Discussion on the Marian Doctrines with Dr. Gavin Ortlund 

If only my conversations with friends and family over religion could be just as cordial lol.

Such a great episode. Looking forward to round 2!

This was awesome! I’m a Protestant currently in RCIA on my way to the RCC. I just finished Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples, and I don’t think I could have wished for a more relevant and interesting discussion. Please bring Dr. Ortlund back for round 2!

This is probably the most insightful, charitable, and fruitful theology podcasts I’ve ever seen/heard. I wish I could be as charitable and calm as you guys are when discussing things.

Bouncing in from "Truth Unites" thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the respectful conversations. Instead of seeking truth we are sometimes guilty of seeking spiritual superiority.

I'm Catholic and I love that fair discussions among Christians of different confessions! Without never renouncing to my creed but praying for healing our common Christianity! God bless you!!

This is great. I came back to Catholicism after 10 years as a Baptist after studying the early church fathers without a biased lens.

The Holy Spirit was all over this conversation. Thank you for being so kind to one another. It was so gentle, that I kept rewinding it to watch it again.. so beautiful

Catholic here. Can I just say that Dr. Ortlund represents himself with such class and grace. His views are, in my view, hard to hold but he explains them lucidly and plausibly. Good on him. Both sides could use more like him.

This is so awesome. I sense that this is precisely what Christendom needs to unite. Praise Jesus. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners.

This conversation is SO beautiful .... Thank you to all , especially Dr. Gavin Ortlund

I do not have the words to express how grateful I am to witness this exchange of peaceful dialogue with such contentious issues, I have begun to understand how much I need to learn and grow but it gives me hope and joy

I was a Protestant who followed Gavin closely for 2 years! He was my savior while staying Protestant. Although, after closely following him, while also closely following Catholic theologians, i ultimately came to the spirit led decision that the Catholic faith was ultimately most consistent & had the fullness of the faith. I pray for Gavin deeply. With deep care and concern for his soul. I pray he ultimately is able to let go of his baptist roots and finds the truth.

So, to recap, on the headcount, it appears the following people thought Mary committed sins: - Origen (yes, said Mary sinned) - Tertullian (maybe?) - Chrysostom (yes, said Mary sinned) William Albrecht was ready and able to show that none of the other names raised thought that Mary committed sins.

What a brilliant discussion. Thank you. Such class and charity from everyone. As a Catholic it's good to hear a Protestant view so eloquently put and without our Catholic faith and Our Blessed Mother being attacked. Thank you Gavin! Look forward to the next one!

You guys are so great on this video and so is Gavin. This is the model.

Thanks, Guys for your program, yours dialogues teach me so much from a different point of view. All topics were so very interesting. I feel between friends.

Great conversation. This was the comment I left on Dr. Ortlund's original video to Cameron Bertuzzi, and I thought some watchers/listeners might be interested in it: Gavin, I think you make reasonable points, and I appreciate the spirit in which this is offered. To my mind, the main issue is the paradigmatic questions: 1) Is the Catholic Church the Church Christ founded? 2) What is the nature of the Church Christ founded? Regarding Marian dogmas 3 and 4: what they described would have undoubtedly taken place in the 1st century or earlier (since that's when Mary was born, lived, and came to the end of her life). Their historical reality (or potential a-reality in your view) is fixed in that sense. The question is whether the Church can be led by the Holy Spirit over time to understand them (confidently, and eventually infallibly) in a deeper way. And depending on our answers to the paradigmatic questions, we will answer in the affirmative or negative. So, it seems a particular historical analysis of Marian dogmas doesn't deal with these bigger questions. Nonetheless, I think there is fertile ground for some Catholic research on explaining plausibly the paucity of extant written evidence for the bodily assumption in early centuries. Some tentative thoughts: - There's indirect evidence for the Assumption in the lack of first-class Marian relics - There's some 4th-century evidence in Epiphanius - There's some evidence in the liturgy in the sense that a widespread Church celebration of the Assumption in the 5th century couldn't have popped out of nowhere - There was a debate about the canonicity of the book of Revelation in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and if Revelation 12 is the primary Scriptural text that supports the Assumption, then it makes sense that belief would not be further confirmed until people had more confidence that book was inspired. Peace, John

This is how scholarly thoghtful discussion should happen. Total respect to all of you.

