Dr Greg Bahnsen - Catholic-Protestant Debate: Catholic-Protestant Debate Part 2 (Part 2)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

From LA on FM 99.5 KKL, we're talking about Catholics and Protestants, where we agree, where we disagree, where been talking about the place of Scripture versus Scripture and tradition. Now I want to shift gears a bit and talk about the place of Mary. Another area of concern or difference between Protestants and Catholics. Let me reintroduce my guests Here we have Dr. Greg Bonson. He is the scholar in residence of the California center for Christian Studies in Irvine. Also, Father Michael Manning, who has a national television ministry. He's on channel 18, KSCI. And Professor Jerry Matatics from Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, formerly of Catholic Answers, now professor of Theology, Scripture at that location. Father Manny the place of Mary. Where in Catholic tradition then is Mary? Why do you see it, shall I say, important for us to embrace doctrines such as perpetual virginity, bodily assumption? Why to a Protestant? Why should I embrace those, or should I?

Well, in my understanding, in my dealing with Protestants about trying to understand Mary, I like to make the basic statement that I think needs to be said, which is Mary is nothing without Jesus, and that needs to be said again and again and again. Mary is nothing without Jesus. And I also need to say that I think that there are things that many Protestants see Catholics doing that I'm not comfortable with. And that as a Catholic priest and as a person who I hope is really in touch with the main direction of where we should be going, I'd say I think this is wrong. I think that a couple thoughts kind of enter my mind and we need to think about it in terms of Scripture, that when we talk about Mary, there's differences of approaches to Mary in the Bible, that if you were, for example, to come of the community that was out of where Mark wrote his gospel, Mary wouldn't come off very well and there wouldn't really be too much importance of Mary in a person's spirituality.

Whereas you come to the Gospel of.

Luke and you find that there's all of a sudden a greater prominence given to Mary, something that speaks of her as a beautiful example and even beyond an example, someone that gives me a sense of perhaps communication with, to allow a deepening of my relationship with Jesus. And it's a Catholic response to speak in the Gospel of Luke than it is to speak of the Gospel of Mark. And today we still have the great tension that goes on between people in the Protestant Mary is not to be Considered really, and maybe in the line with Mark and whereas we have with the Catholics a greater understanding that Mary has a place of prominence. She's been chosen by God to do something very great. And not only chosen, but also responding in a very healthy way, a healthy way of spirit that helps me in my relationship with Jesus to be able to love him more.

I appreciate that emphasis too on Mary not being anything apart without Jesus. That's a very important point to raise, Professor Manatics. But the Catholic position official would be well beyond that. In terms of a Mary is a mediatrix as being someone that should be prayed to. Someone who, and I want to get the words right here, not venerated, not worshiped, but adored.

Just a little bit different. A little different can be venerated, can be venerated, but cannot be worshiped or adored in the sense in which we offer a worship to God alone. Only God is entitled to our complete devotion as the Supreme Being. Mary is just a creature, although Catholics believe that she is a creature that has been exalted by the grace of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us whoever comes differently.

Than others but different than other saints.

Are exalted just to a higher degree. In other words, nothing actually is predicated of Mary in Catholicism that is not predicated of the church as a whole. The Church is called the Bride of the Lord in Scriptures. The Church will one day be this immaculate bride, Paul says in Ephesians 5 will be without any spot or wrinkle or, or stain or blemish. The Church will be bodily assumed to sit at the right hand to reign with Christ, to be queen since he is king. And so when we talk about Mary as Queen of Heaven or Queen of Angels, she's simply a sneak preview of what we're all headed for. She's a prototype of the Church.

And again, would you say this is found in tradition as apart from Scripture, although you would say it's implicit in Scripture?

No, I would actually base. I find that my most effective talks about Mary are talks that simply stick to the explicit statements of Scripture. I think that you can, you can produce the full orbed Catholic doctrine on Mary just by quoting scripture alone, not even having to go into the church fathers whatsoever.

Dr. Bonson, how about a quick introduction to the idea of Mary? You as a Protestant, how would you perceive this then?

Well, of course I do not agree with the previous two speakers about the exalted position of Mary and I don't believe it's biblical. But I think before I say anything in response to their understanding of Mary's exaltation. It's important that Roman Catholics know that Protestants are not angry with Mary. Protestants are not down on Mary sometimes as an overreaction to what they think the Roman Catholic Church has done and venerating her and so forth. Protestants can say some hard things, but I wouldn't want them to be misunderstood. Mary was a beautiful Christian woman. Obviously she was highly favored of God, blessed among women. That's right. She bore the Savior. She was at the cross. We know she was a believer in the early church. And I praise God for Mary, her testimony and what his grace did in her life. And I would like for him to do the same in my life or anybody else's life. So I don't think that is going to be the point of dissension. We're not down on Mary, however, we're very much up on Jesus. And because we think that Mary has come to detract from the glory of Christ as our sole intercessor to God, the sole mediator between God and men, and because Mary has been made someone that you can pray to in the Roman tradition and so forth, it's important for us as Protestants to say this is not a biblical notion. And in fact it's an anti biblical notion. In the last hour we talked about Scripture and tradition. I suggested when Tradition is allowed to come in and have authority next to Scripture, it eventually has the greater authority than scripture.

Dr. Bonson, where does.

