Baptist understanding of Mary

[Cary.Melvin]

What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history? Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?

Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?

Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?
Thanks,

[jenptcfan]

What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history? Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?

Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?

Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?
Thanks,
We believe that Mary has nothing to do with salvation other than giving birth to the one who gives us salvation.

Yes we believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus.

We believe that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but we believe that as a married woman, she was not a virgin for her whole life.

We do not believe that mary was without sin.

We do not believe in the bodily assumption of Mary.

[bleechers]

jenptcfan nailed it. Thanks for asking! I'd just add a little... You know all this, so I hope you are not bringing debate to this room. :) Thanks for asking "do Baptists believe?" I trust that is the true intent of your post and you will abide by it. :)

What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history? Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?

Mary has nothing to do with the gospel "delivered" or with Jesus' "obtaining eternal redemtion for us" (Hebrews). The epistles are silent on Mary. Galatians reveals that Paul had delivered and preached the gospel in its totality. Anyone adding to it, is accursed of God (Gal 1:1-12).

Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?

No. God has no mother. This was covered clearly in another thread. Why do you ask again? You know Baptists have historically rejected this doctrine.

Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?

Yes. She conceived of the Holy Spirit and no, Joseph did not know her "until" she had given birth. Both the OT and the NT teach that Mary had other children. Baptists have historically taught this. Thanks for asking.

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

No. "My spirit rejoices in God my savior." She brought a sacrifice to the temple. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?

No. This recent doctrine is not accepted among Baptists. Honestly... you didn't know that?

Thanks

No problem. :)

[P_G]

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?
Thanks,

Brother Carey

If you can show me in the scriptures where anyone born of woman except for Y'shua Hamoshiach walked the earth in a sinless life I will beleive that it was possible for Mirriam to have done this.

If you can show me that Miriam had been taken away bodily into heaven in the scriptures again I will beleive you but I see nothing mentioned in the bible of this event.

I do notice that Chanokh, Eliyahu and Y'shua had been taken bodily into the heavens but not Miriam.

I love to preach on Miriam and she does provide a beutiful example of godly obedience in the face of terrible odds. In the day she was betrothed to Yosef, to be pregnant out of wedlock was a sin worthy of death. She knew the law and chose obidience to the L-rd as he asked of her. That is a worthy thing. A blessed thing surely our sister Miriam was greatly blessed among women for this obidient act of love and sacrifice to Ha'Shem.

Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

PS Please remember they were Jewish not Greek nor Roman it makes a difference!

[KennySe]

No. God has no mother. This was covered clearly in another thread. Why do you ask again? You know Baptists have historically rejected this doctrine.


Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?

[Oblio]

We believe that Mary has nothing to do with salvation other than giving birth to the one who gives us salvation.


If I may ask a follow up :)

Do Baptists believe that Jesus received His humanity from Mary, or do they believe that she was just an empty vessel or vehicle to bring forth God the Word into the world ?

Thanks :)

P.S. I used to be Baptist and this was NEVER touched on so I am genuinely curious.

[Cary.Melvin]

Brother Carey

If you can show me in the scriptures where anyone born of woman except for Y'shua Hamoshiach walked the earth in a sinless life I will beleive that it was possible for Mirriam to have done this.

If you can show me that Miriam had been taken away bodily into heaven in the scriptures again I will beleive you but I see nothing mentioned in the bible of this event.

I do notice that Chanokh, Eliyahu and Y'shua had been taken bodily into the heavens but not Miriam.

I love to preach on Miriam and she does provide a beutiful example of godly obedience in the face of terrible odds. In the day she was betrothed to Yosef, to be pregnant out of wedlock was a sin worthy of death. She knew the law and chose obidience to the L-rd as he asked of her. That is a worthy thing. A blessed thing surely our sister Miriam was greatly blessed among women for this obidient act of love and sacrifice to Ha'Shem.

Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

PS Please remember they were Jewish not Greek nor Roman it makes a difference!

You may not want to ask questions, it may prompt people to debate.

And why are you using those weird names, and leaving the "o" out of Lord?

[jenptcfan]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?
The infant born of Mary was not God the father, no. He was God the son.

[Oblio]

jenptcfan,

Kenny did not say God the Father, but God (the Word). However they are one in Essence.

[P_G]

You may not want to ask questions, it may prompt people to debate.

And why are you using those weird names, and leaving the "o" out of
Lord?
Cary you can't expect any one to think you didn't come a askin with out
wanting a debate. You know what you are asking is straight up 100% RCC doctrine. But I am not going to debate you at all. I have said what I have said.

And as for those wierd names:
Kyrie Iesou Christe, Yie Tou Theo, Eleison me !

It is truly meet to bless thee O Theotokos, ever blessed and most pure and the Mother of our God. More honorable that the Cherubim, and more Glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement thou gavest birth to God the Word, true Theotokos we magnify thee !

Wierder say than Greek?

They are the proper translitteration of the Hebrew names which is what these dear people were known by. I figured you probably did not read Hebrew so I used the Roman alphabit so as you could read it.

Respectfully the vowels are left out of the proper name of Ha'Shem that it might never be disgraced nor destroyed vainly. (I don't know you might get mad and delete this post)

Blessings

Don't forget you asked the question
no debating now!

Pastor George :wave:

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Cary


What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history? Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?


Mary was elected before the foundations of the world to serve in God’s plan, just like so many other have. Her role in the plan was key, but that is why God chose her. I am not sure I understand the question “nature”.




Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?

I will stick with God-bearer, the use of this phase often is problematic.

Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?



No lacks historical fact:

"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus seems to associate "come together" with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

The lord was born of a virgin yes.



Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?



For all have sinned except the Lord himself for he is God.



Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.


Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?
Thanks,

The scripture teaches abou Elijah, Mary on the other hand.



"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."



Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.



Good questions, But many can not be found with in the context of the Faith passed down to the saints. Weather though scripture passed down or men who defended the faith.



Peace to u,



Bill

[Oblio]

I am not sure I understand the question “nature”.


Here he is speaking IMO of Christological nature. IOW, Who is Jesus the Christ WRT to Divinity & humanity ?

[Oblio]

I will stick with God-bearer, the use of this phase often is problematic.


Do any Baptists use the term Theotokos ?

Aside: My sisters Methodist minister gave a sermon where the title was at least recognized. I did not hear it in person so I cannot vouch for the context, but I do know that she squirmed in her pew wanting to raise her 'pick me teacher !' hand as she has been to a few EO services :)

[Crazy Liz]

What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history? Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?

I'm not Baptist, but identify with some of the other Free Church Protestant traditions represented in this forum. I personally think Baptists and many other Free Church Protestants go out of their way to disrespect Mary out of reaction to Catholicism. I believe and hope the following represents a view that is acceptable in all Free Church Protestant denominations.

Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?

Most Baptists don't understand what the title Mother of God means.

Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?

Baptists generally believe in the virgin birth. Those who have studied generally do not take a position on whether or not she ever had sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth. It simply is not important to Baptists' doctrine. It is a matter of indifference except in overstated polemics trying to discredit Catholicism.

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

No.

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?
Thanks,

No, but this is another matter that most Baptists who have really thought about it and studied would say they are indifferent to, rather than something they believe is false.

[Cary.Melvin]

Crazy Liz,

Thank you for your answer. I was very non-biased.

Thanks,

[Cary.Melvin]

Perhapse I could re-orient the question?

Would you think it would be Ok for a Baptist to believe in one or more of these doctrines?

For instance, would it be permissable for a Baptist to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

[bleechers]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?

Of course not. Why the feigned ignorance? We covered this quite extensively in another thread. Why do you seek to set traps and beguile?

Of course the infant is God in Baptist theology. By asking you reveal much concerning your intentions.

I answered this compeletely in another thread. Why do you persist?

[Bulldog]

Do any Baptists use the term Theotokos ?

I have never heard them use it.

It is translated as Mother of God, which can bring up problems, since God created Mary and is the Father of Mary.

I agree with Bill, God Bearer is a better term IMO.

[II Paradox II]

Would you think it would be Ok for a Baptist to believe in one or more of these doctrines?
Perhaps the best way of looking at it is that Marian doctrines are not central to the theological core of Baptists in general. The answers you will get when you ask about whether we use Theotokos or other such issues will usually end up being a reaction to Catholic dogma, a rather confused shuffling or general disinterest.

Simply put, we do not put much weight on these doctrines in themselves for they really don't matter one way or the other to our theological tradition. To the degree they affect our Christology, we tend to take notice, but beyond that they are usually just seen as outside of our way of thought.

For instance, I personally have no problem with using the term God-Bearer, and I have no huge theological problem with the perpetual virginity (I honestly don't have much of an opinion either way). The Assumption I doubt highly on historical grounds and the IC seems logically and historically flawed.

