Hail Mary

....In a shift whose ideological breadth is unusual in the fragmented Protestant world, a long-standing wall around Mary appears to be eroding. It is not that Protestants are converting to Catholicism's dramatic exaltation: the singing of Salve Regina, the Rosary's Marian Mysteries, the entreaty to her in the Hail Mary to "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Rather, a growing number of Christian thinkers who are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox (another branch of faith to which Mary is central) have concluded that their various traditions have shortchanged her in the very arena in which Protestantism most prides itself: the careful and full reading of Scripture.

Arguments on the Virgin's behalf have appeared in a flurry of scholarly essays and popular articles, on the covers of the usually conservative Christianity Today (headline: The Blessed Evangelical Mary) and the usually liberal Christian Century (St. Mary for protestants). They are being preached, if not yet in many churches then in a denominational cross section—and not just at modest addresses like Maguire's in Xenia but also from mighty pulpits like that at Chicago's Fourth Presbyterian Church, where longtime senior pastor John Buchanan recently delivered a major message on the Virgin ending with the words "Hail Mary ... Blessed are you among us all."

This could probably not have happened at some other time. Robert Jenson, author of the respected text Systematic Theology, chuckles when asked whether the pastor of his Lutheran youth would have approved of his (fairly extreme) position that Protestants, like Catholics, should pray for Mary's intercession. "My pastor would have been horrified," he says, adding, "The pastor was my father." Yet today Catholics and Protestants feel freer to explore each other's beliefs and practices. Feminism has encouraged popular speculations on the lives of female biblical figures and the role of the divine feminine (think The Red Tent and The Da Vinci Code). A growing interest, on both the Protestant right and left, in practices and texts from Christianity's first 1,500 years has led to immersion in the habitual Marianism of the early and medieval church. And the influx of millions of Hispanic immigrants from Catholic cultures into American Protestantism may eventually accelerate progress toward a pro-Marian tipping point—on whose other side may lie changes not just in sermon topic but in liturgy, personal piety and a re-evaluation of the actual messages of the Reformation.

The movement is not yet prevalent in the pews. And it has its critics. While granting that Mary shows up more in the New Testament than some churches recognize, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Southern Seminary, charges that those who use her full record to justify new "theological constructions" around her are guilty of "overreaching," "wishful thinking" and effectively "flirting with Catholic devotion." Yet Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten, co-editor of an essay collection on what might be called Marian upgrade, claims, "We don't have to go back to Catholicism. We can go back to our own roots and sources. It could be done without shocking the congregation. I can't predict how exactly it will happen. Some of it will be good, and some of it may be bad.

The sin they committed was not merely eating the forbidden fruit, but rather eating the forbidden fruit so that they might "Be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). In committing that act, they put themselves in God's place, choosing their will instead of His.

OK, so what is wrong with this couple eating the fruit? You said because they want to be as God. I say so did they? The answer is not. So why is god upset? So what if that fruit was an automatic god making fruit. Adam and Eve would become as good as God, you say? And, what is wrong with that? I thought the object is for us all to emulate God. It sounds like God is a doctor, and he got unhappy because one of his servants went to medical school. Every time, I contemplate this stuff in the old testament, the only conclusion I come up with it is simply stories by a bunch of barbarians dweller of the desert. They were savages, and vindictive, and worried too much about virginity and sex. The difference between Jesus's message, and the savagery in the OT is If some one asked to walk a mile walk two, if some one slap you on one cheek turn to him the other, and that we need to LOVE OUR ENEMIES. This kind of stuff is not in any other religion. The church fathers were mostly Jews who wanted so much to make Christianity a continuation of the OT, even though it has nothing in common.

I am very sorry to have talked too freely about my weired beliefs. You sound like a very traditional God loving guy, and I am a simply an out of the box thinker. Please do not take offense.

There is no reason to apologize for sharing your beliefs or asking questions. :)

I simply see several errors in your understanding of what the doctrine of Original Sin really means and simply wanted to clarify it for you a bit. If you really want to understand what the big deal about it is, you have to approach it from a spirtual point of view and get rid of this notion that it means God wants to hit you over the head. That isn't how any practicing Christian understands the teaching.

It sounds to me, though, like you have a few other issues to work out regarding the Church Fathers and the Old Testament itself. While I would like to help explain some of this stuff, I am reminded of a story I heard once about a Western scholar visiting a Buddhist temple (which I will greatly paraphrase as I do not quite remember it in its original form):

The scholar got to talking with one of the monks, asking him all sorts of questions regarding why he did not believe in God, why he believed in reincarnation, why he worshipped the Buddha, etc. To these questions, the monk simply offered the man a cup of tea, which he gladly accepted. The monk proceeded to fill the cup slowly until it reached the top, at which point he simply continued to pour as the tea began to flow over the rims.