Let me. Just one last thing. I know you're going to not agree with this, but let me finish the thought. In Luke's Gospel, which is where Father Manning I think is right, we get more on Mary there, obviously, the nativity, appearances of the angel and so forth. But it's in Luke's Gospel in particular that we read the account. It came to pass as he said these things. A certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice and said unto him, blessed is the womb that bare thee and the breast which thou didst suck. So here it's obviously the biological mother of Jesus, the one that we have all said is a wonderful woman, blessed of God and so forth. But Jesus does not accept that, that she should be blessed in that way, but says rather. Yes, rather. Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. There is no special place for Mary in the words of Jesus here. And then one last comment that may provoke further discussion. In Acts, the first chapter, we read that Mary was in the early church. The fascinating thing is that's the end. You know, if Mary has an important place in Christian piety. Why now the silence in the rest of the New Testament? Why no more veneration, suggestion of prayers through her and so forth. She really fades from the scene and I would suggest the reason for that is because the glory is that of her son, Jesus Christ the elder.

Well, let's let that question dangle. We'll let our category friends respond after this break. Jon Stewart live from LA on FM 99.5 KKLA. We're talking about Catholic and Protestant issues where we agree, where we disagree. Coming up at 6 o' clock, we'll have a special edition of Bible on the Line because that hour will be reserved solely for your phone calls. But between the clock we're going to focus on this issue of the place of Mary. Dr. Greg Bonson before the break was mentioning how he did not see any special elevation for Mary other than what's apparent in the text of being the one who by the grace of God was used to birth the Savior and the rest of the New Testament, not having much or anything in the way of adoration, veneration and the like of that. Professor Manatic's a response to that.

I think that Dr. Bonston, with all due respect, has really missed the point of the passage in Luke, the woman pronounces a blessing upon the womb that gave birth to Jesus in the breasts that nursed him. And she's talking about Mary. And Jesus doesn't say, no, that's wrong. He says, yea, rather, blessed are those that hear the word of God and obey it. So first of all there is a physical blessing. She had an intimate union with Christ that no one else will ever be able to have in that precise way. There was a very unique mother son. She carried God herself within her for nine months. And I want to come back to that point. But the blessing that Jesus pronounces that it's higher, which I agree it's more important to to be spiritually one with Christ than merely physically. But Mary isn't someone who's simply physically one and not spiritually. She was both. Anne, there's this either or dichotomy here. I don't think is even aware of what Luke is saying in his Gospel about Mary being an obedient woman to the Lord. In other words, she had the first blessing, the woman's blessing. But she also falls under the rubric of the blessing that Jesus pronounces because she supremely did hear the word of God and believe it. And she said, behold the handmaiden of the Lord, be it done to me according to my word. And when we read Luke's gospel in chapter one in that infancy narrative, we find especially I know Dr. Bronson is a scholar and he can pull out his Greek New Testament and he can compare the Greek phrases there with the Septuagint and find that Luke has self consciously borrowed Septuagint language in Luke 1 and 2. He doesn't use it in the rest of the in the Gospel. The rest of the gospel is in 1st century AD coine Greek. But he has used it to echo statements made about the Ark of the Covenant in the Old testament. In Exodus 40, when the ark of the Covenant was completed and the tabernacle was consummated, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as coming down upon and overshadowing it. In 2nd Samuel 6, we read that the Ark of the Covenant passed through the hill country of Judea. We read that David leapt before it with joy. We read that he says, who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come to me. We read that it stays in the house of Ovid, Adam the Gittite for three months and brings blessing, fertility, fruitfulness to that household. Luke goes out of his way to identify Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in Luke chapter one because he echoes the exact same points. When she says, how can I give birth to the Son? The angel says, the Holy Spirit will overshadow you. Consciously echoing the language of Exodus 40. It's the Shekinah, the glory cloud, the Holy Spirit coming upon her. Mary goes immediately to the hill country of Judea to visit Elizabeth. Elizabeth says, who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me? The baby in her womb leaps for joy, a very technical term used to describe liturgical dance before the presence of God. And then she stays in that house for three months. Why? Because Elizabeth was six months pregnant. She had been told that by the angel to bring blessing, fertility, that is a safe delivery to a very aged woman who was undergoing a very risky pregnancy at that particular point. She functions in that narrative the same way the Ark of the Covenant does in 2nd Samuel 6. The point that Luke is making is Mary is special. Just as the Ark had God in his presence in a special way within it, so Mary functions the Ark of the New Covenant. She has Emmanuel, God with us and in her midst.

And that though now you're saying Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

She is an she is the antitype, she is the fulfillment of which the Ark is a type.

And so the Ark contained God in the old covenant. And now she is the antitype because she has the God man in her womb. Am I to understand?

Well, obviously you and I believe, as the Hebrews did, that God was everywhere, but there was a special manifestation of God's presence. Presence in terms of the Shekinah inside.

The ark or the Shekinah glory over the ark, which is it in Old Testament theology?

It's both.

It's God's not inside the Ark in the Old Covenant. You're wrong about that.

No, he's upon it. And the, and the the cherubim that shield him upon the mercy seat, show that he's within it as well, are.

Not within the ark. They are on the lid of the ark and they are then as you write, they are the guardians of the Shekinah glory itself. But if I understand you, in fact, I find this kind of actual treatment of the Ark of the Covenant really hard to swallow as a Protestant, that in the way that the ark carried God's presence internally, Mary carried in her womb the New Covenant or the God of the New Covenant. I just want to make sure that's what you're claiming is exegetically founded.

