Truth Unites - The Immaculate Conception: A Protestant Appraisal

Episode Date: August 31, 2023

In this video Gavin Ortlund offers a Protestant appraisal of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. For Andrew Wilson's book Remaking the World: https://www.amazon.com/Remaking-World-1776-Created-Post-Christian/dp/1433580535 Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

After my last video on Mary's bodily assumption, several people asked if I would address some of the other Marian dogmas. So this video is going to be on the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This would just be a briefer video. It won't be as detailed in the scholarship, anticipating responses. Just basically a very brief overview of an explanation of a Protestant concern and position about the Immaculate Conception. Then we can follow up and do more thorough work at some point, but hopefully this will be helpful in the meantime. Two sections. First, I'll just define what the Immaculate Conception is and why it is significant. And then second, we'll just give a brief sketch as to why Protestants believe this is a historical

accretion that gradually is coming into the picture throughout the patristic and medieval eras and does not authentically relate back to the first century apostolic deposit. Before I dive in, a quick book recommendation. This book by Andrew Wilson is just amazing. It's almost like, what do you even say except like this is how you, you write a book. It's so good. It's called Remaking the World, How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West. Now, coming from a Brit, it's not as anti-American as you might think with that reference to 1776. He uses that year to pick seven developments that happened in that year that shape the modern world. And he's kind of telling the story of modernity through the lens of looking at these seven things in that year.

It's fascinating. And I won't go into what those seven things are. I'll just say, check it. out. It's a great book. It's in the video description. It's also sensitive to practical concerns about how to do evangelism, how to do missions in the modern West, and how we should think about these changes as the church. So check it out. It's an amazing book. All right. First, people often think the immaculate conception has to do with Jesus's birth, and they misunderstand it. It has to do with Mary. And it's the belief that from the moment of her conception, Mary was kept free from all stain of original sin. I'm going to be focusing upon the Roman Catholic dogma here because many of the Eastern traditions reject the Immaculate Conception. It gets really complicated because they'll affirm

the sinlessness of Mary in many cases, but they think that she had a fallen nature and just chose not to sin, so they don't affirm. So I'm really focusing on the Roman Catholic dogma here, what we call the third Roman Catholic dogma, bodily assumption being the fourth, the perpetual virginity of Mary being the second and that Mary is the mother of God being the first. Maybe I'll do another video on the perpetual virginity of Mary someday. That Mary is the mother of God has not been a point of difference historically between Roman Catholics and Protestants and need not be today. And even the perpetual virginity, the concerns are much lower. I'm more agnostic about that. I just can't tell how much it has a lot more early attestation, but I just can't tell how much

that's the result of the proto-evangelium of James, which is a second-century apocryphal text and how much not. So that's kind of a tricky one, but I'll address that maybe sometime. But here I want to talk about the third Marian dogma, the Immaculate Conception. And the first thing that I want to say right out of the gate is that in allowing that Mary was not morally perfect, we are not dishonoring her. On the contrary, the biblical portrait of Mary is as a godly and courageous person. so we should speak well of her. We should seek to emulate her faith. She's one of the great heroes of Christianity.

So God bless her. We're not trying to attack Mary. I have these people in the comments misunderstanding along these lines. That's not the concern. The concern is that the requirement on pain of anathema that she was kept free from all sin, including original sin, is a concern. This is so just as with the Pius X, the 12th, Apostolic Constitution in 1950, so Pius the Ninth in 1854 has the same kind of warning.

I'll put up on the screen here. Basically says, if anyone shall think otherwise, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment. He suffered shipwreck in the faith. He is separated from the unity of the church, et cetera, et cetera. And you can see the stakes here, leave all legitimate room for how to best interpret anathemas. Fine. We can talk about that. I think people soften anathemas today and make them nicer than they were. But nonetheless, it's still clear, however you cash that out in terms of its application, that this is an obligatory part of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is making the immaculate conception of Mary an obligatory part of the Christian religion.

Okay. So second section, and we'll just keep it brief, go right through it, just as quick snapshot overview. why do we as Protestants in our conscience have a concern about this? Because the concern is basically you can't change Christianity. It's a revealed religion. If the apostles had never heard of it, you can't add it later on. And we think that that's what's going on here. We think that this wasn't something the apostles or Mary herself ever had the foggiest notion of even imagining.

We think it's pretty clear that it comes in later, just as it is with the bodily assumption. I say that without a desire to provoke or give offense. That's, it needs to be said. It's honestly, the data is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of that. Let me explain. It's a little bit different from the bodily assumption, because with the bodily assumption of Mary, you really have nothing.

