Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists depict belief in the existence of God as being nothing but a filler for things that science as of yet has been unable to answer. This objection to the idea of a higher power operates on the premise that it has been assumed on a priori basis the necessity of God's existence in all matters for which we currently posses inadequate knowledge. Science itself will be able to account for all things satisfactorily in the long run. However, there remains intelligent and reasonable arguments for the existence of God, which amount to more than simply assuming things based on incomplete data. They are not appeals to silence or based on a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, they are based on inferences from foundational observations rooted firmly in science. Further, they are made in accordance with principles of elementary logic. More specifically, many of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. Philosophical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. Therefore, it is not all that exists. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions are not assumed but automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in various arguments for the existence of God is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. Biological structures have a degree of complexity that appears to have been designed. These are scientific facts, which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

          The secularism of today's scientific landscape is the polar opposite of what the learned men who came to the Americas from Europe upheld. The latter were primarily Puritans who held that God orchestrated world history in such a way, that He dictated the outcome of even the smallest occurrences. The uncovering of scientific laws seemed to contradict this view of divine sovereignty, opening the door to a view of God who is more distant and uninvolved with creation. The idea of a watchmaker who winds up a clock and lets it unwind fully illustrates this perception. The radical approach to science taken by the Puritans has since been thoroughly discredited, helping to lay the ideological groundwork for the world of science that exists today.

           

           A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are to be focused on truth. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations with the intent of ruling out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions, does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel all foundational questions which shape reality as we understand it.

A Biblical Theology Of Marriage And Divorce

        "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

        Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4–5 reaffirm the divine origin and intent of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. By referencing the creation account, He emphasizes that this bond is not merely contractual but covenantal, rooted in God’s design for human relationships. The phrase “the two shall become one flesh” speaks to a profound unity that transcends physical connection, pointing to a deeper spiritual and emotional oneness. This foundational truth sets the stage for understanding the nature of biblical love and the enduring commitment that marriage requires.

        "Biblical love is based on the spiritual relationship between a man and a woman before any relationship of the flesh. They who are spiritually joined together become one flesh that never separates. They who are attracted only by the physical appearance constantly live in the temptation of seeing someone else who many be more attractive. The possibility of steadfastness in a marriage that is based on looks and mere sexual satisfaction is very small indeed compared to the spiritual relationship based on agape, love that seeks not self-satisfaction primarily, but meeting the need of one’s partner. The satisfaction of meeting the need of another is far greater than the satisfaction of selfish procurement." (Spiros Zodhiates, What About Divorce?, p. 72-73)

        In Romans 7:2-3, Paul explains that a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. However, if he dies, she is free to remarry without being guilty of adultery. This analogy is used to illustrate that believers are released from the Law's binding power through Christ's death, just as a widow is freed from her marital bond upon her husband's death. Therefore, the passage indicates that it is permissible for a widow to remarry, aligning with the broader theological point that Christians are freed from the Law's condemnation through their union with Christ. 

        In 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, Paul addresses the situation of believers married to unbelievers. He explains that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through their believing partner, which means their children are also under a godly influence. However, if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the marriage, the believer is not bound in such circumstances and is free to let them go. This passage underscores that while a mixed-faith marriage can have a sanctifying effect on the family, the believer is not obligated to remain in the marriage if the unbelieving spouse departs. The Christian is thus granted freedom in such situations.

        In Matthew 19:9, Jesus states that anyone who divorces their spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. This verse allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality, suggesting that remarriage is not adulterous in such circumstances. The passage highlights the sanctity and permanence of marriage, permitting divorce only in specific, severe cases. The exception clause suggests that while marriage is intended to be permanent, severe breaches like infidelity justify dissolution and subsequent remarriage.

        In the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time, Jewish law allowed for divorce on the grounds of serious marital unfaithfulness, such as adultery. This broader understanding of "porneia" included various forms of sexual immorality, which suggests that Jesus' audience would have interpreted His exception clause in Matthew 19:9 as permitting divorce in cases of adultery. Further, different Jewish sects had varied interpretations of permissible grounds for divorce, indicating a less rigid approach than the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage. Thus, the view of "porneia" as solely referring to unlawful marriages does not fully align with the broader and more flexible understanding prevalent during Jesus' era.

        Marriage is intended to be the life-long dedication of one to a partner of the opposite sex. Thus, adultery is wrong for obvious reasons. It involves lying in that the promise of fidelity gets broken and unfair in that the wronged spouse is robbed of due benevolence. Adultery turns what was intended to be a permanent vow right on its own head. If fornication and adultery are morally permissible, then that undermines the purpose for which marriage exists. 

