Protestant View of Mariology

[PRmerger]

A Jew would also think that a Divine Being would be worthy of a much more honoured death. However, our saviour was nailed to a cross wasn’t He… Thus, the Jews reject Him.

God didn’t do that, though, did He? It was men who crucified Him.

 

[dronald]

So, it was critical for Jesus to be born of the holy spirit aka God, (fully God) but not important that Jesus be born of a sinless mother (fully human)? Hmm…Sure, God can do anything. The question is: would God allow himself to become one with sinful flesh, in the most intimate manner - mother and child? Your protestant tradition says yes, as did my former protestant tradition i.e. interpretation of scripture. The only way to know for sure is to defer to Jesus’ church as opposed to your interpretation and my interpretation. There is no way I can know, on my own, with certainty, one way or the other. Would you say the same…?

This still leaves me confused, were Mary’s parents completely without sin and therefore Mary was conceived without sin? If not how not? This part always gets me.

 

[dronald]

God didn’t do that, though, did He? It was men who crucified Him.

Jesus was very clear that the only reason such will happen to Him is that He allows it. Jesus could have easily stopped the crucifixion.

 

[JonNC]

Are you talking about Axion Estin?

It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos,
ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
More honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim.
Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word.
True Theotokos, we magnify thee.

That’s beautiful.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary’s parents did indeed pass on to her their humanity and their royal lineage.

As God is the one Who breathes life, He likewise is the one Who created Mary full of grace, and her being at conception, immediately said yes to God and His will. From her yes, she was converted to Christ and in the walk of salvation like the rest of us, who are conceived with Original Sin.

So all of us are created with the interaction of God with our own parents. But He created Mary sinless yet with free will.

Mary – among all creatures – is the highest of God’s creation.

Jesus is, always was and always will … be. Jesus is Spirit, fully God, and became fully Man through the Holy Spirit and Mary. Jesus is God. It is through Jesus that the universe was created, the Eternal Word. Jesus is YES…Jesus is GRACE.

Mary was conceived full of grace where there was no space in her being to have sin, even more so, to will sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, they prayed, and God bought them a wonderful miracle…Mother of God and all of us.

“Chosen before all ages by the ineffable forethought of God” Maximus the Confessor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The IC only serves to enhance, highlight and nourish the arguments for the Divinity of Christ.

How does it enhance the divinity of Christ? Are you saying that Christ’s divinity is dependent on Mary’s state of being immaculate? Are you saying that if Mary is not immaculately concieved, Christ is less divine?

If Jesus is not divine, why does he need a perfect vessel to hold him?

Do you believe that only a perfect vessel can hold divinity? Then explain why Scripture says that God is everywhere and fillest ALL THINGS.

How would you answer the Jew who asks a Christian who denies the IC: how in the world could your “savior” be divine when he was kept for 9 months in an impure, dirty, sinful vessel? I should think that a Divine Being would be worthy of a more honored vessel.

This is the biggest disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox today regarding Christ and Mary. Christ does not need a pure vessel. He came to sanctify the world. Christ, being God, is the source of all holiness. Everything he touches are sanctified, the sick are healed, the dead are raised, sins are forgiven. If a harlot were chosen to be the God-bearer, she would become pure and immaculate because God sanctifies her. Mary’s purity is not because God needs her to be, but rather it is her response to God’s grace. See, if you claim that God needs the Theotokos to be pure and immaculate, then you have removed Mary’s free will, because it is God’s demand that she is pure and immaculate, not her own will.

Jews didn’t keep their Torah in something dirty.

The Torah is the Law. You are comparing the wrong thing here.

The IC provides great apologia for the Incarnation.

No it does not. St. Athanasius’ “On the incarnation” does not mention the IC in any way.

 

[PRmerger]

This still leaves me confused, were Mary’s parents completely without sin and therefore Mary was conceived without sin? If not how not? This part always gets me.

No, Mary’s parents were righteous and holy, but they were not immaculate.

Only Mary was created immaculate.