You don't have a hint of it anywhere early on. It's really late. But with the immaculate conception, you can at least make a case for it inferentially from other things. So, for example, the typology with Mary and Eve, Mary is the New Eve, or with the Ark of the Covenant, Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, or language throughout the Church fathers of Mary as holy and pure and the model of virginity and so forth. It especially spirals up in the 4th century, but there's a lot of interest in virgins and martyrs and so forth. And then you start to see language around that time in the West, and I'm only aware of Ephraim the Syrian in the east of Mary as without stain. So that's where you start to see this in Ambrose, for example.

So you have some material you can work with. So that's better than the bodily assumption. On the other hand, the negative testimonies against the Immaculate Conception are also stronger than they are with the bodily assumption. Although I think, honestly, they're pretty overwhelming and clear with that, too. But by its very nature, the bodily assumption is less falsifiable. You know, if you live in the time of Cyprian in 250 AD, you're not going to expect people walking around saying Mary wasn't assumed to heaven. Because it doesn't seem like anybody had any notion of that yet. You wouldn't expect counter testimonies until something exists.

But if you have people saying Mary is a sinner, and they're saying it without any expectation of pushback and it doesn't occasion any controversy, and you get enough teachings like this, that does start to become more of a falsification of, the idea. And then that is going to in turn inform the way you interpret these more inferential arguments from typology and so forth. Okay, so in other words, you can make, you can try to make a little better case from positive data, but then the negative data, the falsification

type data, is also stronger with respect to the immaculate conception. And let me just go through some of those, because my observation is that when these come up, they are minimized. People don't like to hear what people like John Chrysostom are saying. And so it's kind of downplayed. It's like, oh, yeah, well, some people said maybe there was once in her life when maybe she had doubt, you know, it's like, no, no, no, no. We need to be clear about this. So let me give, I'll give one summary from J.N. D. Kelly, who wrote this widely respected book called the early Christian doctrines. And he references several important theologians from the anti-Nicene period, Ironaeus, origin, tertullian, etc. And he notes that in contrast,

to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection, none of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. And then in the period between Nicaea and Ephesus, 325 to 450, so about 125 years, early 4th century to mid-fifth century, he notes that that way of thinking remains nearly universal in the East. Quote, almost all Eastern theologians, so far from acknowledging her spiritual and moral perfection, followed origin in finding her guilty of human frailties. So let me give some documentation of this. Tertullian, when he's talking about the passage in Matthew 12,

this is one of these passages that it comes up a lot. This is where Jesus is saying, who is my mother and who are my brothers? Matthew 1248. There's an example in Luke 8 as well, a parallel text. And what's amazing is not just that Tertullian identifies Mary with the unbelieving Jews that rejected Christ, but that when he says something like that, he exhibits no awareness that it will be controversial or

scandalous or anything like that, nor does there appear to be any pushback. Similarly, another key text is Luke 235 in Simeon's prophecy about the sword piercing Mary's heart. And the way origin takes this, I'll put up on the screen here, he interprets it, and this becomes a pretty common tradition in the early church, that this is referencing a being scandalized by doubt at the cross. And toward the end, he says, why do you think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and lack God's glory, but are justified by His grace and redeemed, then Mary too was scandalized at that time.

This becomes a really common view. And some people will try to argue that this, you know, doubt at the cross didn't constitute sin, but for three reasons that is not tenable. First, origin links marries being scandalized with the apostles being scandalized, the foremost example of which being Peters, three denials of Christ. Second, he articulates that her being scandalized is a reason why Jesus had to die for her sins, quoting Romans 323, that all have sinned. And third, right after this passage, like maybe a sentence or two down, I don't have it up here in front of me, but he references her being scandalized and the sword that pierces her as the sword of infidelity.

Infidelity means unfaithfulness. Now, some people try to respond to these passages in Tertullian and origin by questioning their orthodoxy and saying, well, they're not official church fathers and that sort of thing. One of the things that I find unhelpful about that is oftentimes, as soon as they say something you like, you'll bring them back in. So it's not consistent. or people will pull from the pro-evangelium of James, despite its dubious status, but not allow the testimony of origin or tertullian into the courtroom, you know? And that seems like it's inconsistent.

