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

[david_ruiz]

Hi, David Ruiz,

 

[Patavium]

David,

Are you Lutheran? What is your affiliation?

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

Are you Lutheran? What is your affiliation?

No. no mainline affiliation.Used to be assemblies of God. Been at same church since moving back to my hometown 30 years ago

 

[david_ruiz]

Psalm69 :8,9 “I am become a stranger to my brethren ,and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are upon me”… The gospels refernce this to jesus .It is quite succint.Beautiful double meaning to many. Remember His “brethren” did not believe Him till after the resurrection.

 

[savedwretch]

To answer the original post question. The answer is no. My understanding of what Catholicism really teaches and what I though it teaches are pretty close.

I absolutely agree with catholics that Mary was a virgin when she was with our Lord Jesus. Absolutely she was blessed, because the bible says so. The reason for this is because it is what the bible says. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, and it is described as being the case in the first chapters of Matthew and Luke.

My disagreement with catholicism is with the belief that Mary is without sin. In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “And my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.” If she is without sin, then from what is God saving her? The bible teaches in Romans 3:23 that, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Mary needed a savior like everyone else.

Her perpetual viginity is inaccurate. In Matthew 1:24-25 it says, “Then Joseph being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called His name Jesus.” The emphasis on the word till is mine for the sake of making the point.

Jospeh knew Mary after she gave birth to our Lord and Savior because the bible says so.

 

[Patavium]

To answer the original post question. The answer is no. My understanding of what Catholicism really teaches and what I though it teaches are pretty close.

I absolutely agree with catholics that Mary was a virgin when she was with our Lord Jesus. Absolutely she was blessed, because the bible says so. The reason for this is because it is what the bible says. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, and it is described as being the case in the first chapters of Matthew and Luke.

My disagreement with catholicism is with the belief that Mary is without sin. In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “And my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.” If she is without sin, then from what is God saving her? The bible teaches in Romans 3:23 that, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Mary needed a savior like everyone else.

Her perpetual viginity is inaccurate. In Matthew 1:24-25 it says, “Then Joseph being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called His name Jesus.” The emphasis on the word till is mine for the sake of making the point.

Jospeh knew Mary after she gave birth to our Lord and Savior because the bible says so.

These arguments were refuted by St. Jerome himself in A.D. 383

Here: cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

 

[brumano]

Thank-you . May I respond on two levels ? First an opposing view is not a question ,it is a view. I have come to an acceptance of the truth as I believe the Lord has shown me. We both "accept our positions as truthful. There is no “endless questioning”. Secondly , if one is brought up and taught a prevailing truth , I see no dishonor for making it your own , and not just because it was taught you, or bequeathed to you at say infant baptism . Indeed that is part of the rationale behind Confirmation, to accept something you must deny the opposite .You must have at least looked at the question. I believe the Lord honors honest asking/questioning of spoon fed beliefs, that is putting opposing views when first heard , before Him. So to recap , no, we no longer question these particular issues , but also that it is not wrong to ask to be fully persuaded personally on any given matter.

Seems to be all well and good to a point but past that point we can easily get lost in the woods, because nearly any view or person’s viewpoint will undoubtedly consist of some partial truth or in any case can be put up as being arrived at truthfully, so we easily see that all the positions thought to be truthful cannot all be true, can they? Mary is immaculate and completely free of all stain of sin, or she is not; there is in all things an objective truth that is irrespective of human subjectivity, it is known as revealed truth. This is another of the Catholic differences if you will, not just because I’m a spoon fed Roman Catholic, a non Catholic has to admit that our Mother Church does teach doctrines and morals that are held to be absolute, whether you or anyone else agrees with some of them or none of them is secondary. The Church says there is revealed truth and it is absolute, and that it never changes. This is why, for one reason that the Lord establishes a Church.

