to the Arch of the Covenant, which again is the one that's being presented to us here, I have not heard any substantiation of the claim that Caratumene in Luke 128 means

01:05:11

Mary is sinless, but again I want you to use this as an example of how closely you have to listen because it sounds really good because when you hear these alleged parallels, doesn't it?

01:05:21

The first time I heard Jared give this list of parallels, I went, wow, that sounds really good. I wrote down everything he said and I checked out everything he said against the

01:05:29

Septuagint. And it didn't work. As I pointed out, Mr. Matzik says, for example, talked about the

01:05:35

Arch of the Covenant passing through the hill country of Judea and allegedly Mary does the same thing though actually look at the geography we're not sure exactly where that is.

01:05:44

1 Samuel 7 .2 says that the Arch had been in Kyriath -Jerim for 20 years. Where does that parallel to Mary? See, when you start drawing parallels, where do you stop?

01:05:52

See, there are no rules to this type of interpretation. Mary must have been someplace for 20 years in Kyriath -Jerim.

01:05:59

If not, why not? As to passing through the hill country of Judea, this is Luke's phrase theology. It's not that of Septuagint.

01:06:05

No mitten of mention is made of Judea. Only of a hill upon which a house is situated in the Old Testament narrative. We're told that David left before her with joy.

01:06:12

He says, who am I? The Arch of the Lord shall come to me. Those are Jerry's own words, but actually Jerry didn't say that.

01:06:18

He said, who am I? How can the Arch of the Lord come to me? We're told that when he leaps for joy, this is a technical term, the same thing happens with the baby in the womb, a liturgical dance before the presence of God.

01:06:28

That doesn't hold up. It's not the same term. It doesn't have that meaning. Simple fact of the matter is you have to go and do some homework.

01:06:35

I can't do it for you. He can't do it for you. And I appreciate the fact that this room is filled with people who at least care enough to find out what the issues are.

01:06:42

But I believe that every one of us sitting here this evening is responsible for God and what we believe. And that means you're going to have to do some homework.

01:06:50

And I submit to you that if you do some homework and examine these alleged parallels, these alleged types, you'll discover that they can prove anything.

01:06:58

I submit to you yet once again, when Luke wrote Luke 1, 28, when Mary uttered the words of the

01:07:05

Magnificat and talked about God, my Savior, did she have in her mind the idea that she was immaculately conceived?

01:07:13

Is that what you really believe is going on here? It is not an issue of having to find a word that says

01:07:18

Mary sinned. I think we can all see that. The Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

01:07:24

The positive affirmation being made is Mary's the exception. Where is the proof? We haven't found it.

01:07:32

Okay. Now we'll have Mr. White opening on the subject of perpetual virginity.

01:07:45

I begin by allowing my opponent to speak from the past. In a seminar on the Marian doctrines in 1992, he asserted the present tense force of Mary's words to the angel.

01:07:54

How can this be since I am a virgin, Luke 1, 34, meaning, quote, this is my vocation.

01:08:00

That's why I'm called to be. She had taken a vow of virginity. Tradition tells us, although the Bible doesn't show it clearly enough, she had taken a vow of virginity in her youth to dedicate herself to God.

01:08:10

She was giving something up, you see. She loved God so much she was happy just being his spouse. And so what the angel is, how can

01:08:16

I be the mother of the Messiah when I am under a vow not to be the mother of anyone? I am a virgin.

01:08:22

That is my consecrated state in life. The question makes no sense in any other way, end quote. Now such an assertion, as Ludwig Ott rightly points out, cannot be reconciled with the fact that Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

01:08:35

Verse 27 of Luke chapter 1 describes Mary as, quote, a virgin engaged to a man whose name was

01:08:40

Joseph, end quote. Betrothal was more than mere engagement. It required a writ of divorce to end, and if one or two parties was unfaithful during the betrothal, it amounted to adultery.

01:08:50

Verse 19 even uses the specific language of Joseph, her husband, during the betrothal period.

01:08:56

Luke 1 20 records the angel saying to Joseph that he should not fear to take Mary as his wife.

01:09:02

Again, the Roman position requires taking all these terms in an unnatural way. That is, to take a woman as wife carries with it all the natural and proper things, including the natural marital relationship.

01:09:14

Joseph is told not to fear taking Mary as his wife. The term means just that, wife.

01:09:20

This is no mere protectorate, no celibate relationship between an old man and a young maiden. Such assumptions have no basis in the text at all, but in fact derive not from Christian sources, but from second century

01:09:32

Gnostic Gospels. Regarding Mary's specific words, I do not know a man, the literal rendering of this is a common idiomatic expression to mean

01:09:40

I do not have a husband. It indicated that Mary had no means of conceiving and was not engaging in sexual relations with Joseph or anyone else.

01:09:47

There is nothing in the language or context to even begin to substantiate Mary's claims regarding this phrase.