For many protestants, we simply take the position that to go beyond what is written and call it dogma is incorrect. As such, such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to, but they should not be made articles of belief or fellowship as the scriptures do not speak clearly to them.

ken

[Oblio]

I have never heard them use it.

It is translated as Mother of God, which can bring up problems, since God created Mary and is the Father of Mary.

I agree with Bill, God Bearer is a better term IMO.


Thanks.

Using the explicit Greek term Theotokos gets past the translation problems such as equating Mother with Creator, which is why I wondered if it was (or perhaps could be) used by Protestants/Baptists to keep these misunderstandings at bay.

[KennySe]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?

Of course not. Why the feigned ignorance? We covered this quite extensively in another thread. Why do you seek to set traps and beguile?

Of course the infant is God in Baptist theology. By asking you reveal much concerning your intentions.

I answered this compeletely in another thread. Why do you persist?

There is no ignorance, feigned or otherwise in my questions. They are direct questions. They are not traps.
In this thread, you said God did not have a mother, so I asked two direct questions for clarification.

Will you provide a link to the thread in which you have discussed this matter? Was it in GT? (I can't keep track of all the threads that I have participated in.)

[ZeroTX]

I think that "indifferent" is an excellent term to describe my feeling on matters of doctrine that don't have any material affect on living a life according to Christ. I am not exactly sure why they are part of Catholic dogma, as mentioned, either. The Scriptures are indeed vague or non-existent on these matters.

Yes, Baptists believe in Virgin Birth, because the Bible says so. The Bible doesn't mention original sin or whether it were present or not. I contend that God at any time can cleanse anyone of anything -- He is God. So, by virtue of this, I can see how the concept of Immaculate Conception could be true. But, I don't think there's Scriptural evidence to be dogmatic about it.

The term "Mother of God" is indeed confusing, I believe even to the vast majority of lay-person Roman Catholics. I believe the use of this terminology has mislead many people into an excessive level of veneration of Mary. The term God-bearer is definitely alot clearer, as it doesn't imply that she preceeds God.

The idea of the Assumption of Mary is recent dogma and is not spoken about in any context in Scripture. The Bible, in general, doesn't relate much to us about Mary, hence the reason Baptists (and other Scripture-based denomenations) don't develop significant dogma surrounding her.

I think the assertion that many of us (Protestants) do in fact get defensive and probably go on to say more than we really should or really feel. It's the powerful feelings about Mary that Catholics have that sometimes bring about excessively harsh stsatements from Baptists/Protestants who disagree with the doctrine.

The truth for many of us is, we are just confused as to why Mary matters so much to you... It's an honest confusion, as we only consider the Scriptures as our authority, and there's just not much about her to talk about there.

-Michael

[bleechers]

There is no ignorance, feigned or otherwise in my questions

You can honestly say, that you believed that Baptists don't believe that the infant Jesus is God? You were truly unsure of that?

you said God did not have a mother

No, God has no mother. Now, we go on to avoid the charge of Nestorianism...

Jesus took upon Himself flesh that the Father had preapared for Him ("a body thou hast prepared for me."). He was made "a little lower than the angels" while being "greater than the angels". This is possible because was fully God and fully man.

In Matthew, as the King, He has a lineage (Joseph's). In Luke as a man, He has a lineage (Mary's). In Mark, there is no lineage for servants rely on none. In John there is no lineage for God has no lineage.

As heir to the throne of David, He is the "Son of David". As eternal God, He is called "Son of God". We do not, however, make the truth of His full deity and eternal Godhood require us to conclude that David is God. David is in his human lineage, as God He has no lineage.

Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is the son of David
Jesus is the son of Man

But that does not mean that we conclude that God is a man named David. It is explained by the two distinct natures of Christ.

He is only referred to once as "son of Mary" and that by the Pharisees (who also call Him "the carpenter's son"). Scripture never refers to Mary as "the Mother of God." (only as "the mother of Jesus"). Even the catechism notes that that doctrine developed over time. It is absolutely nowhere found in any of Paul's treatments of the gospel (which he, Paul, declared as complete, never to be added to or changed).

As the Council of Ephesus stated (for what it's worth): Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. But that does not preclude the scriptural fact the human flesh Jesus took upon Himself was "prepared" for Him. His flesh was not eternal. He did not pre-exist as a human. He was, is, and ever shall be eternal God. His flesh which He took upon Himself was "prepared" by the Father and had a beginning. His flesh had its beginning in Mary, his deity pre-existed all things.

He was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh." He did not pre-exist in such a likeness:

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Nestorius, in addition to rightly denying the title "Mother of God" also separated Jesus' deity from his atonement. One can agree with him (them, they still exist in the Middle east) on the first point, yet reject the second... which Baptists reject and have rejected historically. The two are concepts are independent.

In Micah 5:2 the babe is said to be "of old, from everlasting" and in Isaiah He is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father."

So, shocking as it may be, Baptists are Trinitarians who hold to Jesus as fully God and fully man. Hope this helps explain Baptist theology for you. Thanks for asking!

:)

Or are you promoting Gnosticism? ;)

[thereselittleflower]

Hi BBAS

I will stick with God-bearer, the use of this phase often is problematic.And one of semmantics. . . ;)

I sure we mean the same thing though . . Mother of God, God-bearer . . as long as God-bearer means that by bearing God in her womb, Jesus received his flesh and humanity from Mary . .

Really, I don't know why it is such an issue . . I mean, one could think that one might mean that Mary was the origination of God the Father simply by the words Mother of God, but that is so off the wall, that it doesn't seem reasonable that people would think that, especially when it ihas been explained to them . .

It saddens me that some people really think that the term Mother of God means that we believe that God could not have existed without Mary ,. . that is so way out there it isn't even funny . . it is really sad . .



Peace in Him!

[bleechers]

It saddens me that some people really think that the term Mother of God means that we believe that God could not have existed without Mary ,. . that is so way out there it isn't even funny . . it is really sad . .

I thought you came here to ask about Baptist theology...? :)

No one said you believed that, we are just pointing out the inconsistency of the title and the scriptural implications of such a thing.

And as you and I well know, once you make her "the Mother of God" (a non-scriptural title or idea) you open the door to other non-scriptural ideas... which I won't list here, but I know where it leads because I taught it for years. :)

Again, thanks for asking!

[thereselittleflower]

Perhaps the best way of looking at it is that Marian doctrines are not central to the theological core of Baptists in general. The answers you will get when you ask about whether we use Theotokos or other such issues will usually end up being a reaction to Catholic dogma, a rather confused shuffling or general disinterest.

Simply put, we do not put much weight on these doctrines in themselves for they really don't matter one way or the other to our theological tradition. To the degree they affect our Christology, we tend to take notice, but beyond that they are usually just seen as outside of our way of thought.

For instance, I personally have no problem with using the term God-Bearer, and I have no huge theological problem with the perpetual virginity (I honestly don't have much of an opinion either way). The Assumption I doubt highly on historical grounds and the IC seems logically and historically flawed.

For many protestants, we simply take the position that to go beyond what is written and call it dogma is incorrect. As such, such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to, but they should not be made articles of belief or fellowship as the scriptures do not speak clearly to them.

ken
Hi Ken,

I appreciate your answer . .

I have to wonder then, if this indifferentism is more in theory than in practice. What I mean is, if Baptists in general are basically indifferent to Marian doctrines, then why do Baptists seem to be some of those who most get up in arm about marian doctrines in the Catholic Church?

I mean, if such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to in the Baptists tradition, they why are we looked down on amd/or critcized for believing them because we wish to?


Peace in Him!

[bleechers]

I mean, if such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to in the Baptists tradition, they why are we looked down on amd/or critcized for believing them because we wish to?

Because in Baptist theology, which relies solely on the scriptures, the extra-biblical doctrines attached to Mary are wholly incompatible with Baptist soteriology.

It is not the fact that you teach that she was assumed into heaven that is necessarily the problem. It is the "Treasury of Merit" and the "dispenser of graces" and the "Sabbatine Promise" and the payers to her and her role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and similar doctrines that are incompatible with the gospel we preach and deny the gospel we preach (and this just scratches the surface).

We hold dearly that Christ alone "obtained eternal redemption for us" and that salvation can be known (John 5:24; 1 John 5:13). This necessarily excludes anything like a "Treasury of Merit" or a "Sabbatine Promise" or a Co-Redemptrix from whom to seek "the graces necessary for eternal life, etc., etc. etc." To be honest, such an idea is abhorrent to Baptist theology and robs Christ of His glory. The knowledge of salvation is central to our gospel and foreign to yours.

Thanks for asking!

:)

[thereselittleflower]

I think that "indifferent" is an excellent term to describe my feeling on matters of doctrine that don't have any material affect on living a life according to Christ. I am not exactly sure why they are part of Catholic dogma, as mentioned, either. The Scriptures are indeed vague or non-existent on these matters.

