The Baldie Vs Mariology

[RBerman]

I don't have a dog in this fight but will say there's no such thing as proving or disproving typology. Not all metaphors appeal to all people and metaphors are not allegories where every element is symbolic. For those who appreciate the metaphor, it is meaningful not because Mary sinned like Eve, but because she was obedient as the new Eve, not because she was created out of Adam's body, but because she gave birth to Jesus, not because she slept with Adam, but because she symbolizes eschatological chastity, not because Mary tempted Jesus, but because she stood by him in his trials when everyone else abandoned him. You do not think that the new Adam should also have sinned in order to confirm the typology. He is a new Adam, not the old Adam.

I don't have problems with metaphor when articulated as, "Mary reminds me of Eve in ways X,Y, and Z." I do have a problem with systematic theology built on that, as in the syllogism Tyrel offered earlier in this thread:

(i) Eve was immaculately conceived/created,
(ii) Mary is the new Eve in precisely the same way as Christ is the new Adam,
(iii) but, if (i) & (ii), then Mary must be immaculately conceived,
(iv) therefore, Mary is immaculately conceived.

[One Bad Pig]

Prayer is always worship. Show where they were praying to David. You can't.
Show where prayer is taking place in Matthew 18:26. You can't.

I was making an analogy. Is prayer necessarily worship? No. Is προσεκύνει necessarily worship? No.

Here's how "prayer" is properly defined:

Source: Merriam Webster

1
a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2) : a set order of words used in praying
b : an earnest request or wish
. . .
Origin of PRAYER
Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex

© Copyright Original Source

Perhaps you'd care to take up your argument with Merriam-Webster?

1. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests [b]made to God[b], it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies...In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).

I agree with this material. This is talking about requests made to God, and thus fails to address the distinction I'm making.

Prayer is always heard by God because He is omniscient and He can always act on such prayers because He is omnipotent.

I agree.

Those who pray to Mary, although they deny it, ascribe omniscience and omnipotence to her.

You keep asserting this as though it is true. You have yet to do anything like prove it.

2. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P.A. Verhoef).

Again, God is always fully capable to act on all prayers because He is the Almighty.

Again, I have no argument with this; it is specifically addressing prayers to God.

3. Here's The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible on prayer: In worship, narrowly conceived, men and women recognize that God himself is of highest worth. They give to him their highest respect... Because others are creatures of God, they are due respect, but not the highest respect that only God deserves. Our ultimate affection is focused on God himself (4:950, G.R. Lewis).

Again, I agree with this. I'm not sure what you're leaving out, nothing here precludes offering supplication to saints (giving them due respect), asking them to intercede with God (where our ultimate affection is focused) for us.

So much for your ridiculous assertion that prayer doesn't always have to mean worship.

You have yet to offer more than a circular argument. As Merriam-Webster shows, the word "prayer" comes from the Latin for "entreaty" and still means that today. That entreaty is often offered to God does not make the original definition go away.

[robrecht]

The above leads us to this question: if Jesus is the new Adam in the garden, who is the woman with him? What symbolism is conferred by the narrative onto the woman?

Hi, Paprika. Please see my response to RBerman above.

[Tyrel]

As you say, we have very different assumptions about the interplay between Church tradition and Scripture. One more observation on the main topic: I am satisfied that there's little ground to see a strong typological link between Mary and Eve, though there's a weak link between all women and Eve, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:13. But even if Mary was in some sense a "New Eve," it would have to be proven, not just assumed, what aspects of Eve were still relevant to Mary. Mary was not created from a rib of Jesus. Mary did not tempt Jesus to sin. Mary did not have sexual intercourse with Jesus -- indeed, a good Catholic will claim that Mary never had sexual intercourse with anyone, even her husband. And so on.

