Mary - Christian Prototype

[Paul Yohannan]

Not true, because that would mean salvation is of works.

Faith without works is dead. Read the Epistle of St. James.

There are no saints in Heaven who were martyred boasting that they are there because they were martyred.

This is an extreme red herring.

In the event, as Revelations confirms, there are martyrs in Heaven.

"Mary is the mother of the Church, being the Mother of Jesus."

Mary is not the Mother of the Church. That is a false doctrine.

It is not a false doctrine; it is entirely correct.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not true, because that would mean salvation is of works. There are no saints in Heaven who were martyred boasting that they are there because they were martyred.

No, it wouldn't. Stephen went to heaven because he was martyred.

"Mary is the mother of the Church, being the Mother of Jesus."

Mary is not the Mother of the Church. That is a false doctrine.

Maybe it is a false doctrine in your denomination, but it's not a false doctrine in the Catholic Church.

 

[Philip_B]

Not true, because that would mean salvation is of works. There are no saints in Heaven who were martyred boasting that they are there because they were martyred.

The post is mistaken here. The relationship between faith and works is complex, and whilst we know that the works are to be the fruit of faith, and faith is the the mechanism by which grace operates. In witness to the matter of Martyrs allow me to provide the witness of Matthew.

Matthew 10:39
Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.​

The story of Mathew Ayairga is perhaps a case in point. Somehow caught up in a religiously motivated attack on a group of Coptic Orthodox Christians the faith of the 20 convicted him and being asked to submit to another God and live his words were simply 'their God is my God'. His blood now calls from the sands of Libya in witness to the love of God in Christ Jesus, and we know (yes I said we know) that he with the other 20 have a place in the Kingdom, because God is faithful and just, and because Jesus told us so, and I cite in witness whereof the witness of John.

John 6:37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;​

"Mary is the mother of the Church, being the Mother of Jesus." Mary is not the Mother of the Church. That is a false doctrine.

The mystery of the Body of Christ is indeed entangled in ecclesiology as St Paul tells us.

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.​

Now the record is plain that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. And I don't think we are debating this, but for completion lets us include the witness of Luke.

Luke 2:1-7
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.​

Is it reasonable to conclude that there should be a distinction between the Body of Christ as we find it in the Church and as we find it in the person of Jesus. (I do know there is another part of this argument, however I would to keep it simple at the moment and no take the discussion off thread). Clearly on one level that is correct, however at another level that is lacking an understanding of what St Paul teaches us about the Body of Christ in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1:4-31
I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus, for in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind— just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you— so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’​

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’​

My point being is that if Christ is certainly in one sense at least not divided, and that we, the Church, are members not simply of one another but members of Christ undivided, then there is a reasonable and valid basis by which we would understand Mary to be the Mother of the Church. I don't for one moment think that your salvation is dependent on this notion, however I do argue that there is a reasonable basis to draw this conclusion which you dismiss (wrongly I believe) as a false doctrine.

____________________

† † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † †​

We give thanks and praise to God for the witness of Mathew Ayairga and the 20 other Coptic Martyrs and pray that our faith may be made stronger by the witness of the blood that cries from the sands of Libya, and may they Rest in Peace and Rise in Glory!

____________________

 

[Light of the East]

This implies that "redeemed" man is in Hell. That makes no sense.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The free gift came upon all men. That is pretty clear, isn't it? Our Lord did what no one else did or could do - restore mankind and individuals to relationship with God. Now if a man chooses not to take advantage of that, that is on him, but God has done all the work necessary to redeem the human race.

Those who suffer in the next life will be those who have not taken the free gift to all mankind and worked with it to change themselves into the likeness of Christ and attain union with Him, which is eternal salvation or eternal life.

 

[Light of the East]

Jesus has always existed, because He is God.

What does this have to do with Abel? You claimed that righteousness is only in Christ. Before Christ was born on earth, before He could do righteousness and thus become the righteous Son of God, Abel existed and is called "righteous." Therefore, Abel is righteous in and of himself because he did righteous acts.

