Protestant teaching of Mary

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

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.

What?! No offense, but that is a complete cop-out. What isn’t ‘honest’? What did I fail to read in your statement?

 

[Hodos]

Protesting as in Protestant.

The word Protestant came about when Charles V commanded that the Lutheran churches return to the Catholic Church by force of arms. However, no reforms had been made and would have caused them to abandon their faith in Christian doctrine as summarized in the Augsburg Confession. I am not twisting your words, I am quite within historical context in the application that I made.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Again, I maintain it is a PROFOUND mistake to ignore the teachings of the four modern APOSTOLIC church communions — the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Church.

Who would be so bold to claim that the churches that today trace their lineage to apostolic times are WRONG, and the newfound beliefs come 1600 years later suddenly got it right?

Let’s take a sampling from the Oriental Orthodox communion, shall we? Here are some notes from a Coptic Orthodox site regarding Mary:

Saint Mary is regarded as the highest saint in the [Oriental] Orthodox Church. She is higher than all the heavenly saints and any man or woman saint who ever lived. She is called the Theotokos, which is a Greek word meaning “Mother of God.” Saint Mary is the Mother of God…

The Copts also believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, holiness, queenship, and assumption. See more here.

---

Edit: This line or thought can (and should) be used with any church doctrine. If your modern Protestant Church is at fundamental odds with ALL four of these apostolic and ancient communions, then that is very telling. For example, each of these traditions, with their various counterparts (e.g., “Latin” Catholic tradition, “Syriac” Catholic tradition, etc.) believe in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All have bishops, maintain apostolic succession, and profess a ministerial priesthood. If your Protestant church is missing these, should you be concerned? Why or why not?

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Protesting as in Protestant.

The word Protestant came about when Charles V commanded that the Lutheran churches return to the Catholic Church by force of arms. However, no reforms had been made and would have caused them to abandon their faith in Christian doctrine as summarized in the Augsburg Confession. I am not twisting your words, I am quite within historical context in the application that I made.

The Apostles didn’t have the Lutheran context. Better?

 

[ltwin]

What?! No offense, but that is a complete cop-out. What isn’t ‘honest’? What did I fail to read in your statement?

Also, Romans 3:23 refers to actual, personal sins committed, not original sin.

I know that, which is why I said this:

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.

And yes, Christ was without sin, but again, we are told that explicitly in Scripture (Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:16).

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.

I clearly did distinguish between those who commit personal sins and those who haven’t, but whatever.

“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?

You say there are adults (other than Jesus) who are sinlessly perfect. OK. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I don’t know Greek, so I can’t answer your question about the word “all”. Scripture, however, is clear on this point:

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1: 8-10).

Let’s put the question of Mary aside for now. Besides her and Jesus, is there anyone else in the last 2000 years who lived beyond infancy for who 1 John 1:8-10 is not true?

 

[Hodos]

The Apostles didn’t have the Lutheran context.

Spin that around. The Lutherans actually looked at scripture to reveal the apostolic context.

 

[po18guy]

Is it possible to insult the Mother of Christ by our attitude and lack of love as well as by our words?

Short answer: yes.

The Church has recognized, at least since John put Revelation to papyrus, that Mary is the Mother of the entire faithful. This unprecedented and enigmatic reality indicates that she should be honored at a level above our own parents, as she is mother of all who live eternally in Christ. No other may claim that.

Our parents cooperated in God’s plan of creating us, but Mary gave fully of herself for the sake of all mankind and of eternal life. She has the ear of her divine Son - both on earth and in heaven. God shielded her from the evil one - even from the temptation that Christ subjected Himself to.

She was untouchable on earth and now in heaven. Yet, even today, the evil one relentlessly seeks to incite willing dupes into maligning her name. He was long ago condemned, but seeks the condemnation of those whom he incites to malign her today.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

The Apostles didn’t have the Lutheran context.

Spin that around. The Lutherans actually looked at scripture to reveal the apostolic context.

Weird. The other 40,000 ecclesial denominations claim the exact thing and yet come to different results. Hmmmm.

 

[AugustTherese]

Let’s put the question of Mary aside for now. Besides her and Jesus, is there anyone else in the last 2000 years who lived beyond infancy for who 1 John 1:8-10 is not true?

Saint John the Baptist was born without original sin. He did not commit sin.

 

[SnowRose]

Scriptual source on that one, please.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Let’s put the question of Mary aside for now. Besides her and Jesus, is there anyone else in the last 2000 years who lived beyond infancy for who 1 John 1:8-10 is not true?

Probably the severely mentally disabled.

 

[po18guy]

Why do you need written proof? No faith? Do you have written proof that your mother loves you?

If you believe anything in the bible, it is only consistent and reasonable that you also believe the teaching of the only Church on earth against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. This is the elephant in the protestant/bible Christian living room.

But, to trust His Church, you must first believe in all of Christ, not just the parts you agree with.