        As for eliminating temptation, that cannot be done perfectly because human nature is fallen and said proclivities will creep up on us from time to time. The best way to dampen down temptation is to identify with certainty its source and find ways to permanently remove or avoid it. Jesus Christ specifically taught that lusting is equivalent to actually committing adultery and fornication (Matthew 5:28-29). It is a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5). However, being physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex is not wrong in and of itself. We were biologically hardwired to be that way.

        God absolutely despises divorce (Malachi 2:16). He regards it as evidence of faithlessness. Divorce was not a part of His original order of things. God only tolerated the termination of marriages because the hearts of men are hard (Matthew 19:8-9). He knew that our relationships could go sour. Therefore, if it be at all possible, it is best for arguing couples to seek reconciliation. That may entail a degree of compromise in either one or both parties. For instance, wives and children should never be placed into a situation that leaves them without sustenance to provide for their needs. Every situation is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

          Marriage is a sacred institution that calls for mutual commitment and love between spouses. The biblical teachings on marriage, such as in Ephesians 5, encourage believers to love and respect one another within the marriage relationship. These teachings can be interpreted in ways that recognize both distinct and shared responsibilities between husbands and wives. In the framework of a healthy marriage, spouses are encouraged to honor their unique roles while also supporting and valuing each other's contributions. Marriage involves personal accountability. It is based on commitment of the spouses to each other. The underlying principle of marriage is self-sacrifice.

        Marriage was instituted by God, so He has complete authority over it. Divorce could actually be seen as a grace in that it exists when no potential remedies work. This kind of a decision should never be taken lightly and only in sorrow. The best thing to do is marry somebody who shares a similar worldview. Even a person who claims to be a Christian may be a bad candidate for marriage (Matthew 7:21). Some people may have to wait a long time before finally getting married, like Isaac who was forty before he got married (Genesis 25:20). In fact, a person does not have to get married if he does not want to. Even Christ spoke of the celibate (Matthew 19:11-12).

Are All Sins Equal In Severity?

        It is true that all sins are worthy of condemnation because they are a violation of God's Law (Romans 6:23). All of them are unrighteous. All of them are an offense to God because they go against His very nature, which is holy. Any and all sin is sufficient to stop one from becoming a partaker in His kingdom. All sin can accurately be spoken of as mortal before Him. It is also true, however, that any and all sin can be forgiven because of Christ's work on the cross (Romans 5:20). The depths of His grace is deeper than the worst that we can do.

        God's Law does not exist outside Himself as do human laws to judges. It exhibits perfectly who He is in terms of His righteous and just qualities. God is the perfect moral standard of righteousness (Genesis 18:25). Sin, therefore, is not merely in opposition to some principle, but to God Himself. He is not changeable like human theories and rules. Sin merits eternal separation and death because He is holy, impartial, and equitable. It is an offense against God on a personal level. Sin goes against everything that He is.

        Some sins are indeed greater in severity than others (John 19:11; 1 John 5:15-17). That means God judges some with more harshness than others based on what they did during this life, while exercising mercy accordingly. He judges in a way that is both rigid and flexible. Ezekiel 8 speaks of certain acts as being more detestable to Him than others. There are different levels of severity in punishment for those in hell (Matthew 23:14; Luke 10:7-12; 12:47-48). God judges those who have greater knowledge of His truth more harshly (Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1-2). This should foster in us a deeper understanding of the gravity of various actions and the need for sincere repentance.

        That homosexual behavior, adultery, and bestiality were considered capital crimes in Israel shows God does indeed see some sins as more heinous than others in terms of earthly consequences. Unintentional sins could be atoned for in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 4). The former types of sin were more grievous to God because they involve full consent in doing them. Thus, it can be said that He looks at people's motives, circumstances, and their ability to understand propositions in judging them. God is just in executing judgment.

         Some have quoted James 2:10-11 to support the notion that all sin is the same in terms of severity, but that notion is mistaken. Theft, for instance, is not said to carry the same weight of guilt and consequences as does murder. In fact, sympathy is extended to those who steal food to feed themselves (Proverbs 6:30). This passage merely says that if one commits sins such as theft and murder, then he has violated God's Law. In other words, there are multiple ways to break the Law of God. This is true even of various laws instituted by man.