01:09:53

Now, if you have your Bible, please turn to Matthew 1 24 -25 where we read

01:09:59

And Joseph awoke from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son, and he called his name

01:10:09

Jesus. Note a few things about this passage. First, Joseph took Mary as his wife. He had been contemplating putting her away secretly, but upon learning that the angel of the child had been begotten by the

01:10:19

Holy Spirit, his doubts and fears were relieved, and he does what the control involved, taking this woman as his wife.

01:10:25

But secondly, notice the plain obvious meaning of the words of the passage. If you could only for a moment set aside any traditions, preconceived ideas, or devotions that you might have, and simply listen to the word of God.

01:10:37

Matthew tells us that Joseph took Mary as his wife. However, he kept her a virgin.

01:10:42

Literally, he did not know her until the birth of Jesus because she was already with child.

01:10:47

But don't stop there. Matthew tells us that the normal course of the marriage was interrupted, but only for a season and only for a reason.

01:10:57

Matthew says that Joseph did not know her until the child of Jesus was born. Now, my opponent joins other

01:11:03

Roman Catholic apologists in pointing out that the bare term, until, does not tell us anything about what happened after the birth of Christ.

01:11:10

They often make appeal to passage like 2 Samuel 6 .23, where we are told that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death.

01:11:18

In the Greek translation of this passage, that of the Septuagint, the term hekos is used. The argument is that obviously

01:11:24

Michal didn't have children after she died either. There are many problems with this argument. First, it's a poor passage to cite, since dead people normally don't have children in the first place.

01:11:33

But most importantly, Mr. Matitix, Mr. Carl Keating, who likewise uses this argument, and many other apologists have missed an important point.

01:11:40

Matthew does not merely use the term hekos in Matthew 1 .21. He uses a phrase, hekos ku.

01:11:48

Now, what does that mean to us tonight? It means a lot. First, remember the context. Matthew has explained that a real marriage takes place, but that the normal sexual union is put off for a season, and that for a reason.

01:11:59

But he makes sure we realize that Mary and Joseph had a normal family relationship by saying that this lack of sexual union was only until the birth of Christ.

01:12:09

Next, an examination of the use of the phrase hekos ku in the New Testament reveals that in each instance, word is used in the way it is used here.

01:12:18

That is, when it refers to a point in time at which an action is completed, rather than the other use where it is simply translated while, it refers to a point in time at which the action of the main verb of the clause either comes to an end, is changed to some other kind of action, or is actually reversed.

01:12:34

Let me illustrate. In Matthew 17 .9 it would be a quote. As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,

01:12:40

Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead. Obviously here, the command not to tell anyone of the vision they had seen was valid only up to the point when the

01:12:50

Son of Man rose from the dead. Then the apostles were free to tell everyone what they had seen on the mountain. There are many other examples, but I only have time to give you one more.

01:12:58

In Luke 24 .49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of my Father upon you, but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.

01:13:07

Here again we see the phrase translated until refers to a point in time at which things change. In this case, the disciples are to stay in the city until the coming of the

01:13:16

Holy Spirit, at which time they will then obviously leave the city to begin the evangelization of the world. Now coming back to Matthew 1 .25,

01:13:23

I would like to challenge my form this evening to show us any use of the phrase, Hechos Hu in the

01:13:28

Gospel of Matthew, or I'll be generous, the entire New Testament that gives us the bare meaning of until, without making a statement about what comes after this point in time.

01:13:38

Mr. Matotix is asserting that this passage does not indicate that Joseph and Mary lived as husband and wife.

01:13:45

He is making the positive assertion and asking us to abandon the natural contextual meaning of the passage.

01:13:50

Let him bear the burden of proof. Let him show us that Hechos Hu does not carry its normal meaning here.

01:13:58

Now to add to the way the passage is already cited, we know the rather obvious fact is that the Gospel writers had no problems in mentioning frequently the results of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, that is, their offspring.

01:14:08

James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are all identified as the Adolfoi, or Jesus, that is, his brothers. They are often associated with Mary in the normal family relationship of mother, brothers, and even in a few places, sisters are mentioned.

01:14:20

Now, Mr. Matotix has said regarding his quote, the word brother here in the Greek, Adolfos, or the word sister,

01:14:26

Adolphe, is a feminine form. It simply means a near relation, a kinsman or kinswoman. It does not necessarily mean a uterine sibling, someone from the same womb, end quote.

01:14:36

He's right, to a point. There are uses of brother, but metaphorical as when someone is called a brother in the

01:14:42

Lord. In the Septuagint, we find some uses of the term to refer to someone who is not a uterine sibling.

01:14:47

However, the normal, regular meaning of the word Adolfos and the feminine Adolphe means, quite simply, brother as in male sibling and sister as in female sibling.

