Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[Reuben_J]

Yes, and for this you must understand What is GRACE?. My opinion is becoming with this thread that if you believe you are saved once, and that’s it, Grace is an unknown concept to you. David believes in imputed righteousness, once saved, always saved. We believe in saved by the Grace of God. Thus, if Virgin Mary was Full of Grace, and the virgin birth was predicted by Isaiah many years ago, then isn’t Mary born sinlessness? That is just one argument in favor. Also consider the Eve argument from Genesis few posts ago, and others brought forth by many in this thread.

Hi. I don’t know whether you refer to david_ruiz or me. If it is me, in all humility I can say that I know about grace and about the Isaiah prophecy. We are not clothed with grace and inside of us is filthy but by grace we are made cleaned from the inside. It’s just that the discussion did not touch on that yet. Written dialogue for the most part can be insufficient and then the typo does not help either. Probably you have difficulty understanding my style of argument. Anyway, no problem, just only want to clarify.

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, that was beautifully said. The Our Father is my prayer also. The prayer I was taught as a child, the prayer that I say everyday, when I’m in need, when I’m afraid, to give thanks, ect. That was the prayer I prayed in my darkest hour when I was desparate to be saved from the mess I had made of my life. And, oh boy did He answer! The rosary, is a devotional thing for me, helps me to meditate on the life, death, and resurrection of Our Lord. Definitely does not detract from Him but brings us closer. I never knew there was such a fuss made about the rosary. No one is saying you must pray to Mary to be saved. It may not be for everyone. What could be wrong about asking Mary to pray for us. It’s not either the Our Father or the rosary, it’s both/and. I’m just confounded at the amount of distain for the idea of honoring our Mother. As if she was just an insignificant detail in God’s plan for our salvation. I can only assume that one who has distain for honoring her does not truly view her as a mother that you can also go to in times of trouble. Not that you HAVE to, but CAN if you want without worrying you’re committing some grave sin.

God does honor a broken and contrite heart. As one prays anything God sees that level of brokenness .I remember as a youngster praying especially fervent when it came to “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen” I knew I was a sinner. I knew I had failed in the past ,and didn’t trust myself not to stray in the future, but as long as I got back on track and died in grace (no unconfessed mortal sin) I’d be O.K.-go to heaven, not hell. Well, I did stray, big time. But Jesus pursued me, and as I sensed His saving presence , I thought back to my fervency in that part of the Hail Mary. He had not forgotten me. He was and is faithful. He put me in a state where I know and believe in my eternal destiny for sure. No more fretting if I am in “grace” or confessed. Believing more in His saving, holding grace than in my frailties.

 

[Patavium]

Hi. I don’t know whether you refer to david_ruiz or me. If it is me, in all humility I can say that I know about grace and about the Isaiah prophecy. It’s just that the discussion did not touch on that yet. Written dialogue for the most part can be insufficient and then the typo does not help either. Probably you have difficulty understanding my style of argument. Anyway, no problem, just only want to clarify.

God bless.

No Reuben, I meant David. Your explanation is very good. It actually it got me thinking that I think the reason David cannot accept might because of his understanding of Grace from God. A few posts ago, David admitted to believing in Imputed Righteousness. It is my belief now that is why he cannot agree with Mary sinlessness. The reason is because they believe that when they die Jesus will cover them with his righteousness despite they being filthy and unrighteous, and God will only see Jesus and not them for their salvation. Therefore, Mary didn’t need to be born without sin, because according to imputed righteousness, Why bother? She will just be covered by Jesus (like if Jesus was a coat of righteousness), and she will have look righteous in front of God just like anyone else. For us Catholics, it doesn’t work like this, and thus it is easier to recognize why Mary is born without sin, because she was full of Grace.

