I’ve looked through your postings, and can’t find anything about a “Protestant God”. Please be courteous enough to be speciific.
Protestants differ somewhat among themselves, of course, as there are so many versions of Protestantism. There is considerable emphasis upon freedom when it comes doctrine, especially among mainline Protestants. In their Bible study groups individuals express conflicting views on various theological matters and no one blinks an eye. There is little sense that all members of the group must think in lock-step fashion, must all agree. In Catholicism such differences in viewpoints would likely be treated as heresy. Among mainline Protestants there is enormous tolerance for such diversity. I think it was John Wesley who said something like this when they tried to get him into theological debate: "If you love God as I do, if you seek to serve God as I do, let us join hands and walk together."
My own view (and I come out of a mixed religious heritage) is that Christians should have a choice when it comes to doctrine, including their attitude toward Mary. I know that many Catholics find comfort in their devotion to Mary. She has become for them a warm and loving spiritual mother. Fine.
However, I do believe - as stated in an earlier post - that Mariology evolved over the centuries, and that there is little in scripture to justify insistence upon certain beliefs. For example, was Mary the only sinless human being in all history? Nothing in scripture even vaguely suggests that. Was she a perpetual virgin? Nothing in scripture insists on that. Was she the only person conceived immaculately? Well, actually I have always found the concept of original sin as unfair to newborns, so I suspect that all babies enter the world within sin. But nothing in scripture seems to suggest that Mary was born differently from the rest of us. Actually, her parents aren't mentioned in the Bible, but in non-canonical material rejected from the canon. And the Assumption? Not a word in scripture suggests that either.
These doctrines were formed out of theology. If Mary were the Mother of God, therefore this and this and this.These doctrines are seen as logical derivatives from the concept that she was/is the Mother of God.
Now, as to Mother of God. Frankly, it's a matter of words. She was the Mother of Jesus, yes. But, did God really have an earthly mother? Jesus had a physical mother, true, but that part was not God. That was not his divine nature. Agreed-upon Christian theology tells us that his divine nature certainly preceded his earthly appearance as Christ, and did not come from any human being - no, not even Mary. She was the vessel, if you will, that carried the Son of God prior to his birth, but his divine sonship was not derived from her. To say that Mary was the mother of God is one thing. Personally, it strikes me that Mary was the mother of the Son of God better reflects the Bible.
None of this means that Mary is not blessed, as scripture tells us. But I have become convinced over the years that the central, even essential, position that she now occupies in Catholic theology and worship is not based on scripture but on a Mariology that goes well beyond anything supported by scripture.
I also have a problem with this popular concept that if one prays to Mary she will, in effect, go to Christ and help get what we ask for. Since she is his Son, he will be more amenable to her requests. Doesn't that sound a bit strained and strange, even perhaps somewhat pagan? Sorry if this offends anyone, but I presume we should speak the truth as we see it. Isn't it like going to Mom before we went to Dad (when we were kids), knowing that Mom was more likely to go along with what we had in mind. Very earthy perspective. I doubt if prayer works likes that. The whole pray-to-the-saints system reminds me a little of going to lobbyists in Washington to get what you want done. If Christians choose to do that, okay. But why not go right to the top and skip the middle man? The whole saint emphasis seems to be saying that these deceased people have special powers - even powers that they can exercise with or over God. Isn't it, in effect, a modifed, quasi-polytheism?
But let's love one another, as Christ commanded. Didn't Paul speak of faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love. Yes, it even trumps faith! Doctrine, I suggest, is second place when it comes to true Christian living. They'll know we are Christians by our love and not our theology.Please see #58. : “The same God, but one characteristically different.”
She is honored as a true follower of God, alongside other saints of the church. In practice, little emphasis is placed on her except in images (which we do not venerate). In a Protestant view, she is not actually treated as our mother, any more than Priscilla, Mary Magdalene, or Ruth is our mother.
Your attitude does an injustice to our Lord, who prayed to his heavenly Father that by his grace all of his followers be one in faith (John 17, 20-21).
It is true that our Marian doctrines evolved over the centuries, but as part of the deposit of faith. The same can be said about the Church’s other essential doctrines. For instance, the doctrine of original sin wasn’t completely formulated and defined until 530 A.D by the Council of Orange (See Canons 1-2). Until then there were three prevalent theological views between the East and West.
Jesus never intended that the Scriptures be written and distributed to each individual for him to glean and formulate his own private doctrines that are inconsonant with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church (cf. Mt 16:18-19). Just because you fail to perceive any evidence for our Marian doctrines by proof-reading the sacred texts for yourself it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no scriptural confirmation of our traditional beliefs. Moreover, you can’t even be sure that the books, letters, and gospels you read in your Bible version were written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, for you won’t find the original autographs of the authors who wrote them in your copy of the Bible. It was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, which determined which books belonged to the canon of Scripture (cf. Acts 15:28). Those books which were rejected as apochryphal were exluded from the list because they contradicted traditional orthodox Christian beliefs. Scripture is the result of Tradition. So Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition. As long as you divorce Scripture from its ecclesial source and read the written word in a purely literal sense, you will continue to see no evidence for the Church’s Marian doctrines (cf. Acts 18:26-35).