Let's ponder that thought. We'll take a break. Family news and focus. Come on up. When we come back, we'll continue this discussion regarding the place of marriage Mary. What we're talking about today would be the similarities and differences between Catholics and Protestants. And essentially we talked about the place of scripture and should Scripture alone or scripture plus sacred tradition be the basis of faith and practice? We've moved beyond that. We're talking now about the place of Mary. And coming up at 6:00, we're taking your phone calls. So if you're wanting to get through on the lines, hold on, we'll get to you coming up sooner or later. Let me reintroduce my guest, Dr. Greg Bonson, scholar and resident at the California center for Christian Studies in Irvine, California. And representing the Catholic perspective, Father Michael Manning. He has a national television ministry on Channel 18, KSCI. And Professor Jerry Matatics, who flew all the way out here from Nashville, Tennessee, where he teaches theology and scripture at Aquinas College. Formerly of Catholic Answers, now a Catholic laypologist who heads up the organization entitled Biblical Foundations. Biblical Foundations. The only thing I forgot to write down, good title, Biblical Foundations. Speaking of which, before the break, Professor Bonson was responding to the Catholic perspective regarding Mary. So perhaps you could even re raise the issues that he brought up and respond to those accordingly.

Professor Matatex I'm sorry to interrupt, but I really wasn't finished. I was just clarifying that he was making Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.

You go ahead.

Okay. It only takes a sentence. This may be a good illustration of what some Protestants have trouble with in terms of the Roman Catholic treatment of Mary, because, as you know, the charge is made, rightly or wrongly, often by Protestants, that Mary comes to take the place of Jesus. Now, we've heard Dr. Matatex interpret text in the New Testament in such a way that he feels that Mary is the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant. I guess what surprised me about that, I wanted to make sure you were actually saying that, is that one would have thought it rather clear in the New Testament that Jesus is the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant. You read this in the Book of Hebrews. In fact, the specific ingredients of the Ark are there. It's not the presence of God, it's the pot of manna, the tables of the Covenant, and so forth, all of which seem to be foreshadows of Christ and His work. He is our propitiatory, he is the mercy seat, and so forth. And yet now we have an interpretation coming, I think, with a definite Catholic bias, if I might say that in a friendly way, that says that Mary should be seen as the antitype of what I think Jesus actually is.

But I think one of the very nature of symbols and types in the Bible is that no one of them can exhaust any reality and they're capable of several applications. Mary is, as Father Manning said, symbolized or foreshadowed in the Ark precisely because of her closeness to Jesus. There's no need to deny that Jesus is also analogous to the Ark in a sense as well. There are other kinds of types in the Old Testament have more than one fulfillment or more than one consequence or application in the New. I guess what I'm taking objection to is the statement that if you really study the Scriptures, that Mary doesn't have a special place. Those are the words that you use. And I think that's really, with all due respect, even if I were a Protestant, I think it's going a little bit too far. You again, Dr. Bonston, as someone who has earned a reputation for yourself, as someone who emphasizes the continuity of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, that's what theonomy is all about. You should be aware that in the Hebrew culture, the queen mother, the role of the queen mother, was a very exalted and very powerful influential figure in First Kings, chapter 2, we see that when Bathsheba, the queen mother of Solomon, enters the throne room and approaches him, that he acts in enormous deference to her. He stands up, he has a throne seated at his right hand. He bows down to her. He says, mother, what is it that you want?

Jerry, Jerry, that's all well and good. Where is Mary presented as the queen mother? Give us some textual evidence for that.

Jesus is the king. Mary's his mother. End of argument.

Well, okay. Now, what we have here is an inference drawn from premises which are not.

Oh, great.

Those kinds of.

Drawn by Protestants all the time. That. That doesn't. Does anyone out there think.

I. I don't have any problem with inferences. I have problem with your inferences because they are not based upon a proper interpretation.

Mary is not a queen.

Where is she called a queen in the Bible?

Now, you've got to decide to stick with one set of rules. And how do you play by them? Vocabulary.

I don't care.

First you're saying inference, then you're saying, where is she called queen in the Bible? Now, which is it? Do you want an inference or do you want an explicit statement?

You haven't given either yet.

Yes, I have. Yes, I did. I said, jesus, he's the Davidic king. He is the king of the kingdom of God, the house of David. Mary is his mother, ergo, she is the queen mother.

Let me play this with you. At the point that Jesus declared to be the king and is exalted to God's right hand after the ascension and the founding of the Christian church, where we know Mary is still alive, she drops out of sight completely, no queen mother. But now she's gone and the whole emphasis is upon the king. You still haven't shown, by the way, that she's a queen mother. Just because he's the king and she happens to be his mother. Queen mother is a concept that's not made up of being the mother of a king that happens to have a particular social and a particular semantic connotation. And so if you want to do logic, I'll do logic. But believe me, you're not going to get anywhere trying that kind of inference. Where is the concept or the adoration of a queen mother given to Mary in the Bible?

We're not talking about adoration. That's a misconception, again, that I want to lay to rest.

I apologize. Veneration. Where is she venerated as her queen mother in the Bible?

Jesus, of course, as a faithful Jew, as an observer of the law of God, would obey the commandment to honor your father and your mother. He would honor her. He would heap glory upon her, which is what the verb means. And we are called to be imitators.

