Volume 18.5 (2020): 21–38 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0026

AN EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT’S REFLECTIONS ON ROMAN

BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR*

Institute of Philosophical and Theological Research

ABSTRACT. I count myself privileged to respond to Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls recent book on Roman Catholicism. I live in Fort Worth, TX, and I am a member of Wedgwood Bap- tist , which is one of more than 40,000 churches that together comprise the Southern Baptist Convention. I mention this so readers will know that my comments come from a con- servative Evangelical Protestant perspective, and my thinking stems from a tradition that is decidedly not . Having said this, I’m much more sympathetic to Roman Ca- tholicism than a great many Evangelicals, including Collins and Walls. I offer my criticisms of , but I ask that readers not interpret me as someone who denies that the Roman counts as a Christian institution. In an effort to show good on this front, allow me to offer some defenses of Roman Catholicism against what I take to be over the top criticisms from some Protestant Evangelicals.

KEYWORDS: Mariology, bodily assumption, , second-, ever-, co-redemptrix

In Defense of Roman Catholicism against the Claims of Extreme Protestants To be sure, there have been plenty of Protestants who have denied that the totality of Roman Catholic teaching is compatible with Christian . I do not mean to minimize the important differences between Evangelical and Roman Catholic soteriology, especially as concerns the of justi- fication. Nor do I mean to minimize the important ecclesiological differ- ences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches. How- ever, it’s a mistake to infer from these differences that Roman Catholics be- lieve another , at least so long as we understand in the way that the Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 15. The Gospel is a his- torical event, not a plan of . All faithful Roman Catholics and all faithful Evangelicals affirm that of Nazareth is fully and fully man, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died vicariously on a Roman cross, shedding His blood for our , and after He died, He bodily rose

* BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR (PhD 2016, University of Bristol) is the Director of the Insti- tute for Philosophical and Theological Research. Email: [email protected].

© EMANUEL UNIVERSITY of ORADEA PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 22 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR from the dead three days later, in accordance with the Scriptures. So if we take St. Paul at his word, Roman Catholics believe the Gospel, even if they have a very different understanding of how one comes to benefit from that Gospel (McKnight 2016). Sadly, many of the theologians who seem eager to condemn Roman Ca- tholicism as heretical often jettison 2,000 years of consistent teaching con- cerning the doctrine of God. Roman Catholics have consistently defended the standard aspects of perfect being against process theism’s de- nials of omnipotence. They have also consistently defended a theology that includes the attributes of divine timelessness, immutability, im- passability, metaphysical simplicity, and divine aseity. So, when criticisms against Roman Catholicism come from those who reject classical theism, even if I agree with the specifics of their criticisms, I’m not one to quickly dismiss Roman Catholicism in total. Rather, I tend to see things through the lens of ‘mere ’ as originally described by C. S. Lewis and adopt- ed and promoted by Collins and Walls (Collins and Walls 2017: 5-8). And it is precisely this issue of mere Christianity that serves as a launch- ing point for me to share my largest concern about the nature of Roman Catholicism. For our present purposes, I will define ‘mere Christianity’ as Nicene orthodoxy. That is, anyone who can confess the in its entirety and with integrity counts as a mere Christian. To be sure, different Chris- tians have various doctrinal differences, say, about and Arminian- ism, or about Episcopalian eccelisiologies or free church autonomy. Never- theless, such doctrinal differences, so long as they don’t violate Nicene or- thodoxy, remain consistent with orthodoxy, or what we mean by mere Christianity. Nonetheless, these differences do not contribute to making someone a mere Christian, at least not as I am using that term here. I take myself to be employing ‘mere Christianity’ in a very similar, if not identical, way to that of Collins and Walls.

On Development of Doctrine, Briefly So, why make so much of mere Christianity? Much of this has to do with the development of Christian doctrine. Briefly, it seems that the catalyst for all Christian doctrine, insofar as we take Christianity to be a development out of and difference from Judaism, is the of Jesus of Nazareth. The historic event of the Resurrection is what led the disciples to proclaim the Good News to the world. As this preaching developed into the apostolic , Christianity experienced the formation of doctrine. Various tests were developed to determine the authenticity of the message being pro- claimed, often called the rule(s) of faith, even as ongoing debates continued about the canonical status of various . In fact, although the canonical status of the books of the Hebrew were fairly well established during

