Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:39:44.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In defence of Mary's consent: a response to Hereth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2022

Jack Mulder Jr Open the ORCID record for Jack Mulder Jr [Opens in a new window]
Jack Mulder Jr*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Hope College, Holland, Michigan, 49423 USA
*
Email: mulderj@hope.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I defend the possibility of the Virgin Mary's free consent to bear the Son of God at the Annunciation against Blake Hereth's argument that God's offer cannot but be either coercive or deceptive, or both. I argue that the Immaculate Conception does help ensure this possibility, contrary to what Hereth also argues against me.

Keywords

Virgin MaryconsentImmaculate Conception
Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 2023 , pp. 801 - 816
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aquinas, ST (1981) Summa Theologica. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.). Allen, TX: Christian Classics.Google Scholar
Arias, J (2015) Mary, spouse of Joseph, model for married life. Marian Studies 66, 55–76.Google Scholar
Augustine, S (1999) Holy virginity. In Kearney, R (ed. and trans.), Marriage and Virginity. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, pp. 63–107.Google Scholar
Balthasar, HU von, (1987) Mary for Today. Nowell, R (ed. and trans.). San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
Balthasar, HU von, and Ratzinger, JC (2005) Mary: The Church at the Source. Walker, A (ed. and trans.). San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
Boethius (2001) The Consolation of Philosophy. Relihan, JC (ed. and trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Catholic Church (1964) Lumen Gentium. Available at https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed 31 May 2022).Google Scholar
Catholic Church (1997) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.Google Scholar
Christian Reformed Church (1975) The Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids, OH: CRC Publications.Google Scholar
Dylan, B (1979) Slow Train Coming. New York: Columbia Records.Google Scholar
Gambero, L (1999) Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin in Patristic Thought. Buffer, T (ed. and trans.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
Hereth, B (2021) Mary, did you consent? Religious Studies, First View, 1–24.Google Scholar
John of the Cross S (1973) The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross. Keran Kavanaugh, OCD and Otilio Rodriguez, OCD (eds and trans.). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelites Studies.Google Scholar
John Paul II, PS (1988) Mary: God's Yes to Man: John Paul II's Encyclical Redemptoris Mater. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
Keating, DA (2007) Deification and Grace. Naples: Sapientia Press.Google Scholar
Kierkegaard, S (1983) Fear and Trembling and Repetition. Hong, HV and Hong, EH (eds and trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, CS (1973) The Great Divorce. New York, NY, : Harper.Google Scholar
Luz, U and Koester, H (2007) Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.Google Scholar
Mulder, J Jr (2012) Why more Christians should believe in Mary's immaculate conception. Christian Scholar's Review 41, 117–134.Google Scholar
Mulder, J Jr (2014) A response to Chiang and white on the immaculate conception. Christian Scholar's Review 43, 261–265.Google Scholar
Mulder, J Jr (2018) A response to Van Kuiken on the immaculate conception. Christian Scholar's Review, 47, 281–286.Google Scholar
Pitre, G (2018) Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah. New York, NY: Image.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A (1974) God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Quinn, PL (1988) Divine conservation, secondary causes, and Occasionalism. In Morris, TV (ed.), Divine and Human Action. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 50–73.Google Scholar
Scheeben, M (1946) Mariology, vol. 1. Trans. Geukers, TLMJ (ed.). London: Herder.Google Scholar
Scotus, JD (2012) Four Questions on Mary. Trans. Wolter, AB (ed.). Saint Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications.Google Scholar