Yes, Baptists believe in Virgin Birth, because the Bible says so. The Bible doesn't mention original sin or whether it were present or not. I contend that God at any time can cleanse anyone of anything -- He is God. So, by virtue of this, I can see how the concept of Immaculate Conception could be true. But, I don't think there's Scriptural evidence to be dogmatic about it.
You know, I think this thread is the first time I have heard that Baptists think that this belief could be true . . I understnd your reasons for thinking there is not enough scripture to be dogmatic, but I for one am finding that what I have perceived in the past from Baptists in general may not be true . .that there is no way, no how any room for such a belief in the Baptist tradition. Between what you are saying here, and what ken said earlier, I am developing a better, clearer picture of what Baptists believe.

IMHO, this is exactly what such a thread in your forum should help us all do.



The term "Mother of God" is indeed confusing, I believe even to the vast majority of lay-person Roman Catholics.

The vast majority of lay Catholics would disagree with you vehemently. Just thought you would like to know. ;)

I believe the use of this terminology has mislead many people into an excessive level of veneration of Mary. The term God-bearer is definitely alot clearer, as it doesn't imply that she preceeds God.
I understand your point of view . . the only problem with God-bearer that I can see is it can lend to confusion on the other side - that Mary was simply a vessel and Jesus didn't receive his humanity or his flesh from her . . ie, he was just "put" inside of her . .

So both english phrases can be misunderstood . .


The idea of the Assumption of Mary is recent dogma and is not spoken about in any context in Scripture. The Bible, in general, doesn't relate much to us about Mary, hence the reason Baptists (and other Scripture-based denomenations) don't develop significant dogma surrounding her.
Yes, since it is believed she died after most scripture was written, it probably wouldn't be there .. only can we find something that could point to it in Revelation . . but that is another thread ..

I think the assertion that many of us (Protestants) do in fact get defensive and probably go on to say more than we really should or really feel. It's the powerful feelings about Mary that Catholics have that sometimes bring about excessively harsh stsatements from Baptists/Protestants who disagree with the doctrine.

The truth for many of us is, we are just confused as to why Mary matters so much to you... It's an honest confusion, as we only consider the Scriptures as our authority, and there's just not much about her to talk about there.

-Michael
You know, I used to be confused about it before too, but coming to understand who she is, it seems perfectly natural .. I couldn't imagine not having sch feelings for her . . But because I have been where you are, I understand what you are saying.


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

I thought you came here to ask about Baptist theology...? :)

No one said you believed that, we are just pointing out the inconsistency of the title and the scriptural implications of such a thing.
Oh, but I have most certainly run into that in the past .. that was the basis of my comment . .

I guess I have to ask why, if you don't think we believe that, why you would think it is confusing . .



And as you and I well know, once you make her "the Mother of God" (a non-scriptural title or idea) you open the door to other non-scriptural ideas... which I won't list here, but I know where it leads because I taught it for years. :)

Again, thanks for asking!

Well, thank you for sharing!



Peace in Him!

[FreeinChrist]

I'm not Baptist, but identify with some of the other Free Church Protestant traditions represented in this forum. I personally think Baptists and many other Free Church Protestants go out of their way to disrespect Mary out of reaction to Catholicism. I believe and hope the following represents a view that is acceptable in all Free Church Protestant denominations.



Most Baptists don't understand what the title Mother of God means.



Baptists generally believe in the virgin birth. Those who have studied generally do not take a position on whether or not she ever had sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth. It simply is not important to Baptists' doctrine. It is a matter of indifference except in overstated polemics trying to discredit Catholicism.


No, but this is another matter that most Baptists who have really thought about it and studied would say they are indifferent to, rather than something they believe is false.I'm sorry, Liz, but that is a biased opinion. You state you are not Baptist - then make statements about what they believe such as this:
"Baptists generally believe in the virgin birth"
ahh...Liz - Baptists beleive in the virgin birth!
Bigtime!! It is not "generally" as if some don't.

"I personally think Baptists and many other Free Church Protestants go out of their way to disrespect Mary out of reaction to Catholicism. " -
I'm sure glad you stated this was your opinion, and did not try to claim it was fact.


"Most Baptists don't understand what the title Mother of God means."
I beleive you are wrongn. I know many who understand the view that states 'since Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to Jesus, Mary is the Mother of God.'
I do not use that title though, because I believe in the Trinity - God in three persons but one God. I do not like to confuse nonbeleivers into thinking we believe that Mary is the Mother of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, as well as Jesus. I don't want any implication that implies she is responsibile for Jesus being 100% God (He is 100% God and 100% man). Jesus existed as God before His birth to Mary, as explained by John:
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
He existed, then took on the nature of man:

Hbr 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.



I view Mary as a wonderful example of obedience to God, and that she was blessed by God.
But some of the other stuff that came later....it is unsupported and adds confusion.

[FreeinChrist]

"What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history?"
She was blessed by God to carry and give birth and raise the Son of God.


"Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?"
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, God Incarnate, who existed before the Incarnation as John says.

"Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?"
Mary gave birth to God Incarnate. That Jesus was 100% God was due to the fact of His coneption by the Holy Spirit. "Mother of God" can be a confusing title for the unsaved. And God is one God, in three persons.

"Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?"
We beleive that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. We do not believe she then remained a virgin perpetually, being a Godly Jewish wife. God has never condemned matrimony.

"Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?"
No. This is illogical. If Mary had to be born without original sin in order to bear the Son of God, then her mother had to be born without original sin to be the mother of Mary....and her mother... and that is just unscriptural.
And neither Matthew, Luke, Mark or John refer to her birth as immaculate.
I do beleive that Mary had faith and with th death and resurrection of Christ, her sins were removed.


"Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?"
no.

[sunshinejennii]

I believe Jesus is God in bodily form and as such doesn't have a biological mother but Mary was chosen to give birth to him and bring him up as if he were her own. When i refer to her as the mother of Jesus i mean she acted as a mother to him. Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesu's birth she led the life she would have led had God not chosen her.

[sunshinejennii]

FreeinChrist explains it well, i would say that was the Baptist view.

[Oblio]

And as you and I well know, once you make her "the Mother of God" (a non-scriptural title or idea) you open the door to other non-scriptural ideas...


I realize that you are speaking of the variant English rendering of Theotokos as 'Mother of God', however you will find if you look at Scripture, that the very word Theotokos is taken from it in the account of the prophesy of the Incarnation.

Mat 1:23 Behold,2400 a virgin3933 shall be with child,2192, 1722, 1064 and2532 shall bring forth5088 a son,5207 and2532 they shall call2564 his846 name3686 Emmanuel,1694 which3739 being interpreted3177 is,2076 God2316 with3326 us.2257

G5088
τίκτω
tiktō
Thayer Definition:
1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
1a) of a woman giving birth
1b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits
1c) metaphorically to bear, bring forth
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a strengthened form of a primary teko (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses)

[bleechers]

But the sentence structure in the Greek and in the English do not allow for that extrapolation. The fact that He is to be called "Emmanuel" does not afford Mary the title "Mother of God." It is not a geometric equivalency.

A=B
B=C
so A=C

This does not work with He who is One person with two natures. The flesh being created ("a body thou [the Father] has prepared for me") and the deity being eternal and from everlasting (Micah 5:2).

His title is "Emmanuel" for He is God with us. That is the same as was noted in my earlier post. His title as "Son of God" in no way can be equated to make David God.

(A) Jesus = The Son of God (B)
(A) Jesus = The Son of David (C)

We do not conclude that David (C) is equal to God (B). That is a false extrapolation.

Mary is referred to in scripture as "the mother of Jesus" several times. It never affords her the title of "Mother of God" or even "Mother of Emmanuel". I had hope this was made clear in my earlier post, but I'm happy to claify.

Thanks for asking!

:)

[Servant of the Kingdom]

Dear bleecher, you said in the OT is shown Mary has another children? OT??

[II Paradox II]

I have to wonder then, if this indifferentism is more in theory than in practice. What I mean is, if Baptists in general are basically indifferent to Marian doctrines, then why do Baptists seem to be some of those who most get up in arm about marian doctrines in the Catholic Church? 1) In a perfect world (one with only baptists ;)), there probably would be little to do about such doctrines. Chances are they would never come up. I think the reason they come up so often is simply because we don't live in a monotonic world, with everyone echoing the same ideas, but one that is very diverse. Within that diverse world there is significant disagreement over this issue precisely because Rome in particular has declared these things as dogma, essentially tying them into the gospel itself and salvation (in the sense that EENS would normatively require membership in the church, and membership in the church requires assent to all dogmas). As such, there is significant division over this issue because of that. I think if Catholics held these beliefs but never declared them dogma, there would not nearly be so much rancor over them, though it might still exist.