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman 23 the Apostolic era, the first list of all twenty-seven books of the New Testa- ment that names each book individually comes from the Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius in the year 367 A.D., and even there, Athanasius at- tributes Pauline authorship to the book of Hebrews. Debates about which books did and/or did not belong in the went on well into the eighth century (Norris 2002). So, without modern Protestant appeals to Scripture that fall under the heading ‘’, early were taught the , which came in several variants (cf. 1994). As orthodox Christians found themselves needing to contend against heretics who were maligning the faith and distorting the teaching of the Church, further developments took place along the way, including the First Council of at 325 A.D., re-affirmed in 381 A.D. at the Council of . Of course, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is just the original with an added stanza that clarifies the of the , the relationship between the three Persons of the Godhead, and a few important ecclesiolog- ical and soteriological claims, including dogmatic statements that the is holy, universal, and apostolic. The claims made concerning orthodoxy at Nicaea that exclude from Christianity were made because Arianism undoes the entire of Christian salvation. As St. Athanasius so carefully pointed out in several places, God became man so that man might become God. If Jesus is not ful- ly God, then we are still in our sins, and there is no eschatological hope for humanity. Accordingly, the entire telos of the Christian Gospel—the redemp- tion of sinners to the glory of God—is literally impossible on Arianism, or so argued Athanasius; and I happen to agree with Athanasius. Arianism is because a non-divine Jesus invalidates the entirety of the Apostolic kerygma. That is, the divinity of is not just some ancillary detail that plays an insignificant role in . No, Jesus, both fully God and fully man, is the main point! To get the divinity of Jesus wrong guaran- tees that one gets Christianity wrong. And this same story can be told about the full humanity of Christ, and that Christ was one Person with two na- tures (as affirmed by the , 451 A.D.). In a brief article, it would be impossible to discuss all of the issues per- taining to Roman Catholicism’s dogmatically going beyond mere Christiani- ty. I agree with Collins and Walls (and C. S. Lewis) that Rome itself acknowledges a core to Christian orthodoxy. I also agree with Collins and Walls that Rome goes beyond this core, even by adding and changing what Rome has always been the core by way of later doctrinal develop- ments, all while calling the additions part of the original core. I find these later additions objectionable, but not principally because I regard later ad-

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 24 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR ditions as untrue. Rather, I object to non-ecumenical additions to the list of that, according to Rome, count as orthodoxy for all .

[The issue of ecumenicity is particularly important since the split between the East and the West that was formalized in 1054. This ongoing problem that en- tails a lack of ecumenicity was aggravated by the Protestant . In my view, it has been even further exacerbated by Roman Catholicism by of the recognition of ‘’ in Vatican II.]

In order to illustrate my concerns, I will focus on Roman Catholic Mariolo- gy, and in particular the way that Roman Catholics elevated various Marian doctrines to the level of . In so doing, I will argue that the of the Marian doctrines to the canonical level of dogma was anti- ecumenical. Furthermore, I point out that if one assumes Roman Catholic understandings of both soteriology and , these elevations ulti- mately make salvation more difficult, at least for some. I don’t offer these criticisms as a refutation of the Marian doctrines, nor do I think that what follows constitutes anything akin to a proof against Roman Catholicism. In fact, I’m somewhat agnostic about many Roman Catholic claims about Mary, and as I discuss below, I find some of the Protestant refutations of those teachings lacking. Nonetheless, I’m not persuaded about the claims Roman Catholics make about Mary, and I’m certainly not persuaded that such claims constitute the essence of Christianity, or that such claims be be- lieved in order for one to be saved. Accordingly, I offer my thoughts as an explanation of my own personal reasoning as to why I’m not a Roman Catholic, at least insofar as Mariology is concerned.

The Core of Christianity and Roman Catholic Mariology Having established that at least some doctrines form the very essence of Christianity, such that to deny them is tantamount to denying the Faith it- self, it is not obvious to me, nor is it obvious to the overwhelming number of Protestant theologians, that all of the Marian doctrines affirmed by Roman Catholics as rise to this level of importance. Moreover, even if Ro- man Catholic Mariology is consistent with those doctrines affirmed by the ecumenical councils (which they appear to be), it’s still not clear that Roman Catholic Mariology should be elevated such that the dogmas serve as tests of Christian orthodoxy. That is, although there aren’t any apparent problems of coherence between Roman Catholic Mariology and mere Christianity (therefore, no apparent warrant for any epistemic seemings of logical con- tradictions), this doesn’t entail that Roman Catholic Mariology should be elevated to the level of Christian dogma The four Marian dogmas are: (1) that Mary is the mother of God (theoto- kos), (2) that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and remains a

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 25 virgin perpetually, (3) that Mary was conceived without the stain of original , lived a sinless life, and remains sinless forever (the Immaculate Concep- tion), and (4) that Mary never tasted death, but rather was assumed bodily into . The relationship between some of these Marian dogmas and the core elements of Christian orthodoxy is not clear. That is, I do not see why it is the case that if one denies the , one thereby denies the efficacy of bodily Resurrection of Christ for our . Moreover, it is not obvious that a denial of the perpetual of Mary entails that one rejects the entire economy of salvation. Furthermore, it seems that efforts on the part of Rome to defend the importance of Marian doctrines as issues that rise to the level of dogmatic orthodoxy entail rather untoward conclusions.