Annihilation Refuted

• Introduction:

          -The teaching of annihilationism stands in stark contrast to the traditional Christian teaching of hell, which is eternal condemnation. The orthodox teaching is that the souls of unbelievers are sentenced to an eternity of misery and humiliation. They are separated from God because He is holy. They will be made to confess that He is Lord out of subjugation, not submission.
          -Annihilationism is the teaching that lost souls, fallen angels, and even Satan himself will eventually get destroyed or cease to exist. As for the duration of the divine sentence in this view, it is usually taught that unconverted souls cease to exist after the moment of physical death. Thus, there is no conscious afterlife for these people. Only the righteous will experience immortality.

• Annihilationism Minimizes The Seriousness Of Sin And Its Consequences:

          -If a person desires to continue acting in a sinful manner and dies in an unrepentant and unbelieving state, then he will have no serious concerns about any sort of future punishments. After all, a non-existent being cannot face judgment for sin by God. So there will ultimately be no punishment for any sins in this theological framework.

• Exegetical Problems For The Doctrine Of Annihilationism:

          -If annihilation is true, then why not also believe that our comfort and existence in heaven will last only for a short period of time? The word "eternal" is used to describe both "life" and "punishment" in Matthew 25:46, which puts advocates of annihilationism in a pickle. The same comments are equally applicable to Daniel 12:2.

          -In Revelation 14:9-11, the emphasis is on eternal torment, with the phrase “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.” This language suggests a continuous, ongoing state of suffering rather than a one-time act of destruction.

          -In Revelation 20:10, the imagery is of perpetual torment. The devil, the beast, and the false prophet are subjected to continuous suffering “day and night for ever and ever,” implying no end to their punishment.

          -Jude said that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah suffer "eternal fire" (Jude 7) which lasts "forever" (Jude 13) as an object lesson for the ungodly. That language has very specific implications, which do not sit well with annihilationism. The people of those cities were still suffering divine judgment at the time of this epistle being written.

• The Story Of The Rich Man And Lazarus Serves As Biblical Evidence That Souls Remain Conscious After Physical Death And That Unbelievers Do Not Cease To Exist (Luke 16:19-31):

           -Even if one does not interpret this story to be literal history, plenty of details exist to indicate conscious life after death with the moral lesson that unrighteous people will face judgment by God.

• On The Greek Term Kolasis In Matthew 25:26:

          -"κόλασις kólasis; gen. koláseōs, fem. noun from kolázō (2849), to punish. Punishment (Matt. 25:46), torment (1 John 4:18), distinguished from timōría (5098), punishment, which in Class. Gr. has the predominating thought of the vindictive character of the punishment which satisfies the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice in defending his own honor or that of the violated law. Kólasis, on the other hand, conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and bettering of the offender. It does not always, however, have this strict meaning in the NT. In Matt. 25:46, kólasis aiṓnios (166), eternal, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline, but has rather the meaning of timōría, punishment because of the violation of the eternal law of God." (Excerpt taken from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates)

• On The Greek Term Aionion:

          -Proponents of annihilationism correctly point out that the Greek word "aionion," which is translated into English as "eternal," does not always mean eternal. However, the New Testament clearly uses that word to describe the length of God's reign (Revelation 11:15), the nature of God (Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:17), and our salvation (John 3:16). Those are things for which there is no end. Further, there is no better word in New Testament Greek to denote an eternal length of time than aionion itself. The concept of eternal conscious punishment in hell is indeed terrifying to hear about. Attempting to deny its existence is foolish to the utmost.

Does Luke 1:28 Support The Immaculate Conception Of Mary?

          "The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice." It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son." (CCC # 722).

          The best description that we get about Mary from Scripture is that she is "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). Nothing much else is said of her elsewhere. Further, it is an unrealistic jump to go from describing Mary as being an instrument used by God to being a woman who was conceived without sin, ascended into heaven without physical death, and being exalted as the queen of heaven. The context of Luke 1 contains no clear evidence that Mary holds a mediatory role between humanity and God or was intended to be venerated in the way that Catholics have done with her.

          The angel Gabriel’s greeting, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28, NRSV), underscores God's favor upon Mary as the chosen vessel for Jesus' incarnation. However, there is no indication that this favor confers an ongoing role for Mary beyond being the mother of Jesus. Moreover, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) emphasizes Mary's acknowledgment of her own humility and God's greatness. While she praises God for the honor given to her, the prayer's central focus is on God's mercy, justice, and faithfulness to His covenant. There is no suggestion that Mary sought or should receive adoration from others.