Why were Mary’s parents not immaculate? Because it wasn’t fitting for them to be immaculate. God simply made Mary immaculate from the very moment of her conception.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus was very clear that the only reason such will happen to Him is that He allows it. Jesus could have easily stopped the crucifixion.

True, dat.

Doesn’t change the argument that his death was a result of men’s interventions, not God’s.

 

[PRmerger]

How does it enhance the divinity of Christ?

It provides wonderful apologia for his divinity, esp. if you are in efforts to evangelize Jews and Muslims who cannot conceive of the idea of God being incarnated. It allows us to say: see, friend, how divine this being was? Even the womb which contained him was set apart for him, immaculate and pure, and for no other.

Are you saying that Christ’s divinity is dependent on Mary’s state of being immaculate?

“Enhance, highlight and nourish” are the words I used.

Are you saying that if Mary is not immaculately concieved, Christ is less divine?

No, but it assists you in offering proof of Jesus’ divinity.

A Presbyterian who believes Mary sinned and also had other children will be at a very, very vulnerable spot if she is attempting to dialogue with a Jew. All the Jew has to say is, “How could this man be divine when what carried him for 9 months was dirty and defiled by sin? And then it held other human creatures, too! Methinks that the firstborn creature of this sinful Mary was exactly like all the rest of the creatures this sinful womb brought forth into this world!”

And the Presbyterian would only be able to say, “Hmmm…”

Do you believe that only a perfect vessel can hold divinity? Then explain why Scripture says that God is everywhere and fillest ALL THINGS.

That’s why I always use the argument that it’s “fitting”, not that it was “necessary”, for, as you correctly point out, God could have used a sinful, dirty, putrid vessel. But it was fitting that he created a pure, undefiled, immaculate vessel to hold the Word Made Flesh.

[SIGN]brumano, are you listening here? Do you see how your position of “necessity” prompts the question asked by CTG?[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

This is the biggest disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox today regarding Christ and Mary. Christ does not need a pure vessel.

Haha! brumano: are you still listening? Again, if you argue that Christ “needed” a pure vessel, brumano, you will have to answer CTG here.

Again, CTG, we are agreed. Christ did not “need” a pure vessel. It was simply “fitting” that God created one for him.

He came to sanctify the world. Christ, being God, is the source of all holiness. Everything he touches are sanctified, the sick are healed, the dead are raised, sins are forgiven. If a harlot were chosen to be the God-bearer, she would become pure and immaculate because God sanctifies her

And this is nothing more than an explanation you’ve given for the IC, CTG!

Mary’s purity is not because God needs her to be, but rather it is her response to God’s grace. See, if you claim that God needs the Theotokos to be pure and immaculate, then you have removed Mary’s free will, because it is God’s demand that she is pure and immaculate, not her own will.

Right. Mary did not “need” to be pure It was “fitting” that she was.

The Torah is the Law. You are comparing the wrong thing here.

The Torah was viewed by the Jews and the Word of God. Jesus, too, is the Word of God.

The Ark of the Covenant contained, like Mary’s womb, the Word of God. And the Ark was pure, undefiled and immaculate. Not dirty and putrid.

No it does not. St. Athanasius’ “On the incarnation” does not mention the IC in any way.

What an odd thing to say! As if St. Athanasius’ 57 paragraph treatise is the* summum bonum *of the Church’s theology of the Incarnation.

Good thing that the CC does not rely on only one saint’s* apologia* to encapsulate theology for the Incarnation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No it does not. St. Athanasius’ “On the incarnation” does not mention the IC in any way.

CTG, what De Incarnatione doesn’t indicate is where the IC disagrees with the Saint. For example here…

“The Word, then, visited the earth ‘which he was always present’ and saw these evils, He takes a body of our nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life”

Virgin self descriptive, what was spotless?

also this sin aspect which seems to distort as above.

“Our 'Creation and Gods Incarnation are most intimately connected” As by the Word man was called from non-existence into being, and further received the Grace of a Divine life. so by the one-fault which forfeited that life they incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world."