I believe the Lord honors honest questioning in a spirit of humility and deference of course, but that does not mean that I’m being honest by questioning, or that because I question I am putting Him first in my thoughts, and it certainly does not mean that the Lord must give me an answer; our first place is to love, believe, obey and learn, not question. Concerning our Blessed Mother, no there has never been any question to look at.

I believe you when you say that you believe the Lord has shown you answers to things, I believe He’s shown me things personally also, but would you ask Him sometime why if what the Church teaches is not true that there is so much of His Scriptural Word that says that it is?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I have been away, this post caught my attention.

Patavium;9456079:

You ignore my explanations (of simply only having read the fathers up to Justin Martyr I believe) as you say I ignore yours.

You are partially correct .I did give a website that I believe does this (I believe it is Catholic) ,where it honestly seemed to be headed to showing all the arguments for and against Mary doctrines ,by Catholics over the centuries .I imagine it will tell you of monks who were for and some who were against them I did not read it fully ,and i suppose no one else did either. Sorry. .Shall I say like you , because I have not given it ,or have been seemingly silent doesn’t mean it isn’t there to be brought forthYou absolutely have and I have responded. Thank-you

Thank-you for acknowledging some reponse. Disagree on your “No historical arguments” . We did discuss the fact of little historical “conversation” of Marion doctrine in the earliest church , outside of scripture(virgin birth).

there were debates on the perpetual virginity, theotokus, i distinctly remember providing a link to st jerome on the perpetual virginity, but it seems you simply reject those who dont subscribe to your idea. Please provide one church father who wrote against marian doctrine.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

By the same token some say in clearing up Christological matters you have raised Marion problems. To an undiscerning heart Mother of God may mean .mother of God ,not just the second part of the trinity ,the son, but the whole package .Theoetokus to me simply means mother of Jesus, who was both man and God. Some may see Jesus as only God. with title mother of God.Fascinating though Thank -you . Again ,has nothing to do with IC,assumption,ever virgin. As you say ,Christological issue.

not really theotokus doesnt mean ‘mother of Jesus’ it means ‘GOD BEARER’. And like all doctrines it can be misunderstood, but on thing it clear mary gave birth to God incarnate. It is really not my fault that some protestant critisize what they dont know and in their ignorance think that the theotokus implies that mary gave birth or is the origin of the trinity. In fact i think some purposely confuse the issue to discredit the catholic church. All other extraordinary favours mary enjoy comes from the fact that she is mater Dei. That is why catholics are sometimes surprised when protestants cant see the christological reason behind the marian dogmas.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Cinette;9457005:

Not sure what you didn’t get ,but do you think the old testament provided a way of being cleansed , to be touched by God ? How was Job “perfect”? How was Enoch or Elijah righteousness enough to be transported “up”? This is important cause part of the reason for the doctrine of immaculate conception is that Mary would other wise have been “dirty” ,uninhabitable by a holy God who can not be joined to sin. Was there a way for sin to be covered ,forgiven in the old testament ? Were OT saints born again, regenerated , in spirit , alive unto God where they were once dead in sin (original) ?

the OT guy werent born again, that is baptism, they werent regenerated, and were certainly dead in sin. That is why they need a saviour, God may ‘not have imputed their sins’ unto them because of the forseen merits of christ, but they certainly needed that sacrifice.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Ubenedictus;9456136:

Yes, but by obeying/doing them and believing them to be a foreshadow of The Sacrifice, OT saints were washed and declared righteous ,as righteous as you and I are.today.

no those sacrifice couldnt wash away sins and certainly couldnt confer righteousness like today.

The only difference today is that the gates of heaven are open and we can all enter .Abraham did not become more righteous after Calvary.

again i dont agree hebrews clearly says ‘they couldnt be made perfect without us’ if calvary didnt make them more righteous then why werent they perfect? Atleast calvary brought to perfection the righteous they possesed.
Ubenedictus

 

[saveusfromhell]

have a look at my link, it says it all

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9459558:

no those sacrifice couldnt wash away sins and certainly couldnt confer righteousness like today. again i dont agree hebrews clearly says ‘they couldnt be made perfect without us’ if calvary didnt make them more righteous then why werent they perfect? Atleast calvary brought to perfection the righteous they possesed.
Ubenedictus

Oh unbenedictus ,thank-you for your responses. We were going good till this response of yours that totally totally seems to evade my point.Never,never said old sacrifices did away with anything .I said they believed them to be foreshadow of Calvary ,and by faith in this they pleased God,were washed .

