How Important Was Mary?

[Dave]

 

[Josheb]

How important or you?
How important am I?

 

[Josheb]

I find very little in that video that is correct. I find a lot of liberties being taken with the scriptures.

 

[Carbon]

You’d think RC’s might consider that.

 

[Dave]

You’d think RC’s might consider that.

What do you mean? I seen a few youtube videos with R.C. about Mary, but didn't watch them. Does he disagree?

I always said that Jesus is bound to the Fathers will. If there were any requests to be made by Mary, or anyone, it would need to be according to the Fathers will. This idea of appealing to Mary because Jesus cannot resist her, that doesn't come from the Bible. I think Macarthur portrayed that nicely with a Biblical argument.

Dave

 

[Dave]

I find very little in that video that is correct. I find a lot of liberties being taken with the scriptures.

Hi Josheb.

Do you believe that it's possible for Jesus to do something that is not the Fathers will?

 

[Carbon]

What do you mean? I seen a few youtube videos with R.C. about Mary, but didn't watch them. Does he disagree?

I always said that Jesus is bound to the Fathers will. If there were any requests to be made by Mary, or anyone, it would need to be according to the Fathers will. This idea of appealing to Mary because Jesus cannot resist her, that doesn't come from the Bible. I think Macarthur portrayed that nicely with a Biblical argument.

Dave

RC's as in Roman Catholics.

Not R. C. Sproul

 

[Josheb]

Hi Josheb.

Do you believe that it's possible for Jesus to do something that is not the Fathers will?

No, but that has nothing to do with Jesus' volitional agency.

It has everything to do with the fact Jesus is God and what you're asking amounts to, "Can God do something against His own will?" The answer is an unequivocal, "No."

John 5:19
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Jesus did not say those words because he was volitionally inert or incapable. Those words were spoken because he is volitionally whole. Had Jesus ever once done something other than what his Father willed then that would have instantly disqualified him as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice, the resurrection and the life. That's not a statement about volition. That is an ontological statement and not understanding that is a bad Christology. Bad Christology begets bad soteriology.

 

[Dave]

RC's as in Roman Catholics.

Not R. C. Sproul

My bad. lol Sorry.

 

[Dave]

No, but that has nothing to do with Jesus' volitional agency.

It has everything to do with the fact Jesus is God and what you're asking amounts to, "Can God do something against His own will?" The answer is an unequivocal, "No."

John 5:19
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Jesus did not say those words because he was volitionally inert or incapable. Those words were spoken because he is volitionally whole. Had Jesus ever once done something other than what his Father willed then that would have instantly disqualified him as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice, the resurrection and the life.

That's not a statement about volition. That is an ontological statement and not understanding that is a bad Christology. Bad Christology begets bad soteriology.

He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will. I don't see the conflict. You're claiming that Mary has found some wiggle room with Jesus outside of the Fathers will? Essentially, if I'm understand you correctly, that's what you're saying.

I'll quote JMac

"Though many disagree, it is clear that Jesus was unable to sin. Here are two reasons why. First, God cannot sin (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; Jas 1:13). Jesus was and is God in the flesh. Thus He cannot sin. Second, perfect humanity cannot sin. Jesus was and is perfect humanity. Thus He could not sin in His perfect humanity or in His deity."

His sinlessness proved who He was.

"When I hear people say that Jesus had to be able to sin for His temptations to be real, I cringe. My Lord and Savior is, was, and always will be immutable (Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17). That means He does not change. He was just as unable to sin while on earth as He was for all of eternity up to that point and as He will be forever after that point. His incarnation did not change who He is."

Our goal as Christians is to do the Fathers will. That's why we were taught by Jesus to pray 'Father, Your will be done, not mine, but Yours.' Never does Mary's will over ride this fact.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will.

Think that through.

If Jesus is incapable of going against the Father's will, then he is also necessarily unwilling to do so. If that were not the case the Jesus would be willing something he incapable of doing. That would be like a person jumping off the Central Park Tower (1,550 feet tall) or the Burj Kalfa (2717 feet tall) and trying to will themselves not to splat at the end of the fall. A human can will it all they like but no amount of volition can alter the laws of physics. It is not within human ability to alter the design of creation; gravity wins that contest every time. We are incapable of altering our nature to be able to defy physics.

The same holds true of Jesus, except that Jesus is fully God and fully human, and we are only partially human (we are not as God originally made us). Jesus cannot be anything other than who and what he is, and what he is, is incapable of going against his Father and himself. It simply CANNOT be done. Jesus can alter the physics of creation; he can choose no to go splat at the end of a long fall, but he cannot alter himself to make himself capable of disobedience, unfaithfulness and/or unrighteousness.

I don't see the conflict.