Of Christ, and all mothers are to be treated in that way.

But Mary isn't just simply one mother among many. If Jesus is special, it's an inflexible consequence of logic that his mother is special.

You're knocking down a strong man. I never said she was like every other. I said she's the mother of the Savior, highly blessed of God and so forth. But you also.

Where is the special, special place?

Okay, let's. Let's do it this way. We'll do it analytically. Define the special place. I'm not challenging. I'm just. I want to know what you're claiming. What is her special place?

Well, I think it's a complex of things. First of all, it's the Queen Mother. And even Protestant scholars will admit that the concept of the Queen Mother is present in the New Testament narratives.

Where.

Secondly, where.

Where? That's what I asked you before and you skipped it. So let's do it. Where is it?

Well, I gave you an example of a type in First Kings, chapter two.

You gave me a type, which, by the way, I do not find credible from a scholarly standpoint. But even granting it grant, well, I suppose that would be convincing in a Roman Catholic way of thinking. This Protestant needs to be shown from the Scripture. But what you offered me was not Queen Mother types of metaphors. You gave me Ark of the Covenant metaphors. Where is the Queen Mother metaphor used?

Well, I'm trying to get to it if I can. In the New Testament, you have Mary approaching Jesus in John chapter two, for example, and interceding on behalf of the people when she says, the people at the wedding in Cana, they have no wine. Now we know. And again, Protestant scholars will admit that there's all kinds of spiritual double untimed. Throughout the Gospel of John, he says, I have such an enormous mountain of material that I've got to leave out, you know, 90/900 of it. Therefore, what he includes must be deeply significant. And when Mary comes and says, they have no wine, John is interpreting that at a deeper level, that it's a reflection upon Israel. She's asking him to do something. And he responds that way by saying, my hour has not yet come, in which he will give forth the wine of his blood and bring about the wine of the Holy Spirit. Interesting nonetheless.

Telling his mother, you don't understand these Things, it'll be at my timing, not yours.

That's where your reading something into. He doesn't say you don't understand what Jesus literally says. If we're going to be responsible scholars.

He says at my time it will be done. Not at your time. He doesn't say not at yours. But he doesn't.

He does.

When she gives the implication that wine should be supplied, he says it'll be at his time.

You're ignoring the most obvious thing of all though in the narrative, and that is that Jesus proceeds to do exactly what she asked him to do. And therefore, Greg, you have to deal with this fact that at one level it's not yet his hour, and at a point, certain symbolic level it is. She made a statement that was capable of being taken on two levels. He responded likewise.

But what most obviously is that he did not do it because his mother told him to do it.

If you look at the Greek, what Jesus literally says is what is to you. And to me that sounds like a put off only if you don't really look carefully at the force of those words. Because in fact those same words are used by the demoniac. When Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee and the demons demonized man says, Jesus, what to you and to me? Have you come to torment us before the appointed hour? The fact is Jesus did have some sort of authority over the demons, even though it wasn't the final hour of judgment, he says, I do have the authority to exercise to judge you in a proleptic or an anticipatory fashion. Now, in the same way Jesus responded to Mary and, and said, in some sense we can see this coming hour. We can turn the water into wine. We can provide what is needed for the refreshment of Israel's parched and barren and dry and dusty spiritual condition. And he does exactly what she asked for.

Let me jump in and bring it from a theological level down to a practical concern I have and bring Michael Manning in to speak to this. And you touched on it earlier, Michael, and that is despite how we are supposed to view Mary from the Catholic perspective, or how you would as a Catholic, you've indicated that there have been those who go well beyond, and that is one of the chief concerns of Protestants, that there is much more than veneration of Mary taking place out there. Why is that and is that not overlooked and should it be denounced?

Well, I'm glad you brought it back to that. As I'm listening to your talk, Craig, I'm hearing this frustration and I'm Hearing the ins and outs of this verse, of that verse. And I'm saying, okay, okay. But I think the bottom line has to be this statement that we get back to that I said before that Mary is nothing without Jesus. And I, in my own experience of traveling around the world and visiting things, can understand where you're coming from. I can understand to an extent the frustration that you experience with your deep love of Jesus. And somehow this seems to be deviated from Mary. I'm aware of that. And I get very nervous sometimes when I find the concern about this apparition and this and that. And even though it might not be saying, hey, listen, I worship Mary for an objective view of sitting and walking into a church and seeing a person come in. And instead of going to Jesus, coming over and lighting a candle in front of Mary. And so what I'm saying is, hey, wait a minute, Catholics, wait a minute. Let's don't forget this basic reality. Let's make sure that in our practice, in our life, that we're not going to lose touch with the beauty of who Mary is in her proper position. And in her proper position is again, repeating what I said. Mary is nothing without Jesus. But. And I'm just kind of coming with my own experience of this, many times I find people saying, because of a relationship that I might have with Mary, which I know that probably sounds very difficult for you, that it in no way detracts from my relationship with Jesus, which to me is very important, that the relationship with Mary allows me to be able to love him more fully, aware that I can fall into all kind of problems, as you know and I know, and I don't want that to happen. But I speak to you just kind of simply as saying. My praying the rosary every day, which is a practice that I do, is an ability for me to love Jesus more. It comes from the concept of saying, well, wait a minute, why don't get rid of all these other people and just go to Jesus? Why don't you just go to Jesus? That's all you need. And there isn't anything more. My understanding of what I've received from the Bible is that Mary has a very significant part in my relationship with Jesus. Jesus doesn't want us, from what I read in the Bible, to just come to him and say, hey, Jesus, you and I, all the way, but that there's a real relationship with the people that I live with, I pray with and I work with and I pray for, and they pray for me, that somehow this becomes a relationship that allows me to love Jesus more. Does that make any sense to you? And for example, to say, well, here I am a celibate. I've decided to love Jesus as a celibate. I read the Bible and I can't understand why there aren't more celibates. To me, it's a very strong statement. It's almost a prejudice statement in favor of celibacy. And I say that, but at the same time, I'm able to look at a husband and wife loving each other and thereby enriching their relationship with God and somehow not saying, oh, well, I've got to get rid of my wife, I've got to get rid of my husband in order to come to God. God has allowed relationships to be a very enriching way of coming to God. And in that context, I'm able to come to Jesus in a deeper and richer way in this relationship, not with a woman that has anything in her own. Mary is nothing without Jesus, but as a special gift from the Lord that allows me to enrich my relationship with Michael.