01:14:58

One must have strong contextual reasons for abandoning the basic fundamental meaning of the term, and no such contextual basis exists outside of the extra -biblical claims to authority of the

01:15:08

Church of Rome, speaking in many cases a thousand years or more after the events recorded in Scripture. Now, there were terms available to the

01:15:16

Gospel writers to describe cousins or kinsfolk or whatever other theory we might hear this evening. In Colossians 4 .10,

01:15:22

we see the term for cousin used. In other places, the term for kinsman is found. Why did the Gospel writers use these terms?

01:15:28

The reason is simple. They were not talking about cousins or kinsfolk. They were talking about the children of Mary and Joseph.

01:15:34

Let me quickly address one other argument that is often brought forward. In John chapter 19, he had to cross the Lord Jesus and trust

01:15:39

Mary, his mother, to the beloved disciple John. Some have asserted that Jesus would actually be breaking the Mosaic Law to do this if, in fact, he had brothers.

01:15:47

Of course, this ignores the euclidic problems. His brothers were unbelievers. In fact, they had mocked him in John chapter 7.

01:15:52

But more obviously, they were not at the cross. John was. John, the beloved disciple and a believing follower of Jesus, would be far closer to Mary as a fellow believer than her natural children ever could be unless they, like her, came to believe in the

01:16:05

Messiah. Now, in closing, I have to ask, when did this doctrine arise? Did it originate in the believing community?

01:16:12

Did it originate in the exegesis of the scriptures? Historically, the answer is no. Noted church historian

01:16:17

J .M .E. Kelly indicates that the earliest affirmation we have that the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the apocryphal, and I dare point out heretical, ascension of Isaiah, with the words her womb was found as it was before she became pregnant.

01:16:31

Likewise, the oaths of Solomon tinged with Gnosticism denies any physical pain in the birth of Jesus. But most importantly, we have the

01:16:38

Quoting Evangelium of James, a mishmash of almost laughable mythology and storytelling, a work of second -rate fiction at best if you've ever read it.

01:16:46

Yet the ideas it presented, drawn from a century after the events, ended up forming the very basis of the position being presented this evening regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, and many other elements of the

01:16:58

Marian doctrines. I invite all of you to read the work for yourself as it is generally available. Rome insists that perpetual virginity is a truth of revelation.

01:17:07

I say that the tradition of men, without biblical support, contrary to plain biblical teaching, based upon improper viewpoints of dignity of childbearing, derived from Gnostic writings of the second century, nurtured on the historical rise of monasticism and celibacy.

01:17:21

As such, the Christian who proves all things must likewise test this doctrine and find a one.

01:17:28

Thank you. Here, Mr.

01:17:35

White, as Protestant and political general, are actually at their weakest. On these four doctrines,

01:17:41

I think it's easiest to prove that they lose the ability or the right to qualify themselves as simply sticking to what

01:17:49

Sacred Scripture has to say. I want to make three simple points. Number one, there is no scriptural statement whatsoever that Mary had any other children or anything that would require you to believe that.

01:18:00

Secondly, there is scriptural evidence for her professional virginity. And thirdly, most

01:18:05

Protestants are shocked to discover that the original Protestant reformers before anti -Democratism continued to sort of grow and grow and fester agree that their biblical evidence required you to believe in the professional virginity of Mary.

01:18:20

Let me make those three points. First of all, there is nothing in Sacred Scripture contrary to the teaching of the professional virginity in Mary.

01:18:29

Mr. White made a very able attempt by citing Matthew chapter 1, verse 25.

01:18:35

He said that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she gave birth to the

01:18:40

Son and that the context requires us to interpret until this meaning. After that, they did have relations.

01:18:48

Now, here's a classic example of what's known in logic as ipse dixit. It's a logical fallacy, meaning that I tell you what the normal regular rendering or interpretation of the phrase is, and it's up to my opponent to show me otherwise.

01:19:03

My contention and the contention, I think, of any objective grammatical lexicon is that the preposition until in and of itself doesn't tell you anything one way or the other.

01:19:14

It might mean that things changed after that point. It might mean that they continued in the same way.

01:19:20

And although Mr. White gave you several examples where until means that there was a change.

01:19:26

For example, tell no man the vision until after I have risen from the dead. Or stay in Jerusalem until you receive the

01:19:32

Holy Spirit. He has no authority in and of himself to say, I, James White, decree that this is the normal meaning.

01:19:39

And any time it means something different, that's abnormal, folks. The lexicon itself would not tell you that.

01:19:46

I could give you all sorts of instances where it continues to mean the same thing after the point that it's reached.

01:19:53

For example, when Noah sets loose the dove in Genesis chapter 8 verse 4, and we read that the dove hovered over until the waters were abated, it does not mean that the dove at that point ceased to hover and came back to the ark.

