Protestants: What does your denomination teach about the Virgin Mary today versus when it was created?

[Harpazo]

I realize that the creators of various denominations of Protestant Christianity held views of the Virgin Mary that are no longer held by the denominations. Luther held to her perpetual virginity, but now Lutherans on the whole do not corporally accept it. The same with Anglicans, Methodists, etc. Now it’s only optional belief in most denominations of Protestant Christianity.

What does your denomination currently teach about the Holy Virgin, and why did it stray from the original teachings of your founder/foundress?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m not Protestant but I imagine the answer stems from Sola Scriptura, and the encouragement of individual interpretations of Scripture apart from the Tradition of the Church.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m not Protestant but I imagine the answer stems from Sola Scriptura, and the encouragement of individual interpretations of Scripture apart from the Tradition of the Church.

Perhaps, but if their founder(s) led them into truth with their interpretations, why do they pick and choose what they taught and/or said.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[1ke]

You are presuming that people in these denominations KNOW what their founders taught regarding Mary. Most do not.

 

[kage_ar]

You are presuming that people in these denominations KNOW what their founders taught regarding Mary. Most do not.

Amen!

It goes one step further, most do not even know who the founders were.

In my experience, in most evangelical circles, Mary is kept tucked away like a family secret - they bring her out once each year for the Christimas pageant.

 

[JonNC]

I realize that the creators of various denominations of Protestant Christianity held views of the Virgin Mary that are no longer held by the denominations. Luther held to her perpetual virginity, but now Lutherans on the whole do not corporally accept it. The same with Anglicans, Methodists, etc. Now it’s only optional belief in most denominations of Protestant Christianity.

What does your denomination currently teach about the Holy Virgin, and why did it stray from the original teachings of your founder/foundress?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

Hi Andrew,
You are very right that the teachings today about the BVM in my church (Lutheran) is less clear than what Luther believed. Someone here blamed it on “sola scriptura”, others may blame it on a desire not to appear too “Catholic”. But Luther said that certain aspects of Mariology are not clearly stated in scripture, and therefore are not articles of faith. No one should be condemned for believing or not believing in them. That’s why you don’t see a corporeal statement or doctrine on the matter.
Yes, Lutherans are free to choose their beliefs about marion dogmas, but in my view, should not condemn the beliefs of others. Personally, my only disagreement with Rome about it is that it is doctrine.

Jon

 

[flameburns623]

Even those Protestants who are reasonably literate about their denominational history do not feel themselves bound to the private opinions of the founders or leading lights of their sects. The understanding is that the call of the Reformation is to be ever-reforming the Church, which is ever glorious and without blemish as the Mystical Body of Christ, but which as a human institution is ever liable to error and ignorance.

As a previous poster noted, there is also considerable leeway in Protestant denominations to accept these sorts of doctrines privately, because of their great antiquity, so long as one understands that Scripture and not antiquity or tradition is the true final authority.

 

[O.S.Luke]

My denomination says nothing doctrinal about the Virgin Mary outside of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the Articles of Religion. John Wesley had this opinion:

I believe that [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. - from Letter to a Roman Catholic, Dublin, July 18, 1749

The Articles of Religion, which are doctrine, say this:

Article II—Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

That belief continues today.

 

[James1982]

Hi Andrew,
You are very right that the teachings today about the BVM in my church (Lutheran) is less clear than what Luther believed. Someone here blamed it on “sola scriptura”, others may blame it on a desire not to appear too “Catholic”. But Luther said that certain aspects of Mariology are not clearly stated in scripture, and therefore are not articles of faith. No one should be condemned for believing or not believing in them. That’s why you don’t see a corporeal statement or doctrine on the matter.
Yes, Lutherans are free to choose their beliefs about marion dogmas, but in my view, should not condemn the beliefs of others. Personally, my only disagreement with Rome about it is that it is doctrine.

Jon

Though, I would note, for many Lutherans, especially the more conservative denoms, believing that Mary was anything but a normal sinning human being (who was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, then lived out a normal life and died like any normal human), WILL get you grumpy looks and quite possibly be targeted for a casual drop from the member rolls if you go public with your beliefs. It shouldn’t happen, but it does.

I agree on the desire not to appear “Catholic” as a reason for treating Marian doctrines like the plague. This also applies to confessions (even though Lutherans would consider it non-sacramental, priestly confession would be an immense benefit to many christians), and many other primarily Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican doctrines. That particular desire limits some in terms of theology, and frankly can lead to error. But a lot of pastors and those in the pews will never let go of it and just try to seek out the truth independent of that historical baggage. Even 500 years later, there’s just a lot of distaste for Catholics.

 

[SIA]

I realize that the creators of various denominations of Protestant Christianity held views of the Virgin Mary that are no longer held by the denominations. Luther held to her perpetual virginity, but now Lutherans on the whole do not corporally accept it. The same with Anglicans, Methodists, etc. Now it’s only optional belief in most denominations of Protestant Christianity.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

Why the insulting remarks and attitude toward others with different views than your own?

 

[Harpazo]

My denomination says nothing doctrinal about the Virgin Mary outside of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the Articles of Religion. John Wesley had this opinion:

The Articles of Religion, which are doctrine, say this:

That belief continues today.

Does this mean that some things Wesley said are true and others that you are not sure about you don’t touch? How do you know what things in regards to the Christian faith that he does err on or what things he says is not binding for your faith? If he said that about the Holy Virgin, why is it not professed amongst Methodists on a large scale?

That second bit of information did not address my OP. What does the Methodist community currently teach on her and why is it not the same as it was when the creation of the denomination began?

