Marian Doctrine

[Caedmon]

Note: I do not intend this thread for animosity; it is for honest inquiry. Moderators, please supervise this thread closely in case any flame or troll wars erupt. Thanks :)

I would like a Reformed perspective on some questions concerning Marian doctrine. From a Reformed perspective, are the Immaculate Conception and Assumption acceptable doctrines? If I were to believe in these doctrines, would I be contradicting Reformed theology?

[ZiSunka]

I don't know what "reformed" means, but here is an evangelical's perspective:

No, we don't believe in the super-humanness of Mary as expressed in the belief that she was born without the capacity to sin (immaculate conception), nor do we believe that she attained heaven without dying.

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
I don't know what "reformed" means, but here is an evangelical's perspective:

No, we don't believe in the super-humanness of Mary as expressed in the belief that she was born without the capacity to sin (immaculate conception), nor do we believe that she attain heaven without dying.

I didn't ask if she is "superhuman". I asked if the Immaculate Conception, and thus Assumption are contradictory. I would like Scriptural references proving that these beliefs contradict Reformed(Calvinistic) belief please.

[Miss Shelby]

humblejoe, I have gone round and round in trying to understand these two doctrines. I cannot give you my thoughts from a 'reformed' view...but from a Protestant perspective I can try.

The Assumption isn't supported in Scripture, but it doesn't contradict Scripture. There is biblical precedent for such an event to occur.

The Immaculate Conception it's been said to contradict Scripture in that Scripture states that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'.

If all means all that would have to mean babies, too right? But they don't sin. So I don't know that this doctrine contradicts Scripture either.

What it all comes down to is whether or not you place any value on Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. People have believed these things historically since the first century. To me, it doesn't sound too terribly outlandish.

Michelle

[ZiSunka]

I would like Scriptural references proving that these beliefs contradict Reformed(Calvinistic) belief please.

You can't use the Bible to prove something that isn't in the Bible! :scratch:

There are no scriptural references, just common sense. If she was born without the capacity to sin, then she was superhuman, above humanness, since all humans sin. Does it make sense to you that any mere person could be born and never sin?

As for the assumption of Mary, it is not in the Bible, so there is no reason to believe it is true. Nor does it matter, really. So what if she was assumed into heaven. What does that really mean or matter?

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
There are no scriptural references, just common sense. If she was born without the capacity to sin, then she was superhuman, above humanness, since all humans sin. Does it make sense to you that any mere person could be born and never sin?

Does it make sense that an omnipotent God that can do anything cannot save whom He wants to? Does it make any common sense that an all-loving God would humans to do things that would put them in Hell for eternity?

As for the assumption of Mary, it is not in the Bible, so there is no reason to believe it is true.

Neither is quantum mechanics... Ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, lol.
But what about all of Jesus' account that is not recorded in Scripture? It says that there was enough that was not recorded to fill books upon books. Were such books filled with the words of Jesus Christ Himself not important enough to be written down?

Nor does it matter, really. So what if she was assumed into heaven. What does that really mean or matter?

Perhaps not, but what if she was immaculately conceived? That would affect our faith, would it not? That would mean she was specially prepared by God, in a special way, that humans are not normally subjected to. And according to Catholic Tradition, Assumption follows on the coattails of Immaculate Conception. So you can't really discard Assumption without it having extensive retrograde implications. My question still stands: do Immaculate Conception and Assumption contradict Scripture? If not, then what do they contradict? The Tradition of nonCatholic denominations? But if "Tradition[s]" do not exist, then what do they contradict? The Holy Spirit? John Calvin said that Copernicus' Sun-centered(as opposed to the Earth-centered) solar system model contradicted Scripture and the Holy Spirit. When was Calvin right, and when was Calvin wrong? Please understand I'm asking honest questions that I really need answers to. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

[ZiSunka]

No, it would have no effect on my faith, because my faith is built on Christ, and him crucified, and Mary is not part of that equation. She was a human who gave birth to God's child, God in the flesh. It was a great blessing, but by the time of the cross, her part was mostly over. Why do you think Jesus said, "Who is my mother and my brothers? Those who do the will of my father." He was saying that his mother, though truly blessed, was NOT more important to him than any other human, any of his other followers.

Evangelical thinking says that Mary was a human instrument of God's plan, but not THE plan. Christ is the one who paid for our sins. Not Mary. If not Mary, then someone else would have been used to birth Christ into this world. There are no prophesies about Christ's mother, except she would be a virgin. At any given time, there are a LOT of virgins in the world.

[pax]

Originally posted by lambslove
You can't use the Bible to prove something that isn't in the Bible! :scratch:

There are no scriptural references, just common sense. If she was born without the capacity to sin, then she was superhuman, above humanness, since all humans sin. Does it make sense to you that any mere person could be born and never sin?

As for the assumption of Mary, it is not in the Bible, so there is no reason to believe it is true. Nor does it matter, really. So what if she was assumed into heaven. What does that really mean or matter?