2) A distinction should really be made between marian doctrines as well. Some, such as using God-Bearer or the perpetual virginity, do not really raise that many hackles as they aren't really that theologically significant in defining the theological boundries of various churches. This is quiote different from doctrines such as Mary as the mediatrix which involves a very different conception of grace of salvation itself that the protestant perspective. As such, we react strongly to such ideas.

3) As our attitude is to stay as much to the scriptures as possible, the marian doctrines in large measure create tension because they push the boundries of this very hard while simultaneously being advanced as required belief (which makes them tied into salvation by implication as I illustrated above).

I mean, if such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to in the Baptists tradition, they why are we looked down on amd/or critcized for believing them because we wish to? I think my arguments above show this. Ultimately it comes down to this - that we do not believe as a general rule that one should bind the conscience of a believer with doctrines the scripture has not revealed. Of course, baptists are not always stringent in application of this principle, but nonetheless we do try not to trangress such things. As Rome has bound the consicences of believers to these doctrines, and requires consent to them in a normative sense for salvation (through membership in the visible church), we cannot help but be opposed to such teachings.

ken

[jenptcfan]

Hi Ken,

I appreciate your answer . .

I have to wonder then, if this indifferentism is more in theory than in practice. What I mean is, if Baptists in general are basically indifferent to Marian doctrines, then why do Baptists seem to be some of those who most get up in arm about marian doctrines in the Catholic Church?

I mean, if such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to in the Baptists tradition, they why are we looked down on amd/or critcized for believing them because we wish to?


Peace in Him!
Hi therese,

I think the reason some Baptists seem to get upset about marian doctrines in the Catholic Church is because we tend to be very sensitive about elevating other biblical characters (besides God/Jesus/HS). What I mean is, we see a thin line between idolizing an undoubtably important person, and respecting that person. It's a line we want to be careful not to cross. I'm not saying that the Catholic view of Mary is idolatry--don't get me wrong. There's no way I can look into someone's heart and know if they're committing idolatry. I just know that from the outside looking in, it's hard to see the line between respect and idolatry sometimes.

(Still no reason to assume someone's being idolatrous, IMO).

Have a good day!
J

[Oblio]

His title is "Emmanuel" for He is God with us. That is the same as was noted in my earlier post. His title as "Son of God" in no way can be equated to make David God.

(A) Jesus = The Son of God (B)
(A) Jesus = The Son of David (C)

We do not conclude that David (C) is equal to God (B). That is a false extrapolation.


With all due respect, this analogy doesn't fit or make sense, even your peers have noticed this and commented so.


But the sentence structure in the Greek and in the English do not allow for that extrapolation.


Quite frankly, the English structure is not admissable since it is a translation, one that is sometimes lacking at that. And the Greeks have a different view than you do about this particular verse.

[KennySe]

You can honestly say, that you believed that Baptists don't believe that the infant Jesus is God? You were truly unsure of that?

Your charge against me is false.
I asked you for YOUR clarification of YOUR statement.
I did not say that I believe that Baptists don't believe that the infant Jesus is God.
Of course I Do believe that the Baptist faith declares Jesus is God.

No, God has no mother. Now, we go on to avoid the charge of Nestorianism...

Jesus took upon Himself flesh that the Father had preapared for Him ("a body thou hast prepared for me."). He was made "a little lower than the angels" while being "greater than the angels". This is possible because was fully God and fully man.

I agree.

In Matthew, as the King, He has a lineage (Joseph's). In Luke as a man, He has a lineage (Mary's). In Mark, there is no lineage for servants rely on none. In John there is no lineage for God has no lineage.

As heir to the throne of David, He is the "Son of David". As eternal God, He is called "Son of God". We do not, however, make the truth of His full deity and eternal Godhood require us to conclude that David is God. David is in his human lineage, as God He has no lineage.

Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is the son of David
Jesus is the son of Man

But that does not mean that we conclude that God is a man named David. It is explained by the two distinct natures of Christ.

He is only referred to once as "son of Mary" and that by the Pharisees (who also call Him "the carpenter's son"). Scripture never refers to Mary as "the Mother of God." (only as "the mother of Jesus"). Even the catechism notes that that doctrine developed over time. It is absolutely nowhere found in any of Paul's treatments of the gospel (which he, Paul, declared as complete, never to be added to or changed).

As the Council of Ephesus stated (for what it's worth): Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. But that does not preclude the scriptural fact the human flesh Jesus took upon Himself was "prepared" for Him. His flesh was not eternal. He did not pre-exist as a human. He was, is, and ever shall be eternal God. His flesh which He took upon Himself was "prepared" by the Father and had a beginning. His flesh had its beginning in Mary, his deity pre-existed all things.

He was sent in the "likeness of sinful flesh." He did not pre-exist in such a likeness:

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Nestorius, in addition to rightly denying the title "Mother of God" also separated Jesus' deity from his atonement. One can agree with him (them, they still exist in the Middle east) on the first point, yet reject the second... which Baptists reject and have rejected historically. The two are concepts are independent.

In Micah 5:2 the babe is said to be "of old, from everlasting" and in Isaiah He is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father."

So, shocking as it may be, Baptists are Trinitarians who hold to Jesus as fully God and fully man. Hope this helps explain Baptist theology for you. Thanks for asking!

:)

Thank you for sharing your answer.

Or are you promoting Gnosticism? ;)

I ask the moderators of this forum to excuse me for answering on this forum. Although the question is asked in jest, I feel it is important that I be allowed to answer it, even if by such answering I may bend the forum rules of this forum.

No, I am not promoting Gnosticism.

[KennySe]

"Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?"
Mary gave birth to God Incarnate. That Jesus was 100% God was due to the fact of His coneption by the Holy Spirit. "Mother of God" can be a confusing title for the unsaved. And God is one God, in three persons.

Would it be nonconfusing to Baptists to say "Mary is the birth giver to God Incarnate."?

Is this term embraced in Baptist teaching, or which terms are in Baptist teaching regarding this?

[eldermike]

Would it be nonconfusing to Baptists to say "Mary is the birth giver to God Incarnate."?

In baptist Tradition there is simply no reason to go beyond saying Mary is the mother of Jesus.

[thereselittleflower]

1) In a perfect world (one with only baptists ;)), there probably would be little to do about such doctrines. Chances are they would never come up. I think the reason they come up so often is simply because we don't live in a monotonic world, with everyone echoing the same ideas, but one that is very diverse. Within that diverse world there is significant disagreement over this issue precisely because Rome in particular has declared these things as dogma, essentially tying them into the gospel itself and salvation (in the sense that EENS would normatively require membership in the church, and membership in the church requires assent to all dogmas). As such, there is significant division over this issue because of that. I think if Catholics held these beliefs but never declared them dogma, there would not nearly be so much rancor over them, though it might still exist.

2) A distinction should really be made between marian doctrines as well. Some, such as using God-Bearer or the perpetual virginity, do not really raise that many hackles as they aren't really that theologically significant in defining the theological boundries of various churches. This is quiote different from doctrines such as Mary as the mediatrix which involves a very different conception of grace of salvation itself that the protestant perspective. As such, we react strongly to such ideas.

3) As our attitude is to stay as much to the scriptures as possible, the marian doctrines in large measure create tension because they push the boundries of this very hard while simultaneously being advanced as required belief (which makes them tied into salvation by implication as I illustrated above).

I think my arguments above show this. Ultimately it comes down to this - that we do not believe as a general rule that one should bind the conscience of a believer with doctrines the scripture has not revealed. Of course, baptists are not always stringent in application of this principle, but nonetheless we do try not to trangress such things. As Rome has bound the consicences of believers to these doctrines, and requires consent to them in a normative sense for salvation (through membership in the visible church), we cannot help but be opposed to such teachings.

kenHi Ken

So, it is not so much the teachings that the Baptists find themselves opposed to as much as it is the declaration of these to be dogma . . from your perspective I can appreciate your view point on that . .

I guess what I think would help Baptist Cathollic relations would be more of a distinction in this . .

It would really be nice to hear more often that as a Baptist one doesn't hold, for instance, a belief in Mary's perpetual virginity to be absolutely wrong . . just that it is wrong to require such a belief . . .

I think a lot of misunderstandings between the 2 groups could be avoided if the problems with marian doctrines were approached in that manner . . because the way it usually comes across is that it is wrong to even entertain the a marian belief such as Mary was a perpetual virgin . .