[My understanding of Roman Catholic Mariology has been helped by numerous conversations with various Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians. I am especially thankful for conversations with Trent Dougherty, Logan Gage, Tyler Dalton McNabb, Timothy Pawl, John Rosenbaum, Eleonore Stump, and Chris- topher Tomaszewski. Nonetheless, the primary source of my understanding of Roman Catholic Mariology is The Catholic (Hardon 1975).]

Second Eve Mariology Roman Catholic Mariology seems to flow out of a particular understanding of the history of . New Testament scholars often call St. Paul’s argument in the fifth chapter of the to the Romans ‘second Adam ’.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to , even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sin- ners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:12-19, ESV).

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 26 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR

Roman Catholics go beyond the Apostle by suggesting not only that Jesus is the second Adam, but also that Mary is the second Eve (cf. Collins and Walls 2017: 282-84). Second Eve Mariology dates back at least as far as the second century, and it is found in the writings of notable orthodox theologians such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Irenaeus 1994). But numerous expansions of Mar- ian doctrines have flowered from the stem of second Eve Mariology. Con- sider a few of the claims Roman Catholics make of Mary. According to Rome, Mary is the mother of God; she remains a virgin forever; she was the product of an ; she never sinned; she never died, but was assumed into Heaven; she is the ; she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit; she is a co-Mediator, along with her Son; and she is Co- Redemptrix. According to John Henry Cardinal Newman, not only does Mary have ‘an ineffable origin before all worlds’, she is ‘the Object of wor- ship, the Image of the Father’. Still further, some have interpreted Newman to affirm a kind of Marian Arianism and imply and unorthodox position on Mary (Newman 1968: 143; cf. Collins and Walls 2017: 317-20). Now, for the vast majority of Protestants, it seems inappropriate, if not blasphemous, to predicate this much of a creature. Protestants often ask if there is any biblical support for such attributions. And, various Roman Catholic apologists have offered responses. Whether or not these responses prove convincing remains a matter of ongoing dispute. Having said this, as someone who is generally agnostic about Roman Catholic Marian doctrines, I find that the case for aspects Roman Catholic Mariology is rather weak, but I also find that Protestant cases against various aspects Roman Catholic Mariology are often also rather weak.

Mary as Theotokos The debates about predicating the title theotokos to Mary date back to the fifth century. The doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is not principally a doctrine about Mary as much as it is a Christological confession (cf. Collins and Walls 2017: 285-87). St. fought with about whether was sufficient. But, given the Christological con- troversies leading up to and still swirling after the Council of in 431, theologians deemed that theotokos was necessary to guarantee the prop- er understanding of Jesus being one person with two distinct natures. Fur- thermore, these theologians affirmed that Christotokos, while true, was insuf- ficient to guarantee that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Because I agree with this assessment, there’s no to give any further treatment to the subject of theotokos simplicater. However, it’s worth mentioning that while I maintain that all Christians are bound by the Chalcedonian Definition, and therefore should affirm theotokos, at least part of the reason that this is bind- ing on the faithful is that Chalcedon was an . Important-

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 27 ly, this cannot be said of the meetings that elevated other Marian doctrines to the level of dogma in 1854 and 1950, since the split between East and West had already taken place in 1054, to say nothing of the Protestant Reformation.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Consider the claims about the perpetual virginity of Mary. All orthodox Christians are united in affirming the virgin birth of Christ. What Collins and Walls call ‘consensual virginal orthodoxy’ entails, at minimum, that Mary was a virgin ante partum. That is, Jesus of Nazareth was conceived without Mary having ever experienced sexual union. This doctrine likely also means that Mary never experienced sexual union to the birth of Christ. Roman Catholics also maintain that Mary remained a virgin in partu. According to this view, Mary

remained a virgin in giving birth to him. What this teaching means, then, is that Mary did not given birth to her son in the normal way, through the usual biolog- ical process of the passage of the baby through the birth canal and on through the vagina, a process that would naturally disrupt the ‘intact’ nature of any virgin (even if she had conceived miraculously) by breaking the hymen (Collins and Walls 2017: 292).

