Audio only:
In this debate, originally hosted at Pints with Aquinas, Trent Horn engages Protestant apologist Steve Christie on the question of whether the Marian dogmas contradict what is taught in sacred scripture.
Welcome to The Counsel of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Matt:
Here we go. Good day, Steve. Good day, Trent. Nice to have you.
Trent Horn:
Good to be here.
Steve Christie:
Ditto.
Matt:
Okay. Steve, you are going to be beginning with 15 minutes. So whenever you are ready, I’ll click the timer.
Steve Christie:
Some of the ways Trent and I would agree that a dogma contradicts scripture is explicitly, implicitly, or partially. So even if that dogma is defined ex cathedra by a pope, by an ecumenical council, or by the magisterium, if it contradicts scripture, that dogma must be rejected.
Steve Christie:
The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary contradicts scripture in the following ways. While the Greek word adelphos, translated brothers, can have numerous meetings in scripture, the specific Greek word adelphi, translated sisters, only has two. One, one’s natural sister, such as a sister of the same parents or a half sister or, two, a believing sister, such as a Christian sister.
Steve Christie:
It is used this way consistently in the New Testament, as well as in the Septuagint where it is used over a hundred times, such as the Sister Kingdoms of Israel and Judah who worship the same one true God of the Old Testament. It is never used for a female non-sibling relative in either Testament, nor in its Greek. When the New Testament writers wish to convey female non-sibling relatives, such as Elizabeth and Mary, they chose other Greek words, such as [foreign language 00:01:39] or [foreign language 00:01:39] So also, Luke 14:12 and 21:16, where the evangelist uses different Greek words to distinguish relatives from brothers. Therefore when Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters not honoring him, we know this refers to Jesus’ younger half siblings.
Steve Christie:
When Matthew 1:25 writes, “Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to a son,” the specific Greek words [foreign language 00:02:06] when translated until, is used consistently in the New Testament to refer to a change in condition. While the New Testament does use different Greek words translated until to refer to the condition continuing after the event, such as [foreign language 00:02:21] on its own, [foreign language 00:02:25] is never used once this way in the entire New Testament. The NAB, a Catholic translation authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference supports this. “The Greek word translated until does not exclude normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth. If Matthew wished to convey Mary’s virginity was perpetual, there would be no need to add ‘until she gave birth to a son.’ She would’ve simply ended with he kept her a virgin or added throughout her marriage. The Isaiah 7:14 prophecy only indicates that Mary was to remain a virgin during her pregnancy and up to the Messiah’s birth.”
Steve Christie:
The NAB continues, “The evangelist is simply concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus, which is why Matthew stresses the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. When Isaiah prophecy states that the virgin will bear a son, it is not implying her virginal integrity remained intact after his birth, nor that her virginity would extend throughout her entire life, but only to stress that the Messiah’s birth would be supernatural and that Jesus was divine. As a believing Jew and Christian, Mary would not have disobeyed God who commanded married couples to be fruitful and multiply, nor would she have deprived her husband as the apostle Paul wrote, ‘the wife must fulfill her duty to her husband and does not have authority over her own body so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control.’ 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.”
Steve Christie:
Luke 2:7 describes Jesus as the firstborn of Mary, although the Greek word [foreign language 00:04:11] translated firstborn, can indicate firstborn opening the womb and is used this way in the New Testament. Both the Old and the New Testaments also use firstborn to indicate firstborn among other siblings, such as Esau being Isaac’s firstborn and Ruben as Jacob’s first born, meaning they were not firstborns out of their father’s wombs, considering men don’t have wombs, but firstborn among their other children. See Genesis 35:23, Deuteronomy 21:15, Joshua 6:26, 1 Chronicles 3:1, and Hebrews 11:28, where firstborn is also used this way. If Luke was communicating Jesus was Mary’s only child, he would’ve used the Greek word [foreign language 00:04:55] translated only begotten, rather than [foreign language 00:04:57] like he did elsewhere in his gospel, such as in Luke 7:12, 8:42 and 9:38.And in John 3:16, where Jesus is the only begotten son of God, meaning the only one.
Steve Christie:
Lastly, Psalm 69:8 is a messianic verse, “I have become estranged from my brothers and an alien to my mother’s sons.” Because verse nine begins with for, which is a conjunction, meaning because, since, or therefore, indicating that the same Messiah who would experience zeal for your house in verse nine is also the same Messiah whose mother would have other children in verse eight, which prophesied Jesus’ younger half brothers not believing in him in John 7:3-5 and dishonoring him in Mark 6:3-4, which occurred earlier in Mark 3:20-21 when they accused Jesus of being out of his senses, just as the future King David rebuked his oldest brother. When Jesus’ mother and brothers approach him later in verse 31, Jesus contrasts his biological brothers who dishonored him with his disciples, who were his spiritual brothers, who did the will of God.
Steve Christie:
This passage also contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary since Jesus’ mother was with Jesus’ brothers in verses 20 to 21, when they accused him of being out of his senses. This is also the view of St. John Chrysostom as late as the fifth century, venerated as a doctor of the church of Roman Catholicism, who also believed Mary thought Jesus had gone mad. Other doctors like Ambrose, Augustine, Irenaeus and others in the early church, like Tertullian, Origen, Hillary of Portier, and seven popes believed Mary was either conceived in sin or committed acts of personal sin, including Thomas Aquinas, as late as the 13th century.
Steve Christie:
When Mary declared “God, my savior.” In Luke 1:47, she understood that Jesus was the “savior to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins,” in Acts 5:31 and in Titus 2:9-11, which included her own. Isaiah 49:26 describes God as savior and Redeemer echoed in Galatians 4:4-5. He might redeem or rescue from bondage those who were under the law because we, which includes Mary, have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, Colossians 1:14.
Steve Christie:
Psalm 130, verse eight, promises God will redeem Israel from all its iniquities. Isiah wrote the deliverer will come out of Zion. I will take away their sins. This is how God as savior is used in both testaments. The Greek root is used in Matthew 1:21 to describe Jesus who will save his people from their sins. Jesus is never referred to as a preemptive savior, but as a redeeming, delivering savior, which includes redeeming and delivering Mary from her sins. The apostle Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “In Adam all die.” Meaning all of mankind spiritually, including Mary, which Paul clarifies in verses 47 to 49. “The first man Adam is from the earth, earthy. The second man Christ is from heaven as is the earthy Adam so also are those who are earthy and as is the heavenly Christ so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have born the image of the earthy we,” which includes Mary, “we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” We and also, which again includes Mary.
Steve Christie:
This means Mary was earthy like Adam, before she was heavenly once Jesus redeemed and delivered her. While Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit, the Psalmists wrote, “In sin, my mother conceived me.” Echoed later by the apostle Paul “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The Greek word translated all [foreign language 00:08:51] translated everyone, which includes Mary in her conception, but obviously not Jesus since scripture explicitly states, Jesus was without sin. Since he is the uncreated sinless deity conceived by the holy spirit. While Mary is a conceived in sin creation. If Mary was conceived sinless and kept the law perfectly, then Christ could not be her savior.
Steve Christie:
“If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.” Galatians 2:21. If Mary kept the law, she could not be made righteous since righteousness does not come from keeping the law, but through Christ’s death. If she is not righteous, then Jesus did not redeem her and she is still dead in her trespasses and sins. After Mary’s days of purification were completed in Luke two, she made burnt and sin offerings, which according to Leviticus 12 was required of mothers to make atonement or to cover their sins, which Mary would not need to do if she were immaculately conceived.
Steve Christie:
This dogma was defined by Pope Pius the ninth, but not ex cathedra in 1854 and is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox, despite not skisming with the West until the 11th century demonstrating that this was a much later development foreign to the New Testament writers and the early church. Catholic answers the firms that while “Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin, yet she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam, such as death.” This means not only was she conceived sinless, but remained sinless her entire life. Yet evidence of her sinful nature was her lack of exemption of the temporal penalty of death passed on to her from Adams.
Steve Christie:
While the wages of sin is death refers to spiritual death, that is the second death. What plunged mankind into the fall was Adam’s sin, which resulted in Adam and by extension all of mankind, including Mary, physically dying. Just as eating from the tree of life would’ve resulted in Adam physically living forever likewise, Adam, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, result put into him physically dying. “In that day, you will surely die.” Which he eventually did. Had Adam not sinned he would be alive today, as well as Mary had she not inherited Adam sin nature, a view shared by Catholic Answers and the Second Council of Orange.
Steve Christie:
This contradicts the last dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary to Heaven infallibly defined ex cathedra by Pope Pius the 12th in 1950, which states “after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven,” which strongly implies she died first. “What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death, if he could.” Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death reduced to dust. The earliest source sharing in this view that she died first is from the Dormition. Yet, if Mary did not inherit the stain of original sin passed down from Adam, she would not have died and therefore no need to rescue her from death before her earthly life ended. This also contradicts the biblical purpose of an assumption.
Steve Christie:
According to Robert Sungenis, president of Catholic Apologetics International, unlike Jesus Ascension assumptions in the Bible are under the power of God not the individual being assumed. Hebrews 11:5 states, “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death.’ And he was not found because God took him up. In 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven, meaning he did not see death either before being assumed to heaven. Since this dogma allows for her to have died before being taken up to heaven, it contradicts the purpose of a biblical assumption. That the one being assumed would not see death and so their corpse would not be found as the case for both Enoch and Elijah demonstrates. But since it allows for Mary to have died, then it is much of a partial contradiction to scripture as the dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Jesus being the son of God and Michael.
Steve Christie:
But this dogma would still be a contradiction if Mary remained alive before assumption, since the biblical purpose of an assumption is so the individual would not see death because this dogma affirms the Immaculate Conception of Mary did not inherit original sin passed down to Adam to all of mankind. Therefore Mary would not need to be assumed to heaven to keep her from seeing death if she were conceived sinless.
Steve Christie:
Regarding proof from scripture, for this dogma founder and senior fellow of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating wrote “There is none,” in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism understanding that these three Catholic Marian Dogmas contradict scripture has twofold importance. One, the sole non-falsifiable and fallible authority of the Roman Catholic church, sola ecclesia, which teaches these Marian Dogmas versus a sole infallible authority of scripture sola scriptura, which contradicts them. And two, they are binding to the faithful Catholic, who is threatened with an anathema if they reject any of them, despite them all contradicting God-breathed scripture. Regarding her bodily assumption that Pope declared infallibly, if anyone should dare willfully to deny that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith. It is forbidden to any man to change this, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of almighty God and the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul.
Steve Christie:
Regarding the Immaculate Conception, the other Pope declared, but not infallibly, the most blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved free from all stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to believe firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare to think otherwise, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment, that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith and that he has been separated from the unity of the church. So these Marian Dogmas are not optional or fitting for the faithful Catholic to believe, but are required and binding to the Catholic to remain in good standing in communion with the Roman Catholic church, despite them all contradicting God breathed scripture. When early followers of Jesus began to focus their adoration on Mary, rather than on Christ alone, Jesus responded, “Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Thank you.
Matt:
Steve. Thank you very much. That was a really well articulated opening statement and I appreciate it. Well, there we go and right on time. Well done. If I could just…
Steve Christie:
[inaudible 00:15:33].
Matt:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just want to offer an encouragement for those who are watching in the live chat or who watch this later. Give the person you disagree with a listen, really try to understand where they’re coming from because if after hearing their position, you still disagree with it, at least you’ll be better informed about what Protestants or Catholics believe so you can better engage them and resist the temptation to attack straw met. So I think that was an excellent opening statement. We’re going to move to Trent now for his 15 minute opening. Trent, whenever you begin, I’ll click the timer.
Trent Horn:
All right. Well, Matt, thank you so much for hosting this debate, Steve, thank you very much for agreeing to debate me again. The resolution for this debate is the Marian Dogmas contradict scripture. So Steve’s defending the affirmative. He has the burden of proving that the dogmas contradict scripture. I only have to prove there is no contradiction. So before I do that, let me explain what this debate is not about.