          The context of Luke 1 reveals important sayings of Elizabeth, Mary, and the Angel Gabriel. However, nothing is said about Mary being without sin. Further, we need to ask why Gabriel would announce the important message of Mary's birth so many years after the occasion took place (i.e. when she was already a fully grown woman)? Both the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were proclaimed before their birth dates. It would be highly unusual to make a prophecy of an event after the fact that it has already happened. Luke chapter one centers around the conception of Jesus.

          In addition, the phrase "full of grace" is not found in our Greek manuscripts. It is derived from a faulty translation of Jerome in his fourth century Latin Vulgate. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has derived its doctrine from a corrupted Latin translation, not the Greek original. Interestingly, modern-day Catholic translations of the Bible do not have the rendering "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. Examples of reputable texts omitting that term would include the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. Consider this excerpt from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378:

          "The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace."

          Gabriel’s greeting in Luke 1:28 does not prove Mary was eternally sinless. The Greek perfect tense (kecharitōmenē) simply indicates that God had blessed her in the past with results still present, not that she possessed a permanent or eternal condition. Other uses of the perfect tense show this clearly: Pilate’s “What I have written, I have written” (John 19:22) is not eternal, and participles like “merciful” in Hebrews 2:17 describe roles, not immutable titles. Catholic apologists argue the perfect tense here is unique, but the same verb (charitoō) appears in Ephesians 1:6 for all believers, proving it cannot imply sinlessness exclusive to Mary. Explicit references of Luke 1:28 to the immaculate conception developed later in church history. The broader theological claim that Christ required a sinless vessel is also unsupported, since God has repeatedly worked through imperfect people to accomplish His purposes. The context itself shows Gabriel’s words are a greeting of divine favor for her role, just as Noah “found favor” (Gen. 6:8) or Gideon was called “mighty warrior” (Judg. 6:12). In short, grammar, usage, and biblical parallels dismantle the apologetic claim: Luke 1:28 is about God’s choice of Mary for her mission, not proof of doctrines like the immaculate conception.

          Consider this excerpt from The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary, by Leif Grane, p. 209, which is thoroughly reasonable to add here:

          "She [Mary] does not seek her own enjoyment in the honor which God has permitted her to share, but keeps her spirit pure. In this way the Magnificat becomes a proclamation of God's own goodness toward poor and lowly mortals. It is God's grace toward Mary, who is unworthy, that we should praise. Mary does not desire that praise be directed toward her, for thereby God's grace is diminished. If one would honor her, one should regard her low estate and marvel at God's exceedingly abundant grace toward her. Thereupon one should praise God, who acts this way toward poor and wretched human beings, and so learn to depend of God oneself, when one is despised and degraded. By elevating Mary into a sublime being, one destroys the comfort which Mary's words can bring."

Examining The Catholic Rosary In Light Of Scripture

       One Roman Catholic legend is that Mary showed up before St. Dominic in 1208 at the church of Prouille and revealed the rosary beads to him. Catholic Priest William Saunders writes that, "the origins of the rosary are sketchy at best." Gregory the Great made popular a form of the Hail Mary Prayer. In response, many began praying this prayer in repetitions with stringed beads. However, Jesus declared unfit for use this kind of prayer:

        "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."  (Matthew 6:6-7)

         For what other reason would the scribes and Pharisees pray the kind of prayer that Christ expressed disapproval of, other than heaping up words and phrases in an attempt to make their utterances more efficacious or more heard? The rosary consists of exactly these elements. The context of His teaching here is more than saying the same prayers repeatedly.

        Jesus Christ emphatically condemned this kind of prayer by calling it vain. It is uttered by pagans in their ecstasy and by legalists in their pride, but worthless before God. He already knows everything that we are going to pray about and our motives for doing so, even before anything is said. He knows everything that we need, even better than what we know ourselves.

         Further, more prayers are dedicated to Mary in the rosary than to God Himself in the process of it being cited. The praises given to God are outnumbered nine to one in favor of Mary. Hence, it does not take much to notice how such a prayer can diminish one's affection for God. Observe the utter contrast of Roman Catholic devotion to Mary in the rosary with words of devotion to God from the Psalms:

        "My soul, wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken." (Psalm 62:5-6)

        This psalmist obviously would have rejected any concept of offering some lower form of religious devotion to someone other than God. He viewed his Creator as his one and only source of spiritual sustenance during hard times. 

        "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth." (Psalm 73:25)

        There is nothing in these words that would even remotely imply that using something like the rosary would be palatable for use in worship. No one ever prayed with beads in the Bible, a concept instituted by pagans long before Christianity began (making them even less appealing to devout Jews). For instance, the Hindus did so in prayers to their gods. The biggest problem for the rosary is that it involves prayer to someone other than God.