Al-masih qam!
Andrew

 

[perfectpeach]

I am no longer Protestant, but was always taught that Mary was the virgin (at the time being) mother of Christ and that is it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I realize that the creators of various denominations of Protestant Christianity held views of the Virgin Mary that are no longer held by the denominations. Luther held to her perpetual virginity, but now Lutherans on the whole do not corporally accept it. The same with Anglicans, Methodists, etc. Now it’s only optional belief in most denominations of Protestant Christianity.

What does your denomination currently teach about the Holy Virgin, and why did it stray from the original teachings of your founder/foundress?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

Hi

I think to start with even the Catholics did not give any importance to Mary. Paul never gave her any importance; I think he never mentioned about her, he never met her to pay her respect, he never sent anybody on his behalf to meet her, he never consulted her in matters of religion.

It statrted very late.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi Andrew,
You are very right that the teachings today about the BVM in my church (Lutheran) is less clear than what Luther believed. Someone here blamed it on “sola scriptura”, others may blame it on a desire not to appear too “Catholic”. But Luther said that certain aspects of Mariology are not clearly stated in scripture, and therefore are not articles of faith. No one should be condemned for believing or not believing in them. That’s why you don’t see a corporeal statement or doctrine on the matter.
Yes, Lutherans are free to choose their beliefs about marion dogmas, but in my view, should not condemn the beliefs of others. Personally, my only disagreement with Rome about it is that it is doctrine.

Jon

Hi

NTBible mentions very little about Mary; but Quran gives her due importance and respect and more details of her life account that the NTBible. Anyone interested should read Quran.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Mystical Body of Christ

Hi

Isn’t it being mythical rather constructing myths over myths; Jesus was son of Mary and son of Adam/man; why make hims god or son of a god; it is a very big cloak being very large and loose on him, in my opinion. It might be to cover the mistakes of the church rendered in the past, maybe.

Thanks

 

[O.S.Luke]

Does this mean that some things Wesley said are true and others that you are not sure about you don’t touch? How do you know what things in regards to the Christian faith that he does err on or what things he says is not binding for your faith? If he said that about the Holy Virgin, why is it not professed amongst Methodists on a large scale?

John Wesley offered his opinion (and his agreement) in a letter to a Roman Catholic friend regarding his understanding and belief about the Virgin Mary. As I said to you earlier, I wouldn’t advise anyone to emulate Wesley to a “T” - unless you want a horrible marriage and don’t want to sleep much.

Wesley was an Anglican priest - and he upheld the Articles of Religion that the Anglican Church held… I posted the Article that addressed this… which is the same Article in both Anglican and Methodist Churches.

That second bit of information did not address my OP. What does the Methodist community currently teach on her and why is it not the same as it was when the creation of the denomination began?

I’m confused. What is currently taught is the same as what was taught when Methodism was but a society within the Anglican Church. Nothing’s changed.

I posted Article II of the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church… which is the same Article in the Anglican Church. That, along with the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, is the current teaching today.

O+

 

[kage_ar]

Hi

I think to start with even the Catholics did not give any importance to Mary. Paul never gave her any importance; I think he never mentioned about her, he never met her to pay her respect, he never sent anybody on his behalf to meet her, he never consulted her in matters of religion.

It statrted very late.

Thanks

What is your historical proof for these claims?

 

[Harpazo]

John Wesley offered his opinion (and his agreement) in a letter to a Roman Catholic friend regarding his understanding and belief about the Virgin Mary. As I said to you earlier, I wouldn’t advise anyone to emulate Wesley to a “T” - unless you want a horrible marriage and don’t want to sleep much.

Wesley was an Anglican priest - and he upheld the Articles of Religion that the Anglican Church held… I posted the Article that addressed this… which is the same Article in both Anglican and Methodist Churches.

I’m confused. What is currently taught is the same as what was taught when Methodism was but a society within the Anglican Church. Nothing’s changed.

I posted Article II of the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church… which is the same Article in the Anglican Church. That, along with the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, is the current teaching today.

O+

If Wesley had an “opinion” on these views as an Anglican, and you say he never intended to start another church (I believe otherwise), why did they not carry over into Methodism? You claim he was being a good clergyman in the Anglican church, so he would have naturally carried that over. What do Methodists teach on the subject today and why or why not is it not the same as the view Wesley held?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

If Wesley had an “opinion” on these views as an Anglican, and you say he never intended to start another church (I believe otherwise), why did they not carry over into Methodism?

I’m certainly not the first person to ever say that John and Charles Wesley had no intentions on starting a new denomination. Historians do, and the writings of the Wesleys are pretty clear on the matter. If you want to assign the “starters” of Methodism (in America), point to Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke. And if you know the history of the Methodist Church in Britain, it more than makes the case. Both Charles and John Wesley died Anglican priests in good standing. That is historical fact. More to the point, Wesley was revered in the Anglican Church before his death. If you go to Westminster Abbey, there is a memorial plaque inscribed with his name.

You claim he was being a good clergyman in the Anglican church, so he would have naturally carried that over.

Again, I am not alone in this claim… so does all of the history of Methodism. I’m certainly not alone in this “claim.” (Can historical facts based on primary-source writings be called a “claim” ?!?).

What do Methodists teach on the subject today and why or why not is it not the same as the view Wesley held.

I already answered that in post #16. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but it sufficiently (and accurately) answers your question.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Andrew. That doesn’t make it doctrine or canon law. Even if you’re the Pope.

You really need to lighten up, Andrew. Just a tad.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi

NTBible mentions very little about Mary; but Quran gives her due importance and respect and more details of her life account that the NTBible. Anyone interested should read Quran.

Thanks

Since when is Islam a Protestant denomination? But Protestants do contend that the New Testament says very little about Mary, which isn’t true. Scripture provided much fuel for the writings of the Church Fathers on Mary. The Quran relies too heavily on Christian apocryphal works.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella