The Marian Doctrines

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

Opening Remarks and Ecumenism as Debate

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. Catholics, Protestants, we see them all here. My name is Austin Roost.

A lot of people were saying to me, who organized this? Well, nobody really organized this. A couple of guys organized this because we wanted to see a great debate. Two Catholics and a Protestant decided that they wanted to see a great debate and this is it.

We want to see a great debate on an important topic, the Mary and Doug 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.

And one of the things that I discovered among some liberal priests is that they were a little worried about the word debate. It kind of scared them. Poor deal. And it reminded me of a story. 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. And we rolled around on the ground, punching and kicking, and we eventually ran out of gas. And then something magical happened. The kind of magical thing that happens all the time in the world of little boys.

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

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. At first they fight before they become friends. Our liberal friends will tell us that ecumenism is something like conflict resolution.

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

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

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

Possibly, the Protestant man gets sold a scripture and goes sideways. It seems to me that this is ecumenism. Liberal churchmen believe that ecumenism means making Catholicism a little bit more like Protestantism, and Protestantism a little bit more like Catholicism, which reminds me of a Japanese man introducing himself on a plane to an American businessman and he says, my miserable religion is Buddhism.

What's yours? This kind of self-emphasement is not ecumenism. We would say, what is the good of a faith that is weakly held? It is only good for the secularizers and the evil one. Those miserable say that ecumenism is not making Catholicism more like Protestantism, it is more like making Catholicism into Protestant and vice versa.

That after bruises, respect, and love, sometimes comes conversion. During the planning of this event, 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 for the first time, I said to him, you know, we're coming for conversions.

And he said, oh good, so are we. 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. Let me briefly thank the few people that made this night possible.

I will be talking about people from the Catholic side because that's the club that I helped organize. Greg Floyd from the National Coalition of Clergy and Lady was 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.

Specifically, I'd like to thank Greg, Saddam Haddad, Doria Frank and Melinda Jensen, Frank and Ginger Cherzen, and others that I don't know about. I welcome all of you here, Protestants and Catholics alike.

We're going to have an enormous amount of fun. Let me introduce you to the man who did most of the work for this evening, my friend from WMCA Radio, Chris Armstrong. Good evening. It is exciting to see so many people who care about what they believe.

And I just thank God that he has ushered you all into this room tonight. Before I say anything further, I have some people to thank who are also very instrumental in making this evening possible, by the grace of God.

Ray Toga of Paradise Limousine. I'd like to thank him. Spirit of the Dove Christian Bookstore in Baldwin who was selling tickets for us. New Colored Christian Bookstore in Farmingdale, another ticket location.

New Life Christian Variety Store in Jamaica, Queens. And Maria Monte Religious Shop in Huntington. And there is a very, very special consideration that we should all be giving to the 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.

They'll be giving out a brochure for their store at the end of the evening. I would like to give thanks to Andy Anderson of the WMCA, who interviewed James White. Ken Grimble and Bruce Clark of WMRS Family Radio, who aired numerous messages and interviews to promote this evening.

Brad Crook of the Christian Lifetimes, who wrote an article on this event. And Vince Sawyer of Faith Baptist Church in Corona, Queens, on his radio program at the WMCA Radio. It was the best of times.

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

In many ways, it's the best of times. Never before in history has a Protestant united with such force to oppose such evil as abortion, pornography, the gay rights movement, and many other things. And that is to be commended.

It's a righteous thing. It's a good thing. It's a necessary thing. But I'm afraid it's also the worst of times. These are times when people not only cannot defend or articulate what they believe, whether they're a Catholic or Protestant, but these are times when people don't care, which is much worse.

I was a bit shocked by some of the reaction I got from people, both 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, and I give praise, honor, and glory to God for that.

We've got to stop being what we are just because we were born that way. Many people may be born into an Irish Catholic family, or a white Anglo-Saxon 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.

That's dangerous for anyone. No one should be put believing in the thing that cradles in its hands their eternal destiny just because of what country their ancestors were born in. 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, I just want to read you a quick note. This is a very quick note that says, Dear Mr. Arnton, I think you and your moronic ways of cooking this Catholic Protestant debate scheme should be ashamed of yourself more than that in prison.

To put it bluntly, you sicken me. No, that's not enough. You provoke 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 evil.

With torches in hand, we good beasts and wholesome citizens should chase you prehistoric deformities with the rest of the 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.

