# Do Protestants make too little of Mary?



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2012)

It seems like most Catholics make too much out of Mary and elevate her position too much.

But do we Protestants make too little of Mary?

How do we balance? What is the right amount of respect?

Historically, how did reverance/adoration to Mary grow and develop? How early did this happen?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2012)

p.s. should we call Mary the Mother of God?


----------



## Rufus (Oct 28, 2012)

In the modern setting, it seems that most Evangelicals completely ignore/disregard Mary while in the past it wasn't uncommon for Protestants to believe in perpetual virginity or to call her a blessed woman.

There seems to be a problem in the church that says that anything that resembles Roman Catholicism is bad, and by that logic, we should deny the Trinity.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 28, 2012)

I am not sure, however the reason I heard why that they esteem her so much from EOs and RCs is because Luke wrote a comprehensively about the Christmas narrative in the first two chapters (which happens to have mary), I kid you not. I do not find that a sufficient reason in the least to venerate someone who is not God like they are.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

Well, she was the mother of Christ who is God. To deny this, would in essence deny his manness (is that a word?). We should acknowledge her as, "“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" We should respect her as we would any other brother or sister in Christ. She, like the rest of us, was born into sin with a fallen nature who, by God's mercy, received salvation. We can be thankful to God for choosing her to be the mother of Christ who carried him for nine months and then helped to raise him. I think the Catholic church often views "mother" of God as being either equal to him or over him in some way, and they pray to her as though she would listen to them and have more mercy upon them in answering prayers. In this way, they deny what he did on the cross for us, bc their attitude is that since she is the mother of God she has the ability to not only request mercy on their behalf, but to also show them more mercy than a holy fierce God who they think is already going to send them to purgatory bc they don't believe in the completed work of Christ on the cross. So the difference lies in we love her as a sister and they love her as a mediator. Of course, IDK a lot about what the Catholic church believes so I might be completely off course.


----------



## Edward (Oct 28, 2012)

Some protestants do overreact to the Marian heresy, but we should not denigrate what scripture says: 

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. "

"and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? "


----------



## yeutter (Oct 28, 2012)

*Maria Theotokos*



OPC'n said:


> Well, she was the mother of Christ who is God. To deny this, would in essence deny his manness (is that a word?). We should acknowledge her as, "“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" We should respect her as we would any other brother or sister in Christ. She, like the rest of us, was born into sin with a fallen nature who, by God's mercy, received salvation. We can be thankful to God for choosing her to be the mother of Christ who carried him for nine months and then helped to raise him. I think the Catholic church often views "mother" of God as being either equal to him or over him in some way, and they pray to her as though she would listen to them and have more mercy upon them in answering prayers. In this way, they deny what he did on the cross for us, bc their attitude is that since she is the mother of God she has the ability to not only request mercy on their behalf, but to also show them more mercy than a holy fierce God who they think is already going to send them to purgatory bc they don't believe in the completed work of Christ on the cross. So the difference lies in we love her as a sister and they love her as a mediator. Of course, IDK a lot about what the Catholic church believes so I might be completely off course.


I prefer to refer to Mary as Theotokos , God bearer; rather then the less literal translation Mother of God.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

I always found the "Mother of God" appellation for Mary to be heretical since it implies her existence prior to and superiority of Christ.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

yeutter said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Well, she was the mother of Christ who is God. To deny this, would in essence deny his manness (is that a word?). We should acknowledge her as, "“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" We should respect her as we would any other brother or sister in Christ. She, like the rest of us, was born into sin with a fallen nature who, by God's mercy, received salvation. We can be thankful to God for choosing her to be the mother of Christ who carried him for nine months and then helped to raise him. I think the Catholic church often views "mother" of God as being either equal to him or over him in some way, and they pray to her as though she would listen to them and have more mercy upon them in answering prayers. In this way, they deny what he did on the cross for us, bc their attitude is that since she is the mother of God she has the ability to not only request mercy on their behalf, but to also show them more mercy than a holy fierce God who they think is already going to send them to purgatory bc they don't believe in the completed work of Christ on the cross. So the difference lies in we love her as a sister and they love her as a mediator. Of course, IDK a lot about what the Catholic church believes so I might be completely off course.
> ...