 

[Protos]

A Presbyterian who believes Mary sinned and also had other children will be at a very, very vulnerable spot if she is attempting to dialogue with a Jew. All the Jew has to say is, “How could this man be divine when what carried him for 9 months was dirty and defiled by sin? And then it held other human creatures, too! Methinks that the firstborn creature of this sinful Mary was exactly like all the rest of the creatures this sinful womb brought forth into this world!”

And the Presbyterian would only be able to say, “Hmmm…”

If this was such a strong argument for the Jews then why didn’t the apostles (who knew the blessed Theotokos in person ever teach it in their writings?

The evidence for Christ’s divinity and difference from any half brothers or sisters He might have had would surely be the Virgin birth which is clearly attested to in scripture and tradition. If I’m honest I suspect the whole idea of God entering this world, eating, sleeping, using the toilet and dying would be a stumbling block to a Jew. DO you know any cases where a Jew was convinced because of the belief of Mary’s immaculate conception?

On the issue of whether Mary had more children or not does it strike anyone else as rather strange to be so interested in Mary’s sex life?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Devotion to Mary is becoming more prevalent among several Christian denominations. The book, ‘American Magnificat’ chronicles the movement.

The Development of the Liturgical Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe and Celebration in the Season of Advent

Maxwell E. Johnson

Among Mexican-American Roman Catholics, and, increasingly among various Hispanic-Latino Protestant communities as well [especially, but not only, within some communities of Episcopalians and Lutherans] the feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe on December 12 is - or is becoming - and important mid-Advent celebration, important enough in some contexts to challenge even the priority of an Advent Sunday when December 12 itself happens to fall on a Sunday.

books.google.com/books?id=jZ44PmzfkxAC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=book+american+magnificat&source=bl&ots=N-vXPSWfCM&sig=819fnySyylO2p-s0rfmp8z4S5XI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DsC8UfD6M7HlyAG634HoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=book%20american%20magnificat&f=false

Also found this article entitled: “The Invisible, Protestant Mary” [United Church of Christ].
ucc.org/ucnews/jan07/the-invisible-protestant.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If this was such a strong argument for the Jews then why didn’t the apostles (who knew the blessed Theotokos in person ever teach it in their writings?

And where did the Apostles say that all their teachings we included only in writing?

 

[Protos]

And where did the Apostles say that all their teachings we included only in writing?

Do you have any evidence the apostles ever taught it outside the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

If this was such a strong argument for the Jews then why didn’t the apostles (who knew the blessed Theotokos in person ever teach it in their writings?

Why do you limit what they preached to “in their writings” only?

St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. Surely everything he preached could not have been contained on papyrus alone.

And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.—Acts 19:8

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence for Christ’s divinity and difference from any half brothers or sisters He might have had would surely be the Virgin birth which is clearly attested to in scripture and tradition.

Certainly. But not the only apologia.

If I’m honest I suspect the whole idea of God entering this world, eating, sleeping, using the toilet and dying would be a stumbling block to a Jew

True, dat.

DO you know any cases where a Jew was convinced because of the belief of Mary’s immaculate conception?

It would be an arrogant assertion indeed to declare what you seem to be suggesting: In the history of the past 2000 years of Jewish civilization not a single Jew has ever converted after hearing the gospel, bolstered by the concept of the IC.

Surely you cannot say this, yes?

On the issue of whether Mary had more children or not does it strike anyone else as rather strange to be so interested in Mary’s sex life?

It is no more or no less strange than the Protestant obsession with her reproductive life.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have any evidence the apostles ever taught it outside the Bible?

Yes. The evidence is in the Catholic Church, which has retained all of the preachings of the Apostles.

We would not have the dogma now, if it had not been preached then.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It provides wonderful apologia for his divinity, esp. if you are in efforts to evangelize Jews and Muslims who cannot conceive of the idea of God being incarnated. It allows us to say: see, friend, how divine this being was? Even the womb which contained him was set apart for him, immaculate and pure, and for no other.

