Augustine exempts Mary from his statements about universal human sin “out of honor to the Lord”; how does Bercot want you to evaluate that logic—does “honoring Jesus” ever justify creating exceptions God didn’t reveal, and what guardrails would early Christians have used to prevent that?
Another way to ask: Augustine makes an exception for Mary when talking about everyone being sinful, saying it honors Jesus. Do you think “honoring Jesus” should ever allow exceptions God never clearly taught, and what checks might early Christians have used to avoid that?
Direct Answer
Bercot presents Augustine’s logic as an example of creating an unbiblical exception under the banner of honoring Jesus, implying that “honor to the Lord” does not justify adding teachings God did not reveal.
Support from Transcript:
Augustine says, when discussing universal sin, “We must accept the holy Virgin Mary… out of honor to the Lord.”
He claims Mary received “abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular,” implying sinlessness.
Bercot explicitly labels these as “false teachings” (Mary’s sinless life and perpetual virginity).
Bercot notes that later the church taught Mary’s bodily assumption and queenship, and the Nicene theologians offered “not one word of protest,” showing how exceptions can expand.
The chapter’s theme is that theologians “trying to save the Church ended up destroying it,” suggesting this kind of reasoning contributes to destruction.
Bercot contrasts this with early Christian practice elsewhere in the chapter: they took Jesus’ commands “literally,” implying a guardrail of straightforward obedience and restraint from innovations.
Discussion Follow-ups
What “honoring Jesus” arguments are used today to justify teachings or practices that Jesus never commanded?