 

[Reuben_J]

No Reuben, I meant David. Your explanation is very good. It actually it got me thinking that I think the reason David cannot accept might because of his understanding of Grace from God. A few posts ago, David admitted to believing in Imputed Righteousness. It is my belief now that is why he cannot agree with Mary sinlessness. The reason is because they believe that when they die Jesus will cover them with his righteousness despite they being filthy and unrighteous, and God will only see Jesus and not them for their salvation.

Thanks Pat. Anyway, grace is an interesting subject. Luther deviated from us in understanding this. We cannot really see the great mercy and true love of God if he merely clothes us with grace so that when he sees us from heaven, he sees the outside of us as clean that covers the filth inside us. He does not do that but by his grace we are made cleaned and purified even to the innermost of us that when he look at us he see his own image to the core in us – free from sin.

I like to explain this like how Michelangelo crafted a statue of King David from a marble slab. When he saw the big piece of marble slab, as an artist he saw King David in its beautiful form inside the slab. All he had to do was to chip away what is not of King David until it became the beautiful masterpiece that he crafted with his hand. That is how his grace works in us. He sees his beautiful image in us, blameless and pure but is covered with slime of sins over all the years. By His grace he ‘chips’ away all that is not of his image until we are formed into His likeness. Isn’t that what he did to Mary except that for her it was before she was born? And to us as we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for us.

 

[Patavium]

Thanks Pat. Anyway, grace is an interesting subject. Luther deviated from us in understanding this. We cannot really see the great mercy and true love of God if he merely clothes us with grace so that when he sees us from heaven, he sees the outside of us as clean that covers the filth inside us. He does not do that but by his grace we are made cleaned and purified even to the innermost of us that when he look at us he see his own image to the core in us – free from sin.

I like to explain this like how Michelangelo crafted a statue of King David from a marble slab. When he saw the big piece of marble slab, as an artist he saw King David in its beautiful form inside the slab. All he had to do was to chip away what is not of King David until it became the beautiful masterpiece that he crafted with his hand. That is how his grace works in us. He sees his beautiful image in us, blameless and pure. By His grace he ‘chips’ away all that is not of his image until we are formed into His likeness. Isn’t that what he did to Mary except that for her it was before she was born? And to us as we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for us.

Excellent!

The confusing problem for me with David disagreement is that Luther himself did agree with Mary sinlessness as well as other first generation reformers. Both Catholics, and First Generation Reformers agreed here.

This is why I keep asking David to produce a date, a name, and brief history of those who opposed the sinlessness of Mary. How can David just accept this Mary born with sin without knowing the history behind this?

God bless Reuben!

 

[rinnie]

She needs to be perfect from sin because that is the exception, in fact a condition, for God made man. The rest is true about being humble, low, poor, etc,. I guess that’s where you differ from Catholicism. We believe that God does not compromise with sin and he can never originate from anything sinful because that is not him and not part of him. Sin is what he wants to conquer; it would be a great travesty for him to have his human origin from it. How could he ransoms us from sin if he himself comes from it?

This is so true. I have asked many who do not believe this that if the Blessed Mother was not perfect from sin, and had original sin, how could Jesus be free from it.

I have been accused of many things for saying this, but was trying to make my point. Which is of course she was indeed saved from it at the moment of her conception by the merit of her son Jesus.

I am told the reason Jesus had not inherited Original sin is because he is God. Never got a clear answer.

Manybe David could clear it up.

 

[david_ruiz]

No Reuben, I meant David. Your explanation is very good. It actually it got me thinking that I think the reason David cannot accept might because of his understanding of Grace from God. A few posts ago, David admitted to believing in Imputed Righteousness. It is my belief now that is why he cannot agree with Mary sinlessness. The reason is because they believe that when they die Jesus will cover them with his righteousness despite they being filthy and unrighteous, and God will only see Jesus and not them for their salvation. Therefore, Mary didn’t need to be born without sin, because according to imputed righteousness, Why bother? She will just be covered by Jesus (like if Jesus was a coat of righteousness), and she will have look righteous in front of God just like anyone else. For us Catholics, it doesn’t work like this, and thus it is easier to recognize why Mary is born without sin, because she was full of Grace.