Right, this is why I tried to be clear in that initial argument (technically it isn't a syllogism, syllogisms are always two premises and one conclusion), that Mary is like Eve only insofar as Christ is like Adam. Christ and Adam are also not perfectly analogous, but I presume you do accept that Adam is, from the perspective of good systematic theology, a type of Christ. If you think that the typological connection between Mary and Eve is weak then there is some progress there: at least you can see that there is some ground, however weak, for recognizing the typology. That may help you to understand, if nothing else, why the vast majority of Christians, both presently and in the history of the Church, have seen the typology. You don't have to agree with the majority of course (Christian Theology is not a democratic process), but at least you'll understand why you're in the minority over against giants like Augustine, Jerome, Luther and Zwingli (you do have Aquinas and Calvin on your side - though, of course, because Aquinas is Catholic, he would accept the Church's expression of her faith de fide on the matter and adjust himself accordingly in principle; but you do still have Calvin).

Also, a good protestant should also believe that Mary never had sexual intercourse with anyone, even her husband - note that on this point even Calvin agrees strongly with the majority. There are no good grounds for disagreeing about that.

[robrecht]

Tyrel, protestants do not generally consider reformers to be authoritative sources but past leaders and theologians with whom one can disagree.

[RBerman]

Right, this is why I tried to be clear in that initial argument (technically it isn't a syllogism, syllogisms are always two premises and one conclusion), that Mary is like Eve only insofar as Christ is like Adam. Christ and Adam are also not perfectly analogous, but I presume you do accept that Adam is, from the perspective of good systematic theology, a type of Christ. If you think that the typological connection between Mary and Eve is weak then there is some progress there: at least you can see that there is some ground, however weak, for recognizing the typology. That may help you to understand, if nothing else, why the vast majority of Christians, both presently and in the history of the Church, have seen the typology.

Thank you for corrected my misuse of the term "syllogism."

Strong conclusions require strong evidence. The Bible specifically makes a connection between Adam and Jesus in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, and arguably in Hebrews 2 by way of Psalm 8. The Bible never mentions Mary and Eve in the same chapter; indeed, Mary is only mentioned in the gospels.

You don't have to agree with the majority of course (Christian Theology is not a democratic process), but at least you'll understand why you're in the minority over against giants like Augustine, Jerome, Luther and Zwingli (you do have Aquinas and Calvin on your side - though, of course, because Aquinas is Catholic, he would accept the Church's expression of her faith de fide on the matter and adjust himself accordingly in principle; but you do still have Calvin).

A theologian is as good as his argument. I agree with Calvin (or Jerome, or Augustine) not because of who he is, but because of what he says. I don't believe any of them wanted any of their words to be accepted just because of their reputation. They wanted to make good arguments for the things they believed. Their good arguments should be accepted, and their bad ones discounted, the same as with you or me.

Also, a good protestant should also believe that Mary never had sexual intercourse with anyone, even her husband - note that on this point even Calvin agrees strongly with the majority. There are no good grounds for disagreeing about that.

Concerning the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, Calvin said that, "[T]he Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject." He said it "would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage" for Mary to have married and then failed to engage in marital relations. However, ever the grammatical stickler, Calvin also says that "til she had brought forth her firstborn son" does not technically prove that Mary engaged in intercourse subsequently.

Even if Calvin did believe in the perpetual virginity or immaculate conception of Mary, his belief would be only as good as the arguments he could advance in favor of his belief. A belief correctly held by the majority ought to have plenty of sound evidence to be adduced in its favor. So far in this thread, such evidence is lacking.

[Tyrel]

Strong conclusions require strong evidence. The Bible specifically makes a connection between Adam and Jesus in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, and arguably in Hebrews 2 by way of Psalm 8. The Bible never mentions Mary and Eve in the same chapter; indeed, Mary is only mentioned in the gospels.

A theologian is as good as his argument. I agree with Calvin (or Jerome, or Augustine) not because of who he is, but because of what he says. I don't believe any of them wanted any of their words to be accepted just because of their reputation. They wanted to make good arguments for the things they believed. Their good arguments should be accepted, and their bad ones discounted, the same as with you or me.
... A belief correctly held by the majority ought to have plenty of sound evidence to be adduced in its favor. So far in this thread, such evidence is lacking.