Being free to believe something is one thing , , not being free to believe something other than a specific belief is another . . I understand your issues with the latter . . I wish I would hear more about the former. :)


(PS by the way, you know what they say about Baptists in heaven, don't you ???? ;) )



Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

Hi therese,

I think the reason some Baptists seem to get upset about marian doctrines in the Catholic Church is because we tend to be very sensitive about elevating other biblical characters (besides God/Jesus/HS). What I mean is, we see a thin line between idolizing an undoubtably important person, and respecting that person. It's a line we want to be careful not to cross. I'm not saying that the Catholic view of Mary is idolatry--don't get me wrong. There's no way I can look into someone's heart and know if they're committing idolatry. I just know that from the outside looking in, it's hard to see the line between respect and idolatry sometimes.

(Still no reason to assume someone's being idolatrous, IMO).

Have a good day!
J
Thanks J. :)


Peace in Him!

[II Paradox II]

So, it is not so much the teachings that the Baptists find themselves opposed to as much as it is the declaration of these to be dogma . . from your perspective I can appreciate your view point on that . .
I think that is the case with *some* of the marian doctrines. Some of the others such as Mary as Mediatrix or the Immaculate conception I think we would have more theological objection to.

I guess what I think would help Baptist Cathollic relations would be more of a distinction in this . .
Probably. This act of making things dogmatic can have very bad consequences for intra-church relations in general, not just in the case of baptists. A quick trip over to the TAW will illustrate that they are not happy over the definition of transubstantiation even though they may in essence believe something quite similar (the same with the Assumption I think).

It is difficult I think for Catholics to realize the effect such proclamations have because you see them as a defense of Orthodoxy whereas non-catholics of many stripes view it as needless additions to the fundamental gospel passed down in either scripture (for prots) or tradition (for EO's).

It would really be nice to hear more often that as a Baptist one doesn't hold, for instance, a belief in Mary's perpetual virginity to be absolutely wrong . . just that it is wrong to require such a belief . . .
At least for me, I think if the scripture is not very clear on a subject, one is more free to make these sorts of judgments on their own. I for one am skeptical about the PV, but I wouldn't outright reject it either because the scriptural evidence is not cut and dry.

(PS by the way, you know what they say about Baptists in heaven, don't you ???? ;) )
heh... yes.

ken

[theseed]

Hi :wave:


What is the Baptist understanding of Mary role in Salvation history?

It was predicted in Gen. 3.15, I think, that the serpeant would bruise "his heal", and not "thier heals", hence it does speak of one person--Christ.

Mary was the vessel that help Christ develop and come into the world.

Does it effect Baptists understand the nature of Jesus and our relationship with Him?

I would say no, as long as you believe that Christ was concieved by the Holy Spirit, and not Mary.

Do Baptist believe Mary is the Mother of God?
No, because Mary did not concieve (beget) God. The Holy Spirit did.


Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:” (Apostles Creed, 100 AD)



Matthew 1:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+1:20&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7.14).· “…and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin? The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1.33-35).




Do Baptist believe in Mary's virginal conception and is Ever-virgin?

Christ was born of the virgin, Mary, but that does not mean she remained a virgin. And she did not need to. Her virginity proved that Christ was not concieved by a man or woman, but of the Holy Spirit.

Do Baptists believe that God made Mary emaculate (Without orginal sin) in order to make the vessel of his only beggoten Son suitable for Him?

Yes, I believe that she was regenerate (before Christ was concieved by the Holy Spirit), and because of her regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3.5-7). We all recieved imputed rightousness through Christ alone. (Romans 4, 2 Cor. 5.21).

Do Baptists believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, body and soul into Heaven (Like Elijah was)?

I see no proof of this in the bible, and its irrelevant or unnecessary for eternal life.

[theseed]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?
Are you saying that Christ was concieved by the a man or women, and not the Holy Spirit?

[theseed]

You may not want to ask questions, it may prompt people to debate.

And why are you using those weird names, and leaving the "o" out of Lord?
He is a Messianic Jew among, and they leave the vowls out of God's name, to make it more Holy. Kinda like with Y-H-W-H.

[theseed]

If I may ask a follow up :)

Do Baptists believe that Jesus received His humanity from Mary, or do they believe that she was just an empty vessel or vehicle to bring forth God the Word into the world ?

Thanks :)

P.S. I used to be Baptist and this was NEVER touched on so I am genuinely curious.
Do Baptists believe that Jesus received His humanity from Mary, or do they believe that she was just an empty vessel or vehicle to bring forth God the Word into the world ?

She was a mere vessel, but I would not say empty. That is what is taught in the Aposltles Creed, and the Gospels.
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:”
· Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7.14).

· “…and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin? The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1.33-35).



Matthew 1:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+1:20&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

[theseed]

Do any Baptists use the term Theotokos ?

Aside: My sisters Methodist minister gave a sermon where the title was at least recognized. I did not hear it in person so I cannot vouch for the context, but I do know that she squirmed in her pew wanting to raise her 'pick me teacher !' hand as she has been to a few EO services :)
Do any Baptists use the term Theotokos ?
I've never heard it from a Baptist.

[theseed]

Perhapse I could re-orient the question?

Would you think it would be Ok for a Baptist to believe in one or more of these doctrines?

For instance, would it be permissable for a Baptist to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
For instance, would it be permissable for a Baptist to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Mary was concieved in sin like we all are, but she would have had the imputed sin removed and imputed rightousness instead, like all believers do.

[theseed]

I mean, if such marian doctrines may be believed if one wishes to in the Baptists tradition, they why are we looked down on amd/or critcized for believing them because we wish to?
Part of having a sin nature. Many non RCC people get defensive about anything that is RCC.

[thereselittleflower]

Hi :wave:




It was predicted in Gen. 3.15, I think, that the serpeant would bruise "his heal", and not "thier heals", hence it does speak of one person--Christ.

Mary was the vessel that help Christ develop and come into the world.


I would say no, as long as you believe that Christ was concieved by the Holy Spirit, and not Mary.


No, because Mary did not concieve (beget) God. The Holy Spirit did.

WAIT WAIT WAIT . . now you have me confused!

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father . . the Holy Spirit did not beget God .

The problem that I have understood people to have with the term "Mother of God" is it makes it sound as if Mary caused God to be eternally . . so that God could not exist without Mary to begin with . .

Now, taking that logic, if I apply it to your words, you would be saying that God could not exist unless the Holy Spirit begat Him causing Hm to be eternally . .

So, please clarify what you mean here . .




Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:” (Apostles Creed, 100 AD)

Matthew 1:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+1:20&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7.14).· “…and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin? The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1.33-35).

Let me ask you something . .

When we speak of a woman getting pregnant, we speak of her as conceiving a child . . and we speak of the father of a child as having conceived the child in the Mother . .

The conception takes place within the woman . . . not outside if it (except invitro fertilization)

The passage from the Creed is speaking to the paternity of Jesus when it says "conceived by the Holy Spirit" . .

It is almost like you are saying that Jesus' conception was more like an invitro fertilization and that the embryo was somehow implanted into Mary . . but that she did not have anything to do with His conception at all . .

She was simply like a surrogate mother in whom the already conceived Jesus was implanted, but she contributed nothing to the conception of Jesus herself . .


Is this what you are saying?



Peace in Him!

[theseed]

I prefer the term "imputed sin"

[theseed]

Therse, I don't believe that Christ got his humanity (flesh) from Mary, but the Holy Spirit--as it is stated in the Scriptures and the Apostles Creed.

[thereselittleflower]

was responding to the post above the one above this. . . thought it was in response to my question, never mind . .


Peace in Him!

[theseed]

Would it be nonconfusing to Baptists to say "Mary is the birth giver to God Incarnate."?

Is this term embraced in Baptist teaching, or which terms are in Baptist teaching regarding this?
Yes, I agree with that statement :)

[jenptcfan]

What's wrong with Mary's the mother of Jesus, God the son? I guess I just don't understand why we're nitpicking this?

[KennySe]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?

Are you saying that Christ was concieved by the a man or women, and not the Holy Spirit?

I said nothing; I asked bleechers two specific questions.

But to put you at ease, I do accept the Sacred Scripture that Mary conceived in her womb when the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Highest overshadowed her.

Luke 1:31-36
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
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:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

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

And, behold, [i]thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.


to conceive: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conceive

1.To become pregnant with (offspring).

[thereselittleflower]

Therse, I don't believe that Christ got his humanity (flesh) from Mary, but the Holy Spirit--as it is stated in the Scriptures and the Apostles Creed.
OK - then I have to ask, how did he get his humanity from the Holy Spirit?


And I need to ask another question, or I might completely miss you on this . .

Is Jesus somehow different than Christ? Or do you use Christ and Jesus interchangibly?


Peace in Him!

[theseed]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father . . the Holy Spirit did not beget God .
I'm speaking of the flesh part, it was a special act of creation.

I have to run, now--and there are so many questions--whew!

Bye :wave:

[bleechers]

Dear bleecher, you said in the OT is shown Mary has another children? OT??

