Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[SabbathBlessings]

False, thar’s a strawman, we do not believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was God, we do not believe that she existed before her birth a couple of decades before the Nativity of our Lord, and we do not worship her.

In saying she is the Mother of God, we are confessing the deity of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully Man, God Incarnate. We do not teach that she is the origin of the uncreated divine essence of the Holy Trinity.

Perhaps you should look into what we traditional Christians (including Martin Luther and most Lutherans and Anglicans, and also surprisingly enough John Calvin, both of whom recognized St. Mary as theotokos) actually believe before accusing us of Mariolatry.

The popular denial of the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos was the result of a renewed frenzy of anti-Catholicism associated with the rise of Restorationist churches in the 19th century, churches which also aggressively attacked Lutherans and other traditional churches, and which were usually either unaware of the existence of the Orthodox, or regarded them as heathen.

Just find one scripture that says Mary is the Mother of God. Luther was a former priest, it was taking a while for him to unlearn everything he was taught, but regardless for me, I prefer to stick with what the Bible teaches.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I will let @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch recommend a good history of the Reformation and Martin Luther.

I once heard an Englishman from the Church of England say ...."American Evangelicals believe ancient history is anything pre-C.S. Lewis!" So true.

Due to the anti-historical nature of American Evangelism, any study of historical theology is a good thing...even if the author graduated from the Dr. Seuss School of Theology.

 

[BNR32FAN]

An erring (wandering) Christian is one of two things:
1) a professing Christian whose faith is not genuine (Heb 6:4-8, 2 Pe 2:20-21), and the death (v.20) is the second death (Rev 21:8), or
2) a sinning Christian who needs to be restored, and the death (v.20) is physical death (1 Co 11:30).

He specifically said that if he turns BACK his SOUL will be saved from death. The only thing the person can turn BACK to that will save his SOUL from death is the truth about Christ.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just find one scripture that says Mary is the Mother of God. Luther was a former priest, it was taking a while for him to unlearn everything he was taught, but regardless for me, I prefer to stick with what the Bible teaches.

This is an ad hominem fallacy, the fallacious nature of which is proven by the fact that John Calvin was a lawyer by training, not a clergyman, and he agreed with the Theotokos definition.

Indeed even Pepperdine School of Divinity, which is associated with the Churches of Christ (Restorationist Stone/Campbell offshoot), teaches its seminarians that Nestorianism is an error. They issue a booklet which is an index of the classical heresies.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is an ad hominem fallacy, the fallacious nature of which is proven by the fact that John Calvin was a lawyer by training, not a clergyman, and he agreed with the Theotokos definition.

Indeed even Pepperdine School of Divinity, which is associated with the Churches of Christ (Restorationist Stone/Campbell offshoot), teaches its seminarians that Nestorianism is an error. They issue a booklet which is an index of the classical heresies.

Trying to prove our case through scripture is not an ad hominem. You keep quoting outside sources as if they are the authority. They are not for me.

We are getting off topic. So I’ll leave it as agree to disagree

 

[BNR32FAN]

Just find one scripture that says Mary is the Mother of God. Luther was a former priest, it was taking a while for him to unlearn everything he was taught, but regardless for me, I prefer to stick with what the Bible teaches.

““Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1‬:‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to this verse did Mary give birth to God?

 

[The Liturgist]

Trying to prove our case through scripture is not an ad hominem.

No, the ad hominem was your baseless claim that Martin Luther was somehow still confused by his time as a Roman Catholic priest.

Nonetheless, the doctrine that he, and John Calvin, and the entire early Church, as well as most Anglicans and indeed most Christians in general adhere to is scriptural, based on John 1:1-18. End of discussion.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

““Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1‬:‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to this verse did Mary give birth to God?

Jesus is God. We can’t apply this to Mary. She gave birth to Jesus.

This has been discussed at length. If one wants to pray and worship Mary that’s a choice. Not something Jesus taught for us to do. Mary was never elevated in scripture the way she is today.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

According to this verse did Mary give birth to God?

Such weird theology! When Mary gave birth to Jesus it was not twins....one person of a human nature and one person of a Divine nature. She gave birth to ONE PERSON with two natures. Both natures (Divine and human) are the result of two supernatural miracles by the HS. 1) Jesus was conceived without Joseph 2) the HS overshadowed her and specifically allowed the Second person of the Trinity to be apart of that impregnation. Duh! There is nothing in Mary that merits this impregnation but only the power of the HS acting up her. Of course she gave birth to the God-Man. Duh!