P .S. Don't forget to stop at the dairy barn on the way home, grab milk and bread, love your wife beautifully. I would just like to close this whole debate 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.

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. We must remember one very important thing.

That is not the gospel. It is not the gospel. 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. Run from that person as far as you can run.

Okay, I'd like to introduce to you all the speakers that we've been blessed to have here. First, to my, James White, as the leading Protestant representative engaging Roman Catholic politics in debates across the United States.

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 Utisprant Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, he is director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which is a theologically reformed Christian apologetics organization in Phoenix, Arizona.

He has written eight books, including Answers to Catholic Claims and the Roman Catholic Controversy. So, the critical consultant for the new American Standard Bible, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. James White.

To my left is Roman Catholic apologist, Jerry Matasek, as founder and president of Biblical Foundations International, a Roman Catholic apologetics organization in Front Royal, Virginia, and I believe it may have moved to Scranton, Pennsylvania.

It just recently moved to Scranton, Pennsylvania. Jerry Matasek's work has taken him all over the globe. His conferences have drawn waves of several thousand people. He has publicly debated well-known critics of Catholicism in academic settings, both Catholic, such as Boston College, and Protestant, Denver Seminary, Baptist Bible Seminary of Indianapolis.

In addition to being a frequent guest on radio and television worldwide, including Mother Angelica Live!, he co-hosts a nationwide radio program for a Catholic suite. Mr. Matasek is the very first minister of the Protestant denomination Presbyterian Church in America, ever to disconvert to Roman Catholicism.

Someone's told me that if you really want to settle a dispute, Greg Lloyd and I were trying to think of who should be a moderator. We said, you've got to pick somebody who has complete issues to be qualified.

You can either be Protestant or Catholic, but someone is always going to claim that the moderator is biased, and ruin the whole thing. So I'm not only a follower of Jewish, but he's also a close friend of both myself and Greg Lloyd, who helped coordinate with Austin Bruce, the Roman Catholic Scientist.

Bob Unger is a talk show host who was formerly heard on WMCA radio. He's a conservative political activist. And it's my hope that next year, Bob Unger will no longer be qualified to be the moderator here.

We're going to be bowing for a moment of silent prayer. I just wanted to quickly read a very short portion of James White's book that even Jerry Mattax would agree with. The relationship between Roman Catholics and Protestants is an emotionally charged issue.

Feelings run high on both sides. Therefore, I ask that from the start, we make a commitment to hear out both sides, to think clearly, and to keep God's truth at the forefront. I have done my best to avoid offense, but I know some will be offended nonetheless.

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

Let's bow for a silent moment of prayer. We'll begin, and 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.

Michael Rotolo of the Calgary Press, and Claire Murphy, who has assisted in the work on behalf of this event. If you could please give them a round of applause. Okay, before we start our debate, I just wanted to point out one thing.

The old story is that the bad news and the good news. The bad news is that there is a disagreement. 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, I believe there is, true education with our kids.

I'd like to say a good group of six for that statement. I'm thanking, first of all, Austin Bruce and Greg Lloyd for all their hard work, and Chris Armisen and the people that helped him. I want to thank James White once again for being willing to engage in a debate on these all important issues.

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

I just got done driving a U-Haul back and forth from Virginia, where we were living in front of Royal to Scranton four times in the last week, loading it and unloading it. And I got 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, because after this, I drive back to White Plains, fly out to Portland, Oregon, and speak at a conference there for about three days.

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 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.

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

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. 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, for one simple reason.

The Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded teaches about Mary is quite simply the truth about Mary. 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 God has done for and to the mother of our Savior, Mary.

As she herself said in her inspired song, Praise Magnificat, the Lord has done great things for me, and holy is his name. You're going to see me squinting once in a while. I was actually writing this on the road as I was driving myself to Scranton, so I hope I can read my writing as I was getting here.

And what God has done for Mary, the one and only mother of our Savior, what God has done for Mary, no man, woman, angel, devil, preacher, Protestant, reformer, or anyone can undo. Now I'm going to admit to you up front, whether you're Protestant or Catholic, I'm going to admit to you up front that what the Church teaches about Mary is outrageous.

Absolutely outrageous. And as an Evangelical Protestant for 14 years, I had no prior background in Protestantism or Catholicism until the age of 14 when I responded to an evangelistic call at a 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 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, Mary was the last and the greatest hurdle for me to overcome.