All our orthodox doctrines - Trinitarian, Christological, and Marian - have naturally passed through the phase of theological speculation. Don’t expect the Holy Spirit to descend upon you and reveal the fullness of his truth in a single instance.
A woman is not the mother of an attribute of a person (human nature) but of the person himself, and Jesus is a divine Person. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Elizabeth asked Mary: “How is this that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). In the Greek “the mother of my Lord” reads meter tou Kurio. The title Kurio is translated from the semitic word used by Elizabeth, Adonis. This word is found in the Hebrew Bible when referring to YHWH, as I have already pointed out above and which you choose to ignore. Elizabeth uses the same word while speaking in Aramaic when referring to the Father in common unity with the Son and the Holy Spirit: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord (Adonis/Kurio) would be fulfilled” (Lk 1:45). Obviously the Judeo-Christians regarded the Son of Mary to be more than just an average man in his person. Elizabeth does not call Mary’s offspring Jesus.
On the contrary, this “popular concept” is supported by Scripture. “The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful” (Jas 5:16; cf. Prov 15:8). “We have this confidence in him, that if we ask anything in accordance with his will, he hears us” (1 Jn 5:14). “I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone….This is good and pleasing to God our saviour, who wills everyone to be saved and and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:1-4). “With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end be watchful in all perseverance (stay righteous) in supplication for all the holy ones and also for me” (Eph 6:18-19).
You better ask the Apostle Paul why he sometimes didn’t.
Peter refers to all the faithful in the kingdom of heaven as members of a royal priesthood who offer up spiritual sacrifices pleasing to God on behalf of others. (1 Pet 2:5,9; cf.Rev 20:6).
In Islam, Mary (Maryam) is highly esteemed. In fact, one of the surahs (chapters) of the Quran is named after her, and her name appears more in the Quran than in the entire NT. She is probably the most respected and esteemed woman in Islam.
I was raised as a Mormon.
This I’ve always found quite telling. How is it that Muslims revere Our Lady more than so-called “Christians” who speak of her as if she were nothing more than an oven used to bake a cake; a means to an end?
Could it be that Satan prefers to strike closer to home?
I don’t know if I’d so quickly invoke Satan as the cause. I think it’s a matter of historical proximity.Could it be that Satan prefers to strike closer to home?
I appreciate your point, though I believe the primary Christian exposure Muhammad had was the Nestorians. Amplifying this is the fact that Muhammad’s cousin, Waraqah, was a Nestorian monk. The Nestorian Christology is different than the Catholic Christology, though from what I’ve read it’s pretty finely cut. Nestorians believe Jesus was divine but differ as to the nature…Wikipedia has a summary:
I’ve always thought of Protestantism as a reaction that went perhaps further than intended. From Martin Luther’s critique of indulgences, Protestants’ reaction to Catholicism is to not only critique what they view as excesses, but some go all the way to the extreme of jettisoning all tradition and reducing Christianity to the Bible alone.
I wouldn’t consider Muhammad as a Nestorian (or anything even close to that) since the Nestorians still recognize the divinity of Jesus. That doesn’t necessarily preclude his religious formation from Nestorians despite Nestorians.
This is interesting. I’ve never heard this before. Do you mean to say that the Qur’an cites Christian Ecumenical Council?
AMEN!
Absolutely! Which exemplifies the necessity of tradition. It’s the tradition which brought about the Bible in the first place. Who are we to forgo that tradition simply because the Bible has already been canonized?
Oh no, I didn’t mean to imply that we should consider Muhammad a Nestorian. I meant rather to point out that his primary exposure to Christianity was the Nestorian brand of it.
You lost me…what I was saying was that Muhammad was primarily exposed to Nestorian Christianity. Later, there was some exposure to the Abyssinian Christians (I’m not sure what flavor - I just know it was in Abyssinia). A group of Muslims went to the ruler of Abyssinia and as part of the visit, they recited various parts of the Qur’an. The parts they recited (Surah Maryam specifically in the traditional telling of the story) discuss the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus.
Many of the reformed evangelical Protestants who refuse to venerate Mary as we Catholics do are aware of the reasons why we honour Mary, but they still reject our devotions as unscriptural, because they conflict with the essential principles of the Protestant five Solas which originated through the machinations of Satan in the 16th century. Jesus called the devil the “father of lies”.
This is inflammatory, meant to provoke, and totally not necessary and over the top.Could it be that Satan prefers to strike closer to home?