But the main problem with that is whatever you think of origin and tertullian as individuals, their assertions are still valuable as historical testimony, particularly because these statements are made in such a matter-of-fact way, seemingly without any awareness of opposing views and without any subsequent opposition or controversy that I am aware of. Beyond that, there's also the problem that it's not just these two. You find this, for example, Origins' interpretation of Luke 235 becomes fairly widespread. In Basel of Cessaria, it's picked up. He describes Mary as falling into doubt through offense at the cross and needing restoration, just as Peter needed restoration after his denials of

Christ, attempts to read that doubt as not a sinful doubt, but just a non-synful doubt, meet some of the same challenges that we saw with origin. It's not just doubt. He's offended. Or Basel thinks she's offended at the cross. Even John Henry Newman admits that he tries to minimize its force that in this passage, St. Basel imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt. And Newman notes that that same interpretation of Luke 235 is common elsewhere, such as

in Cyril of Alexandria. Another example is Hillary in the fourth century, who interprets this as a judgment upon Mary. I'll put up this passage as well. You could see the commentary on this in Luigi Gambero, who's written this amazing book. I'll reference again in a second that goes through so many petristic citations. And he, you know, he doesn't try to get around the fact that even that Hillary and Basel, they're talking about sin in Mary, for example. But let me give one example that maybe the clearest one and the most, maybe the most important one on this topic, and that's John Chrysostom. John is especially important because he's such a respected figure. He has such stature. He lives into the 5th century, and he's the Archbishop of Constantinople. He's widely

respected, and he's also well aware of the happenings of the church in his time. And yet he seems to exhibit zero hesitation in attributing moral flaws to marry numerous times in his sermons. For For example, in John chapter 2, this is a common passage that oftentimes people will fault Mary for her. You know, Ironaeus has one passage in against heresies, for example, like this, where he's faulting Mary and seeing Jesus rebuke her for her, what he calls, untimely haste. But I didn't include that in this video because it's not as clear as the ones I'm focusing on. Because someone could say, well, it was untimely haste, but it wasn't a sinful untimely haste. Okay. You know, you get to, let's just focus on the really clear ones.

John interprets Mary's request to Jesus for wine in John 2-3 as a kind of selfish ambition. Quote, she desired both to do them a favor and through her son to render herself more conspicuous. Perhaps, too, she had some human feelings like his brethren when they said, show thyself to the world, desiring to gain credit from his miracles. He perceived, John goes on for some time, expounding upon Jesus. Jesus's rebuke to her, and stating that although it's a general duty to obey one's parents, when they require anything unseasonably and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. He then links this passage with the Matthew 12 passage, and he faults Mary there

because she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped him. Now, some could try to say that this isn't a sin, an issue of sin in this passage, but that is very difficult to square with the language, desiring to render yourself more conspicuous, desiring to gain credit from miracles, being a hindrance in a spiritual matter, desiring to direct Jesus when she should have been worshipping Jesus. All of those seem to be sinful, and that would explain why Chrysostom is emphasizing the sternness of Jesus' rebuke so much.

Furthermore, that Chrysostom thinks Mary sinned in John 2 is confirmed, by his homily on Matthew 12. You know, he references that passage in John 2, but then there he says, so likewise on this occasion too, he both healed the disease of vain glory and rendered the due honor to his mother, even though her request was unseasonable.

Now you can say, okay, an unseasonable request, that could be like Irona's untimely haste. Maybe you could say that's not sinful, but it's hard to get around the word, vain glory. Now again, what is so striking about these statements is there so matter of fact, They don't seem to exhibit controversy. They don't seem to anticipate pushback.

John doesn't seem to be aware that he's saying something controversial. If you read through John Chrysostom's sermons, he's perfectly willing to go on a digression and give a defense for views or interact polemically with an alternative idea or something like that. But here you have him just kind of throwing these comments out, as though it's no big deal. Now, there's other passages we could mention. I found a strong passage in Fulgenius in the 6th century, for example. but I'm not going to include that because I haven't been able to find it except in quotation. And then here's the thing that is important to understand is that even where you start to see

more and more emphasis upon Mary, especially in the fourth century as among some, stainless or sinless. Okay, so Augustine, for example, thinks Mary is sinless. You still don't have the idea of preservation from our original sin. Augustine will speak of Mary as derived from the propagation of sin. J. and D. Kelly notes that although Augustine affirms the sinlessness of Mary, he did not hold, as has sometimes been alleged, that she was born exempt from all taint of original sin, the later doctrine of the immaculate conception. Someone might say, well, that's close enough, right? But it's not close enough, because the problem is, who does teach the immaculate conception early on? You can't just kind of rule out all the negative testimonies without any positive testimonies, except these more

inferential ways of reasoning. Where does this idea come from? And the truth is, and though I'll get a lot of blowback for it, I've got to tell you the truth. The truth is that honest Roman Catholic scholars will often admit that it does seem to be something that is just not really conceived by the church fathers yet. That even when they're thinking of Mary as special and holy, you don't really get the idea of an immaculate conception until much later. And even in the medieval period, It's very controversial, and we all know people like Thomas Aquinas who rejected it even then. Here's how the Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Luigi Gambaro, puts it. This is a great book.

