Do any Protestants believe in the Assumption?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the Assumption cannot be proven or disproven then I question why it matters.
I believe it matters because she is the “image” of the Bride of Christ. The Church. She is our hope. We believe, we the Church will be cleansed with the blood of the Lamb & presented to Him spotless.

The Assumption is worthy of a lifetime of meditation.
 
40.png
Dlee:
40.png
De_Maria:
It is in the Bible. Rev 12:1
We didn’t believe this referred to Mary -
If it does refer to Mary then verse two confirms she experienced normal childbirth pain. Wouldn’t all priests know this?
It does refer to Mary and no, verse two is a symbolic reference to the suffering she felt when her Son was rejected by His own people and when He suffered the Passion.
 
It does refer to Mary and no, verse two is a symbolic reference to the suffering she felt when her Son was rejected by His own people and when He suffered the Passion.
So many ways to look at that. Another I am fond of is the lady is the Church, which is Mary, she gives birth to a Son, us as the body of Christ (the Church), & what we are going through in this life are the pangs of child birth.

But yes, the Woman Clothe in the Sun is Mary.
 
40.png
De_Maria:
It does refer to Mary and no, verse two is a symbolic reference to the suffering she felt when her Son was rejected by His own people and when He suffered the Passion.
So many ways to look at that. Another I am fond of is the lady is the Church, which is Mary, she gives birth to a Son, us as the body of Christ (the Church), & what we are going through in this life are the pangs of child birth.

But yes, the Woman Clothe in the Sun is Mary.
You have stimulated my interest in knowing how you understand the rest of the chapter!
 
Thanks for the reply, EnglishTeacher. Yes, I am aware of the theological significance of that council and heartily accept its findings. For the sake of my faith journey, I wish that council had taken place in a city such as Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, Constantinople, or some other city than the former avid capital and focal point for worship of the goddess, Artemis, for hundreds of years, that Ephesus was. If interested, people can reference Acts 19:34-37 as background text.

Some critics say that just like Christmas was a pagan holiday that was co-opted into a Christian one by the early Christians, critics claim that the goddess Artemis was replaced by an elevated version of Mary and co-opted to placate those who longed for the female divine that had been taken away from them by the Christians.

I realize this may seem laughable and a far-fetched notion for most Catholics, but it is an idea in the back of my head that I can’t seem to shake and it remains a stumbling block that keeps me from fully accepting Mary as Catholics see her. Any help would be appreciated.

When I look at Mary as Jesus’ beloved mother who deserves people to call her “Blessed Among Women” and view her as someone who the Holy Spirit empowered with “full of grace”, I have no problems with Mary. However, when I see some Catholics that I have met in person pray to her instead of Jesus as if the two were interchangeable, I see that as a problem. For example, I had a problem once that I confided to a Catholic lady whom I know, and she said she would pray to the Virgin on my behalf, as if the Virgin Mary had the power to answer my prayer instead of Jesus.I politely thanked her because I didn’t want to hurt her feelings and I knew her heart was in the right place.
 
Last edited:
Jesus told John to take care of Mary while at the cross. She was present at Pentecost. As a Protestant, there’s no reason biblically to believe Mary was sinless, a perpetual virgin, or assumed into Heaven.

I’m pretty sure we all know these verses. Romans 3 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Nowhere in scripture is this refuted by claiming Mary was sinless. Scripture does state Jesus had brothers and sisters which means Mary fulfilled her duties as a wife. Had she not performed her wifely duties to Joseph she would be guilty of sin. I’m aware Catholicism claims the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually cousins but it doesn’t fit with the context of scripture of always being with Mary. On top of that, the Greek word for cousin is never used when talking about the siblings of Jesus.

The most important thing from a Protestant view is that scripture itself says it’s all we need to find salvation through faith in Christ. Since we’re also told in scripture that it is God breathed and perfect, what is the point of trying to add anything onto it as these traditions do?
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding, based largely on information from a Catholic historian friend of mine, that the early Church actually wrestled with the notion of whether Mary did or did not die before her Assumption, and that the official teaching is somewhat ambiguous on this point. What is your take on this?
This is my understanding as well. That being said, I’m no systematic theologian, so my assumption may be incorrect (no pun intended).
 