Trent Horn:
First, this debate is not about whether the Bible teaches the Marian Dogmas or even if the evidence shows that they’re true. Since I don’t believe in the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura, I don’t have to prove these dogmas from scripture alone. And more importantly, that’s not what we are debating. In fact, Protestants believe in many doctrines that are not found in scripture like their 66 book cannon of scripture where that public revelation ended in the first century.
Trent Horn:
Second, this debate is not about the church fathers or Christian history. Some Protestants cast out on the Marian Dogmas by claiming they don’t appear early enough in church history to count as being apostolic. Of course, this objection becomes a problem for Protestants since by this standard, many of their doctrine like sola scriptura, eternal security, sola fide would also arrive too late in church history to count as being apostolic. But we’re not debating whether the Marian Dogmas have a historical foundation in the writings of the church fathers. So let’s just stick to scripture.
Trent Horn:
Finally, this debate is not about Marian doctrines or theological opinions about Mary. Things like whether she’s Mediatrix or Co-Redemprtix. We’re going to talk about the dogmas of the faith. Those that have been infallibly defined to be part of divine revelation. So I’m going to cover four of them. Mary being the mother of God, ever virgin, immaculately conceived and bodily assumed into heaven. Alright? So let’s take a look at them.
Trent Horn:
First there’s a dogma of Theotokos, Mary being the mother of God. Anyone who denies this dogma automatically contradicts scripture because if Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus. It follows that Mary is the mother of God. What about the other Marian Dogmas? In order to show these dogma contradict scripture, Steve must do one of two things. On the one hand he could show the Bible teaches the opposite of these dogmas regarding Mary as an individual. For example, if the Bible taught that Mary gave birth to other children, that she committed a sin, or that she was not assumed into heaven, the dogmas would be falsified. Or Steve could show Bible teaches the opposite of these dogmas in regard to every single human being without exception, which would include Mary. So if the Bible taught that every human… I’m sorry that every woman gave birth to children or that every person without exception commits personal sins or that no one has ever been assumed into heaven, then the dogmas would be falsified.
Trent Horn:
So let’s apply these standards to the remaining dogmas. We’ll start with an easy one, the Bodily Assumption of Mary. Does the Bible teach that no human being has ever been assumed into heaven? Well, of course not. Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. Now Steve has said, “Well, they were assumed into heaven alive and if Mary died, she would not be assumed into heaven.” But that’s not the case. Jude 9 talks about the archangel, Michael, contending with the devil disputing about the body of Moses and taking the body of Moses, the dead body of Moses, that being assumed into heaven. And we can safely assume that Jesus saw the body of Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration. Also death is not a sign of being a sinner, as Steve alluded to earlier. The fact that Mary died doesn’t prove that she committed a sin any more than the fact that Jesus died does not prove that he inherited sin or committed a sin.
Trent Horn:
So the fact is, does the Bible teach that Mary was not assumed into heaven? No, of course not. If anything, Revelation chapter 12 verses one through six describes Mary being in heaven. The Protestant scholar, Ben Witherington says “This figure is both the literal mother of the male child, Jesus, and also the female image of the people of God.”
Trent Horn:
Alright what about the Immaculate Conception? Contrary to what Steve said this has been infallibly defined, though before the ex cathedra statements of the First Vatican Counsel. But in his encyclical, [foreign language 00:20:13] Pope Pius the 12 said “Mary is the new Eve who is free from all sin original or personal.” Does the Bible say that Mary herself committed a personal sin or that she inherited original sin? No, it doesn’t. When Mary says “My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God, my savior.” This doesn’t prove that Mary committed a sin.
Trent Horn:
First Mary may be speaking of salvation from dangers in this life, rather than dangers in the next life. She goes on to say, “My spirit rejoices in God, my savior for or because he has regarded the lowest state of his handmaiden.” Mary then describes how God saves people from threats in this life by exalting the lowly or feeding the hungry. God is Mary’s savior because he regarded her lowly state and she’s been lifted out of it by being called to bring the Messiah into the world. In that respect Mary’s Magnificat parallels Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel. According to one commentary Mary’s song like Hannah’s declares that security and significance are found in a God who would care about the broken and poor enough to give himself to them. So here, Mary can be talking about salvation from threats in this life, not sin. And she doesn’t mention sin in this part of Luke one. Even if Mary were speaking of salvation from sin, she may be speaking about God, preventing her from sinning and saving her in that way, like we might say how a doctor saved someone from a disease by vaccinating them, rather than by giving them a pill to cure them after the infection.
Trent Horn:
Now, does the Bible teach that everyone has sinned? Well, actually one other point I will bring up is that some people say the Bible teaches that Mary sinned, because it describes her going and offering a purification in accord with the Mosaic law. But the problem with this argument is that it says in Luke 2:22-24, that it’s offered for their purification. So if you’re going to say Mary sinned because an offering was made, then you’d also have to say that Jesus sinned as well. Rather, this is Mary simply being obedient to the law just as Jesus submitted himself to baptism for the sake of all righteousness.
Trent Horn:
All right, so the Bible does not say that Mary committed a sin. Does it say that every single human being without exception has committed a sin? No. It talks about the universality of sin, like in Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But Paul is talking about the universality of personal sin between Jews and non-Jews. That’s why he says there’s no distinction among people in verse 22 or in Romans 3:9 Paul says “All men, both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin.”
Trent Horn:
Paul is not trying to make a statement about every single individual without exception. He’s saying that every ethnic group is guilty of sin, whether you’re a Jew or a non Jew. However, Paul can’t be saying that every single person commits personal sins because the Bible itself contradicts this. In Isaiah 7:16 it talks about a time before a child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. That children at a young age do not commit personal sins. Paul himself reaffirms this in Romans 9:11. He says, of Jacob and Esau in Rebecca’s womb, “they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad.”This means children who die in early childhood represent millions of examples of people who never committed a personal sin in their entire lives. But while infants may not have committed a personal sin, they still need salvation in Christ because they inherited original sin.
Trent Horn:
Does the Bible say that every human person without exception has been conceived in original sin? No. In fact, the term original sin like immaculate conception is not found in the Bible or in the church fathers until the time of St. Augustine. Yet many Protestants believe in this doctrine. Now the doctrine of original sin is true, but the Bible does not explicitly say that it applies to every single individual without exception. In fact, the Bible often speaks about things like human sinfulness or human mortality as a universal truth and those things really are universal, but it doesn’t always mention the exceptions that do occur to these universal rules.
Trent Horn:
For example, in Hebrews 9:27, it says that it is appointed for men to die once and then face judgment and this is true for basically every single human being whoever lived, except for some exceptions like Lazarus and people that Jesus raised from the dead who died twice. Or Enoch and Elijah who never died because they were assumed alive into heaven. Yet the presence of those exceptions doesn’t disprove the nearly universal truth the sacred author was affirming. So summarize, the Bible does not teach that Mary sin nor does it teach that every single human being has committed a sin or inherited original sin without exception. So the Immaculate Conception does not contradict scripture then.
Trent Horn:
Finally, let’s look at the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Obviously the Bible does not teach that every woman had sexual relations. So we’d only asked does the bible teach that Mary had sexual relations. Now Steve mentioned and many other Protestants allude to Matthew 1:24-25, which says “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. He took his wife, but knew her not until she had born a son and he called his name Jesus.” But the Greek word for until, eos, does not always entail a reversal of condition. Second Samuel 6:23 says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to or eos the day of her death.” Which of course she did not have children after she died. Jesus tells the apostles and Matthew 28:20, “Observe all that I have commanded you and behold, I am with you always to the close of the age.” Even though Jesus will be with the apostles even after the present age comes to an end.
Trent Horn:
Now Steve said that Matthew 1:25, and others have said this, based off the doctoral work of Eric [Svenson 00:26:02], that the Greek construction [foreign language 00:26:06] in this verse always demands a reversal of condition. It would always demand that. But that is simply not the case. The phrase [foreign language 00:26:17] is used throughout the Septuagint or the Greek Old Testament without implying any kind of reversal. It may be used this way in Acts 25:21 to say that Paul was held in custody until he was sent to Rome, even though he was still in Roman custody after that point. [foreign language 00:26:34] was also used in literature that existed at roughly the same time period as the New Testament. Though, I will say the Septuagint was completed only within a few centuries, possibly even one century, by the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. So we wouldn’t be surprised that Septuagintal constructions would be used in the New Testament, including the fact that [foreign language 00:26:54] can imply a reversal as it does in the Greek gold Testament but it wouldn’t be surprising to find it in the New Testament.
Trent Horn:
Now, as I said, we do find this in other roughly contemporary literature. In Maccabees would be an example or the Jewish work Joseph and Aseneth. So while not common, it is used. So you can’t use Matthew 1:25 to prove Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. Matthew was simply not concerned with telling us what did happen after Jesus was born. His primary concern is to simply say that Jesus had no earthly father. In fact, the Protestant reformers, John Calvin said of Matthew 1:25, “No just and well grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the evangelist as to what took place after the birth of Christ.” Martin Luther even called this argument against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity based on Matthew 1:25 “babble and without justification”.
Trent Horn:
But maybe are there other verses that have talked about that Mary gave birth to other children and so she would not be a perpetual Virgin? No, the Bible never says Mary gave birth to anyone else and no one else is called a son or daughter of Mary. The Bible does describe a group of people as the brethren of the Lord but it doesn’t say that these people were Jesus’s biological siblings through Mary. We’ll talk about adelphos more in the rebuttal period. But I think Steve would agree the word adelphos typically means a person has the same biological father and mother and of course, Steve doesn’t believe that because he believes Jesus has no biological father.
Trent Horn:
So when we’re speaking of the adelphos, the brethren of the Lord, it’s used in some sort of non-standard way. And I think one way that makes sense would be if Joseph had been previously married. These would be children from his previous marriage, making them adoptive brothers and sisters, and as such, they would be fully Jesus’s brother and sister, the full use of the word adelphos. To say here Richard [Bachum 00:28:46], for example, who rejects, a Protestant scholar who rejects the Perpetual Virginity of Mary says, “It’s strange Jesus is called the son of Mary in Mark 6:3, rather than the son of Joseph.” But that would make sense if Jesus had been born of Joseph’s second wife, Mary.
Trent Horn:
Also the Greek word for brother, it’s not always you to represent full brothers. In Luke 3:1 it’s used to describe Herod Antipas and Herod Philip who had the same father, but they were born of different mothers, just as Jesus and his brethren were born of different mothers. You can also speak of adoptive children using biological language. Exodus 2:10 says Moses became the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, even though she adopted him.
Trent Horn:
So to summarize then Steve… Well, actually let’s see. Did I have one other thing here? One other point that I would raise is that other arguments that Protestants use to try to show that Jesus had brothers simply don’t work. One of these would be Psalm 69, where it says of the Messiah, “I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.” The messianic Psalms are applied to Jesus, but not in literal ways. For example, in Psalm 69:5, it says of the Messiah, “Oh God thou knowist my folly. The wrongs I have done are not hidden from me.”
Trent Horn:
So Steve would probably say that, “Well, Jesus has sins, but there our sins, not his sins.” Okay. Then Psalm 69:5 is applied non literally to Jesus and I would say Psalm 69:8 about mothers and brethren is applied non literally as well. This was the view that St. Augustine said, when he said that in Psalm 69:5, the mother is not married, but Israel and the brethren are the other sons of Israel who spurn him. So we see here that messianic Psalms are often applied to Jesus in non-literal ways. So just because this Psalm talks about my mother’s sons, it doesn’t imply that Mary gave birth to other children.
Trent Horn:
So ultimately Steve has the burden here to show that the Marian dogmas contradict scripture, and he’s brought up a lot of points. I’ve addressed some of them, but I’ll address those other points he’s brought up in my next rebuttal period.
Matt:
All right. Thank you very much, Trent. I would like to demand that everybody hit that like button.
PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:31:04]
Matt:
I would like to demand that everybody hit that like button right now. I command that you do it. Submit to my authority. I’ve crowned myself king, and I demand it. So do it. Do it right now. Do it, or don’t do it. This is fantastic. I’m really enjoying this. Maybe a little too much. We’re going to move into seven-minute rebuttals. Steve, whenever you want to begin, I’ll click the timer.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Can you hear me?