01:20:11

Or when we read in Luke, he said, I want an example from the New Testament. When we read in Luke that in chapter 1 verse 80 that John the baptizer lived in the desert until he began his public ministry.

01:20:27

It does not mean that he at that point became a city dweller. He continued to live in the desert. He continued to preach in the desert.

01:20:32

That's exactly where he carried out his vocation. So both of us can give you instances where the word until means it's true up until point

01:20:40

A and it ceases to be true. And on the other hand, situations where it's true up until point

01:20:46

A and then it continues to be true. So if there's no way of resolving this issue, simply from the meaning of the

01:20:52

Greek partition heos or the Hebrew partition ad before. And he mentioned already, one that I was going to mention, the statement in 2

01:21:00

Samuel 6 23 that Michal had no children until the day of her death. This is not because she started having children after that particular point.

01:21:08

The absurdity of her having children at that point is not the point. The point is that until tells you in and of itself nothing.

01:21:15

Now, Mr. White leaned very hard on the fact that the context requires you to believe that he began to have relations afterwards because he took her as his wife.

01:21:27

One of the glaring defects, with all the respect to the Protestants who espouse it, to the

01:21:33

Protestant position on this, is that there is this preconception, this assumption, that sexual relations are somehow essential to wifehood, that Mary really wouldn't be

01:21:45

Joseph's wife if they didn't have sexual relations. And I think a little deeper reflection upon that could realize how horrendous the consequence of that kind of thinking could be.

01:21:55

Mr. White, if I, on my way home after this debate, and after the conference

01:22:01

I had to go to in Portland, Oregon, found myself hopelessly crippled by some accident, or my wife were, for that matter, and we could no longer have normal sexual relations,

01:22:12

I would not think that she was any less my wife, and I would not be any less her husband. We do not bow down before sexual relations as the be -all and the end -all or an essential component of marriage.

01:22:24

One can be truly married without enjoying sexual relations. Granted, it's unusual, but that's precisely our point.

01:22:31

We're not saying that this is some standard thing that's found in all marriages. Obviously the Catholic midst that we're making a special and unique claim with regard to our

01:22:41

Blessed Mother. So Matthew 1 .25 cannot be used as a proof text, nor can other proof texts that Mr.

01:22:47

White did not get to, such as Luke 2 .7, where we read that Mary brought forth her firstborn son.

01:22:53

Some argue rather superficially from that, oh, she must have had others if she was the firstborn. And it's rather easy to dismiss that by pointing out that in Exodus 13 we're given a ceremony for the consecration of the firstborn that takes place the moment you have that child.

01:23:07

You don't have to say as you begin the prayers to consecrate the firstborn to God, wait a minute, honey, we can't do this until we have a second child.

01:23:14

Then we'll know this is the firstborn. One is a firstborn child. That is the one that makes one a parent, whether there are any subsequent children or not.

01:23:23

And there are firstborn children who are only children. Scripturally speaking, it is not necessary that there be subsequent siblings to qualify as the firstborn.

01:23:35

The third and the most important argument that Protestants use is the reference to brothers.

01:23:41

And again, Mr. White gave us several examples of St. Dixon saying, I say to you that the normal, regular meaning is that it comes from the same uterus, from the same womb.

01:23:52

And yet there is no basis for that grammatically or lexically. The word is used in the narrowest sense and in the widest sense throughout

01:24:00

Scripture. Genesis chapter 13, verse 7, Abraham says to Lot, we shouldn't be arguing for we are brothers.

01:24:07

And yet we know from the context, from the passage, that Abraham is Lot's uncle and Lot is his nephew.

01:24:13

The same thing is said in Genesis 14, 14. And there are other brethren in Scripture not used metaphorically, as Mr.

01:24:19

White said, but used in a physical sense to mean a close kinsman, but not necessarily a child from the same mother.

01:24:27

It can mean that, of course it can. No one's denying that. But it doesn't have to mean that.

01:24:33

Now, if we do a little bit more careful look at these brothers and sisters of Jesus that are mentioned in Mark chapter 6 and Matthew 13, we find some interesting indicators that they could not be the children of Mary.

01:24:46

First of all, they are never referred to as the children of Mary. It's odd to me, again, that a Protestant who says look,

01:24:53

I just stand on Scripture, I only believe what Scripture teaches, accuses Mary of having other children when in fact it never makes that statement.

01:25:01

It never calls these brothers of Jesus the children of Mary. It names them James and Joseph and Simon and Jude.

01:25:09

But if you take the statement of the reference to these brothers in Matthew 13 and just go a little bit further, or I should say towards the end of the

01:25:16

Gospel in Matthew 27 and compare that with what St. John wrote in John 19, you find out that a different Mary, Mary the mother,

01:25:25

Mary the wife of Cleopas, is the one who is spoken of as the mother of James and Joseph.

01:25:34

So the Bible itself shows you that these brothers of Jesus are children of a different woman.