I am troubled that so many Protestants find the idea of virginity in partu outlandish. According to the thinking outlined above, it seems that some Protestants think it’s ridiculous to suppose that Mary’s hymen remained intact while giving birth. ‘That’s impossible!’ they say. I cannot find a logical contradiction, nor does there seem to be anything metaphysically impossi- ble about it, so those who would so object must be thinking about nomolog- ical impossibility. Of course, anyone who so objects needs to be reminded that it is also nomologically impossible for a virgin to conceive. But, Protestants as well as Roman Catholics believe in . All Christians maintain that a is a legitimate metaphysical category that helps us make sense out of things like creatio ex nihilo, the parting of the Red Sea, floating axe heads, and even a virgin giving birth. So, any objection against the view that Mary remained a virgin in partu requires that one make a case against the possibility of the miraculous. Obviously, any such objection of- fered by Protestants cuts against the grain of Christian orthodoxy, including the antecedently affirmed virgin birth. Therefore, it seems that we have ar- rived at a stalemate between Protestants and Roman Catholics as to whether or not Mary’s virginity remained intact while and immediately after giving birth. But what are we to make of the claim that Mary is ‘ever-Virgin’? It is im- portant to note that this phrase, even though it isn’t part of any of the actual

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 28 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR

Creeds we recite today, was used to describe Mary in several of the ancillary documents at various ecumenical councils. The idea that Mary remained a virgin for the entirety of her earthly life (and remains a virgin in Heaven!) enjoys a long history of traditional acceptance. Even the famous hero of the Reformation affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did John Wesley. According to Luther, ‘Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ… was the only Son of Mary, and bore no children besides Him’ (Luther 2007: 214-15). Luther also defended himself by telling others, ‘A new lie about me is being circu- lated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that’ (Luther 1962: 199). Later, John Wesley affirmed the same. ‘I believe that he [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (Wesley 1978: 81). Nonetheless, contemporary Protestants do not generally affirm this popular teaching of Rome. It is a matter of dispute whether this teaching has been elevated to the level of dogma. Pius XII, on , 1950, published what is requisite for faithful Roman Catholics: ‘We pro- nounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory’ (Pius XII 1950: paragraph 44; cf. Collins and Walls 2017: 306-7). This statement canonized the doctrine of the Mary’s bodily assumption to the level of Roman Catholic dogma, and Pope Pius XII elevated the phrase ev- er-Virgin in the statement to describe Mary, when speaking ex cathedra.

Matthew Levering suggests that part of the reason for elevating this doctrine was to fight against the rise of materialist worldviews that led to World War II (Lev- ering 2014: 21). Of course, the Roman Catholic Church could have fought the same fight without elevating the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption to the lev- el of dogma. All that was necessary was to remind Catholics that the Nicene Creed affirms that Jesus ascended into Heaven, and if that wouldn’t suffice, one could easily remind Roman Catholics that Enoch walked with God, and was no more (Genesis 5:24).

Importantly, those who dissent from the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual vir- ginity have done so by pointing out how the doctrine developed in the con-

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 29 text of what critics have noted are unhealthy views concerning human sex- uality. Believing that sex is necessarily tainted by sin, one way to preserve the sinlessness of the Mother of God is to stipulate that she never had sex (Collins and Walls 2017: 297-99). One theologian mentioned to me that the phrase ever-virgin is used to praise the chastity of men who were known to not be virgins. [Thanks to Joshua Farris for showing me literature concern- ing the legendary King Arthur, who is described as ever-virgin.] So understood, perhaps the phrase is meant as embellished praise with- out intending to describe historical reality. Moreover, Protestants have fre- quently cited Matthew 1:24-25 in defense of their view.

When Joseph woke from sleep, his did as the angel of commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (ESV)

A plain reading of the text implies that after giving birth to Jesus, Joseph knew Mary. That is, she remained a virgin ‘until’ she had given birth to Je- sus, but other than this passage, the Bible is silent about Mary’s future sex- ual activity. This might seem like a point in favor of the Protestant view, but further reflection show why that would be a premature conclusion. The Greek word ἕως (heōs) is translated ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily connote a change after whatever period of time ends. So, properly interpreting the period of time ending with Mary giving birth to Jesus, together with Joseph not knowing his wife ‘until’ she gave birth to Jesus, does not demand that Joseph did know Mary in the time after Mary gave birth to Jesus. To see why this is the case, consider Matthew’s use of the same verbiage in the .

And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you al- ways, to the end of the age.’

