Steve: “and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,”
let me point out that Mary was only a virgin when she conceived and until she delivered Jesus. otherwise you are stating all of her children were by virgin birth.
BFHU: Not at all. No one but Jesus is born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit. The “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were not siblings but kinsmen or possibly step siblings born of Joseph and a wife who had died. Please see–>Mary Was Only a Virgin UNTIL Jesus was born
Steve:…let me also point out (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
and to your intended response that “all does not include Mary”
(1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
BFHU: So then do we “make Him a liar” if we contend for the sinlessness of Jesus, too? I am not saying I have not sinned. I am saying that Mary was preserved, by the grace and power of God, from sin, in order to be a perfect vessel for the Son of God Almighty. Does that not just seem more fitting?
Steve: Furthermore, if Mary was sinless or perfect which is what you are claiming by making her sinless, she would have also been conceived by the Spirit of God moving on her mother.
BFHU: Why? That does not seem logical. Do you believe that God lacks the power remove the stain of original sin from the one intended to nurture and give birth to the Holy Son of God? Mary was conceived in the normal way by her parents, who were not sinless. But, God acted to create her immaculate just like He created Adam and Eve. It is not like it was the first and only time God did it.
Steve:At which point she would have been divine and Jesus’ blood would not be the ONLY redeeming blood available to us. But, “by HIS blood…”
BFHU: That is just silly. Mary is fully human just like Adam and Eve, but before they fell.
Steve: Finally, if Mary had been sinless/perfect she would have had no need to be filled with the Holy Ghost (ref. Acts 1 & 2), however she was in the upper room and the Bible states (Act 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
BFHU: Where does Scripture say she would not need to be filled with the Holy Ghost if she were sinless? Mary was a child of the OT covenant.
Steve: She would also have had no need for baptism, which is for the remission of sins according to Peter. If you claim Mary was not baptized, which again is for the remission of SINS, then according to Scripture, which is infallible, she was not even saved.
BFHU: Why would Mary, being sinless, need to be baptized for the remission of….no sin? She is saved. She even calls God her savior. She was saved from the moment of her conception rather than from the moment of baptism.
Steve: (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(Act 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
God calls men to do what? God calls men to repentance.
(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: this does NOT say with the exception of Mary, it states ALL men.
BFHU: There was no need to say “with the exception of Mary,” because people who were sinners were being called to repentance. The Bible is not a book of systematic theology. You treat it as if it were when you claim that it should have included “with the exception of Mary,” if this was a fact. And I would agree, IF the Bible were a book of systematic theology. But it isn’t.
Steve: Yes, to answer your question, I believe if it is not a Biblical truth, then it is mans theology, and prone to flaws. The Apostles did not teach this nor believe this.
BFHU: I know this is true of you and most Protestants but the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura/Scripture alone. Your assertion of Sola Scriptura is merely a tradition of men.
Steve: Mary did not ascend to heaven, otherwise the “first resurrection” would have already happened that is stated in (Rev 20:5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
The rest of the dead will arise during the second resurrection. If you read the Scripture leading up to 20:5 you will see that those are the dead which will not worship or serve the beast. Then comes the second resurrection in Rev 20:12-15 which ends with the condemnation of those that were not written in the book of life.
BFHU: Are you aware that lots of people, besides Jesus rose from the dead? So, your attempt to interpret the above verses to disprove the Assumption of Mary just does not hold water.
Enoch seems like a possible forerunner of assumption.
Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
Elijah, too, was taken up to Heaven without dying.
2 Kings 2:11
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Mt 27:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Steve: The Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus, in every Scripture you see where it is mentioned, it is only in His name.
BFHU: The Catholic Church simply obeys Jesus when He said,
Mt 28:8 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Yes, there are several scripture where baptism is mentioned “in the name of Jesus.” Perhaps the apostles did baptize this way or it may have been a shortened version of the formula “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Regardless of the history we obey Jesus’ command from Mt. 28 and so do most Protestants. Anyone baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinity is truly baptized regardless of which church or who did the baptizing.
Steve: By saying the proper formula is in the “titles” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then you are claiming the Apostles, whom Jesus himself spent 40 days after his resurrection opening their understanding, were wrong. That is quite a bold statement considering they were the ones who actually penned the NT Word of God as His Spirit moved on them.
BFHU: You are jumping to conclusions. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not plural–titles. It is a singular NAME of the Godhead. It bespeaks of the trinitarian God: One Name, three persons.