Matt:
Yep. We can hear you. Yes, sir.
Steve Christie:
Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay, you can start now. The purpose of this debate, as Trent had brought up, is about the Marian Dogmas. However, prior to this debate, Trent and I had agreed not to talk about Mary being referred to it as the mother of God, because it’s not really an issue that we disagree on, as long as it is understood how it was originally meant to be a Christological title and not a specific title of Mary, such as being queen of heaven. So I’m not going to comment on that.
Steve Christie:
As I had mentioned, the way a dogma can contradict scripture is if it’s explicit, implicit, or partial. For example, a Mormon dogma that says that Jesus is not God contradicts scripture explicitly, such as in John 20:28, when Thomas sees Jesus and calls him, “My Lord and my God.” Implicitly would be liberal Catholics and Protestants who condone abortion, which contradicts scripture stating that life begins at conception, and scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood. And another is a partial contradiction, such as the dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses on the identity of Jesus. While scripturally affirming Jesus is the son of God, they contradict scripture by claiming that Jesus is Michael the archangel, because scripture affirms Michael is a created being while Jesus is the eternal deity. And this is what I did in the opening statement.
Steve Christie:
When the Bible talks about all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it’s a Greek word “pas,” which means, “everyone,” which would include Mary. There is no exception there. When Trent tries to use this argument, he’s using a logical fallacy referred to as the argument by exception. And of course, he might say, “Well, what about Jesus?” Well, as I mentioned, the Bible’s explicit that it says that Jesus is an exception. It says that, actually, I believe in First Corinthians.
Steve Christie:
Trent had mentioned about Elijah and Enoch being assumed to heaven. But again, like it says, they were assumed bodily into heaven, but they had inherited original sin, just as Mary did. But anyways, I’m going to come back to that. He had mentioned about, in the book of Jude, about Moses and the devil contending for the body, or Michael contending with a body of Moses with Michael the archangel. But it doesn’t say anything about him being bodily assumed or anything.
Steve Christie:
The other thing about Jesus is, yes, Jesus did not sin, but the Bible says that he took on sin, which is different than actually inheriting sin because, again, he is conceived by the Holy Spirit, unlike Mary, who is actually conceived in sin. As far as Revelation chapter one to six, I don’t see anything that’s in there that talks about Mary. This is an example of eisegesis and known as a typology that’s used a lot of times by Catholic apologists.
Steve Christie:
I had mentioned about the immaculate conception not being declared ex cathedra because this was before Vatican I in 1870 that declared that when a Pope declared something ex cathedra, then it’s considered infallible. But the immaculate conception was declared 15 years or so before that. Trent had mentioned about Mary and her Magnificat saying, “God, my savior,” and she was referring back to Hannah. But again, this is another argument by exception because even if she’s referring back to Hannah, the debate is about how these dogmas, whether or not they’re … how they’re used in scripture. And in the new Testament, the specific Greek word for savior is used about two dozen in times, and every time that it’s used in scripture, in the New Testament, it always refers to God or Jesus being a savior of salvation and saving someone from sins, which is why I brought up Acts chapter five and The Epistle of Titus.
Steve Christie:
And again, what I had argued in the opening statement, is there any example in the New Testament where Jesus is referred to as a preemptive savior, as opposed to as a redemptive and redeeming savior? And he’s not. So again, argument by exception. I had mentioned about the word all, “pas,” all have sin and fall short of the glory of God. Trent had mentioned about the age of accountability. Good, because you know what? If your unbaptized baby dies, and they’re not baptized, guess what? They go into the glory of God. So I agree with that.
Steve Christie:
As far as original sin, if you look at catholic.com, the encyclopedia, it states that The Second Council of Orange, it states that, “The death of the body, which is the punishment for sin.” In other words, sin results in death of the body. So if Mary died, which the dogma, the bodily assumption in 1950 strongly implies, this demonstrates Mary inherited original sin from Adam. Trent mentioned about dying once. Well, again, this is the exception. This is not the rule. And we know this because this is explicitly stated in scripture. There’s nothing in scripture that states that Mary was an exception to this. It only states that Jesus was an exception to this because he had a divine nature, not a sinful nature, as well as a human nature. But Mary only had a human nature and a sinful nature.
Steve Christie:
Trent made the comment about the word “until” that’s used in Second Samuel, but it uses the word [Greek 00:37:31], not [Greek 00:37:31]. Same with Matthew 28. It uses [Greek 00:37:34], not [Greek 00:37:36]. He mentioned about the Septuagint. Well, the Septuagint was a Greek translation that was finished around 134 BC. So we’re not talking about translations of the Bible. We’re we’re talking about what’s actually used in the New Testament, because even the New Testament writers would deviate from the Septuagint occasionally, because they would use a better translation. Lutheran Calvin, I would expect that. They were both Catholic. We have to remember that.
Steve Christie:
As far as adelphos, I don’t have a problem with the word adelphos, but my question is, why would you abandon its primary meaning for another meaning when it doesn’t demand it? And my focus was on the word, “adelphi,” which Trent really didn’t focus on, on his opening statement. He might bring it up in his rebuttal. And I’m curious, you used a comment about Jesus being the son of Mary. So does that mean that Mary could have had daughters because it says, “the son of Mary”? And as far as Psalm 69, if you-
Matt:
You can finish your thought, if you want real quick, Steve.
Steve Christie:
Okay. And at basic, psalms 69, if you continue reading, it says that the Messiah was taking on the reproach of other people. So it’s not saying that he died. He did exactly what Jesus did. He became sin for us. And I’ll leave it at that.
Matt:
Thank you, Steve. Trent, whenever you begin, I’ll click the timer. You have seven-
Trent Horn:
All right. Well, a lot to cover here. Let’s see how much we can get through. So Steve is saying that the word adelphi, which means sister. It can only mean figurative sister or biological sister. So if Jesus has adelphi, he must have had sisters who were born of Mary. As I said before, these could be adoptive siblings. And Steve has not ruled that out. And also Greek scholars do not rule that out. Richard Bauckham, for example, says, “The word adelphi,” he’s an eminent New Testament scholar, “need not mean full sister. It can mean half-sister, stepsister, sister-in-law.”
Trent Horn:
The Greek grammarian Bill Mounce, who writes a whole textbook on Ancient Greek, says that adelphi means, “sister, near kinswoman, or female relative.” When it comes to [Greek 00:39:49], I already showed that both in the Septuagint and also in contemporary literature, it does not require a reversal of condition, so it can be used here in Matthew 1:25 in this way. And I showed that when I cited Acts 21, 25, as well as other examples around the same time period.
Trent Horn:
Steve said that if Mary and Joseph had remained virgins, they would violate late St. Paul’s teaching about marriage in First Corinthians Seven. That’s not true. Paul offers, he says in First Corinthians 7:5 through seven, “Do not refuse one another, except by agreement for a season, to devote yourselves to prayer so that you’re not tempted by lack of self control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am.” Since Mary and Joseph would’ve been the most chaste holy family, this would not apply to them. They can live out the gospel teaching in their unique holy family. This is something Paul gave as concession, not as command to others.
Trent Horn:
Luke 2:7, Steve said, “Well, look. It says here that Jesus is the firstborn, prototokos, of Mary. So that would mean if you’re the firstborn, that you’re going to have other children. Well, there’s Pokemon The First Movie, and it was so bad, there were no other movies. But it’s still the first movie. The Protestant biblical scholar, Victor Hamilton, says, “To say that Jesus is Mary’s prototokos is simply to say Mary had no child before she gave birth to Jesus.” This is a term that refers to the child who opens the womb, and it makes sense that Luke would use prototokos because the term, “firstborn,” is later used in Luke 2:22 through 23 to talk about the purification rite and rite of presenting those who are the firstborn. So he’s just talking about this birthright that he mentions about 10 versus later.
Trent Horn:
Now Steve says, “Well, Luke would’ve used, “monogenes,” only begotten. No, that’s not the case. Luke does use monogenes to talk about the death of one’s only child, for example, in different parts of his gospel. But in the infancy narrative, we’re just talking about the birth of the firstborn in accord with The Mosaic Law. And in fact, in the Old Testament, “only begotten” and “firstborn” are used interchangeably. We see this in Zechariah 12:10, where it talks about, “They look on him who they’ve pierced. They shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn.” So the terms can both be used in interchangeably in that respect.
Trent Horn:
I already addressed Psalm 65, but Steve said, “Well, the sins were applied to Jesus in a non-literal way.” Right, but notice what it says in Psalm 69:5 of the Messiah, “Oh God, thou knowest my folly. The wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee.” But Jesus did not do any wrong. So my point here is clear. If this verse in Psalm 69 is applied non-literally to Jesus, the verse that talks about, “My mother’s sons,” can also be applied in a non-literal way. We see this in Psalm 69:25. It says in the plural, “May their camp be a desolation. Let no one dwell in their tents.” This is later applied in Acts 120, but not to a group of people, to an individual, namely Judas.
Trent Horn:
Going forward, then, Mark … Sorry, Steve tries to say that Mary committed a sin in Mark Three when she and the brothers of the Lord go to see him, but the text doesn’t say anything about Mary doing anything sinful. Jesus does not rebuke her. There’s no divine judgment on Mary in any form described here in Mark chapter three. That’s just being read into the text. When it comes to savior, I would just challenge Steve, where does Luke 1:46 through 48 talk about sin? It doesn’t mention sin there. And most commentaries agree that this passage parallels what Hannah says in First Samuel 2:1, and she likewise doesn’t mention sin. He might say that it’s unlikely, he doesn’t accept it, but there’s no contradiction also if she is thankful to God for being preemptively saved from sin. Steve may not believe that’s what the text says, but if it does say that, there’s no contradiction in it saying that.
Trent Horn:
You talked a little about in Adam, all die, but notice here there are exceptions. Enoch and Elijah would be an example. And notice that Steve kept saying, “Yeah, it says all have sinned.” Jesus, of course, is the exception. So then it isn’t literally saying every single human has sinned or every man has sinned. And Steve has said, “Well, we know there’s an exception because the Bible says that Jesus is the exception.” So clearly, then, that means the Bible can make universal statements, but sources of divine revelation can give us those exceptions. Steve will point to Jesus in sacred scripture. I’ll point to Mary in sacred tradition. And there, we would just debate about whether sacred tradition is a plausible source of divine revelation. Of course, that is not what we are debating today.
Trent Horn:
Finally, the point about Mary dying, I think Steve was really missing this here. The fact that Mary died does not show that she had original sin or that she inherited original sin or that she committed a personal sin. It does not show that. All it shows is that even though she was free from sin, she still had human nature, and human nature is corrupted and mortal. So much the same way Jesus was free from original sin and personal sin, yet when he was on the cross, it’s not like the nails couldn’t go through his hands because he’s free from sin, so he’s immortal. No, he was free from sin, but he still had a mortal human nature that could be subject to death. And the same is true for Mary.
Trent Horn:
So Mary being assumed into heaven, dying, which is the majority view among theologians, does not show that she had sin. So The Assumption and the immaculate conception are not contradicted in that respect. And then hopefully, in my next turn, I’ll be able to address some of the other arguments that Steve has raised. But I think so far, this has shown that Steve has not been able to apply scripture in an unambiguous way to show the Marian Dogma was contradicted.
Matt:
Okay. Thank you very much, Trent. We now are going to have four minute rebuttals. Then there’s going to be a time of cross-examination, and then we’re going to do 30 minutes of Q&A. So to everybody who’s watching, please stick around. I think it says a lot about you all that you would take your time, all 735 of you, to be here. I think that’s really terrific. So yeah, this is awesome. This is really great. Really enjoying this. All right, Steve, whenever you begin, I … Actually, just give me one second. I will click the four-minute mark.
Steve Christie:
Okay. As I had mentioned about the Greek word, adelphi, let me remind everyone that this is about what scripture actually teaches and to remind that the Septuagint is a translation. It is not considered inspired. If it was, the New Testament writers would not deviate from it occasionally and use their own Greek translation. It’s a good Greek translation. The New Testament writers used it, but they did not use it universally for that reason. And again, what I argued is how adelphi is used consistently in the New Testament Greek, not how it’s used in a Greek translation of the Old Testament. You would expect there to be deviations from it. But even at that, the Greek word for adelphi, in the Old Testament, when it’s used, it’s used even in a translation, not to mean anything other than a biological sister or a believing sister, like the sister nations of Israel and Judah.