I think there is a danger in not acknowledging her being the mother of Christ. Scripture tells us that she was. (Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When *his mother Mary* had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.). She not only was the God bearer, but she was indeed his mother. He himself submitted to her and Joseph as his parents when he was a child. The danger in not acknowledging her as his mother is that in some slight manner we deny the man part of who he is even if we would never deny this verbally. Sometimes we try to run so far away from an untrue doctrine that we run completely to other side making a now equally untrue and possibly an even more dangerous doctrine. We don't have to deny that Mary was the mother of Christ. We only have to deny that she has some special place or pull with God that she becomes our mediator to him. Scripture states that she is the mother of Christ (something we need to affirm), but it doesn't state that she has a special place or pull with him that she is now our mediator. A healthy knowledge of who she was and how God used her is important. 



JohnGill said:


> I always found the "Mother of God" appellation for Mary to be heretical since it implies her existence prior to and superiority of Christ.



She did exist before him as a human being. She was born before Christ was born. She gave birth to the man part of who he is but not the God part. She, of course, is not of the trinity and did not exist before time with the Godhead as Christ does. But that's the balancing act of this truth to which we must hold. Christ is God/man and she played a role in that by God's good providence.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 28, 2012)

No, we shouldn't refer to her as "Mother of God" - it's an absurdity; and no, we don't make too little of her, they make too much!




Edward said:


> but we should not denigrate what scripture says:
> 
> "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. "



She was blessed and highly favoured, but there it stops. David was a man after God's own heart, but no-one suggests we should be venerating or praying to him.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 28, 2012)

We make too little of Christ


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > I always found the "Mother of God" appellation for Mary to be heretical since it implies her existence prior to and superiority of Christ.
> ...



That is not the meaning of the phrase "Mother of God". It would be better and more theologically accurate to call her as Thomas has, "God bearer". What you're describing is consistent with "God bearer" and logically inconsistent with the common usage of the phrase "Mother of God."

The issue can be settled thusly, Do we bring glory to God in calling Mary, "Mother of God" knowing the heresy that it implies? No we do not. We bring glory to Mary in so doing. I suspect from what scripture reveals of Mary she would agree.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 28, 2012)

I don't see how we 'can make more of Mary' than we already have, I don't see this as a issue. I am sorry but I don't. Enough I think has been said in this threa[d], she' the human mother of Christ, a blessed woman.

I agree with Bill the Baptist on this.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 28, 2012)

_Au contraire_, we should not hesitate to refer to Mary as the Mother of God: she was truly the mother of one who was truly God. While in no sense was she superior or prior to the divine nature, the holy thing that was born of her was properly called the Son of God.

Mary shines very brightly as an illustration of election and a pattern of submission, and moreover the comments by and about her provide a very useful window into apprehending the presence of the ordinary even while such an extraordinary event is taking place. Whose heart could remain wholly unmoved upon considering the _parens et puella_? She deserves to be highly regarded and to hold a high rank among other servants of God. What must be withheld from her (what she herself did and would repudiate) is supremacy. It is interesting that while Abraham can be considered our father, and Sarah is spoken of as having daughters within the Christian church, Mary herself is never given such a broadly maternal role in Scripture.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 28, 2012)

The danger for us is to fall into the Nestorian heresy. The Church Catholic used the term Theotokos in answering the Nestorian heresy. The Roman Catholic translation Mother of God is not a precise translation. We must certainly affirm the Virgin birth and the fact that Mary was in fact the mother of our Lord.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



I think putting her title in all caps gives it a Catholic meaning. So there's a difference in stating her title as mother of God who is Christ (Christ is God) and Mother of God as though she were of the Godhead. One of my mother's title is "mother of Sarah". That makes her my earthly mother. We speaking of her as Mary the mother of Christ acknowledging him as God, thus, acknowledging her as the mother of God who was blessed to be his mother, period. Whereas, the Catholics speak of her as "Mother of God", but also pray to her as their mediator. Stating that we can only say Mary can only be called "God bearer" takes away one thing and can slip into taking away two things. The first thing it takes away is that she, along with Joseph, was his parent specifically his mother. She helped to raise him as his mother. She didn't just give birth to him. The second thing that it could take away is that he was genetically kin to her. She wasn't just a womb, oven, or house....whatever you want to call it.....which is what "God bearer" could indicate if great care isn't taken to also include he was genetically kin to her and was raised by her and was under her and Joseph's authority when he was a child...to which he submitted. I don't think this has to be complicated. The OP asked if we make too little of Mary not too much of Mary. The answer is simple...no, we acknowledge she was Christ's mother and our sister in Christ predestined to be so by God's good providence.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 28, 2012)

