Do a lot of Protestants NOT believe in the Virginal Conception?

[sarah_anne_628]

Good for you

Same for me … Christians exist in a number of various churches. I do feel after studing early Church history … than God’s universal church is Catholic. Protestants have 1600 years of Christian roots in the Catholic church …which they don’t talk much of.

But, Protestants do have some issues they need to address:

OSAS, not doing weekly Eucharist, overlooking Confirmation, and letting the Morals of their faith dissolve away over last 50 years.

This is why many openminded Protestants are investigating Catholocism today. Catholics need to see/seize all opportunities to welcome Protestants back … after 400 years of separation. Christ does not desire us to be fighting each other … we need to unify.

I used to be a big OSAS advocate because one cannot earn their salvation…it is a gift freely given by God if we only accept it. But I had trouble with it because there were parts in the Bible that contradicted it. I think that it is a possibility that once you are truly saved, then your name is written on the scroll and cannot be removed…but then, the Bible isn’t real clear on this point. So I think it’s dangerous to be preaching this doctrine from the pulpit. There may be a lot of people who think they are saved who are not and continue to sin but they figure they can’t lose their salvation.

The one thing the Bible is VERY clear about is striving for holiness, fleeing sin and temptation, be ever vigilant.

I also take issue with the evangelical notion of the Rapture. The Bible is not real clear whether or not the ‘saved’ will be spared from the Tribulation. I think it’s dangerous to be teaching people that they’re gonna miss it. What if it doesn’t happen that way? False teachings will cause many to lose faith. We need to be prepared to face all kinds of persecutions and tribulations and even torture and death for Christ.

I’m not quite sure what Catholic teachings are on the end times. I’ve only been Catholic for less than a month.

One thing I would like to point out, though, is evangelical churches are growing while traditional protestant churches’ (methodist, presbyterian) membership roles are declining…alot of this may have to do with the protestants increasingly liberal theology and practices. They are caving in and watering down the message of Christ and the call to repentence.

The Methodist minister that married my husband and I didn’t even believe that Jesus was the Son of God!!! We didn’t know this until the day before we got married and my husband was ready to call it off until we found a different minister! We went with him because I didn’t have a home church and we weren’t getting married in my husband’s hometown. This minister was an old family friend. We were really worried about the validity of our marriage when it came time to converting…but they assured us that since WE knew the Truth and we believed our vows were taken before God, that it didn’t matter what the minister to believe. So we did get our radical sanation (or whatever it is called).

 

[sarah_anne_628]

I think Mary definately could have refused the call to be the Mother of God. I think she was chosen by God because she was especially Holy and like David, after God’s own heart.

It is difficult to say why Zechariah was punished and Mary was not. Although the Bible is a little ambiguous about it, I think the difference is that Zechariah actually doubted the possibility…his faith was weak. Mary, on the other hand, was doubting that it could happen, but rather, was questioning the logistics of it all.

It’s kind of like why did God accept Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. The Bible doesn’t really say…but again, I think it has something to do with Cain’s heart and faith…they weren’t in the right place when he made the sacrifice.

Anyway, I had trouble with that, too, until I heard my preacher explain it years ago.

Uh…whoops…I meant, Mary was NOT doubting…lol

 

[Swan]

I don’t know any Christian who doesn’t belive in the Virgin birth. I know folks, both Catholic and Protestant, who think the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, not her being born without sin. As for her perpetual virginity, I doubt many of the Protestants I know have ever given it much thought and I doubt they’d think it was very important one way or another.

 

[po18guy]

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. After that, there really isn’t much teaching on it…but it is generally assumed that Mary and Joseph were man and wife in every sense and that when someone tells Jesus his mother and brothers are here…most Protestants assume that means Jesus’ biological brothers.

Protestants flat out reject that Mary was free from original sin her entire life.

I am a former Southern Baptist, recently converted to the Catholic Church. Honestly, I still kind of hold to my Protestant ideas of Mary…but I am a work in progress.

I came in a some time ago too. I had “the Mary problem”, like so many others. The Holy Spirit, however, erased them over time, sometimes in big chunks. Remain faithful and, just like Candid Camera “some time, somewhere, when you least expect it…” the last objections will be overcome.

The surprising contrast is that while both Peter and Mary are venerated in the church, many non-Catholics tend to tear them down, even picking and choosing scripture :bigyikes: to support their view. Imagine that…

Christ’s peace.