Just on that further point, a quick clarification. But you also, though, are concerned that despite one's interaction from a Catholic perspective with Mary, there are those that take it too far.

Very much so.

What's being done about that or is enough?

What's beautiful about the Second Vatican Council? For example, you brought up the idea of the mediatrix of all graces. What you find is that you found a tradition that was moving very strongly of saying, when we come to this decision making about the Second Vatican Council, let's say Mary as the fact of, because of her word, God came into the world. And as it were, she was the conduit of the word coming. Well, in the same way, graces are going to come into the world. In that same way, as we read in the Bible, the church fathers got together and said, wait a minute, wait.

A minute, wait a minute.

We can't say that. We can't say that without causing all kind of confusion. And so let's make sure that we don't lose a sense of balance. And I find continually this desire in the church to make sure that we don't lose it. And so the title that we speak of in the Second Vatican Council is Mary, the Mother of the Church, speaking of that care that she gives as she just gives to Jesus, who is the heart of the church.

Go to the phones and take some calls. Jeanne in Silverlake. Hello, Jeanne, you're on kkla.

John, how are you?

I'm okay.

Great. I have a question for you about Mary. Well, for your guests, actually. In the Magnificat, she glorifies the Lord as her spirit rejoices in God, her Savior. Now, my question is, if Mary is born without sin, which is what I was raised Catholic and I thought that's what their teaching was, why does she refer to God as her savior?

Okay, Professor Matatics.

Well, Mary refers to God as her Savior because it is God who saved her from the moment of her conception. In other words, there's no conflict in every Catholic catechism. And I apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church if this wasn't somehow made clear to you in your instruction that you received. There's no conflict between the Immaculate Conception, the fact that God is her Savior. It is the case that God did for her from the moment of her existence what he did, for example, for Eve. He created Eve Immaculate. He gave her sanctifying grace. She started out that way. And Mary is spoken of in the early Church fathers as a second Eve, a new Eve. But Augustine pointed out an illustration he often used was that he said, suppose, let's say, Greg Bonson and Jerry Matix are walking along and Jerry falls into a tar pit in the La Brea tar pit. And he's floundering around, and then Father Manning comes along and pulls me out and I say, thank you, Father. You saved me from this tariff. He did save me. He rescued me. Now, suppose Greg Bonson is about to step into the pit and Father reaches out and saves him before he even falls in. He's not tarred with the filing gunk, and he cannot say, therefore, well, gee, I guess you didn't save me. In a sense, Father Manning has done a greater act of rescue or deliverance or salvation for Greg than for me. He allowed me to fall in and then pulled me out. In the same way St. Augustine says Mary has been saved even more. She was saved from the ravages of sin before they even had a chance to draw her away from God.

She was saved from being a sinner in the Catholic viewpoint. Saved from the penalty of sin as a sinner.

Well, she was saved from the penalty of sin, which would have come to her through her descent from Adam. But you're right. She was saved from being a sinner rather than being saved out from a sinful condition.

Dr. Bonson.

John, could I mention when Jerry says he. Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church. Church, you know, has let her down and has not explained this, that there's no conflict. I grew up in a Roman Catholic community I grew up with people who, if they prayed, prayed to Mary, not to Jesus, because they thought Jesus was too austere. They had to have somebody be a go between to Jesus and so forth. Now, I realize that there are Roman Catholics or Presbyterian, Roman Catholics who like to correct some of the abuses that are there. And I appreciate that Protestants have their abuses too. And you both have been very kind not to remind us of things that we should be embarrassed by. So we have to go after the best presentation of it. However, the fact of the matter is the Roman Catholic Church has presented a view that would allow the caller to draw the conclusion that she had. And in fact, the answer was not clever in the sense of being purposely deceptive. But the answer cleverly avoids the issue here about Mary needing salvation. When the analogy is drawn to Eve and we're told that she has sanctifying grace given to her. You have to understand this is one of a cardinal difference in anthropology between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Protestants do not believe that Eve needed, or Adam for that matter, needed sanctifying grace given to them because God saw everything that he'd made and it was good. There was no inclination to sin that called for some kind of special gracious work of God to pull man back from the tar pit of falling in anymore. For Eve or for Mary. But if you say that, well, she was saved because that inclination to sin was blocked by God. The fact is, then she has a toward sin which the Bible says in itself is worthy of God's wrath. And so if Mary needs a Savior even in the mitigated, which I don't believe is biblical, but even in the mitigated way offered by Dr. Matatex, the fact of the matter is she still stood guilty before God.

