Christs "Family"...a Calvinist perspective

The a-C writes a position as follows which I post here in fairness, exactly as he wrote it and with no response from me yet. While I do what he proposes, and take my time to consider and examine this perspective, I ask the readers to do the same and feel free to comment in advance of a formal response by me. Combox is wide open.

(a-C writes)
I put a lot of time into this, take your time and chew on it

Mary’s Christocentric biblical position…I am sorry, but that is such and incredible attribute to esteem to someone. Is she the only one that has this attribute? Are there others who are Christocentric? Has this same quality been identified in others. I will explain the text of John as the author intended, above all you and I must agree that irrespective of anybodies thoughts on anything, we always go to the intent of the scripture and interpret what the writer conveyed and see how all of scripture establishes this. To say that John intended to convey that Mary is Christocentric is simply not there. If this is all it takes to establish such a doctrine, well then, employing such techniques renders the establishment of doctrine to be nearly limitless. Mary said to the servent, do what ever he says…that establishes something about Mary? I am not being cynical, this is a reality. You must agree with this! To take a mere conversation and exchange between Mary and some servents at a wedding and infer that this establishes anything about Mary is simply beyond me.

The purpose of John is

John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Similarly, the opening renders its same objective

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The reality is that John’s conveyance of the personification of onlys as they pertain to Jesus are innumerable and solely pointed to the Lord

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The writer of John says his intent of writing is to convey that Jesus is God….that belief in Jesus Christ results in a supernatural Birth that is the only means of entering the Kingdom of God (this in and of itself refutes most all of papal doctrine about the means that Catholicism establishes…but I will ignore that for now, difficult as that is).

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the word (logos in the greek mean word and is referring to the person of Jesus Christ) and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God, all things that were made were made by him, and nothing that was made was made apart from him. Christ had no beginning, he had no mother who created him, he existed prior to the foundation of the World and made every single thing in the universe according to John.

Then he shows how John the Baptist was sent by God to be a messenger …… Jesus esteemed John above all other men (and women including Mary) when he said among man, there has never been one greater…this was the person that the Gospel writers revealed the quality that he must decrease and that his ministry was complete as he desired to see the Lord Jesus Christ alone magnified. That is the heart of the doctrine that equally refutes all this trash of praying to saints or Mary or dead popes or any such notion of anyone contributing to the work of Christ. It is singular!

The fact that Mary instructed the servents at the wedding is revealing about Mary. But look at the Lord’s response to her preceding, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." Mary was anticipating something of the Lord, she knew that something was different, but she clearly did not understand how his ministry would play out. This is evidenced by the reality that none of her children, none of the Lord’s brothers and sisters believed in the Lord Jesus Christ until after his death! They did not understand. The author John also includes insight as to how ordinary the people thought Jesus was in that the knew how ordinary his family was. This rebuke evidences her involvement was so unconnected to the Lord, that she was rebuked for even speakin about the ability to perform miracles. his rebuking of her involvement in thinking that. John further makes it clear that the people were astounded that Jesus was able to do things as he did yet his father and his mother were astounded that his parents (and family for that matter, were extraordinarily ordinary John 6: 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" If John intended for something about Mary to be conveyed, wouldn’t the Lord have used this opportunity to demonstrate a Christocentric quality about Mary and let her perform the miracle apart from him?

Mary never performed any miracle, never spoke the gospel in the book of acts and never had any role at all subsequent to Jesus departure, never shared scripture with anyone, never was esteemed with teaching Jesus anything, never wrote any scripture (nor did any other woman). never was the object of the Jeruselum council in Acts 15, is not anywhere in the marriage feast of the lamb in Revelation, is not in any way to be deemed to be anything other than a sinner in need of God’s grace in the same way that you and I are. She is not mentioned anywhere in the epistles, no explanation about her supposed intercession, her co-redemtrix, or any such thing what so ever. My friend showed me the Catholic church bulletin and asked how a quote from Luke (I think, don’t have it in front of me) establishes a position about Mary. He read the scripture and said, this does not even speak to this subject. He has grown in biblical discernment as he has now the ability to explain how 8 consecutive chapters of Romans fits like a glove and is overwhelmed when he hears someone explain something with the contents of Romans that is completely outside any scope or intent of what the Holy Spirit spoke thru Paul. The same can be said about John’s Gospel. He stated his intent builds it, concludes with it, and clearly establishes it.

John not only does not esteem any such attribute to Mary, he continues to make it extraordinarily clear that Mary was earthly ordinary and following his departure made it clear that it was John’s responsibility to care for her after the Lord’s departure. John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" That again reveals that the Lords appointment to John to care for his mother was a responsibility that was needed to be done and that the danger that those of the way of Christ faced was imminent. His brothers were not around, likely they were in fear for their lives and did not believe in Jesus at this point. Mary could not even care for herself such that the Lord charged Jesus with the need to care for him to which he did according to John 19:27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own [home.] as the Lord commanded him.

John did not in any way esteem Mary as Christocentric…In Fact that term is not even in the Bible as one might infer it to another person. To the contrary John portrayed her as a woman who was addressed in ordinary terms…woman what does this have to do with me…woman your son….she needed to be cared for, not prayed to at the hour of his death….John did not do any such thing. And to esteem that from these words is beyond incredulous of any person trying to teach such a quality…their condemnation is just.

If you would like to examine Luke’s writing I would be more than happy, first though you must answer the question…am I seen by you as faithfully conveying the biblical intent of John?