Whats wrong with Sola Scriptura.

[justasking4]

But again, I question the relevance of this. Luke quotes the Old Testament four times as a direct correlation to St. Mary. Perhaps if it was only once, maybe twice, I would see your point; but four times is not something that you can push aside.

Let me ask you: do you any of the other apostles in their writings ever make this connection with her ?

 

[justasking4]

Yes, they do. I know the Navarre Study Bible mentions it. Pope Pius XII explained it in Munificentissimus Deus, she is called such in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, St. Athanasius used the title in a sermon.

What passage are you referring to?

 

[EphelDuath]

Let me ask you: do you any of the other apostles in their writings ever make this connection with her ?

John does in the Book of Revelation. To quote ScriptureCatholic:

Revelation 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

 

[EphelDuath]

What passage are you referring to?

cf. Luke 1:39 and 2 Samuel 6:2
Luke 1:41 and 2 Samuel 6:16
Luke 1:43 and 2 Samuel 6:9
Luke 1:56 and 2 Samuel 6:11/1 Chronicles 13:14

 

[justasking4]

reggieM;3261182]
Quote:
The marian dogmas are a case in point.

reggieM
I have discussed the title “Mother of God” with Sola Scripture believers and I found it impossible to see how they could deny the use of this term. It is clearly supported by a Sola Scriptura reading.

It depends what is meant by the term. We both know that God does not have a mother but the human part of Jesus did.

But more importantly to me, on what basis do virtually all Protestants (except Anglicans) reject an early Ecumenical Council of the Church that formally authorized the use of the term “Mother of God”?

That would say that an early Council taught false doctrine.

So which Church then could have taught the true doctrine from that point to the 16th century?

But there’s not even a valid objection to the use of the term “Mother of God” that I can see.

Do you accept that term?

As i said above it depends what you mean by the term. Its my understanding that there was some contraversy on the term. God bearer was also another term if i’m not mistaken.

 

[EphelDuath]

As i said above it depends what you mean by the term. Its my understanding that there was some contraversy on the term. God bearer was also another term if i’m not mistaken.

The official term for Mary is theotokos, which means God-bearer. Jesus was both man and God, so Mary gave birth to God incarnated as a man, and therefore, the mother (bearer) of God.

The controversy was that before the Council of Ephesus, it was debated whether or not the apostles were Catholic or Nestorian. The Nestorians argued that Jesus was two natures, part God and part man, instead of a union of the two. But this is refuted by Luke 1:41-43: “And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost… And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

 

[reggieM]

The fact that Protestants have rejected the use of the term “Mother of God” entirely is significant.

But it’s also a major problem to talk about “the human part” of Jesus as if that is separate from His divinity. Actually, that was an ancient heresy (I believe Nestorianism).

The true teaching was defined as the hypostatic union – Jesus is true God and true Man in a unity. Actually, most Protestant churches accept that definition today.

But when it comes to the role of Mary giving birth to Jesus who is God and man, then there is a tendency to split Him into divine and human parts.

In any case, Protestant churches should not reject the term “Mother of God” since it came from an Ecumenical Council and it is consistent with Scripture.

But instead, almost all of them do reject it. This means that there is a bias against Jesus’ mother – and I would call that very dangerous. At the very least, it’s an exaggeration based on fear. To reject the teaching of an Early Council is a serious matter. To reject it on very shaky grounds is the same. The idea is that the term Mother of God “might mean” that God didn’t exist before He was born in the womb of Mary.

But this is so far-fetched that there is nothing to fear at all. Nobody believes this, nor have they ever believed it.

The other problem is that Protestantism has wanted to distance itself from any honor given to the Mother of God because of the belief that Catholicism has done “too much” of this.

But that’s just an extreme reaction and not something that is well considered even in Sola Scriptura terms (all generations will call me blessed).

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3261203]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me ask you: do you any of the other apostles in their writings ever make this connection with her ?

EphelDuath
John does in the Book of Revelation. To quote ScriptureCatholic:

Can you give me the passage?

 

[JonNC]

The fact that Protestants have rejected the use of the term “Mother of God” entirely is significant.

But it’s also a major problem to talk about “the human part” of Jesus as if that is separate from His divinity. Actually, that was an ancient heresy (I believe Nestorianism).

The true teaching was defined as the hypostatic union – Jesus is true God and true Man in a unity. Actually, most Protestant churches accept that definition today.

But when it comes to the role of Mary giving birth to Jesus who is God and man, then there is a tendency to split Him into divine and human parts.

In any case, Protestant churches should not reject the term “Mother of God” since it came from an Ecumenical Council and it is consistent with Scripture.

But instead, almost all of them do reject it. This means that there is a bias against Jesus’ mother – and I would call that very dangerous. At the very least, it’s an exaggeration based on fear. To reject the teaching of an Early Council is a serious matter. To reject it on very shaky grounds is the same. The idea is that the term Mother of God “might mean” that God didn’t exist before He was born in the womb of Mary.

But this is so far-fetched that there is nothing to fear at all. Nobody believes this, nor have they ever believed it.

The other problem is that Protestantism has wanted to distance itself from any honor given to the Mother of God because of the belief that Catholicism has done “too much” of this.

But that’s just an extreme reaction and not something that is well considered even in Sola Scriptura terms (all generations will call me blessed).

Just a note from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

“Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that Mary concieved and bore not only a plain, ordinary, mere man but the veritable Son of God; for this reason she is rightly called, and truly is, the mother of God.”

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VIII

 

[EphelDuath]

Can you give me the passage?