Love it, this was so encouraging to listen and learn from. Watching this, I can see that is possible for both sides to open dialogue with respect and humility. Thank you dr. Ortlund

If late doctrinal development is a litmus test for the invalidity of a Doctrine I'm not sure what a Protestant would do with their ecclesiology which doesn't show up anywhere in church history prior to the Reformation.

THIS IS THE MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN DIALOG WE NEED GOONG FORWARD! No more debates! Pick a narrow topic and try to understand each others concerns and desires to be true to our LORD. Amen!

I appreciate these discussions. Very helpful. I'm a Christian that leans towards calvinistic view points. However,I don't believe another Christian has to hold to all the same theology in order to be a Christian. I think that is where the Roman Catholic Church has gotten it wrong and has added to the gospel by demanding people believe certain dogma's that are very debateable. For at least the first 200 years of the church people did not have to believe these dogma's and they were saved Christians. Its as if the salvific goal post kept getting moved when a new Dogma was formed and if you dont believe it you're cut off from the church. There is a simplicity to the Gospel in Paul's eyes and that is no longer what we have especially due to the Roman Catholic dogma's. Baptism, repentance, Love, and Faith in Christ Jesus as savior should be all that is required. Those core beliefs should be the glue that holds the entire catholic church together in my eyes.

I love these respectful, scholarly discussions. I have my own questions, and these discussions are very helpful

William needs to yield more time. Seemed to be trying hard to make this more contentious or a debate... And it ate enough time so we didn't get to bodily assumption .. I know he doesn't mean to be difficult, and his tone tries hard to stay in boundaries.... I'm RCC so I definitely want to hear my guys but it beccame a little difficult ...and I KNOW he (William) isn't meaning malice but he jumps pretty hard (at one point saying "I KNOW you know who Scotus is" to Gavin) ... ..3 on 1 seemed a little skewed... Just a casual obverser comment.. I still love all these guys....learn alot from them...

I agree with the guy who said it takes maturity. I have had bad experiences trying to talk with Roman Catholics. It goes both ways but definitely a matter of maturity. Speaking to people takes the ability to actually listen to each other. Many can’t do that.

What a poweful discussion.

This was a fabulous discussion, both sides didn’t speak past each other which led to a more fruitful discussion. As a Protestant I appreciate and impressed by Michael’s acknowledgement that many of these dogmas can’t be simply asserted from scriptures & church fathers but rather are derived from the magisterium which itself is a presupposition. Which many Catholics in discussions I have had take these presuppositions for granted. Excellent discussion.

After being a Baptist for more than 50 years I listened to the best Catholic arguments and became a Catholic.

Please invite @GospelSimplicity. We'd love to see him on your show!

Appreciate the civil discussion! Concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Matthew 1:25 using the NABRE translation (an approved version by the Catholic church) it states: He (Joseph) had no relations (sex) with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Is there any logical way to interpret this as though they did not have "relations" after Jesus was born? For example, if I say: I had no relations with my wife until we got married. Does that imply we eventually had relations or not? Or if I say: I didn't play football until I was 13 years old. Does that imply I eventually played football or not? To me, this is a very simple statement to understand. Matthew could have simply stated that Mary never had realtions with Joseph, but he didn't. Especially considering that this was written after the fact. If Mary had other children, Matthew would want to clarify that she remained a virgin up until Jesus' birth. Other people would have known about Jesus' half-brothers or half-sisters. Also, I love studying church history, but formulating doctrine from the church fathers outside of the New Testament lacks logic to me for several reasons. (Of course, if you're Catholic, this is where papal supremacy comes in) First, church fathers don't agree on numerous Catholic doctrines. Therefore, to make the case, some church fathers are selected and others rejected. Further, many times, only some of the writings from that church father are selected, and others rejected. In the end, it's simply cherry-picking who agrees with you to make the point. There is no way around that. Also, in some cases, for example, icon veneration is almost unanimously rejected by church fathers up until about the 6th century, but that is modern-day Catholic doctrine. Second, going centuries out in many cases and calling them church fathers doesn't make sense. The church fathers are in the New Testament. If you want to know what they thought, simply read what they wrote. The argument for church fathers would be the equivalent of reading the modern-day Supreme Court writings and using it to interpret what the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. In addition, we are much closer in time now to our founding than most of these church fathers. Third, this lacks an exegetical approach to the Bible and incorporates an eisegetical one. The context of the New Testament is the Old Testament and the second Temple Jewish literature, not writings hundreds of years later. If one wants to understand the New Testament, spend time studying those sources. Searching the Scriptures to find a way to incorporate church doctrine will lead anyone astray, regardless of what denomination they are. Pull out from the text, not incorporate ideas into the text. Lastly, if you have to go to papal supremacy or church fathers to make your case, then you're admitting that you can't back up the claim in the Bible. In that case, you might want to re-evaluate your doctrine, or at minimum, be less dogmatic about your doctrine.