Steve Christie:
Trent had mentioned about, “Well, it could mean sister-in-law.” Well, the apostle John actually quoted from the Old Testament, from the Septuagint, frequently. And if he had met sister-in-law, such as Mary’s sister in John chapter 19, he would’ve utilize the Greek word, [Greek 00:47:36] that’s used in the book of Ruth to describe Orpah’s relationship with Ruth. And again, just to give an example in the Septuagint, in the Book of Sirach, which is inspired for Trent, but it’s not inspired for me, it uses the Greek word [Greek 00:47:52], which is a masculine form of [Greek 00:47:55] when it says, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” And it’s used to describe a man who is full of grace. I’m sure Trent doesn’t think that that man is immaculate conceived, because there are those at Catholic Answers and elsewhere who thinks [Greek 00:48:09] or [Greek 00:48:11] eight means that they were always in a state of grace, meaning that Mary was sinless.
Steve Christie:
First Corinthians chapter seven, again, it says, “For a season in order to separate,” but then it says, “So that you go back,” married couples to go back so you do not get tempted by Satan because of your lack of self-control. And the fact that Trent is saying that the holy family would not need to apply to that, he’s imputing his Catholic theology into the text. So let’s stick with what scripture actually supports. Prototokos, I don’t have a problem with the term, meaning first out of the womb, but in Luke chapter two versus 22 to 23, this is a different event. This is a separate event than from what Luke is talking about earlier in Luke chapter two, verse seven. He’s simply talking about Jesus being the firstborn. And again, if he meant only child, he would’ve used monogenes like he used it elsewhere in Luke’s gospel.
Steve Christie:
Mark chapter three, even though it doesn’t explicitly state that these are Jesus’s siblings, the Greek word literally means to be, “like of that individual.” And again, that’s the view of John Chrysostom. The word savior is used consistently in the New Testament to refer to a savior of sins. And again, scripture states, “Because Jesus is God is why he would not inherit sin like Mary did, because Mary is not God,” unless Trent is going in that direction, which I don’t think it is. First Corinthians 15, in my opening statement, it says that there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies and people who have earthly bodies are sown perishable, meaning corruptible in dishonor, meaning contempt, reproach. Mary had this early body. So before she could go into heaven and have a heavenly body, she had to be rid of them, and that’s why the apostle Paul says that we were like Adam and we also, which includes Mary, we also are heavenly.
Matt:
All right. Thank you very much, Steve. Okay, Trent. Whenever you begin, I will click your time for-
Trent Horn:
All righty. Oh, wow. This sure is fun, isn’t it? It’s nice to be able to go through all of these scripture passages. Though I will say, as we’re going through them, I feel like Steve’s case is sort of like that tree in front of my house is a bush I’m always trying to get just right, but they end up clipping so many parts off of it, it’s just a bunch of empty branches sitting there. And so I think what I have shown is that all of these arguments that Steve has raised to try to show scripture contradicts the Marian Dogmas, it does no such thing. And we’ve seen that time and time again, and so I’m going to address the other examples that he’s just raised.
Trent Horn:
First, when it comes to adelphos and adelphi, I think Steve would agree with me that, in general, what that word means in scripture is that you have the same biological mother and father. We don’t believe that is the case. Both of us agree that’s not the case for Jesus. So it must be used in some other way. In fact, when it is used in the Septuagint to talk about people who have different fathers or mothers, it is only ever used to describe people in the case of half siblings, of having different fathers, not different mothers …
Trent Horn:
Sorry, let me go back a little bit here with this. The point I want to raise there is that adelphi has the same semantic range as adelphos. It can mean sister of having the same mother and father, or of having just the same father, or just the same mother. We see this in Luke 3:1, and if these siblings are Jesus’s adoptive siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage, there’s absolutely no contradiction here whatsoever. And I already cited Greek scholars like Bill Mounce and New Testament scholars, like Richard Bauckham, who agree with me that adelphi has a broader semantic range than what Steve has brought up here.
Trent Horn:
I didn’t talk about sister-in-law. I was citing Baukham on that point, and [Greek 00:52:31] is just not used in the New Testament, so it’s just not a common word. We wouldn’t expect it. I didn’t bring up [Greek 00:52:36]. If you want to go more into that, my book, The Case for Catholicism has a chapter on the immaculate conception. I do talk about how much evidence that Greek word has for the immaculate conception, and I also note in my book it’s use in the Book of Sirach. So I’m well aware of that. Go to Case For Catholicism, if you want more. But we’re not debating whether the Bible teaches the immaculate conception. We’re debating whether scripture contradicts it, and that has not been demonstrated here.
Trent Horn:
When it comes to savior, the word is used in a lot of different ways in the whole of scripture, not just in the New Testament. [Greek 00:53:10] in the Old Testament is described as a savior, but not as a savior from sin. I agree that it is used predominantly of Jesus, talking about salvation from sin, but I would say read the context. What is Mary talking about in Luke One? She is not mentioning sin in any case. So we have to read the context. Even if it is talking about sin, if it’s talking about being saved from sin before one came into existence, preemptively saved, then it still fits the context. There’s no contradiction there at all.
Trent Horn:
First Corinthians 15 talks about heavenly bodies and that Mary is given … Well, I think what Steve was saying here is that, okay, well, Mary had an earthy body. She would have to have a heavenly body. That’s right. Just like Jesus and Mary did not have glorified bodies, Jesus did not have a glorified body during his earthly ministry, he briefly revealed it on the Mount of Transfiguration, but Jesus was not going about in his glory during his earthly ministry. He put that on his glorified resurrection body after the resurrection. And the same is true for us, that Mary was free from sin, but she still had an earthy body. Then after being assumed into heaven, she would have a glorified body. And so it would fulfill the promise in Philippians 3:21 that says, “Our bodies, lowly bodies, will be transformed like his heavenly body,” Christ. So again, we’ve gone through a lot of scripture here, but none of them stick and show that the Marian Dogmas are contradicted by the Bible in any way.
Matt:
All right. Thank you very much, Trent. We are going to be moving into a time of cross-examination where each debater will get 10 minutes each. But before we do that, I want to say thank you to our sponsor, Hallow. Click the link in the description below to go through to the greatest Catholic prayer and meditation app on the planet. My wife and I literally were listening to Scott Hahn reading the Book of Romans as we were going as sleep last night. The night before that, we did an examination of conscience together. This is the number one downloaded Catholic app in the app store, and it is the best app I’ve ever used ever. Not just saying that because they’re paying me, although that definitely helps. Hallow.com/mattfred, click the link in the description below.
Matt:
Just today, Hallow uploaded my Lo-Fi music to their app. Many of you know I now have a Catholic Lo-Fi channel. Type it in. It’ll change your life, no doubt. So that’s all up there as well. So if you got a hallow.com/mattfred right now, click that link in the description below, you’ll get a three month trial. So you can use the app for three months before deciding whether it’s worth your time and money. I think it will be. Hallo.com/mattfred. Hallow.com/mattfred.
Matt:
Now someone pointed out in the chat that only, what is it, 65% of people have submitted to my legality. Look, we’ve got 737 people watching and only 492 likes. What am I to do with this? After all I’ve done for you, and you just sit there, you watch this, you don’t click that thumbs up button. I’m trying to appeal to Catholic guilt, but it’s not working. Okay, so now we are going to move into 10-minute rebuttals. We’ll start with you, Steve. You’ve got 10 minutes to cross-examine Trent. And just so everybody knows, you’re welcome to interrupt him or move the conversation along as you see fit. And you, just so people are aware, aren’t being mean or anything by doing that. That’s just how debates work. So whenever you want to begin, I will click the 10 minute button.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Trent, in your recent podcast rebutting Ray Comfort, you said Jesus is the only person referred to as the son of Mary. So in Mark chapter one, verse 19, it says, “James is the son of Zebedee,” and it uses the Greek definite article. So does this mean that James was Zebedee’s only son?
Trent Horn:
No, I’m not saying that the use of the definite article means that Mary had only one child. My point in that it’s not the definite article that is interesting, “the” son of Mary. Even “a” son of Mary would be interesting, rather it’s the fact that Jesus was referred through a metronym rather than a patronym, that normally in the ancient near east, you would refer to someone as the son of their father, “the son of Joseph.”
Steve Christie:
Okay. With that-
Trent Horn:
[inaudible 00:57:25] the son of Mary is odd.
Steve Christie:
Okay, I get that. So then if Jesus was referred to as “the carpenter’s son,” and it’s a patronym, would this eliminate his brothers being older stepbrothers, according to the Protoevangelium of James?
Trent Horn:
No, Bauckham talks about this in his article that in some context, Jesus would be referred to as the son of Joseph, especially among those who were not familiar with his family life in Nazareth. He’s referred to the son of Joseph in John’s gospel. So he would be referred to as the son of Joseph sometimes. But those who knew the family, why he is called “the son of Mary” is interesting, and a good explanation is that he was born of Mary, and that Mary was Joseph’s second wife. I’m not saying that’s a required view, but it’s a quite plausible one.
Steve Christie:
So since Jacob is referred to as the son of Isaac, and Reuben as the son of Jacob, then were they only children? The only son?
Trent Horn:
No, I don’t think you are following my point. I’m not saying that Jesus is “the son of Mary” means that she’s the only person he bore. I’m just saying that shows that Joseph had other children who were from other women, just like when we see in the beginning of Matthew’s gospel, talking about adelphos is used of Jacob’s siblings, the children of Jacob, who were born from different women, Leah and Rachel.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Let’s see, in Catholic Answer’s encyclopedia, it says that Andrew, the brother of Peter, is also called the son of Jonah. How do we know this from the New Testament?
Trent Horn:
You mean the son of John? The son of Jonah?
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Jonah, John. John, yeah.
Trent Horn:
Okay. I’m not sure what your question is. How do we know Andrew and Peter are brothers?
Steve Christie:
Yeah. How do we know that they’re brothers? How do we know they’re brothers?
Trent Horn:
Well, it uses the Greek word for brother. So it would-
Steve Christie:
Of course, but how do we know that Andrew is also the son of Jonah? Because that’s what the Catholic Answers encyclopedia states.
Trent Horn:
Because the word adelphi would imply that they … It’s normal use would be that you have the same parents, at least one of the same parents. I mean, it’s quite possible they’re born of different mothers, but there’s no evidence for us to pursue that route. So we could assume that they have the same biological mother and father. But once again, we wouldn’t assume … Go ahead.
Steve Christie:
So if Andrew is Jonah’s son, too, because Andrew is the brother of Peter, then why can’t James, the brother of Jesus, also be the son of Mary?
Trent Horn:
Well, in your example, it’s talking about father. So I would say that James and Joseph are also the son of the sons of Joseph. They would be sons from another marriage. So it still fits semantically.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Let’s see. When Mary said, “I know not man,” in Luke 1:34, does this indicate a vow of perpetual virginity?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I think there is good reason to believe that, but that’s not what we’re debating today.
Steve Christie:
Well, it is an argument that actually I hear from a lot of contemporary Catholic apologists. So in the Septuagint, Genesis 19:9, Lot’s daughters use the same Greek word, “I know not man.” So were they engaged in a vow of perpetual virginity?
Trent Horn:
I’m not sure that that is in Genesis 19:9. Are you talking about 19 … probably later, after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, “I know not …” Oh, the ones that have not known a man?
Steve Christie:
“I know not man.” It’s the same Greek words that Mary says when she says, “I know not man.”
Trent Horn:
I don’t know. I wouldn’t assume that that involves a vow virginity, but I think there’s a different context in relation to the fact that we have betrothal between Mary and Joseph, that it’s an odd construction. Mary and Joseph are perfectly free to have children. I’m not sure why she would be surprised when told that she’s going to have a son, given that under Jewish law, she and Joseph were free to engage in conjugal relations even right at that moment after the angel had left. So they’re different contexts to examine, but that’s not what we’re debating, whether scripture teaches it.
