2 questions for non-catholics, that were always on my mind as a former non-catholic...

[AmateurPianist]

1. Just as catholics embrace the teachings of the catholic church regarding Marian doctrines shouldn’t non-catholics embrace the teachings of the original men that spearheaded the protestant reformation, regarding Mary?

I am just going to answer this one…

We do not believe that the men who spearheaded the protestant reformation to be incapable of being incorrect. Thus just because Martin Luther or John Calvin or John Wesley as godly as these men may or may not be believed something, that is not sufficient for us to accept it as gospel truth.

Furthermore for some of us the historical affinity we may have with say Martin Luther is kind of tenuous. As for me I am more of a John Wesley guy myself.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Hey Comp…

Protestant scholars insist that in Luke 1:28, the phrase used is kecharitomene and in Acts 6:8 the phrase used is pleres charitos and that pleres charitos does not have the grammatical construction of kecharitomene. In other words, it doesn’t refer to Stephen as having been filled completely with grace at some point in the past, as is the case with kecharitomene. Acts seems to describe Stephen as “full of grace” at that moment in time, where as Luke actually refers to Mary, by name, as kecharitomene which, according tom protestant scholars, is translated as: “Hail, Having-Been-Made-Fully-Graced.”

Greek Bible (NT):

kecaritwmenh
kecharitOmenE
G5487
vp Perf Pas Nom Sg f
Having-been-graced

How do you think CARM would address the preceding and answer the following?

1)How can those who reject the notion that Mary was in a state of grace her entire life, know, with certainty, that Jesus’ mother is now forever with Jesus, and not in hell? Simply saying that Mary was a good person is not any kind of guarantee, just as it isn’t for me or you!

1. Just as catholics embrace the teachings of the catholic church regarding Marian doctrines shouldn’t non-catholics embrace the teachings of the original men that spearheaded the protestant reformation, regarding Mary?

CARM conveniently left those details out of their article. Glad you cleared that up for me.

As for 1), I expect that they would say Mary is in heaven because she accepted her Son as her Lord and Savior. I guess it’s a given since she said yes to God at the annunciation and was with the apostles the whole time including at Pentecost. You have to understand though that protestants don’t typically have the same view of mortal/venial sins that we have so thus the question doesn’t really apply for them.

As for 2) what they would say is that the reformers believed in those things because they were sort of the norm at the time and were generally accepted. The view that most evangelicals that I know have is that all truth is contained in the Bible and that over time, since the reformation, through continuous study of the Bible the truth has been refined further and further to what evangelicals have today, and certain “traditions of men” such as marian dogma and baptismal regeneration were filtered out through the continual close study of scripture. I now find this view absurd but I think that when the idea of sola scriptura is beaten into your head from the time you are a child (as it was for me) it just sort of makes sense when you think of it this way.

 

[joe370]

Joe, that ol’ mantra may be true for some, but I would say not for most, certainly not for the Reformation era communions. Aside from Concord, there’s the 39 Articles, Westminster, and other confessions. I think that ol’ mantra stands taller in the Catholic perception of western non-Catholics than in reality.

Jon

EDIT. PS. I might also add off topic that the Trinity is pretty clear at the Baptism of Christ: God the Son being Baptized, God the Father’s voice from Heaven, God the SPirit descending as a dove.

Of course Jon. I was only referring to folks who view the bible alone, and nothing else, as the Christians only source of authority.

The father and son being one is quite scriptural, but, as far as I can tell, the idea that the father and the holy spirit are one or the son and the holy spirit are one, is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, is it? Perhaps I have over looked it; wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[joe370]

(as it was for me) it just sort of makes sense when you think of it this way.

That’s a really good point. It can be difficult to strip away all of that indoctrination…

 

[joe370]

AmateurPianist;8446313]I am just going to answer this one…

We do not believe that the men who spearheaded the protestant reformation to be incapable of being incorrect.

