Protestant View of Mariology

[Isaiah45_9]

Excellent point I hadn’t considered. :bowdown:

:tiphat:

 

[Monergistic]

How does a child fall short in the carnal sense. For example we all are subject to Gods law, both spiritual and physical. Just a passing thought for you to wrestle with. How does spiritual law which in truth its all a completely spiritual law, and children before the age of conscience coincide. sin becomes willful refusal to struggle in the upward battle of the world and Gods Grace. Which leaves the physical death and other aspects of the fall in place intact. Then all have fallen short is true, but the children are a different story.

Just thinking out loud.

I think I agree with you here. Imagine there is a great chasm between humanity and God. Humanity is trying to pole-vault over this chasm and somehow achieve an acceptable level of glory before God. But all have sinned, so all fall well short of that perfect standard. Only Jesus- who is not an exception because He is God- manages to bridge the gap and live a perfect, sinless life.

But what about Mary, you might ask? I would say she also sinned and fell short, although Catholics are obviously required to believe she did not ever sin. So did she avoid falling short? Was she able to pole-vault across and Not fall short of the glory of God? If so, what does it mean for someone to “not fall short of the glory of God?” I have been looking for an answer to this, and I haven’t gotten a good one yet that succeeds in answering the question, nor have I seen any references that pertain to it. Perhaps I should assume these will not be forthcoming.

But back to the infants. It’s awfully hard to say they have sinned and fallen into the chasm of shortness, but it’s also hard to say that by virtue of basically doing nothing, they have floated across the chasm on baby-blankets and attained the glory of God. Rather than being exceptional pole-vaulters who satisfy this incessant demand for an exception to the rule, infants seem to be non-participants who do not attempt the pole-vault of doom, or perhaps more realistically, they have yet to pick up a pole and commence with attempts that will inevitably end in failure- but that whole process hasn’t started quite yet.

Anyway. All have sinned And fall short if the glory of God. No one but God Himself can bridge the gap and get across this yawning chasm by being sinless. Mary is not an exception (at least that’s what I say, which is the truth), and I don’t think either of us would be inclined to say babies are champion pole-vaulters either. Their situation is a bit different and it is somewhat difficult to define precisely, but it’s not the exception that gets someone all the way across the chasm. Case in point- babies grow up, then they sin and fall short. Every single time, unless that baby happens to be God.

So that’s pretty much where I’m at. The chasm thing is important, because it brings together the guarantee and the consequence- all have sinned and fall short. You’re vaulting, you’re jumping, you’re throwing yourself as far as you can, and you’re falling short. Does anyone besides God make it all the way from one side to the other? The answer is no, and there are no exceptions to that. Unless you’re Catholic, then there’s one exception, and apparently that exception comes with a reluctance to provide any details about what the glory of God means for someone who’s not God but has nonetheless made it all the way across the chasm. And I guess certain Catholics are highly motivated to find and name some other “exceptions,” but none of them ever do really play out for you guys so it really is just Jesus and Mary. And for us guys, just Jesus. Only He makes it from one side of the chasm to the other, and this is a key building block at the heart of the Gospel message.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say she also sinned and fell short, although Catholics are obviously required to believe she did not ever sin.

I object to your use of “required to believe”, as if we are not free to believe otherwise.

And that would be like a Muslim saying, “I would say that Jesus also sinned and fell short, although Christians are obviously required to believe he did not ever sin.” As if Christians are not free to believe otherwise.

.

 

[PRmerger]

But back to the infants. It’s awfully hard to say they have sinned and fallen into the chasm of shortness, but it’s also hard to say that by virtue of basically doing nothing, they have floated across the chasm on baby-blankets and attained the glory of God. Rather than being exceptional pole-vaulters who satisfy this incessant demand for an exception to the rule, infants seem to be non-participants who do not attempt the pole-vault of doom, or perhaps more realistically, they have yet to pick up a pole and commence with attempts that will inevitably end in failure- but that whole process hasn’t started quite yet.

And this limns quite perfectly why Catholics baptize infants. It is through this sacrament that the Great Pole Vaulter carries them across to the other side.