No, she didn't have such an inclination. The church doesn't teach that.

Then what did he save her from?

He saved her from as our host appointed from becoming a sinner who would have that influence would obviously express it in sinful language.

Okay, Jeanne, I appreciate the call.

Okay, can I just ask one more quick question?

No, only one. We have a lot of fun folks waiting. Jeannie, thanks for the call. God bless. Bye.

Bye.

Let's go to Sandy in Canoga Park. Sandy, hello. You're on kkla.

Hi, John.

I am a born again Christian, ex Roman Catholic and used to pray the rosary every day, all day. In fact, I went to Catholic school and we were always told that you can really get big points for doing this. I was under the impression since I've been born again, that It's a pagan rite that it's sort of an obscure practice of a pagan time that I wasn't aware of. Is this true?

You're talking about praying the rosary?

Yes.

Well, are you asking the Catholics to respond? I don't know that they would agree.

With that because I never had a teacher in Catholic school that could explain it because we weren't allowed to ask.

And Jesus did talk about praying vain, repetitious types of prayers. Professor Mendix, Michael Manning, how would you respond? Michael?

The very words that are part of the Hail Mary are the words taken from the angel Gabriel and then the words from Elizabeth. The second part is a proclamation of a very important aspect of clarifying the divinity of Jesus, Holy Mary, Mother of God, and then pray for us. That sounds very scriptural to me.

It also sounds intercessory, like she's supposed.

To pray for us.

It is.

It is intercessory. No denying that it is intercessory.

Yes.

And I don't think there's a problem with that. I need to take issue with something that Dr. Bonson said. When he said earlier that Christ is the sole intercessor, he used those very words. That is not taught in Scripture. Scripture tells us to intercede for one another. It never says that Christ is the sole intercessor. It's 32 times in the New Testament we're told to intercede for each other. And if it's right for Greg Bonson as a Christian to pray for me as a fellow Christian, it's all right for me to pray for him. And if I were to die and go to heaven, I wouldn't love him any less than heaven than I love him here on earth. I'd love him more. I'd be set free from my own self centeredness, my own sinful agenda. And I could really devote myself to praying more effectively for him. And Mary is doing that. She's praying for us simply because she's a fellow Christian. She's a member of the body.

Let's lay aside some horrible fallacies in the reasoning that you've just listened to. In the first place, the Bible does say Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. First Timothy 2, 5. And the only way, the only way that I can intercede for John here is by going through Jesus to God. I cannot go directly to God and so forth. Now the false analogy has got to be called down here that if I ask John to pray for me and then he can go to Jesus on my behalf, why can't I do that with Mary. Well, let me give you three real good reasons why you can't do that. First of all, because the Bible forbids contact with the dead. In Deuteronomy, the 18th chapter, verse 11, we are told that God's law forbids, in fact makes it a horrible crime when we try to contact the dead or contact people who think that they have a familiar spirit and can do that. Secondly, it would do no good to contact Mary even if you could, because she does not have any special pull with Jesus any more than anybody else. Interestingly, in Philippians 1, my friend George Taggart, who is a converted Roman Catholic, pointed this out to me and I think it's a very telling observation. Paul says that for me to depart is my gain, but it will not do the Church any good. If Paul could intercede for the Church once he departed, then he could not have said, it would do you no good if I were to go to be with the Lord. So for your benefit, I continue my ministry till Jesus takes me. But for myself, I'd rather be with Jesus. But you see, if Paul can go to Jesus and intercede, then after he departs this life, it would have been a great help for the Church to do that and he would not have made that remark. Moreover, the Bible tells us that we can go to Jesus boldly. There is no reason why we need to go through Mary or through John Stewart or through the Apostle Paul, or through the rosary.

In vain repetition through a rosary.

That's right. We don't need any of that because we can come directly to Jesus boldly and he will make intercession for us.

Then why use the rosary? Then why use some tangible thing when we are going boldly by faith, right to the Lord?

Well, I want to suggest that the use of the rosary is not only displeasing to God because Christ is the only mediator, but it's also without common sense. Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Mary has somehow taken on divine attributes. Even if she is sanctified and glorified, she is a mere human being. And I can, as a mere human being even in my best spiritual state. No more listen to three people talking to me at once than I can fly to the moon. Mary as a mere human being cannot hear the prayers of these people around simultaneously unless she's been given divine attributes, which according to the Roman Catholic teaching, when they get prayed, pushed, they deny.

That's a logical fallacy because the number of prayers that would go to Mary are a finite amount. And you're jumping again from, from zero to a thousand.

Do you think that there are three people right now somewhere, three faithful Roman Catholics praying to Mary right now on the globe?

Sure, there's plenty more than that.

As a mere human being, she can only listen to one.

But why use a rosary? I mean that is such a tool.

Andy, let, let the professor speak to that. So why use a rock? The rosary then?

You use the rosary. First of all. Again, no one has to pray the rosary to be a Catholic. That is an aid devotion that some people find helpful. It is not binding, it is not mandatory. It's a certain technique of prayer that some people find helpful. Other Protestants have their own techniques of prayer. They have different prayer structures and systems that they use. Navigators have some intervarsity might have certain things they encourage. But again, none of these things are binding.