01:25:41

There is a James who is referred to as the brother of our Lord in Scripture. And we know from Josephus, the writer of the

01:25:47

Jewish War in the first century, that this James, who subsequently becomes a leader in the Church, was stoned by the

01:25:54

Jews in the 60s during their revolt against Rome prior to 70 AD. And we are told that he was 89 when he was put to death.

01:26:02

Now you can pull your calculators out or simply do the math yourself. He was a man who was called a brother of Jesus.

01:26:09

And yet he could not have been a child of Mary because Mary wasn't even born yet, let alone able to give birth to him at the time that he was born.

01:26:18

He died in 1889 in the 60s AD. So we have ample evidence from Scripture and from early

01:26:26

Church history and eyewitness accounts that people could be referred to as the brother of someone without having the same mother as them.

01:26:34

So the brother argument doesn't work. Now, my second point is that there are indications which

01:26:41

Mr. White himself alluded to when Our Lady says how can this be since I am a virgin?

01:26:49

She couldn't have been asking how can I become a mother by ceasing to be a virgin? Every woman knows how that happens. Her reflection was how can

01:26:55

I become a mother while remaining a virgin? She was called the wife of virginity. In Ezekiel 44 in a type of the eschatological temple, a temple indicating the body of the

01:27:08

Church, our individual bodies as temples, and the body that gave birth to our Messiah, speaks in Ezekiel 44 verse 2 as having a special gate that remains shut.

01:27:19

The Messiah mysteriously comes through it and yet no one enters and no one else exits. It's interesting, thirdly and finally, that Luther, Smingley, Calvin, all of them say that Mary was a virgin before the conception of birth and remained a virgin after birth and after this.

01:27:34

I recognize Mary as ever a virgin of holy sin he says, and Calvin says no one should cause dispute over this matter unless he goes beyond what is written.

01:27:44

On the contrary, there never was a man who would find rediculous inoptency unless he were a pig -headed and fatuous person.

01:27:51

I know that Mr. White is not such a person so I would encourage him to listen to his mentor Calvin and say Calvin married a

01:27:58

Lutheran scholar like Luther and Smingley. If they were satisfied that Calvin was right, you should be too.

01:28:06

Okay, now Mr. White will cross examine. Mr. Matrix, I quote from Calvin's game.

01:28:11

Is that an accurate quote? I'm sorry? I'm quoting his game from Calvin. You had said that the reformers believe this is a biblical position.

01:28:19

Isn't it true that what Calvin actually said was that the passage wasn't clear on the matter and it wasn't something articulate? Well, I'll read you the quote eventually.

01:28:28

Concerning what has happened since this birth, the writing of the gospel says nothing. Since the birth, he says, the gospel of Matthew says nothing.

01:28:35

Certainly it is a matter about which no one will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious. On the contrary, there never was.

01:28:41

That was the point I wanted to bring out. He was saying no one's going to bring up a dispute about this. He didn't really cite one or the other, did he?

01:28:48

No, he did. He goes on to say in his sermon on Matthew, quote, there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage,

01:28:55

Matthew 1 .25, what you just did, that the Virgin Mary had her children of the children of the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later.

01:29:02

Jerry, Jerry, my point was that when you read it very clearly at the end, you made it sound like you were saying that anyone who would say otherwise was a pig, and what you were saying was anyone who brings up disputes.

01:29:11

That's all I wanted to clear up. Jerry, Jerry, you a couple of times brought up a number of passages.

01:29:18

You brought up Genesis 8 .4, and the meaning of until, right? You brought up Luke 1 .80

01:29:24

when John the Baptist and the city dwelt, right? Do any of those passages have a host who? First of all, it is only your, it's a dixit that says you have to have a host who.

01:29:36

Do any of them use host who? Without a, without a, if you could give me a requirement on behalf of the Institute. I have it on my computer, but actually

01:29:42

I have a listing here of the 26 hosts. They use host, yes. They use host, they do not use host who. And I know it's irrelevant.

01:29:49

Jerry, if you say it's irrelevant, can you show me one place in the Testament, just one here, I'm only looking for one, where host who or host hot to is used in the way that you're using, just one.

01:29:59

There may be, I don't know, because I was not expecting your rather idiosyncratic insistence.

01:30:05

Well, my point is, the preposition is host. The preposition is host, but as you know, there are phrases in Greek.

01:30:11

Akrivu? Would you separate akrivu and who? You know that akrivu has a meaning by itself. So there's host who and host hot to.

01:30:18

All I'm asking is, have you ever looked at, have you ever thrown this at the Septuagint, at the New Testament, at the secular writings of the, have you ever looked at it?

01:30:29

I've looked at it, and I would contest your contention that host who and the who is somehow intrinsically the meaning of the phrase.