Steve Christie:
Okay. So multi-part question here. If Mary was a immaculate conceived, why would Joseph and her kinsfolk who knew her-
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [01:02:04]
Steve Christie:
… like conceived, why would Joseph and their kinsfolk who knew her think that her pregnancy was a result of adultery?
Trent Horn:
Well, the kinsfolk, you can have relatives that don’t know very much about you or misunderstand you. Jesus’s kin in Nazareth did not fully understand his status as the Messiah. Many of them did not believe in him. The question for Joseph-
Steve Christie:
All right. Okay. How about Mary’s parents and Joseph who was from the same tribe who she was betrothed to?
Trent Horn:
That she was conceived without original sin? Well, why would I believe that Mary’s parents-
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Wouldn’t they have noticed that their child up to the age of 12 or 13, however, she was, that she had not committed a single sin?
Trent Horn:
The Protoevangelium of James does talk about Mary being very mature for her age, walking at an early age, for example, and being precocious. And then she was placed to be serving within the temple. So at an early age, I think about around age three. So they probably were aware of something very special about her at that time. So there’s nothing in scripture that contradicts that.
Steve Christie:
So a child that age, you think it’s realistic that in the condition that they were brought up, that Mary could have never committed a sin especially as a child?
Trent Horn:
I believe all things are possible with God. Yeah.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Why was she shocked about the enunciation? If she was immaculately conceived, wouldn’t she have known that she was the version from Isaiah 7:14?
Trent Horn:
Well, not necessarily. Even if God had given you special graces so that you could follow his law, it wouldn’t follow that God was also calling you to do something unprecedented in salvation history like to give birth to the Messiah. No one else ever before in the history of salvation had been asked to do something like that. So it is quite shocking.
Steve Christie:
Can you give one example in the New Testament where it describes God or Jesus being a preemptive savior instead of a redemptive redeeming savior?
Trent Horn:
You’re talking about giving someone salvation prior to their sins?
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Can you name one verse where either God or Jesus is described that way in the New Testament?
Trent Horn:
No, I can think of anything like that, but I would say that Mary’s status as being the God bearer would mean there’d be many truths that are quite unique to her that we don’t find in either old or New Testament.
Steve Christie:
Would you agree with Jerry [Maditix 01:04:38] that the assumption of Mary was an eyewitness account just as Jesus ascension was?
Trent Horn:
I don’t know if I would. If it was an eyewitness account, I suppose someone would had to have been informed about that. Perhaps John witnessed this event and then told others or this may have been given to John through some other kind of revelation. I don’t know if I could answer the question definitively.
Steve Christie:
Okay. That’s fair. If so, if it was an eyewitness account, why hasn’t the Catholic church dogmatically declared whether or not she died first?
Trent Horn:
Because the details about whether she died or not have not been given to us in the deposit of faith, that particular fact has not been given to us. That’s why they’re diverging traditions on whether Mary died or not, but you don’t find the first denial of Mary’s assumption until in the late early middle ages. That seems to be something that went without contention.
Steve Christie:
Since the Catholic church is certain that the brothers of Jesus are anything other than biological siblings, meaning uterine siblings, why are they not able to be just a certain specifically who they are? Why is there disagreement between relatives, older stepbrothers, cousins, et cetera?
Trent Horn:
Because once again, not every truth of the faith, not every truth about first century life, for example, has been handed down to us. As I mentioned in my book, the case for Catholicism Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, he talks about the force restraining the man of lawlessness. And he told the Thessalonians who that was, but we don’t know who that was, and [inaudible 01:06:25] biblical scholars have had many different answers and we don’t know much the same this particular truth about whether Mary died or not. That has not been handed down to us but that she was assumed in heaven was even though [inaudible 01:06:39].
Matt:
All right. That sums it up. Trent, you have 10 minutes to cross examine Steve, whenever you begin.
Trent Horn:
Okay. Let’s take a look here. So Steve, we agree… And I didn’t mean to bring up the dogma Theotokos mother of God in any kind of underhanded way or way to go against our previous agreement because when people hear Marian dogmas, they think of the four of them. So I think it’s important that each of us, we don’t have a problem with… We might have a problem how to apply it but the basic level mother of God isn’t contradicted by scripture.
Steve Christie:
Agreed. As long the difference between Mariological title versus Christological title, that’s probably where we would disagree, but go ahead.
Trent Horn:
Sure. Does the Bible ever say Mary was not assumed into heaven?
Steve Christie:
No, it doesn’t say that but it doesn’t say Joseph was bodily assumed into heaven and the same three dogmas could apply to Joseph as well, but we don’t make as much why is there not a dogma… those dogmas apply to Joseph.
Trent Horn:
So you’re going to agree it does not deny Mary was assumed into heaven?
Steve Christie:
Well, I would say that it contradicts it because if she was indeed sinless, Mary would not have been bodily assumed into heaven for the reasons I stated in my opening statement.
Trent Horn:
If she were sinless, what would happen to her if she-
Steve Christie:
Because there would be no reason to rescue her from death because a purpose of a bodily assumption into heaven is so an individual would not see death. If she was immaculately conceived, she would not have bodily assumed… needed to be rescued from death because that’s the purpose of assumption, which we see from Enoch and Elijah.
Trent Horn:
That’s the purpose of their assumptions. But let me get to that point about death though. Can a person with a human nature die even if they are free from sin?
Steve Christie:
Can a person die? Well, according to Genesis chapter or in Genesis, it says in that day, you will surely die. And my contention is that if Adam had not fallen and inherited original sin, he would not have died.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So was Jesus free from sin and he also died?
Steve Christie:
Jesus became sin, that’s why he died. He was put on a cross.
Trent Horn:
So there was something sinful about Jesus?
Steve Christie:
He became sinner. Second Corinthians is clear, God made him who knew no sin to become sin for us.
Trent Horn:
And I could talk about what that verse means in a lot of different context, but what is the difference between being sinful and becoming sin?
Steve Christie:
Being sinful is saying that you have inherited original sin and becoming sin means that sin was imputed to you. This is known as [inaudible 01:09:50].
Trent Horn:
Let me ask you this, was Jesus Christ free from sin?
Steve Christie:
Jesus Christ did not inherit original sin, but he became sin which is why the father had to turn away from him.
Trent Horn:
Okay. And so that’s why he died?
Steve Christie:
Yes.
Trent Horn:
All right. You said something that-
Steve Christie:
Mary was able to do something that Jesus didn’t. She didn’t become sin either according to Roman Catholicism.
Trent Horn:
Okay. Let’s see here. I think that what we’re quibbling a little bit here on the assumption, I think we actually have more things we agree on than less.
Steve Christie:
Probably.
Trent Horn:
Let’s talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary. So does the Bible say Mary gave birth to anyone besides Jesus?
Steve Christie:
There’s a lot of people in scripture including Joseph that doesn’t say anything that she gave birth to anybody and others that he didn’t give birth to older step siblings of Jesus, so that’s an argument from silence.
Trent Horn:
That’s fine. Are you going to answer the question, does it describe her giving birth to anyone else or say she gave birth to anyone else?
Steve Christie:
Well, the answer to the question needs to be in relation to applying it elsewhere in scripture because there’s a lot of people that are mentioned in scripture that doesn’t say that they had any children. And we can actually discern from others passages in scripture that Jesus’ brothers are his biological younger half siblings.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So is this your view, Jesus and his siblings have the same mother but they have different fathers?
Steve Christie:
Ye, because Jesus’ younger half sibling was Joseph while Jesus’ father was God.
Trent Horn:
Okay. Where in the Bible is the Greek word adelphos used to describe siblings having the same mother but different fathers.
Steve Christie:
The word adelphos is used numerous times in both the Old and New Testament to describe people who have had the same parents. I mean, focusing on it saying that they had the same mothers is a little bit of a strawman because that’s an argument that you’re using which I feel is really irrelevant because you could use the argument that Jesus had younger half sisters because there’s nothing in that passage to eliminate that possibility.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So I’m going to ask the question again and see if you’ll answer it. Your view is that the word adelphos, what it means in the brethren is that it’s talking about Jesus and siblings, they have the same mother but they have different fathers. Now in the Septuagint as well as in the New Testament, adelphos is used to talk about people who have the same father but different mothers. I’m just asking is there an example of anywhere in scripture where it’s used to describe siblings they have the same mother but they have different fathers? It sounds like you are using it for your view of Jesus in a very unique way.
Steve Christie:
I would have to look through the whole Old Testament because word brothers is used quite a bit of time. So as far as I know, I don’t know offhand but that doesn’t mean that it’s not being used. And even if it wasn’t, I don’t see the relevance to it.
Trent Horn:
The relevance would be that you are using it.
Steve Christie:
Well, the relevance is the fact that the word adelphos for brother, the primary meaning means a biological sibling, so unless there’s a reason in the context of [inaudible 01:13:28].
Trent Horn:
Is primary meaning of adelphos that you have the same biological mother and father? Two individuals share the same biological mother and father?
Steve Christie:
Primary meaning of the word adelphos can either refer to having the same biological mother or father. It can also refer to a half sibling as well, such as in the Old Testament, the word for brother is used to refer to Ruben as being the brother of his half brothers.
Trent Horn:
Because they have the same father but different mothers.
Steve Christie:
But it doesn’t demand for that though. It doesn’t explicitly state that is [inaudible 01:14:05].
Trent Horn:
So then the word adelphos could also apply in this case to describe people that they have the same adoptive father, Joseph, but different mothers, Joseph’s first wife and his second wife. Can it be used in the case without contradicting scripture?
Steve Christie:
Adelphos is not my issue. I mean, actually you and I would agree on this. My argument is how the word adelphos is specifically is used to the New Testament Greek. I don’t have a problem with the word a adelphos, that was never my argument. It’s [inaudible 01:14:35].
Trent Horn:
So for an ancient Greek speaking person, why would adelphe have a narrower semantic range than adelphos when the only difference here is the gender? Why would that be the case?
Steve Christie:
Because if you look in Strong’s Greek Exhaustive Concordance and how it is used in the New Testament, which is what the debate is about not extra biblical work, it is used consistently and only to describe biological siblings. And remember this is the focus of our debate, how it’s used in scripture.
Trent Horn:
Well, right. But when we look at something like Strong’s for example, are you aware that Strong’s defines adelphos and adelphe the same way? For example, Strong’s 80, are you aware that it describes adelphos, it says a brother, a member of the same religious community, a fellow Christian. But here Strong’s says brother but that could also mean half brother, right?
Steve Christie:
Oh, absolutely. And then it says, when you refer to adelphe, when you look that up, it only has two meanings. It refers to a natural sister as well or a biological [inaudible 01:15:42].
Trent Horn:
I’m running out of time. So I’ve got two more questions here.
Steve Christie:
Go ahead.
Trent Horn:
So the protestant reformers like Luther and Zwingly, did they believe Mary was a perpetual Virgin and were they committed to Sola scriptura?
Steve Christie:
They were committed to Sola scriptura but we also have to remember that even though they were formers, they were also Roman Catholics and their issue with Romans was not about Marian dogmas, it was about the authority of scripture over the authority of the church. And they did not want people following them. They wanted people following scripture even if they were wrong.
Trent Horn:
Okay. Did they think that there was anything unbiblical about Mary being ever Virgin?
Steve Christie:
As Roman Catholics, because Mary was not an issue, they did have a problem with her being a perpetual Virgin and I believe Calvin was kind of on the fence about it, so it’s irrelevant because they’re Catholic.
Trent Horn:
Did they believe every Catholic truth?
Steve Christie:
Did the reformers believe every Catholic truth? No, because their issue with Rome was about the sole authority of scripture over the sole authority of the church. Their issue is not about Mary.
Trent Horn:
Did they believe Mary’s… Well we’re out of time, so [inaudible 01:16:57].
Steve Christie:
No, go ahead. Please finish. Go ahead.
Matt:
Let’s do one final question.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Did they believe that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity violated the authority of scripture?
Steve Christie:
Yes. And again, as a Roman Catholic, I would expect them to because their issue is not about Mary. Their issue is about the authority of the church. So it’s irrelevant.
