Human Tradition & Divine Revelation: 8 Mariology in Romanism

Table of Contents

1 Recognizing Traditions in Christianity
2 Evaluating Traditions in Christianity
3 Traditions in Judaism
4 Traditions in the NT
5 Traditions of the Early Church Fathers
6 Traditions in Romanism
7 The Papacy in Romanism
8 Mariology in Romanism
Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 13.8

Mariology in Romanism

The Deification of a Good Woman

Table of Topics

A) Historical Background of Mariology

B) Mary’s Exaltation: the Mother of God

C) Mary’s Mediation: The Co-redeemer

D) Mary’s Sinlessness: The Immaculate Conception

E) Mary’s Glorification: The Assumption

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points
  • While the root of Romanist traditions is the papacy, the greatest fruit has centered around Mary, the mother of Jesus.
  • Mariology is the Romanist traditions centered around Mary.
  • Mariology is another branch of ancient mother-child cultic worship inherited from Babylon, expressed in several “queen of heaven” religions.
  • The foundational belief of Mariology can be expressed in the designation of Mary as the “Mother of God” (Theotokos), a title accorded to Mary at the Council of Ephesus in 431 to defend the deity of Christ.
  • Even since Vatican II you still cannot be considered an acceptable Christian in Romanism unless you adhere to Mariology.
  • Mary idolatry is a violation of the first commandment that we are to worship no other God but the Creator (Exod 20:1-6).
  • Mary did not exhibit some sort of extraordinary obedience. She was told what was going to happen to her. Romanists have twisted the whole story to say “Mary has done great things for God, holy is her name.” She herself exclaimed, “the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is His name” (Luke 1:49).
  • Romanism believes that while Christ is our mediator He is also our judge, and we therefore need a mediator with the mediator like Christ’s mother.
  • If the woman that Romanists worship could speak, she would tell them how horrified and offended she is by their Mariology.
  • A primary source of biblical support for Mary’s position as co-redeemer of humanity is a mistranslation of Luke 1:28.
  • The Apostle Paul clearly condemned Mariology when he wrote: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).
  • While it is claimed that Mary was given a special grace to be sinless, Scripture is clear that she needed God’s grace because she was a sinner.
  • God is not honored by the charge that human sexual intercourse is sinful, as is implied by the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

A) Historical Background of Mariology

While the root of Romanist traditions is the papacy, the greatest fruit of Romanist tradition has centered around Mary, the mother of Jesus. So much so that theologians have a word for these traditions: Mariology. Indeed, apart from these extra-biblical traditions, there would not be enough authentic divine revelation concerning Mary to construct any kind of theology around her. However, the amount of Romanist dogma surrounding Mary is very considerable, and it involves vital concerns for both Romanists and Protestants. C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), in his book Mere Christianity, reflects some of this when he writes:

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this.

The Romanist beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake. It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic.

And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperiled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretical Pagan.

If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about ‘mere’ Christianity-if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin’s son is God-surely this is it. [1]

As to the historical/spiritual background of Mariology, John MacArthur explains:

Nimrod, a grandson of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons, founded the great cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech, Accad, Calneh, and Nineveh (Gen. 10:10-11). It was at Babel that the first organized system of idolatry began with the tower built there. Nimrod’s wife, Semiramis, became the first high priestess of idolatry, and Babylon became the fountainhead of all evil systems of religion.

In the last days, “the great harlot” will have written on her forehead, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (Rev. 17:5). When Babylon was destroyed, the pagan high priest at that time fled to Pergamum (or Pergamos; called “where Satan’s throne is” in Rev. 2:13) and then to Rome.

By the fourth century a.d. much of the polytheistic paganism of Rome had found its way into the church. It was from that source that the ideas of Lent, of Mary’s immaculate conception, and of her being the “queen of heaven” originated.

In the pagan legends, Semiramis was miraculously conceived by a sunbeam, and her son, Tammuz, was killed and was raised from the dead after forty days of fasting by his mother (the origin of Lent). The same basic legends were found in counterpart religions throughout the ancient world. Semiramis was known variously as Ashtoreth, Isis, Aphrodite, Venus, and Ishtar. Tammuz was known as Baal, Osiris, Eros, and Cupid.

