Protestant teaching of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Promise91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you think those parallel scriptures written by Luke an inspired writer was just coincidence?

Can you post any scripture were any apostles or inspired writer calls God a Trinity?
 
Ahhh, that would be no. Mary was not perfect, not sinless. Nowhere in the Bible is that stated nor implied. Please read my post above.
 
Sorry, your scriptural argument is like saying, Those two guys are wearing blue shirts so therefore they are brothers.

The ark of God ( or the covenant) represented the glorious reputation and gracious presence of the Lord to Israel - the old covenant stuff. The 2 Sam references are about the recovery of the ark. The reference would be to 1 Chronicles 15. Not related to anything in Luke.
 
Don’t need to. The Trinity wasn’t defended by the early fathers by a single prooftext. It was defended on the basis of every scriptural text that 1) demonstrates there is only one God; 2) demonstrates the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; 3) demonstrates the divinity and/or eternal nature of Christ; 4) demonstrates the humanity of Christ; 5) and demonstrates the personhood of the Holy Spirit. I am sure we could put together a Bible Study on these points if you would like to brush you up on your Apologetics.

As you can imagine, there are a host of scripture passages that attest to these points.
 
Last edited:
Webo said:
Sorry, your scriptural argument is like saying, Those two guys are wearing blue shirts so therefore they are brothers.

The ark of God ( or the covenant) represented the glorious reputation and gracious presence of the Lord to Israel - the old covenant stuff. The 2 Sam references are about the recovery of the ark. The reference would be to 1 Chronicles 15. Not related to anything in Luke.
Click to expand...
So Luke inspired by the Holy Spirit didn’t know what he was doing. I notice you haven’t posted an apostle or inspired calling God a Trinity.
 
Hodos said:
Don’t need to. The Trinity wasn’t defended by the early fathers by a single prooftext. It was defended on the basis of every scriptural text that 1) demonstrates there is only one God; 2) demonstrates the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; 3) demonstrates the divinity and/or eternal nature of Christ; 4) demonstrates the humanity of Christ; 5) and demonstrates the personhood of the Holy Spirit. I am sure we could put together a Bible Study on these points if you would like to brush you up on your Apologetics.

As you can imagine, there are a host of scripture passages that attest to these points.
Click to expand...
Don’t tell me show me.
 
Protestants don’t have an established Mariology. In fact, most don’t think about her all too much. Outside of Christmas, I rarely heard anything about her outside of anti-Catholic rants. I remember when I was first asked, “What do you think about Mary?” I had to think for a while because, honestly, I just didn’t think about her at all. Some Protestants may move into the realm of aggressive apathy. Personally, I was just apathetic and didn’t think she was at all important beyond the virgin birth. Even when I decided to become Catholic, I was pretty resolved to not go crazy over Mary.

That said, some of the beliefs I had regarding major doctrines and titles even before becoming Catholic:
  • Mother of God : This just made sense. When I first heard that there was a debate, I was a bit baffled. Even after hear the “no she’s not” side, I was still baffled.
  • New Eve : This made perfect sense to me the first time I heard of the title. Considering to Jesus, the New Adam, she was the closest to being eligible as the New Eve. Jesus even referred to her as “woman” at Cana, the same way Adam referred to Eve originally.
  • Immaculate Conception : Also made sense to me. I figured that since Mary was the New Eve, her decision to obey God must have come from the same place Eve’s decision to disobey did: a state of sinlessness. Romans 3:23 didn’t trouble me, since not allowing for exception would create problems for our Christology.
  • Assumption : Also made sense. Death is the consequence of sin, and I believed Mary had no sin.
  • Perpetual Virginity : Being the good Calvinist that I was, I was willing to believe this. That said, I didn’t see it as important until I read Tim Staples’s Behold Your Mother while in RCIA.
  • Co-Redemptrix : This is the one I was really hung up on. Just as Protestants who didn’t believe she was Mother of God baffled me, the idea that anyone would apply this title to her baffled me. Again, I needed Behold Your Mother to get over that.
Of those, I would say I really was only in-line with a good number of Protestants on resistance to Co-Redemptrix. Many Protestants will also call her Mother of God and stand behind the Perpetual Virginity, though I doubt the latter is a hill any of them would die on (some might on her being the Mother of God). I think some Anglicans believe in the Assumption, but I don’t know. However, I was incredibly atypical for a modern Protestant in being willing to accept the Immaculate Conception. I probably would have been kicked out of my church if I ever voiced support for it.
 