        Why do we need to know how many times that a prayer is said? Why is there an emphasis on the number of repetitions in citing the rosary? Are there consequences for saying too many or too little of a specific prayer? Does the rosary involve some sort of self-hypnosis technique? What is the significance of even using this relic if the repetition serves no purpose?

Is The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church holds that Mary and Joseph remained celibate following the birth of Jesus Christ, implying that He had no biological siblings. Within this tradition, references in the gospels to Jesus’ “brothers” are understood to denote either cousins or, in some interpretations, children from a prior marriage of Joseph. This belief was vigorously defended by Jerome in his rebuttal of Helvidius. He addressed three key points: the nature of Joseph’s relationship to Mary, the identification of Jesus’ “brothers” as non-siblings, and the theological elevation of celibacy over marriage. The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity has enjoyed enduring support through church history, upheld not only by Catholic theologians but also by prominent Protestant reformers and scholars, including Martin Luther, Francis Turretin, Richard Hooker, and Alfred Edersheim.

• Comments On Matthew 1:18:

          -This text states that Mary was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph came together, implying that their marriage had not been consummated at the time of Jesus’ conception. When read alongside Matthew 1:25, which says Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth,” the text suggests that normal marital relations may have followed Jesus’ birth. Additionally, repeated references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the gospels lend further support to the idea that Mary had other children, challenging the notion of perpetual virginity.

• On The Meaning Of "Until" In Matthew 1:24-25:

          -The term "until" often (but not always) indicates a change of condition following the specified event. Supporting examples from Scripture where "until" implies a change include Matthew 24:34 and Acts 20:11. This interpretation aligns with other New Testament references to Jesus' siblings (e.g. Matthew 12:46, Mark 6:3), which further challenge the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. The implication here is that she had other children after Jesus, thus marking a shift from a virgin to a mother of multiple children.

• Comments On Matthew 13:55-57 And Mark 6:3-4:

          -The context of these passages indicates the meaning of "brothers and sisters" to be natural family. In Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4, the Greek word for sisters (i.e. adelphe) is used. Further, that word is used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to mean natural sister born as to the same mother. The term used in various contexts suggests a natural familial relationship.
          -If this was a reference to more distinct relatives, then why did Matthew and Mark not use the Greek word "suggenes" (e.g. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:58)? The absence of this term in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4 can easily be seen as an indication that the authors intended to convey a more immediate family relationship.

          -The New Testament occupies a separate Greek word for cousin, which is "anepsios" (e.g. Colossians 4:10). The New Testament never denotes the term "brother" to mean anything other than a literal brother in the context of family relations. If the terms brother and sister are not to be taken literally, then why should we understand Mary being called the mother of Jesus in that same way?

• On The Nature Of The Greek New Testament:

          -The fact that these terms were available and used elsewhere in the New Testament suggests that the authors could have used them if they intended to convey something other than biological siblings. That is a strong point in favor of the argument that the references to Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” were meant literally. Luke and Paul were especially precise in their use of Greek. Since the New Testament was written in that language and not in Hebrew, the burden of proof lies of anyone who claims the usage of brothers and sisters is a Semitic idiom, of which is impossible to prove.

• John's Gospel Records A Fulfilled Prophecy (John 2:15-17) From The Book Of Psalms (Psalm 69:8-9): 

          -The implication to be made here is that Christ had literal brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary. His brothers were said to not believe Him (John 7:1-10). And here is the clincher: Psalm 69 does not say “my father’s children” or “my relatives.” It says “my mother’s children,” a phrase that, in any ordinary reading, refers to biological siblings from the same womb. If the Gospel of John is invoking this psalm to describe Jesus’ experience, then it is affirming that Mary had other children.

• Jesus Was Mary's Firstborn, Not Only Born (Luke 2:7):

          -The fact that the four gospels speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ suggests that "firstborn" in this context means the first of many children. If Jesus were an only child, then it would not have been necessary to call Him the firstborn. When he wanted to describe someone as an only child, he used the word monogenēs, as seen in Luke 7:12 (“the only son of his mother”), Luke 8:42 (“an only daughter”), and Luke 9:38 (“he is my only child”). However, when describing Jesus in Luke 2:7, Luke chose the word prōtotokos, meaning “firstborn,” which implies that Jesus was the first of multiple children. If Luke had intended to convey that Jesus was Mary’s only child, he could have used monogenēs, a term he clearly knew and used elsewhere. This choice strongly suggests that Luke did not view Jesus as Mary’s only child.