 

[Contarini]

In response to the OP: a number of liberal Protestants do not believe in the virginal conception, at least not in a literal sense. Whether this is “a lot” depends on your definition, but it’s definitely a minority of all Protestants. This view is more common in Europe than in the U.S., (for some German Protestant theologians it’s almost become unorthodox to say that you believe in the virginal conception!), and as you’d expect is very rare in the “Third World.”

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

I also take issue with the evangelical notion of the Rapture. The Bible is not real clear whether or not the ‘saved’ will be spared from the Tribulation. I think it’s dangerous to be teaching people that they’re gonna miss it. What if it doesn’t happen that way? False teachings will cause many to lose faith. We need to be prepared to face all kinds of persecutions and tribulations and even torture and death for Christ.

Off topic, but it seems to say, in Christ’s own words, we will be subjected to tribulation, since the “saved” are the “elect”:

Matthew 24:21-23 “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.”

And:

Mark 13:3-27 (edited) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come…**And the gospel must first be preached to all nations…he who stands firm to the end will be saved.**Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible…At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

The tribulation will affect the elect, but the days have been shortened. We must still persevere to the end. However, it will not be pretty. This will be the real, and final test of our faith.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Off topic, but it seems to say, in Christ’s own words, we will be subjected to tribulation, since the “saved” are the “elect”:

Matthew 24:21-23 “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.”

And:

Mark 13:3-27 (edited) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come…And the gospel must first be preached to all nations…he who stands firm to the end will be saved.Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible…At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

The tribulation will affect the elect, but the days have been shortened. We must still persevere to the end. However, it will not be pretty. This will be the real, and final test of our faith.

I stand corrected. The Bible isn’t as ambiguous as I thought about it.

 

[BRB]

I used to be a big OSAS advocate because one cannot earn their salvation…it is a gift freely given by God if we only accept it. But I had trouble with it because there were parts in the Bible that contradicted it. I think that it is a possibility that once you are truly saved, then your name is written on the scroll and cannot be removed…but then, the Bible isn’t real clear on this point. There may be a lot of people who think they are saved who are not and continue to sin but they figure they can’t lose their salvation.

).

Was raised in Southern Baptist church. I would ask as child about those Bible verses talking of the H.S. … and what it meant for us. Many would say … “Oh thats referring to speaking in tongues, like the Assembly church folks do, we don’t go there … H.S. was meant for the early church believers”.

Others would speak of their salvations jokingly, … as having once taken out their “Fire Insurance Policys”. Next the pastor was caught with the deacon’s 30 yo. divorced daughter. At least the Church insisted he leave as their pastor, but many left that Church … never to return.

Later in life, it was an Assembly Church believer who explained the H.S. to me. He didn’t speak in tongues … but, he knew what the Bible concept of H.S. was all about, and had practically memorized the Bible.

IMO … the most ‘effective/instructive’ Christian would be an Assembly Christian, who later finds home in the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

I stand corrected. The Bible isn’t as ambiguous as I thought about it.

Once the church split in two, and its authority to teach and interpret was rejected, the concept of private interpretation rose in prominence. Of course, the truth is not subject to private interpretation, so this has lead to various errors in theology. Christ predicted this, saying that even the elect would be lead astray.

I can only surmise as to where the concept of the ‘rapture’ came from, but it has taken on a life of its own. Belief in the concept has grown even though Christ assures us we will be tested to our limits in the tribulation that is to come. Our desire to avoid testing and suffering is completely understandable, as even Christ’s human nature craved a "rapture’ while He was praying at Gethsemane, that “this cup” would pass Him by. Thank the Lord He submitted in obedience to the Will of the Father.

Since Christ did not spare Himself suffering, not avoiding even one lash of the whip for our sake, how can we desire to avoid suffering for the sake of His Kingdom? A ‘rapture’ could happen, since the Lord may do what He wills, but won’t any such sparing of pain make us similar to the Pharisees, who sought comfort in this life? Christ said about them, “I assure you, they have already received their reward” Thus, they forfeited the next life for luxuries in this world.

An eternity of joy in the Lord’s Kingdom is worth many lifetimes of suffering! We are clearly not to desire comfort in this life, but rather in the next. We are to desire only Christ’s peace:

John 16:33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Christ, our Hope. Amen!