And I understand with great sympathy how difficult it is for a Protestant to sit out there, to sit there, to sit anywhere, and to really try to assimilate what the 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. And I understand that, I appreciate that, and I empathize with that. And I'm going to admit that it's outrageous. 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.

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 know the end of our lives, that she would then be given a special status in heaven.

But these things are no more outrageous than the gospel itself, the gospel of which all these things are part. The incarnation, if you stop and think about it, Protestants and Catholics, 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, and that little babe Bethel there was none other than the creator of the cosmos, that is an outrageous claim.

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

Now, as we proceed this evening, first here at this opening to look at the Evangelical conception and then in the three subsequent segments to look at the other dogmas that we'll be looking at, as we proceed this evening to look at the biblical evidence for these great privileges that God has bestowed upon his mother, 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 Lord, and his apostles taught would be explicitly committed to writing as the only possible way of preserving and propagating the good news.

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. 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.

And yet these, everything that Catholic Church teaches, I want to say this loud and clear, can be supported from Sacred Scripture, and I will do that tonight. I am going to meet Mr. White on his own right.

I'm not going to quote papal encyclicals or church fathers as in any way proving any of the things that Catholics believe. We're going to look to Sacred Scripture. But Sacred Scripture can suggest and can indicate certain things, as even Protestants admit.

So I want you to keep in mind that this is a principle that Protestants themselves operate on the basis of. If I ask Mr. White whether the Scriptures explicitly teach in just those words that God's trinity, he would have to admit, no.

It is an inference that he draws, and rightly so from Sacred Scripture. And I applaud him for drawing that inference. 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. The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, for perpetual fertility, for a bodily assumption that there is going to be fornication. We can apply the same standard.

So there should be a 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 Protestant thinking.

That it's either faith or worship, but it couldn't be both and. Or that it's either we're baptized with water or we're baptized with the Holy Spirit, 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.

Sacred Scripture, his body, the Church, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind that we can avoid an either-or mentality as we go through tonight. 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 Ten Commandments to honor his mother. We know that Jesus was a perfect, sinless human being so that he perfectly honored his mother. He gave her all the honor that any son could ever give his mother.

His perfect humanity required him to do so. 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. 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 he was in the tomb. Now, if you were God and you could preserve your mother from sin, would you do so? Jesus was God, and so he could do these things.

He was also a perfect man and so he would want to. 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 Mary would want to.

In other words, he's either denying Jesus' divinity or his humanity. In other words, he's ultimately, implicitly denying the Incarnation. It's very clear that God predestined our salvation before the foundation of the world.

Jesus Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. It was all foreordained in the mind of God. 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, God the Son, would be born of a woman, to honor her, to bestow special privileges and favors upon her.

And the first of these is what we call the Immaculate Conception. Let me define what it is. The solemn definition, the scientific definition of it, is probably most familiarly known in the decree in Epiphaelus Deus of Pope Pius IX in 1854, 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 Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.

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. But God willed that Mary would be the prototype of the Church.

Nothing is predicated of Mary by the Catholic Church that will not one day be true of the Church as a whole. The Church is this huge feminine entity, the bride of Christ, the spouse of the Lord, that will one day be a St. Paul's, without any spot or wrinkle or blemish.

And God willed that Mary would be a forte, a sustained prelude, a prototype of the Church's destiny. 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.

And it was done by Jesus Christ. He saved her. He saved her from the protracted disease of original sin. So I want to preempt at this point automatically what a Protestant might say. Wait a minute. Mary said in the Magnificat, my soul does magnify the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior.

If she were sinless from the moment of her existence, how would she call God her Savior? Simply because God had made Savior in that way. St. Augustine used the analogy of a man who falls into a tar pit and is pulled out and sits with a person who pulls him out.

Thank you for saving me. And then a woman who might be caught by the same man before she even fell in. Would you say he hadn't saved her unless he had fallen in a wall in the field for a while first? 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.

You would not say that the first doctor with this greater vaccine was less of a Savior than the second. 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 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. Paul in Romans 3, that all that sin, that contradicts this special privilege that God gave. Because, as I'll show, the statement is not intended to be an absolute universal that applies to every single human, whoever walks the face of the earth.