• Moving Past Virginity And Rethinking Mary's Role:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity places an unhealthy and undue focus on her sexuality. This obsession with virginity can perpetuate harmful attitudes toward sexuality, suggesting that purity and virtue are tied to sexual status, as if one is "damaged goods" if he fell short of what the biblical text deems an ideal scenario of marriage relations. Such an emphasis overshadows Mary's other significant qualities and contributions, reducing her identity to a single attribute. This focus distorts natural human experiences and relationships, perpetuating unrealistic standards within a religious context.

• Rejecting The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Is Heresy?:

          -Labeling someone a heretic over their view of Mary’s virginity is disproportionate. Frankly, it reflects a level of spiritual rigidity and immaturity that even the early church fathers were not immune to. This a reminder that theological maturity is not always synonymous with historical authority. Not all ideas developed in a vacuum of apostolic clarity. The perpetual virginity of Mary emerged more from theological idealism and evolving ecclesial sentiment than from the witness of biblical texts. There is no compelling evidence that a majority of the earliest Christians held to this doctrine. It became dominant in the church during the fourth century, and officially declared a dogma by the sixth century.

Refuting The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

Introduction:

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and lived a sinless life. This belief, known as the Immaculate Conception, was formally defined as dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin” (CCC #491).

The rationale offered is that Mary had to be sinless in order to be a fitting vessel for the sinless Son of God. However, this theological construct lacks clear biblical support and was not universally affirmed in the early church. As Dr. Ron Rhodes notes, “It is a historical fact that a number of the early church fathers such as Origen, Basil, Hilary, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria believed that Mary had engaged in sins (such as vanity and ambition) in her life” (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 296). Even prominent medieval theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas expressed reservations about the doctrine.

The Logic Of The Immaculate Conception Collapses Under Its Own Weight:

If Mary had to be sinless to bear the sinless Christ, then by the same logic, her mother would also have needed to be sinless to bear her, and so on, ad infinitum. This leads to an untenable regress. Why stop with Mary? Why not posit an entire lineage of sinless ancestors? The uniqueness of Christ’s conception lies not in Mary’s moral status, but in the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Scripture emphasizes the divine origin of Jesus, not the sinlessness of His mother. The Incarnation is a testimony to God's power to bring holiness out of a fallen world, not a reflection of human purity. 

Mary’s Ritual Purification As A Silent Refutation:

According to Levitical law, a woman who gave birth was considered ritually unclean and required to offer a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6–8). Luke 2:22–24 records that Mary did exactly this. Some may argue she did so merely to fulfill the Law, not because she needed purification. But this misses the theological symbolism embedded in the Law itself: ritual impurity after childbirth was a reminder of humanity’s fallen condition and the transmission of original sin. If Mary were truly exempt from original sin, then her participation in this rite would be not only unnecessary but misleading. Scripture gives no indication that her purification was symbolic or optional. It treats her as subject to the same post-Edenic realities as every other human being.

Mary’s Doubt And Misunderstanding Of Jesus:

In Mark 3:21, we read that Jesus’ family, including Mary, thought He was “out of His mind.” Later in the same chapter (vv. 31–35), they attempt to seize Him, prompting Jesus to redefine His true family as “whoever does the will of God.” This episode is difficult to reconcile with the idea of Mary’s sinlessness. Doubting the divine mission of Christ, especially after angelic revelation and prophetic confirmation, reflects a lapse in faith. While some may argue that Mary’s intentions were maternal concern, the text portrays her actions as a misunderstanding of God’s plan, something that the biblical text consistently treats as a spiritual shortcoming.

Mary’s Own Words Acknowledge Her Need For A Savior:

In Luke 1:47, Mary declares, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” These uttered words are precisely what one would expect of a sinner whose only hope is the mercy of God. The sense portrayed here is, not necessary graces given before birth to preserve one from the stains of sin, but grace needed to cover personal sin. 

The Universal Scope Of Sin And The Singular Sinlessness Of Christ:

Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:23 is unambiguous: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” There is no scriptural exception made for Mary. Romans 5:12 affirms that sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all. The only person Scripture explicitly exempts from sin is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Attempts to carve out exceptions for Mary are not grounded in the text, but in later theological developments. Even infants and the mentally impaired, while not morally culpable, are still described as inheriting a fallen nature. The universality of sin is a foundational doctrine of the gospel, one that magnifies the uniqueness of Christ, not Mary.