Those pagan systems had infected Israel centuries before the coming of Christ. It was to Ishtar, “the queen of heaven” that the wicked and rebellious Israelite exiles in Egypt insisted on turning (Jer. 44:17-19; cf. 7:18). While exiled in Babylon with his fellow Jews, Ezekiel had a vision from the Lord about the “abominations” some Israelites were committing even in the Temple at Jerusalem—practices that included “weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:13-14). Here we see some of the origins of the mother-child cult, which has drawn Mary into its grasp. [2]

While there are many traditions surrounding Mary, we will describe only four of the main ones here.

B) Mary’s Exaltation: the Mother of God

The foundational belief of Mariology can be expressed in the designation of Mary as the “Mother of God” (Theotokos). W. C. G. Proctor explains:

This title was accorded to Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the Council of Ephesus in 431. A bishop named Nestorius . . . had found it difficult to accept that the infant born of Mary was “God,” and his difficulty came to expression in a refusal to describe Mary as the “Mother of God” as she was now commonly styled to emphasize the deity of Christ. The council decreed that the title could rightly be given to Mary because he who was conceived of her was by the Holy Ghost, and was the Son of God and therefore “God” from the moment of his conception.

Unfortunately, the term soon came to be regarded as expressing an exaltation of Mary, and by the sixth century false notions about Mary, originally framed by Gnostics and a sect known as Collyridians, were taken up by the church itself, and the way was open for the worship of Mary, which has since grown so greatly, especially in the Roman Catholic Church. [3]

While the Council of Ephesus in 431 can be marked as the beginning of extra-biblical Marian devotion, F. S. Piggin writes:

Marian devotion blossomed between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries. The rosary (three groups of fifty “Hail Marys” counted on beads) was in popular use by the twelfth century and the angelus also appeared (the recitation of prayers to Mary, morning, noon, and evening, at the sound of a bell).

In 1854, following another revival of Marian spirituality, Pius IX promulgated the dogma of the immaculate conception, that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception. In 1950 Pius XII defined the dogma of bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, that on her death she was preserved from “the corruption of the tomb” and was “raised body and soul to the glory of heaven, to shine refulgent as Queen at the right hand of her Son.” [4]

From this exalted status all sorts of claims are made including the belief that Mary is the most high-ranking of all creatures God has created. Her exalted status has also earned her the name Queen of Heaven, Mother of Angels, Mother of Humans (Ambrose), and the New Eve (Pope Pius XII).

Some have felt that Vatican II attempted to correct some of the unbiblical aspects of Mariology, and at least agreed that people could be excommunicated from the Church only if their denial of Marian traditions was “culpable, obstinate (unyielding), and externally manifested (public)” [5] Notice, however, that you still cannot be considered an acceptable Christian unless you adhere to Romanist Mariology.

In addition, recent Romanist decrees have done nothing to diminish what can only be defined as Mary idolatry and a violation of the first commandment that we are to worship no other God but the Creator (cf. Exod 20:1-6). Accordingly, G. W. Bromiley writes, “Mariology corresponds in a Christianized form and context to our constant urge and need to fashion our own religion, to achieve our own salvation, to be our own god.” [6] In response to modern efforts in Romanism to avoid such a charge, Dr. Bromiley answers:

It can hardly be contested, however, that in relation to both the forms and the language of veneration these [new Romanist] theological distinctions [to diminish the deification of Mary] are of little practical significance. The same forms both of speech and action are used in relation to Mary as to God Himself. Indeed, some of the prayers and hymns to Mary achieve a magnificence and extravagance of adulation nowhere surpassed in addresses either to the trinity or to any one of the three persons. [7]

The over-exaltation of Mary occurred early in Christian history and may be best seen in the second century statement of Irenaeus (c. 180) that, “Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” [8] We will discuss the belief in Mary’s divine/human mediation below. Here, we wish to address the claim that some sort of extraordinary “obedience” on Mary’s part has earned her an exalted position.

Imagine virtually any Christian woman having the Angel Gabriel appear to them and not ask them, but tell them: “You will be with child and give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus.” (Luke 1:31) There was no request here to obey, but rather a divine act to be simply accepted and recognized.

It reminds us of Christ’s words to His disciples regarding their own service to God: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit” (John 15:16). And we know that their choosing for their tasks was not because of some extraordinary attributes in themselves.

