Do Baptists Believe in the Virgin Mary?

[ShirChadash]

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.

Well said!

 

[theseed]

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.

Correct, that is the point I am trying to make. The seperateness-from-humanity argument can be applied to both of our beliefs: Special creation or Mary's imacculate conception.


I read that Christ was tempted as we are, and yet without sin. That is all that matters as far as humanity goes. Also, if God made adam (little "a") in his image. Then they would make God the epitomy of humanity.

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let (31) Us make (32) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them (33) rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man (34) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; (35) male and female He created them.

Genesis 5


Descendants of Adam

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him (1) in the likess of God

Genesis 9
6
"(1) Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For (2) in the image of God
He made man.


Ephesians 4
24 and (1) put on the (2) new self, which (3) in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.


James 3
9 With it we bless (1) our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, (2) who have been made in the likeness of God;

Hebrews 4
15 For we do not have (30) a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been (31) tempted in all things as we are, yet (32) without sin.

2 Corinthians 5
21 He made Him who (1) knew no sin to be (2) sin on our behalf, so that we might become the (3) righteousness of God in Him.

Hebrews 7
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a (1) high priest, (2) holy, (3) innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and (4) exalted above the heavens;



FYI, It's easy to find lots of bible verses with the NASB
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible
_________________________________________________
Our sinful nature comes from our flesh, so if Mary had no sinful nature, then she would have to been a special act of creation.

But I have thought of this too; only the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing in Genesis. Everything else was made from that. The Hebrew reflects this.

Just food for thought

But when I see the movie of The Passion of Christ, I realize that he is definately not seperated from our humanity

Here is a new smilie on CF

 

[Carrye]

Also, if God made adam (little "a") in his image. Then they would make God the epitomy of humanity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?

 

[FreeinChrist]

No FIC .. my intent was not to go beyond the rules of the forum, only to share my understanding with the seed so he could better address the issue with me from his perspective. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to be talking about something if we aren't using the words the same way, or not really understanding where the other is coming from .. No debate is going on. I am sorry you perceived it as such.

May not be your intent. But a debate is simply a discussion with opposing viewpoints...with or without heat.

My intent is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of our belief in the immaculate conception with you or anyone else, and I will not be drawn into an argument or debate about it with you.

Mary's alleged immaculate conception was brought up twice in this thread in this discussion/debate about Jesus.

There is no scriptural reference to this alleged immaculate conception. No reference to giving Mary or other Christians titles.

We are speaking of how Christ received his human nature, his flesh, and how this affects his relationship with us and the human race as a whole, and I am trying to understand the various points of view held by the Baptists here.

I believe the Baptist view has been presented.

 

[Oblio]

May not be your intent. But a debate is simply a discussion with opposing viewpoints...with or without heat.

It is possible to discuss differences without debate

Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind


Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Like I said in the previous post, if God intended us to give mary ANY kind of title, He would have made it VERY clear in scriptures if it was that important to our life as Christains. If it was at all important about the life of Mary and the birth of Christ, other than what is in the scriptures, it would be in there.
This is where my faith is, in what God said, not what men say.
GEL

Just for clarification, from what I have gathered from your posts:

You believe that Mary is Jesus' mother.

You believe that Jesus is God.

You do not believe that Mary is God's Mother.

Am I correct on all of those?

And is "Mother of God" really a title or is it just an observation of the scriptural facts? If it is an incorrect observation of the scriptural facts, why is it?

 

[Crazy Liz]

May not be your intent. But a debate is simply a discussion with opposing viewpoints...with or without heat.

What distinguishes a debate from a discussion is its goal. The goal of a debate is to win the point by verbally defeating your opponent, by persuading your opponent, or persuading an audience.

Opposing viewpoints may be discussed purely for the purpose of understanding. Such discussions are not debates.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I beleive the 1689 London Baptist confession explains it well, found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/chapter8.html
CHAP. VIII.
Of Christ the Mediator.

