Do Evangelicals reject Mary?

Like the title says do they reject her immaculate conception, her virginity, her assumption and our other Marian dogmas.

Yes, pretty much. We see it as completely not needed. Any protection God could have applied to Mary, He could have equally applied to Jesus.

I suppose we think it’s pointless to make that proclamation.

No. We accept that she was a virgin.

Personally I always get lost on this one. I think it may be true, but I can’t help but wonder why Mary is widely ignored after the Gospels. All the letters and the Acts make little mention of her. But it could be true.

Dunno, but feel free to list more.

Nobody who believes in the Christian Bible can completely reject Marian devotion. Even the Koran praises Mary highly, a concept obviously borrowed from the early Christians. Many Protestants, after Luther, believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have made too much of veneration of the Mary and the other Saints.

Right.^^

There’s a big difference between questioning the necessity of Marian dogmas as dogma, and rejecting Mary, as was asked in the thread title, Calinorth.

“Evangelicals” is a pretty broad category. There is no universal agreement among them on every detail of doctrine. On the whole, I think it’s fair to say that all Evangelicals will accept everything that is unambiguously stated in the Gospels or the Epistles and reject anything that is clearly un-Biblical, though there is always going to be a disputed middle ground. I hope dronald will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are even some Evangelicals who deny the Resurrection.

I think this is one of the problems of Sola Scriptura. The Acts of the Apostles is the acts of the Apostles. Mary is mentioned in this book but the book is about the early days of the Church. The Epistles are written to existing churches, church leaders or individual Christians. Each Epistle has a specific purpose. None of them is written to convey the entirety of the Christian Faith or all facts related in any way to the Faith. Joseph just disappears from Scripture. Most of the Apostles get very little said of them and yet they were Apostles. Scripture is missing a lot of information that would be at least interesting if not edifying to your faith.

Rejecting the dogmas of Mary doesn’t equal rejecting Mary.

In my experience they certainly reject her perpetual virginity.

Agreed.

It’s interesting to note, Revelation notes that the woman who gave birth to Jesus was taken away and hid/protected from the serpent who wished to destroy her. But people still make a big point of Mary not being a bigger character in Acts. She was in hiding from satan and his minions!

Have you considered this problem if Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived?

  1. Did Jesus need saving? I would assume you would say “no”, since God doesn’t need saving.
  2. If Jesus needed “protection” or saving from Original Sin from Mary, then was He really God?
  3. Rejection of the IC undermines the claim of Jesus’ divinity, because salvation must be applied to Jesus to keep Him free from Original Sin.

No. We accept that she was a virgin.

I think many Evangelicals miss the details of the Annunciation. Mary, a married woman who will soon go into her husband’s home, is completely befuddled when the angel says she is going to have a baby. Married women aren’t surprised by this.

Plus I think they miss the connection between the OT and NT, and the Old Covenant and New. They miss the obvious connection Luke draws between Mary and the Ark, and also miss the OT declarations by God that no man may pass through the gate that God has passed through.

Personally I always get lost on this one. I think it may be true, but I can’t help but wonder why Mary is widely ignored after the Gospels. All the letters and the Acts make little mention of her. But it could be true.

Because as Revelation says, she was taken and hidden from satan and his minions who wished to attack her.

Generally speaking, people of the Sola Scriptura camp do reject anything which is not expressly said in the scriptures. Hence, they believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, that she was highly favored by God, and loved by Christ. But nothing in the Bible expressly says anything about perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, or assumption.

Even Catholics weren’t required to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary until 1854. There should be no expectation that Evangelicals would have even heard of such a concept.

Evangelicals do attest to everything plainly said in the bible. Those things that are not plainly said in the bible are not always rejected outright, but there is no requirement to believe them. Although over the course of history, it seems that rejection is the trajectory. An interesting thing about Evangelicalism is how certain practices and beliefs come and go. The Marian beliefs of the Reformers may find favor again in the future.