How do you get your righteousness ? What righteousness besides imputed(by the Blood of the Lamb), is there for you ?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[david_ruiz]

No Reuben, I meant David. Your explanation is very good. It actually it got me thinking that I think the reason David cannot accept might because of his understanding of Grace from God. A few posts ago, David admitted to believing in Imputed Righteousness. It is my belief now that is why he cannot agree with Mary sinlessness. The reason is because they believe that when they die Jesus will cover them with his righteousness despite they being filthy and unrighteous, and God will only see Jesus and not them for their salvation. Therefore, Mary didn’t need to be born without sin, because according to imputed righteousness, Why bother? She will just be covered by Jesus (like if Jesus was a coat of righteousness), and she will have look righteous in front of God just like anyone else. For us Catholics, it doesn’t work like this, and thus it is easier to recognize why Mary is born without sin, because she was full of Grace.

How can you be filthy and unrighteous ,and have the righteousness of Christ at the same time .A few threads earleir , I spoke of cleansing ,being immaculatized. But I like your thoughts, for indeed there are some fundamentals of faith that may be influencing Marian views. I would say it is about the old man and the new, how we are born again, and just what that means. It is differences in how we are justified, and just what that means. It is about hoping in salvation but having more of an assurance of it. It is about knowing your own faith , the essence of the GOOD NEWS, and also knowing Judaism,God"s counterpart to our Church Age. As you esteem the One. Apostolic, Holy, Catholic Church in the new testament, we should esteem Judaism in the old testatment. Just as sure as there is justification and cleansing in the new, there was justification and cleansing in the old. I am wondering if according to you, even Catholicism and all it’s sacraments, and dogmas and rites would not have been enough to wash ,cleanse, justify the young Jewish virgin maiden apart from this “immaculate conception”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ah, I am sure you must have seen all the Biblical support for the Marian doctrine here. The only thing is you do not agree with them and I am alright with that. By the way, Catholicism is not Sola Scriptura, so its sources of truth is not just the Bible, something which you disagree too, and I am alright with it. Thank you.

Well said thank-you. The key words are “consistent with” Biblical method of cleansing, being justified/holy. I have acknoledged your differing biblical /tradition/historical basis. I do think you’ll say Marys’ immaculateness method was a one time deal , never done before ,nor after. In that regard , it is not consistent with already existing methods, that apply to the rest of the saints,old or new testament . The most you can say is the Incarnation was a one time event , but that still does not justify setting aside Judasim/Christian methods for cleansing , that God himself established since day 1 , nor is it included in any simple/plain prophecy, like the rest of Mary’s details. Hence my term “consistent with” Biblical “tradtion”/doctrine.

 

[david_ruiz]

Also, where does in the bible EXPLICITLY says Mary was born with sin? point to me that in the bible. Please don’t try to say your argument is biblical and ours is not. It is an argument based on citations from the bible, unless you can point to a verse that says Mary Mother of Jesus was born with sin, or has sinned.

Actualy the bible is only implicit -specific on several people being born in sin-David is one that comes to mind. I am not sure if there are others . That is to say that Abraham, Isaac,Jacob and many many others are not specifically mentioned as being born in/with sin . See the quagmire it presents when you want specificity when it is already implied elsewhere.

 

[BornAgainRN]

I would not put all my eggs in one basket of an apocalyptic book. Characteristically, there is an exuberant use of symbolic images (women, animals, monsters, trumpets, vessels) and numbers (four, seven, twelve, etc.). The same set of events or characters may be described over again or recapitulated under a succession of different images. This warns us against assuming logical sequences from one scene to another and too quickly assigning unique significance when we turn to the symbolism of Revelation 12.

God bless.

