Do Baptists Believe in the Virgin Mary?

[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!

 

[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 ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (k

n-s

p

sh

n)
n.

1. 1. <LI type=a>Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
   2. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2. 
   
   1. <LI type=a>The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.
   2. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought. See Synonyms at idea.
3. Archaic. A beginning; a start.

Source: 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.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

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.

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. If you would like to contribute to that understanding, please feel free to do so.

.
Peace in Him!

 

[GreenEyedLady]

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. If you would like to contribute to that understanding, please feel free to do so.

.
Peace in Him!

I understand that you are not trying to debate, but we have stated that there is absolutly NO scriptural evidence to the claims that Mary was sinless or that there was an Immaculate Conception. This is all doctrines of man, meaning that its not inspired by God but just the thoughts of men because it is not found in scripture.
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