I'm glad that Dr. Outland pressed William Albrecht on the his assertion that ante-Nicene fathers affirmed the immaculate conception. Albrecht tends to say thing he can't validate. Either way, I don't hang on the fathers for anything, as they disagree with each other on many things, but it's always good to know what the historical record does look like. The church fathers are used by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as focal points to validate their primacy but, the reality is, the church fathers didn't write in one, unified voice.

Great discussion, thank you. I think we are all guilty from time to time of relying more on our understanding (and other's understanding) then the Lord. When I catch myself doing that, I like to remind myself Proverbs 3: 5 - 6. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." Obviously, we shouldnt conclude: "Great! I don't have to reason then! 🤣". But God is number 1.

I was surprised hearing Dr ortlund saying he agrees to dogma 1 and coulnt confirm or deny dogma 2. A few protestant have a problem with dogma 1. Anyway love the cordial dialogue.

Enjoyed the talk very much. Will be interesting to see if Gavin takes to heart that Origen and Tertullian are not reliable sources nor are they saints in the future.

Just aquiring here Im reading St. Ireanus book 3 of against Heresies , on the Immaculate conception he stated that Mary bore Christ for the Salvation of her own. Would this apply Ireanus believed mary sinned

Is belief in Marian Dogma (as the Magesterium has it) required for everyone's eternal salvation?

Just a few thoughts from a completely unscholarly, Catholic lay perspective. It doesn't seem appropriate to me to say Mary received "additional graces" when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, given that she is "Full of Grace". How can she be full and not full, or lacking graces? Either she is Full, or she's not. There's something that sounds "off" or contradictory about that explanation. Rather, I propose that the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit is the consummation of that which Mary (being full of grace) was prepared for since the moment of her conception. I don't think she could have been "sanctified" or "set apart" any more than she was at her conception. It seems to me that her immaculate conception is precisely how she was saved, set apart, and prepared, for her role of Mother of God. On the topic of typology as it relates to the immaculate conception. I grant that it could be possible to quibble with typology if you are protestant and therefore have serious doubts or concerns about the authority of the magisterium, but even so, it seems to me, that there's (what I would call) a functional, practical or even logical problem with denying the immaculate conception if you take into account the meticulous care with which the Ark of the covenant was made, preserved and honored. If such strict, and deadly demands were placed on an Ark that would carry mere symbols of Christ (the rod of Aaron, pieces of the manna and the ten commandment tablets), then it makes no sense that the woman who would carry ;not the symbols, but the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, would then not be prepared in any special way. That strikes me as an obvious practical problem, independent of the typology itself.

As a Catholic, I love having a Magisterium that I can trust for proper interpretation. However, I think any future/further dogmas must be avoided. Marian dogmas are true, but why must they be mandated for belief? They drive a huge wedge between Catholics and Protestants. I just don’t know why they should rise to the level of a dogma.

I did not hear an answer to Gavin’s excellent objection that there was no outrage in the early church when those like Origen or Chrysostom claimed that Mary sinned. Think of the reaction if a church leader said this today.

Question from a Protestant: At 1:11:18 William said it is possible as a Catholic to hold to the view that Mary inherited original sin. I’m just reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the immaculate conception and paragraph 491 quotes Pope Pius IX as saying Mary was “preserved immune from all stain of original sin”. What does this phrase mean in light of what William said? Thanks so much, I really need help with this.

Props to the guy in the top right corner who ISN'T flexing his library 😂

All creation needs redemption, there’s the creation being saved by the creator , Mary is just a human that needed salvation as she said it herself

The Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (379 A.D.) and St. John Chrysostom (407 A.D,) call Mary "Panagia" ("All-Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All-Sinless One").

What I wonder though: Were Joseph and Mary even married if they did never consume the marriage? I just think of Isaac and Rebecca, were the very act is strongly linked to becoming married.