Since the last sentence uses the same Greek word ἕως (heōs) in the exact same grammatical fashion as in Matthew 1:25, one could just as easily trans- late the second part of Matthew 28:20, ‘And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age’. ἕως (heōs) functions as a conjunction here in Mat- thew 28:20 in the same way that it functions as a conjunction in Matthew 1:25. But there is no good reason to think that Jesus will not be with us any longer after the completion of the Great Commission, or after the end of the age. Similarly, Matthew 1:25 should not be used as a proof-text against the possibility of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 30 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR

We should note that, for Protestants, there is nothing about Mary’s per- petual virginity that would undermine Protestant conceptions of orthodoxy. That is, if it turns out that Mary remained and remains ever-Virgin, nothing about the Protestant understanding of soteriology changes. Perhaps Roman Catholic apologists as far back as and Epiphanius are right that pas- sages such as Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-21, and John 2:12 aren’t referring to with the word ἀδελφὸς (adelphios), but rather cousins, or perhaps children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Martin Luther affirmed the former option, stating, ‘I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers’ (Luther 2007: 314-15). Per- sonally, I’m agnostic about the perpetual virginity of Mary, but I’m inclined to dissent from the Roman Catholic view. Nonetheless, I object to the eleva- tion of this doctrine to the level of dogma for that I make clear later.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary Moving on then, we do well to note that the discussions about Mary’s virgin- ity are ancillary to the more contentious issues of Mary’s Immaculate Con- ception. Protestants object to this doctrine, and Protestant understandings of soteriology would need to change if Mary were indeed sinless. Protestants divide up humanity into exactly two groups: those who have sinned, and therefore are in need of redemption/salvation, and the one who is without sin who saves us, namely, Jesus. But Roman Catholics reject this division, believing that Mary was in need of salvation without ever having sinned. Rather, they maintain that the salvific grace she received prevented her from ever sinning. Protestants bristle at this teaching, believing that the only human who was ever completely without sin is Jesus. St. Paul’s , which itself quotes from both Ecclesiastes and the , is frequently quoted as proof for this view.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have alr eady charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’ (Romans 3:9-12, ESV)

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 31

St. Paul later declares

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, alt- hough the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s right- eousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3: 21-26, ESV, emphasis mine).

The trouble with these sorts of proof-texts is that the universal quantifiers do too much work. If there is none righteous, and if all have sinned, then the universal quantifier quantifies over Jesus. But all orthodox Christians, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic alike, affirm the sinless- ness of Christ. Therefore, as Calvinists frequently remind us, all does not always mean ALL. But once we make an exegetical exception by exempting Jesus, why isn’t the exemption of Mary exegetically legitimate? It seems that Protestant attacks against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be parried. But even if it is a fact that no biblical case definitively refutes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, this does not biblically establish the doctrine. So why should anyone believe that Mary was conceived apart from sin? Building on Second Eve Mariology, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was the Ark of the . Any sort of biblical case depends on figu- ral readings of Luke’s Gospel, together with a robust understanding of in- tertextuality. In the same way that Mary’s song (the , Luke 1:46- 55) mirrors Hannah’s song (1 2:1-10), so too is Elizabeth’s response to Mary (Luke 1:42-44) thought to mirror ’s response to encountering the (2 Samuel 6:9-12; 1 Chronicles 13:12-14). Deci- phering when intertextual references are intentional is a notoriously diffi- task for biblical theologians, but the Roman Catholic interpretation of Elizabeth’s response to Mary does have at least one thing going in its favor. There is much consensus about the similarities of Hannah’s song to Mary’s, so if additional intertextuality is taking place, Luke has already situated the reader in the right book. Therefore, it is not absolutely beyond the pale that Roman Catholics see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Now, for those so inclined to see Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, we are only a hop, skip, and a jump away from affirming the Mother of God as sinless. Recall that the Ark of the Covenant was holy, so holy in fact that even touching it led to the death of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1-8). In parallel fash-

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 32 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR ion, Roman Catholics believe that Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, was also holy. In the minds of Roman Catholics, this entails that Mary was sinless. But, for Protestants, this is too far of a stretch. And, given other parts of the biblical witness, Protestants think it’s more than a stretch to think that Mary never sinned. The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in- structs—nay, commands—that Christians be anxious for nothing (Philippi- ans 4:6). The present tense, together with the active voice and the impera- tive mood of the verb μεριμνᾶτε (merimnate) demonstrates the force of the injunction. Given the command to not be anxious, it seems that any anxiety constitutes disobedience to a divine command, at least on the assumption that God the Holy Spirit spoke through St. Paul in the verse under discus- sion. Anxiety, it seems, betrays a lack of the sort of proper and complete faith that manifests in utter dependence on God. So, anxious persons exhib- it a lack of faith, and therefore, sin (Romans 14:23). But the Scriptures give us reason to think that Mary likely exhibited such anxiety; in fact, Mary is the one who says so! After traveling for an entire day towards home after a visit to for the of the , Joseph and Mary noticed that Jesus was not with them, so they returned to Jerusalem, only to find Jesus teaching in the temple courts. Although those listening to Jesus were amazed at his understanding, his parents ‘were astonished. His mother said to him, ‘Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you’ (Luke 2:48, ESV, emphasis mine). The Greek participle used here is better translated distressed, grieving, sorrowing, or suffering torment (Marshall 1978: 125-30, especially 128), since ‘ὀδυνώμενοι (odynōmenoi, anxiously) describes deep mental pain or trauma’ (Bock 1994: 268). Therefore, one shouldn’t automatically connect what’s going on here to what Paul describes with a different word in Philip- pians 4. Nonetheless, as a parent, I find it psychologically impossible that a loving mother could perfectly refrain from any anxiety while being separat- ed unexpectedly from one’s child for three days. So, it strains the limits of credulity and exegetical fidelity to suppose that Mary was utterly sinless, even if she remains ever-Virgin. But at this juncture, the arguments for and against the Immaculate Con- ception are well rehearsed, so Roman Catholics typically appeal to the ar- gument of how fitting it is that Mary be sinless as the Mother of God. Protestants typically push back against any such argument, especially when Roman Catholics speak of Mary as the cause of our salvation. Such talk seems to detract from Jesus, who is the author and perfecter of our faith. Of course, when pressed on this point, Roman Catholics respond that such verbiage merely indicates a technical Aristotelian understanding of causa- tion. On such an analysis, Mary is the efficient cause of our salvation insofar