The narrative makes it plain that Mary’s service to God was going to be through a work of the Holy Spirit in her life, not a work she could take credit for (cf. Luke 1:35, 37). She herself exclaims, “the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is His name” (Luke 1:49). Romanists have twisted the whole story to say “Mary has done great things for God, holy is her name.”

There are other things in Scripture that argue against an over-exaltation of Mary. For example, while Romanists have come to emphasize the divine motherhood of Mary, Christ would seem to have deemphasized it, and even purposely renounced it so that the very thing Romanists have done would not be done. Read what happened at the cross carefully:

Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Dear woman [not “mother”], here is your son,” [not I]  27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother” [Not mine]. From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25-27)

Obviously, Christ is demonstrating compassion on Mary, but the de-emphasis of her status as His mother is unmistakable and the safest interpretation would be that we are to keep the motherhood of Mary in proper perspective instead of over-exalting it. Accordingly, Dr. Bromiley observes that Christ, “transferred the filial relationship, in order that He might truly die alone and in order that the motherhood might not be misunderstood in relation to His resurrection, ascension, and session.” [9]

Likewise, while Romanist mythology has made a great deal about Mary and the birth of Christ, it is instructive to notice that out of four Gospels, Mark and John don’t even mention Christ’s conception or birth, let alone Mary’s part in it. And while Matthew mentions it, his focus is almost entirely on Joseph’s experience, not Mary’s (cf. Matt 1:18-25). The emphasis that Romanists have placed on this event and Mary is clearly out of balance with divine revelation.

In addition, the Gospels emphasize the place of another Mary in Christ’s life at least as much as His mother. Accordingly, Matthew and John note the presence of Mary Magdalene right beside Mary of Nazareth at the cross (cf. Matt 27:56, John 19:25). However, Mark doesn’t even mention the presence of Mary the mother of Jesus there, but rather Mary Magdalene’s (cf. 15:40) and other women who, “In Galilee had followed Him and cared for His needs,” which evidently, was not something that could be said of Mary, Christ’s mother.

Finally, while Mary of Nazareth was obviously given a privileged experience at Christ’s birth, Mary Magdalene was given a similar privilege at His resurrection, being the first human to witness the risen Christ (cf. John 20:1-18). [10] Mary of Nazareth is never depicted in Scripture as anything more (or less!) than the human mother of Jesus.

Concerning her place as the physical mother of Jesus, Dr. Proctor concludes:

In the NT Mary is often referred to as the “mother of Jesus” (e.g., John 23; Acts 1:14). She was given special grace by God to perform a service to him that was unique. In this regard she stands alone amongst humankind, and is regarded by all generations as “blessed.” But Scripture is silent as regards any special standing of Mary herself. The title “mother of God” (Theotokos) is thus to be used with caution as regards its implications for Mary, though evangelical theology recognizes its appropriateness when employed, as at Ephesus [in 431], to state the true deity of Jesus Christ even in his incarnate life. [11]

Indeed, our Romanist friends have not taken seriously enough the words of one of their most revered saints, Ambrose (c. 338-397), who while writing very highly of Mary, also wrote:

And let no one divert this [worship] to the Virgin Mary; Mary was the temple of God, not the God of the temple. And therefore He alone is to be worshipped Who was working in His temple. [12]

C) Mary’s Mediation: The Co-redeemer

We have already mentioned Irenaeus’ second century claim that Mary was the divine counterpart of Eve, her obedience being “the cause of salvation both for herself and the human race.” [13] This view reflects the Romanist doctrine that Mary is a co-redeemer of humanity with Christ.

Accordingly, the Catechism states:

Without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and work of her son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him . . . being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . .

[Mary] did not lay aside [her] saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. She “is . . . Advocate . . . and Mediatrix”.[14]

It was not until the twelfth century that Romanism was suggesting that while Jesus offered His blood at the cross for the atonement of our sins, Mary offered her prayers. It was about this same time that it was suggested that Mary continues her mediatorial role between us and God as a constant intercessor for sinners. One of the foremost promoters of this view was the mystic Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) who argued that while Christ is our mediator He is also our judge, and that therefore we need a mediator with the mediator, so that in popular devotion the merciful Mary was contrasted with the fierce Christ.