And most of these images are described elsewhere in Scripture, which is why it’s important to grasp the rest of Scripture FIRST before tackling such a symbolic & apocalyptic book like Revelation, which is why I included Genesis 37:5-10, because it SPECIFICALLY describes the ‘Woman’ in Revelation, much more logically than the ‘Woman’ being Mary in Heaven, who is LATER described in the wilderness.

By saying ‘may be’ shows speculation. Jesus tells us: Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3)

If we can ‘heed’ them, we can understand them. Plus, Jesus tells us that contents of Revelation about the past, present, AND future:

“Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.” (Revelation 1:19)

The ‘Woman’ in Revelation 12:1 is about the ***past ***- Israel ‘giving birth’ to Jesus. The ‘Woman’ is again Israel’ who in the future will be chased by Satan in the wilderness. So, this ‘Woman’ is not Mary, but Israel.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The ‘Woman’ in Revelation 12:1 is about the ***past ***- Israel ‘giving birth’ to Jesus. The ‘Woman’ is again Israel’ who in the future will be chased by Satan in the wilderness. So, this ‘Woman’ is not Mary, but Israel.

What is Israel? What is the wilderness?

 

[BornAgainRN]

Actualy the bible is only implicit -specific on several people being born in sin-David is one that comes to mind. I am not sure if there are others . That is to say that Abraham, Isaac,Jacob and many many others are not specifically mentioned as being born in/with sin . See the quagmire it presents when you want specificity when it is already implied elsewhere.

Try Galatians 4:4-5, then cross-reference it with Luke 1:46-47 & Colossians 1:13-14. God bless!

 

[david_ruiz]

Also, where does in the bible EXPLICITLY says Mary was born with sin? point to me that in the bible. Please don’t try to say your argument is biblical and ours is not. It is an argument based on citations from the bible, unless you can point to a verse that says Mary Mother of Jesus was born with sin, or has sinned.

Rechecking that for you .Thought the Dominicans or Augustinians and the Franciscans debated Marian doctrines with much heated passion, for several centuries . Don’t recall if it was assumption, imacculateness or over the term “Mother of God” or all of them. There was web I posted earlier that seemed to have a good history on the doctrines.Did not have time to read it all,only the beginning. thanks

 

[The_John_1]

1. Jesus in the temple. How could Mary and Joseph go a day’s travel back toward Nazareth and not be aware that Jesus is not among them? And why would they have to searched three days before finding Jesus when they had come initially to go to the temple? And why were his parents scolding Jesus when they knew he was the Son of God? Many problems with that story.

Roy was He (Jesus) not at the age of 12 – in my mind I believe I have been taught this both as a Southern Baptist and as a Catholic?

Likewise I believe Mary at the time of being betrothed to Joseph was age 12 or 13… And Joseph being much older in years

If we go back to the OT times a 12 to 13 year old often were considered adults…

As Jewish people they would travel in large groups as they made their pilgrimages - so I have never taken issue as a Baptist or a Catholic with Jesus staying behind in the temple.

 

[Patavium]

How can you be filthy and unrighteous ,and have the righteousness of Christ at the same time .A few threads earleir , I spoke of cleansing ,being immaculatized. But I like your thoughts, for indeed there are some fundamentals of faith that may be influencing Marian views. I would say it is about the old man and the new, how we are born again, and just what that means. It is differences in how we are justified, and just what that means. It is about hoping in salvation but having more of an assurance of it. It is about knowing your own faith , the essence of the GOOD NEWS, and also knowing Judaism,God"s counterpart to our Church Age. As you esteem the One. Apostolic, Holy, Catholic Church in the new testament, we should esteem Judaism in the old testatment. Just as sure as there is justification and cleansing in the new, there was justification and cleansing in the old. I am wondering if according to you, even Catholicism and all it’s sacraments, and dogmas and rites would not have been enough to wash ,cleanse, justify the young Jewish virgin maiden apart from this “immaculate conception”.