A. God has no beginning. Therefore, God has no mother. The flesh has a beginning. Flesh can have a mother. "A body thou [the Father] hast prepared for Me." She can be the mother of Jesus (yes, our Lord and God), but that does not necessitate that God needs a mother.

B. Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm. It is Christ on the cross as He bore the sin of the world (forever, never to be repeated again).

With all due respect, this analogy doesn't fit or make sense, even your peers have noticed this and commented so.

So I saw... but nobody has pointed out why the analogy fails.

In fact, since the geometric analogy fails, we note that we cannot use geometric analogies to create a doctrine of God having a mother.

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Gk. heos = till

heos used 16 times in the book of Matthew. Each time it denotes something that has or must have an end.

Can I ask a question. For the RCs, why don't explain for the Baptists in the room the Sabbatine Promise of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. I'm sure they'd be fascinated.

:)

[thereselittleflower]

I'm speaking of the flesh part, it was a special act of creation.

I have to run, now--and there are so many questions--whew!

Bye :wave:
OK Thank you for clarifying . .


I have a question then for the rest of the Baptist community here then . .

Is the belief that the flesh/humanity of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation, that did not involve anything being contributed by Mary, what is consistantly taught in the various Baptist Churches? Or is this something that varies from Church to Church?

If it varies, which view is more prevalent?


Peace in Him!

[GreenEyedLady]

I really don't think it matters Theselittleflower.
It doesn't matter if Jesus had blue eyes, or brown eyes like mary (if she had brown eyes)or if his skin was dark or light. Baptist believe what the scruptures teach, HE is God in the flesh. Putting ANY human above him is idolatry, even if its just in the name.
GEL

[Carrye]

A. God has no beginning. Therefore, God has no mother. The flesh has a beginning. Flesh can have a mother. "A body thou [the Father] hast prepared for Me." She can be the mother of Jesus (yes, our Lord and God), but that does not necessitate that God needs a mother.
You are correct in saying that the flesh needs a mother, but one cannot separate the body from the soul. Now in that, I am not saying that Mary is the originator of Jesus' soul any more than I would say that my mother is the originator of mine. God creates human souls. But we cannot talk about Mary being the mother of Jesus' body, because Jesus' body is not Jesus.

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
______________________
Mary is the mother of God.

No, Mary did not preceed God in time. She is not "above" God, as some have interpreted the Catholic belief, and she is not God nor a goddess. But she gave her consent to being the mother of God, her "fiat" - in Latin, "let it be done."

Can I ask a question. For the RCs, why don't explain for the Baptists in the room the Sabbatine Promise of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. I'm sure they'd be fascinated.
:)
If you would like to explain this, please do. You obviously know the answer and this is not a true question. I will not respond to it, and urge my Catholic brothers and sisters to refrain from responding as well, to this uncharitable attempt at starting an all-out war in this thread. We are all better than this.

[Cary.Melvin]

I really don't think it matters Theselittleflower.
It doesn't matter if Jesus had blue eyes, or brown eyes like mary (if she had brown eyes)or if his skin was dark or light. Baptist believe what the scruptures teach, HE is God in the flesh. Putting ANY human above him is idolatry, even if its just in the name.
GELI find this troubling that some people think that Jesus did not recieve his humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That would mean that Jesus was not a legitamate decendent of King David. Which means you can not say He is the rightful aire of the Davidic Kingdom.

Also, this would trivialize His death on the cross. After all if he was not of our flesh, how could he possibly die for our sins?

And how could we really call ourselves true brothers and sisters in Christ if He is not even related to us in our humanity?

Are you sure that this is orthodox Baptist theology? Or is this just the personal beliefs of some people?

[FreeinChrist]

I, for one, believe that Jesus did receive His humanity from Mary and see no problem with that. It was teh Holy Spirit who caused the union of deity and flesh to occur (for lack of a better way to say it).

What I DO have a problems is any implication that His diety is due to Mary.

[FreeinChrist]

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
______________________
Mary is the mother of God.

My problem with this is that God is ONE, in three persons. When a person refers to God, it includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to one of the three persons...who existed prior to His birth as Jesus Christ (John 1:1).

I don't think a title is needed for Mary and fail to understand the need others have to assign titles to her.

[Cary.Melvin]

I, for one, believe that Jesus did receive His humanity from Mary and see no problem with that. It was teh Holy Spirit who caused the union of deity and flesh to occur (for lack of a better way to say it).

That's good. I believe that understanding differenty causes big time problems with our understanding of Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the Cross.


What I DO have a problems is any implication that His diety is due to Mary.
I agree with that assertion. Jesus' diety was due to him being God already. But his humanity was due to Mary. Are we good there?

[thereselittleflower]

If you would like to explain this, please do. You obviously know the answer and this is not a true question. I will not respond to it, and urge my Catholic brothers and sisters to refrain from responding as well, to this uncharitable attempt at starting an all-out war in this thread. We are all better than this.
I agree cl . . if anyone would wants to ask us about this, they should come too OBOB to do so . . :) I have enjoyed the fellowship in this thread and hope it won't get derailed.


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

I find this troubling that some people think that Jesus did not recieve his humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That would mean that Jesus was not a legitamate decendent of King David. Which means you can not say He is the rightful aire of the Davidic Kingdom.

Also, this would trivialize His death on the cross. After all if he was not of our flesh, how could he possibly die for our sins?

And how could we really call ourselves true brothers and sisters in Christ if He is not even related to us in our humanity?

Are you sure that this is orthodox Baptist theology? Or is this just the personal beliefs of some people?

I guess this was really what I was trying to ask . .


If Jesus didn't get his humanity from Mary, but through a special act of creation, then how can he be related to us?

Adam was created . . Eve came from him, and though not conceived and born from him, she was flesh of his flesh, bone of his bones and intimately related to him, and from thence, all human beings are related to each other ..we are all of the same flesh . we all share the same humanity . .

To say that the humantiy of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation and not in any way received from Mary, since he couldn't have receieved from any other human being, it makes his humanity to be other than our humanity . . perhaps just like ours, but parallel to it, not part of it . .

So the whole understanding of Jesus atonement is affected . . how could he die for us if he was not actually one of us . . . if he was simply created along side of us . .


(all of the above was to share where my understanding is so my question can be better understood):

If you believe that the humanity of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation, how does that affect your understanding of how he could be one of us to die in our place? How does that affect your understanding of the atonement?

For us, the two issues are intricately tied together . . Jesus had to receive his flesh and humanity from Mary (there was no one else he could have received his flesh and humanity from) in order to justly be able to die in our place . . he had to be fully one of, and with, us, not someone created along side of us . .


Are the two issues not tied together for you all? Does how and where he got his humanity from not at all affect his ability to atone for our sins?



Peace in Him!

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size][/size]

That's good. I believe that understanding differenty causes big time problems with our understanding of Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the Cross.


I agree with that assertion. Jesus' diety was due to him being God already. But his humanity was due to Mary. Are we good there?Yep.

[GreenEyedLady]

IFor us, the two issues are intricately tied together . . Jesus had to receive his flesh and humanity from Mary (there was no one else he could have received his flesh and humanity from) in order to justly be able to die in our place . . he had to be fully one of, and with, us, not someone created along side of us . .


Are the two issues not tied together for you all? Does how and where he got his humanity from not at all affect his ability to atone for our sins?



Peace in Him!
I understand what you are trying to get across, and I love that you are so sweet on here and not quick to jump at anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped at you on my last post, I had just a little time to post so I did it quickly. My apoligies.
The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?
From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.

[thereselittleflower]

I understand what you are trying to get across, and I love that you are so sweet on here and not quick to jump at anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped at you on my last post, I had just a little time to post so I did it quickly. My apoligies.Hi GreenEyedLady,

First, I never felt you jumped on me, so no apology is needed. :) But if you felt you did, your apology is accepted, even though not needed . . (does that makes sense?)


The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?
For me, no more than you could say I had a part in the creation of my children . . Thier life comes from God, but their flesh, their DNA, comes from me and my husband . . the physical part of who they are . .

But we are all creations of God . . that doesn't mean that we were created without a human element being a necessary part of that creation. The only one who was created without a human being from which the physical was obtained was Adam . .

So for me, to say Jesus received his flesh from Mary says nothing more about Mary than it would about me being a mother since all we are speaking about is the physical element. . . it just says that instead of an earthly father, Jesus had a Divine Father . but an earthly mother . .



From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
I am not sure I would say that, because we don't know the "science" behnd the virginal conception of Jesus . . we believe it by faith . .

If I had to described the "science" of How I understand what happened I would do it this way - there was an ovum that was fertilized without an earthly father . .and that ovum came from Mary, and so carried her DNA which was transmitted on to Jesus to give him his earthly body, his humanity as it naturally comes from earthly parents. That does not take away from the act of the Holy Spirit to join God to man in the person of Jesus. Mary could not do that . .she is not divine, she is not God .