 

[Pinkyyy]

Your final comment is a clue as to where you may be having some difficulty. Your evangelical heritage will not fall away so easily without a little work on first principles. One of the first principles of Evangelicals is a self-sufficient private judgment. This principle is itself very unbiblical. The Holy Spirit is unable to help those who close their ears to His truths. The Catholic Church should be looked upon, in matters of biblical interpretation, as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is in fact paramount, and a first principle with Catholics.

It’s not an easy road you have decided to follow, and few would be willing to suffer the mortifications of shedding a lifetime of presumed truths. But your reward will be truly great, and your Faith profoundly deepened if you can stay on it.

So you are saying that EVERYTHING the church has done is from the Holy Spirit? How about the selling of indulgences, killing of innocents back in the day? Why then when a new pope is elected is he not elected immediately by a 100% unanimous vote through the Holy Spirit? How come the Catholic church changes positions then sometimes when dealing with things such as allowing priests to marry (They used to a looooong time ago, and then suddenly changed this view). I mean, this is not consistent. If the CC speaks for the Holy Spirit, all of these things wouldn’t hapen.

 

[po18guy]

So you are saying that EVERYTHING the church has done is from the Holy Spirit? How about the selling of indulgences, killing of innocents back in the day? Why then when a new pope is elected is he not elected immediately by a 100% unanimous vote through the Holy Spirit? How come the Catholic church changes positions then sometimes when dealing with things such as allowing priests to marry (They used to a looooong time ago, and then suddenly changed this view). I mean, this is not consistent. If the CC speaks for the Holy Spirit, all of these things wouldn’t hapen.

Whoa! What a landslide! 1. Sale of indulgences is not a part of the truth the church teaches. The church is made up of sinners, just like your church. You cannot judge the truth based on the actions of sinful men. The truth always remains the truth. 2. Which innocents? You’ll need to specify what you are talking about here. 3. The Holy Spirit blows where He will. He sees that there is sufficient influence to elect a replacement Pope. We humans are not robots who march in lockstep. Look at Paul’s writings and you can see that was the case way back in the early church. 4. Celibate priests are not a truth. They are a discipline that is taught by the church. Jesus was celibate. Paul was celibate. Pretty good examples. Discipline is not dogma. Dogma does not change. Disciplines can and do, because the world is changing.

I believe the Apostles would be shocked if they attended any church service today, so much has changed since their day. However, they would recognize exactly what was being accomplished in the Catholic Church, because its substance is exactly what they accomplished in their day, only in different form.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Harmony1988]

I know as a Protestant and even as a new Catholic, I have trouble with Marian doctrine because it is weak on Biblical evidence. And the ole Baptist in me says, ‘if it ain’t in the Bible then it ain’t necessarily so’. End of story.

My first instructor will always be the Bible as I understand through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is both incorrect and not biblical.

It isn’t weak on biblical evidence, nowhere does it state in the Bible that Mary had intercourse, so believing Mary DID have intercouse is what is weak on evidence. The Bible doesn’t state Mary did have intercourse, so why are protestants propagating this if it’s not in the Bible?

Your first instructor is the Church, not the Bible, unless you happen to be some exegete with an understanding of aramaic, greek, latin as well as an ancient culture:

1 Timothy 3:15 - The pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church.

Why? because the general public aren’t fluent in ancient languages or ancient cultures to make accurate interpretations.

The reason so many protestant denominations exist today is because people take it upon themselves to making vital decisions after reading the Bible, it is ony thing to know your scriptural verses. But on important topics as this, it is best to leave it to people who understand the Bible in their original languages.

English is not a complete language like Greek or Latin, it lacks a lot of words and distinctions available in the older languages which had more time to develop, as a result, translating back and forth is a nightmare.

 

[Harmony1988]

So you are saying that EVERYTHING the church has done is from the Holy Spirit? How about the selling of indulgences, killing of innocents back in the day? Why then when a new pope is elected is he not elected immediately by a 100% unanimous vote through the Holy Spirit? How come the Catholic church changes positions then sometimes when dealing with things such as allowing priests to marry (They used to a looooong time ago, and then suddenly changed this view). I mean, this is not consistent. If the CC speaks for the Holy Spirit, all of these things wouldn’t hapen.

Decisions such as priest’s marriage can actually be changed, because they are more traditional things. It doesn’t forbid such things in the Bible, but they are kept for various reasons.

The selling of indulgences were an abuse back in the day. It’s not done anymore and that however doesn’t justify the protestant movement.