I suppose I feel as though your standards are unreasonably high. It seems to me that there are at least some arguments for thinking that Mary is the new Eve. I can see not a single good argument to think otherwise. So, why not simply take the balance of arguments to favor Mary as the new Eve as good enough reason to accept that Mary is the new Eve? This, it seems to me, is no different than when an Atheist exclaims that there are arguments for God's existence which are inconclusive, and then, with no arguments (or comparably good arguments) for Atheism, insists that she has every epistemic right, or even duty, to reject belief in God. If you have some arguments for something, and no arguments against it, then why not at least tenuously accept it?

Calvin once said: "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."

This sensus fidelium is maintained in Catholicism, but it is not maintained in most modern versions of Protestantism. However, for what it's worth, it is probably this sense that the faithful naturally have about Mary (on my account, by the movement of the Holy Spirit within us) that leads most Christians to think about Mary always in connection to Christ. This makes it very natural to see Christ as the second Adam and think of Mary as the second Eve. However, it's more than just the Christian instinct that pushes us in this direction; there are good reasons (or at least reasons) from scripture to suspect that Mary is the second Eve.

Finally, as I've gestured towards before, I take it that the point has to be established, ultimately, as a point of systematic theology, by which I mean something like the following argument:

(i) If Christianity is true, then Catholicism is true.
(ii) If Catholicism is true, then Mary is the new Eve
(iii) Christianity is true.
(iv) Therefore, Mary is the new Eve.

The contentious premise (at least for you) is obviously going to be the first one. I think we can establish the first one with absolute certainty, whence my confidence in the conclusion. What I have tried to do in this thread, though, is not offer this more difficult argument (which takes much more work and prayer) and which is a point about systematic theology. Instead, I have tried to simply make you and others sympathetic to the way the Catholic Church, in company with the vast majority of the faithful, has understood the Biblical portrait of Mary.

[foudroyant]

I was making an analogy. Is prayer necessarily worship? No. Is προσεκύνει necessarily worship? No.

Source: Merriam Webster

1
a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2) : a set order of words used in praying
b : an earnest request or wish
. . .
Origin of PRAYER
Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex

© Copyright Original Source

Perhaps you'd care to take up your argument with Merriam-Webster?

I agree with this material. This is talking about requests made to God, and thus fails to address the distinction I'm making.

I agree.

You keep asserting this as though it is true. You have yet to do anything like prove it.

Again, I have no argument with this; it is specifically addressing prayers to God.

Again, I agree with this. I'm not sure what you're leaving out, nothing here precludes offering supplication to saints (giving them due respect), asking them to intercede with God (where our ultimate affection is focused) for us.

You have yet to offer more than a circular argument. As Merriam-Webster shows, the word "prayer" comes from the Latin for "entreaty" and still means that today. That entreaty is often offered to God does not make the original definition go away.

Your argument fails to take into account that "prayer" is not used in the sense I am talking about.
For example, Acts 8:34 in the KJV reads:
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

The Greek word for prayed is deomai. As Thayer and others point out it can refer to something being asked for "being evident from the context" while it can also be used absolutely for God.
It is NEVER used for speaking or requesting something to a mere human being who has departed. Never.
In Acts 8:2 they made loud lamentations over Stephen not "to" Stephen.

Prayer used in the absolute sense is always worship. And once again I have already pointed out that praying to Baal is worshiping Baal.

Show an example in Scripture where prayer (in the absolute sense) is not (absolute) worship.

[37818]

I just found this, interestingly:

[The ascription of Luke's Genealogy to Mary rather than Joseph] really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy.

Thanks! Can you give me a source for this?

[37818]

Only if you believe that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, which a (poor) way of reading the text that was invented to try and resolve the contradictions with the genealogy of Matthew. The popular tradition that Mary's father was named Joachim is first attested in the apocryphal gospel of James.

Apocryphal meaning it is of doubtful authenticity. As for the two genealogies. Luke gives the genealogy of David through Nathan. And Matthew gives the genealogy of David through Solomon.

[robrecht]

Apocryphal meaning it is of doubtful authenticity. As for the two genealogies. Luke gives the genealogy of David through Nathan. And Matthew gives the genealogy of David through Solomon.

