FALSE AND SELF-SERVING CONCLUSIONS OF RODIMUS FALL FLAT ON HIS FACE by Atty. Marwil Llasos
Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 9, 2009
FALSE AND SELF-SERVING CONCLUSIONS OF RODIMUS FALL FLAT ON HIS FACE!!!
“Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested. Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so. Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications. The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible. If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.”
Thus saith Rodimus!
We shall analyze this conclusion if it holds up to Biblical scrutiny, church history, logic and plain common sense.
“Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested.”
Rodimus is fond of generalization. Until now, he cannot tell us who precisely were these men who “concocted” the teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Rodimus cannot name names. He is long on sweeping allegations but short on specifics. On the other hand, evangelical writer and scholar, Prof. Tim Perry states –
“There is more to the creedal affirmation that Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary than the virginal conception. It entails that Mary’s virginity is in some sense ongoing. Not only was she a virgin, but she remains one. This is the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but she remains one. This is the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Traditionally, this has been explained in terms of three chronological moments: Mary was virgin at the time of Christ’s conception (virginity ante partum), remained a virgin in the act of giving birth (virginity in partu) and persisted in virginity thereafter (virginity post partum). This belief is both ancient and catholic, not only spanning East and West but also was, until the last two hundreds of years or so, broadly accepted by Protestant Christians [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 280-282].
Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so.
This is just Rodimus’ personal opinion. Nowhere in the Bible can we find a verse that says that Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Rodimus’ reliance on Matthew 13:55-56 to prove that Mary had other children is misplaced. The verse doesn’t say that Mary is the mother of Jesus’ brothers. If Matthew wanted to convey the astounding truth that Mary had other children, he could have done so.
Rodimus can keep his opinion for himself. There are evangelicals who don’t share his view that Matthew 13:55-56 as fool-proof basis for the proposition that Mary had other children.
Evangelical David Gustafson, in his debate with Catholic Dwight Longenecker admitted: “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 69].
If the Gospel account in Matthew 13:55 is not absolutely decisive on whether Mary had other children, then what is?
I raised the challenge before and I raise it again: Rodimus should show me verses in the Bible that say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus” and “Mary is the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.”
Matthew 13:55 just won’t do. More on this later.
Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications.
Complications exist only in the bigoted mind of Rodimus. The opacity of his anti-Catholic thinking prevents him to see the light. He has already made up his mind. So, no matter what perspective we offer, Rodimus would just simply brush it aside because he is cocky sure of his own position (which other evangelicals do not share).
We have explained to the point of being trite that our perspectives on Matthew 13:55-56 are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory. Truth, no matter from which perspective you look at it, remains truth simply because truth is indivisible. We Catholics look at every possible angle, consider every possible argument and traverse every possible channel. We may not always necessarily agree on each other’s reasoning, but we do agree in the result. We know how to distinguish what is essential from the non-essential. In the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, even if we explore each and every possible argument on the issue, we do concur in the result, i.e., that the so-called brothers of Jesus Christ in Matthew 13:55-56 are not Mary’s children.
Rodimus must remove the hardened mote in his eyes. He should look around his own backyard to see the unfortunate divisions and glaring contradictions there. If Rodimus succeeds in cleaning up his own backyard, then he can perhaps train his guns again on the Catholic Church.
“You therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” (Rom. 2:1).
“So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? (Rom. 3:3).
The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible.
This is plain sloganeering. Nevertheless, I do agree with it. That’s why I firmly believe that Rodimus must adjust himself to the Bible and not the Bible to himself.
So much of Rodimus’ speculations, assumptions and conclusions are not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.
If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.”
We do let the Bible speak for itself. It doesn’t say that Mary had other children. Neither does it say that the so-called brothers of Jesus are Mary’s children. Rodimus continues to stifle the voice of the Bible by insisting on his erroneous conclusions.
For over two thousand years, we let the Bible speak for itself on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Thus, Protestant Reformers even after cooking up sola scriptura did not renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Neither can we.