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 33 as she plays a role in causally contributing to the history of salvation by giv- ing birth to the Savior. But, if efficient causation is all that is meant, then Rahab the prostitute is also the cause of our salvation, insofar as she, too, plays a role in causally contributing to the history of salvation. After all, Ra- hab enjoys a place in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5). And if prosti- tutes can be efficiently causally responsible for the salvation of the world, then the fittingness narrative of the seems weaker than Roman Catholics let on.

Mary the Co-Redemptrix The popularity of Mary continues to grow, owing largely in part to the cult of Mary all over the world. Although it is not an Roman Catholic dogma, many Roman Catholics teach that Mary is a co- alongside Christ. Protestants find this claim blasphemous, and frequently cite such teachings as evidence that Roman Catholics do not merely venerate Mary, but worship her. While I am eager to cry out against this teaching with fel- low Protestants, I am not certain that understanding Mary as co-redemptrix entails idolatry. Roman Catholic apologists will sometimes appeal to St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians to support the co-redemptrix thesis. ‘For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building’ (1 Corinthians 3:9). Paul suggests that his apostolic band are co-laborers συνεργοί (synergoi) with Christ, working for the salvation of others as missionaries. Of course, if this verse serves as a proof-text for Mary’s role in the work of Redemption, so too does it allow for the title of co-redemptrix to be equally applied to any- one who plays some role in the efficient causation of anyone else! But since that undoes anything special about the title of co-redemptrix being applied to Mary, it seems that Roman Catholics who teach this clearly mean some- thing more than what Paul was teaching in 1 Corinthians 3:9. Whatever this ‘something more’ might be, it doesn’t seem to have any support from Scrip- ture.

The Bodily Assumption of Mary, and other Problems for Roman Catholic Mariology But, without any definitive biblical proof against the Marian dogmas of Ro- man Catholicism, perhaps we need to find some other way to explain why Protestants find these doctrines so problematic. By bringing Roman Catho- lic Mariology together with other Roman Catholic commitments in soteriol- ogy and ecclesiology, it becomes clearly why Protestants object to so much of what Rome says about Mary. St. of Carthage famously taught, ‘he can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the church for his mother’ (Cyprian 1957: chapter 6). Roman Catholics affirm Cyprian’s dictum, and they take this to mean

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 34 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR that there is no salvation apart from with the Roman Catholic Church. The phrase ‘no salvation outside the church’, (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is interpreted by Roman Catholics in a positive fashion to mean, ‘that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body’ (Hardon 1975: article 846). Now, Roman Catholic soteriology insists that no one can be saved apart from being faithfully united to Christ through the Church of Rome (apart from a special dispensation of grace), and Roman Catholics also maintain that no one is faithfully united to Christ who does not submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. So, according to the Roman Catholic Church, apart from a special dispensation of grace, if one does not submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then one cannot be saved. But suppose for the sake of argument that the Roman Catholic Church does have the power and authority to declare what must be believed in or- der to be saved. That is, suppose the Roman can bind the con- sciences of all Christians, and not just for Roman Catholic Christians. Pope Pius IX elevated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to the level of dogma on December 8, 1854 (Pius IX 1854). Nearly 100 years later, Pope Pius XII elevated the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption to the level of dogma in 1950. According to Roman Catholic soteriology, someone could be saved without having to believe in these Marian doctrines for roughly 1800 years, but the Magesterium deemed these doctrines so important that its theologians thought it necessary to make salvation more difficult to ob- tain. Jude 22 commands believers to have mercy on those who doubt (ἐλεᾶτε). For those beset with skepticism for one reason or another, it’s already diffi- cult to believe in a Triune God who created all things, seen and unseen, out of nothing. Christianity requires the of unbelief when we marvel at the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, His vicarious suffering, His treacherous death, and His victorious Resurrection and Ascension. If we genuinely desire the salvation of all people, why would anyone want to make it even harder to be saved by adding to the list of things that must be believed in order to be saved? Yet, according to its own ecclesiology and soteriology, this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th and 20th centuries, and did so apart from the sort of rigorous biblical the- ology that supports the core claims of Christianity as outlined in the Apos- tles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Here, one might object that any efforts to define the faith so as to ex- clude heretics are similarly problematic. This is certainly true, and I sup- pose it to be a good rejoinder, but only if someone can demonstrate why the perpetual virginity of Mary, or her Immaculate Conception, or her bodily assumption are vital to the integrity of the Christian faith. Whereas the dei-

