Mary - Christian Prototype

[BobRyan]

This is offtopic. Please return to the topic of St. Mary as a Christian Prototype.

Fine - I thought I was just responding to your initiatives in your post.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Corinthians 15 describes an event that occurred ar the passion of our Lord.

It is the belief of traditional Christianity that Christ ministered to those souls in Hades, .

I pointed to details "in the text" where Paul clearly shows he is speaking of a future event. You have not responded to those details in the text - so I assume your preference is not to or to do so on some other thread.

That is fine with me.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Fine - I thought I was just responding to your initiatives in your post.

Indeed, and that's fine, but we were starting to drift too far off-topic

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I pointed to details "in the text" where Paul clearly shows he is speaking of a future event. You have not responded to those details in the text - so I assume your preference is not to or to do so on some other thread.

That is fine with me.

We can either discuss this in another thread or in this thread if we retuen to a Marian context

 

[BobRyan]

There were no Protestants until the 1500s.

The idea that there were is a huge error, devised by ill-educated 19th century theologians searching for some kind of antiquity to their faith.

There were two schismatic groups with Protestant-like doctrines: the Waldensians and the Hussites. Both survive until the present.

The Bogomils, Cathari, Albigensians, Paulicians and so on were Gnostics, whose belief systems are repugnant to Nicene Christianity. Strictly speaking, they are not Christians according to the CF.com Statement of Faith.

1. We don't know that those claims are true about some of the groups you name because we don't have their own statements on that point - we only have the statements of those who killed them.
2. What is not a Christian - is killing someone because you think they are not a Christian. I think you and I would both agree to that.

Protestantism as a movement began when Martin Luther, who was a Catholic, was able to galvanize opposition to the corrupt and incompetent ecclesiastical administration of Leo X.

True - pretty much all Protestant leaders were in fact Catholic theologians. There were no "protestants" at the start - they were all Catholics. Those Catholic priests and scholars gave Bible studies to their fellow Catholics and called for "reform" called for "protest" against doctrines and practices that did not harmonize with the Bible.

It was not so much a "protestant initiative" as a "Catholic one".

However, one cannot help but wonder if the improvements and reduction in corruption that followed the Counter Reformation could have happened without the needless bloodshed.

It is pretty obvious that simply determining that some person or group differs with you on a given doctrine does not give you the right to do them bodily harm or steal all of their possessions. I think we would all agree to that.

And without that "principle" ingrained during the dark ages -- I don't think any of those groups would have so willingly jumped off the cliff. No in the case of the Bohemians and those resisting similar crusades against them - it was self-defense. We can all understand self-defense.

I just don't see the point in arguing for doing someone bodily harm - simply because they hold to a different view of doctrine.

As for how this relates to Mary - I think we would both agree - that she was never quoted as promoting bodily harm against someone simply because they held to a different doctrinal view than she held.

One wonders then - where this idea came from.

 

[BobRyan]

We can either discuss this in another thread or in this thread if we return to a Marian context

You were in a conversation with someone about "postmortem conversion" -- I did not trace your discussion far enough back to find out how you were connecting that topic to Mary.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And without that "principle" ingrained during the dark ages --

The Dark Ages had ended centuries before the Reformation.

Also, that period was a period in which the only major violence bwtween Christians was the persecution of Orthodox by Monothelites and Iconoclasts in Constantinople. There was also a lot of persecution of Christians by Arians.

However in the West, in the Roman Catholic areas, there was very little non-political violence between Christians before the early Renaissance.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You were in a conversation with someone about "postmortem conversion" -- I did not trace your discussion far enough back to find out how you were connecting that topic to Mary.

The answer there is simple: because Mary is the mother of God, and all persons were saved by the Incarnation, any persons who died before the passion of our Lord were saved in the Harrowing of Hell.

Now, we really need to get back on topic. Please lets both make sure all of our replies going forward relate to Mary

 

[Paul Yohannan]

True - pretty much all Protestant leaders were in fact Catholic theologians. There were no "protestants" at the start - they were all Catholics. Those Catholic priests and scholars gave Bible studies to their fellow Catholics and called for "reform" called for "protest" against doctrines and practices that did not harmonize with the Bible.

Indeed so; none of the reformers were Orthodox, which is why the Theotokos remains universally venerated in the Orthodox Church.

 

[BobRyan]

The answer there is simple: because Mary is the mother of God, and all persons were saved by the Incarnation, any persons who died before the passion of our Lord were saved in the Harrowing of Hell.

Now, we really need to get back on topic. Please lets both make sure all of our replies going forward relate to Mary

Ok - because the Bible does not support that statement you made - so I hope it has nothing to do with your view of Mary.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed so; none of the reformers were Orthodox, which is why the Theotokos remains universally venerated in the Orthodox Church.

I find your logic illusive at that point. The priests and theologians were not "orthodox" if they notice an error in the RCC practices or doctrines - "And so Mary remains universally venerated in the Orthodox Church"??

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Ok - because the Bible does not support that statement you made - so I hope it has nothing to do with your view of Mary.

The Bible directly supports it. Jesus Christ is God incarnate, we are saved through His incarnation (John 1) and Mary is His Mother, the Mother of the Incarnate God

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I find your logic illusive at that point. The priests and theologians were not "orthodox" if they notice an error in the RCC practices or doctrines - "And so Mary remains universally venerated in the Orthodox Church"??

The Orthodox Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

The Reformers, Cranmer, Luther, Calvin et al were not Orthodox, they were Roman Catholic, until they left or were excommunicated by Rome.