Dr. Bromiley explains:

The theological root of [the intercession of Mary] . . . is the postulate that nothing but severity can be expected from Jesus once we have spoiled His work and spurned His sacrifice by postbaptismal sin. To be sure, salvation from hell still finally depends on the atoning work of Christ. But how can we approach Him again when we have failed so miserably? Can we expect at His hands anything but the prolonged if purifying torments of purgatory?

It is here that the intercession of saints, and more particularly of Mary, can help us . . . The mother, it is argued, will plead our cause with the Son; her gentleness will mitigate His severity. As the mother of God, and therefore as Lady even in the courts of heaven, already exalted in virtue of her sanctity, she is in a position of influence to open again the fountain of divine mercy. Hence penitent sinners may turn the more naturally to her than to the Lord. [15]

Is not the charge of idolatry justified? How could any Christian accept a view that tarnishes both the character and work of Christ in order to exalt a human? If the woman that Romanists worship could speak, she would tell them how horrified and offended she is by their Mariology. She described herself as a “humble servant” and Christ as her “Savior” (cf. Luke 1:46-50), not as the over-exalted “Mother of God” and a co-savior with Christ.

Likewise, Dr. Bromiley observes:

If she [Mary] is not to be blamed or scorned, she is also not to be exalted as a supernatural being full of all graces and wisdom and exempt from all human frailty. We honor Mary best by giving her the dignity that is hers in Scripture and not by indulging in speculative glorification. [16]

A primary source of biblical support for Mary’s position as co-redeemer of humanity is a mistranslation of Luke 1:28 which the Romanist “Hail Mary” prayer perpetuates: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” The idea here is that Mary has been filled to overflowing with divine grace that she can provide for others for the forgiveness of their sin.

However, the literal translation of Luke 1:28 is “Greetings, favored one! [kecharitōmenē: lit. “having been given grace”] The Lord is with you” (NASB). Virtually all modern translations interpret this as Mary simply being “favored” by God, not “full of grace” which cannot be supported by the Greek text.

This understanding is supported two verses later when Mary is told in virtually identical terms, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor [charin: “grace”] with God” (NASB). The NLT seems to capture the meaning of the passage best when it simply reads, “Don’t be frightened, Mary,” the Angel told her, “for God has decided to bless you!” There is no indication here that Mary received any more grace than any other believer and servant of God. Accordingly, Walter L. Liefeld comments concerning Luke 1:28:

“Highly favored” renders kecharitomene, which has the same root as the words for “Greetings” (chaire), and “favor” (charin, v. 30). Mary is “highly favored” because she is the recipient of God’s grace. A similar combination of words occurs in Ephesians 1:6–“his glorious grace . . . which he has freely given [same Gr. word as for `highly favored’] us.”

Some suggest that Luke implies that a certain grace has been found in Mary’s character. While this could be so, the parallel in Ephesians (the only other occurrence of the verb in the NT) shows that the grace in view here is that which is given all believers apart from any merit of theirs. Mary has “found favor with God” (v. 30); she is a recipient of his grace (v. 28), and she can therefore say, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (v. 47). [17]

Accordingly, John MacArthur comments that Mary, “was the recipient, never the dispenser, of grace.” [18] Likewise, Leon Morris wrote, “It is, of course, a complete misunderstanding to translate [here] ‘Hail Mary, full of grace’ and understand the words to mean that Mary would be a source of grace to other people.” [19]

If there is still any doubt about the heresy of the Romanist claim of Mary’s mediatorship, the Apostle Paul could not have been clearer on the matter when he wrote: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). For Romanists to suggest otherwise is blasphemy and it is they who are condemned by such heresy, not those who deny Mary a place alongside Christ.

D) Mary’s Sinlessness: The Immaculate Conception

Mary’s over-exalted status as Mother of God and her supposed participation in the atonement of humanity’s sin predictably led the Romanist to claim that Mary, like her son, was sinless. This view rests on the Romanist doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception. Henry Bettenson explains:

The question whether the Virgin was conceived without taint of original sin had been debated for centuries. Anselm held that the Virgin was conceived and born in sin (Cur deus homo, ii. 16); Bernard that she was conceived in sin but sanctified before birth (Ep. clxxiv, 58); the Dominicans followed Aquinas (S. T. III. xxvii. x, 2) in agreeing with Bernard; Duns Scotus (Sent. Ill. iii. i) and the Franciscans argued for the sinless conception.

