Protestant teaching of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Promise91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Hodos explained that the word of God is his authority. He also offered a couple times to do a Bible study with some of you. Take him up on his offer.
Well, “bible authority”, as we see from scripture, was and is claimed by the ignorant and unstable. It is also a rather foolish argument, as we also have bibles and better bibles than he does. We have 100% of the bible, not the censored 91% reformation bible.

Could be he’s a Jehovah’s Witness. They inveigle poorly catechized Catholics to walk away from Christ. If so, his authority is a 501c3 corporation in Brooklyn, New York. A corporation with a litany of 100% failed prophecies.
 
Last edited:
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
Luke 11:28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Um Mary obeyed the Word of God at the Annunciation when the angel (acting as a messenger) announced the conception of Jesus. So Jesus blessed her in a different and more exalted way.
 
Last edited:
Songs 4:8 and 6:9 are a pretty strong allusion to it. Romans 5:14 implies that some people didn’t sin.
 
Last edited:
The Bible can have so many interpretations.
 
Last edited:
The Church’s doctrines are more scriptural than you make it out to be. The Church is also called a pillar of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.
 
Last edited:
Songs 4:8
Do you mean 4:7, “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee”? Isn’t this about the Church, the bride, in relation to Christ, the bridegroom?
Romans 5:14 implies that some people didn’t sin.
Romans 5:14, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” This verse can’t be understood in isolation. It might “imply” that some people don’t sin, until we remember that earlier Paul told us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:23-25). Anyone who lives long enough, barring total incapacitation from birth to death, will miss the mark and fall short of God’s glory.

And even in such a case as someone incapable of moral action, they still bear the affects of original sin. As Romans 5:14 explains, even though they did not sin as Adam did, because of Adam’s transgression all people are born spiritually dead–Romans 5: 12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
 
Last edited:
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Bear in mind that if we don’t make at least one exception in Romans 3:23, that being for Jesus, our Christology begins falling apart. Since Paul didn’t feel the need to make that exception immediately obvious, it would appear such exceptions were understood by the audience. That doesn’t prove Mary was herself an exception, but it shows that Romans 3:23 is not certainly a problem for our Mariology.

Granted, Mary was upheld by the grace of God, just as we require and as she herself acknowledges (Luke 1:47). However, we believe that God saved her from original sin so that she, unlike us, was conceived without it and that she, unlike us, cooperated fully with God’s grace throughout her life rather than resist it.

The only reason she experienced this, though, was due to her unique connection to Christ. While I believe that there’s more Scriptural support for it, the Immaculate Conception is very much grounded in our reverence of Jesus as God and the belief that God wouldn’t permit Himself to dwell in an imperfect vessel, a trait we see throughout the Old Testament.
 
I am sorry if I have shocked, affronted or offended anyone, but it raises my hackles when buy-bull believers insult the Mother of God - our mother!

I will answer for all of my sin, but not for insulting the Mother of Christ!
Is it possible to insult the Mother of Christ by our attitude and lack of love as well as by our words?
 
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
“And that is how all Israel will be saved. The Scriptures say, “The Savior will come from Zion; he will take away all evil from the family of Jacob.”
Romans 11:26

Will every single Jew, without exception, be saved? Or, could the word ‘all’ have different meanings in the Greek?

Also, Romans 3:23 refers to actual, personal sins committed, not original sin. There have been many that have not committed personal sins: Our Blessed Lord, infants etc. To conclude that ‘all’ in this verse means every single person in all of humanity, without exception, has sinned, is a misunderstanding.
 
Yes, exactly! That is exactly my point. If you quote Scripture out of context, your only ‘authority’ is using the ‘Word of God’ as a pretext; hence sola scriptura.
That is a complete mischaracterization of what sola scriptura means. If you had actually been dealing with the doctrine in an honest sense you would realize that the means by which we interpret scripture is not by ripping it out of context as you have done at least twice now that we can see, but by reading it in context using scripture to guide us in interpreting scripture. Your own seminaries actually teach this in hermeneutics by the way. This isn’t a strictly Protestant concept.
 
But - and this is crucial! The reform was not to reform the hierarchy - it was to radically change Christianity into something that Christ never taught.
Read the Augsburg confession. If the Medieval Roman Catholic church wasn’t teaching basic Christian doctrine then shame on the magisterium for abandoning their role.
 
but by reading it in context using scripture to guide us in interpreting scripture
The Apostles didn’t have a protesting context. They had the words and deeds of Christ before there was a Bible four centuries later.
 
Also, Romans 3:23 refers to actual, personal sins committed, not original sin. There have been many that have not committed personal sins: Our Blessed Lord, infants etc. To conclude that ‘all’ in this verse means every single person in all of humanity, without exception, has sinned, is a misunderstanding.
You obviously are making no effort to even argue with what I actually wrote, so I’m not even sure how to respond to this.
 
@Webo, do you know where you got the Bible that you’re using to counter Catholic claims?

Did you decide what books belong in the Bible?

Who did, and why?
 
The Apostles didn’t have a protesting context. They had the words and deeds of Christ before there was a Bible four centuries later.
Peter and John certainly did when they defied the Sanhedrin by continuing to preach in Christ’s name. Also, read 1 Peter when it discusses Christian suffering in the wake of persecution for proclaiming the Gospel. These are apostolic documents that flatly contest your claim.
 
40.png
AugustTherese:
The Apostles didn’t have a protesting context. They had the words and deeds of Christ before there was a Bible four centuries later.
Peter and John certainly did when they defied the Sanhedrin by continuing to preach in Christ’s name. Also, read 1 Peter when it discusses Christian suffering in the wake of persecution for proclaiming the Gospel. These are apostolic documents that flatly contest your claim.
Protesting as in Protestant. Please, quit taking my words out of context just so you have something to argue.
 
40.png
AugustTherese:
Also, Romans 3:23 refers to actual, personal sins committed, not original sin. There have been many that have not committed personal sins: Our Blessed Lord, infants etc. To conclude that ‘all’ in this verse means every single person in all of humanity, without exception, has sinned, is a misunderstanding.
You obviously are making no effort to even argue with what I actually wrote, so I’m not even sure how to respond to this.
You don’t need to respond to this. However, I asked you two completely relevant questions regarding the use of ‘all’ in Scripture that you seemed to deliberately ignore.
 
You don’t need to respond to this. However, I asked you two completely relevant questions regarding the use of ‘all’ in Scripture that you seemed to deliberately ignore.
I’m not going to respond to you when you cannot even engage in an honest debate with what I already wrote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top