1. It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to chuse and ordain the Lord Jesus his only begotten Son, according to the Covenant made between them both, (a) to be the Mediator between God and Man; the (b) Prophet, (c) Priest and (d) King; Head and Saviour of his Church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world: Unto whom he did from all Eternity (e) give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

a Is. 42.1. 1 Pet. 1.19,20.

b Act. 3.22.

c Heb. 5.5,6.

d Ps. 2.6, Luk. 1.33 Eph. 1.23 Heb. 1.2. Act. 17.31

e Is. 53.10. Joh. 17.6. Rom. 8:30.

2. The Son of God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Fathers glory, of one substance and equal with him: who made the World, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made: did when the fullness of time was come take unto him (f) mans nature, with all the Essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, (g) yet without sin: being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the most High overshadowing her, (h) and so was made of a Woman, of the Tribe of Judah, of the Seed of Abraham, and David according to the Scriptures: So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, were inseparably joined together in one Person: without conversion, composition, or confusion: which Person is very God, and very Man; yet one (i) Christ, the only Mediator between God and Man.

f Joh. 1.1.14. Gal. 4.4.

g Rom. 8.3. Heb. 2.14.16,17. ch. 4.15.

h Luk. 1.27,31.35.

i Rom. 9.5. 1 Tim. 2.5.

 

[ShirChadash]

When used to address someone, or something, personally... a word becomes a title. No?

For example:

"God did right, when He created moms." The word for mom in this is not specific, and it isn't a specific title for anyone, though we know the position of the woman we're talking about.

"Mom, you are a beautiful woman." The captialized "Mom" is a title for my mother, since I am referring personally to her in my comments.

Just a thought.

edited... thinking on this...

 

[FreeinChrist]

It is possible to discuss differences without debate

Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind


Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

I'm making a few things bold.

de·bate ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (d

-b

t

)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

I have seen other 'discussions' that are actually debates, but the claim was made..."oh, no, we just want to understand'....but that wasn't the goal. It comes out eventually.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Just for clarification, from what I have gathered from your posts:

You believe that Mary is Jesus' mother.

You believe that Jesus is God.

You do not believe that Mary is God's Mother.

Am I correct on all of those?

And is "Mother of God" really a title or is it just an observation of the scriptural facts? If it is an incorrect observation of the scriptural facts, why is it?

"Mother of God" is a title given to Mary later on by a church.
There is no scriptural basis for the giving of titles like that.
While many recognize the significance of Abraham, not that a title wasn't given to him, like 'Abraham, Father of Nations'. Christianity is Jewish. The OT pointed to Christ and showed us the nature of God and man. The new Testament shows the fullfilment of the Old. In OT and NT, there are not titles given except to God - Father/Son/Spirit. Thus it is just Christ who is Our Apostle, High Priest, Mediator, Intercessor, Saviour, Prince of Peace....and more.



God is ONE - one God in three persons. Mary gave birth to Jesus, God Incarnate. But the Word existed before Mary, and the world was made through Him.

Now, what I see happening is the restatement, and restatement of beleifs......like a debate.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Most Baptists and other Free Church Protestants have no dogma about original sin. I would say that a majority probably believe in some form of original sin similar to the RC concept. At least most are highly influenced (whether we would like to admit it or not ) by Augustine.

However, you will actually find a wide range of beliefs about original sin within Free Church Protestant traditions. Most of our churches are quite tolerant of varied opinions about this. Growing numbers seem to be moving in the direction of the Eastern Orthodox on the concept of original sin - that as a result of the sin of our first parents our flesh inherits mortality, but not guilt. This view makes an immaculate conception unnecessary. Even Jesus does not need to have been born in any special way to be without sin. Jesus was born in a special way because he is both human and divine, not out of some need to avoid contamination. As one of my theology professors so eloquently put it: Jesus was born as a human being under sentence of death. In that sense Jesus was born like all the rest of us. This professor was also ordained in a Free Church Protestant denomination (Evangelical Free).