Last edited:
jlhargus said:
JL: Actually Itwin there is nothing explicitly found in scripture teaching the Trinity. Also there is no explicit scripture teaching what books are inspired. Yet both are articles of faith for all Christians.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Christ’s divinity is explicitly taught in Scripture: John 1:1–“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”–being just one place. In regards, to the Trinity, while you will not find any precise Trinitarian theological formulas within Scripture, the evidence for it is there.
jlhargus said:
The Trinity is implied in scripture so is the perpetual virginity of Mary alone with the other great things God has done to Mary.
Click to expand...
Besides the fact that we are told that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that Joseph “knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25, which actually implies the opposite of perpetual virginity), where does Scripture imply Mary’s perpetual virginity?
 
Again, I would be glad to set up a Bible study with you to look at some of the key passages of scripture attesting to the Trinity. Let me know if you are generally interested, or if you are just trying to argue for a low view of sacred scripture because the doctrine you are defending was not taught in the apostolic record.
 
ltwin said:
to the Trinity, while you will not find any precise Trinitarian theological formulas within Scripture
Click to expand...
So, an Ecumenical Council can promulgate a metaphysical definition for describing the Dogma of the Trinity, but nothing concerning Mary…? Ok, gotcha.
 
AugustTherese said:
So, an Ecumenical Council can promulgate a metaphysical definition for describing the Dogma of the Trinity, but nothing concerning Mary…? Ok, gotcha.
Click to expand...
An Ecumenical Council can promulgate whatever doctrines it likes, but if its teaching is not based on the Word of God I am not bound to believe it. The Trinity is Scriptural; therefore, I believe it. It could have been promulgated by an uneducated street urchin for all I care; the doctrine’s status comes not from the fact it was adopted by a council but that it is true.
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
but if its teaching is not based on the Word of God I am not bound to believe it
Click to expand...
You mean, based on the correct interpretation of the ‘[written] Word of God’. Anyone can misinterpret any part of the Word of God and claim he has the right interpretation, hence heresy, hence a Council to reject that heresy while promulgating the correct interpretation of revealed truth.
 
If you know your history you would find that many of the Catholic bishops who faithfully confessed the Nicene Creed were exiled by the successors of Constantine, and Arian bishops were appointed by Eusebius of Nicomedia in their place, one of two Arian bishops at Nicaea. Constantine actually came to favor the Arians over the orthodox priests, being baptized as an Arian by Eusebius of Nicomedia. I think you will find that at heart the popularity of Arianism after Nicaea was largely a result of the political support that Constantine and his successors lent to Arius and his followers, less than the persuasiveness of his hermeneutics or the supposed vagueness of scripture on these points. It is extremely odd again that you would rather degrade the Sacred Scriptures to defend your doctrine. Ireneaus actually accused the Gnostics of the same types of argumentation that you are rendering here.
 
Last edited:
As we so often find out, we can argue with intellect, but not with the ego.

Prepare yourself for a vicious ad hominem attack.
 
Perhaps you might avail yourself of the wealth of information re Our Mother Mary.She was indeed God’s most perfect creature,the Mother of God and our mother too.So blessed we are to have her.🙏🙏
 
Hodos said:
It is extremely odd again that you would rather degrade the Sacred Scriptures to defend your doctrine.
Click to expand...
Hardly, I degrade your interpretation of Sacred Scripture; it’s novel to even the early Reformers.
 
I’ll go with the same holy spirit that inspired the Bible and continues to inspire the interpretation and dogmas of the Church magisterium over the different interpretations of tens of thousands of Protestant sects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top