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9459543:

the OT guy werent born again, that is baptism, they werent regenerated, and were certainly dead in sin. That is why they need a saviour, God may ‘not have imputed their sins’ unto them because of the forseen merits of christ, but they certainly needed that sacrifice.
Ubenedictus

Regenerated and born again are the same thing. Jesus told Nicodemus that a leader of Israel should know of “new birth”, being born in the spirit. This was told to Nicodemus as if it was in the past and present . and future. .OT saints WERE regenerated. They were justified ,righteous ,by FAITH in God’s provision/covering ,not animal sacrifice.Come on you are quoting from Hebrews , it is there.They look forward to Calvary as we look backwards for justification.

 

[david_ruiz]

not really theotokus doesnt mean ‘mother of Jesus’ it means ‘GOD BEARER’. And like all doctrines it can be misunderstood, but on thing it clear mary gave birth to God incarnate. It is really not my fault that some protestant critisize what they dont know and in their ignorance think that the theotokus implies that mary gave birth or is the origin of the trinity. In fact i think some purposely confuse the issue to discredit the catholic church. All other extraordinary favours mary enjoy comes from the fact that she is mater Dei. That is why catholics are sometimes surprised when protestants cant see the christological reason behind the marian dogmas.
Ubenedictus

Again disagree Theotukus has nothing to do with disputed Marian doctrines. What you think is gained by a perfect womb in terms of His divinity, you lose in terms of his humanity (a womb unlike any other human)…That a virgin Mary bore Emanual was not dependent on IC or ever-virgin or Assumption, hence you have Theotokus with either doctrine

 

[david_ruiz]

Seems to be all well and good to a point but past that point we can easily get lost in the woods, because nearly any view or person’s viewpoint will undoubtedly consist of some partial truth or in any case can be put up as being arrived at truthfully, so we easily see that all the positions thought to be truthful cannot all be true, can they? Mary is immaculate and completely free of all stain of sin, or she is not; there is in all things an objective truth that is irrespective of human subjectivity, it is known as revealed truth. This is another of the Catholic differences if you will, not just because I’m a spoon fed Roman Catholic, a non Catholic has to admit that our Mother Church does teach doctrines and morals that are held to be absolute, whether you or anyone else agrees with some of them or none of them is secondary. The Church says there is revealed truth and it is absolute, and that it never changes. This is why, for one reason that the Lord establishes a Church.

I believe the Lord honors honest questioning in a spirit of humility and deference of course, but that does not mean that I’m being honest by questioning, or that because I question I am putting Him first in my thoughts, and it certainly does not mean that the Lord must give me an answer; our first place is to love, believe, obey and learn, not question. Concerning our Blessed Mother, no there has never been any question to look at.

I believe you when you say that you believe the Lord has shown you answers to things, I believe He’s shown me things personally also, but would you ask Him sometime why if what the Church teaches is not true that there is so much of His Scriptural Word that says that it is?

Thank-you, good response. Is your question that the Word upholds Church teaching or that the Word tells of a Truthful Church ? As you probably know we have differences in the definition of Church ,and in just what manner He keeps His promise to guide us.As you state ,our purpose is to love him ,and I would add to have a relationship with Him. He can tell us about His Word ,His Body ,His teachers, pastors ,bishops, His doings of yesterday ,today and tomorrow ,etc.etc…Perhaps you mean scriptural backing for these disputed doctrines, for which I acknowledge them , but they have their counterparts which also must be acknowledged/weighed.