In 1483 Pope Sixtus IV in the bull Grave nimis censured both those who attacked the preacher of the Immaculate Conception and those who accused such attackers of heresy “since the matter has not yet been decided by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See” (Mirbi, 407; Denzinger, 735).

The promulgation of the dogma was one of the fruits of that Ultramontanism, encouraged by the restored Jesuits, which in the pontificate of Pius IX produced also the Syllabus of Errors and the Decree of Infallibility. [20]

T. N. Finger writes, “Though Mary’s . . . sinlessness [was] challenged by some early fathers, [it was] generally accepted by Augustine’s time.” [21] T. J. German reports that, “By 1685 most Catholics accepted the notion of the immaculate conception. Clement XIII strongly favored the doctrine in the eighteenth century.” [22] However, it wasn’t until 1854 that Pope Pius IX decreed this doctrine with the following statement:

Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, we, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with our own, do declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Virgin Mary was, in the first instant of her conception, preserved untouched by any taint of original guilt, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in consideration of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of mankind, that this doctrine was revealed by God and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful.

Wherefore if any shall presume (which God forbid) to think in their hearts anything contrary to this definition of ours, let them realize and know well that they are condemned by their own judgement, have suffered shipwreck concerning the faith and have revolted from the unity of the Church, and that besides this they do by this subject themselves to the lawful penalties if they shall dare to signify, by word or writing or any other external means, what they think in their hearts. [23]

The Roman Church’s claim that the Immaculate Conception of Mary “is a doctrine revealed by God” highlights the danger of allowing other spiritual authorities apart from the clear teaching of Scripture.

Related to Mary’s Immaculate Conception, is the doctrine of her perpetual virginity. Dr. Finger explains:

Mariologists also stress Mary’s perpetual virginity. This includes, first, her virginity in partu: that Jesus was born without opening any part of her body; second, that she remained a virgin throughout her life. . . . Proponents of perpetual virginity often assumed that anything else would contradict her purity. [24]

Dr. Bromiley likewise explains:

From the later 2nd cent., the growing emphasis on the ascetic life, and particularly on celibacy, as a supposedly superior form of Christian practice combined with the emphasis on the chastity of Mary to produce the very different conception of her perpetual virginity. To the monastic mind, influenced to some degree by dualistic considerations, all sexual intercourse, even in lawful wedlock, carried with it at least a suggestion of sin, and therefore it was inconceivable that after the birth of Jesus Mary should have lived a normal married life and had children in the usual way.

By the end of the 4th cent. the great Jerome could thus condemn as a shocking error the idea of Mary as a normal wife and mother, and Bishop Siricius wrote to Anysius (392): “For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had judged that she would be so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the body of the Lord, the home of the eternal king, with the seed of human intercourse.” [25]

Several responses are in order to the above claims. First, the claim that Mary was sinless would seem to simply ignore Paul’s statement that: “We have already made the charge that Jews [including Mary] and Gentiles alike are all under sin.  As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one’” (Rom 3:9-10).

Secondly, the primary biblical support offered to defend the sinlessness of Mary is again the following passage from Luke:

Now in the sixth month the Angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,  27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.  28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! [kecharitōmenē: lit. “having been given grace”] The Lord is with you.”  29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.  30The Angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor [charin: “grace”] with God. (Luke 1:26-30 NASB)

It is the grace given Mary that is said to have made her sinless. We saw above Pope Pius IX’s interpretation of this grace when he decreed that: “the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a unique grace and privilege of the omnipotent God, and in consideration of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” [26]

We have already addressed this passage above and demonstrated that there is no indication in this biblical text of a “unique grace” given to Mary. And then to read into this that Mary was born sinless, unlike all other humans, is simply irresponsible eisegesis.

Pope Pius also claimed that Genesis 3:15 (“And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman [Eve], and between your offspring and hers; he [Christ] will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”) “foretells the immaculate conception,” [27] a claim that is not even worth refutation.