That's okay. I hope and trust that is simply a function of nt having sufficiently thought through the matter of Jesus' ontology.

You're claiming that Mary has found some wiggle room with Jesus outside of the Fathers will?

Nope.

Essentially, if I'm understand you correctly, that's what you're saying.

You're not understanding me correctly.

I'll quote JMac

JMac is a faulty teacher. I would not put much trust in what he teaches...... and any appeal to his supposed authority is fallacious (scripture trumps JMac every time). If that statement prompts some doubt regarding my veracity, then I can go through this op's video line by line and explain what and how parts are correct and what and how parts are blatantly incorrect, and encourage you to be just as critical of JMac as you are of me (be as objective as you can be). Just let me now if you have such an interest and I will start that examination. Just let me know.

"Though many disagree, it is clear that Jesus was unable to sin. Here are two reasons why. First, God cannot sin (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; Jas 1:13). Jesus was and is God in the flesh. Thus He cannot sin. Second, perfect humanity cannot sin. Jesus was and is perfect humanity. Thus He could not sin in His perfect humanity or in His deity."

His sinlessness proved who He was.

The first part is correct, but the post hoc conclusion is faulty. Jesus has always been sinless. He has always been perfect. He did not prove he was sinless as if that was ever in doubt or there was ever a possibility he might not have been perfect. That last sentence should read, "His life on earth testified to the already existing fact he is and has always been ontologically perfect."

"When I hear people say that Jesus had to be able to sin for His temptations to be real, I cringe.

So do I. Those people have not thought through who and what is Jesus (or they are non-trinitarian, or both).

Our goal as Christians is to do the Fathers will.....

Our goal is to answer the question, "How important is Mary?" and discuss that answer. Christians is not the topic of this thread. Mary is not important at all. She contributed nothing to our salvation. She served as a vessel for the incarnation and nothing more (and I can say that without ragging on RCs or the RCC).

 

[Dave]

Our goal is to answer the question, "How important is Mary?" and discuss that answer. Christians is not the topic of this thread. Mary is not important at all. She contributed nothing to our salvation. She served as a vessel for the incarnation and nothing more.

On that we agree.

 

[Dave]

Think that through.

If Jesus is incapable of going against the Father's will, then he is also necessarily unwilling to do so. If that were not the case the Jesus would be willing something he incapable of doing.

Hi @Josheb

This is what I wrote "He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will". Maybe you thought that I wrote the word capable, instead of incapable, or willing, instead of unwilling.

The same holds true of Jesus, except that Jesus is fully God and fully human, and we are only partially human (we are not as God originally made us). Jesus cannot be anything other than who and what he is, and what he is, is incapable of going against his Father and himself. It simply CANNOT be done. Jesus can alter the physics of creation; he can choose no to go splat at the end of a long fall, but he cannot alter himself to make himself capable of disobedience, unfaithfulness and/or unrighteousness.

That's what I wrote "He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will"

JMac is a faulty teacher. I would not put much trust in what he teaches...... and any appeal to his supposed authority is fallacious (scripture trumps JMac every time). If that statement prompts some doubt regarding my veracity, then I can go through this op's video line by line and explain what and how parts are correct and what and how parts are blatantly incorrect, and encourage you to be just as critical of JMac as you are of me (be as objective as you can be). Just let me now if you have such an interest and I will start that examination. Just let me know.

I disagree. He's not perfect, but I'll take Him over Catholicism any day of the week.

The first part is correct, but the post hoc conclusion is faulty. Jesus has always been sinless. He has always been perfect. He did not prove he was sinless as if that was ever in doubt or there was ever a possibility he might not have been perfect. That last sentence should read, "His life on earth testified to the already existing fact he is and has always been ontologically perfect."

That's what I said, "His sinlessness proved who He was."

Dave

 

[Arial]

You’d think RC’s might consider that.

Are we allowing videos outside the video section now?

 

[Carbon]

Are we allowing videos outside the video section now?

No. We shouldn't

 

[Arial]

No. We shouldn't

Just checking.

 

[Josheb]

Hi @Josheb

This is what I wrote "He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will". Maybe you thought that I wrote the word capable, instead of incapable, or willing, instead of unwilling.

I was addressing the potential for some to read your statement to imply a dichotomy between the "incapable" and the "unwilling," that's all. I was affirming the non-existence of any and all unwillingness if incapable. It cannot be one or the other any more than it can be simultaneous capable-and-willing.

That's what I wrote "He is both incapable and unwilling to go against the Fathers will"

Yep.

I disagree. He's not perfect, but I'll take Him over Catholicism any day of the week.

Perhaps you should do a forensic analysis of this video. Take it line by line and examine it presuppositional and exegetically. I think you'll find he is no better or worse than the RCC (they get a few things correct, too) and if he wasn't mainstream and popular the video would not have been posted.