Matt:
All right. We are going to move into a time 30 minutes of Q&A. Massive thanks to those who support us at locals and on Patreon. We’re going to be taking those questions. I think it might be best if I just go back and forth, so like one question for Steve and he answers, then I’ll do a question for Trent. If you guys could try to keep your answers to about two minutes each. Some of these questions are for both of you but it might be better if I ask a question, just one of you respond since we have so many. Okay. So this first question is for both of you, we’ll start with Trent and then Steve, this comes from Estaban. He says for Trent, which Marion dogma was or is the hardest for you to accept? You answer that and then I’ll ask Steve the next question.
Trent Horn:
Well, in my own personal journey of faith, I think I had some difficulties with the immaculate conception of Mary and Mary’s bodily assumption, but I think I was able to move through those difficulties by broadening my understanding of what is the ultimate source of authority for Christians that it’s not Sola scriptura because the Bible itself doesn’t even teach that. And so moving from that, that if Jesus Christ did establish the church, if I’m confident of that and in its teaching authority, then I can be confident in what the Pope teaches about Mary in regards to those two dogmas but I can especially have confidence knowing that what is taught does not contradict scripture. And so if it doesn’t contradict scripture, then it should be an issue between Catholics and Protestants of secondary importance, much like how people disagree about infant baptism. They’ll say that I don’t believe it, but Steve might say it doesn’t contradict scripture necessarily.
Matt:
Okay. So this next question is for you, Steve. I think you’ve already said to some degree you’re okay referring to Mary as the mother of God. So maybe you could focus on the other three, which obviously you disagree with all these three Marion dogmas, but which do you think would be the easiest for you to get on board with?
Steve Christie:
Oh wow. That’s kind of hard. I’d have to respond individually. I mean, because honestly I believe that all three do contradict all of them. Probably I believe it at the bodily assumption only because there’s nothing in scripture that even eludes to her death, it doesn’t allude to what happened at the end of her life, which even epiphany as Islamist stated that nobody knows what happened to Mary at the end of her life, which demonstrates there was no eyewitness. So probably honestly that one. As far as Jesus’ brothers and sisters, I probably have studied that more than anything else and that would probably be the hardest for me to accept or maybe Mary being sinless because I mean, Trent, you got a seven year old, it’s like is as good as a kid as he is based on who his parents are. I’m throwing you a bone here. And I truly believe that because you’re a nice guy. I like you Trent.
Trent Horn:
You too.
Steve Christie:
If anything like the parents he’s a good kid, but I can’t imagine by the age of seven that his oldest child hasn’t sinned one time. And I can honestly say the same thing about Mary especially with the oppression of Rome and the Jews especially after Jesus was born. So I don’t know if that answers a question but probably the bodily assumption.
Matt:
No, that’s fine. Okay. Thank you. All right. So this question is for Steve and this comes from Kevin, who’s a local supporter. He says, this is a question for Steve. How do you understand Luke 1:28’s title for Mary as full of grace in the Greek, literally meaning something like having been made completely full in regards to the immaculate conception? Thanks.
Steve Christie:
Sure. I addressed this a little bit during the debates of the specific Greek word [inaudible 01:21:19], which is translate full of grace or highly favored, even Jimmy Akin from Catholic answers that. Even Trent has argued that the word does not mean to be immaculately conceived. It doesn’t even imply that. And again, in Sirach chapter 18, I think it’s verse 17 in the Septuagint uses this same Greek word, but in the masculine to refer to man being full of grace as [inaudible 01:21:46] and obviously Trent and I would agree that it doesn’t mean that way. And as Jimmy Akin has pointed out, if Mary needed to be sinless in order to give birth to the Messiah, then her mother would have to be sinless and her mother would have to be sinless all the way back to Eve and so it doesn’t work. I mean, it’s not a good proof text to use.
Matt:
This next question is-
Trent Horn:
Well, oh, can I have a [inaudible 01:22:11].
Matt:
Sure. [inaudible 01:22:12] That’s fine. Just keep it shorter than his response.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, sure. And what I would say here is that I agree that use of [inaudible 01:22:20] in Luke 1:28 does not prove the doctrine of the immaculate conception. I think it provides strong evidence for it. I do talk about this in my book and there, I note that it’s used differently than in Sirach 18:17, where the word is also used in those situations. In Luke 1:28, the angel uses it as a descriptor of Mary within a personal address, similar to how John the Baptist used the lamb of God to speak about Jesus, and that talks about the significance there. The fact that this is used of Mary is very unusual. A protestant scholar Craig keener says neither the title favored or graced one nor the promise the Lord is with you was traditional in greetings even if the person had been of status. So I think that is highly significant there’s something very, very special about Mary in the way that it’s used along with the word’s definition.
Steve Christie:
Can I quickly make a [inaudible 01:23:12].
Matt:
Sure. But let’s have this be the last response to a response, because then I’m going to ask Trent to question, then you are going to get to respond to that.
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Well the thing is, in both cases in the Septuagint and in Luke’s gospel, they’re both in the perfect passive of participle, so they’re being used the same way. And I would also address that Luke actually specifically states that it is a salutation. That’s all it is. That’s all I wanted to say.
Matt:
This is hard, isn’t it? Because I know every one of these points you could go back and forth on a lot, but let’s try to keep it to just the main response and then a response to the response. So this question is for Trent. [inaudible 01:23:43] This comes from supporter, Matt. It’s a good question. I think a lot of people have this question, both Catholics and Protestants. At what point does Marion devotion or veneration turn into idolatry? Like for example, how does one reconcile the following statements, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, from our blessed Lord in John 14:6 and “Hail holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope”, emphasis on both claiming to be our life? So when does Marion devotion turn into idolatry?
Trent Horn:
Sure. So idolatry, according to the catechism and paragraph 2113 says idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry when he honors and reviews a creature in place of God. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t show veneration and respect towards the things that God has made and those people who have cooperated with God in salvation history. So when it comes to Mary, idolatry would occur if we were to give Mary worship that is due to God alone. A concrete example of this would be sacrifice. Offering a sacrifice to Mary would be an inappropriate. In fact, in the early church, it would be idolatry. In the early church, there was a heretical sect called the [Cororidians 01:25:03] and [Epiphanias 01:25:05] condemns them. And they talks about how they offered cakes on alters to Mary. But the only thing we should offer on an altar is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God that he has given to us at Calvary. We should only offer that to the father and the holy sacrifice of the mass.
Trent Horn:
So offering sacrifices to Mary would be idolatry. Worshiping Mary as if she takes the place of God and is the one who secures our salvation as if she died on the cross or something like that. We must be careful, of course, that in Marion devotion, sometimes people use very flowery language that they shouldn’t necessarily be taken literally because they love Mary as the mother of God who leads us to her son. I would stress that we look at what the church teaches in its magisterial teachings about Mary and her important role in salvation. But even St. Louis de Montfort who uses very lofty language of Mary says of her that she is but one Adam in comparison to the infinite and majestic glory that is God. So I think Catholics have a way to honor Mary as the mother of God without divinizing her.
Matt:
Your response, Steve.
Steve Christie:
Yeah. I want to comment on his use of the word veneration. In the Darby translation of the New Testament, where in second Thessalonians Chapter 2, when it talks about worshiping images and worshiping idols, it actually uses the word veneration and it literally can be translated worship. So I’m not saying that Catholics are actively worshiping Mary or statues of Mary, but we have to be careful with the word of veneration. It’s a word that really should be used strictly for God. And of course we can get into the whole Latria and Dulia argument, but that’s not what this debate is actually about.
Steve Christie:
And the other issue is a fact, is that even though a Pope would not be allowed to declare something that goes against what the magisterium teaches and the magisterium I doubt would ever teach about worshiping Mary, what’s interesting is that according to Lumen Gentium, it says that even when the Pope is not speaking ex cathedral, you must actually listen to what the Pope says. And this was a dogmatic constitution of the church by Pope Paul VI. And he went on to say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God when in fact they don’t because the Christian God is Jesus and the Muslim God is Allah, and is not Jesus.
Trent Horn:
And I’d like my little mini rebuttal, very quick points, Matt, that is a topic for another debate. And we’ve also addressed that frequently at catholic.com. So our listeners can go there to read that. And number two, when it comes to veneration, worship, honor, give someone the respect that they’re due. I would give this analogy to my protestant brothers and sisters. Suppose we discovered the actual cross Jesus had been crucified on. We discovered it, carbon-dated it, that’s the cross Jesus died on. How would you treat that thing? Probably not like any other piece of wood. I bet maybe you would kneel before it in prayer, you would weep to see that through this means our salvation was procured. Some people might even accuse you of idolatry. So my point would be that if we would show that devotion to the means through which Jesus died, why wouldn’t we show that similar devotion through the means by which Jesus was born?
Matt:
Fair enough, Steve shaking his head no, but we’ll leave it at that for now. This next question comes from [Mcart 01:28:41] 1977. Thanks for being a supporter mate. He says this is for, oh, Hey, now you have to give one to Steve. Given that the church both east and west had access to the same scriptures as us and were closer to the time of the apostles, how do you justify the church being in era for so long on a number of the Marion doctrines?
Steve Christie:
Well, first of all, I would say that I disagree with Trent as a Catholic as how you define the word church, that in Roman Catholicism church is defined specifically as the Pope of the magisterium, and then when you get baptized in the church, you become part of that. Rather, biblically the church is every individual sinner who God has redeemed out of the world to be a slave to our master and Lord Jesus Christ, every individual sinner. So I don’t believe that the church in the biblical sense has been an era all that time. And if you look into church history, these dogmas were not all agreed upon. The last one to be accepted was the bodily assumption of Mary.
Steve Christie:
And if you take a look at the origin of all three of these dogmas, they all come from either nastic like text or apocryphal literature or [inaudible 01:29:53] literature, like the Protoevangelium of James and elsewhere. So I would actually disagree with Cardinal Newman to be deep into history as deceased to be Protestant. I actually had the opposite situation and as I began to study scripture more in depth, I found to be deep into the Bible to cease to become Catholic.
Matt:
Trent?
Trent Horn:
I would say that Steve’s comment, well, I don’t think that the church is just a collection of believers and I don’t think that the church ceases to exist. Those are both problematic. Matthew 18:17 says, Jesus says, “If a person who sins against you refuses to listen to you or two or three witnesses, tell it to the church.” And it seems to envision the church as having some kind of authoritative structure and not simply as the invisible bond between all believers. I would say the church subsist in the Catholic church though other non-Catholic Christians have an imperfect communion with the church. That would be one.
Trent Horn:
Number two is when Steve said, well, I don’t think the church died off. There’s more to it than that. I would ask him this question, you can answer it now or some other venue, who was the first Christian, like author, father, theologian, who held to the same theology that Steve does? Who was the first person you could say, “Yeah, that’s my theology. I agree with what that person teaches. That’s what I believe.” Even if you have to have some things in essential form, I think he would have to pick someone pretty late in church history, at least over a thousand or 1500 years or 1800 years. And if that’s the case, I think he’d have to say there really wasn’t a church before that if he can’t find someone prior to that say, yeah, that person believed essentially what I believe. I don’t think he could do that.
Matt:
Sounds like you’re posing the question to you, Steve. So feel free to answer that briefly.
Steve Christie:
And it’ll be really quick. I mean, to quote Jimmy Akin, when he was asked, “Did all the early church fathers agree?” He says, “Boy, did they not all agree?” So there was a lot that the early church disagreed on and there was things that they agreed on, things that Trent would agree on and there’s things that they agreed on that I would actually believe in. And so to say, who believed the exact same way that I believed? But when you look into church history, it’s kind of hard to answer that question because even Trent cannot say about somebody that agreed exactly the way that he does. I mean, today there are Roman Catholics, about 70% of American Catholics that [inaudible 01:32:21] substantiation, let me finish-
Trent Horn:
Yeah, go ahead.
Steve Christie:
… and so this may not satisfy Trent’s answer and he might smirk a little bit about that, but I’d say probably the first theologian to agree with me is the Apostle Paul.