Regardless if Mary was pure or not has no bearing in others’ understanding of God becoming man. The belief that God needs someone pure because he cannot be inside someone who is “dirty” touches on Gnosticism where they believe everything in the material world is “dirty” and God cannot and should not come into contact with it.

“Enhance, highlight and nourish” are the words I used.

Same thing, how can anything of a human being enhance God’s divinity? God is unchanging, so regardless of our own state, God is still the same. He is not “enhanced” by whatever we are.

No, but it assists you in offering proof of Jesus’ divinity.

Only if used in the proper context. The current explanation offered by those who adhere to the IC touches more on Gnosticism than true Christian belief.

A Presbyterian who believes Mary sinned and also had other children will be at a very, very vulnerable spot if she is attempting to dialogue with a Jew. All the Jew has to say is, “How could this man be divine when what carried him for 9 months was dirty and defiled by sin? And then it held other human creatures, too! Methinks that the firstborn creature of this sinful Mary was exactly like all the rest of the creatures this sinful womb brought forth into this world!”

So you believe that God can be defiled by sin? This is why the IC does more harm than good, because people think that God who is all pure, all powerful, all holy, can be defiled by sin? That does more damage to the acceptance of the divinity of Christ than if he was born of a sinful harlot. Because anyone will come back and ask the question I just did. How can a God who is all powerful and all holy be defiled by sin? If he can be defiled by sin, then he simply is not God. Darkness never defeats light, a metaphor used often in Scripture.

And the Presbyterian would only be able to say, “Hmmm…”

I can’t speak for Presbyterians, but an Orthodox Christian would be able to answer that, just like I did above.

That’s why I always use the argument that it’s “fitting”, not that it was “necessary”, for, as you correctly point out, God could have used a sinful, dirty, putrid vessel. But it was fitting that he created a pure, undefiled, immaculate vessel to hold the Word Made Flesh.

It wasn’t because it was “fitting”. It wasn’t a reward just because God likes handing out shiny medals out of his whim. Again, this introduces another issue to a God who is arbitrary, a God who is unfair. If he can immaculately conceive one person, why not do it for all of humanity? If He can become human and die for us, why not also immaculately conceive all of us? This makes the IC nothing more than an arbitrary action by God done out of a whim where He bestows something only to a few elect. This then favors the Calvinistic belief of Election.

We believe that the Theotokos isn’t a break in humanity, but rather she is the greatest example. All that has been given to her either has already been given to us or will be given to us. In fact, all of us are called to bear God (Theophorus). Of course the only unique “privilege” is being the Theotokos, but that is more of a metaphysical limitation. We can’t all humanly give birth to God, but we can bear Him in the sense that He lives within us and the divine uncreated light shines within us.

And this is nothing more than an explanation you’ve given for the IC, CTG!

No it is not. As you have said above, the IC was a due privilege given. The Orthodox understanding is that Mary’s preservation from corruption is a result of her cooperation with God’s divine plan, not a precondition to it.

Right. Mary did not “need” to be pure It was “fitting” that she was.

Based on how you described what “fitting” means above, I disagree.

The Torah was viewed by the Jews and the Word of God. Jesus, too, is the Word of God.

The Ark of the Covenant contained, like Mary’s womb, the Word of God. And the Ark was pure, undefiled and immaculate. Not dirty and putrid.

I’ve never seen any Patristic teaching that teaches it this way. Mary being undefiled is the result of Christ whom she bears. To believe that humanity is dirty and putrid again is a gnostic belief, not a Christian one.

What an odd thing to say! As if St. Athanasius’ 57 paragraph treatise is the* summum bonum *of the Church’s theology of the Incarnation.

Is it not? If St. Athanasius’ teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of other Church Fathers, someone is making stuff up, and therefore in heresy. St. Maximos the Confessor centuries later used St. Athanasius’ teaching to defend his own teaching against monothelitism.

Good thing that the CC does not rely on only one saint’s* apologia* to encapsulate theology for the Incarnation.

So are you saying that different saints have different teachings? That truths differ from saint to saint?