01:30:36

Well, I would simply, I have a list here of 22 places in the New Testament for those of you who'd be glad to provide them to you, and you will not find a single place that will substantiate this position.

01:30:44

I'm just simply asking you, if you have looked at it, provide us with a place. That's not my position.

01:30:49

Okay. My position is not that host who can be used in either sentence.

01:30:56

And you have looked at them, and you can show me a place that's the case. I'm saying you're selecting a body of verses that bear out of your position.

01:31:03

I'm simply using the phrase that Matthew uses, himself, and pointing out that this is the consistent meaning of the text throughout the

01:31:09

New Testament. That's all I'm pointing out, Terry. Now, you then talk about Ipsodixon, and you said that,

01:31:15

I'm just simply saying the lexicon of the New Testament is the lexicon of the New Testament. Are you saying that when I have said the normal lexical meaning of Adelphos, his brother, that that would not be borne out by looking at the

01:31:26

Bower of Abrishonder, the Greek lexicon of the New Testament or the Christian literature? Lo and Edas, lexical lexion based upon semantic domains.

01:31:34

Thayer's, based upon Brim. Are you telling me that you can pull those out and demonstrate that I'm misrepresenting them?

01:31:40

What I'm saying is that if you look at those lexicons, they will give you several meanings for the words. They will. And it doesn't say that the other meanings, like the near kinsmen, is somehow abnormal.

01:31:50

Now, Mr. Maddox, are we disagreeing that there is a normal meaning to a term, that there are extended meanings based upon context?

01:31:57

I'm saying there can, in many instances, in many words, be several normal meanings. And no, it is not, unless you are going to quote one of those lexicons as saying this is the normal meaning and everything else is abnormal.

01:32:08

I'd be happy to hear that. If you're making a positive assertion that are you making the positive assertion that the term

01:32:17

Adelphos used of Jesus' brothers specifically does not mean deuterant siblings.

01:32:22

You're making a positive assertion that it is not possible that one meaning is right there. Is that correct? No, I'm making the assertion that Adelphos, in and of itself, doesn't give you the right to say these were children of Mary.

01:32:33

So it's possible that they were children of Mary then? Is that what you're saying? The word itself doesn't determine it.

01:32:38

I know that it's not possible that they were children of Mary from the other indications that I referred to.

01:32:43

So you recognize that that can't have that meaning because of the teaching of their own Catholic church, ultimately. I'm saying that, as you have said, every term must be interpreted by its context.

01:32:54

And you find something in the context of the... If someone came to the back door right now and said, Jerry, your mother and brother are outside wanting to talk to you, the first thought across your mind would be, that's actually my mother and my cousins.

01:33:09

So the normal meaning of the word that says your mother and your brother are staying outside wanting to talk to you would be your mother and your brother.

01:33:15

And when the people in John 6 say, do we not know his mother and his brothers and his sisters? Are they not here with us? Isn't the normal meaning of those words brothers and sisters?

01:33:23

That's one of the normal meanings, but not the only one. The Bible itself shows the word being used in a different way.

01:33:29

How about the word wife? Can you show me other references in the New Testament where the word wife means someone who is merely under a protectorate to an elderly man?

01:33:39

Mr. White, you're choking at windmills. The Catholic church admits that Mary was called to a special location.

01:33:47

You are out of your desert center. And I'm just asking you, you're making a positive assertion and I keep asking you to bear the burden of the positive assertion.

01:33:55

You're asking me to show other situations similar to Mary's. And I'm saying, of course there's not.

01:34:01

So there's no other references in the New Testament to that type of marriage and in fact, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, do you not find a special marriage that would be contrary to Revelation?

01:34:09

No, you do not. If there were situations in which sexual relations were not possible, one would still have a boundless state.

01:34:20

I don't have a problem with that, but of course that begs the issue in regards to marriage because it assumes something that is not, it assumes facts that are not in evidence.

01:34:32

Now, I've got to start my time. Are we on? If you'd like to just go on, that's fine.

01:34:48

Mr. White, you engage in another law called poisoning the well when you said isn't it the case that this doctrine of the infatuation of Mary actually comes to us from the oaths of Solomon and apocryphal gospels and Gnostic -tainted things.

01:35:04

Mr. White, is there any evidence other than, again, you would say Dixit, that this doctrine actually comes from those gospels?

01:35:12

I mean, does anybody assert that in the early church? Is there anybody who says, where do we get this idea if we got it from reading these books?

01:35:19

No, we just simply examine the historical references and discover that the first references to this doctrine were found anywhere.

01:35:25

I will take that back. Yes, there is. Clement of Alexandria or Origen, I will admit, wanted to specifically make reference

01:35:33

I think it's Clement, to the Proto -Evangelion of James as his basis for making that assertion.

01:35:38

So yes, there was the influence of these works. They are the earliest extant references we have in any type of ancient sources to these concepts and, interestingly enough, they also end up leading into bodily assumption concepts as well.