The protestant reformers also did not believe the leaders of their former CC to be incapable of being incorrect, which was why they bailed and this protestant contention continues to apply to all churches, thereby making truth, possibly, unknowable. This idea that no one is incapable of being incorrect, regarding doctrinal truth taught and passed on by Jesus, was, and continues to be, a never ending search for truth and the reason, if you are right, why truth will always be challenged, and why we continue to see so many reformed churches claiming to have truth all the while repeating what you have just said.

Thus just because Martin Luther or John Calvin or John Wesley as godly as these men may or may not be believed something, that is not sufficient for us to accept it as gospel truth.

Case in point!

Furthermore for some of us the historical affinity we may have with say Martin Luther is kind of tenuous. As for me I am more of a John Wesley guy myself.

But, like you said, you see no point in embracing the teachings of the 18th century reformer John Wesley, for scripture alone is the only authority that you trust - correct?

Of course, if scripture alone is your only authority then that makes your interpretation of your one and only authority either correct or incorrect, and of course you (like me) - do not believe that you are incapable of being incorrect either - right?

Regarding doctrinal truth, where does this kind of thinking leave the men and women of Christendom?

 

[joe370]

AbideWithMe;8445731]Matthew–

However, I’m still left wondering why God would exempt Mary from the daily struggle with sin which even saints such as Paul faced—if He could exempt her so easily, why not all of us who truly desire it?

I too used to feel the same way until it occurred to me that Mary didn’t receive her unique sinless state simply because she desired it. She probably didn’t even know about it until after the annunciation. I came to believe that Mary, as per the teachings of the CC, was predestined from her conception to be kecharitomene (full of grace). No matter how much she would have desired to be sinless, if Mary, the mother of God, hadn’t been predestined to be full of grace, by the power of God, then she certainly could have never availed herself of it, just as you and I cannot.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[pablope]

Matthew–

Thanks for your reply. I do think I understand the Theotokos concept, both in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I’ve found it very interesting—my predominate area of Biblical interest has leaned toward the Old Testament and Jewish studies, so the idea of attempting a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is intriguing.

 

[joe370]

Hey Richard…

This statement is not quite true. There are others that were/are full of grace.

Romans 11:5
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This remnant chose grace, “election”, through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.

Acts 6:8 would be even a better example. However, as I have mentioned before:

Protestant scholars insist that in Luke 1:28, the phrase used is kecharitomene and in Acts 6:8 the phrase used is pleres charitos and that pleres charitos does not have the grammatical construction of kecharitomene, and based on my research they appear to be correct, but don’t take my word on it; check for yourself, and correct me if I am wrong. In other words, pleres charitos doesn’t refer to Stephen as having been filled completely with grace at some point in the past, as is the case with kecharitomene. Acts is describing Stephen as “full of grace” at that particular moment in time, where as Luke actually refers to Mary, by name, as kecharitomene which, according tom protestant scholars, is translated as: “Hail, Having-Been-Made-Fully-Graced.” If the angel Gabriel actually said to Mary, hello having been fully graced, then Gabriel would not have been describing Mary as “full of grace” only at that particular moment in time, as was the case in Acts 6. Every Christian, upon being baptized, is for that moment in time, completely full of grace.

Let me know if you think I am wrong? Please provide support for your claim?

Jesus’ mother is not in hell neither is she in heaven. She is dead.

Psalm 146
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Ecc.9
5For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Forgotten from those that still lived? Yes. However, the spirit cannot die, but I do agree that the gates of heaven were certainly closed, to all, prior to the advent of Jesus.

Mary is dead???

The Sadducees uttered something similar regarding the resurrection:

"Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him…Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.”

I certainly respect the reformers, however they did not go far enough. My final authority is the bible.

Your final authority is your interpretation of your final authority, which is the bible - correct? Just a yes or no will better help me understand where you are coming from.

Richard, when will “far enough” finally be reached? For example, the protestant reformers did not believe the leaders of their former CC to be incapable of being incorrect, which was why they bailed and this protestant contention continues to apply to all churches, thereby making truth, possibly, unknowable. This idea that no one is incapable of being incorrect, regarding doctrinal truth taught and passed on by Jesus, was, and continues to be, a never ending search for truth and the reason why truth will always be challenged, and why we continue to see so many reformed churches claiming to have truth all the while insisting that no one is incapable of being incorrect.