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

So there could, at least in principle, be a second one. In fact, there are several others, because St. Paul, when he says all have sinned, certainly would not include infants dying infancy, but all guilty of original sin.

But that's not what St. Paul is saying. He's saying all have sinned. So everyone must admit that that statement does not literally mean every single human individual ever conceived personally committed sins.

It cannot be used as proof text against. And that's the only proof text used by Protestants against the Immaculate Conception of Mary. On the contrary, there are things in favor of her Immaculate Conception.

The statement in Genesis 3 .15 that God foresees a woman who would be in total opposition to the devil. Every time you and I sin, you do not oppose him, we correspond and cooperate with him. But more beautifully, the type of the Ark of the Covenant, which I won't have time to delve into any further now, since my time is almost up, but I will in my closing statement, or perhaps in the questions and answers that comes after that, or in the cross-examination.

But we know that when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, he said, Hail, full of grace, Gehari Tomeni. 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.

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, to describe the coming of the 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 Ark of the Covenant was in the Old Testament.

Okay, time is up. Thank you. And by the way, just in case, if you've been good so far, there's going to be no applauding, no interrupting, no yelling out there from where you're standing. Thank you, I do appreciate the opportunity of being here, though I'll have to admit, maybe Jerry would know it's the same thing, being disposed to wood and fire.

His own Catholic Protestant dialogue is a little bit uncomfortable, it's the only way we might be able to see the fire. While serving as a chaplain in a major hospital in the Phoenix area, I came across a pamphlet that I have right here, published by the Redemptorists, sitting on a seat in the chapel.

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, 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.

O Mother of perpetual health, thou art the dispenser of all the good which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayst help us in our misery.

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. 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. 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 judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased.

But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain to 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.

Now this prayer embodies all the elements that Protestants reject concerning Roman Catholic veneration of Mary. Note the petitioner prays for deliverance from three things, his sins, the devils, and Jesus.

And the prayer is addressed to Mary, into whose hands the petitioner places his hope of salvation. When I read this prayer to my opponent a few years ago on WECB radio in Boston, his response to me was, 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. We gather this evening to honestly discuss the tremendous gulf that separates Protestants and Catholics on the issue of Marian devotion and teaching.

I ask from the outset that we place our feelings and emotions aside and face the truth without hesitation. 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 Roman Catholic Church, drawing, it is alleged, from scripture and tradition. I submit to you that the Marian doctrines, more than anything else, illustrate to perfection what happens when sola scriptura is rejected and the ultimate authority of scripture is denied.

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.

My friends, it is not an act of love or charity to hide the truth. I will pull no punches with you this evening. If Mr. Matics is right, the Protestants are guilty of rejecting God-ordained authority and of refusing to give due honor to the very 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 Marian doctrines themselves, engaging in nothing less than rank idolatry of the most heinous sin.

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 ramifications. 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 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.

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.

As you listen to the arguments put forward this evening, ask yourself some key questions. Number one, whose arguments are eternally consistent? 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. Number two, who is dealing honestly with the text of scripture tonight? What definitions of words are used? Is the person always or even often using obscure and secondary meanings to the words of the text?

Or is he using the primary meanings and going to other meanings only in order to do so by the context itself? Is the person using meaningful methods of interpretation to take into account the language, the context, and the historical setting?

If a person claims that X is a type of Y, or this person is the antitype of that person, does the text make this connection? Did the New Testament writers give us this idea? Did anyone in the early church see the same type of antitype?

Or are you being given a modern idea that is utterly disconnected from the text itself? And finally, when it is said that tradition says this or tradition says that, 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? Keep these things in mind. It is very important, for my opponent said to the late Dr. Greg Bonson in 1992, I find that my most effective talks about Mary are talks that simply stick to the explicit statements of Scripture.

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. And Jerry just said pretty much the same thing in those statements.

This evening I am asked to go first in two of the four presentations, and this is a little strange since that forces people to define, as well as to rebut, 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.

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. He goes well beyond someone such as Ludwig Bach or John Harden, or I dare say the majority of American Catholic scholars today, in insisting that the Bible actually presents the various doctrines at least as a means of types and shadows, and some of those types and shadows are most interesting.

I have chosen to respond primarily to Mr. Manateeck's position, even when I am given the opportunity of going first. If you don't happen to agree with Mr. Manateeck's, you may need to present your favorite arguments to me in another venue.