Now, I am not posting this to argue for this position (although it is the direction in which I personally lean) but to show that many different ideas about original sin are tolerated within our traditions. This explains why you are not getting a single coherent argument about why we don't believe in the immaculate conception. None of us believe in the immaculate conception, but because we have different concepts of original sin, we have different reasons for not accepting the idea of Mary's immaculate conception.

You can't get to a dogma of immaculate conception - it's simply not needed, or even a question you would ask - if you don't first have a very specific dogma about original sin. We don't.

 

[Oblio]

I have seen other 'discussions' that are actually debates, but the claim was made..."oh, no, we just want to understand'....but that wasn't the goal. It comes out eventually.[/color]

I think you are being disingenuous, for earlier you said:

May not be your intent. But a debate is simply a discussion with opposing viewpoints...with or without heat.

Which is it ?

I maintain there are people here who are genuinely interested, with no desire to prove or convince you that your opinion concerning this subject is in err.

I for one, was hoping to get an answer to an earlier question regarding Christology WRT Baptist beliefs.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I think you are being disingenuous, for earlier you said:
Which is it ?

I stated that debate is a discussion of opposing beliefs with or without heat, and Crazy Liz then brought up the idea that it is the goal of the discussion that determines if it is debate or not. I disagree.
But no, I am not being "disingenius" - I've seen "discussion" - note the quotes - in other threads in other forums that was clearly NOT for the clarification of the original question asked.

I for one, was hoping to get an answer to an earlier question regarding Christology WRT Baptist beliefs.

I believe that was answered, and the opposing view shown in the questions that were then asked...and re-asked. But it can reanswered as much as needed.

So we can continue to debate the nature of 'debate'. Or you can ask more questions on Mary and Jesus.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Most Baptists and other Free Church Protestants have no dogma about original sin. I would say that a majority probably believe in some form of original sin similar to the RC concept. At least most are highly influenced (whether we would like to admit it or not ) by Augustine.

1689 London Baptist Confession

CHAP. VI.
Of the fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.

1. Although God created Man upright, and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, (a) and threatned death upon the breach thereof; yet he did not long abide in this honour; (b) Satan using the subtilty of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion, did wilfully transgress the Law of their Creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit; which God was pleased according to his wise and holy Councel to permit, having purposed to order it, to his own glory.

a Gen. 2.16,17,

b Gen. 3.12,13. 2 Cor. 11 3.

2.Our first Parents by this Sin, fell from their (c) original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; (d) all becoming dead in Sin, and wholly defiled, (e) in all the faculties, and parts, of soul, and body.

c Rom. 3.23.

d Rom 5.12 & c.

e ***. 1.15 Gen. 6.5. Jer. 17 9. Rom. 3.10-19.

3. They being the (f) root, and by Gods appointment, standing in the room, and stead of all mankind; the guilt of the Sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now (g) conceived in Sin, and by nature children (h) of wrath, the servants of Sin, the subjects (i) of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus (k) set them free.

f Rom. 5.12-19. 1 Cor. 15.21,22.45.49.

g Ps. 51.5. Job 14.4.

h Eph. 2.3.

i Rom. 6.20. & ch. 5.12.

k Heb. 2.14. 1 Thes. 1.10.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are (l) utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do (m) proceed all actual transgressions.

l Rom. 8.7. Col. 1.21.

m Jam. 1 14,15. Mat. 15.19.

5. The corruption of nature, during this Life, doth (n) remain in those that are regenerated: and although it be through Christ pardoned, and mortified, yet both it self, and the first motions thereof, are truely and properly (o) Sin.

n Rom. 7.18.23. Eccles. 7.20. 1 Joh. 1.8.

o Rom. 7.24.25. Gal. 5.17


This explains original sin and it is taken from scripture.

 

[Oblio]

I believe that was answered, and the opposing view shown in the questions that were then asked...and re-asked. But it can reanswered as much as needed

I guess I wil need to re-ask as theseed simply stated that Mary was an empty vessel and did not answer my question. And how can it be an opposing view when I simply asked a question of what Baptists believed.