 

[joe370]

Pablope, you said:

And the closer you get to God, the harder the trials…have you not noticed this?

Big time…

And the more you…or rather, we should persevere, isn’t it?

Saints were also put into this kind of trials…and it was to test their faith and to get them closer to God…some were even attacked by the devil…and it was with God’s permission. Most recent example is Padre Pio.

I just love reading the stories of the saints. They inspire me big time!!! Padre Pio is one of my all time favorites.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Of course Jon. I was only referring to folks who view the bible alone, and nothing else, as the Christians only source of authority.

The father and son being one is quite scriptural, but, as far as I can tell, the idea that the father and the holy spirit are one or the son and the holy spirit are one, is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, is it? Perhaps I have over looked it; wouldn’t be the first time.

1Jn.5
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Ginger2]

Excuse me if I missed a post and someone has already pointed this out, but the answer seems rather obvious to me:

Martin Luther was raised Catholic and believed everything the RC taught until he became upset with a few men who were, in his opinion, playing on the fears of unsuspecting naive christians for their own personal gain. When he tried to report the offenses to the pope and it back-fired on him - that is when he left the church.

So, it wasn’t a matter of a man denying everything he believed all his life, but a matter of trying to bring the people back into truth.

The idea that Mary was a woman in need of a redeemer, born with the same sin nature as every other human being, (in their minds) was just part of discovering you have been lied to (their opinion, not my accusation) and then searching to find out what else may be amiss in the teachings they once received without question.

In-other-words, the teachings of the Catholic Church came under question and these men began to scrutinized everything they once believed to determine what was and wasn’t true as they no longer believed they could trust the RC. It didn’t happen in an instance, but over a long period of time.

Perhaps, if Luther had lived longer, he would have also taught Mary was a sinner like everyone else. IDK

 

[JamestheOlder]

Hey James. How, in your opinion, would “protestants” answer the the original questions of the thread:

1)How can those who reject the notion that Mary was in a state of grace her entire life, know, with certainty, that Jesus’ mother is now forever with Jesus, and not in hell? Simply saying that Mary was a good person is not any kind of guarantee, just as it isn’t for me or you!

1. Just as catholics embrace the teachings of the catholic church regarding Marian doctrines shouldn’t non-catholics embrace the teachings of the original men that spearheaded the protestant reformation, regarding Mary?

Sorry I’m back so far through the thread, Joe. My answers would be these:

1. Those who question Mary’s state of grace throughout her life could not know for certain she is with Jesus. In their minds, they have no “Biblical” proof. We Catholics have dogmatic teaching that she was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. The differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Christian thought is the answer to Question 2, below.
2. Not necessarily. Non-Catholic Christians approach faith in a different manner than Catholics. As a usual rule, their theology and practices and, yes, even belief can change, because it always must be based on someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible. They have no basis for faith in tradition, even the traditions of the original “reformers”. Catholics affirm Tradition (capital T) as superior to the New Testament of the Bible, because Tradition existed for some 300 years BEFORE the New Testament canon was established. So we have a Tradition, now stated as dogma, that May was born without original sin (IC), that she is ever-virgin before and after marriage to Joseph, and at the time of her death was assumed (live) into Heaven, where she reigns as “Queen of Heaven” with her Son as King. That she was tested throughout her life to sin, just as her Son was, goes without saying.

One other comment. We have to be specific about the use of “Protestant”. Those Christian churches which can trace their roots to Calvin, Zwingli and Luther are properly called “Protestant”. Those, including Wesley with his “Method” who trace theirs to Anglicanism are not really “Protestant”…they are separated from the Roman Church as are many of the Eastern Churches (there are substantial differences there) . I have had a few Methodist ministers advise me they are part of the creedal “catholic” church…they consider themselves separated from the CC, but are not properly called “Protestant”. Baptists, for example, reject the creeds (Nicene, Apostles’), but their link to the Protestant reformers is tenuous, at best. They would be more correctly described as “fundamentalist”, in the best sense of the word, in that they seek to believe (what for them is) only the fundamental concepts of Christianity which they can find in the New Testament.