 

[Porknpie]

I think I agree with you here. Imagine there is a great chasm between humanity and God. Humanity is trying to pole-vault over this chasm and somehow achieve an acceptable level of glory before God. But all have sinned, so all fall well short of that perfect standard. Only Jesus- who is not an exception because He is God- manages to bridge the gap and live a perfect, sinless life.

But what about Mary, you might ask? I would say she also sinned and fell short, although Catholics are obviously required to believe she did not ever sin. So did she avoid falling short? Was she able to pole-vault across and Not fall short of the glory of God? If so, what does it mean for someone to “not fall short of the glory of God?” I have been looking for an answer to this, and I haven’t gotten a good one yet that succeeds in answering the question, nor have I seen any references that pertain to it. Perhaps I should assume these will not be forthcoming.

But back to the infants. It’s awfully hard to say they have sinned and fallen into the chasm of shortness, but it’s also hard to say that by virtue of basically doing nothing, they have floated across the chasm on baby-blankets and attained the glory of God. Rather than being exceptional pole-vaulters who satisfy this incessant demand for an exception to the rule, infants seem to be non-participants who do not attempt the pole-vault of doom, or perhaps more realistically, they have yet to pick up a pole and commence with attempts that will inevitably end in failure- but that whole process hasn’t started quite yet.

Anyway. **All **have sinned And fall short if the glory of God. No one but God Himself can bridge the gap and get across this yawning chasm by being sinless. Mary is not an exception (at least that’s what I say, which is the truth), and I don’t think either of us would be inclined to say babies are champion pole-vaulters either. Their situation is a bit different and it is somewhat difficult to define precisely, but it’s not the exception that gets someone all the way across the chasm. Case in point- babies grow up, then they sin and fall short. Every single time, unless that baby happens to be God.

So that’s pretty much where I’m at. The chasm thing is important, because it brings together the guarantee and the consequence- all have sinned and fall short. You’re vaulting, you’re jumping, you’re throwing yourself as far as you can, and you’re falling short. Does anyone besides God make it all the way from one side to the other? The answer is no, and there are no exceptions to that. Unless you’re Catholic, then there’s one exception, and apparently that exception comes with a reluctance to provide any details about what the glory of God means for someone who’s not God but has nonetheless made it all the way across the chasm. And I guess certain Catholics are highly motivated to find and name some other “exceptions,” but none of them ever do really play out for you guys so it really is just Jesus and Mary. And for us guys, just Jesus. Only He makes it from one side of the chasm to the other, and this is a key building block at the heart of the Gospel message.

The key word here is “all”. You have to decide how the word “all” is to be understood in the bible and if you are infallible in your understanding. Does “all” mean “all” every time it is used in the bible? And if not, how do you know when it does and does not?

Mark 1 (NRSVCE)
4 John the baptizer appeared[e] in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And people from the **whole ****all] **Judean countryside and **all the people of Jerusalem **were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

KJV
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

So if you stay with bible literalism, then you must believe that every single person from the Judean countryside and every single person from Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist. Do you believe this to be the case in John the Baptist?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monergistic
I would say she also sinned and fell short, although Catholics are obviously required to believe she did not ever sin.

Required? Nope! It is called free-will my friend. God forces no one to believe in anything.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I object to your use of “required to believe”, as if we are not free to believe otherwise.

Monergistic states the truth. You, as a faithful Catholic, are most definitely** not **free to believe otherwise. Have you not read Ineffabilis Deus?

Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church…

 

[Nicea325]

Monergistic states the truth. You, as a faithful Catholic, are most definitely** not **free to believe otherwise. Have you not read Ineffabilis Deus?

Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church…

Not exactly! How about presenting the entire text and not just a section which presents a smoking gun.

 

[PRmerger]

Monergistic states the truth. You, as a faithful Catholic, are most definitely** not **free to believe otherwise. Have you not read Ineffabilis Deus?

Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church…

Right. We are not free to believe that she sinned.