The sole exception is Wesley, who started out as Anglican but actually converted to Orthodoxy in secret, and was ordained a bishop in the Orthodox Church (thus in a sense, Methodism is a "lost tribe" of Orthodoxy; Wesley's theology of "entire sanctification" is entirely Orthodox and identical with our own Theosis concept).

Thus, in the Orthodox Church, which is the world's second largest denomination (or second and third if one insists on dividing the Eastern and Oriental churches), St. Mary is universally venerated as the Mother of God, and there has never been a "reformation" or a "revival."

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible directly supports it. Jesus Christ is God incarnate,

That is certainly true. It is a sovereign act of God. So also Christ's death on the cross because it is His act of dying for our sins - paying our debt of sin that saves us. "Showing up" is great - but all for nothing if He does not choose to die for our sins.

We probably both agree on that point.

we are saved through His incarnation (John 1)

No text says "we are saved through his incarnation" - Any more than "We are saved because the angels sang to the shepherds in Bethlehem" -- all of these are in the chain of events leading to the cross. And we are thankful for all of them.

and Mary is His Mother, the Mother of the Incarnate God

No text calls Mary "Mother of Incarnate God" nor "instructor of Incarnate God".
No text calls Joseph "Teacher of God"
No text calls him "Stronger than God... protector of God"

I think we all know most of that already.

 

[BobRyan]

The Orthodox Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Agreed - but you phrased that post in a way that I found hard to follow.

The Reformers, Cranmer, Luther, Calvin et al were not Orthodox, they were Roman Catholic, until they left or were excommunicated by Rome.

Ok - yes true, they were not EO.

The sole exception is Wesley, who started out as Anglican but actually converted to Orthodoxy in secret, and was ordained a bishop in the Orthodox Church (thus in a sense, Methodism is a "lost tribe" of Orthodoxy; Wesley's theology of "entire sanctification" is entirely Orthodox and identical with our own Theosis concept).

Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is derived in some respects from the Methodists. Ellen White was a Methodist and we are Arminian as are the Methodists.

Thus, in the Orthodox Church, which is the world's second largest denomination (or second and third if one insists on dividing the Eastern and Oriental churches), St. Mary is universally venerated as the Mother of God, and there has never been a "reformation" or a "revival."

I see - so what you mean is that while the RCC still venerates Mary - the "protesting Catholics" that broke away do not - but the Orthodox - having many groups do not have one of them no longer venerating Mary.

The protesting Catholic groups - are limiting themselves to statements about Mary actually found in the Bible.

And as we both agree - the Bible writers had no disdain, dislike or desire to vilify Mary.

 

[Philip_B]

That is certainly true. It is a sovereign act of God. So also Christ's death on the cross because it is His act of dying for our sins - paying our debt of sin that saves us. "Showing up" is great - but all for nothing if He does not choose to die for our sins.

We probably both agree on that point.

No text says "we are saved through his incarnation" - Any more than "We are saved because the angels sang to the shepherds in Bethlehem" -- all of these are in the chain of events leading to the cross. And we are thankful for all of them.

No text calls Mary "Mother of Incarnate God" nor "instructor of Incarnate God".
No text calls Joseph "Teacher of God"
No text calls him "Stronger than God... protector of God"

I think we all know most of that already.

The mission and purpose of the mission of Jesus was the reconciliation of God and Humankind. I hope I don't need to provide Bible references for that.

Jesus was, in his very person, wholly divine and wholly human, so indeed in his very being he was the embodiment of his mission here, the reconciliation of God and Man.

That is possible because Mary of her own self will determined that she was prepared to be part of God's plan.

So what is the problem?

 

[BobRyan]

The mission and purpose of the mission of Jesus was the reconciliation of God and Humankind. I hope I don't need to provide Bible references for that.

Jesus was, in his very person, wholly divine and wholly human, so indeed in his very being he was the embodiment of his mission here, the reconciliation of God and Man.

That is possible because Mary of her own self will determined that she was prepared to be part of God's plan.

So what is the problem?

There is a chain of events leading to the cross - we don't need to deny one of them to uphold the cross as the saving event for mankind. Nobody is denying the "incarnation" of God the Son - into Jesus Christ.

What I do object to is there are sometimes efforts to rewrite "incarnation" as if it was "procreation" and then Mary is "God's Mother".

My preference then is not to go beyond what the Bible writers actually say.

In fact there is one event where someone shouts out to Christ "BLESSED is the woman who nursed you" specifically pointing to her biological role-- and how "instructive" that Jesus' response begins with "ON the CONTRARY.."
Luke 11:27-28


I am wondering how often Orthodox responses to "Blessed is Christ's Mother..." begin with "on the contrary..."

More than this - I am wondering if in response the person merely quoted Luke 11:27-28,...in the orthodox church. Would they be immediately condemned??

 

[Philip_B]

‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’


hmmogpfusnaathood​

 

[BobRyan]

‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’​

indeed - another Bible fact.

We need not deny anything the Bible says.

Which is why I enjoy sticking with it.

For example we have "Stephen full of grace" in the book of Acts 6:8

 

[JoeP222w]

That is inaccurate. Certain works are inherently righteousnin that they are in alighment with the uncreated energies of God.

....

If they are not done out of the love of God and the love of others, it is nothing more than filthy rags.

If you are understanding that I am denying the role of works in the Christians life, you have completely misunderstood me.

not as much as on the Epistle of James, which Luther tried to delete from the Bible

Luther was not infallible and Christians follow Jesus Christ, not Luther, not Mary, not a Pope or any other sinful man.

but it is impossible in light of the Gospel of Matthew to say that works play no part in salvation.

Works are a demonstration of salvation, not a pre-requisite for salvation. That is what the whole book of James is about. A Christian will demonstrate their saving faith by works, but not through those works does the Christian believe he is made righteous before God.