That last is just to “stir the pot”.

 

[joe370]

1Jn.5
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I cant’ find your version in the Greek bible as well as many other bibles. What I do find is:

This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. Please correct me if I wrong?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hey Richard…

Acts 6:8 would be even a better example. However, as I have mentioned before:

Protestant scholars insist that in Luke 1:28, the phrase used is kecharitomene and in Acts 6:8 the phrase used is pleres charitos and that pleres charitos does not have the grammatical construction of kecharitomene, and based on my research they appear to be correct, but don’t take my word on it; check for yourself, and correct me if I am wrong. In other words, pleres charitos doesn’t refer to Stephen as having been filled completely with grace at some point in the past, as is the case with kecharitomene. Acts is describing Stephen as “full of grace” at that particular moment in time, where as Luke actually refers to Mary, by name, as kecharitomene which, according tom protestant scholars, is translated as: “Hail, Having-Been-Made-Fully-Graced.” If the angel Gabriel actually said to Mary, hello having been fully graced, then Gabriel would not have been describing Mary as “full of grace” only at that particular moment in time, as was the case in Acts 6. Every Christian, upon being baptized, is for that moment in time, completely full of grace.
Let me know if you think I am wrong? Please provide support for your claim?

I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning here. The word used in Luke 1:28 is charitoo
G5487 which means

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3. to honour with blessings

It is used twice in Eph.1
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein [he hath made]G5487 us [accepted]G5487 in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

You will notice in Eph.1:6 it is used to indicate those who “have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” in verse 7. So, it can be deduced that it is being used the same way in Luke 1:28

Forgotten from those that still lived? Yes. However, the spirit cannot die, but I do agree that the gates of heaven were certainly closed, to all, prior to the advent of Jesus.

Ecc.12
7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Mary is dead???

The Sadducees uttered something similar regarding the resurrection:

"Then some of the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection, came to Him and asked Him…Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.”

I certainly did not say that I do not believe in the resurrection. Here’s what it says in Matt22
29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Jesus here is quite obviously talking about the resurrection.

Your final authority is your interpretation of your final authority, which is the bible - correct? Just a yes or no will better help me understand where you are coming from.

My final authority is the bible, the word of God. If you read the bible prayerfully and submit to the Spirit of God, truth will be revealed.

Richard, when will “far enough” finally be reached? For example, the protestant reformers did not believe the leaders of their former CC to be incapable of being incorrect, which was why they bailed and this protestant contention continues to apply to all churches, thereby making truth, possibly, unknowable. This idea that no one is incapable of being incorrect, regarding doctrinal truth taught and passed on by Jesus, was, and continues to be, a never ending search for truth and the reason why truth will always be challenged, and why we continue to see so many reformed churches claiming to have truth all the while insisting that no one is incapable of being incorrect.

So, then you being a Catholic and following those who are “incapable of being incorrect” are also “incapable of being incorrect.” Right?

 

[joe370]

Hey Ginger…

Martin Luther was raised Catholic and believed everything the RC taught until he became upset with a few men who were, in his opinion, playing on the fears of unsuspecting naive christians for their own personal gain. When he tried to report the offenses to the pope and it back-fired on him - that is when he left the church.

So, it wasn’t a matter of a man denying everything he believed all his life, but a matter of trying to bring the people back into truth.