Where did Martin Luther a man who thought the epistle of James’ was false get the authority to say such a thing?

He encouraged people to sin as much as they wanted to because they were already saved. How can one justify why so many protestant denominations exist(30,000), all offering the ‘truth’. We could be here all day finding faults.

 

[Cranch]

This is a very overwhelming process…especially considering that our (my husband and I) call to the Catholic Church only began on Christmas Eve and we didn’t join RCIA until early January. And we got Confirmed in March!

Sarah Anne - I rejoice in you and your husband entering the Catholic Church which has Jesus as its founder. Welcome! May God bless you both.:hug3:

Well, like I said, I am not closing my mind off the possibilty of perpetual virginity and free from original sin. And I also realize that if I do eventually accept it…it will have to be on faith. There will be no hard and fast proof of this.

Just as everything you currently accept as true about Jesus or about the Bible as the Word of God, you have taken on faith without “hard and fast proof.” So it is with the Marian Dogmas (Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Assumption into heaven). Acceptance of these truths, by the way, is not optional for Catholics; but doubt is human. Pray about it but use reason as well. A lot has been written over 2000 years about the Catholic understanding of Mary and her role in God’s plan. Be sure to read some of it and see if it begins to make sense to you. I’m betting it will!

I do not accept the Catechism of the statements of the Vatican to be the FINAL authority…only the Bible can be that. The Bible is what is God breathed…and though inspired by the Holy Spirit, no doubt, the writings of the Catholic Church come second. But that doesn’t mean any of us can easily dismiss what the Church says…but we do need to turn to prayer and the Scriptures. Even though the Church Fathers have devoted their lives to prayer and the study of Holy Scripture and have a fairly authoritive interpretation, they are still human…even when guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus fallible.

And yet before the New Testament was ever written, the Incarnate Word turned to his apostles sayingeace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (John 20:21-22)
I don’t believe after that they went out and taught error. And what they taught, what they learned directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit is what the Church teaches today. The Catechism describes it this way:76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• *orally *“by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.

**77 **" In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

**78 **This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”
By the way, extra-biblical Catholic writing, no matter how enlightening or faithful is not “inspired by the Holy Spirit” in the way Scripture is. However Sacred Scripture and Tradition are two distinct means of transmission of the one deposit of faith and are to be held in equal esteem. Again from the Catechism:**81 **“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
" And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[Cranch]

The Bible condones ‘questioning’ church elders…the book of Acts describes the Church in Berea, where the Christians searched the Scriptures to make sure what the apostles were saying was true. Acts says this is right.

Actually it was the Jews of Berea, who searched their own Scripture for evidence of the rightness of Paul and Silas’s teaching about Christ, and as a result they believed. It was not a case of Christians questioning their own leaders. There was no Church there yet at the time: The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men. (Acts 17:10-12)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So you are saying that EVERYTHING the church has done is from the Holy Spirit? How about the selling of indulgences, killing of innocents back in the day? Why then when a new pope is elected is he not elected immediately by a 100% unanimous vote through the Holy Spirit? How come the Catholic church changes positions then sometimes when dealing with things such as allowing priests to marry (They used to a looooong time ago, and then suddenly changed this view). I mean, this is not consistent. If the CC speaks for the Holy Spirit, all of these things wouldn’t hapen.

Pinkyyy person, this was in my quote that you pasted yourself:

The Catholic Church should be looked upon, in matters of biblical interpretation, as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is in fact paramount, and a first principle with Catholics.

Everything you objected has no bearing on this. Some of the stuff you were objecting (like priests marrying) is just a Church discipline, not any sort of doctrine.

I was also replying to sarah_anne_628, but I’m sure she understood what I meant.

But sarah_anne_628 has all my best wishes. She is on a very difficult road, and progress can be slow at times, she really just needs encouragement from us!

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Actually it was the Jews of Berea, who searched their own Scripture for evidence of the rightness of Paul and Silas’s teaching about Christ, and as a result they believed. It was not a case of Christians questioning their own leaders. There was no Church there yet at the time: The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men. (Acts 17:10-12)

Good point.

Well, then view me as the Church in Berea and the Catholic Church as Paul and Silas…I am still examining the Scriptures to determine whether the things the Church are saying are 'so. ’ Since the Catholic Church has not been, up until recently, my ‘church leader’.

Did any of that make sense? Maybe I am making a bad example.


In other words, please be patient in my unbelief.