He just walks through the patristic era, gives you lots of citations. What I'm going to read you is not exceptional or abnormal in any way from the rest of the book. But when he's discussing Theodontas in the 5th century, not the earlier martyr, but the 5th century bishop, he says this. The mission to which God called the Virgin was so important that some fathers thought it demanded. an adequate preparation. Today, we know that this preparation happened in the mystery of the immaculate conception, in which Mary was not only preserved from original sin and its moral consequences, but filled with extraordinary graces as well. The fathers do not appear to have known about this unique privilege. They thought that a special divine intervention took place

in Mary immediately before the incarnation to render her worthy to become the mother of the word incarnate. He's talking about this idea that right before the birth of Jesus, Mary was given a kind of special grace. And he's talking about different ideas. Don't take my word for it, by the way. Just check out the book and read it through yourself. You'll get a very fair overview of how Maryology is slowly evolving during the patristic era. And the upshot of it all that I would say is what we have here is a doctrine that pretty clearly does not seem to be, you know, anywhere close to the apostles. And how do I say this right without, you know, those of us who are outside of the Roman Catholic tradition and the Protestant tradition, lately I've been noticing

so many people who will psychoanalyze and say like, well, Gavin's really struggling against the Roman Catholic Church. And I find those statements, so I'm not struggling at all. I'm perfectly settled. I'm just trying to be helpful to people wrestling through these things because there's not many people explaining a Protestant outlook on YouTube. And a lot of people have anxiety because of these anathemas. A lot of people are just stuck wondering, oh, no, am I out of the one true church? Have I committed a mortal sin and not confessed it? Will I be damned to hell? You know, that's the kind of thing people are wondering about. So I'm trying to speak into this to help represent a Protestant position. And the Protestant position is quite simple that we have to follow our conscience. And it just doesn't

look like the immaculate conception of Mary is something that the apostles or Jesus, had ever even anticipated. It looks like something that you can just trace it out as it's kind of slowly evolving, you know, from earlier iterations and then later, and then finally you get the full-blossomed idea. And our concern is we want to follow our conscience so we can't submit to a system.

And we would encourage others not to support a system that requires on pain of anathema assent to doctrines that give every indication of being not only unknown to the apostles, but even to Christians much later like John, Chris Austin. I'll do a fuller video canvassing, maybe like a fuller scholarly portrait looking at other patristic testimonies at some point. This was not comprehensive. If people are going to give pushback and say, oh, you're cherry picking or that kind of thing, I would just reiterate what I always say,

understand that this is an internal critique. We do not have the mindset of that is often in the apologetics world of the non-protestant traditions, namely, who can score the most, points. That's not the mindset. We're trying to figure, we're interested in church history in a different way, and what is ultimately decisive for us is what is in the Holy Scripture, because we think that that is the uniquely infallible rule, the one that can't err, but we think errors can come in in church history. So we have two different frameworks for engaging church history. So that's kind of a thing to anticipate. But most of the responses that I gave to objections like that on the bodily assumption video could apply on this topic as well. So I hope this topic will be, I hope this

video will be helpful on this topic for Protestants who are wondering, what's the evidence for this, should we believe in this, you know, that kind of thing, just to explain and lay out a Protestant concern about this. We don't think this is apostolic. And that's where I need people to understand when people feel like, when people act like I'm, you know, struggling against the Roman Catholic Church or something. It's like, no, I'm 100% percent. settled in my conscience that things like this, I would take a bullet for it right now. I have no doubt in my heart that Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, Bartholomew, people like that had never had the foggiest notion that Mary was immaculately conceived. It's just, you know, it's clear. Now, if someone wants

to say, oh, but you can't rely upon scientific historical evidence, then be consistent with that when you try to establish your appeals from church history. Because, you know, if you're going to talk about how baptism or regeneration is everywhere, and you're going to talk about Ignatius and so forth, apply that same skepticism to those sources. That's an point of inconsistency in the responses. But the fact is, it doesn't take reliance upon secular scholarship. It doesn't take undue skepticism. It just takes kind of looking around, just poke around in the patristic era, and you see, oh, things are changing. Things are coming into the picture. Not every single one of them is always good. So you have to measure them by what the apostles taught. And that, to me, that's kind of a reasonable

way of trying to figure out what Christianity is because it's a revealed religion. So we look to the era of public revelation. So I offered that appeal, hoping that will help people who are wrestling through this. All right, let me know what you think in the comments. Thanks for watching. Lots more videos coming out. I'm going to record another one tomorrow, but I don't know when they'll all come out. So you'll see when they come. All right. Thanks, everybody. Bye.