Just as you are not free to believe
-that there are many gods
-that God is 4 persons in one
-that Mary was not a virgin
-that Jesus stayed dead

etc etc etc

As I said, I object to the use of the phrase “not free to believe”, as if that limits our freedom to believe.

If we Catholics are “not free to believe” something, you, too, are “not free to believe” somethings.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Not exactly! How about presenting the entire text and not just a section which presents a smoking gun.

By all means Nicea, please enlighten me. I like to think I have a teachable heart. Please show me how one can reject Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution and remain a faithful Catholic.

 

[Porknpie]

Right. We are not free to believe that she sinned.

Just as you are not free to believe
-that there are many gods
-that God is 4 persons in one
-that Mary was not a virgin
-that Jesus stayed dead

etc etc etc

As I said, I object to the use of the phrase “not free to believe”, as if that limits our freedom to believe.

If we Catholics are “not free to believe” something, you, too, are “not free to believe” somethings.

PR, I know what you meant…it’s interesting how someone can read the same one sentence text that you wrote and come up with a completely different meaning and then implicitly say “I got ya”. Then moving to the complexity of the bible … remove it from the Church that wrote it … and one can find countless ways to stray from its meaning. That’s why there are 42,000 Christian denominations.

Protestants are really stuck with a dilemma:

• They accept the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church to determine the books that are in their bible…
• But they believe that same Church errors on faith and morals.

If the latter is true…then one should not have confidence that the bible in anyway is the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

And… if one is fond of quoting St. Augustine in their signature, I would suggest adding either or all of the quotes below and not pick and choose out of context.

"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."(St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 5,6)

or perhaps this one

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (St. Augustine, Sermons 227)

or perhaps this one

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, **a Virgin perpetual. **Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]

 

[GaryTaylor]

Only Jesus- who is not an exception because He is God- manages to bridge the gap and live a perfect, sinless life…

So He is not an exception because He is God of course and could not be subjected to this fallen state which the law required [His Law]. Then from what I’m reading Mary was subjected to the Law, because "all have sinned’ [which doesn’t seem conclusive here in this thread?] So Jesus who is not subject, subjected Himself to another who according to you was born subject to the law thus a sinner, severed from Grace, doesn’t that make her not… Full of Grace=Biblically? How did that work. are you suggesting the Bible is meaning other than it stated in Luke? But in your mind there in no way around “All have sinned” I don’t know bro, seems to indicate a double standard here.

Oh, back to the point. so this Mary, Mother of our Lord who was a sinner by Gods Law, and Mother of the Incarnate Word of God, How did this occur where she is a sinner and He is not, yet He was born without the sin He was conceived into??? Is this the part where you say “With God all things are possible” Is that another verse we should strictly take literally? But we "shouldn’t’ take “Full of Grace” literally? Does Full mean Grace mean lacking none? Or does it mean kinda full or not actually full because of the law?

I’m just sola scriptura reading here. So again God can do anything, Mary, He deemed Full of Grace, and Mary’s a sinner, because Paul stated all have sinned so that must mean all,[though yet to be proven] How does that square?

But what about Mary, you might ask? I would say she also sinned and fell short, although Catholics are obviously required to believe she did not ever sin. So did she avoid falling short? Was she able to pole-vault across and Not fall short of the glory of God? If so, what does it mean for someone to “not fall short of the glory of God?” I have been looking for an answer to this, and I haven’t gotten a good one yet that succeeds in answering the question, nor have I seen any references that pertain to it. Perhaps I should assume these will not be forthcoming…

Well what’s wrong with your answer “With God all things are possible” and the 2000 year History of the Apostolic Church’s? You realize your understanding here is different than “all” the apostolic see’s. I think its a little much to say “Rome” against “all” other Church’s. You mean “all” protestant Church’s? Mary was definitely preserved at “some” point we differ at that point of agreement “only”.

We cannot define what is not falling short till we squared falling short. Have anything to read in your church about this state of sin and the fall? I believe we have a different understanding of this fall. Or is this where you agree with the Catholic Church?

I know you would but I’m seeing you leaning on that one verse hard, and not a concluded argument?