Thomas, I think calling it a "Roman Catholic" translation may well be going too far. Not only does Turretin accept both "God-bearer" and "Mother of God", he specifically says "the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of the name." (Cf. _Institutes_, 2:310,318,320)


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Thomas, I think calling it a "Roman Catholic" translation may well be going too far. Not only does Turretin accept both "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", he specifically says "the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of the name." (Cf. _Institutes_, 2:310,318,320)



Regrettably I think Turretin lost that battle. The phrase is now so intertwined with the heretical roman catholic notion that I'm not sure it can be recaptured.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas, I think calling it a "Roman Catholic" translation may well be going too far. Not only does Turretin accept both "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", he specifically says "the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of the name." (Cf. _Institutes_, 2:310,318,320)
> ...



The battle is only lost to those who will not concede to the truth of Scripture and who dangerously titter on the heresy of Apollinaris who denied that Christ was perfect man with a soul in addition to being God. It's never been lost on the reformed believer, and thus, never has to be recaptured since we understand the that the doctrine of the Catholic church and the doctrine of Apollinaris on this subject are false.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Your statement has no relevance to my post. I'm referring to the current definition applied to the phrase "Mother of God" which is heretical. There is no corollary between not wanting to use a phrase with gross negative connotations, accepting that the meaning of such aphrase may now be irrevocably damaged and the capitulation of foundational doctrines such as the manness & Godness of Christ which I do not. Your implication that I do is unwarranted. If you wish to use the phrase, so be it. Be prepared to explain your usage every time when in the company of Protestants. I'll use other ways to express it.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



I didn't mean you don't hold to the foundational doctrine of manness and Godness of Christ. I apologize for making it sound that way.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

OPC'n said:


> I didn't mean you don't hold to the foundational doctrine of manness and Godness of Christ. I apologize for making it sound that way.



Ok, just wanted to make sure you weren't implying that.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 28, 2012)

We should not be so quick to jettison the true catholic or universal language of the church. The Confession of Chalcedon, for example, states that Christ is 



> begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood.



In the presentation above, the 'limitations' of this title are properly noted.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 28, 2012)

py3ak said:


> _Au contraire_, we should not hesitate to refer to Mary as the Mother of God: she was truly the mother of one who was truly God. While in no sense was she superior or prior to the divine nature, the holy thing that was born of her was properly called the Son of God.
> 
> Mary shines very brightly as an illustration of election and a pattern of submission, and moreover the comments by and about her provide a very useful window into apprehending the presence of the ordinary even while such an extraordinary event is taking place. Whose heart could remain wholly unmoved upon considering the _parens et puella_? She deserves to be highly regarded and to hold a high rank among other servants of God. What must be withheld from her (what she herself did and would repudiate) is supremacy. It is interesting that while Abraham can be considered our father, and Sarah is spoken of as having daughters within the Christian church, Mary herself is never given such a broadly maternal role in Scripture.


Indeed. Mary is theotokos.
The Council of Ephesus (431) gave Mary the Greek title _Theotokos_, which literally means “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God.” Taken less literally, it is usually rendered “mother of God.” This title was ratified at the Council of Chalcedon (451), the one ecumenical council that is endorsed by virtually every church in the World Council of Churches. But what does this title really mean? At the time of the Council of Ephesus, Theotokos was understood to mean that Mary was the mother of God, but not in the sense that Jesus received His divine nature from Mary in any way. It simply meant that Mary, being the mother of Jesus, was the mother of God in that sense—Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, touching His human nature. There was no confusion at Ephesus or Chalcedon that this title was meant to ascribe any notion of deity to Mary. It simply articulated the fact that she was the earthly mother of the One who was God incarnate. Historian Jaroslav Pelikan has given a very good translation of Theotokos, one that accurately captures this historical understanding: “the one who gives birth to the One who is God.”1 Given this understanding, historically there has been no official Protestant objection to the title “mother of God.” Obviously, this title could be understood to mean much more than it was understood to mean at Ephesus and at Chalcedon, but the words in and of themselves, properly qualified and defined, are not an occasion of controversy.