One of the reasons Mary needed God’s grace was because she was a sinner like all created humans. Along these lines, Dr. Bromiley writes:

Moreover, as Mary contributed nothing of herself to the great work of God, she gave evidence that in herself she was only an errant and sinful mortal like all others. She did not even grasp the wonder of what took place at Bethlehem (Lk. 2:19). She was bewildered by the action of the Lord Jesus as a boy in the temple (Lk. 2:48-50). With the brethren, she even tried to interrupt the public ministry of the Lord (Mk. 3:31ff.). Although she was faithful at the cross and the tomb, learning the aptness of her name and experiencing to the full the piercing prophesied by Simeon, she was no quicker than others to see through the tragedy to the triumph. [28]

As Dr. Finger summarizes, “[T]he Gospels do not present Mary unambiguously as sinless and in continuous accord with Christ’s will.” [29] Mary herself recognized her need to be saved from her sin when she proclaimed in her “song”, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. . . . His mercy extends to those who fear Him” (Luke 1:46-50), including Mary.

Dr. Finger explains the justification behind the decree of Mary’s Immaculate Conception:

If Mary had ever been stained by sin, she would have been God’s enemy and unfit to bear him. Consequently, she must have been “immaculate” (wholly free from any sin) from the instant she was conceived. Mary’s immaculate conception implies that she possessed a “fullness of grace” from the first instant. Further, she was immune to the slightest sin throughout her life. [30]

Concerning the claim that “If Mary had ever been stained by sin, she would have been God’s enemy and unfit to bear” Christ, we would ask “Why?” if in fact He was coming to even die for His enemies?

As for the claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity it is clearly unbiblical as there are numerous references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters (cf. Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-5; Acts 1:14). Mariologists suggest these people were cousins or half-siblings from a second marriage of Mary after Joseph’s death. However, there is no biblical or historical data to support such a claim. The suggestion that Christ didn’t even physically exit from His mother’s body is ludicrous.

This teaching again comes from humanistic thinking allowed to seep in because Scripture is abandoned. God is not honored by the charge that human sexual intercourse is sinful, for He created and commanded sexual intercourse, and He does not create or command sin, but only creates and commands what is the very best about being human, including sex.

Neither has any human become sinful by simply growing in a sinner’s womb and passing through a sinner’s birth canal. The insistence on the part of Romanists that such a thing would have tarnished Christ’s birth somehow is understandable, but just not true.

Those who would require that Mary be a saint, forget that Christ’s God-ordained physical lineage included a man who had sex with his daughter-in-law thinking she was a prostitute (i.e. Judah; cf. Matt 1:3; Gen 38:11-16), a woman who was a pagan prostitute herself (i.e. Rahab; cf. Matt 1:5; Josh 2:1), a woman from the wicked and divinely rejected people of Moab (i.e. Ruth; cf. Matt 1:5; Ruth 1:4), a man who was the result of a murderous and adulterous union (i.e. “Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife” Matt 1:6), and a Jewish King who sacrificed infants to Molech and probably executed Isaiah the Prophet [31] (i.e. Manasseh; cf. Matt 1:10; 2 Kings 21:5). While Christ was certainly sinless, He fully identified with human sinfulness, including that of the woman who bore Him, the father who raised Him, and the siblings He played with.

E) Mary’s Glorification: The Assumption

The final aspect of Romanist Mariology that we will address is the Assumption of Mary. Essentially, what is meant by this term is the belief that after her death Mary immediately ascended to Heaven in her glorified body just as Christ did. (cf. Acts 1:2, 9; Psa. 68:18; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-51; John 6:62; Eph 4:8-12). This, of course, would significantly distinguish her from the rest of humanity whose bodies are not raised until the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:23, 50-52; 1 Thess 4:13-17)

Regarding the historical background of the Assumption, W. N. Kerr writes:

No basis, biblical, apostolic, or postapostolic, exists in support of the doctrine. Apocryphal documents of the fourth century, Gnostic in character, such as the Passing of Mary hint at it [a document which Pope Gelasius (died 496) condemned as spurious [32]]. Gregory of Tours in his De gloria martyrum of the sixth century quotes an unfounded legend about Mary’s assumption.

As the story became popular in both East and West it took two forms. The Coptic version describes Jesus appearing to Mary to foretell her death and bodily elevation into heaven, while the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions picture Mary calling for the apostles, who are transported to her miraculously from their places of service. Then Jesus, after her death, conveys her remains to heaven.