God bless Was Good Discussion Luke is a good Book when the Angel Gabriel said hail Full of Grace & The Catholic church holds the Sacraments Like in John 6:51-58-) We need Grace & the Catholic church has them Sacraments 🗝️🗝️🛐😇📖💯 Catholic God bless & in Rev 12-1 Many Scholars say that's Mary in the book of Revelation 🛐 Love Reason & Theology 🙏

Very good dialogue. Could it be that Joseph was an older man who was a widower and had children by that marriage? That would explain references to Jesus “brothers” If Joseph was an older man could he have “problems” that happen to some men as we get older? They didn’t have Viagra in those days.

I appreciate the point on how the lines between latria and dulia are blurred across cultures. As a ethnic chinese, i use joss sticks to give respect to my ancestors. But the form is the same for traditional religonists who pray to their gods. Hence protestants I know avoid joss sticks which I feel is an error based on their inability to differentiate the intent and use within context. I.e. paying respects at a funeral

⚔️ TRUTH v DECEPTION = Spiritual War ⚔️

As an orthodox im not clear on why Mary needs to have been born free from original sin. Merely the conception of Christ from her flesh and carrying Him in her womb would have cleansed her from Original Sin. Yes I know the inference from not necessarily to not so isn't valid. Yes I believe Jesus had preplapsasarian flesh and that our Panagia never committed any moral sin. It's just that I don't buy one of the main arguments for the immaculate conception: it's necessity. So far I haven't seen this argument in the debate. I'm not done with the podcast.

"21. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it." Jerome (340-420) The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, against Helvidius

Orthodox more than less dogmatically affirm transubstantian only with different words. See the Council 1672 council of Jerusalem. It's dogmatically binding for orthodox. μετουσίωσις is dogma in the council of Jerusalem. We agree dogmatically on a change of essence in the elements while the physical appearance of bread and wine remain. I can think of ways to affirm this without accepting the concept of accidents. But introducing accidents seems to make the most sense.

Saying the Magisterium lacks the infallibility to me seems to say that the Holy Spirit cannot guide men to truth but remember that Jesus specifically said the Holy Spirit would guide them "Peter and the apostles" to truth.

Hmm. Seems confusing to put the 'perpetual virginity' of the Theotokos as a 'dogma', when it is universally held and included in prayers 'e.g. the ever-Virgin' but not a proclaimed dogma for Catholics. If it is categorically challenged in the future, then perhaps it may have to be defined. That state could be affirmed in consistency with ancient tradition related to Jewish practices concerning vows and conjugality. (See Numbers 30 vs the Apocryphal sources, Apostolic Fathers, and terms of reference used in ancient prayers). In any case, the consent and agreement of almost all the bishops in communion with the Latin Church and bishop of Rome, was needed to define these 'dogmas'. So it demonstrates the vast, catholic - universal, unity of belief held by the faithful. So these truths are not imposed on Catholics but rather expresses what Catholics already believed for 'all' time. 🕊

It is so obvious that the initial Justification is entirely a GIFT from God. We totally believe that as Catholics. Once we have been freed , we still have to continue living and proving our love through our works. Why would Jesus tell us that at the end , when he will come to JUDGE us, He will separate, the sheep from the goats. He should automatically take us with Him to Heaven apparently, according to protestant understanding.

The year of the pro

Mary appeared to St Bernadette Soubirous and referred to herself as "The" Immaculate Conception.

I think what Eric explained as for the authority of the church to make dogmatic even if the evidence is not conclusive is the very foundation for the reformation. At that point the church becomes untethered to the scriptures and takes on an identity All of its own.

Just because there is a dispute about it, it does not mean that those who dispute are necessarily right. Atheists dispute the reality of God.

I would feel it is explicitly stated in matthew 1:25 the perpetually virginity is false. Especially since later it talks about the brothers and sisters of christ in combination with joseph and mary as the prelude to the naming of Jesus's siblings.

On Mary's.perpetual virginity the question occurs to me: Who was responsible for impregnating her? Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was. Does that not make God her de facto husband? If so, her subsequent sexual relations would make her guilty of adultery. I would not want to think that the mother of my Lord was an adulteress.

The topic isn’t really Mary. The topic is the same regardless the subject. It is the magisterium: the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. It is the brick wall that cannot be breached by scripture, history, patristics or reason.

