Do Baptists Believe in the Virgin Mary?

[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.