The Absence Of Prophetic Expectation:

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any prophecy or expectation that the Messiah would be born of a sinless woman. Isaiah 7:14 foretells a virgin birth, not a morally perfect virgin. The emphasis is on the miraculous nature of the conception, not the moral status of the mother. If Mary’s sinlessness were essential to the Incarnation, one would expect some prophetic anticipation of such a figure, yet the Hebrew Scriptures are silent on this point. This silence is not incidental. It reflects the biblical focus on divine initiative rather than human qualification.

Theological Redundancy Of Mary's Immaculate Conception:

The Immaculate Conception introduces a theological redundancy. If Jesus, as the Second Adam, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not through ordinary human generation (Luke 1:35), then the transmission of original sin was already interrupted. There is no need to posit Mary’s sinlessness to protect Christ’s. The power of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to preserve the sinlessness of the Incarnate Son without requiring a sinless vessel. This reinforces the biblical theme that God works through the weak and the fallen to accomplish His purposes, not through human perfection.

General Comments On Roman Catholic Mariology

• Introduction:

          -Roman Catholic Mariology has followed a strikingly unusual trajectory throughout history. During the Middle Ages, shrines, feast days, and devotional practices dedicated to Mary multiplied across Europe, embedding her veneration deeply into Catholic life. By the time of the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), some bishops even pressed for formal liturgical changes, proposing that the Hail Mary prayer include the title “Immaculate Virgin,” and that the Nicene Creed itself be amended to explicitly affirm the dogma of the immaculate conception. These developments illustrate a steady intensification of Marian devotion, often expressed in exalted language by Catholic saints and officials, language that extends far beyond the testimony of Scripture.

• Roman Catholic Mariology Presents A Distorted View Of Mary:

          -The New Testament epistles were written to give spiritual guidance and instruction to the Christian churches. They have a great deal to say about correct doctrine and the proper worship of God. However, Mary is completely absent from the New Testament outside the four gospels, with two exceptions being Acts 1:14 and Galatians 4:4.

          -Even in the four gospels, her alleged spiritual power and authority seems as if it does not exist. Jesus and the apostles never gave Mary any place of authority or devotion that the Roman Catholic Church has given to her.

          -The central theme of the Bible is devotion to God. We are constantly told to glorify His name. We are told to confess our sins to Him. Never is any of this said of Mary. For instance, Paul never exhorts the readers of his epistles to pray to members of a communion of saints during times of trouble. That is just how unbiblical the Roman Catholic elevation of Mary is.
          -Why did Jesus address another woman by the same name "woman" as He called His own mother (Matthew 15:28; John 2:4)?

• Roman Catholic Mariology Contradicts Biblical Teaching:

          -Jesus publicly refuted a woman who attempted to exalt Mary on the basis that she gave birth to Him (Luke 11:27-28). Instead, He placed an emphasis on hearing and obeying the Word of God.

          -Jesus stated that all of His disciples are His mother and family (Matthew 12:46-50). He elevated all of His disciples to the same level as His earthly mother and family. The emphasis is on faithfulness to God rather than to ancestral lineage.

• Was Mary Absolutely Necessary In The Plan Of God?:

          -God did not have to use Mary as the means of bringing His Son into the world to make our redemption happen. In other words, He could have found favor with another virgin woman who exhibited the same degree of faithfulness, if He so chose. In fact, He did not have to save us at all, but He did as a result of His love and mercy. It is not as though Mary was the only option available to God or that He owed her something.

• Delusions Of Grandeur:

          -"Let us in all confidence choose as advocate before God the Immaculate and Most Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary. She has destroyed all the heresies of the world...In heaven as Queen at the right hand of her only Son, clothed in golden raiment and all manner of jewels, there is nothing that she cannot obtain from him." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864)

           *If Mary had really accomplished what the pope claimed regarding the abolishment of all heresy, then why are we still encountering atheists, other world religions, and pseudo-Christian cults?

• Mary Offered Jesus On The Cross?:

          -"...we cannot doubt that she greatly grieved in soul in the most harsh anguishes and torments of her Son. Further, that divine sacrifice had to be completed with her present and looking on, for which she had generously nourished the victim from herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother...of her own accord she offered her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, transfixed with the sword of sorrow." (Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper, September 8, 1884)
           *Scripture states that Jesus Christ offered Himself to God as atonement for our sin (Hebrews 9:14). Mary played no role in our redemption except in the sense of giving birth to Him. Mary could not have offered her son to God as an atonement sacrifice, even if she had wanted to.
           *Mary would have been in agony and distress to see her Son nailed to a crucifix. Such reactions are only natural of normal mothers when they see their children suffer. However, there is no valid reason to suggest that Mary's grief had some sort of a unique or redemptive value.