Src: Sproul, R.C., _Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism_ Reformation Trust Publishing​


----------



## py3ak (Oct 28, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas, I think calling it a "Roman Catholic" translation may well be going too far. Not only does Turretin accept both "God-bearer" or "Mother of God", he specifically says "the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of the name." (Cf. _Institutes_, 2:310,318,320)
> ...



If its loss was regrettable, then its recovery is desirable. But its recovery will be made more difficult if we have people asserting that the term involves heretical notions. 
I suspect that the contemporary Protestant is in more danger of having a weak Christology than of offering divine honor to Mary.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2012)

yeutter said:


> The danger for us is to fall into the Nestorian heresy. The Church Catholic used the term Theotokos in answering the Nestorian heresy. The Roman Catholic translation Mother of God is not a precise translation. We must certainly affirm the Virgin birth and the fact that Mary was in fact the mother of our Lord.



Yes, I didn't want to mention Nestorianism, but I was wondering about the similarity of Protestants' views of Mary to Nestorianism's view of Mary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 28, 2012)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/do-you-love-virgin-mary-70014/#post898819
Even the ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to testify of Himself but of Christ. I agree with everything the Scriptures say about Mary but the Scriptures do not even remotely hint at dwelling upon her as an object of adoration but quite the opposite. Those who were most honorable in Scripture did not draw attention to themselves in their lives nor do they have a continuing "ministry" to do so. I think the fact that one of the most important figures in redemptive history, she who bore Christ, "faded" into non-mention into the rest of the Scriptures says much about those who are most honorable. The fact that she gets an most honorable mention in His Story is most remarkable.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2012)

In the history of the Church, when did healthy respect for Mary become undue adoration or even worship? By what year, what era? Any links, documents, etc, which show the morphing of this respect into something sinful?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2012)

Poimen said:


> We should not be so quick to jettison the true catholic or universal language of the church. The Confession of Chalcedon, for example, states that Christ is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 29, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/do-you-love-virgin-mary-70014/#post898819
> Even the ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to testify of Himself but of Christ. I agree with everything the Scriptures say about Mary but the Scriptures do not even remotely hint at dwelling upon her as an object of adoration but quite the opposite. Those who were most honorable in Scripture did not draw attention to themselves in their lives nor do they have a continuing "ministry" to do so. I think the fact that one of the most important figures in redemptive history, she who bore Christ, "faded" into non-mention into the rest of the Scriptures says much about those who are most honorable. The fact that she gets an most honorable mention in His Story is most remarkable.


The reason we must affirm that Mary is Theotokos is that we must affirm what the Bible teaches concerning the incarnation of our Lord.


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 29, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> In the history of the Church, when did healthy respect for Mary become undue adoration or even worship? By what year, what era? Any links, documents, etc, which show the morphing of this respect into something sinful?



Perg,
If memory serves me properly, there was a church council in the 7th century that formulated an early "Mariology". It really is not surprising, though. If one looks at all the Christological heresies from the first century until Chalcedon, the robust underpinnings of Christology were laid in light of these attacks. Then one afternoon in the 5th century, someone replaces the clear and unambiguous focus on Christ in Nicea and Chalcedon, and makes _Theotokos_ about Mary and not about the Savior. The rest is a story about the Roman chauffeur leaving the road and crashing into the ditch......


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 29, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Even the ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to testify of Himself but of Christ. I agree with everything the Scriptures say about Mary but the Scriptures do not even remotely hint at dwelling upon her as an object of adoration but quite the opposite. Those who were most honorable in Scripture did not draw attention to themselves in their lives nor do they have a continuing "ministry" to do so. I think the fact that one of the most important figures in redemptive history, she who bore Christ, "faded" into non-mention into the rest of the Scriptures says much about those who are most honorable. The fact that she gets an most honorable mention in His Story is most remarkable.