 

***Just a side note, Catholics believe Mary was capable of sin since her immaculate conception didn't take away her free will.  We believe it was of her own free will she chose not to sin.  We believe she was born without original sin just as Eve was.  The difference was she didn't sin.

[isshinwhat]

nor do we believe that she attained heaven without dying.

Hey, hj, I know you asked for Reformed input and I am Catholic, but just to clarify the discussion, the Dogma of the Assumption never says whether Mary died or not, only that she was taken into Heaven, body and soul, when the course of her earthly life had ended. Individual Catholics are free to hold either view, that she died or was assumed alive like the Prophet, and still be in complete agreement with the Dogma of the Assumption.

God Bless,

Neal

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by pax
 

***Just a side note, Catholics believe Mary was capable of sin since her immaculate conception didn't take away her free will.  We believe it was of her own free will she chose not to sin.  We believe she was born without original sin just as Eve was.  The difference was she didn't sin.

I see. I don't even believe in "original sin."

[Andrew]

Mary led a sinless life? She was born without original sin?

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (except Mary?)

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (except Mary?)

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (except Mary?)

[Miss Shelby]

Originally posted by Andrew ]Mary led a sinless life? She was born without original sin?

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (except Mary?)

We would have to make an exception for Jesus as well.



Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (except Mary?)

All men, except Jesus.



Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (except Mary?)

Except Jesus.

Is it possible that 'all' could be meant in a collective sense, since obviously it can't mean 'all'  because we ALL know that Jesus didn't sin. :)

Michelle

[ZiSunka]

Jesus was no mere man, He was God in the flesh.

He had the propensity to sin, like us, and was tempted to sin in everyway we are tempted, but resisted the temptations. The Bible contains all this info.

But it says nothing about the "sinlessness of Mary," a doctrine that first cropped up in catholicism about 500 years ago. It's a catholic tradition, not a fact.

[isshinwhat]

But it says nothing about the "sinlessness of Mary," a doctrine that first cropped up in catholicism about 500 years ago.

Just to clarify a misconception, the sinlessness of Mary was an Apostolic teaching. Each of these quotes comes from before the Canonization of the Bible except that of St Augustine, who practically pronounces the Immaculate Conception in the words I have bolded in the year 415 A.D.

God Bless,

Neal

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244)

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary."
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370)

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370)

O Virgin Immaculate, Mother of God and my Mother, from your sublime heights turn your eyes of pity on my. Filled with confidence in your goodness and knowing full well your power, I beg you to extend to me your assistance in the journey of life, which is so full of dangers for my soul. In order that I may never be a slave of the devil through sin, but may ever live with my heart humble and pure, I entrust myself wholly to you. I consecrate my heart to you forever, my only desire being to love your divine Son, Jesus. Mary, none of your devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved. Amen.
Ephraem the Syrian, Prayer to the Immaculate Mother of God(370 A.D.)

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388)

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415)

[GreenEyedLady]

Well its been awhile since I have been online.
But I wanted to agree with lambslove.
If this doctrine WAS important, so important to base a church off of, then wouldn't God have put it in scripture?
It says all have sinned, and come short. I cannot remember who it was but someone said "does that include Christ?" Well i would have to say NO. If anything, he was the 2nd adam. He was born with out sin. NOT mary. Adam was made in Gods image...and so was Christ. I find it wonderful that Christ got down on OUR level and got baptized and OBEYED that commandment. He didn't have to do that. But HE did!
Anyway. I agree with lamb..you cannot as a protestant support a doctrine that is NOT in the scriptures. For protestants its black or white, you either believe in the WHOLE bible..or you don't.
I guess it bogglres my mind that if it was an aposle teaching AND a teaching of Christ, then it would be in scripture!
:scratch:

[ZiSunka]

Just to clarify a misconception, the sinlessness of Mary was an Apostolic teaching.

isshinwhat, your earliest quote is from 244 AD. I'm pretty sure all the apostles were dead by then, so you can't exactly call this an apostalic teaching! There would be roughly 8 generations between the apostles and 244 AD. Do you have anything written by Paul, John, James, Peter or any of the actual apostles on this topic?

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
isshinwhat, your earliest quote is from 244 AD. I'm pretty sure all the apostles were dead by then, so you can't exactly call this an apostalic teaching! There would be roughly 8 generations between the apostles and 244 AD. Do you have anything written by Paul, John, James, Peter or any of the actual apostles on this topic?

Just the same, it puts to rest the "[invented] 500 years ago" statement by a long shot.

[ZiSunka]

But it still proves nothing.

The earliest references I could find on the concept were from the 1500's.

But even if it were from 244, what does that prove? That eight generations after Christ someone got the idea to make Mary more than just another human, that's all.

There's nothing to support the idea from Biblical or apostalic teachings.

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
But it still proves nothing.

The earliest references I could find on the concept were from the 1500's.

But even if it were from 244, what does that prove? That eight generations after Christ someone got the idea to make Mary more than just another human, that's all.

There's nothing to support the idea from Biblical or apostalic teachings.

Have you ever read the description of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament?