There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.
If this is true, how could he be one of us then?


See, part of why I think this is important is that if there is not a clear and direct relationship of Jesus to Adam and Eve as their descendant, then cults like gnosticism can more easily flourish, for if Jesus didn't receive his humanity from one of Adam and Eve's descendents, then he was never really a part of our human race.

Gnostics teach that Jesus came through Mary, and go so far as to even deny he had a real physical body . . I am not at all suggesting that you are doing that. :) It was becauase of gnostics and other heretical sects that began to present themselves in the Early Church that they stressed the physical relationship of Jesus to Mary so strongly.

This is why such a question is not foolish or unlearned IMHO .. but necessary to understand better.

My purpose though is not to debate here but to better understand the position of people here . .


This might be a very good subject to discuss more freely in GT, but I simply wanted to better understand the Baptist position, so it didn't make sense to open a thread in GT to do so . .



Peace in Him!

[Crazy Liz]

The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?

I know you asked Therese this question, but since she is Roman Catholic and I am one of the denominations assigned to this room, I hope you won't mind if I try to answer as a sort of mediator.

I think the wonder and miracle of the Incarnation is that God entered creation as a truly human being. It's not about giving Mary credit, but about affirming that God actually entered into creation and became one of us - joining God with us.

I think this is the point our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters are trying to make. God, who is totally separate from creation, actually entered into the created world. In this one instance God did not just manipulate the created world or send it a message, but actually became part of it.

This could not have been done without a human mother.

Beyond this, I think it is important to our brothers and sisters that Mary was not just a surrogate mother acting as an incubator, but that for God to actually become human, the human part needed to come from another human being - Mary - rather than some kind of artificial supernatural in vitro-type procedure.

From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.

I think probably you are both on the same page. We don't know exactly how Mary's DNA (which we all presume included two X chromosomes) developed into an embryo presumably containing an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) that grew into a man. But we do know that that man was fully human, and had a mother just like every other human except Adam and Eve.

Mary doesn't need to receive credit for making God become Incarnate - although the gracious way she submitted to God's calling on her life is indeed exemplary. The main point is that if Jesus is truly human, Jesus must have a real mother, and that is Mary.

Calling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.

[Crazy Liz]

:blush: Well, I see Therese was composing her own response at the same time I was composing mine! :blush:

[GreenEyedLady]

ICalling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.
i think that we, threse and me are on the same page here. I understand her points that she has made. I cannot agree with all of them but I do understand her thoughts on this subject.
I cannot agree with this one that you made I quoted above.
Calling mary the mother of JESUS would be saying somthing about being truley human, saying she is the mother of God is stating that she is more special and "higher" than Christ. I am sure the intentions might not be behind the words, but all I can see is words, not the intentions behind them.

thereselittleflower-
He can be one of us that way just like Adam was one of us.

[Carrye]

My problem with this is that God is ONE, in three persons. When a person refers to God, it includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to one of the three persons...who existed prior to His birth as Jesus Christ (John 1:1).

I don't think a title is needed for Mary and fail to understand the need others have to assign titles to her.
You know, it's so interesting that you wrote this, because as I was writing the syllogism above, I saw the same problem (for lack of a better word) and actually thought of the same verse of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not allow us to separate, except in our speech, the Father from the Son from the Holy Spirit.

And I understand your frustration with titles, but I also see their necessity. We name something based on what it is. It's the old Aristotelian being -> concept -> word. What a thing is determines what we call it. And that is why there is such debate about what title to give Mary, because the title we give her reflects WHO she IS ... and that is no small matter, in my opinion.

[Carrye]

Calling mary the mother of JESUS would be saying somthing about being truley human, saying she is the mother of God is stating that she is more special and "higher" than Christ. I am sure the intentions might not be behind the words, but all I can see is words, not the intentions behind them.
And we are back to the same problem. We cannot say that Mary is the mother of God the Son for a couple of reasons: 1) God the Son existed before Mary (Jn 1:1). 2) God the Son cannot be separated from the other Persons of the Trinity except in speech. Similarly, we cannot say that Mary is the mother of Jesus' body, because a body is not human without the unity of the soul.

And for the record, the intention behind calling Mary the Mother of God is not at all to say that she existed before God or that she's higher than God. Please, please know that. I think that is a common misconception, and often leads to a lot of other unnecessary grievances with Catholicism.

[GreenEyedLady]

I know what the intention is, my point is that just because you don't "mean" it to sound that way, its still sounds that way. I also want to point out that if God the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit would have wanted us to call her the Mother of God, HE would have stated that in scritpures.
GEL

[Carrye]

I know what the intention is, my point is that just because you don't "mean" it to sound that way, its still sounds that way. I also want to point out that if God the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit would have wanted us to call her the Mother of God, HE would have stated that in scritpures.
GEL
If it sounds that way, then that is the way you are hearing it. Intentionality is an important component in language. The fact that you recognize the intention and still choose to hear it in that way is unfortunate.

I would be careful with the assertion that if God wanted us to call Mary the Mother of God, that He would've said so in Scripture. Scripture is not entirely exhaustive of God's revelation. It is certainly important and should be given an important place, but it is not the only place we find God revealed to us.

[GreenEyedLady]

If it sounds that way, then that is the way you are hearing it. Intentionality is an important component in language. The fact that you recognize the intention and still choose to hear it in that way is unfortunate.

I would be careful with the assertion that if God wanted us to call Mary the Mother of God, that He would've said so in Scripture. Scripture is not entirely exhaustive of God's revelation. It is certainly important and should be given an important place, but it is not the only place we find God revealed to us.
Ah, but you see, Bible believing Baptist would tend to disagree with you on that last point. The Word of God is our final authority, and nothing else.
GEL

[jenptcfan]

You know, it's so interesting that you wrote this, because as I was writing the syllogism above, I saw the same problem (for lack of a better word) and actually thought of the same verse of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not allow us to separate, except in our speech, the Father from the Son from the Holy Spirit.

And I understand your frustration with titles, but I also see their necessity. We name something based on what it is. It's the old Aristotelian being -> concept -> word. What a thing is determines what we call it. And that is why there is such debate about what title to give Mary, because the title we give her reflects WHO she IS ... and that is no small matter, in my opinion.
Mary was Jesus' mother, correct? And Jesus is the son of God, correct? So in my mind, Mary was the mother of the son of God is perfectly accurate.

Our titles we give her as reflections of who she is is no small matter to those in the Catholic faith...but as has been stated here, it is a small matter to those in the Baptist faith. I think it's fine that others want to place more weight on its importance, but you just won't hear this discussed in the Baptist church because it seems trivial. It just seems like if Mary was sitting in on this discussion, she would be more concerned with us focusing on her Son that what we should call her.

[Carrye]

Ah, but you see, Bible believing Baptist would tend to disagree with you on that last point. The Word of God is our final authority, and nothing else.
GEL
Point well-taken. And I am trying my best not to argue with Baptist belief, but rather to clarify Catholicism, and so I appreciate that comment.

Peace be with you,
Carrie

[Carrye]

Mary was Jesus' mother, correct? And Jesus is the son of God, correct? So in my mind, Mary was the mother of the son of God is perfectly accurate.
But Jesus is God, and not simply the son of God. So that doesn't entirely work either.

Our titles we give her as reflections of who she is is no small matter to those in the Catholic faith...but as has been stated here, it is a small matter to those in the Baptist faith. I think it's fine that others want to place more weight on its importance, but you just won't hear this discussed in the Baptist church because it seems trivial. It just seems like if Mary was sitting in on this discussion, she would be more concerned with us focusing on her Son that what we should call her.
I understand that. That is why I said that it is no small matter in my opinion. I recognize the differences between Baptist and Catholic beliefs. I recognize too that you are Baptist and that I am Catholic, and that our beliefs are at least partially a result of that.

And I agree completely - Mary would be much more concerned with us focusing on her Son than on what we should call her. Our name for Mary does not serve her at all, but it helps us on earth. As I said, it speaks to the reality of WHO Mary IS, and (at least for a Catholic) that is important.

Peace.
Carrie

[P_G]

He is a Messianic Jew among, and they leave the vowls out of God's name, to make it more Holy. Kinda like with Y-H-W-H.

Minor correction Brother
I am a Messianic Gentile
And coincidentally Mennonite!


Not to make it more holy but to ensure the name of the L-rd can never
be defaimed by my hand. YHVH


Blessings

Pastor George
and much Love!
:wave:

[KennySe]

I think the wonder and miracle of the Incarnation is that God entered creation as a truly human being. It's not about giving Mary credit, but about affirming that God actually entered into creation and became one of us - joining God with us.