 

[david_ruiz]

The difficulty that others had with celebrating Mary’s conception was the conviction that every person was conceived with original sin. Romans 5:12 states: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, so death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.” One of the strong arguments for the universality of original sin was Augustine’s assertion that original sin is transmitted in the act of begetting the child by the parents’ concupiscence:The Church struggled with the tension between the growing liturgical celebration of the feast of the Conception(beginning around 850 AD) and the misgivings of theologians. Edward O’Connor has said that the Immaculate Conception “occasioned what was perhaps the most prolonged and passionate debate that has ever been carried on Catholic theology.”[8]http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/kimmac.html This is the site I mentioned earlier .Seems like a fair presentation

 

[jlhargus]

To answer the original post question. The answer is no. My understanding of what Catholicism really teaches and what I though it teaches are pretty close.

My disagreement with catholicism is with the belief that Mary is without sin. In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “And my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.” If she is without sin, then from what is God saving her? The bible teaches in Romans 3:23 that, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Mary needed a savior like everyone else.

JL: Of course Mary needed a savior and her savior, Jesus, PRESERVED, sactified Mary from sin at conception. Her soul was indwelled by the Holy Spirit from conception. Just as John the Baptist was indwelled by the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb and BORN without sin.

[Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB.]

Lk1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, THE BABE LEAPED IN HER WOMB; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [The same God who filled and sanctified John the Baptist in the womb filled and sanctified Mary at conception, with God nothing is impossible.

Her perpetual viginity is inaccurate. In Matthew 1:24-25 it says, “Then Joseph being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called His name Jesus.” The emphasis on the word till is mine for the sake of making the point. Jospeh knew Mary after she gave birth to our Lord and Savior because the bible says so.

JL: No the bible DOES NOT say Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth to our Lord and Savior. The bible confirms only that Joseph did not know Mary BEFORE she brought forth her Son. Till means here, that some action did not happen up to a certain point, it does not mean the action did happen later.

[1 COR 15:25 For he must reign **TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet] Is Christ only to reign till all enemies are under His feet? I thought His kingdom would have no end.

[1 TIM 4:13 **TILL I come give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine] Is Timothy to stop reading scripture, to exhortation, to doctrine after Paul arrives?

Mary perpetual virgin;

[Ezek 44:1 Then THE MAN BROUGHT ME BACK TO THE OUTER GATE of the sanctuary, THE ONE FACING EAST, and IT WAS SHUT. 2 **THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUTH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT.

This gate, Mary, is to remain shut. It must NOT BE OPENED, NO ONE may enter THROUGH IT. She is to remain ever virgin, NO ONE, no other children are to enter through it. Because The Lord God, Jesus, has entered through that gate.

NBRS 30:3 “WHEN A YOUNG WOMAN still living in her father’s house MAKES A VOW TO THE LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 AND HER FATHER HEARS about her vow or pledge BUT SAYS NOTHING TO HER, then all HER VOWS and every pledge by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. 6 "IF SHE MARRIES AFTER SHE MAKES A VOW or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 AND HER HUSBAND HEARS about it BUT SAYS NOTHING to her, THEN HER VOWS or the pledges by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

[Lk1:30 And THE ANGEL SAID unto her FEAR NOT MARY for thou hast found favour with God 31 And behold THOU SHALT CONCEIVE in thy womb AND BRING FORTH A SON and shalt CALL HIS NAME JESUS 32 He shall be great and shall be called THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end 34 THEN SAID MARY unto the angel HOW SHALL THIS BE SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God] Unless Mary had taken a vow of virginity, as early Church Fathers believed, why would she a betrothed woman ask, “HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? Wouldn’t conceiving be the most natural and desired thing for a betrothed to expect, especially a Jewish woman in that time?

[The Lord God has entered through Mary the gate and no one else is to enter thru that gate. Just as no one was to enter into the OT Ark of the Covenant. So no one is to enter Mary the Ark of the NT. The fathers called Mary the gate of heaven and the ark of the covenant.