Amen



> Luke 11:27-28
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
> ...



Soli Deo Gloria, the reason Mary was said to be blessed was because of the privilege she received from God, to bear his only begotten son, not because of anything in herself.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Oct 29, 2012)

It's worth listening to MacArthur on the subject of Mary, and that he's no friend of Roman Catholicism is an understatement. He refers to Mary as constituting the fourth person in the "Holy Quartet" (A New York Times reference to Mary's place in Catholic theology). Needless to say, he condemns this view. Mary plays a surprisingly small part in the New Testament, and Jesus is frequently dismissive of her. I think this makes clear that Mary is far from "The Queen of Heaven" worshipped/revered/adored by the RC Church and with roots in pagan worship, but rather the ordinary girl blessed and used by God as the vehicle by which Christ entered the World. It's a strange dichotomy that Mary is small and humble, rarely spoken of in the NT, yet also the most important woman in human history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 29, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/do-you-love-virgin-mary-70014/#post898819
> ...



Is there some sort of connection between what your response was and what I wrote? I don't see how anything I wrote denies that Mary bore Christ in her womb.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2012)

Mary didn't give birth to the Divine Nature which existed from eternity, nor to the Person of the Son of God _simpliciter_, but to the Person of the Son of God in His human nature.

I don't think the Protestant Church makes too little of Mary. I've heard good and respectful sermons on her or which mention her, as with other biblical characters.

There's just not that much biographical detail on Mary in Scripture, as the Holy Spirit intended, compared with some others, otherwise we might hear more sermons, and have more books, about her.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 29, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...


No Rich, I was not disagreeing with you. I apologize for giving that impression. You start by saying the ministry of the Holy Ghost is not to testify of Himself but of Christ. Likewise those who were most honorable in the Scriptures including the blessed Virgin Mary bear witness to Jesus and His Incarnation.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 29, 2012)

I never would have thought this topic would have been so hashed out. Leave it to reformed over thinkers lol.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2012)

Gforce9 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > In the history of the Church, when did healthy respect for Mary become undue adoration or even worship? By what year, what era? Any links, documents, etc, which show the morphing of this respect into something sinful?
> ...



Thanks,

If anyone recalls the name of that church council (or even better, has links to the texts and pronouncements) let me know. I'd like to see how gradual the error was an how early it appeared.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Gforce9 said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



_The rest is a story about the Roman chauffeur leaving the road and crashing into the ditch......_
Great imagery!


----------



## yeutter (Oct 29, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Gforce9 said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


The Third Council of Constantinople A.D. 680-681, which is I think the Fifth OEcumenical Synod, in her prosphoneticus to the Emperor says "For as the Word He is consubstantial and eternal with God His Father; but as taking flesh of the immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, He is perfect man, consubstantial with us and made in time."
This same Third Council of Constantinople condemned and anathematized Pope Honorius for his adherence to the heresy of Apollinaris.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2012)

So the belief that Mary was without original sin or sin ("immaculate") was around as early as the 600's?


----------



## yeutter (Oct 30, 2012)

It would sound appear that way. The more common way in which I would expect to see Mary referred to is the Blessed Ever Virgin Mother of God.


----------



## BJClark (Nov 2, 2012)

I have no issue with Mary being called the Mother of our Lord, I take issue with the RCC in their calling of Mary, "The Queen of Heaven" Mary is not the Queen of Heaven.

Queen of Heaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She is not sitting at God's right hand or left hand mediating between God and man.



"From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen. - Ad Caeli Reginam of Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary, Promulgated October 11, 1954"


Scripture is clear as to who the Queen of Heaven is referring to and it's NOT Mary, the Mother of Jesus. And to bow and worship and venerate her angers God.

Ashtoreth / The Queen of Heaven


Who is the Queen of Heaven?


Perg,

One of my neighbors is RC, and this was a topic that came up between us, and I continually ask her, do you believe a pope or priest or do you believe The Bible?
She often gets upset with the messenger (me) when I point her to Scripture and it runs counter to what her church teaches--I tell her she should be angry at her priests for teaching her lies and herself for not reading and searching the scriptures herself.


----------