But back to the infants. It’s awfully hard to say they have sinned and fallen into the chasm of shortness, but it’s also hard to say that by virtue of basically doing nothing, they have floated across the chasm on baby-blankets and attained the glory of God. Rather than being exceptional pole-vaulters who satisfy this incessant demand for an exception to the rule, infants seem to be non-participants who do not attempt the pole-vault of doom, or perhaps more realistically, they have yet to pick up a pole and commence with attempts that will inevitably end in failure- but that whole process hasn’t started quite yet…

This is defined by the church and elaborated on from early on by the Saints. Gods mercy and Love, its in His hands which we trust in. But no I am not suggesting they are an exception to any rule, Gods rules, these are His rules. They are His creation, which He created to exist, which mean they cannot “not” exist. So by the law as you suggest they enter where since you do not believe in purification, that leaves. well, heaven and hell? And frankly according to “all have sinned” that pretty much sentenced them to eternal damnation? They fell short by the law and perished in this state.

Anyway. All have sinned And fall short if the glory of God. No one but God Himself can bridge the gap and get across this yawning chasm by being sinless. Mary is not an exception (at least that’s what I say, which is the truth), and I don’t think either of us would be inclined to say babies are champion pole-vaulters either. Their situation is a bit different and it is somewhat difficult to define precisely, but it’s not the exception that gets someone all the way across the chasm. Case in point- babies grow up, then they sin and fall short. Every single time, unless that baby happens to be God…

What about the babies who die before baptism,which God created to “exist” where are they existing? Wait, wait is this another “All things are possible with God”?

So that’s pretty much where I’m at. al have sinned and fall short.

Sounds good based on the argument “all have sinned” I don’t see where that’s established. Did you read the link above about the elusive word “all” and its use in throughout Scripture? Are you sure about these other points? Frankly I don’t see how you can be.

 

[campeador]

And this limns quite perfectly why Catholics baptize infants. It is through this sacrament that the Great Pole Vaulter carries them across to the other side.

Fulfilling Jesus’ words: you, therefore, must go out, making disciples of ALL nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

 

[Monergistic]

So He is not an exception because He is God of course and could not be subjected to this fallen state which the law required [His Law]. Then from what I’m reading Mary was subjected to the Law, because "all have sinned’ [which doesn’t seem conclusive here in this thread?] So Jesus who is not subject, subjected Himself to another who according to you was born subject to the law thus a sinner, severed from Grace, doesn’t that make her not… Full of Grace=Biblically? How did that work. are you suggesting the Bible is meaning other than it stated in Luke?

I would suggest that Protestants and Catholics, as a general rule, nearly always mean different things when they are talking about grace- sometimes vastly different things, depending on what kind of Protestant. Sacramental grace, once rigorously defined, is something that I’m not even willing to acknowledge the existence of. You see how far apart we are? You can’t realistically expect to point me to where it says “Grace” in the Bible and see me do what you do with it. Don’t be incredulous and flustered, this has always been a major sticking point between our tribes.

As for why God is not an exception to the rule, you can stop making up reasons for why I say this. Refer to the Usain Bolt illustration, you remember that one? By the way, Usain Bolt’s mom is much slower than he is. She falls well short of his speed, despite being his mother. Well, how could that possibly be? Well…pretty easily, and it’s not too difficult to wrap your head around if you think about it.

 

[Monergistic]

We cannot define what is not falling short till we squared falling short. Have anything to read in your church about this state of sin and the fall? I believe we have a different understanding of this fall. Or is this where you agree with the Catholic Church?

I know you would but I’m seeing you leaning on that one verse hard, and not a concluded argument?

What about the babies who die before baptism,which God created to “exist” where are they existing? Wait, wait is this another “All things are possible with God”?

Sounds good based on the argument “all have sinned” I don’t see where that’s established. Did you read the link above about the elusive word “all” and its use in throughout Scripture? Are you sure about these other points? Frankly I don’t see how you can be.