01:35:53

But don't you agree that there are many early church fathers who argued with the Proto -Evangelion of Mary like Jerome, who became famous for it in his disputes with Philobidius in which he does not use these works at all.

01:36:05

The fact that some... Let me ask you a question. I think that was a question because you've got to realize as all scholars of history recognize, the

01:36:14

Marian doctrines began to develop into full flower in the middle of the 4th century and, of course,

01:36:19

Jerome, and especially Ambrose, are excellent examples of this. But I hope that the listeners are not understanding us to mean that every church father even addressed these things.

01:36:29

As you well know, most of them didn't address any parts of it at all. And hence, to simply use terms like early fathers in a broad sense, we sometimes might mislead someone.

01:36:38

But your question is that Jerome specifically cited the Proto -Evangelion of James? No. He's writing 200 years after it was written.

01:36:44

But I am saying that some of the early fathers who began to introduce these things didn't specifically cite them, and that the earliest reference we have is not from Christian sources.

01:36:54

But the fact that someone can argue for it without citing those proves, does it not, whether you think the doctrine is right or wrong, that one could hold to that doctrine and argue for that doctrine without being dependent upon a gospel that you and I would both agree was remarkable.

01:37:08

So it's developed. But Mr. Maddox, there are probably 100 people in this room who believe that doctrine who had never heard of the

01:37:14

Odes of Solomon before they walked into this room. So obviously that is a given. The historian wants to ask the question, for whence did these doctrines arise?

01:37:22

For whence did they arise? But St. Jerome is not in class with you or I, let alone other people in the room.

01:37:30

And so to argue that St. Jerome is somehow evidently ignorant of the reference or the existence of these works is not right.

01:37:35

Jerry, I've argued for Jerome's correctness on a number of issues against you in the past. So no, I look at the fathers and I recognize that they can be right on certain things and wrong on others, just like we can.

01:37:45

If that's the case, then the fact that you can quote a church father against the Petrification or against the Immaculate Conception in and of itself doesn't prove anything, does it?

01:37:52

It only proves there is no such thing as the unanimous consent of the fathers on these issues. That's true. Right.

01:37:58

And that is not something that the Catholic Church teaches, that every single father was absolutely unanimous on every single issue.

01:38:04

Well, of course, Vatican I did use the term unanimous consent of the fathers on a different issue, but not on this particular issue.

01:38:10

It said that when something was unanimous, then we could know that that was from the Apostles. Okay. It didn't restrict absolutely anything.

01:38:18

Well, that was, I said it was in reference to Matthew 16 and the church mission. Mr. White, are you willing to admit that there is no statement in Scripture in the

01:38:27

New Testament that Mary had other children? Use of the term children?

01:38:32

No. Or that she gave birth? Or that she had any kind of maternal, she's ever referred to as the mother of these individuals?

01:38:42

Well, actually, when you say gave birth, I think you need to recognize that that term is used.

01:38:47

In fact, a number of the early fathers, they referenced the fact that the language used of Mary giving birth to Jesus is the normal use of a woman giving birth.

01:38:55

There may be a lot of people in the audience that have no idea, Jerry, that what you're defending is the perpetual virginity of Mary before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth.

01:39:07

That is, that even after giving birth to Jesus, she remains a virgin. Not just in the sense of not having adulation to man, but that she physically remains intact.

01:39:15

Is that not the position you're defending? It is, but your side -setting my question. No, there is one statement that she brought forth to someone else.

01:39:22

There is only the reference to brothers and sisters. Is there a reference to her being the mother of these other children? No. Well, outside of your mother and your brothers, in the natural use of that term.

01:39:31

No. Does it say that she's the mother of these other people? Does it ever say Mary was the mother?

01:39:36

Only in reference to Jesus. So again, you are out on a limb somewhat in stating that Mary is the mother of these people.

01:39:45

She gave birth to them. That they emerged from her womb when there's no scriptural evidence of that whatsoever.

01:39:51

Not at all. Thank you. Okay, Mr. White, closing? I don't think that I'm out on a limb at all when you have the clear statements of Scripture referring to the brothers and sisters of the

01:40:09

Lord Jesus in the normal term. Aren't we willing to understand that the crowds in John chapter 6 talk about, who is this guy?

01:40:17

We know his brothers and his sisters. What they meant was his cousins or his kinsfolk.

01:40:23

No, they understood exactly what they were talking about. This issue again did not become a part of the doctrine of the early church until other contexts entered it, including celibacy, the ascetic movement, and I would say a very unbiblical view of marriage.

01:40:42

The idea was that the womb that gave birth to Jesus Christ, it would be improper, it would be unfitting for that womb to have given birth to anyone else.

01:40:52

A lot of people say, hey, that's the best argument there is, really. In fact, a lot of Roman Catholics will agree that these doctrines don't come primarily from scripture, they come from tradition.