The difference David is as Reuben J example says. For Catholic, God sees a Raw piece of Marble, and through His work (grace), and our free will, He chips away the pieces that do not belong until we are finally cleansed, and turn into that Work of Art God desires. For Protestants (Luther and/or Calvin), God sees the raw marble, and throws a Blanket (representing Jesus), and accepts it as justification for our salvation. The blanket represents the cleansed Jesus, and thus God does not sees our unrighteousness (the Raw marble). Also, some chipping may happen, but it is not necessary as long as there is faith ALONE.

Of course, anyone by God’s Grace can be saved! (Only God knows!). Grace is VERY important for Christian Catholics. Grace is favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons (John 1:12, Romans 8:16), partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and of eternal life [36]. Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom [37], known as synergism. We can use our freedom because the Original sin we inherit from Adam makes us corrupted but not totally [38]. Our will is free and this means it is possible to either cooperate or resist His Grace [39]. However we can exercise our freedom only after first being moved by God’s Grace.

Thus, you can see that saying that Virgin Mary is FULL OF GRACE, it is quite important. God cleanses, and the vessel He used to become flesh was most certainly full of His Grace.

I do not believe that Mary was sinful, and God who is all good, who is the giver of His Love and Grace will become flesh in a sinful vessel, unless of course you believe that God covered Mary with His righteousness, and thus Mary is sinful, but was covered with another “Righteous” Blanket, and thus was guarantee salvation because she believed… Mary was definitely much more than just a child bearer. She was the VESSEL chosen by God HIMSELF among all generations (BLESSED FOR ALL GENERATIONS) fulfilling prophecies (Isaiah) from the Old Testament (Obviously God KNEW). She was greeted as full of God’s Grace. Most certainly!, She was ESPECIALLY chosen for this AMAZING task, and she was SO MOVED by God’s Grace, she accepted!.

David, refer to vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/ It presents a good contrast.

Well said thank-you. The key words are “consistent with” Biblical method of cleansing, being justified/holy. I have acknoledged your differing biblical /tradition/historical basis. I do think you’ll say Marys’ immaculateness method was a one time deal , never done before ,nor after. In that regard , it is not consistent with already existing methods, that apply to the rest of the saints,old or new testament . The most you can say is the Incarnation was a one time event , but that still does not justify setting aside Judasim/Christian methods for cleansing , that God himself established since day 1 , nor is it included in any simple/plain prophecy, like the rest of Mary’s details. Hence my term “consistent with” Biblical “tradtion”/doctrine.

What are these methods that are consistent with your definition of Biblical?. Show me where it says in the bible you are saved by Faith alone.

Actualy the bible is only implicit -specific on several people being born in sin-David is one that comes to mind. I am not sure if there are others . That is to say that Abraham, Isaac,Jacob and many many others are not specifically mentioned as being born in/with sin . See the quagmire it presents when you want specificity when it is already implied elsewhere.

Aha, and where does the Bible says that Mary was born with sin?

Rechecking that for you .Thought the Dominicans or Augustinians and the Franciscans debated Marian doctrines with much heated passion, for several centuries . Don’t recall if it was assumption, imacculateness or over the term “Mother of God” or all of them. There was web I posted earlier that seemed to have a good history on the doctrines.Did not have time to read it all,only the beginning. thanks

Of course there was debate for Marian doctrine. It takes years to formalize doctrines, and dogmas in the Catholic Church. There must be careful study of the Apostolic Tradition, Bible… It takes time.

My question for you is WHO opposed the sinlessness of Mary which is AGREED by Catholics and First generation protestants. It doesn’t seem that you know. Do you believe arguments without knowing its history?

 

[david_ruiz]

Try Galatians 4:4-5, then cross-reference it with Luke 1:46-47 & Colossians 1:13-14. God bless!