None are taught as having authority, you know, as from God himself and as somehow gaining a person's special hearing before God. And that precisely is what was taught to my Roman Catholic friends when I was growing up.

It has an efficacy, yes, but it doesn't have an authority in the sense that you have to do this. It has a benefit, it has an efficacy.

And these things get sprinkled with holy water and there are revered.

Sandy. I appreciate the call. We'll continue with more of your phone calls during the special edition of Bible on the line, taking your question questions regarding the Catholic Church and Protestant church and where we agree and where we disagree. Back to the phones. Jonathan from North Hollywood. Hello, Jonathan, you're on kkla.

Hi, John, and hi to your guests. I have a question for Brother Michael. If a Roman Catholic does not follow the traditions of the Church, can he lose his salvation?

If I really believe in the Roman Catholic Church and I believe that this is the way to save salvation, yeah, that kind of follows, doesn't it? If I disregard what I really believe.

How do you reconcile that with John.

3:16, everlasting life and Ephesians 2:8 9.

That salvation is a gift?

Well, it's certainly a gift, but I can, I can move away from that gift, can't I?

So you really won't know if you're going to make it to heaven until you're dead?

No, I'm confident. I'm full of the grace of Jesus Christ. I'm confident of that. But at the same time I have a balance of an awareness that I have to be careful, I might say that I'm getting married and I really love this woman.

Oh boy.

And is there any question of Leaving her own?

No.

Is there any question that this might fall.

No.

In a real realistic way. But at the same time, I know any kind of relationship needs to be fostered with a great deal of care and a great deal of. In this thing of prayer, of moving into a community and working with that community.

Father Michael, it sounds as if then salvation is dependent upon you as a human being. And partly so.

There.

There's this reality of my response. The grace of God coming to me is the key to salvation. But at the same time, it isn't something that I can disregard and say, well, since he's given it to me, I can do anything I want. It's the words of Paul in fear and trembling. It's the concern of Hebrews to make sure that despite being filled with the Spirit, I might lose that.

Jonathan, final comment.

Dr. Bronson, would you like to comment?

Well, yeah, I'd love for you to.

Come and have a question, Jonathan, but that's okay.

I think it is important for the sake of clarity, but I would also say for the sake of my love of the Savior, that I tell you that from the Protestant perspective, what you've just heard is not biblical. And I would not want your conscience to be weighed down without. The church cannot intercede between or interfere between you and God. The one who gives you the gift of faith is God himself. That is not mediated through the church. And the church cannot, because you fail to follow its traditions, remove from you the salvation God has granted you by his grace. And I praise God for that. You see, that is the kind of freedom in God's grace that we have celebrated since the Protestant Reformation, in which I believe is in fact the Gospel of the New Testament. The Church must declare God's standards, and it must declare that people have got to live by God's standards. There's no question with that. And the church does have the right to use the keys of the kingdom to open and close the kingdom of God based on the preaching of the Word of God. But when the church promulgates things which are not found in the Scripture and then threatens people's salvation on the basis of it, Paul tells us that if angel from heaven were to do that thing, let him be anathema. And though I have a cordial, socially speaking relationship with the two men who are Roman Catholic speaking here today, I would tell you from the bottom of my Protestant heart, my Christmas living heart, that I believe that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is anathema because it dares to add to the authority of God's word and interferes with the free grace of God.

Professor Matatic, why do I think you want to respond to this?

Just wanted to put my one and a half cents worth in. Of course, Dr. Bonston has a problem, as he does all across the Protestant waterfront, in that there are robes of Protestants. As a matter of fact, the majority of them would agree with the Catholics on this very issue, that it is possible to lose one's salvation. So Dr. Boston has to explain why.

It is not because the church teaches traditions that you won't follow.

No, that's a separate issue. But on the issue of the issue.

I was responding to, Jerry.

True, but on the issue as to whether or not we can lose our salvation, there are many Protestants who hold the same position as the Catholic Church does. Catholics believe in eternal security. We just don't believe that you can have it before it's to life, which is designed by God to be a time of testing, a time of probation, during which there's a very real possibility of falling away, of failing the test. As Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 13:5, we do believe that once you pass the test, as you remain faithful to God by God's grace throughout your life, and then you enter heaven, then you will have that everlasting life.

When is that, Jerry? I'm out of curiosity. When is that point where you're eternally.

Secure when you enter heaven.

So only when you die is when you become eternally secure?

Because at that point, that time of testing or probation is over. Because the Scriptures show that during the course of human life, it is possible to fall away. David fell away. In Psalm 51:11, he said, Lord, don't restore to me the joy of your salvation. Don't take your Holy Spirit from me. Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 18:24 that the righteous man, if he ceases to do righteousness, his former righteousness will not be remembered against him. He can fall away. Jesus in Matthew 6 and in Matthew 18 talks about a brother who may not forgive another brother in his heart, and God will not forgive him, even though he initially canceled the debt, he will call that person back and exact that debt. Okay?

Rather than running through all the texts so quickly that we give the false impression that they've been interpreted properly, let's point out that the regenerating Spirit of God has never been taken away from any of God's people. And there's no biblical text that ever suggests that. That the work of God's Spirit does in fact get mitigated. When we Grieve the spirit and so forth. We can fall into sin. But if a person does not repent, is not restored, we would not say that they were regenerated and lost the regeneration. We'd say that they appeared to be and were not. And there's biblical reason to say that.