What his righteousness couldn't do was to overcome the separation from God caused by the Fall and restore mankind to union with God. But my point remains, as does my question:

How is Abel called righteous thousands of years before Christ is born?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

What does this have to do with Abel? You claimed that righteousness is only in Christ. Before Christ was born on earth, before He could do righteousness and thus become the righteous Son of God, Abel existed and is called "righteous." Therefore, Abel is righteous in and of himself because he did righteous acts.

What his righteousness couldn't do was to overcome the separation from God caused by the Fall and restore mankind to union with God. But my point remains, as does my question:

How is Abel called righteous thousands of years before Christ is born?

Well, righteousness is an uncreated energy of God and is not dependent on the Incarnation.

 

[Light of the East]

Well, righteousness is an uncreated energy of God and is not dependent on the Incarnation.

I have never heard righteousness described as one of God's uncreated energies. My understanding of it is more passive, that it is simply an adjective which describes the state of a person who is in right relationship to God.

This definition strikes me as problematic, for if it is an uncreated energy of God, then He should be able to simply give it to everyone like a thing - like candy being handed out.

What I am responding to in the post I am answering is the Protestant idea (false teaching) that men cannot be righteous in and of themselves, but must have the righteousness of Christ "imputed" to them, put on their legal account, so to speak.

I could see righteousness in your definition if by our actions we acquire more of the Holy Spirit and thus enter into a deeper theosis, changing our ontological being to be like Christ. But it still has to do with our choice to surrender to God through the righteous acts we do in response to Him.

Now.....go ahead and correct me! LOL!!!

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I have never heard righteousness described as one of God's uncreated energies. My understanding of it is more passive, that it is simply an adjective which describes the state of a person who is in right relationship to God.

Hmm you know, you may well be right on this point, in which case righteousness in Jesus would begin with His incarnation, being particular to His humanity.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

By the way this has been a wonderful thread and I want to salute @Philip_B for posting it

 

[Philip_B]

Righteousness is of the very nature of God. God is Righteous. It is in the nature of God to be Righteous. The Greek, and I will leave it to those who love Greek more than me, if very closely allied to the idea of Justification - being made right with God - being set to right with God. Of our own volition this very attribute of God we do not attain to ourselves, save through grace - the undeserved gift of God.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Anglican, not really Protestant as in a byproduct of the Reformation.

I was going to have a shot at Paul for describing me and my Church as Protestant. Our classic self description is both catholic and reformed.

This is completely untrue; Cranmer was one of the most important reformers, and the Church of England breaking away from Rome is one of the most important events in the history of Protestantism.

It simply is not tenable to say that the Anglicans are not Protestant; they are more Protestant and more Reformed than Lutheranism (the Anglicans were basically high church Calvinists; the official interpretation of the Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer clearly describes a Calvinist view; see the Black Rubric).

Funny how in the post immediately before you write Angilcans are Protestants, the Anglican that started this thread affirmed and blessed me for my statement. Take up your arguement with him.

I have no argument with Philip_B.

So when I say Anglicans are not Protestant, you want to argue me.
When Philip says Anglicans are not Protestant, you don't want to argue him.

I guess you desire to argue people instead of the ideas stated by the people, even when the people say the same thing.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So when I say Anglicans are not Protestant, you want to argue me.
When Philip says Anglicans are not Protestant, you don't want to argue him.

I guess you desire to argue people instead of the ideas stated by the people, even when the people say the same thing.

Philip_B regards Anglicanism as Catholic and Reformed, which is akin to calling it Protestant. Philip is also a close personal friend and he and I are on the same page and have discussed these issues considerably behind the scenes. He understands my perspective, and there is no disagreement between the two of us on this issue.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Not looking for some obscure sect that you use to paint a general behavior to Lutherans in general and then claim some superior knowledge to one that was actually Lutheran for a long time as said. Yet, you chide me to opine in another's church of affiliation.

