Do any Protestants believe in the Assumption?

[SetInMotion]

St John the Baptist was born free of original sin…

What on earth …

Mat_3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

“need”

Rom_3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Luk_7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

 

[JonNC]

I never met any Protestant that even knew about Mary’s assumption. If it’s not in the Bible they reject it.

I see no reason to reject it. Your circle of “protestants” seems to be rather narrow.
Depending on the communion you are speaking to, you can find the range of outright rejection, which seems odd since the Bible doesn’t refute it, to it is a matter adiaphoron (things indifferent). If adiaphoron, then the believer can accept it or not as it is not an article of faith.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. I almost get the feeling He speaks to her with a smirk, almost teasing. She doesn’t even respond to Him, but tells the servants to do as He says.
I comes across as playful, and I always smile when I hear it. She is simply wonderful in her actions.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

It matters because the tradition of the church indicates that She is important. Also, as the Mater Dei, and therefore Queen of Heaven (Revelation) she has a better relationship with Christ, and so is a great person to have on your side, because (based on ancient Jewish custom) the Queen was the King’s mother, and the one person the King practically could not refuse, if someone wanted to appeal to the King, often they would go through the “Queen Mother” who would ask the King on their behalf, this is shown when king Solomon, right after his coronation, when his mother first comes before him as King, she makes to prostrate herself (as all others did), yet he stops her, prostrates himself to her, and has a throne made for her, then when his brother needs to seek his mercy, his brother goes through the Queen, rather than straight to King Solomon).

In answer to the second question, the actual dogma is vague, simply stating that she was taken, body and soul into heaven. In the western church, it is common to believe that when her earthly life came to an end, she was whisked up to heaven before she died, however, in the east, there is a long-standing tradition (and documents from the early church to back it up), that Mary died (possibly voluntarily, or by martyrdom) and then after being dead for a while (the tradition specifies 3 days) she rose, and was taken body and soul into heaven. The actual tradition has a bit more to it, but I think I would have to surpass character limits to explain, either way however (east or west) is possible.

 

[tonyh12]

Interesting about the statue, Im catholic but help clean my local Anglican Church and in it there is a side chapel which is a Marian chapel, which has a statue of Mary and they place flowers around it felt almost at home there probably because it was once Catholic.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Interesting about the statue, Im catholic but help clean my local Anglican Church and in it there is a side chapel which is a Marian chapel, which has a statue of Mary and they place flowers around it felt almost at home there probably because it was once Catholic.

Motley, motley, motley!

 

[tonyh12]

What do you mean?

 

[HopkinsReb]

What do you mean?

There is a great deal of variation among Anglicans. My wife’s Anglican church (very Reformed) held a Stations of the Cross service this Lent and the music director refused to participate because of the Marian emphasis (even though the pastor removed all the Marian prayers). Then you have the Anglican church you just described.

There’s a fellow here who likes to remind people of Anglicans’ motleyness.

 

[tonyh12]

Ah thought probably what you meant yes there is quite a lot of variance in the other church of England places around here.

 

[GKMotley]

Fine fellow, no doubt. I’d agree with him.

 

[GKMotley]

Our Mary shrine (OL of Walsingham) is small, but with flowers around the statue.

And our Stations are large paintings, maybe 2 1/2 by 3 feet.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

For many years that was essentially my viewpoint of Mary. She was a regular person whom God chose to bear Christ. I didn’t even believe in the Virgin Birth.

Now that said, I am still coming to terms with the Mariology of the Church. But slowly I am understanding it.

What if Mary said, “No!”? Could God have chosen another? I’m thinking not. Mary was our representative of the human side for the Incarnation request. Just as Eve initiated a collective sin on humanity via her free will, Mary for her part did the opposite.

Yes she was spared from the stain of Original Sin. But that does not negate her free will to say “Yes!” And thank God she did!

To say God would have chosen another to bear His Son is like saying God would have destroyed Eve and created another. He did not. He accepted the choice of His creation and worked to provide salvation nonetheless.

 

[Johan]

For many years that was essentially my viewpoint of Mary. She was a regular person whom God chose to bear Christ. I didn’t even believe in the Virgin Birth.

I am not saying that you have made this claim, but there is of course no contradiction between the belief that Mary was an ordinary Jewish woman chosen by God, and the belief in the virgin birth.

What if Mary said, “No!”? Could God have chosen another? I’m thinking not. Mary was our representative of the human side for the Incarnation request. Just as Eve initiated a collective sin on humanity via her free will, Mary for her part did the opposite.

