Home » Posts tagged '1 Timothy 2:5'
Tag Archives: 1 Timothy 2:5
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part two)
Why criticize in particular a debate between George Farmer, Candace Owens’ (Farmer’s?) husband, and Allie Beth Stuckey? On the other hand, why not find better representatives for a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? I say, George and Allie bring a teaching moment in this controversy. They deal with the issues on more a popular level, something the Daily Wire might appreciate.
Overall Part Two and a Little More Sola Scriptura
I decided this morning to write on part two of the debate because Stuckey’s inadequacy at unmasking false doctrine espoused by George for his Roman Catholicism. By George! Trigger alert. Women should not debate men, but Allie’s unwillingness to fight, to do necessary warfare, hurt the cause. I’m glad for her feminine instinct not to push in an authoritative way over a man. It explains a poor job with a commendable reason.
Overall, Allie Stuckey in the end parked on the two verses: Ephesians 2:8-9. This rescued her contribution with this brief, rare reference to scripture. Someone believing sola scriptura, however, should have reeled off incessant verses, pounding with the hammer of God’s Word. From watching her, one might think her positions don’t have much biblical support. Yet, they do. She just didn’t or couldn’t recall verses to use with Farmer. I saw Owens growing more Roman Catholic by the moment.
Owens started part two of the debate by informing that she got over sola scriptura easily because she couldn’t find it in the Bible. This might relieve her husband and their future relationship. Stuckey then compared the biblical support for sola scriptura to that of the Trinity, that it’s not explicit. This is utterly false. Scripture is explicit that the Bible is the only infallible authority or the ultimate authority for faith and practice. When Stuckey loses on this point, she really does lose the debate, because all the extra-scriptural writing comes into play for Farmer. He then uses this source material for the rest of his defense of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Mary, Mother of God?
Danger with Historical Theology
On the first subject after ending the sola scriptura conversation, Farmer shows the danger of perversion in one’s use of historical theology. He is crafty. He asks Stuckey if she believes Mary is the mother of God? It’s a tricky question. I’m sure the wheels were turning in her head: “Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary Jesus’ mother? Yes. So is Mary God’s mother?” It seems like, Yes, might be the right answer. It is a gotcha question.
Farmer said that the Protestants do not reject the Council of Ephesus. Why would Stuckey then do that if she is Protestant? The Council of Ephesus concluded Mary the mother of God. Yes, Reformers have supported the language, “mother of God.” That does not then mean that they receive Catholic teaching on Mary. They go as far as the reception of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus, the view rejected by Nestorius. The Council then excommunicated Nestorius for heresy.
Excommunication?
As an aside, what gives a council authority to excommunicate someone? Jesus taught that an individual assembly only practiced church discipline, removing someone from that church (Matthew 18:15-17). The council of Ephesus isn’t a church. It was an unbiblical institution with no authority, not following the teaching of Jesus in church discipline.
Nestorianism and Two Natures?
Mr. Farmer teaches error when he says that Christ was one nature. Furthermore, he said, “You don’t want to split the natures of Christ.” Stuckey sat and nodded, yes, to this error. The error of Nestorius was that of “two persons,” that Christ was two persons sharing one body (prosopon), not two natures (hypostasis). Christ had two natures: divine and human. This is not Nestorianism. Christ was one Person with two natures. The hypostatic union is the mysterious joining of two natures in one Person.
Jesus was a Divine Person. When He died on the cross, He was not a finite Person but an infinite One Who could pay for infinite sins for all eternity. He needed to be God to die for all of mankind. By calling Mary the mother of Jesus, they thought they would be undermining the true incarnational teaching of Jesus, so they called her the “mother of God.”
Mother of God Ideas
“Mother of God” emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but it did nothing to extrapolate a divine nature to Mary, an immaculate conception of her, or veneration of her. Even if Reformers and some Protestants today agree with “mother of God” terminology in refutation of Nestorianism, they reject the pendulum swing away from scripture by Roman Catholicism about Mary.
A good book that traces the source of the Catholic version of Mary teaching is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Much Roman Catholic teaching is neo-Platonic and proto-Babylonian. Worship of Mary takes a trajectory from Venus and Astarte, goddesses of Babylonianism.