For the most part Evangelicals find d no reason in scripture to accept such “dogmas”.

Mary is held in the highest esteem . She is a model of faith.

Her perpetual virginity is not accepted as fact. She was married to Joseph. There is no reason to believe she and Joseph had anything other a “normal” Jewish marriage and continued to have sons and daughters.

Most of the legends of Mary are taken from Christian apocryphal writings written from later centuries.

Jesus alone was/is unique, sinless, and holy.

Evangelicals view Marion dogmas a pious fiction…nice stories.

To reject Catholic beliefs concerning her, is not to reject her, just the non-biblical stories about her.

Do Evangelicals accept that the unnamed “woman” in Rev. 12:1 is Mary? Maybe some do, but I don’t think they all do.

No Jesus did not need saving. As the Word incarnate, is was no great feat to preserve His sinlessness.

Mary was “befuddked” because she had no relations yet with her betrothed. She knew why she should not be pregnant…she was " befuddled" because NOW she was pregnant without relations with her betrothed.

Rejection of Marian dogma does not undermine the divinity of Christ.

Jesus IS redemption and salvation. Nothing needed to be “applied” to Him, He is/was whole and complete by the very act of God becoming incarnate,

FWIW, she was befuddled before becoming pregnant. Here is the sequence, with links to the Greek word by word translations. The Angel used future tense (“you will conceive” biblehub.com/text/luke/1-31.htm). Mary’s initial response is also in the future tense (“how can this be?” - literally, “how will be this?” biblehub.com/text/luke/1-34.htm).
The Angel’s response is again in future tense (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you” biblehub.com/text/luke/1-35.htm).
Mary’s second response (“be it done to me” - biblehub.com/text/luke/1-38.htm) is recorded in Greek in the aorist tense, which English doesn’t have - it can be past, present, or future, but it’s also in optative mood, which indicates future. Here, it indicates a step in a process.

The traditional reading of this is that Mary becomes pregnant at her fiat - when she responds affirmatively to the Angel’s words.

I don’t disagree with what you said but since the dogma was not invented there is no reason Evangelicals couldn’t know about it. The church holds the doctrine was present at least implicitly in the teaching of the Church Father. Ignorance of the teaching is ignorance of the early Church.

Obviously there is a lot of disagreement about that, as the Orthodox do not hold to this belief. Appealing to the Fathers can be tricky, and one can often find what they are looking for in them.

No the Orthodox don’t. But I think that is as much do to their understanding of Original Sin.

There’s the problem. The Holy Spirit has to apply some sanctification to Jesus to keep Him free of sin. So it undermines the claim that Jesus is divine, because He needed sanctification/preservation from the Holy Spirit.

Mary was “befuddked” because she had no relations yet with her betrothed. She knew why she should not be pregnant…she was " befuddled" because NOW she was pregnant without relations with her betrothed.

That doesn’t fly. The angel says she “will” become pregnant, not that she is pregnant. A married woman about to enter her husband’s home wouldn’t be confused about how she will get pregnant. There is nothing in Scripture that says Mary became pregnant right then. Only Catholic tradition holds that, do you ascribe to Catholic tradition?

Rejection of Marian dogma does not undermine the divinity of Christ.

Actually it does. It’s just not blatantly evident, but it does. All Marian doctrines are actually about Jesus. They declare His divinity.

Jesus, as divine, preserves Mary from sin, so that He is born in a pure Ark and tabernacle. Mary, as ever-Virgin, declares the truth that Jesus is God because His conception was divine and that no one has entered the gate that God has entered. Jesus saves His mother from decay and raises her into Heaven, which shows He will do the same for us. Jesus, as divine God and Davidic King, makes His mother the Queen Mother of heaven as we see foreshadowed in the OT.

Jesus IS redemption and salvation. Nothing needed to be “applied” to Him, He is/was whole and complete by the very act of God becoming incarnate,

He needed sanctification applied to Him if He needed to be preserved from Original Sin from Mary.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.