I find speculative questions like this one odd. First, God did not ask Mary for permission, just like He did not ask Moses for permission to make him His prophet, or Paul to be His apostle. Second, do you really think that God could have been taken by surprise? Even if you do not believe that God is the sovereign Lord over the history of mankind (including over our choices), you have to at least admit that God foreknew how Mary would respond. But what God has decreed will also happen. He is not subject to the whims of our “free will” (which is a notion nowhere taught in the Bible, by the way).

Yes she was spared from the stain of Original Sin. But that does not negate her free will to say “Yes!” And thank God she did!

Right, but it’s not really like God was crossing His fingers, hoping that she would say yes.

To say God would have chosen another to bear His Son is like saying God would have destroyed Eve and created another. He did not. He accepted the choice of His creation and worked to provide salvation nonetheless.

As said, God is not subject to the whims of our (quite often arbitrary) decisions. He is the sovereign Lord over His universe and His salvific plan will not be thwarted by anything we do or refrain from doing.

“And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matt. 3:9)

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

That is true, God is not subject to our whims. But He does respect our free will nonetheless. I do believe it was a free will choice of Mary to accept the responsibility of bearing our Lord. Did God know? How is anyone supposed to answer that question? I do not know what God knows.

Edit: I added the bit about disbelieving the Virgin Birth merely as personal context, not assuming on anyone else.

Second Edit: I see know that I wrote essentially, “God could not choose another.” That was presumptive and not right. I personally believe God would not have chosen another bearer for His Son.

 

[Dorothy]

We do not know if she died first and then was assumed bodily into heaven, or if she was assumed into heaven without dying.

It is mostly thought that she died and was assumed into heaven after that…it is thought that since her Son died, she would desire that also.

 

[Johan]

That is true, God is not subject to our whims. But He does respect our free will nonetheless. I do believe it was a free will choice of Mary to accept the responsibility of bearing our Lord. Did God know? How is anyone supposed to answer that question? I do not know what God knows.

So you do not believe that God is omniscient, i.e., that there is nothing that He does not know? And I maintain that free will is an unbiblical notion. Since God had decreed that Mary was to be the mother of Christ, then that would also necessarily take place.

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Ro 9:16–17).

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

The free will debate is off-topic, so I won’t engage further than to say that God created existence as a reflection of Him. What does that mean? Being the Trinity He is relationship. God, as three-in-one, is relationship and self-identity all together.

Having relationship within, He created existence to have relationship without. Relationship that still encompasses individual identification. Any and all relationships that are healthy and good are built upon the free will of its constituents in giving consent. This is a reflection of the nature of God.

Does this mean God is somehow limited? In no way is God limited. God knows all, yet asks us to commune with Him.

Our Lady was not devoid of free will. She was not an unthinking automaton. She willingly entered into the relationship of God in the purest manner any human, save Christ, has ever done or will ever do.

The decision she made was critical to the salvation plan, in my opinion. That she was spared from Original Sin meant that humanity, as represented by her, have an opportunity to reconcile with God of its own accord. Eve choose sin, Mary chose Christ.

You, not believing in free will, may not agree. That is your choice.

 

[Johan]

The free will debate is off-topic, so I won’t engage further than to say that God created existence as a reflection of Him.

Yet, the rest of your post is about … free will and Mary’s choice. But the thrust of your argumentation seems to be that we ought to be grateful to Mary for having said yes (although God did not ask for her permission), and that our salvation in essence was dependent on her choice. I simply cannot agree with such an idea, and there is not even the embryo (no pun intended) of such thoughts in the Scriptures.

Our Lady was not devoid of free will. She was not an unthinking automaton.

There is no contradiction in terms between a human will governed by God and a thinking human. After all, Paul writes…

… for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. (Phil. 2:13)

So even our will to do good and to act according to His purpose is His work.

The decision she made was critical to the salvation plan, in my opinion.

No. The eternal fate of mankind was not in her hands, but in God’s. Those He has predestined for salvation will also be called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8:30). That is inevitable, because that is what He has decreed.

That she was spared from Original Sin meant that humanity, as represented by her, have an opportunity to reconcile with God of its own accord.

This is also a notion foreign to the Scriptures (i.e., that Mary was allegedly spared from original sin). It is actually ideas like those you have expressed here that make Protestants think that Catholicism has elevated Mary to almost absurd levels.

 

[GKMotley]

Likes bagpipes, I hear.

 

[twf]

Scripture says that St John was filled with the Holy Spirit even in the womb…one cannot be in original sin AND filled with the Spirit at the same time. He was thus born a saint, and we celebrate his nativity every year as a solemnity.