Clayton on Nostr: I read this article today and it is beyond bad. Especially the section: "The positive ...

I read this article today and it is beyond bad.

Especially the section:

"The positive evidence for Mary’s Immaculate Conception is based on three key Scriptural considerations."

In addition, the strongest arguments FOR this Maryology is often that it isn't ruled out by Scripture:

"As this very brief overview shows, none of the four major Marian dogmas are beyond the bounds of what the Bible teaches."

Then:

"Even if the sincere Protestant isn’t yet ready to embrace the Catholic understanding of Church authority, he can still accept that the Catholic view of Our Lady never contradicts—and in many ways is supported by—a close reading of Sacred Scripture."

It absolutely contradicts on some points (no sinless human being other than Jesus) and is in no way supported by a close reading. In fact, the opposite is true. No one would come to those conclusions from simply reading the Word.

"the Protestant must believe that for more than a thousand years leading up to the Reformation, the Holy Spirit allowed every Christian on the planet to believe in all manner of doctrines that Protestants today would regard as unbiblical."

The real takeaway is, look how far from the truth we can get when we DON'T read the Scriptures for ourselves. When a Church had the authority to tell people what God says instead of them being able to read it for themselves, some of the most despicable things were done and believed.

I listen to and respect some catholic theologians and enjoy listening to debates on the topic.

But this article is really bad and easily dismissed when one knows the Bible.