Yes or No.

In Baptist theology, did Christ receive His humanity from Mary ?

TIA

 

[FreeinChrist]

In Baptist theology, did Christ receive His humanity from Mary ?

from the 1689 London Baptist Confesion:
2. The Son of God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Fathers glory, of one substance and equal with him: who made the World, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made: did when the fullness of time was come take unto him (f) mans nature, with all the Essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, (g) yet without sin: being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the most High overshadowing her, (h) and so was made of a Woman, of the Tribe of Judah, of the Seed of Abraham, and David according to the Scriptures: So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, were inseparably joined together in one Person: without conversion, composition, or confusion: which Person is very God, and very Man; yet one (i) Christ, the only Mediator between God and Man.

Perhaps theseed will agree with this or not, he can clarify that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Yes, FIC, I acknowledge this is what many, perhaps most, Baptists believe. I think I said that very explicitly. The point of this thread is not for members of Free Church Protestant traditions to argue among ourselves (we can do that here if we want, but in another thread), but to answer the questions of our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters from other traditions. Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters have a much different (and dogmatic) view of original sin than our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. That is why our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters do not believe in the immaculate conception, even though they hold Mary in high regard.

It is true that there is, within and among our Free Church Protestant traditions, diversity in views and opinions about original sin. Some of us hold beliefs more like the Roman Catholics, and some of us hold beliefs more like the Eastern Orthodox. Different views exist within our traditions. I thought pointing this out would help alleviate some of the confusion that I could see building up because of so many Free Church Protestants explaining fom their own POV why they do not believe in the immaculate conception. These reasons are diverse because our traditions allow diversity in this area. Some denominations make dogmatic statements about it and others don't. Some individuals hold strong opinions about it, and others don't.

I am not going to debate or even discuss in this thread which view of original sin is better. I beg the rest of you not to engage in a discussion of that question, either. For the purpose of this thread, it is important to understand there is considerable variation within and among our traditions, and nothing more.

 

[Oblio]

While I appreciete the creed posted I would like a

Yes or No

answer to my question

 

[FreeinChrist]

Here are 2 quotes from this site:


http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=13975

His virginal conception in no way minimizes this. The incarnation (John 1:14) involves experiencing a human birth (Galatians 4:4), being circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), possessing a true human nature (Heb 2:14), being tempted in all points like we (Heb 2:18; 4:15), experiencing sorrow and agony (John 11:35; Mark 14:34-42; Heb 5:7), hungering (Matt 4:2; Mark 11:12) and thirsting (John 19:28), becoming weary (John 4:6), possessing flesh and blood (Luke 24:39; John 19:34) and learning obedience (Heb 5:8).

He is the one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5; Rom 5:15; Heb 9:15). Because of his sinless life (Heb 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21), he could bear the penalty of sin that all humanity deserves.


later:
B. God the Son

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One
Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.

Genesis 18:1ff.; Psalms 2:7ff.; 110:1ff.; Isaiah 7:14; 53; Matthew 1:18-23; 3:17; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16,27; 17:5; 27; 28:1-6,19; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; 24:46; John 1:1-18,29; 10:30,38; 11:25-27; 12:44-50; 14:7-11; 16:15-16,28; 17:1-5, 21-22; 20:1-20,28; Acts 1:9; 2:22-24; 7:55-56; 9:4-5,20; Romans 1:3-4; 3:23-26; 5:6-21; 8:1-3,34; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:2; 8:6; 15:1-8,24-28; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 8:9; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:20; 3:11; 4:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-22; 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 3:16; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-15; 7:14-28; 9:12-15,24-28; 12:2; 13:8; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 3:22; 1 John 1:7-9; 3:2; 4:14-15; 5:9; 2 John 7-9; Revelation 1:13-16; 5:9-14; 12:10-11; 13:8; 19:16.