Gal44- …God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law" .Thank you.She was quite Jewish. So much for “woman” signifying " perfect woman before the fall. later to be called Eve. Mary is claimed to be superior to Eve on threads here .yet Galatians reminds us that she was “under the law”, not above the law ,nor fulfilling the law or outside it, which is suggested by IC doctrine in my opinion. Thank-you BARN. Blessings also.

 

[Patavium]

Gal44- …God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law" .Thank you.She was quite Jewish. So much for “woman” signifying " perfect woman before the fall. later to be called Eve. Mary is claimed to be superior to Eve on threads here .yet Galatians reminds us that she was “under the law”, not above the law ,nor fulfilling the law or outside it, which is suggested by IC doctrine in my opinion. Thank-you BARN. Blessings also.

Nothing changes. Mary needed a savior. Catholics agree with Mary needing a Savior.

God is the Savior
God created humans
Humans can’t save themselves
Mary is human
God created Mary sinless
Therefore, Mary needed the Savior

Here’s an interesting one to you

If pain in childbirth is a result of sin (Genesis 3:16), What can we conclude of Mary?

 

[david_ruiz]

The difference David is as Reuben J example says. For Catholic, God sees a Raw piece of Marble, and through His work (grace), and our free will, He chips away the pieces that do not belong until we are finally cleansed, and turn into that Work of Art God desires. For Protestants (Luther and/or Calvin), God sees the raw marble, and throws a Blanket (representing Jesus), and accepts it as justification for our salvation. The blanket represents the cleansed Jesus, and thus God does not sees our unrighteousness (the Raw marble). Also, some chipping may happen, but it is not necessary as long as there is faith ALONE.

Of course, anyone by God’s Grace can be saved! (Only God knows!). Grace is VERY important for Christian Catholics. Grace is favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons (John 1:12, Romans 8:16), partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and of eternal life [36]. Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom [37], known as synergism. We can use our freedom because the Original sin we inherit from Adam makes us corrupted but not totally [38]. Our will is free and this means it is possible to either cooperate or resist His Grace [39]. However we can exercise our freedom only after first being moved by God’s Grace.

Thus, you can see that saying that Virgin Mary is FULL OF GRACE, it is quite important. God cleanses, and the vessel He used to become flesh was most certainly full of His Grace.

I do not believe that Mary was sinful, and God who is all good, who is the giver of His Love and Grace will become flesh in a sinful vessel, unless of course you believe that God covered Mary with His righteousness, and thus Mary is sinful, but was covered with another “Righteous” Blanket, and thus was guarantee salvation because she believed… Mary was definitely much more than just a child bearer. She was the VESSEL chosen by God HIMSELF among all generations (BLESSED FOR ALL GENERATIONS) fulfilling prophecies (Isaiah) from the Old Testament (Obviously God KNEW). She was greeted as full of God’s Grace. Most certainly!, She was ESPECIALLY chosen for this AMAZING task, and she was SO MOVED by God’s Grace, she accepted!.

David, refer to vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/ It presents a good contrast.

What are these methods that are consistent with your definition of Biblical?. Show me where it says in the bible you are saved by Faith alone.

Aha, and where does the Bible says that Mary was born with sin?

Of course there was debate for Marian doctrine. It takes years to formalize doctrines, and dogmas in the Catholic Church. There must be careful study of the Apostolic Tradition, Bible… It takes time.

My question for you is WHO opposed the sinlessness of Mary which is AGREED by Catholics and First generation protestants. It doesn’t seem that you know. Do you believe arguments without knowing its history?

Thank-you for your well thought answers.Yes, they are revealing as to our fundamental differences-on salvation ,justification, sanctification and the biggy- grace and works. I do like it when you can get into the shoes of the opposing views, when you can articulate their own beliefs correctly while disagreeing with them. Unfortunately, ,for you came close, you have not done that. However, you have laid a good foundation for discussion on these matters to perhaps correct that situation. Indeed, Marian differences are symptomatic of these bigger fundamental differences-on just what Christianity is , on just what a Christian is.