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 35 ty of Christ serves as a foundational teaching for Christianity, such that re- moving that piece would cause the entire building of Christianity to crum- ble, it’s not at all clear that the perpetual virginity of Mary, or her Immacu- late Conception is similarly foundational, except by fiat of the Roman Cath- olic Magesterium. But, in that case, it is not the Marian dogmas that are so important so much as the general outline of Roman that must be defended. Nonetheless, Pius XII dogmatically insisted that ‘if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined [the dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption], let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catho- lic Faith’ (Pius XII 1950: paragraph 45; cf. Collins and Walls 2017: 307). From my vantage point, one would need to show that the Christian faith somehow entails the Marian dogmas, such that to affirm the core claims of the faith while denying the Marian dogmas forms an inconsistent set. Ro- man Catholics might argue that Mary’s bodily assumption is entailed by the Immaculate Conception, since the wages of sin is death. Since Mary never sinned, they would argue, she would not die. Instead, she must have been taken to Heaven, especially since no one has ever claimed either to have her bones or know the location of her burial. [Thanks to Logan Gage for bring- ing the archaeological point to my attention.] However, there does not seem to be any logical contradiction in affirm- ing, say, the virgin birth of Christ, together with His sinless life, death, buri- al, and Resurrection while simultaneously denying Mary’s bodily assump- tion (or her perpetual virginity). Therefore, it seems at least problematic, if not blatantly false to say that people have fallen away completely from the Christian faith if they deny the bodily assumption of Mary. However, given the economy of salvation as revealed in the Bible and summarized in the , it does seem appropriate to say that people have fallen away com- pletely from the faith if they deny, say, the bodily , or the divinity of Christ. But perhaps Roman Catholics will simply assert that God has seen fit to include the Marian doctrines as part of the economy of salvation, and tell- ing the story correctly is important. I take it that any such argument re- quires also that all issues, no matter how tangentially related to the core claims of the faith, should also be canonized to the level of dogma. This would lead one to suppose that the Roman Catholic Magisterium should take a stand on the old earth vs. new earth debates about creation, and simi- larly make a dogma about whether the flood that Noah and his kin survived was global or relatively local. After all, these events are part of the history of redemption, and it’s important that we tell the story about the economy of salvation correctly. But, of course, Roman Catholics do not tend to think that the Magisterium should make these issues matters of official dogma,

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 36 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR because they recognize that on certain issues, it is perfectly okay to admit differing views since they don’t undermine the core claims of the faith. Nonetheless, there are plenty of Roman Catholics who insist that these Mar- ian dogmas are central to the very essence of the Christian faith. Another objection deserves our attention. One might liken the decision of the Roman Catholic Magisterium to the conclusions of a brilliant academ- ic. Suppose that a genius mathematician has utilized math(s) that I know nothing about to prove some theorem that has been a matter of mathemati- cal dispute for ages. Since I don’t know any of the math(s) that were used to prove the theorem, it seems that I’m not in a very good position to suggest that the proof is wrong. Similarly, if the Roman Catholic Magisterium is making use of theology that I know nothing about, how can I reasonably disagree with its findings? [Thanks to Alex Pruss for raising this issue.] While this objection seems potent at the onset, further reflection defangs the attack. First, in the mathematical analogy, one could theoretically learn the math without first assuming the veracity of the proof of the theorem. However, in the case of Roman , one could not begin to learn the theology being utilized by the Magisterium in the way it is used by the Magisterium without antecedently assuming the proof of its findings. Second, whereas the mathematical proof is subject to falsification by way of examin- ing the proof. However, if one assumes Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the findings of the Magisterium are not falsifiable. Whereas the mathematician, when asked, ‘How do you know you’re right?’ can respond, ‘Well, let us ex- amine the proof ’, the Roman Catholic Church responds to the same ques- tion, ‘It is not possible for us to be wrong, because the Magisterium, when speaking ex cathedra, is infallible.’ It should be obvious why Protestants would find such a response unacceptably question begging.