Every non-Catholic scholar agrees with you; well said…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8446566]
The father and son being one is quite scriptural, but, as far as I can tell, the idea that the father and the holy spirit are one or the son and the holy spirit are one, is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, is it? Perhaps I have over looked it; wouldn’t be the first time

Hi Joe,
Mark 1:10-11 *And forthwith coming up out of he water, he saw the heavens opened, and **the Spirit *as a dove descending, and remaining on him. 11 And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
From the DRB. It uses the article “the”, and capitalized “Spirit”, and not “a spirit”. It is, ISTM, rather specific.
But off topic, Joe. Sorry.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Ginger2;8447478]Excuse me if I missed a post and someone has already pointed this out, but the answer seems rather obvious to me:

Martin Luther was raised Catholic and believed everything the RC taught until he became upset with a few men who were, in his opinion, playing on the fears of unsuspecting naive christians for their own personal gain. When he tried to report the offenses to the pope and it back-fired on him - that is when he left the church.

So, it wasn’t a matter of a man denying everything he believed all his life, but a matter of trying to bring the people back into truth.

The idea that Mary was a woman in need of a redeemer, born with the same sin nature as every other human being, (in their minds) was just part of discovering you have been lied to (their opinion, not my accusation) and then searching to find out what else may be amiss in the teachings they once received without question.

I don’t believe Catholics think that the Blessed Virgin wasn’t in need of a redeemer

In-other-words, the teachings of the Catholic Church came under question and these men began to scrutinized everything they once believed to determine what was and wasn’t true as they no longer believed they could trust the RC. It didn’t happen in an instance, but over a long period of time.

Perhaps, if Luther had lived longer, he would have also taught Mary was a sinner like everyone else. IDK

Gee, Ginger, you make it sound like he died 2 weeks after the posting of the 95 Theses.
In 1527 he said, It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"

But whether or not one believes in the IC, it seems reasonable to believe that she was “full of grace” and clean of stain of sin by God’s grace at least from the time of the Angel’s visitation.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey JamestheOlder…

Sorry I’m back so far through the thread, Joe. My answers would be these:

1. Those who question Mary’s state of grace throughout her life could not know for certain she is with Jesus. In their minds, they have no “Biblical” proof.

Exactly.

We Catholics have dogmatic teaching that she was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven. The differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Christian thought is the answer to Question 2, below.
2) Not necessarily. Non-Catholic Christians approach faith in a different manner than Catholics. As a usual rule, their theology and practices and, yes, even belief can change, because it always must be based on someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible. They have no basis for faith in tradition, even the traditions of the original “reformers”. Catholics affirm Tradition (capital T) as superior to the New Testament of the Bible, because Tradition existed for some 300 years BEFORE the New Testament canon was established. So we have a Tradition, now stated as dogma, that May was born without original sin (IC), that she is ever-virgin before and after marriage to Joseph, and at the time of her death was assumed (live) into Heaven, where she reigns as “Queen of Heaven” with her Son as King. That she was tested throughout her life to sin, just as her Son was, goes without saying.

One other comment. We have to be specific about the use of “Protestant”. Those Christian churches which can trace their roots to Calvin, Zwingli and Luther are properly called “Protestant”. Those, including Wesley with his “Method” who trace theirs to Anglicanism are not really “Protestant”…they are separated from the Roman Church as are many of the Eastern Churches (there are substantial differences there) . I have had a few Methodist ministers advise me they are part of the creedal “catholic” church…they consider themselves separated from the CC, but are not properly called “Protestant”. Baptists, for example, reject the creeds (Nicene, Apostles’), but their link to the Protestant reformers is tenuous, at best. They would be more correctly described as “fundamentalist”, in the best sense of the word, in that they seek to believe (what for them is) only the fundamental concepts of Christianity which they can find in the New Testament.

It all can get a tad confusing… Thanks for the feedback friend…

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
Mark 1:10-11 *And forthwith coming up out of he water, he saw the heavens opened, and **the Spirit ***as a dove descending, and remaining on him. 11 And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
From the DRB. It uses the article “the”, and capitalized “Spirit”, and not “a spirit”. It is, ISTM, rather specific.
But off topic, Joe. Sorry.

Jon

That’s cool; thanks for the feedback Jon,

 

[JonNC]

That’s cool; thanks for the feedback Jon,

Hey Joe,
Just out of curiousity, when you were Lutheran, how much did you know about Luther’s mariology? How much do your Lutheran relatives know about it?

Jon