Regarding the Mary's perpetual virginity I think it important to remember what Christ promise. He said the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to truth. Just as a parent reminds his child of the same rule hundreds or thousands of times, so too does the Holy Spirit over centuries through various writings from various locations of the world, and liturgical events and councils point us to the truth and often after a challenge to the teaching and much debate. In other words the teaching office eventually gets it right and to help the faithful adopt the flushed out Holy Spirit truth by defining it. Numbers 30 is key to review here as well as knowing how Mary was consecrated to God at the age of three. It explains her answer to the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1. Her not taking a vow of virginity would not explain her question. Her question to the Angel Gabriel only makes sense if she took a vow as explained in Numbers 30. God kept her for Himself as the Holy Spirit got her pregnant. Are we to believe that God the Holy Spirit would share her with another man? I know most husbands would take offense at the thought of their wife being intimate with another man and would protect her most assuredly...I have to believe the Holy Spirit would certainly protect His bride. Plus if we use the New Testament alone we see some so called "brothers" are actually the sons of Mary the wife of Clips...I believe it is in John's gospel story of who is at the cross.

I think the claim that Origen and tertullian are not church fathers because is not a strong one. They are early believers. This shows that there was doubt on these issues early on. We can’t just say, well these two don’t count.

Haven't listened to the second half yet, but this first half has NOT been charitable to Dr. Ortlund, the few times he began to speak he got cut off.

58:18- 59:05, would love that email if possible!

1:05:36

It's kind of crazy how many catholic apologists used to be reformed. I was "reformed or Calvinist" before going catholic. I think the reason is reformed theology demands careful study of the scripture and if you study it carefully enough, all kinds of catholic doctrine jumps out at you. The contradictions in Calvin's theology stick out as well.... I think it's just a natural chain for reformed to go catholic.

So do catholics not believe it was a sin when Mary thought Jesus was insane?

Whatever the Church has declared of Mary has complete corroboration and support from both Church fathers, Church, scripture and tradition. For 1500yrs no one really questioned the marian dogmas.

THERE IS A MAN WHO WAS EQUAL WITH GOD WHO EMPTIED HIMSELF OF THAT EQUALITY, AND TOOK THE FORM OF A SLAVE, MARY WAS THE MOTHER OF THAT SLAVE, THOUGH A SLAVE HE RETAINED THE PERFECT PERSONALITY OF GOD, BUT NOT HIS POWER BECAUSE HE WAS TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON HIS FATHER FOR EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING HE DID WHAT HIS FATHER TOLD HIM TO DO, AND EVERYTHING HE SAID HE HIS FATHER TOLD HIM TO SAY, AND WHEN HE CLAIMS AUTHORITY, HE ALWAYS SAYS GIVEN UNTO ME BY HIS FATHER HE SAID THREE TIMES, HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY, AND THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE, AND WHEN HE TOLD HIS APOSTLES NOT TO CALL ANYONE FATHER BUT THEIR FATHER IN HEAVEN, AND NOT TO CALL ANYONE RABBI, OR TEACHER BUT HIM, BECAUSE ALL OF YOUR ARE MERELY BROTHERS IN THE FAMILY OF GOD

Couldn’t Eve having been made perfect but choosing imperfection in Faith, while Mary was imperfect in her Sin but Perfect in Faith. Also sex in marriage is good, God said it is so nothing wrong with listening to God and having more kids.

I'm on track to become Lutheran but Catholicism calls to me.

Orland is refreshing though I don't agree with him on many issues. And he's a Baptist!!??? He tries to understand us orthodox and catholics and doesn't show disrespect. He doesn't misuse patristic texts in an obviously intentional way. As for Tertullian: he was a heretic and in the end a schismatic not a Father eben if he getsvlisted as such but he is witness to early Christian belief in the single essence doctrine. So are Justin Martyr & Irenaeus when it comes to the one essence dogma. Tertullian is often listed as a father when he is not. But again he is an excellent historical source for early church belief and controversy.