Conclusion In an effort to explain why I remain a Protestant, despite deep respect for Roman Catholic Christians and our mutual tradition, I briefly defended Roman Catholics against charges frequently brought against them by ex- treme Protestants. After quickly explaining my views about the develop- ment of doctrine, I turned my attention to Roman Catholic Mariology. While discussing the Marian dogmas, I tried to be careful in assessing the claims of Rome by first ensuring that I state what is being affirmed correctly before going on to discuss arguments for and against each of the Marian dogmas. I outlined why I think that Protestant arguments against the Mari- an dogmas are not as strong as Protestants typically think they are. None- theless, I went on to suggest that there are still good reasons to reject the Marian doctrines as dogmas. These reasons include a lack of ecumenicity in the elevation of the doctrines, as well as the soteriological consequences of

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) An Evangelical Protestant’s Reflections on Roman Catholic Mariology 37 such elevation. Sadly, the fundamentalism of the Roman Catholic Church does not allow for any dissent on any teaching that the Magisterium asserts as dogma. For these reasons, and perhaps others as well, I regard Roman Catholicism as a denomination in the realm of Christendom, but not my denomination. While Roman Catholics are welcome to come worship at my church, I remain unwelcome in theirs. It seems that the is of primary importance as a display of Christian unity. For this reason, it is particularly tragic that the Roman Catholic Church does not admit all persons baptized into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to the Lord’s table, but rather restricts Eucharistic worship only to Roman Catholics. The reason this is so tragic is that it guarantees ongoing separation of brethren who should unite in the eating and drinking that Christ commanded we do often in remembrance of Him. When offering this Eucharistic objection as a demonstration of the fundamentalist mindset that stands behind so much Roman Catholicism, Trent Dougherty pushed back by asking me if I am offended that Jews would not allow me to read from the Torah if I attended synagogue. Seeing as how I lay claim to the Hebrew Scriptures as part of my Bible, I initially thought yes, I would be offended. But I understand Dougherty’s point, and agree that I should not be offended, given the traditions of the Jewish peo- ple. However, although I understand Christianity to be Jewish as a matter of historical development, I do not understand contemporary Judaism to be Christian. In fact, I understand all contemporary forms of Judaism to be entirely different than any and all forms of Christianity. Therefore, in order for Dougherty’s push back to hold much force, it requires that ei- ther he or I insist that Protestants and Romans Catholics practice different religions. Of course, this is precisely what Vatican II insists is not the case. As a Protestant, I long for the day when all Christians will be united as one in Christ, and I know that many Roman Catholics and Eastern Ortho- dox Christians similarly desire the unity of the Church. Therefore, even as a Protestant, I affirm the necessity of continuing to work towards ecumeni- cal unity. I agree that Roman Catholics, who are separated by their own un- fortunate insistence that secondary matters are issues of orthodoxy at the core of Christianity, these are nonetheless my brethren, separated as they are. May God see fit to unite all Christians as one in Him, even as He and the Father are one.

Bibliography Bock DL (1994) Luke 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020) 38 BENJAMIN H. ARBOUR

Collins KJ and Walls JL (2017) Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years After the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Cyprian of Carthage (1957) The Lapsed: On the Unity of the Church. Maurice Bevenot (trans) Ancient Christian Writers, volumes 25. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hardon JA, SJ (1975) The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hildebrandt R (1967) I Offered Christ: a Protestant Study of the . Philadel- phia, PA: Fortress. Irenaeus of Lyons (1994) The , Justin , Irenaeus. In Coxe AC, Donaldson J, and Roberts A (eds) The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Levering M (2014) Mary’s Bodily Assumption. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Luther M (1962) ‘hat Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, from The Christian in So- ciety, volume 2. In Brand WI (ed) in Luther’s Works, 55 volumes. Minne- apolis, MN: Fortress Press. Luther M (2007) on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 1-4, volume 22 of Luther’s Works. From Pelikan J and Lehmann H (eds) Luther’s Works, 55 volumes. Jaroslav J. Pelikan & Helmut Lehmann. St. Louis, MO: Con- cordia Publishing House. Marshall IH (1978) The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. McKnight S (2016) The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited, revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Newman JHC (1968) An Essay on the Development of Doctrine. Westminster, MA: Christian Classics. Norris FW (2002) The Canon of Scripture in the Church. In Williams DH (ed) The Free Church and the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 3-26. Pius IX (1854) Ineffibilis Deus. Vatican: The . Pius XII (1950) : Defining the Dogma of the Assumption. Vatican: The Holy See. Wesley J (1978) Letter to a Roman Catholic, section 7, volume X, 80-86. In The Works of John Wesley, 14 volumes, 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

PERICHORESIS 18.5 (2020)