Absolutely. I do not claim it as historical fact, but it is the earliest known witness to a popular tradition within the early church. And yes that is one of the contradictions between Matthew and Luke's genealogies. Tyrel pointed you to a reference that describes a few different creative attempts to deal with some of these contradictions.

[Tyrel]

Thanks! Can you give me a source for this?

Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

[RBerman]

I suppose I feel as though your standards are unreasonably high. It seems to me that there are at least some arguments for thinking that Mary is the new Eve. I can see not a single good argument to think otherwise. So, why not simply take the balance of arguments to favor Mary as the new Eve as good enough reason to accept that Mary is the new Eve? This, it seems to me, is no different than when an Atheist exclaims that there are arguments for God's existence which are inconclusive, and then, with no arguments (or comparably good arguments) for Atheism, insists that she has every epistemic right, or even duty, to reject belief in God. If you have some arguments for something, and no arguments against it, then why not at least tenuously accept it?

The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim, which in this case is that "Mary is the new Eve in precisely the same way as Christ is the new Adam." Christ's "New Adam-ness" is readily ascertained by the Scriptures I mentioned above which explicitly link Christ to Adam. No similar Scriptures link Mary to Eve. No Scriptures instruct us to think frequently of Mary or to pray to her or to be sure to teach everyone about her, in contrast to the many such Scriptures concerning Christ. She's simply not a figure of huge import as far as Scripture is concerned. The argument against your view is simple: If God had wanted us to think of Mary as the new Eve, he would have told us so. He did not. As you have shown, the early church may have felt differently about her, but that just demonstrates the many inputs into the thoughts and practices of the early church, other than God's Word.

Calvin once said: "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."

This is from Calvin's commentary on Luke 1:42. The full text is as follows:

So sure, all are blessed who are born again of the Spirit, and Mary was blessed by association with Christ to whom she gave birth. Calvin goes on to caution against over-veneration of Mary in his comments on the following verse:

"And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? " The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool.

I don't know anyone, in Calvin's day or ours, who would say that they venerate Mary above Jesus, but Calvin recognizes that people often are not their own best judges as to the functional result of their thoughts and actions. He brings up the point because over-veneration of Mary was actually happening, not just as a hypothetical danger.

This sensus fidelium is maintained in Catholicism, but it is not maintained in most modern versions of Protestantism. However, for what it's worth, it is probably this sense that the faithful naturally have about Mary (on my account, by the movement of the Holy Spirit within us) that leads most Christians to think about Mary always in connection to Christ.

This seems like a spiritualization of "confirmation bias."

Finally, as I've gestured towards before, I take it that the point has to be established, ultimately, as a point of systematic theology, by which I mean something like the following argument:

(i) If Christianity is true, then Catholicism is true.
(ii) If Catholicism is true, then Mary is the new Eve
(iii) Christianity is true.
(iv) Therefore, Mary is the new Eve.

The contentious premise (at least for you) is obviously going to be the first one. I think we can establish the first one with absolute certainty, whence my confidence in the conclusion. What I have tried to do in this thread, though, is not offer this more difficult argument (which takes much more work and prayer) and which is a point about systematic theology. Instead, I have tried to simply make you and others sympathetic to the way the Catholic Church, in company with the vast majority of the faithful, has understood the Biblical portrait of Mary.

"Catholicism is true" wants for clarification. Certainly Catholicism is true about some things. But if your claim glosses as "Catholicism is inerrant" then I must demur. And if it doesn't, then it remains to be discussed, for each particular item, whether Catholicism is correct.

[37818]

Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

Ok, that was your source. Thank you.

". . . 'Joachim,' a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, . . . " Your source indeed cites this, but provides no supporting resource for that explanation. Which is what I would like to find.

[37818]

Absolutely. I do not claim it as historical fact, but it is the earliest known witness to a popular tradition within the early church. And yes that is one of the contradictions between Matthew and Luke's genealogies. Tyrel pointed you to a reference that describes a few different creative attempts to deal with some of these contradictions.

That they are contradictory is an interpretation as such. Where as the two genealogies are historically true, then there is a correct understanding and interpreation of them.