the immaculate conception was Mary's mother not Mary

I wonder what Mary actually DID FOR SINNERS. Jesus gave up His majesty & power to live a poor, humble life PERFECTLY, the only ONE to do so. He suffered atrocities, physically, psychologically, & emotionally, yet didn't retaliate & loved. He paid the ultimate price-- a humiliating & tortuous death unjustly. He triumphantly returned, still humbly, to give hope to all who believe & follow HIM. Again, does Mary obediently bearing & raising her son even start to approach WHO JESUS IS & WHAT JESUS DID? FOR ALL? I know the an swer is resoundingly no. (Jesus did not venerate her & a couple times rebuked her & made other people on her level " Who is my brother and mother?" ) Nevertheless, the Catholic institution continues to raise & raise & raise her importance, being ascribed God- attributes, & mandating Jesus' followers to depend ON HER to help save, forgive, & answer prayers. I believe Jesus clearly communicated HIS POWER & WILLINGNESS & LOVE to meet ALL needs, along with the Father & Spirit. Mary not necessary or on a par. Please let God be God & do His job -- He's more than able!!!! I hope you believe it.🤔

S]he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God."[13 Martin Luther On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. Martin Luther

I agree. This all comes down to authority. Does Rome possess the authority to define dogma and be the infallible voice of the church. If there was any decent evidence at all in scripture or the early church, then I would be forced to also affirm 3rd century gnostic beliefs that worked their way into the church in the 5th century, like the assumption. However the only scriptures are verses plucked out of context, twisted and crammed into an existing belief. The vast majority of the early church did not view these scriptures the way Rome does now and the early church did not function at all the way Rome does today. It just didn’t. In any way. The Papacy, as we see it today, was a development over time. Rome wasn’t invited to at least one ecumenical council and they definitely weren’t seen as the center of power to make definite and final decisions for the whole church. There are many examples of Rome being overruled locally or ignored. It was a development of authority that the Apostles and the early church didn’t recognize. I have listened to countless RC apologists try and piece together evidence by pulling statements from the early church, while ignoring and omitting the context and other clear statements that deny their claims. This is just bad history and devoid of truly honest review of the facts that we do have. Was Rome important and even critical and amazing in the early church? Of course it was, but the infallible seat of overall authority of the entire Christian world? Of course not. Nobody in the early church even imagined such a thing. So when Rome defines dogmas 1800 years after Christ and makes claims that they have the authority to do so that goes all the way back to the start, but has no evidence for this and the evidence we do have is in opposition, then the silence of supporting fragments for Rome is deafening. Then to claim I must believe these things that there is no evidence for, because Rome, with authority they have little to no basis for, tells me I have to? That’s when I have to say no. Mary was an amazing woman, the mother of God(a Christological term by the way) who should be honored and respected. But I will not take the glory reserved only for Christ and place it upon a creature, who herself claimed she needed a savior. If these dogmas from Rome and the Papacy that gives them the power to make them, were actually true and sound, then there would be much more than a few texts taken out of context, stretched and twisted and a near total silence in the early church. Scripture isn’t the only authority and there is so much to learn and grow from the wonderful teachers and leaders God has given the church, but only scripture is the actual words of God and therefore the only infallible rule of faith. This belief, that scripture stood alone at the top, that all subsequent letters, words, books, people, etc following the Apostles, were subservient to this sure word of God, is something largely affirmed and attested to by the early church. That we have evidence for. What Rome is today is nowhere to be found and hence their “infallible dogmas” are not binding on Christians.

I am not a theologian so I will not use high flying theories. One thing I do want to say is this: if God chose a woman called Mary to be totally immaculate , without sin, so she could be the vessel who would carry the incarnation of the WORD, then this is reason enough for me to believe that nothing changed in her after giving birth . HE did not just want a specific period for her. After giving birth « ok, now you can be a woman like everybody else », makes no sense to me. She was chosen to be the vessel and more. If Jesus on the Cross then says that she will be our mother then she has a special mission in life.

The Holy Spirit makes it clear as day thru Paul, at 1Cor 7:20 - "Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called." (as well as " let those having wives act as not having them," v.29 and "the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better." v.38 - read the whole chapter in this context!) That, and ONLY that serves the HIGHEST spiritual good; and Mary, being 'filled with grace', would be set as stone to 'serve the Highest good' : remaining a virgin, the state in which she was called in, remaining 'overshadowed by the power of The Most High'. Joseph too, if seeking the highest good, would also be afforded graces to share in a chaste bond with Mary & Jesus, as we ALL are called to!

God Father preserved Mary from stain so that the sinless baby Jesus would have a sinless mother.

Why does any literally sinless person need a savior? If Mary is a type of Eve, why isn't she married to Jesus? The Church is the Bride of Christ, typologically, not Mary.