That's what I said, "His sinlessness proved who He was."

Dave

Welll.....

• His survival after jumping off the skyscraper proved he was superhuman.
• His mathematical proof proved his theorem was correct.

Do you see the difference?

• His sinlessness proved who he was.
• Who he was proved his sinlessness.

See the difference? You know what you meant but consider how it might read. His sinlessness did not prove who he was in the sense of the word "prove" that would mean his sinless actions caused or made him perfect. If you agree then there is no dispute, only a simple clarification of that agreed upon content.

I did not belabor the point in Post 11 because I assumed it was not your intent but starting a point with "Though many disagree, it is clear that Jesus was unable to sin," and ending with "His sinlessness proved who he was" is question-begging. The same applies to the juxtaposition of Jesus is unable to sin because he's God and his sinlessness proved who he was. The claim perfect humanity cannot sin is also incorrect. Adam was perfect (though incomplete) and he definitely sinned.

And we're getting far afield of the op.


We agree Mary is not very important. She served as a vessel for the incarnation, like a pitcher carries water but contributes nothing to the existence or nature of the water that it carries. If you like, I can post a few observations pertaining to what JMac has correct in that video and what he does not have correct. Despite the overall point that Mary is of little significance, he's more often wrong than right and I can demonstrate that with a simple observation: JMac farmed Jesus' relationship with his Mary in terms of authority but there's a huge problem with that. There was not a fraction of a nanosecond when Jesus could have ever violated Exodus 20:12

Exodus 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged on the land which the LORD your God gives you.

It's not a question of authority. Never was. JMac erred. Not only did he err factually, but he erred teaching that message to all those in attendance and then erred again by having that lesson posted on YouTube. The problem is worse than that, however, because no one bothered to examine the teaching, no one bother to correct the err, no one bothered to hold him accountable and, if they did, he never bothered to correct his mistakes. Jesus was required by the Law to always honor his mother and, for a 30-year-old male in that culture that has little to nothing to do with obedience. If he was going to rag on the RCC he chose a very poor means of doing so. If I were RC I would dismiss his nonsense out of hand because it is factually and demonstrably as erroneous as the anti-RC insinuations.

To be fair..... that is only six minutes of what is presumably a much longer teaching so it may quote mine and not be representative of the larger message. I wonder, however, what the responses would be if Roman Catholicism was removed and JMac chose to speak the same way about the Brethren, Pentecostals, or Methodists. The matter of "Marry, the Mother of God?" can be made without scapegoating RCism (and, imo, that's how it should be done). Yes, the Marian doctrine is wack, but triggering defenses is not a very effective apologetic. To reiterate: The answer to the question asked, "How important is Mary?" the answer is "Very little. She contributed nothing to our salvation and her service to God was solely as a vessel, an obedient vessel that likely cost he a great deal regarding her reputation, but a vessel, nonetheless." If I were to add anything, then it would be she is NOT the mother of God. That was a n assimilation of pagan beliefs that occurred as the gospel spread. It should never have been formalized into doctrine; it should have been discarded long ago.




And, just so you know, I hesitated to post any of that because the purpose of this board isn't specified and I'm not sure it is intended for discussion or debate. That's why posts 2 and 3 were vague, brief, and non-specific. I posted a video in this board last weekend and had/have absolutely no intent to discuss its scriptural or theological veracity. I posted that video because it brings me joy and I hope it does the same for others. I assume you may have thought similarly regarding the JMac video and it's not my intent to muck up others' joy (well, maybe I could get behind roasting burning a few LDS or Dispies at the stake ).

.

 

[Dave]

There was not a fraction of a nanosecond when Jesus could have ever violated Exodus 20:12

Exodus 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged on the land which the LORD your God gives you.

@Josheb

Yes, Jesus could, if you see it in light of Romans 13:1-7.

I think that your missing the point. This was Jesus, the Son of God, telling his biological mother, that this isn't son of man business, rather, it's Son of God business. And frankly, her ranking ends at son of man business. In other words, it's not her business. Did He honor Mary when He said that? No, but like the Romans 13 passage above, when the government and God's will are in conflict, we obey God. That's not a violation of Romans 13:1-7. Jesus is all about obeying the Father, so rebuking His mother wasn't in violation of Exodus 20:12. It was a unique situation, of course, because we are dealing with the Son of God, and not a mere man growing into adulthood. This was more so about the son of man beginning the Son of God business.

Likewise was MacArthur's point.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

Yes, Jesus could, if you see it in light of Romans 13:1-7.

What would have happened if Jesus did violate Exodus 20:12?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

can you give a jest of what the video says.