• Mary Is The Ark Of The New Covenant?:

          -“Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God...with men." (CCC #2676)

           *If Mary automatically inherits the title "Ark of the Covenant" for the reason that she once bore the Lord Jesus Christ in her womb, then would it not logically follow that all Christians can rightly be given the same title, since our bodies are also God's dwelling place (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20)?

Arguments For The Existence Of God

• The Argument From First Cause:

          -How did everything in the universe come into being? This argument, also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, suggests that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause. Secular scientists may propose that the universe came from a quantum vacuum or virtual particles, but these explanations still leave unanswered questions about the origin of the laws governing these phenomena. Furthermore, quantum events are still causally connected to the quantum field, reinforcing the need for a cause. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas argue for a prime mover or uncaused cause, aligning with the concept of God as an eternal being. God, by definition, is a necessary being—one whose existence is not contingent on anything else. This avoids the problem of infinite regress and offers a coherent explanation for the universe's existence.

• The Argument From Fine-Tuning:

          -The fine-tuning of the universe presents a compelling case for intelligent design. Scientists have identified numerous constants and quantities, such as the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant, that must fall within a narrow range to permit life. Critics may argue for the multiverse theory, proposing countless universes with varying constants. However, this theory lacks empirical evidence and raises the question of the origin of the multiverse itself. Additionally, the multiverse theory does not eliminate the need for fine-tuning but merely shifts the problem to a higher level. The improbability of fine-tuning by chance suggests an intelligent designer who calibrated these constants with purpose, aligning with the theistic view of a purposeful Creator.

• The Moral Argument:

          -Universal moral principles dictate how life should work. Critics may argue that morality is a product of cultural evolution and social conditioning. However, the existence of objective moral values—principles that remain true regardless of human opinion—points to a transcendent source. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that moral law within us implies a moral lawgiver. Evolutionary explanations for morality fail to account for the binding nature of moral duties or the intrinsic value of human beings. The existence of objective moral truths suggests a source beyond humanity, aligning with the concept of a moral, personal God who grounds these values.

• The Argument From Contingency (Cosmological Argument):

          -For the universe to exist, an outside entity beyond space, matter, and time must also exist. This argument, articulated by Leibniz, posits that everything contingent has an explanation for its existence. The universe is contingent—it could have been different or not existed at all—so it requires an explanation beyond itself. Natural laws and processes do not account for the existence of the universe but rather describe how it behaves. The necessary being, which explains the universe's existence, must be self-existent and uncaused. This aligns with the theistic view of God as the necessary being who transcends space and time, providing a coherent explanation for the universe's existence.

• The Argument From Efficient Cause:

          -Infinite regress, a never-ending series of causes, is logically impossible. This argument, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, asserts that every material object must have a beginning and an efficient cause. An effect cannot occur without a cause, and an infinite regress of causes is metaphysically untenable. Critics may argue that natural processes can account for the universe's order, but this fails to address the origin of these processes. The existence of a first cause, an unmoved mover, who set the universe into its orderly state, provides a coherent explanation. This aligns with the theistic view of God as the uncaused cause who initiated creation.

• The Argument From Degrees Of Perfection (Henological Argument):

          -We classify preferences, events, experiences, and decisions from least to greatest. This argument, articulated by Aquinas, posits that the existence of degrees of perfection in finite beings implies an ultimate degree of perfection. Critics may argue that these classifications are subjective, but the argument emphasizes objective qualities like intelligence and moral goodness. The gradation of these qualities suggests a maximum, which embodies all perfections to an infinite degree. This being, God, possesses all good qualities to an infinitely perfect extent, providing a coherent explanation for the existence of gradations of perfection in the world.

• The Argument From Desire:

           -"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists." This argument, popularized by C.S. Lewis, suggests that innate human desires point to the existence of something beyond the physical world. Critics may argue that desires can be explained by natural instincts and evolutionary processes. However, the argument emphasizes existential desires that cannot be satisfied by worldly experiences, such as the longing for ultimate meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. These desires suggest that humans were made for another world, aligning with the theistic view of an afterlife and a relationship with a transcendent being, God.

• The Argument Of The Unmoved Mover:

          -Everything set into motion requires a mover. This argument, rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, posits that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. Every moving thing requires a mover, and the universe's motion cannot be self-originating. Critics may argue that natural laws account for motion, but these laws describe how motion occurs rather than explaining its origin. The existence of an Unmoved Mover, who initiates all motion, provides a coherent explanation. This being, God, is the force behind the universe's motion, aligning with the theistic view of a prime mover who set the cosmos into motion.