Trent Horn:
I guess, after the New Testament, I guess here’s a fun question, which of the church fathers would you be okay with preaching at your church? I would love to have Augustine or Aquinas come down to my parish and give a talk or be a pastor there. I don’t know how you would feel. Which church father would you want to preach at your church?
Steve Christie:
I’m surprised that you would pick Aquinas since he did not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary.
Trent Horn:
Unlike Mary nobody’s perfect.
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Jesus is.
PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:33:04]
Trent Horn:
… perfect.
Steve Christie:
Yeah. Jesus is. But to-
Trent Horn:
Among human persons.
Steve Christie:
He was human. Just for fun, I mean, I would probably enjoy listening to Ignatius. I’d probably enjoy Polycarp. I would probably enjoy Clement of Rome, even though 1 Clement wasn’t written by an individual, but rather there was a poly group of bishops in 1 Clement. But I mean, some of the early ones, I’d probably… Definitely not Judas Iscariot.
Matt:
Okay. This question is for Steve from super chat megentlevolp. He says, “Steve. Psalm 132:8 says ‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might.’ Can you describe the ark?”
Steve Christie:
Yes. It’s referring back to 2 Samuel when it’s talking about the ark being moved to Jerusalem. This is an example called eisegesis of Scripture. It has nothing to do with Mary being the ark. As a matter of fact, if you want to, immediately after this debate, I made two videos. One of them is about the false typologies that are used by contemporary Catholic apologists in order to justify Mary being the new ark, and I explain… Don’t go to it now. Wait until after the debate, but if you want to go there now, it’s about that. And I also have a video about seven popes, and possibly eight popes, that did not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. It’s on my YouTube channel BornAgainRN. Shameless plug.
Matt:
Yeah, no, Steve, if you want to give me the links to those over email, I’ll be sure to put them in the description below so people can easily find them. Trent, did you want to-
Trent Horn:
Yes, and I also have a video about Protestant inconsistent use of typology where Protestants have no problem even seeing very rough connections, typologically, to Jesus in the Old Testament, but then apply a much harsher standard when those same typological connections or better ones show Mary in the Old Testament. So I’ll send you a link, you could put that [inaudible 01:35:07] as well.
Matt:
Yeah, sounds good. Okay. This question comes from agoyforJesus. Thanks for the super chat. He says, “Trent, the proclamation on Mary’s immaculate conception says that the fathers unanimously believed that which is false. Can a conclusion be infallible if the underlying logic is false?” Don’t have the context of this question. That’s all I got.
Trent Horn:
And by the way, hi, Jeff. Good to hear from you again. If you guys want, I just had a dialogue with Steve and Jeff on their channel. It’s also been mirrored on my channel, you can go and check that out. I believe he’s referring to part of a declaration in [inaudible 01:35:47], the declaration about the immaculate conception made by the Pope in 1854, saying that the fathers had always believed this about Mary being immaculately conceived. What the church teaches is that infallibility does not cover preambles or evidences that are used to formulate a doctrine. There might be historical errors, for example, in some magisterial documents, talking about the history of a doctrine, whether a certain saint or father believed X, Y, or Z. Infallibility has a narrow sense and only covers what is specifically defined.
Trent Horn:
And in this case, infallibility would only cover the definition that Mary was conceived free from original sin and free from sin her entire life. Otherwise things leading up to it, we could interpret them either in a broader sense. It’s not necessarily saying every single father affirms something, since, as Steve said, you won’t necessarily get them all affirming, [inaudible 01:36:48] they don’t write on everything. It has to be interpreted charitably, or it’s possible there might be an error in a magisterial statement recounting history, but that doesn’t apply the charism to the doctrine itself. Just like that Scripture includes things within it that are not necessarily scientifically accurate, scriptures without error. But when the Bible talks about a firmament, that talks about an ancient, incorrect view of the heavens. So that doesn’t take away from what an errancy is about, which is Scripture’s specific affirmations related to what it affirms.
Matt:
Steve.
Steve Christie:
Yeah. I’m a little disturbed about the comment about anything in Scripture being in error, because if we cannot trust that when it says about Jesus being our savior and rising from the dead. Can you repeat the question real quick? Do you still have it?
Matt:
Sure. Yep. It comes from agoyforJesus who I’m now beginning to assume is your co-laborer. I’m not sure. Do you know him? Do you?
Steve Christie:
Yeah, I think [inaudible 01:37:48].
Matt:
The proclamation on Mary’s immaculate conception says that the fathers unanimously believe that which is false. Can a conclusion be infallible if the underlying logic is false?
Steve Christie:
Yeah. And see, here’s the thing. In the declaration on the specific dogma, the immaculate conception of Mary, there’s absolutely nothing in the dogma itself that says anything that this part is infallible. And something else that the Pope says in the declaration is not infallible. And the other concern, again, that I have is from Lumen Gentium, which is a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, that it is binding to Catholics that even if a Roman pontiff does not speak ex cathedra, it is binding. And the issue too, is it discusses the word ipsum as opposed to ipsa, when it says from Genesis 15, if she will bruise the heel, or his heel will be versed, however it’s actually worded. This is actually based on Jerome’s incorrect translation, where he used the word ipsa for she, rather than the corrected translation, which is ipsum for he, which is actually supported in Romans chapter 16 when it says, “Jesus is the prince whose heel would be bruised.”
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So my quick mini rebuttal. In Ineffabilis Deus, where immaculate conception is defined, the word unanimous appears once. And it’s talking about the opinion of the fathers of the most glorious Virgin being an unstable miracle of God and being the mother of God. And I think that’s something that we do find. Mary’s special, unique status and her being mother of God is something throughout the fathers, definitely.
Steve Christie:
What you ended up finding also from this, as well as other dogmas, when you go back to it, you find a lot of these dogmas originating in apocalyptic literature.
Matt:
So this question comes from Mitchell Godfrey, and I’m going to just change his question a little because he said he is not going to be watching live. So some of this has been answered, but he seems like he’s asking, could a Protestant accept some of these Marian dogma and remain a Protestant and someone that you would fellowship with? So for example, if a Protestant listens to today’s debate and agrees with Trent and Calvin and Luther that Mary didn’t have children, could he still, in your view, be a good Protestant Christian?
Steve Christie:
Trent, do you want to start or do you want me to answer that first?
Matt:
That’s for you, Steve.
Steve Christie:
Oh, it’s for me? Okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. And Trent and I actually talked a little bit about this, about essentials versus non-essentials of the faith. And it all goes down to the authority of Scripture. I would argue that the dogmas are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture and they do not affect salvation. A person could be a Protestant, because we have to understand what a Protestant is and we have to go back to the Reformation for it. And in the Reformation, the two doctrines that came out of it was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. And if that is your authority, that’s what makes you a Protestant.
Steve Christie:
And we have to ask yourself, is there anything in the Bible that states that in order to be saved, you have to believe in these dogmas? No, it doesn’t. It just means somebody is wrong, whether it be me or another person who calls themselves Protestant that accepts these things. But if their authority is a Roman Catholic church and the Magisterium, then it becomes an authority issue because then you’re submitting to an authority that is also teaching something different about salvation that has nothing to do with these dogmas.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I would say that this is a really important question and one for us to look at, that for Protestants and Catholics to have dialogue with one another and to get closer to the truth, I think it’s huge to be able to move from… And what this debate is about, is about do these beliefs contradict Scripture? Now I think Steve would probably say that there can be Protestants who believe things that Scripture’s silent about, like infant baptism. Should we baptize babies or not? Protestants disagree. Though, I think that is a salvation issue actually. But they disagree about that because at least infant baptism, for many Protestants, at least it doesn’t contradict Scripture, even if Scripture is silent on the matter. And so I would say if you’re a Protestant, for Protestants and Catholics, if the Marian dogmas can occupy at least that place.
Trent Horn:
Well, Scripture seems silent on the matter, not resolved, but at least it doesn’t contradict Scripture, then I would say we should treat the Marian dogmas like you’re a Protestant. Anything else you might disagree with? Like infant baptism, the cessation of charismatic gifts, for example. And one little historical note so that people… There’s a bit of a myth here. Calvin did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He rejected that dogma, though he did not believe Matthew 1:25 proved it. They also didn’t believe in the dogma either. Luther and Zwingli though, probably they did believe that Mary was ever Virgin. So just a historical note for everybody watching.
Matt:
Yeah. That’s good for me too. Thanks for correcting me on that, Trent. I was wrong there. Okay. Here’s a question that I have that I’d be interested in both of you answering. And maybe we can go to Trent and then Steve. So Trent, what are some arguments that you hear Catholics put forth for any of the dogmas we are discussing today, that you wish they would stop putting forth because they’re bad arguments? And then Steve, because Steve, I can tell that you’ve really wrestled with what Catholicism teaches. And I really appreciate that you are arguing against Catholicism based on what she teaches, right? So my question for you then would be what are some objections you hear from Protestants that when you hear them, you think, “Oh goodness, you don’t even understand the Catholic position.” So starting with Trent.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Well, what’s interesting is that Steve actually had very good objections to some of these arguments. He offered them in the debate. They weren’t arguments that I made, but they were arguments that other people have made. So for example, I think Steve is right that the use of the word [inaudible 01:43:59] in Luke 1:28 does not, in and of itself, prove the immaculate conception. It would be an evidence chip, if you will, for it that we have to balance with other evidences. Other arguments, I think are bad, the claim that Mary had to be immaculately conceived because Jesus could not be conceived within a woman who is sinful.
Trent Horn:
By that argument, St. Anne would also have to be immaculately conceived. The claim that Mary did not give birth to other children because Jesus is called the son of Mary. I do believe that’s good evidence that Mary was Joseph’s second wife, at least that’s my personal view, but that doesn’t prove that Mary didn’t give birth to others. Because you could say, “Well, Solomon is the son of David,” but David had many other children besides Solomon. So that’s also a bad argument. Yeah. So there’s lots of bad arguments. I thought about writing a book on-
Matt:
Here’s one, Trent, I don’t like and I wonder what you think about it. When I’ve seen people in the chat say things like, “Wouldn’t you make your mother perfect?” I don’t like that argument. I just think, “Well, yeah, I’d also want to make my foster father perfect. And I’d probably want to make Peter the rock of the church.” Yeah.
Trent Horn:
Yes. Here’s my thought on that. So this would be an argument saying that it is fitting, therefore it is true. And I think that in general, those arguments aren’t very strong, but in some cases, saying that something is fitting can point us in that direction. For example, we could ask the question were the apostles baptized? Because I believe that, I think Steve would agree, baptism is at least an ordinance we ought to carry out. We ought to do it. The Bible doesn’t say that apostles are baptized, but it certainly seems quite fitting that they would be given everything else.
Trent Horn:
So the idea that it’s fitting that Mary be immaculately conceived, it pushes the dial a little, but it’s by no means a proof. There is an article, I might share this soon, by a Catholic philosopher, Jack Mulder, where he talks about, Mary being immaculate conceived, it’s fitting and may be required because that way, Mary is perfectly able to consent to become pregnant with our savior. I can’t go into that in detail here in the answer, but I might talk about it in a future podcast episode. So that’s another one. It is fitting, therefore it’s true. Might give you a slight nudge in the direction, but by no means a full proof.
Matt:
Okay. And then Steve, what are some objections you hear from Protestants to Catholics that you don’t think are good? Or are they all good?
Steve Christie:
Yeah, no, no, no. I mean, you got me on the spot. I mean, I have to really think about that. I mean, aside from the dogmas, I think one of the ones that make me cringe is that Catholics worship Mary, where every time I hear that, I’m like… And I brought it up, but I explained… I came about it through a different way. I have to say, maybe, and Trent brought this up in the debate, when it talks about the brothers and sisters of Jesus and using adelphoi to mean that it always means biological brother. And Trent and I would agree that doesn’t mean it, in fact, that wasn’t even an argument. And that’s why I went [inaudible 01:47:13] and why I argued, how is it used specifically in the New Testament? So I would actually tell people to focus more on that. Honestly, I’d have to think about it. It’s like, because-
Matt:
No problem.
Steve Christie:
… I try not to use those arguments.