Sure.

**Revelation 12 **
The Woman and the Dragon. 1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

As I said, this is the Virgin Mary. We know because of the preceding and following statements.

Rev 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

In the preceding Chapter, St. John saw the “Ark of the Covenant”. But, then he described the Ark as a Woman, clothed with the sun and crowned with 12 stars.

The Ark of the Covenant contained within it, three things.

The manna, Aaron’s staff and the Ten Commandments. The Manna is the Bread of God. Aaron’s staff symbolizes the Priesthood. And the Ten Commandments are the Word of God. All of these are representations of Jesus Christ.

But Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant who contained in her womb, the true Bread of God (John 6:33), the true High Priest (Heb 4:14) and the true Word of God (John 1:14).

And that is what is confirmed in the next verse.

2 She was with child

Now, the suffering that she suffered was not in bringing to light the Son of God. Although that is what it says in a metaphor.

and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

But in order to symbolize the suffering that she underwent when her Son suffered to bring about the birth of the Church in His suffering, she suffered.

Possibly, only a parent can understand the suffering one undergoes when their child suffers pain. Mothers more than fathers. I sometimes wonder if my children are still connected to my wife by an invisible umbilical cord. She truly suffers when they feel pain.

cont’d
 
cont’d

3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

This red dragon is Satan. But the one who stood before the woman intending to bring harm to the child, was Herod. This is what is being described.

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

Only God sits on God’s throne. Thus, this reveals that her Son is the Son of God. And is another proof that the Woman is Mary. Because Mary is the Mother of God.

6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

This is by metaphor, the incident where they fled to Egypt. But also skips forward to the fact that she was assumed in heaven to a place prepared by God. The right hand of the Son.

Matthew 20: 21 He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.”23 He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left [, this] is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, 8 but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.


This is an explanation of that which happened before Adam and Eve.
 
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have salvation and power come,
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Anointed.
For the accuser of our brothers is cast out,
who accuses them before our God day and night.
11 They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
love for life did not deter them from death.
12 Therefore, rejoice, you heavens,
and you who dwell in them.
But woe to you, earth and sea,
for the Devil has come down to you in great fury,
for he knows he has but a short time.”


This warns about the great battle between the Son of Mary and Satan. He will crush your head, you will strike His heel.

13 When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. 15 The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16 But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. 18 It took its position on the sand of the sea.

This describes what is happening today. Mary, the mother of all believers has come to us many times to warn us to obey her Son in order to defeat Satan. This also confirms that God placed Mary as our Mother to protect and guide us to His Son.

Thanks for asking.
 
I realize this may seem laughable and a far-fetched notion for most Catholics, but it is an idea in the back of my head that I can’t seem to shake and it remains a stumbling block that keeps me from fully accepting Mary as Catholics see her. Any help would be appreciated.
I’m a cradle Catholic & spent most of my formative years far from the Church. On my journey back I went through a few traditions & some exposed me to this line of thinking.

I was sceptical about Our Mother but one day I’m reading the Gospel of John & as if being struck by lightning I got caught up in the words of The Word… He saw His mother standing next to the disciple whom he loved & said, “Woman, behold your son.” & to the disciple, “Behold your mother.”

Even then I “struggled” with the idea, but over the years with the way the Church has regarded the Church as mother… even the Apostles referring to the early churches as lady, & their members as her children. The Church is the Bride of Christ & Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit…

Just the imagery of that mother child relationship it’s just so powerful & describes the spiritual life like none other.

Imagine Him who can not be contained humbled Himself to dwell in a mother’s womb. How similar is that to us being awakened to the spiritual life in the womb of Mother Church?
 