Hardly an obscure sect.

Lets just assume that if you are on this list then you are not in an obscure sect.
List of Christian denominations by number of members - Wikipedia
Oriental Orthodoxy has 86 million members and as the fourth largest group ahead of the Anglicans at 85 million one might conclude that neither of these groups is obscure.

So are you changing your story and now count yourself as Protestant, and also Lutheran?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So are you changing your story and now count yourself as Protestant, and also Lutheran?

What are you talking about?

Philip B is an Anglican, I am Oriental Orthodox. Please stop quoting our discussions out of context. Phil and I are very close friends and brothers in Christ. We are from different denominations, but agree on most questions of faith.

In that post, Phil and I were in agreement, that the denominations we were discussing were too large to be considered, as one member had argued, obscure sects.

Once again, please do not quote our discussions at us out of context.

 

[Philip_B]

So when I say Anglicans are not Protestant, you want to argue me.
When Philip says Anglicans are not Protestant, you don't want to argue him. I guess you desire to argue people instead of the ideas stated by the people, even when the people say the same thing.

OK Here Goes.

The Anglican Church is structurally and Organically Catholic. This is perhaps easily understood in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

1. The Holy Scriptures, as containing all things necessary to salvation;
2. The Creeds (specifically, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), as the sufficient statement of Christian faith;
3. The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion;
4. The historic episcopate, locally adapted.

The tenor of the Elizabethan Settlement - perhaps best understood in the 39 Articles, is that the way forward from a time of great crisis was that every loyal christian could be bound to Church and Monarch in the complexity of the relationship between Church and State. So no new Church but rather a new way forward for the Church and for the Country.

An Anglican is a member of a Catholic Church, though numbers of them may declare their own faith to be reformed or protestant, number of them understand their faith to be catholic or orthodox. So knowing someone in an Anglican allows you to recognise them as being a member of a Catholic Church however it tells you nothing of their specific faith position.

The splitski that happened between the Patriarch of the West and the King of England was not a result of doctrinal issues, and the Act of Supremacy had to do with the Authority of the Pope in England. This authority had not really be challenged since the excommunication of Stigand in 1052 who continued as Archbishop of Canterbury until after the Papal authorised Norman Conquest in 1066 when he was deposed in 1070, and jailed and unfortunately they forgot to feed him.

The Church was present in the land of England for probably 500 years before the Augustinian Mission to Kent, so I don't find Anglicanism to be novel or protestant, however I do find Anglicanism big enough to be a home for people who are, and for people like me who are not. I understand that for non-Anglicans this makes us infuriatingly complex to deal with.

So are you changing your story and now count yourself as Protestant, and also Lutheran?

I don't believe I have changed my story. I do not count myself as a protestant. I also do not count myself as a Lutheran, though many years back I attended a Lutheran Church, where I was warmly received, kindly dealt with and helped to grow as a Christian, and it is a period of my life which I remember for it's kindness with people who never found a need to label me anything.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It is in praying to her, as one prays to God,

This is the WHOLE POINT which we bring up over, and over, and over again -- we do NOT pray to her "as one prays to God." When we talk to Mary, we are asking her, no different than we would ask you, to pray for us to God through Christ. That's NOTHING like praying to God.

The issue is not that the dead saints can petition God for the living. There is scripture supporting this. The issue is, can the dead saints be so all knowing as to read our minds.

It should be obvious that when I ask someone living to pray FOR me TO God, that there is NO doubt that the person can hear me. They can in brotherly compassion pray TO God FOR me, as scripture teaches us to do.

Now how do I know that someone living can hear me such that they know my petition? Because they can talk back to me and I can hear them.

Communication on earth is two way. We both talk and listen, can hear the other party. This is in NO way similar to those that "talk" to Mary. Does Mary "talk" back to them?

Now we can't hear God like we hear a living brother, so how do we know that God can hear us? Scripture says so, that God hears all and knows all our thoughts.

