Actually, “God-bearer” would be a more accurate description of her role than “Mother” - and vastly better than “Queen of Heaven, Spouse of the Holy Spirit”.
For the rest, I’d point out Protestants accept scripture. I respect both Luther and Calvin, but differ strongly with them in a number of areas.
One difference I have with this post’s theology is that it considers the Assumption of Mary “incongruent with Sacred Scripture”. For myself, I see no reason why - scripture is silent on the manner, and God has been known previously in scripture to take someone, so what is the problem?
OTOH, when they write: “Despite all this common ground, however, both Marian dogma and Marian devotion remain contentious issues. Evangelicals understand that the Catholic Church does not equate adoration of God (latria) and veneration for Mary (hyperdoulia). It seems to many Evangelicals, however, that the devotion of some Catholics to Mary can obscure the preeminence, unique sinlessness, and sole salvific sufficiency of Jesus Christ as well as the common pneumatological ground of worship for all Christians who pray “through Christ in the Spirit”, I think they understate the case.
I would LOVE to see Chuck Colson or JI Packer try to defend Papal descriptions of Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit, or explain why this Papal proclamation of the Queenship of Mary doesn’t cross the line:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12CAELI.HTM
Oh, and sorry wagglebee...I don’t do laughing dogs.
I give you tons of credit for coming onto this thread.
Understanding that you didn’t agree with the “God-Bearer” title on another thread, it’s great to see that it’s acceptable now.
“Queen of Heaven” is because there is no woman higher in Heaven and she is the mother of the King of Kings. Is the mother of a King a Queen? I’ve always heard it that way.
That’s my opinion.