John Owen and Scripture
The post-Reformation reformed John Owen, no relation to Candace Owens, did not approve of the terminology, “mother of God.” He wished the Council of Ephesus had “forborne it.” He spoke of the miraculous creation of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was a “fit habitation for His holy soul.” Owen called the Holy Spirit the “active, efficient cause” and Mary the “passive, material cause.” The “material cause” aspect of Jesus’ physical body traces to verses such as Galatians 4:4, “made of a woman,” and “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Mary calls Jesus, “God my Savior” (Luke 1:46), and described herself as “the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). This contradicts “mother of God.” True Baptists and New Testament Christianity reject both Catholic and Protestant teaching. Baptists may quote church councils for their history of doctrine, but they reject the notion of church councils. Pope Pius IX took mother of God to a further corrupt extreme when he called Mary sinless in his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.
Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Saints
Farmer uses the term “saints” in an unscriptural manner. In Ephesians 1:1, Paul writes to the “saints at Ephesus” and he defines “saints” there as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” literally “believing in Christ Jesus.” Anyone with saving faith in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is the famous Granville Sharp rule. “Holy” (adjective, “holy ones”) and “faithful” (adjective) are connected by one definite article (tois). That means “saints” and “believing” (faithful) are the same people. All those in Christ are saints, not some special caste of characters designated such by a state church.
Praying to Saints or Mary
Next, Farmer moves to praying to saints and Mary as a kind of intercessory prayer. These “saints’ and Mary have been given a kind of veneration below that for God, but veneration high enough that Christians should pray to them. I won’t deal with the scripture he adduces in the debate to support this. Scripture does not evince this.
Farmer’s argument is praying to saints equals intercessory prayer. Nowhere in the Bible do we see praying to dead people. The best argument might be the faithless, perverse intercession of King Saul in a seance with the witch of Endor. I’m glad he didn’t use that one though.
I’ve never heard Stuckey’s view of intercession. She spoke of intercession as interceding with a fellow believer for prayer. Intercessory prayer is another believer praying to God on our behalf, not for himself. The intercession is not the asking for prayer. I understand the intercession of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in prayer. Scripture teaches both of those. On the other hand, the veneration of dead saints and Mary, I see this as blasphemous.
Stuckey does right to quote 1 Timothy 2:5, that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. Not only is scripture silent on the mediation of Mary and “saints,” but the Timothy verse repudiates it. Believers, true saints, can pray for one another, but there is no doctrine of earthly ones praying to heavenly ones for them in turn to pray for the earthly ones. I’m sure there is a long explanation for this false doctrine somewhere, but I’ve never read it. I don’t find Roman Catholics usually who can name their seven sacraments, let alone break down why they pray to saints. They stray from scripture a lot, because it isn’t their only authority.
Evangelicals and Modernity Versus Roman Catholics
Candace Owens takes the conversation to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals in their modernity and trendiness. This took off of a little riff by her husband, when he used timelessness as an argument for praying to saints. Owens does not like the direction of the style (what I would call aesthetics) of Protestant evangelicals.
I don’t think Stuckey does great in dealing with the loss of beauty in evangelicalism and why. She doesn’t seem to get it. In my next post, I will come back to this. For awhile, I’ve seen this as one legitimate allure of Roman Catholicism. With all the faults of Roman Catholicism, they emphasize the transcendence of God more than evangelicals. Evangelicals feel proud of their worldliness. The nature of Roman Catholicism keeps a serious nature in line with scriptural worship. Catholics do not worship in truth, a requirement, but they come closer very often in beauty than evangelicals. I know some people who went back to Catholicism for this exact reason.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2
Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.
Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.
The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.
Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons. Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.
Mediation and Neutrality
I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos). He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”
When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones. Neutral ones stand under cross examination. Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.
A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.
Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too
Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each. The true mother deferred. She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one. Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts. The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.
You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased. Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.
Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation. When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.
Pitfalls to Mediation
What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation? The other party rejects. Maybe you reader too reject mediation. Think about it.
People very often want vengeance in an issue. Maybe they have a grudge. They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea. At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader. Mediation will require humility.
Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences. Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination. Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.
During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.” With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could. The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.” Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy. Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.
More to Come, Lord-willing
Recent Comments