Hb9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ARK CONTAINED the gold jar of MANNA, AARON’S STAFF that had budded, and the stone TABLETS OF THE COVENANT.

Mary the living ark, not made by hands, would contain, in her womb. The real living Word of God, CHRIST. The real living Bread of Life, CHRIST, and the real living High Priest, CHRIST. Not just symbols as the ark, made by hands, contained but the actual realities. As our Lord says in Ex25:22 THERE, ABOVE THE COVER BETWEEN THE TWO CHERUBIM THAT ARE OVER THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY, I WILL MEET WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU ALL MY COMMANDS FOR THE ISRAELITES.

2 MCABS 2:5 And when Jeremy came thither he found an hollow cave wherein he laid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense and so stopped the door 6 And some of those that followed him came to mark the way but they could not find it 7 Which when Jeremy perceived he blamed them saying As for THAT PLACE IT SHALL BE UNKNOWN UNTILL THE TIME THAT GOD GATHER HIS PEOPLE again TOGETHER AND RECEIVE THEM UNTO MERCY. 8 THEN SHALL THE LORD SHEW THEM THESE THINGS AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL APPEAR AND THE CLOUD ALSO as it was shewed under Moses and as when Solomon desired that the place might be honourably sanctified

EX 40:34 Then** a cloud covered the tent of the congregation and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation because the cloud abode thereon and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle

LK 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her** The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee** therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

2 SAM 6:2 And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah to bring up from thence the ark of God whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims

LK 1:39 **And Mary arose **in those days **and went **into the hill country with haste **into a city of Juda **

2 SAM 6:9 **And David was afraid **of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:30 And the angel said unto her **Fear not Mary **for thou hast found favour with God

2 SAM 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

LK 1:43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 SAM 6:16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD and she despised him in her heart

LK 1:44 For lo as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears** the babe leaped in my womb for joy **

2 SAM 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings** he blessed the people in the name of the LORD** of hosts

LK 1:45 And** blessed is she that believed **for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord

2 SAM 6:11 And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom and all his household

LK 1:56 **And Mary abode with her about three months **and returned to her own house

[Lk1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from **henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 For he that is mighty hath done to me GREAT THINGS; and holy is his name.] What are some of those GREAT thingS God has done to Mary?

 

[david_ruiz]

Luigi Gambero observes that some scholars conclude from this that Augustine meant not only personal sin but also original sin. Gambero, however, is convinced that Augustine was referring only to personal sin. He considers such an interpretation to be more in accord with the totality of Augustine’s theology.[2] … When the Chapter of Canons at the Cathedral of Lyons introduced the celebration of the feast around 1140, Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) wrote to them expressing his displeasure. Bernard asks them how can they introduce a celebration which the ritual of the Church does not know, reason does not assert, and ancient tradition does not commend. He wonders if they are more devout than the Fathers and Doctors…Among those who did not accept the feast, there was a conviction that Mary was either purified in the womb or (and further) purified at the time of the Annunciation. Because of the lack of clarity regarding the nature of original sin, it is not clear whether Mary’s purification at the time of the Incarnation meant that she was purified of the effects of original sin or of the sin itself.[17] Nor was the question of Mary’s relationship to the universal redemption sufficiently explained by those beginning to hold that Mary was free from original sin. campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/kimmac.html Again, IC developed and no clear cut evidence of an early belief/tradition during the first 7-8 centuries

 

[david_ruiz]

Thomas asks whether Mary was freed of actual sin. Thomas notes that Augustine thought that Mary might have been troubled by doubt at the death of Jesus and that Chrysostom thought that Mary asked Jesus to come out to see her out of vain glory or to produce wine to raise herself in others’ esteem because she did not believe in Him as she should. However, Thomas recalls Augustine’s words in (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi), that there should be no question of sin with regard to Mary “on account of the honor due her Son, since she was “most certainly guilty of no sin” and “an abundance of grace was given her…that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.” campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/kimmac.html. Chrysostom was early Father.