Protestant View of Mariology

[Porknpie]

Much debate. Lutherans leave the matter of Mary’s immaculate conception, perpetual virginity & assumption to the individual. If we disagree, that’s OK. :hug3:

EC -

What did Luther, the original Lutheran, say and believe on each of the above? I don’t think he would agree with you…

Interesting article here

 

[KathleenGee]

Just scanned the link, Greg. Thanks, a must read this coming week.

 

[PRmerger]

PR…like your responses, analogies…

Thanks, dearest! :hug3:

When the Angel Gabriel declared Mary full of grace, the Lord is with you…that there states she had no sin.

But the event of her sinlessness happened in her redemption in the nature of her conception. hers a more perfect redemption. How could it not be othrewise for the Mother of God?..

Exactly.

I just wanted to point out that when you said that ONLY Jesus was sinless, that this was incorrect. I knew that you believed that Mary, also was sinless.

Constantine…In regards to your remark that only Jesus is sinless, that is indeed Scripture which is the Word of God.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

EC -

What did Luther, the original Lutheran, say and believe on each of the above? I don’t think he would agree with you…

Interesting article here

True, Luther held very strong Marian beliefs but in practice Lutherans approach these matters as neither scripturally conclusive nor forbidden.

 

[GaryTaylor]

True, Luther held very strong Marian beliefs but in practice Lutherans approach these matters as neither scripturally conclusive nor forbidden.

Begs the question what does scripturally conclusive mean. Is this a collective opinion “with” elaboration?

So Luther thought they were scripturally conclusive. I don’t remember him stating this isn’t scripturally conclusive but I believe it anyway.

Where is Luther’s idea of Lucifer and that we are to renounce evil? Where does it state we are to turn to the east in prayer? Where’s the words of the consecration of Eucharist-body and blood. And for our eastern followers where is the sign of the cross stated and how to implement it? Where does it state in Baptism there is triple immersion?

Where is any of this scripturally conclusive or even mentioned? And the Trinity, well its pretty amazing how all seem to conclude and are so positive they would have arrived at the same conclusion of the Catholic Church. Just Saying

 

[Porknpie]

True, Luther held very strong Marian beliefs but in practice Lutherans approach these matters as neither scripturally conclusive nor forbidden.

EC-

Per Gary Taylor’s post, who is the authority to pick and choose what is scripturally conclusive? And why should one belief this authority and not the apostolic authority of his Church? And where in the bible does it say a doctrine must be scripturally conclusive to be scripturally conclusive?

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

Don’t be afraid of being a little more Catholic here…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Something to think about…lol. And by elaborating on what is not scripturally conclusive, you “still” arrive at a scripturally conclusive ideal=doctrine. But… you can believe it or not, the ‘unwritten doctrine’. More importantly isn’t everyone doing exactly this in this day and age and claiming “only” Rome developed doctrine. You have your own Doctrine right here and its called “:believe it or not”. You “added” by elaboration a “clause” in doctrine which you also “made” unwritten.

This is no different than protestant areas of today stating we have no creed. Well, I say not written. BUT if you write down what you believe, you do have a Creed. May not be the Nicene Creed, but it is a creed in non-written communication.

So who defines what is conclusive in scripture, who gets to draw the proverbial red-line? At what point do we say “Oops that’s over the Red-Line” Who gets to say this. Is this a Democratic Vote?

 

[aidanbradypop]

ConstantineTG…you never responded to post #621. Just wondering what you think of the ECFs view on the IC?

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG…you never responded to post #621. Just wondering what you think of the ECFs view on the IC?

Sorry, I missed that.

The IC is completely absent from the mind of all early Church Fathers. What you posted aren’t about the IC. Sorry, but those words are just interpreted to be IC by those who already believe in the IC and trying to make words fit into what they already believe in. Mary’s purity and preservation from sin has nothing to do with being immacualtely conceived.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mark 1 clearly states that ALL of Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist as well as the everyone in the Judean countryside. Be careful of context and one has to be careful of the word “whole” and “all”. Only as an example below.

4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.

This is a modern play on words, I would extend the same caution to yourself. Let us not try to analyze Biblical words based on English translations. What I offered you is what the Fathers of the Church has taught from the early times of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mary was made full of grace, Constantine…and Jesus came to her with a more perfect form of perfection, of redemption when she conceived Him in her womb.

You mean Christ, being God, is less perfect had Mary not been immaculately conceived?

We cannot just simply say she is full of grace because she was picked by God to be Christ’s mother. Likewise all of creation was waiting for the Savior, even Christ choosing the time to be born…in the Constellation of the Ram, Aries…Jesus, the Lamb of God.

Mary was a unique form, the highest of God’s creation, blessed above all women, not because she simply said yes, but in who she was and how she was created.

This is where we disagree. Mary is a human like us, there is no human above any other human, we are all equal. To say that Mary is a different creation from the rest of us is exactly why the Orthodox opposes the IC and all RC Marian dogmas. If Mary is a different creation from us, then Christ being incarnated of her would have NOT redeemed us. The problem here is that in RC theology, the importance of the incarnation to our salvation has been largely lost, this is why such absurd beliefs have come out. Christ taking the exact same flesh all humans share is very important and very central in our salvation. Merely becoming human for the sake of offering himself as a Sacrifice is not enough, this is already covered by St. Athanasius’ writing and is what the Church Fathers all agree on.

We cannot say Mary was chosen among other women, she had royal lineage, she was born in that time Christ chose, Mary the bridge between creation and Christ, the Eternal Word.

But this is predestination, again this is a Calvinistic heresy.

Again, Jesus is grace, He is YES in His humanity, and He and Mary were in communion with this Fiat. No other woman could be in this mystery, without being created in mystery herself.

See above.