Okay, on that note, we need to break. Jonathan, I thank you for the call.

Thank you, guys.

Okay, bye bye now. Mario in Culver City. Hello, Mario, you're on the air.

I got a comment for the Catholic and quick question for them. The guy said that because of Mary, he's got a good relationship with the Lord, Right?

That was my Michael Manning.

Okay, I'm sorry to hear that. Because he's a blind leading the blind. Because the Lord left the Holy Ghost. That is the one to bring us closer to God for revelation, for relationship, and to know his will. So I don't know why he says that Mary is the one witness the Holy Ghost. And second, what about the purgatory where the dead supposed to go? And then if you make a Mass.

Well, which of those questions you wanted to address?

There's two questions.

And the question is that. What about the.

That's the comment. Now you're getting to the question.

Okay, the question is what baptism from that they baptize the baby in brick orgatory.

That's three.

Okay, let's take the last question then. I appreciate you. You pick the one you want to answer, Michael.

At least in the beginning. Mario, I don't need Mary for salvation. You don't, Mario?

I don't know.

Mario.

Yes.

I don't need Mary at all for salvation. And that'll give you my salvation. The Holy Spirit you speak of is the key to my salvation.

And why is Mary that is dead?

There is a gift that allows me to be able to, in my experience, enhance my relationship with Jesus. I don't need her at all, but it's a special gift.

Mario, I appreciate the call. Let's go to Jeff and Kookamonga. Hello, Jeff, you're on kk. Hello. Hi.

Hi.

How's it going? Great, great.

Good.

Hey, I got a question. Kind of get off the beaten track a little bit. I went over to Mexico a couple of months ago and I went to Our lady of Guadalupe Church. And I'm just kind of curious, asking anybody there that wants to respond, who is Our lady of Guadalupe and what is the Catholic Church's stance on that? Because it's seems to me my wife is from Mexico City and her family pray to this woman along with they Pray to Mary and they pray to Jesus. And I'm wondering what, you know, who. Who is this woman? And you know. Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

Michael Manning.

Jeff, I've been there three times. Were you there during the feast in December?

Let's see.

I got there.

Let me see.

I was there probably about six months ago.

Okay, I've been there three times. It's an overwhelming experience of people from all over Mexico coming to this kind of suburb of Mexico city. In around 1530, it is said that the mother of Jesus appeared to Juan Diego, a simple peasant, and asked that there'd be a church built on the top of the hill hill, and that there's a beautiful shrine there. The one of the proofs that's very, very interesting is that the sign that of validity to the bishop, who was very incredulous, was a group of roses that he was supposed to bring were springing in a time when roses weren't supposed to spring. And he brought it to the bishop and there was a mantilla on which was a very, very strong image of this woman, the woman that Juan Diego had seen. There's a very, very strong devotion among the Mexican people and also among the people of Latin America to the reverence to this, who is the mother of Jesus and the real presence there. Let me say this to you, and I've been speaking to you about the importance of Jesus and making sure that Mary in no way takes away from that. Again, what I experience. And I've gone back, as I said, three times, this is a great experience of people's faith. And what I have experienced from this is not somehow a lessening of my love for Jesus, but a deepening of my love for Jesus through the experience of, on the feast day, which is December 12, many people coming, giving remembrance of this occasion and allowing themselves to give themselves more deeply to Jesus. That's the heart of it to me. And if it weren't that, if it weren't that, I would not go.

Greg Bonson, want to make a quick comment on this?

Well, I think that from a Protestant perspective, we're afraid that it's just these kind of superstitious stories and practices that detract people from devotion to Jesus. The very fact that we have to ask a question, who is this woman and what place does she have? If the Bible taught these sorts of things or gave any kind of authorization to them, it would be much easier to be understood. Earlier we had a question about losing salvation and about assurance of salvation. We've Also had questions about the intercession of Mary, whether Jesus alone intercedes for us. Paul in Romans, the eighth chapter, brings these two issues together. And I think it's interesting, worth noting. He says in verse 34, having asked, who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus that died. Yes. Rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. And it's the assurance of Christ's intercession that leads Paul then to say, who shall separate us from the love of Christ? He ends up saying that he's persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, principalities, things, present, things to come, powers, height, depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God. Protestants believe that the reason we can have the assurance of our salvation is because Christ is the one who intercedes for us. Those who believe that they need Mary and others for which there is no biblical support at all, it is not surprising theologically that they also struggle with assurance of salvation.

I don't believe that I need Mary. That's important. I've never said that I need Mary for my salvation.

Well, you see, what we're doing right now, Father Manning, and living out our lives as people who name the name of Christ is part of our salvation. Salvation is not just something that took place the day I accepted Christ as my Savior. I'm now saved day by day. And I lived a saved life day by day. And if you are right and I want to believe you because you know I like you as an individual, you're right that you don't need Mary for salvation. You don't need her day by day either.

Sure, I agree.

Okay, we'll continue. I appreciate that.

It's a real blessing, though. It's a real blessing for me to.

Come closer to Jesus.

I'd like to add just a footnote to that.

Can you do it briefly?

Yeah.

So we can break. Go ahead.

Yeah. Actually, if you want to go ahead and break, I'll reserve.

Let's do that.

We'll come back after the break and make a comment. Jeff, I thank you for that call or your phone call. Calls coming up at 1-800-331-KKLA.

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, bonson johnsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.