Matt:
Yeah, no, fair enough. I put you on the spot with that, so there’s no worries. Okay. We’re going to move into a time of closing statements. Steve, you’re going to go first with five minutes and then Trent. Take your time there, Steve, getting yourself ready. And then whenever you start speaking, I’ll click the time.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Give me a second here. Okay. You got five minutes, right?
Matt:
Yes. Correct. Five minutes.
Steve Christie:
All right.
Matt:
No rush, no rush. We’re good.
Steve Christie:
It is often said, in order to detect a counterfeit bill, you don’t study other counterfeit bills, but instead you first study the genuine thing, then you’ll be able to detect a counterfeit easily. As Christian evangelist and author Mike Gendron wrote, “The most deceptive counterfeit is the one that most resembles the genuine article.” The same is true with detecting a counterfeit Mary, by first studying the genuine Mary of God Scripture, which does not teach these much later Roman Catholic dogmas, but just the opposite that she was, past tense, the Virgin mother of our Lord who redeemed and delivered her from her sins and who died and will be, future tense, bodily resurrected when Jesus comes to catch up as church. It is because of my tremendous love and respect for the Mary of God [inaudible 01:48:45] Scripture, that I felt the responsibility to point out that the Mary of Roman Catholicism is not the same as the Mary of the Word of God.
Steve Christie:
Rather, this counterfeit Mary developed over several centuries based on false typologies, which conflict with Scripture, no different than what Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Muslims have done with Jesus. Aaron Frederick, one of my YouTube subscribers, rightly observed, “In a courtroom, evidence that is thrown out or dismissed by a court cannot be used to find a verdict. The same in any intellectual study. What is pure fiction cannot be used as factual evidences. And it is from the pure fiction of the proto evangelium of James, Odes of Solomon, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Transitus of Pseudo-Melito, and other false gospels and apocryphal literature, some attached with anathemas by early popes for entertaining these works. Without separating the Marian dogmas from them are where these much, much later Marian dogmas developed from and later forced into the text, which would have been foreign to the biblical writers. Influenced early on by early monasticism, asceticism, and even gnostic-like texts, early Roman Catholics were troubled by how a created sinful fallen creature went on to have other children and could give birth to the sinless Son of God in the flesh.
Steve Christie:
These later Marian developments were not like Orthodox dogmas and doctrines of Christ that developed, such as his divinity, his dual natures and wills, and the Trinity whose concepts are unmistakably spelled out in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. Scripture reveals Mary was a Virgin, but conflicts with her being a perpetual Virgin. Mary did not need to be immaculate conceived since sin is not a trait that is passed down physically, but a spiritual condition. Mary also did not need to be bodily assumed to heaven like Enoch and Elijah, so they “would not see death,” supported by the earliest church tradition, indirectly supported by Scripture, and strongly implied by the dogma itself. The importance of discussing these Marian dogma is more than merely to debate them. It is a matter of which authority are you willing to submit to. The infallible authority of Scripture versus a fallible self-proclaimed authority of the Magisterium, which demands a faithful Catholic to believe these dogmas threatening them with excommunication for denying them, despite all of them contradicting Scripture. As Trent Horn shared with Matt Fradd on Sips with Aquinas… Ooh. “The immaculate conception, should we dogmatize should we not?”
Steve Christie:
It is going to go back to what you believe about the authority of the Magisterium. So the Catholic’s authority is not balanced on a three legged stool of the Magisterium, sacred tradition, and holy Scripture, but on a one-legged stool of the Magisterium, which subjectively determines what Scripture and tradition are and how to interpret them. The danger of submitting to this fallible authority extends to submitting to their authority of their unbiblical view of salvation of infusion of grace through the sacraments, which also contradicts Scripture, which teaches justification by imputation of grace by faith alone. As the Apostle Paul wrote in his fourth chapter in his epistle to the Roman church, “For what does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited or imputed to him as righteousness so that he might be the father of all who believed that righteousness might be credited or imputed to them.”
Steve Christie:
And this includes Mary, who Jesus saved her by redeeming and delivering her from her sins. So whether we are discussing the Marian dogmas, the papacy, the purpose of baptism or communion, or the biblical Canon, the real authority behind these debates is whether you trust in the sufficiency of God [inaudible 01:52:23] Scripture to reel itself to you or to the Magisterium, which often conflicts with it. Not just on the Marian dogmas, but also regarding salvation. As Trent Horn stated in his debate against Dr. James White, “Our theology should come from the Bible, not the Bible from our theology.” That’s Sola Scriptura, folks, and I agree with him as did the Apostle Paul and the first century Roman Church. Thank you and God bless everyone.
Matt:
Thank you very much, Steve. Trent, whenever you begin, I’ll click the five minute timer.
Trent Horn:
Sure. Yes. I do remember in that debate with James White five years ago, saying, “Our theology should come from the Bible, not the Bible from our theology.” And I was not arguing for Sola Scriptura. My point was that we should not believe in doctrines that plainly contradict Scripture. In fact, in that debate, I never brought up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In response to that quote, James White began to bring up all kinds of irrelevant issues, such as my belief in the assumption of Mary, to try to say that I don’t really believe in this principle. I do. As Christians, we should not believe things that contradict the Word of God. And Catholics are very clear, we do not believe anything that contradicts what we find in sacred Scripture. Not everything we believe is found explicitly in sacred Scripture. And for Protestants, that’s the same as well, because the doctrines of the canon of Scripture, or even Sola Scriptura itself are not found explicitly in Scripture.
Trent Horn:
So let’s tie all of this up a little bit. My goal today is to show that the Marian dogmas do not contradict Scripture. You go a long way from that, seeing that they’re true, but at least in showing that they don’t contradict Scripture, a person can more easily approach the teaching office of the church and see, well, maybe other things it teaches does make a lot of sense, such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the existence of an enduring Magisterium, baptismal regeneration, and other things like that. And then take heart in knowing that these teachings about Mary don’t contradict Scripture, and then we can further infer and try to understand what are the sources of divine revelation. So to talk about things that came up in this debate, there are things that came up that we’re not debating, things like Sola Scriptura, the history of the Marian dogmas.
Trent Horn:
As I said before, that’s not what we’re debating today. Those would be irrelevant to the question. My point though was to show that the Marian dogmas do not contradict Scripture. I’m not alone in believing this. As I showed earlier, you have people like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, who were firmly… I would not call them Catholic. I don’t think people at the time would call them Catholic. Certainly they were baptized Catholics, but they opposed whatever they thought the church taught that contradicted sacred Scripture in a wide variety of doctrines, except they didn’t contradict on Mary being the mother of God or her being ever Virgin. Because as Steve agreed with me in this debate, the Greek word adelphos can mean adoptive sibling or half sibling. And I showed in my arguments that his claim that adelphei can only mean uterine sister of the same mother, or figurative, are simply not held up.
Trent Horn:
And that Greek grammarians and New Testament scholars simply disagree with Steve on this point, he’s just wrong about the semantic range of that word. And I also showed his other arguments to try to show that Mary gave birth to other children, such as from Psalm 69, Luke chapter two, as well as the idea that Matthew 1:25 requires that she and Joseph had sexual relations. None of that is required by Greek grammar or what the verses say. And I showed counter examples to that in each of those cases. And eventually those ended up being dropped throughout the debate. When it came to the immaculate conception, Steve did not really put forward any argument to show Mary sinned herself. Just a weak reference to Mark chapter three. And even there, he admitted it doesn’t explicitly talk about Mary. When we talked about there being universal truths about sin, we both agreed on that.
Trent Horn:
And Steve and I also both agreed that the universality of things like sin or death don’t preclude exceptions. Hebrews 9:27 says, “It’s appointed for men to die once, but some people die twice. Some people don’t die at all.” So Steve even admits that Jesus is an exception to the claims about the universality of sin. But he’ll say we can believe in that exception because of what’s come from divine revelation in sacred Scripture. And I would say the same applies to Mary, we’re just having different views about what counts as divine revelation. But if we just read Scripture and read it fairly and charitably, there’s nothing that contradicts, so far, Mary being mother of God, ever Virgin, or being immaculately conceived. And I think we both agree on the assumption, Steve said it the Bible does not say Mary was not assumed into heaven, and in order to try to show her assumption would contradict it, we had to use a very speculative argument about that she did not need to be rescued from death, even though that doesn’t apply to every case where God would take someone into heaven.
Trent Horn:
That rather, there’s nothing in there to preclude people being assumed body and soul into heaven, including Mary. So ultimately, we’ve seen this and I think what’s important to remember all of this, that these dogmas do not take the place of Christ. Mary doesn’t take the place of Christ. Mary always leads us to her son. They point us to Jesus Christ. And so when we look to Mary, we always follow the words that she uttered to the servants at the Wedding Feast of Cana, “Do whatever he tells you.” And Jesus tells us to honor our father and mother, and we should honor his father and mother. We honor our father who is in heaven, and we give honor to Mary, who is the mother of God that brought our savior into the world. And so in seeing these Marian dogmas that they don’t contradict Scripture, we can move forward in our understanding of authority to see what the church Christ established really has taught and given to us for salvation.
Matt:
All right. Thank you very much, Trent. And Steve, stick around because I’ve got one final question for both of you, but I wanted to say two things before I do that. The first is if you are watching right now and you are not yet subscribed to this YouTube channel, click subscribe, click the bell button. It’ll make me feel really good if nothing else. We’ve got lots of great content that comes out weekly more seriously, and you don’t want to miss it, so click subscribe. Second thing I want to point out is you should consider joining our locals community. Locals is a free speech platform. So unlike Twitter and YouTube, I’m not going to get banned from saying the sorts of things I say that go against secular dogma. I run morning podcasts here on locals.
Matt:
It’s called Morning Coffee, where we all sit down together, have a coffee and have a very casual chat. It’s free to watch the podcast. You just have to join locals in the same way you’d have to join Twitter or Facebook to get access to it. So I’m going to put a link in the description below. I already have. Please click that. Please join our community. It’s a very beautiful open community and you get free daily podcasts and I think you’d really enjoy it. Okay. So final question I have for each of you, we’ll start with Steve and then Trent. Steve, where can people learn more about you and the good stuff you’ve done? Oh, you’re on mute.
Steve Christie:
Forgot. Can you hear me now?
Matt:
Yes, sir.
Steve Christie:
Okay. Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Matt, for having me on, for hosting this debate and for all that, and for everyone affiliated with Pints with Aquinas. I also want to thank Trent for agreeing to our second debate and we hit over 800, I saw in there, which actually our first debate, so praise Jesus for that. And I also want to thank Trent for picking the particular title on how it was actually described because I had mentioned, “Hey, let’s just do the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.” And he’s like, “Let’s do all three of them.” So it was Trent’s idea.
Steve Christie:
Just a shameless plug, like I said, I’m an author of two books. People are familiar with this one about why Protestant Bibles are smaller. My first book is about not really of us, why do children of Christian parents abandon the faith? You can get both of those on Amazon. You can also reach me on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. My screen name is BornAgainRN, so you can look at me that way. I’m also going to send Matt a link to my other channel, verasage.us/stevechristie. A lot of mouthful, but that’s what links are for. So thank you very much both you, God bless you, and stay safe out there.
Matt:
Thanks Steve. Trent?
Trent Horn:
Yeah, no, I’m grateful for Steve to take part in this. It’s always nice to see people who are willing to put forward rigorous argument and engage others charitably. And yeah, I would just encourage others, I’ve always said this, I don’t see debates as a way to end an issue. It’s a way to begin exploration of it. So I would definitely encourage people who are willing to explore the church’s teachings about Mary more. There are a lot of great resources at catholic.com. I have two chapters on it in my book, The Case for Catholicism. My colleague, Tim Staples, has written an entire book on Mary called Behold Your Mother. And also I know others who’ve done a lot of work on this. William Albrecht has done a lot of great work on Mary. You can see him and others talk about this on the Reason and Theology Channel. Brant Pitre has some great work on Mary as well for people to check out. So yeah, I would just encourage people just to continue to read and learn, dive into the word, dive into the teachings of the church historically, just to come to a knowledge of the church Jesus Christ established. As 1 Timothy 3:15 says, the pillar and foundation of truth.
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.