01:41:01

They come from the teaching magisterium of the church. The problem is I don't agree with that type of argumentation in regards to childbearing.

01:41:09

The marriage of men is undefiled according to the book of Hebrews. There is nothing sinful about having children. I would still like to suggest to you that there is nothing in New Testament that even begins to suggest that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

01:41:24

Listen to all the arguments that have been put forward. Did you notice Ezekiel? The argument about the temple and there is this gate that is not open.

01:41:32

Ezekiel 44, 1 -3. And the prince comes through this gate. I want you to just ask yourself a question.

01:41:38

When it comes to biblical argumentation, when it comes to something having weight, what has more weight?

01:41:45

The identification of Mary as the temple in Ezekiel 44 and hence a gate not being open means that Mary remains virgin throughout her life.

01:41:56

Or the plain statement of scripture that Joseph took Mary as his wife until the birth of Jesus.

01:42:03

That the phrase, despite its grammatical denials, never has any other meaning than that in the

01:42:09

New Testament as it is used. And that the New Testament speaks over and over again of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

01:42:17

Now which is more of a direct argument, my friends? Which is more of a biblical argument?

01:42:24

And which one requires you to have some external source of authority? Some source of authority outside of the

01:42:30

Bible that is telling you, you must find this doctrine in scripture. Therefore when you look at the term Adolphos, the main meaning of the

01:42:37

New Testament may be brother, but we have to go with this other meaning. That meaning can't be right. Why?

01:42:42

Because Mr. Matrix has omitted his ultimate authority. It is not solo scriptural.

01:42:48

It is scripture and tradition. It's what the church has taught. And therefore the very meanings of words have to be subsumed under that ultimate authority.

01:42:56

Keep that in mind. Thank you. Mr. White, just for the record and Catholics, please listen carefully.

01:43:07

My ultimate authority is Jesus Christ, truly God, and truly man. Everything that he taught, which we are told in scripture, was not written down.

01:43:17

Everything that he taught himself personally and through the apostles, who added to the things that he taught as he predicted they would when he said the

01:43:25

Holy Spirit will come and guide me to all the truth. Everything Christ and the apostles taught is true, whether it was written down or not.

01:43:32

That is the biblical view. St. Paul says, holds fast to all the traditions he received from us, whether they were written or oral.

01:43:40

2 Thessalonians 2 .15. My only authority is the word of God. And I will not let Mr. White argue in a circle that the word of God is scripture alone.

01:43:49

We've argued that in the past and I've attempted to show him the biblical evidence against that. Now, Mr.

01:43:55

White, again, insists on taking these sort of presumptive essays of the apostles and saying, are we really to understand?

01:44:03

Well, again, it begs the question. And Mr. White's mind, no, we're not to understand these verses this way.

01:44:09

But there are others who read the verses and say, of course they can mean this. So, again, to simply put a rhetorical question to the audience doesn't solve the problem,

01:44:17

Mr. White. Secondly, you say there's an unbiblical view of marriage at heart here. I strongly disagree, Mr.

01:44:22

White. The view of marriage in the Catholic Church I believe is the highest and the holiest view possible.

01:44:28

Marriage is a sacrament. It is an insoluble union till death do us part. There is a special blessing pronounced upon those who are open to life.

01:44:39

In fact, it's necessary to be open to life in the marriage bond. And the Catholic Church has gotten no end of flack through the ages for condemning the utter immorality of artificial contraception as Protestants agreed up until 1930.

01:44:52

So to say that the Catholic Church is a real source for the perfect relationship with Mary is this idea that having other children would be sinful is complete canard and a gross caricature of what the

01:45:04

Catholic Church, you have attacked, not the Catholic Church's position, but a misrepresentation of it.

01:45:10

There's nothing sinful about having children. That's not the argument. The Catholic Church encourages having as many children as possible.

01:45:16

I only have seven, but my lord and my wife and I pray that God will give us more. That's not the issue.

01:45:23

The issue is that Jesus is special. Jesus is God. And Mary's body was set apart from all eternity to be that special gate through which the

01:45:32

Messiah would come into the world. And it would be, at that point, anti -climatic for him to give birth to non -divine persons who would be born in original sin.

01:45:43

I would simply sum up by saying, again, there is evidence here that has certainly convinced

01:45:49

Protestants, such as Calvin. He argues in his sermon the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards.

01:45:55

He simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience. Scripture thus speaks thus of naming the firstborn whether or not there was any question of the second.

01:46:03

Calvin himself argues that there is no evidence in Matthew 125 that Mary had other children.

01:46:10

Mr. White disagrees. But my point is simply that Protestants who know the scriptures read the same scriptures the

01:46:16

Catholics read and come to Catholic conclusions, and there's no reason why Mr. White couldn't as well. Okay.