I appreciate that you began to address what it means to fall short and what it means to not fall short; however, I’m still struggling to see which of these you would definitely apply to Mary and what that ultimately means for her. As for my overall conclusion, I think you know what it is- Mary sinned and fell short of the glory of God, she regularly admitted her sinfulness to a Jewish priest and made sacrifices to atone for it, and while she was a great woman, she was in need if salvation by the blood of her son as much as anyone/everyone else.

Babies who die- that is entirely in God’s hands, and I guess I’m glad that baptizing an infant gives you peace of mind but I don’t believe that changes things at all. All I can do is entrust them to the mercy of God, and I believe He is merciful, whether the baby’s been baptized or not.

You noticed I’ve been leaning on this verse hard, and I have. I’ve also been unable to get a decent response to a question I’ve been asking about it, so why don’t you go ahead and take care of that. If you would, please.

All things are possible with God- I wasn’t the one who brought that up. I argued against someone else who was leaning on that; I haven’t been leaning on that. Mostly though, I said I would table it until the thing with falling short of the glory and not falling short of the glory is taken care of. That still hasn’t happened.

As far as the word all- yes, I read all of the material that the link took me to. Do you know what I’m saying? I said I read all of it. You know what that means? I don’t want to confuse you; “all” is a terribly tricky word.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as the word all- yes, I read all of the material that the link took me to. Do you know what I’m saying? I said I read all of it. You know what that means? I don’t want to confuse you; “all” is a terribly tricky word.

Again, Monergistic, be very careful. You are starting to get testy. Remember what happened the last time you did this.

Just a friendly warning.

It is good for you to be here.

 

[PRmerger]

I appreciate that you began to address what it means to fall short and what it means to not fall short; however, I’m still struggling to see which of these you would definitely apply to Mary and what that ultimately means for her.

It’s a good question and the Catholic answer is the proverbial both/and.

She is the perfect creature, and as such, has not fallen short but is that which we were all created to be. In fact, she is the Queen of the Angels. So definitely NOT falling short.

And…

As she is a creature, she will always fall short of the glory of God. So definitely falling short.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would suggest that Protestants and Catholics, as a general rule, nearly always mean different things when they are talking about grace- sometimes vastly different things, depending on what kind of Protestant. Sacramental grace, once rigorously defined, is something that I’m not even willing to acknowledge the existence of. You see how far apart we are? You can’t realistically expect to point me to where it says “Grace” in the Bible and see me do what you do with it. Don’t be incredulous and flustered, this has always been a major sticking point between our tribes…

I’m talking about what you mean by Grace and according to the fall, Luke and Paul and how this applies to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. What do you use to understand this? The double standard cannot be ignored nor can this understanding you have of the Incarnation. Its a fractured story which has no continuity.

And who is in fact being incredulous?

As for why God is not an exception to the rule, you can stop making up reasons for why I say this. Refer to the Usain Bolt illustration, you remember that one? By the way, Usain Bolt’s mom is much slower than he is. She falls well short of his speed, despite being his mother. Well, how could that possibly be? Well…pretty easily, and it’s not too difficult to wrap your head around if you think about it.

Grace I’m on Grace and Creation/Fall and the Incarnation/Bible according to the last 2000 of the Catholic Church and the continuity is amazing. Are you telling me this is your doctrine to explain the Incarnation of the Word of God? Do you agree you may actually be wrong about all have sinned, full of grace, according to your understanding of the Bible? Grace relating to sin and the creation story and the fall, Incarnation. That’s what I’m talking about.

The Sacraments were not even mentioned by me. I’m trying to understand your understanding of the above in the continuity of what I mentioned.

 

[Monergistic]

Again, Monergistic, be very careful. You are starting to get testy. Remember what happened the last time you did this.

Just a friendly warning.

It is good for you to be here.

I appreciate all of what you tell me, all the time. Thanks so much.

 

[Monergistic]

It’s a good question and the Catholic answer is the proverbial both/and.

She is the perfect creature, and as such, has not fallen short but is that which we were all created to be. In fact, she is the Queen of the Angels. So definitely NOT falling short.

And…

As she is a creature, she will always fall short of the glory of God. So definitely falling short.

Yoda, that was. Hold out for reference to Church teaching I will.