"The cup is already full! It won't hold anymore!" the scholar began to cry out anxiously.

"Such is the way it is with your mind," replied the monk, "which already overflows with your own preconceived notions."

Sometimes it is essential to realize that it is our pre-existing beliefs and misunderstandings that hold us back from understanding that which makes perfect sense to others.

"Wow...who else used Sola Scriptura? Christ Himself"

You are missing something here. How or why would the Word of God, Jesus Christ, use Sola Scriptura? Why do you try to limit His ability to speak? Is obedience to God's Word found ONLY in writing? Are you saying God ONLY SPEAKS THROUGH THE SCRIPTURE??? I guess God didn't speak much before the OT was written down, hundreds of years after Abraham. And how did God create the universe before the Bible came about, since He only speaks through the written word, according to you?

As to "measuring things by the Word of God", perhaps you should redefine WHAT IS the Word of God? It CERTAINLY isn't JUST the Bible. The events recorded in the Bible occured before they were written, so God doesn't ONLY speak through Scripture. Did the Apostles adhere to Sola Scriptura in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? Sola Scriptura would have dictated that Christians had to be circumcised. I presume you are aware that the OT was the only scripture during this council.

Another interesting question: Since the Bible is not self-authenticating, how do you even know you HAVE the Word of God, without the Apostolic Tradition?

Sola Scriptura is a deluded, self-defeating, man-made doctrine that attempts to constrain the Word of God to a book, when it is obvious that God's Word came in the Flesh, not in a Book.

Christianity is not about a Book, but about a person, Jesus Christ. Forget Sola Scriptura.

Regards

"However, God will not reveal a doctrine which is CONTRARY to what he has revealed to his servants and they in turn have written down."

Agreed. Sorry, at first, I thought you were saying that ONLY the Bible is the Word of God.

"The so-called doctine that Mary was sinless at birth is ridiculous because it CONTRADICTS revealed truth in the Bible"

I disagree with you. If you are refering to Paul saying all men have sinned as your "proof-text", understand this is not a universal statement, meaning ALL men are sinners. This is obvious by:
1. Jesus was a man, and He was/is sinless. Paul didn't make that distinction in Romans.
2. The saints in heaven are sinless. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. Can we agree that they will remain that way once there?
3. Mary was presumed sinless by various Church Fathers, as she was regarded as the Mother of God. It is fitting that God would fashion for Himself a suitable container - the Ark in the OT, Mary in the NT. Why are you offended that God would or could do this?
4. According to your definition, that would make infants sinners, as well.

Paul's statement, in context, is refering to the fact that all men are subject to Original Sin. Mary was saved by God from this fate, and Jesus, Himself, couldn't contract it, being God.

Here are some more examples of how the early Christians compared Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. Notice, this is Scripture, the Word of God:

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke's conspicuous comparison's between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the "woman" that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary's offspring are those who keep God's commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Since you mention Augustine, he, of all men, understood that holiness of God and the distance that man is from God. Yet...

"We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 (A.D. 415).

That Mary was sinless is implied in Scripture and explicitly stated by the Church Fathers as they continued to explore the Word of God.

As to Augustine teaching that man was totally depraved, the Catholic Church never went along with Augustinianism. The idea that man is totally depraved was condemned by the Church a few hundred years later. The idea that infants are condemned to eternal fire for not being Baptized goes against an Augustinian teaching that WAS accepted by the Church (vs Donatists) that God is not bound by the Sacraments. God can choose to save men without the sacrament. So his Mass Damnatia theory was incorrect by his own teachings. These teachings never were accepted by the Church, nor do others speak of them.

The Reformers, including Calvin, appealed so confidently to St. Augustine's volumes that it seems only fair to note the real difference which exists between his doctrine and theirs. Cardinal Newman sums it up as follows:

The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification -- Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it -- Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58).

As can be seen, there was a huge difference between Augustine and Luther/Calvin...Total depravity rests on the idea that man has NO FREE WILL. This has never been a Christian teaching until Luther, as I have noted above. To twist Paul's words to say otherwise is a misinterpretation of Scripture - confirmed by the fact that the Church, the guardian of Apostolic teaching, disagrees with Luther and Calvin's heresy.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.