I had a problem once that I confided to a Catholic lady whom I know, and she said she would pray to the Virgin on my behalf, as if the Virgin Mary had the power to answer my prayer instead of Jesus.I politely thanked her because I didn’t want to hurt her feelings and I knew her heart was in the right place.
You don’t see the irony here?
 
Since no one knows for certainly sure what happened, and it really doesn’t matter anyway, why not believe and concentrate on teaching the things that matter?
That’s a false statement.

The Church knows for sure that it occurred, hence it’s a dogma of the Catholic Church.
 
An ARCIC statement says: any interpretation of the role of Mary must not obscure the unique mediation of Christ…we recognize Mary as a model of holiness, faith and obedience for all Christians …the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory is consonant with Scripture, and only to be understood in the light of Scripture.

This is an official joint statement, it’s also a reason why (and I know this won’t be popular here) that the Anglican church isn’t really Protestant and never has been.
 
Last edited:
This led me to thinking: why would a Protestant or evangelical categorically deny the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven at the time of her death?
Depends upon the ones so designating themselves “protestant”, and their position on death.

For instance, Martin Luther (protestant) stated:

“Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute.” - An Exposition of Salomon’s Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1573, folio 151v.

“But we Christians, who have been redeemed from all this through the precious blood of God’s Son, should train and accustom ourselves in faith to despise death and regard it as a deep, strong sweet sleep; to consider the coffin as nothing other than our Lord Jesus’ bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing other than a soft couch of ease or rest. As verily, before God, it truely is just this; for he testifies, John 11:11: Lazarus, our friend sleeps; Matthew 9:24: The maiden is not dead, she sleeps. Thus too, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, removes from sight all hateful aspects of death as related to our mortal body and brings forward nothing but charming and joyful aspects of the promised life. He says there [vv.42ff]: It is sown in corruption and will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour (that is, a hateful, shameful form) and will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness and will rise in strength; it is sown in natural body and will rise a spiritual body.”- Christian Song Latin and German, for Use at Funerals," 1542, Works of Luther (1932), vol. 6, pp.287,288

“Thus after death the soul goes to its bedchamber and to its peace, and while it is sleeping it does not realise its sleep, and God preserves indeed the awakening soul. God is able to awake Elijah, Moses, and others, and so control them, so that they will live. But how can that be ? That we do not know; we satisfy ourselves with the example of bodily sleep, and with what God says: it is a sleep, as rest, and a peace. He who sleeps naturally knows nothing of that which happens in his neighbor’s house; and nevertheless he still is living, even though, contrary to the nature of life, he is unconscious in his sleep. Exactly the same will happen also in that life, but in another and a better way.” -“Auslegung des ersten Buches Mose,” in Schriften, vol.1, cols. 1759, 1760

Regarding Luther’s position Archdeacon Francis Blackburne of Cleveland; rector of Richmond states in his “Short Historical View of the Controversy Concerning an Intermediate State” of 1765 :

“Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then made use of it as a confutation of purgatory and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment in his life.” page 14.

And so, Martin Luther’s ‘sola scriptura’ position; Mary died (1 Cor. 15:22*), rests in the grave, awaiting her resurrection at the last trump.

I am not a Lutheran, but I am only citing Luther’s theological protestant position and reasoning.
 
Additionally, the word “soul” comes into play also and the understanding of that word, for instance:
40.png
Human souls MUST be immortal? Philosophy
Mankind was made in the Image of God, true, but that does not grant mankind immortality anymore than it grants mankind other attributes pertaining to God alone, such as omnipresence, and omniscience, omnipathos. See -
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/human-souls-must-be-immortal/562160/9?u=setinmotion

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/human-souls-must-be-immortal/562160/15?u=setinmotion

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/human-souls-must-be-immortal/562160/22?u=setinmotion
 
40.png
Wannano:
Since no one knows for certainly sure what happened, and it really doesn’t matter anyway, why not believe and concentrate on teaching the things that matter?
That’s a false statement.

The Church knows for sure that it occurred, hence it’s a dogma of the Catholic Church.
I should have worded that differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top