I think this is the point our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters are trying to make. God, who is totally separate from creation, actually entered into the created world. In this one instance God did not just manipulate the created world or send it a message, but actually became part of it.

This could not have been done without a human mother.

Beyond this, I think it is important to our brothers and sisters that Mary was not just a surrogate mother acting as an incubator, but that for God to actually become human, the human part needed to come from another human being - Mary - rather than some kind of artificial supernatural in vitro-type procedure.

[snip]

Mary doesn't need to receive credit for making God become Incarnate - although the gracious way she submitted to God's calling on her life is indeed exemplary. The main point is that if Jesus is truly human, Jesus must have a real mother, and that is Mary.

Calling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.

I cannot rep you any more points right now, so I must post 'Bravo!" for your remarks.

And as for your last paragraph, I agree that the title says "something about Jesus being truly human". And beyond that, the title ALSO says that Jesus is also GOD.
You can ask the Orthodox to explain the Geek word "Theotokos" and they will explain it is Christological, it is defending the truth of Jesus Christ, as true man (born of a woman) and true God.

[KennySe]

Calling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.


Calling mary the mother of JESUS would be saying somthing about being truley human, saying she is the mother of God is stating that she is more special and "higher" than Christ. I am sure the intentions might not be behind the words, but all I can see is words, not the intentions behind them.


Calling Mary the mother of Jesus, says that there was a man named Jesus who had a mother.

Calling Mary the mother of God, says that God became a man.

It is entirely 100% centered on Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God.

---

When you say "all I can see is words, not the intentions", then where in those words is any implication that Mary created God or that Mary existed before God?
The words by themselves only say that God Himself had a mother; that God Himself became a real human by being born of a woman.

If these words can be seen to suggest that Mary existed before God, then we must not say that Jesus is the Son of God, for fear that the implication is that Jesus, is younger than his Father.

"Mary bore God." She did not create Him. She did not exist before Him. She bore Him.

[Sola Gratia]

Are you saying that the Word did not become flesh (a real human)?
That the infant born of Mary was not God?

God is eternal , He had no beginning and no end. He has no "mother".

Jesus while fully God was also fully man . Mary was the mother of God incarnate , Jesus Christ. She gave Him no part of His divinity , her contribution was fully human.

[FreeinChrist]

I also want to point out that if God the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit would have wanted us to call her the Mother of God, HE would have stated that in scritpures.
GEL
I absolutely agree!

[theseed]

OK Thank you for clarifying . .


I have a question then for the rest of the Baptist community here then . .

Is the belief that the flesh/humanity of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation, that did not involve anything being contributed by Mary, what is consistantly taught in the various Baptist Churches? Or is this something that varies from Church to Church?

If it varies, which view is more prevalent?


Peace in Him!

Based on my experiance, it's a view that I've never seen taught--if it was, it would probably be an apologetic lesson. Otherwise, I'm not sure it comes up--accept by argument. Nearly all Baptists accept that Jesus was sinless, and they leave it at that.

orginal sin or imputed sin is not taught that much, but most Baptist agree on that--I think.

I read a book about creation in the bible, and the person held my (this view of conception).

He was into creation science, and tries to prove that rather than disprove any Marian doctrine :) I think his name is Whitcomb, a YEC.

Here is a defenition that I apply that allows me to understand it has an act of creation. Concieved in the greek litterally meanst "begat".


con·cep·tion http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dconception) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifphttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n.

<LI type=a>Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.





<LI type=a>The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.
Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idea).

Archaic. A beginning; a start.
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/aboutmwmed.html): Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conception

[theseed]

Also, this would trivialize His death on the cross. After all if he was not of our flesh, how could he possibly die for our sins?

How could he be sinless, if he got his flesh from Mary, who got her sin from Adam, like we all do?

And how could we really call ourselves true brothers and sisters in Christ if He is not even related to us in our humanity?

10 Because God made him like us, but he was not concieved in sin. 2)We are in Christ, 2)Prove that it makes him unrelated.

Are you sure that this is orthodox Baptist theology? Or is this just the personal beliefs of some people?

I don't think most baptist have thought about it, it's my personal belief, and the belief of others.

I find this troubling that some people think that Jesus did not recieve his humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We should differentiate from humanity and flesh.

[theseed]

To say that the humantiy of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation and not in any way received from Mary, since he couldn't have receieved from any other human being, it makes his humanity to be other than our humanity . . perhaps just like ours, but parallel to it, not part of it . .

He was tempted has we are, so his humanity is the same as ours. Plus, it does not make his humanity other than ours by default. Your assuming that.

For us, the two issues are intricately tied together . . Jesus had to receive his flesh and humanity from Mary (there was no one else he could have received his flesh and humanity from) in order to justly be able to die in our place . . he had to be fully one of, and with, us, not someone created along side of us . .

Which you must establish, because I don't see your POV.

I know others have this view, so I will do some internet research.

[theseed]

This could not have been done without a human mother.
Actually, he could have, but he promised to come through a woman (Gen. 3.15).

[theseed]

Beyond this, I think it is important to our brothers and sisters that Mary was not just a surrogate mother acting as an incubator, but that for God to actually become human, the human part needed to come from another human being - Mary - rather than some kind of artificial supernatural in vitro-type procedure.

This is not what we find in Scripture, or the Apostles Creed. And you, again, put limits on God.

And Roman Catholics, you may be have a problem of your own. I just read that some think that Mary's conception was a special and new creation--because Emaculate conception is the belief that she did not have orginal sin. If this is true, then she was seperate from Humanity, and so was her son--based on your arguments.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/feb1994p20_818.html

[thereselittleflower]

How could he be sinless, if he got his flesh from Mary, who got her sin from Adam, like we all do?

Ahhh . . for us, this is where the immaculate conception comes in . . this is ineresting that you bring this up, for this has come up in a different thread from the opposite . .accusing the Catholics as saying that Jesus came from a different flesh because we say that Mary was immaculately conceived . . :) I find it interesting to see the differing ways people come at this issue . .

I basically asked the same question you did above . . how could he be sinless Mary had a sinful human nature and he received his human nature from her? It would then be affected by the stain of original sin too. How could he be the spotless lamb if this were so?





10 Because God made him like us, but he was not concieved in sin. 2)We are in Christ, 2)Prove that it makes him unrelated.



I don't think most baptist have thought about it, it's my personal belief, and the belief of others.



We should differentiate from humanity and flesh.
Can I ask what you see as the proper way to diferentiate between what is meant by humanity and what is meant by flesh?


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

This is not what we find in Scripture, or the Apostles Creed. And you, again, put limits on God.

And Roman Catholics, you may be have a problem of your own. I just read that some think that Mary's conception was a special and new creation--because Emaculate conception is the belief that she did not have orginal sin. If this is true, then she was seperate from Humanity, and so was her son--based on your arguments.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/feb1994p20_818.html
Yeah, I read something similar from another site . .but it only gets muddied when one doesn't understand what we mean . . We believe that Mary needed Jesus as her savior and that she was saved from the stain of original sin . . much like a mud pit . . you can be saved after you have fallen in . .or you can be saved by someone reaching out and grabbing you, preventing from falling in . .something you could not have avoided on your own . . that is the easist way I know to explain the concept of the immaculate conception.

She was fully human, so shares fully our humanity, but she did not share in the fallen aspect of our human nature . .in this, we was just like our parents, Adam and Eve before the fall . ..

I odn't think any of us would speak of them having been separate from Humanity before the fall . .they were the first humans.

I don't see how our belief that Mary was made fully human like they were before the fall somehow makes her separate her from Humanity . . I mean, following that logic, then Jesus was also separate from Humanity. If he was separate from Humanity, then he couldn't have been one of us.

I understand that you do see it that way, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it very well . . .


Peace in Him!

[FreeinChrist]

She was fully human, so shares fully our humanity, but she did not share in the fallen aspect of our human nature . .in this, we was just like our parents, Adam and Eve before the fall . ..

I odn't think any of us would speak of them having been separate from Humanity before the fall . .they were the first humans.

I don't see how our belief that Mary was made fully human like they were before the fall somehow makes her separate her from Humanity . . I mean, following that logic, then Jesus was also separate from Humanity. If he was separate from Humanity, then he couldn't have been one of us.

I beleive you are going beyond the rules of this forum.

There is no scriptural reason to believe in the Immaculate conception of Mary. She needed a saviour just like the rest of us. Jesus was the only one who was sinless, who was perfect.
And it, again, it is illogical to expect that Mary had to be born without original sin in order to be the mother of Jesus. Following that logic, Mary's mother would have had to have been born without original sin...and her mother...

In the view of many Baptists that I know, the belief that she was born without original sin is badly straying from the gospel, and i not the teching of the Holy Spirit.