 

[SnowRose]

I asked for the source in scripture where John the Baptist was born without sin and died sinless.
If there is no scriptual source, someone made it up afterwards.

 

[ltwin]

Probably the severely mentally disabled.

Yes, I’ve already got that covered thanks.

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

 

[ltwin]

Saint John the Baptist was born without original sin. He did not commit sin.

I asked for the source in scripture where John the Baptist was born without sin and died sinless.
If there is no scriptual source, someone made it up afterwards.

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb, which would indicate he was born regenerate from natural birth. That is scriptural; Luke 1:15 “for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

The part about him not commiting any sin though, I’m not so sure about. However, even if that were true, it would not imply that Mary was born in the same way or that she was sinless or perpetually a virgin.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A representation of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, a part of the Oriental Orthodox communion:

Our Lady the holy Virgin Mary, the Bearer of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnated God, has a lofty position in Christendom higher than that of the angels, prophets, apostles, martyrs and doctors of the Church, because God has chosen, purified, sanctified and preferred to her to all women of earth. She is the diadem of the virgins and the crown of the Christians.

http://www.syriacchristianity.info/doc/HolyVirginMary.htm

Even though many Eastern traditions do not utilize the concept of the Immaculate Conception (at least as expressed in the Catholic/Latin Church), most Eastern traditions accept the Dormition/Assumption of Mary. And yet, the Assumption of Mary strongly implies Mary’s sanctification, holiness, and sinlessness — even if one does not want to use the term “Immaculate Conception.”

For the wages of sin is death, and it is hard to see how Mary should be transitioned to the glorified state if her flesh was corrupted by sin. To truly be the New Eve, as Christians proclaimed Mary to be as early as the second century, she would have to not have fallen victim to the Devil.

Remember that Original Sin, at its base, is the absence of grace. For Mary to be immaculately conceived just means this: That She had grace from the moment of her existence. It does not make her more than human. In fact, humanity was originally called to this — Adam and Eve were freely given grace, possibly at the moment of their creation/conception. It does not make her lacking a savior.

 

[Hodos]

Weird. The other 40,000 ecclesial denominations claim the exact thing and yet come to different results. Hmmmm.

Agree, many of them to include the 900 denominations of Roman Catholicism do not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Also, settle on a number. When people claiming to be Roman Catholic apologists keep randomly using different numbers it kills your credibility. Why not use a jillion? It sounds even more scary.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So basically, the chief Christian traditions reaching back to the apostolic age are really one in agreement on these points:

• Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary is the “Ever Virgin,” remaining a virgin before, during, and after the conception of Jesus Christ.
• Mary’s holiness to the extent of being the chief saint. To reference a Malankara Syriac site (from Oriental Orthodox communion), Mary has “a lofty position in Christendom higher than that of the angels, prophets, apostles, martyrs and doctors of the Church, because God has chosen, purified, sanctified and preferred to her to all women of earth” (source). It goes without saying that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics agree with this.
• Mary’s Dormition or Assumption into Heaven. While it’s not necessarily official “dogma” in all Eastern traditions, the teaching of Mary being taken body and soul into Heaven is found within all the major apostolic communions.
• Mary’s motherhood of all Christians, often described in terms of queenship and expressed in her heavenly intercession.

Catholic. Eastern Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox. Taken together, this is the vast majority of Christianity today and throughout history. These groups maintain continuity with the earliest Church. To be humble, we should all consider carefully whether or not we ought to respect the consensus of these ancient and apostolic church traditions.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Weird. The other 40,000 ecclesial denominations claim the exact thing and yet come to different results. Hmmmm.

Agree, many of them to include the 900 denominations of Roman Catholicism do not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Also, settle on a number. When people claiming to be Roman Catholic apologists keep randomly using different numbers it kills your credibility. Why not use a jillion? It sounds even more scary.

You mean the 24 Churches with different liturgical rites and traditions that are all in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and all believe in the same core Dogmas; those are hardly comparable to the scattered and incongruous ecclesial denominations that are all fighting over the correct interpretation of Scripture. Nice try, though.

40,000 = a nice round number of hyperbole. I mean, can anyone truly keep track of this ever-growing number?

 

[Hodos]

You mean the 24 Churches with different liturgical rites and traditions that are all in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and all believe in the same core Dogmas; those are hardly comparable to the scattered and incongruous ecclesial denominations that are all fighting over the correct interpretation of Scripture. Nice try, though.

40,000 = a nice round number of hyperbole. I mean, can anyone truly keep track of this ever-growing number?

No, I mean the 900 Roman Catholic denominations cited in the article you are trying to make reference to without having read it. Apparently you don’t read secular articles for content any more carefully than scripture.

40,000 = a nice round number of hyperbole. I mean, can anyone truly keep track of this ever-growing number?

Only those who are trying to be intellectually honest instead of making up stuff to support an argument that is a tangent from the original discussion.