The doctrine was first treated in deductive theology about 800. Benedict XIV (d. 1758) proposed it as a probable doctrine. Feasts celebrating the death of Mary date from the fifth century. In the East the late seventh century feasts included the assumption. After the eighth century the West followed suit. Nicholas I by edict (863) placed the Feast of the Assumption on the same level as Easter and Christmas. [33]

Despite the complete absence of any biblical revelation and a scarcity of any other historical support, Pope Pius XII made the Assumption of Mary official Romanist dogma in 1950 when he decreed: “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.” [34] In this very statement we see references to previous Romanist doctrines concerning Mary and her supposed Assumption would be an understandable result. Accordingly, Dr. Kerr comments:

The 1950 action regarding the assumption of Mary is built upon the declaration of “The Immaculate Conception” (Dec. 8, 1854), which declared Mary free from original sin. Both issue from the concept of Mary as the “Mother of God.” Her special state, Pius XII felt, demanded special treatment. If Mary is indeed “full of grace” (cf. Luke 1:28, 44) the assumption is a logical concomitant. Like Jesus, she is sinless, preserved from corruption, resurrected, received into heaven, and a recipient of corporeal glory. Thus Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven and assumes the roles of intercessor and mediator. [35]

As usual, claims to extra-biblical divine revelation produce the unbiblical practice of idolatry.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. In what area of “theology” has Romanism’s commitment to extra-biblical revelation produced the most “fruit”?
  2. What is Mariology?
  3. What is the ancient pagan roots of Mariology?
  4. What is the foundational belief of Mariology? When was it originally decreed and why?
  5. Why do we claim that Mariology is unbiblical idolatry?
  6. What is our response to the claim from Luke 1:28 that Mary received a unique grace that made her different from any other human? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  7. What is our response to the claim that Mary was especially obedient to God? Do you agree or disagree and why?
  8. Why do Romanists believe they need Mary to mediate for them?
  9. What is our response to the claim that Mary is a necessary mediator for us? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

  1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Harper Collins, 2001), ix-x. ↑

  2. Ref. unknown. ↑

  3. W C. G. Proctor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT) (Baker, 1984), 739. ↑

  4. F. S. Piggin, “Roman Catholicism”, EDT, 958. ↑

  5. Ibid. ↑

  6. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), 4 vols. (Eerdmans, 1988), 273. ↑

  7. Ibid., 271. ↑

  8. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, ref. unknown. ↑

  9. Geoffrey W. Bromiley “Mary” in ISBE, III:170. ↑

  10. All of which makes it surprising that the IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Joel Green and Scot McKnight eds. CD-ROM (Intervarsity, 1992), does not even have an entry for Mary Magdalene. ↑

  11. Proctor, 739. ↑

  12. St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, III.11.80; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  13. Irenaeus, III.12.4; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  14. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 494, 969; online at online at http://www.scborromeo.org ↑

  15. Bromiley, 271. ↑

  16. Ibid. ↑

  17. Walter L. Liefeld, Luke The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC) Frank E. Gaebelein ed., CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), in loc. ↑

  18. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), Luke 1:28. ↑

  19. Leon Morris, Luke, TNTC (Eerdmans, 1999 repr.), 80. cf. Darrell Bock, Luke (BECNT) 2 vols. (Baker, 1994), 109. ↑

  20. Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson ed., 381-2 ↑

  21. Ibid. ↑

  22. T. J. German, “Immaculate Conception” EDT, 550. ↑

  23. Quoted in Bettenson, 382. ↑

  24. T. N. Finger “Mariology” EDT, 686. ↑

  25. Bromiley, 271. ↑

  26. Ibid., 272. ↑

  27. See German, 550. ↑

  28. Bromiley “Mary” ISBE, III:170. ↑

  29. Finger, 686. ↑

  30. Ibid. ↑

  31. S. J. Schultz writes:

    Manasseh shed much innocent blood; protesters against these abominable practices were likely sentenced to death (cf. 2 K. 21:16). Although the last king associated with Isaiah in the historical record is Hezekiah, the tradition attributing the martyrdom of Isaiah to King Manasseh seems reasonable. (“Manasseh,” ISBE, III:234). ↑

  32. Bromiley, 272. ↑

  33. W. N. Kerr, “Mary, Assumption of” EDT, 696. ↑

  34. Ibid. ↑

  35. Ibid. ↑