Otherwise, you reduce Mary, and subsequently Christ Himself to be lesser than the One True God and True Man.

And you are denying the reality I found out today that her Immaculate Conception was formally celebrated in the Eastern Church in the 7th century. So you cannot refer to the Latin Church as arbitrating this idea of the Immaculate Conception.

No, the Eastern Church has never celebrated her immaculate conception. We celebrate her conception by St. Anne, never in the same context of “immaculate conception” as the West has came up with only in the Second Millennium. And we don’t even celebrate it on the same day, it is not the same feast.

 

[ConstantineTG]

By the way, from the most educated in Orthodoxy, the whole schism was brought about by mistranslations, then the tempest in the teapot that led to the Schism.

Those who join in the fray, on both sides, keep the schism.

There needs to be a breakthrough on the historical fact that it was the mistranslation of langauge between East and West that led to our split. And I was surprised to hear today that the Eastern Church celebrated the Immaculate Conception over a thousand years before we were allowed to if one considers the dogma in 1954 then allowing us to celebrate this feast of Mary.

This is such a simplistic view that does no justice to the reality of the situation and contributes nothing to the reunion. If we are not honest about what divides us, how can we resolve those issues?

East and West have been slowly drifting apart for centuries before the schism. Even if people would say how petty the reasons where like the 1054 excommunications, it was just a result of centuries of issues piling up. The theology is vastly different, Rome has clung to teachings the East never accepted and wasn’t even aware at the time because simple when the original teachings of those theologies came out, they were just ignored.

It is a great deception to try to paint the issues between East and West as nothing more than a petty argument.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Sorry, I missed that.

The IC is completely absent from the mind of all early Church Fathers. What you posted aren’t about the IC. Sorry, but those words are just interpreted to be IC by those who already believe in the IC and trying to make words fit into what they already believe in. Mary’s purity and preservation from sin has nothing to do with being immacualtely conceived.

Explain

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Begs the question what does scripturally conclusive mean. Is this a collective opinion “with” elaboration?

So Luther thought they were scripturally conclusive. I don’t remember him stating this isn’t scripturally conclusive but I believe it anyway.

Where is Luther’s idea of Lucifer and that we are to renounce evil? Where does it state we are to turn to the east in prayer? Where’s the words of the consecration of Eucharist-body and blood. And for our eastern followers where is the sign of the cross stated and how to implement it? Where does it state in Baptism there is triple immersion?

Where is any of this scripturally conclusive or even mentioned? And the Trinity, well its pretty amazing how all seem to conclude and are so positive they would have arrived at the same conclusion of the Catholic Church. Just Saying

Your raise good points. I guess the ultimate reality is that a person can either believe that Our Lady is sinless and assumed into heaven either before her actual death or shortly thereafter or not and still be saved. It is a matter of piety for Lutherans.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I guess the ultimate reality is that a person can either believe that Our Lady is sinless and assumed into heaven either before her actual death or shortly thereafter or not and still be saved.

What you are saying in reality is what is happening with a great deal of Christianity today and in all the Church’s. Catholic’s obviously are not excluded from this dilemma. I just find myself speechless when the topic of what God cannot do arrives. Especially when I find myself praying to Him for my salvation. And Mary? Please pray for all of us. Far by me to suggest where God should place His Mother in His Kingdom which I am seeking admission into it. We should think the highest we can about the Lord and His plan, and of course His Mother and the entire Holy Family and Communion of Saints. And we should agree what we do not know, and are not sure about we shouldn’t disbelieve and certainly shouldn’t view in the negative. We’d be having this same conversation with a united Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is such a simplistic view that does no justice to the reality of the situation and contributes nothing to the reunion. If we are not honest about what divides us, how can we resolve those issues?.

Key to the conversation.

East and West have been slowly drifting apart for centuries before the schism. Even if people would say how petty the reasons where like the 1054 excommunications, it was just a result of centuries of issues piling up?.

Could you elaborate or should we take your word this is absolute but general?

The theology is vastly different, .

Back to the same statement which is absolute but general?

Rome has clung to teachings the East never accepted and wasn’t even aware at the time because simple when the original teachings of those theologies came out, they were just ignored.

They were not aware of what they never accepted?

It is a great deception to try to paint the issues between East and West as nothing more than a petty argument.

What do we have here? Come on now.

Constantine, what are your thoughts on the Protestant view of Mariology?

 

[dvdjs]

Mary is a human like us, there is no human above any other human, we are all equal. To say that Mary is a different creation from the rest of us is exactly why the Orthodox opposes the IC and all RC Marian dogmas. If Mary is a different creation from us, then Christ being incarnated of her would have NOT redeemed us.

As usual, the consuming effort to build up barriers and to differentiate from the CC leads to a loss of orthodoxy.

Mary is human essence, like us. Mary is, however, unique and above all creation - as is stated repeatedly in Orthodox services.

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.

No other human, in Eastern tradition, is more honorable than cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. And so forth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sorry, I missed that.

The IC is completely absent from the mind of all early Church Fathers. What you posted aren’t about the IC. Sorry, but those words are just interpreted to be IC by those who already believe in the IC and trying to make words fit into what they already believe in. Mary’s purity and preservation from sin has nothing to do with being immacualtely conceived.

Post #671

:hey_bud:

 

[Nicea325]

Romans 3 clearly states that all have sinned, and then Hebrews 4 states that Christ is sinless.

Then Paul is misleading people by applying the term **all **and Hebrews 4 says otherwise? Cannot both be right or both be wrong? The term “all” means exactly that…all;hence Jesus would be included in "all " because he too is human.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Then Paul is misleading people by mentioning the term all and Hebrews 4 says otherwise? Cannot both be right or both be wrong? The term “all” means exactly that…all,hence Jesus would be included because he too is human.