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
It's a catholic tradition

The Trinity is also a Catholic Tradition. :)

Question: Where is the word "Trinity" found in the Bible?

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by humblejoe
Have you ever read the description of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament?

Yeah, so?

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by humblejoe
The Trinity is also a Catholic Tradition. :)

Question: Where is the word "Trinity" found in the Bible?

The word "trinity" is not in the Bible. The concept is.

The idea that mary was born sinless and assumed into heaven is not in the Bible at all, anywhere, in any form.

[pax]

Originally posted by lambslove
But it still proves nothing.

The earliest references I could find on the concept were from the 1500's.

But even if it were from 244, what does that prove? That eight generations after Christ someone got the idea to make Mary more than just another human, that's all.

There's nothing to support the idea from Biblical or apostalic teachings.

Here are some earlier quotes...

The Ascension of Isaiah

"[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

 

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

 

Justin Martyr

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

 

Irenaeus

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

[pax]

<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by humblejoe </I>
<B>Have you ever read the description of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament? </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Yeah, so?

&nbsp;

I'm not sure if this is what Joe is talking about, but there is an interesting similarity between Mary and the ark that was just kind of interesting.

According to many parallel texts in Scripture, Mary is depicted as the true Ark of the Covenant. One example is Luke 1:43. Notice Elizabeth’s exclamation when Mary enters her home shortly after she had conceived our Lord: ‘And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’ This refers back to 2 Samuel 6:9, when the Old Testament type of Mary — the old Ark of the Covenant — was carried into the presence of King David. He said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come to me?’ Notice the text then says, ‘And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months’ (v. 11). Luke 1:56 says, ‘And Mary remained with her about three months.’


from: target=_blank>http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.3/nandb.htm (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.3/nandb.htm)

[Chris†opher Paul]

The Immaculate Conception it's been said to contradict Scripture in that Scripture states that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'.


Oh, so Jesus sinned too?

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by lambslove
Jesus was no mere man, He was God in the flesh.

He had the propensity to sin, like us, and was tempted to sin in everyway we are tempted, but resisted the temptations. The Bible contains all this info.

But it says nothing about the "sinlessness of Mary," a doctrine that first cropped up in catholicism about 500 years ago. It's a catholic tradition, not a fact.

Wrong.&nbsp; Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God in the flesh.&nbsp;

[Chris†opher Paul]

It's a catholic tradition, not a fact.


So all Tradition is false? Do you know that a lot of the scripture was tradition before it was actually written down? And even after, most couldnt afford a copy, so they relied on tradition. So, do you know that Catholic Tradition formed the basis of your beliefs?

Do you realize why I thought it was ironic that you were calling other people heretics the other day?

[MizDoulos]

Please Note:

Before this discussion gets out of hand, please be reminded not to air personal criticism publicly but through your e-mail or private message option through the profile page.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by lambslove
Yeah, so?

What did the Ark hold inside? (pssst, the Word of God, (Ten Commandents stone tablets))

And what did Mary hold inside herself for 9 months? (pssst, the Word of God made flesh)

:eek:

How was the Ark made? (with incorruptible acacia wood, plated in gold(does not rust) inside and out)

How was Mary made?... ... ...

I think I better stop before I start to scare myself. :eek:

[GreenEyedLady]

Just my opinion, but I think you are grasping at straws there with the Ark of the covenent and Mary.
Well you guys go ahead and type away.
I am going to go post and update then read my bible!
Bless you all!
GEL

[Andrew]

"What did the Ark hold inside? (pssst, the Word of God, (Ten Commandents stone tablets))"

it also held the rod of Aaron -- symbolising rebellion against God's leadership.

andoh please, Jesus does not equal 10 commandments on the stone tablets.

btw: the work ark in ark of the cov means "coffin".

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Andrew
it also held the rod of Aaron -- symbolising rebellion against God's leadership.

If the miraculously budding Rod of Aaron was an utter symbol of "rebellion against God's leadership"(sin), then what in the world was it doing in the Ark? The Ark held the presence of God. When David said he was going to return the Ark to his people, that same passage can be read as if he said he wanted to return the presence of God to his people. Tell me, does God allow sin inside His presence, or vice versa?

andoh please, Jesus does not equal 10 commandments on the stone tablets.

He doesn't? Christ wasn't "the word made flesh to dwell among us"? God doesn't equal His word?

btw: the work ark in ark of the cov means "coffin".

Ah, so it was a symbol of death? Funny that, it holding the presence of the Living God, along with the commandents by which one shall live, a miraculously budding(living) wooden rod, the manna/bread of life that fell from the sky in the middle of a dead desert wasteland...
Not to mention that when the priest would sprinkle blood sacrifice on the mercy seat, the people were given the opportunity for new life and remission of sin.

[Andrew]

ever wondered why the ark had to be kept covered?

yes Jesus is the Word made flesh, not the 10 Commandments made flesh.

also you think God wld live inside the man-made ark?

btw: we dont live by the Law anymore, unless u want to remain in the OC.

and yes, the word means coffin. u can check the hebrew.