Here’s how it appears to me. The decision was made on other grounds to proclaim the immaculate conception of Mary, and what these very smart men are doing is building a case for her immaculate conception that doesn’t address the initial concern. So, what is the initial concern? Why does it matter (what sense does it make) that Mary was immaculately conceived? That, to me, seems like the important point here, not whether she actually was immaculately conceived. Because in the end, it’s not about Mary. It’s about God. Mary shows us the feminine nature of God. And we desperately need to see that more clearly today.

Dr. Ortlund should really look into becoming Catholic.

It seems to me that Pastor Gavin Ortland claims the authority to himself to cherry pick dogmas...

Since Christ received all of his human DNA from the Virgin Mary she had to be without sin as it fulfills God's first promise in Genesis 3:15.

Gavin would be a great Catholic if he ever came to see the fullness of God's truth. He is one of the few Protestants that l can respect.

Isn't original sin inherited because of Adam? Weren't we cast from Eden because Adam ate from the tree? That would mean the original sin inherited through the Father not the mother. Mary was never sinless and was born with original sin. She was born from her mother and father inheriting her fathers original sin notnher mother's. That is why she needed a Savior just as much as everyone else. Jesus Christ was is the Son of God. He was not born with original sin because he didn't have a human father to inherit that sin from.

God has done great great miracles in the catholic church so I spiritually think catholic church is only the true church....ya I believe other churches too have miracles but not great as catholic church's....

You asked what sin Mary has done I ask you where it say she have no sin? Thinking bad about peter or others is like murder. I am sure that all would think that Peter is toooo much ego, Se me brothers I will be first And many others I think that peter is more in the years with Jesus, is becauce off his personality. Peter would have bad thinks about John, becouce he was the one that Jesus loved. Just to tell that it was ordinary sinfull people, olso Mary. Mary have not stolen, but in thinking she has. The very great wonderfull truth is that God used a virgin, very humbel and working. Many women was like that. You dont need to make “ more “ out of Her than this, what is true The mother of Jesus The mother of “ God “ The one who baere the rediemer of the world And so on Every big person in the bibel was ordinary Peoply in the plan of God, yes we adore them But great that god can use them, he can use a donkey and a bird You go to fare Bless

William is the man.

Vous êtes dans l’erreur comme d’habitude, tous les protestants, pourquoi? Vous devriez savoir que Jacques, frère de Jésus et premier évêque de Jérusalem était plus âgé que Jésus ! Donc! Ce ne sont pas des « frères « mais des cousins ( ce mot cousin n’existe pas en hébreu,) fils de l’autre Maria la femme de Cleopas. ( vérifiez dans votre bible! ) Il faut revoir votre enseignement. Nous avons plus de 2000 ans d’expériences et vie en Christ, vous n’avez aucune racine chrétienne.

Scripture is very clear that Joseph consumated his marriage with Mary after the birth of Christ...

Protestants out of hatred for catholicsm choose to ignore virgin Mary and desperately trying to find fault with catholicsm, without realising that Mary is the woman of Genesis who's seed is to crush the serpent's head, that's why Jesus always address her "woman" not mother, she is the ark of new the covenant that bound to be revered by first century Jews and tradition simply continues till today

Mary was conceived without original sin so that Mary she is worthy to carry in her womb the baby Jesus it happened to be God would have a sinless mother.

"- - Also Mary had other children........" This is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. A willful slandering of the work of the Spirit. “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” ".....She will conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit and her son will be called the son of God" Mary is the most important creation of God. The unforgivable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. a defiant irreverence. Even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. believed in perpetual virginity of Mary, just as the early Christians did. Martin Luther: "Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. Christ was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." John Calvin: "Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." Huldrych Zwingli: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." St Thomas Aquinas: "Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. This error is an insult to the Holy Ghost.

Where does Satan come into play with dogmas of Mary? Scripture clearly in Genesis 3 and Revelation 12 show that Satan is opposing the Virgin Mary to point of being on opposite sides in a war. Clearly Satan will influence various people to oppose every single teaching of Christ's Church. The Marian dogmas are more of a problem for Satan because he hated that she is greater than he as she is a mere creature while he was the greatest of the angles. I think discussions like this fail to mention these key facts.

The typology Mary and the covenant is way off It does not exist

It's a bit funny that here are only men discussing questions of womanhood ... Why is this?