How do we know that Mary can hear what we say both aloud and silently? Certainly not from scripture. And so the majority of Protestant that subscribe to Sola Scriptura will not be convinced to follow a man-made tradition of praying/talking to Mary.

Do those that "talk" to Mary also "talk" to their dead relatives? Or, is Mary so special that she is the only saint that can hear the thoughts of all the living saints? Can you not see why we think this borders on idolatry, thinking that Mary has the same ability as God to hear and read the minds of so numerous living saints?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

What are you talking about?

Philip B is an Anglican, I am Oriental Orthodox. Please stop quoting our discussions out of context. Phil and I are very close friends and brothers in Christ. We are from different denominations, but agree on most questions of faith.

In that post, Phil and I were in agreement, that the denominations we were discussing were too large to be considered, as one member had argued, obscure sects.

Once again, please do not quote our discussions at us out of context.

You are the one that needs to remember the context of the question. There is a reason that I quoted the question and even highlighted it in RED. That question was about Protestant and Lutherans subscribing to certain veneration and even praying to Mary. For Philip to jump in and list a bunch of Anglican churches does not address the question to you.

You have said most Protestants venerate Mary, what ever that means. I don't know how you would delineate between venerating and respecting her, making a distinction to a particular denomination. I can't see how any Christian would not respect Mary, but this whole thread is demanding more than that.

I framed the context in something much more quantifiable, such as those who create shrines to Mary and pray to her, not naming a church in a saints name. I say the majority of Protestants do not subscribe to such. You argue this, but don't have good numbers on your side.

Again, if you wish to dig through the thread, this is a long continuation of your initial statement that the argument in this thread is not one of Protestant against Catholic.

Please look through all the context presented in the multiple posts to refresh what the context is, because both of you have lost it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You have said most Protestants venerate Mary, what ever that means.

This is certainly true. Lutherans and Anglicans and many Merhodists have iconography depicting her; John Calvin accepted her perpetual virginity. Martin Luther believed her to be the Mother of God.

What is less common in Protestantism is intercessory prayer.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The question I ask, and the great fear I have is, if we remove Mary theotikos from the story and simply relegate her to the back rooms of our doctrine, what does this do to our theology of the atonement?

Your fear is unwarranted, for scripture list wherein lies our atonement. It is in the sacrifice of Jesus in his death.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Hebrews 2:17For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

No scripture teaches any certain "understanding" or practice toward Mary is required for atonement of our sins.

Do we damage our soteriology in order to save us from the risk of falling into error?

How do we embrace the humanity of God in Christ Jesus without some sensible acknowledgement of the role of Mary?

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel​

As for salvation, even the RCC does not force belief of such for salvation. You allude to a "damaged? salvation, but I say either you are or not saved. No half saved people. As for the requirements for salvation scripture puts it as simply as

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Now, I don't want to start another huge debate on the requirements of salvation, only that it has nothing to do with ones understanding or reverence of Mary.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

St. Yevgeny Rodniodov, Martyr for Christ, pray for us!

Do those that "talk" to Mary also "talk" to their dead relatives?

We either pray for or pray with the deceased, depending on whether or not we know them to be glorified.

In the Orthodox Church, when a saint is determined to be in Heaven, one last memorial service is had for him, at which he is prayed for, and from then on, he is prayed with, officially.

However, unofficially, saints are venerated before their official veneration. An example would be St. Yevgeny Rodniodov. He is a Russian Orthodox soldier who was captured and beheaded by Chechen Muslims in 1996. They offered to spare his life if he embraced Islam. He refused. His glorification has not yet occurred officially, primarily due to a question raised by some bishops concerning his military status, but I and many others venerate him as a saint (if he had died in combat, that would not be martyrdom; if he had been beheaded for reasons other than refusing to commit apostasy by becoming a Muslim that would also not be martyrdom, but as it happens, he was captured, and then killed, for refusing to renounce Christ).