Revelation 11:19 - 12:1-17

 

[justasking4]

Revelation 11:19 - 12:1-17

Here is what a couple of catholic scholars say about this:

Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

 

[EphelDuath]

Here is what a couple of catholic scholars say about this:

Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

Their interpretation is different. Their argument can be answered, though; the “birth pangs” do not literally refer to how Jesus was born, but to the struggles of the early church when it came into existence.

I can name ten other Catholic scholars that agree that the woman in Revelation is certainly Mary, though.

You still haven’t answered the argument about the Gospel of Luke, though. So far all you’ve mentioned is that other people think Revelation 12 doesn’t refer to Mary. That doesn’t reconcile how theologically Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and St. Luke obviously references it.

The Ark of the Covenant contained “a golden pot that had manna and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed and the tables of the testament” (Hebrews 9:4). God was present in the Ark (Exodus 25:8).

Do you dispute any of the following:

1. That Jesus is the bread of life from heaven? (John 6:35)
2. That Jesus has authority over Jews and mankind? (John 1:17)
3. That Jesus is the word made flesh? (John 1:14)
4. That Jesus is God? (John 10:30)
5. That Jesus was present inside Mary’s womb?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It depends what is meant by the term. We both know that God does not have a mother but the human part of Jesus did.

As i said above it depends what you mean by the term. Its my understanding that there was some contraversy on the term. God bearer was also another term if i’m not mistaken.

justasking4-

Jesus does not have two “parts” in the sense that you claim. Jesus is not half human and half divine. Jesus is ***fully human ***and fully divine.

He is fully God AND fully Man.

Have you ever heard of the communication of idioms?

Basically speaking the idea is whatever can be said about either of Jesus’ two natures can be said about Jesus Himself.

Even you confidently proclaim that God the Son was born to a virgin in bethlehem, and we also proclaim that God the Son died on a cross at Calvary, yet we all know that God is eternal and can neither be born nor die.

Mary did not give birth to a “part” or a “nature”; she gave birth to a person: Jesus Christ. So, yes, she is the Mother of God.

 

[reggieM]

Just a note from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

“Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that Mary concieved and bore not only a plain, ordinary, mere man but the veritable Son of God; for this reason she is rightly called, and truly is, the mother of God.”

Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VIII

Well, the Lutherans got that part right – and that’s very good to see. I would call that statement something more than merely Sola Scriptura since there is a theological connection that is made – but in any case, it’s totally consistent with Scripture.

That should be enough to put an end to the derisive comments about the term Mother of God that one can hear from many Protestant groups.

Why don’t Protestant churches or preachers ever use the term Mother of God?

 

[JonNC]

Well, the Lutherans got that part right – and that’s very good to see. I would call that statement something more than merely Sola Scriptura since there is a theological connection that is made – but in any case, it’s totally consistent with Scripture.

That should be enough to put an end to the derisive comments about the term Mother of God that one can hear from many Protestant groups.

Why don’t Protestant churches or preachers ever use the term Mother of God?

I think a previous post on this thread hit it: the fear of sounding too Catholic.  I also think there is a fear of deflecting or distracting from the mediatorship of Christ.  The fact is that most Lutherans probably don't even know Theotokos is in the confession.  I heard a fellow Lutheran  recently talk about Christ's "brothers".  I pointed out to him that the Lutheran confession refers to Mary as "ever virgin".  
Mariology is a difficult subject for Protestants, so it may not end the derisive comments, unfortunately.  But patience, please, some of us are rediscovering what even the reformers believed about the Blessed Virgin Mary;  full of Grace, ever virgin, mother of God.

Blessings

 

[Ignatius]

Holdencaulfield:

When I first heard of this belief I said, hey this makes sense. So I looked into it, and here was a shocker. All of the Catholic beliefs are in the Bible! And I was even reading a Protestant Bible. The thing is Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura.

The problem is that a Doctrine needs to be True. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura or the Bible Alone as the Sole Rule of Faith is false for the following reason.

Statement: The Bible Alone is the Sole Rule of Faith.
Therefore, all True Doctrines must be found in the Bible.
The doctrine that The Bible Alone is the Sole Rule of Faith is not in the Bible, therefore it is a false doctrine.

The bible makes no such claim for itself. The most it says is that it is profitable for admonishing, teaching, correction, etc… This certainly doesn’t even imply that there are not other things outside of scripture that are profitable for admonoition, etc.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[reggieM]

Mariology is a difficult subject for Protestants, so it may not end the derisive comments, unfortunately.  But patience, please, some of us are rediscovering what even the reformers believed about the Blessed Virgin Mary;  full of Grace, ever virgin, mother of God.

That is very good to hear, JonNC.
Those are definitely the historic beliefs of the first reformers so they should at least be embraced by Protestants also.

 

[JonNC]

That is very good to hear, JonNC.
Those are definitely the historic beliefs of the first reformers so they should at least be embraced by Protestants also.

More than that, they are the beliefs of the Church catholic. We may disagree on immaculate conception and assumption (though not necessarily), and we may disagree on whether or not she carries our prayers to her son, but we shouldn’t disagree about Theotokos.

Blessings

 

[JARVET]

This brother in Christ remembers you all in prayer as a whole, praying for the whole body of Christ…

With Love in Christ,

God Bless you all!

Mike Moore

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Just a note from a “sola scriptura” perspective.

“Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that Mary concieved and bore not only a plain, ordinary, mere man but the veritable Son of God; for this reason she is rightly called, and truly is, the mother of God.”

That is NOT a ‘sola scriptura perspective.’

It is based upon an interpretation of Tradition (the teachings of the Catholic Church in the early centuries prior to and following the establishment of the Canon: the Bible.

You will notice that there is NO ‘scriptura’ that is being referenced.

Robert