 

[The Liturgist]

Two more examples come to mind, inspired by the recent attempted derailment of this thread:

Mark 7:13 which is erroneously used by Restorationists and other non-traditional Christians to falsely accuse traditional Christians such as Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, and of course the Roman Catholics who so many of them seem to regard opposing as essential to the faith (in some cases, with some Restorationists and people like Jack Chick, very essential), when it is in fact if read in the context of the larger chapter of Mark 7 a specific condemnation of the Pharisees, whose Oral Torah often had the effect of nullifying parts of the actual Old Testament based on hyper-legalistic interpretations of the text, which unfortunately persisted into Rabinnical Judaism.

Indeed in the lifetime of our Lord, the Scribes were those Jews in the business of writing down the Oral Torah, which eventually gave rise to the Mishnah, which then became the basis for the Talmud, and still later, a mystical interpretation of the Talmud became the basis for Kabbalah, which is a peculiar emanationist doctrine which disagrees with much of Scripture and which divides God into ten sephirot (whereas in Christianity, God, despite abiding in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is undivided, which is why Nestorianism is rejected by traditional churches).

This erroneous reading of Mark 7:13 as applying to Christians, rather than to Scribes, Pharisees and their descendants, is eisegetical both within the chapter and book of Mark in which it is contained, and also within the broader context of the New Testament, directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, as well as the Koine Greek text of Galatians 1:8-9.

It must be stressed however that contrary to the assertions of some Roman Catholics, this is not in contradiction to the idea of Sola Scriptura, insofar as the Magisterial reformers such as Cranmer, Luther and Calvin recognized the importance of received tradition, but regarded Scripture as being the means by which the practices of the Roman Catholic Church could be differentiated between those authentic traditions from the Early Church and the innovations which were the cause for much consternation. Unfortunately, and I think much of the blame for this lies with Zwingli, hence my love for @Ain't Zwinglian ’s username, a uniform interpretation of Scripture was not attained at the Marburg Colloquy, and also while Martin Luther’s decision to break free from Rome was reinforced in terms of his confidence by his research into the existence of certain Oriental Orthodox churches which had never been under the control of the Roman church, like the Ethiopian Orthodox, communications between the Orthodox and Western Europe at the time were difficult due to the state of war that existed between all of Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire at that time, as well as political unrest in Russia, and this I believe is why Luther did not personally reach out to the Eastern Orthodox, but rather communication with them occurred only after his death, and Patriarch Jeremiah II I would say tired too quickly of ecumenical discussions with the Lutherans; conversely, there is a possibility that a subsequent Patriarch was converted to Calvinism, although many deny this, but the threat of the conversion of the Orthodox to Calvinism was enough to prompt the Synod of Dositheus, a local synod with pan-Orthodox participation, in the 17th century to declare it as theologically erroneous.

However, it should be noted that the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the Synod of Dositheus, although unfortunately they have historically not had much contact with the Lutherans, although this is changing because of the large number of Syriac Orthodox who, facing persecution by ISIS and also the government of Erdogan in Turkey, have been forced to flee to Europe and who have settled in Germany and Sweden. I would not be surprised, given the tragic decline of the Church of Sweden, if the confessional Mission Province of the Church of Sweden and the Syriac Orthodox become the two churches with the most actual members in that country (since many members of the Church of Sweden and other state churches in Europe only ever go to church for baptisms, weddings and funerals. Or, to quote an old American joke about marginal church members, they attend when they are “hatched, matched and dispatched.” Without, I should add, the very legitimate excuse of bad health.

However, while that synod did affirm the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which was good as far as relations with the Lutherans and the more high church Anglicans such as the Non-Jurors, it also declared Martin Luther a “madman”, which would hinder relations with the Lutherans. And lately ecumenical dialogue did make progress, but unfortunately the Orthodox conducted it with the liberal Lutheran churches of the LWF, rather than the confessional churches like the LCMS, LCC, AALC, and their communion partners in Europe, which would have been particularly valuable considering that two of these Lutheran churches in communion with the LCMS and LCC are the Church of Lithuania and the Church of Latvia, and these countries also have autonomous Eastern Orthodox churches active within their borders, so having a coherent doctrinal platform with them would have been useful.

Now of course, one could argue the LWF includes Estonia and Finland, which also are home to Eastern Orthodox churches, with the Finnish Orthodox Church accounting for 10% of that country’s population, making it one of the larger minority Orthodox churches in Europe. However, the extreme liberalism of some LWF churches on issues of human sexuality, euthanasia and so on, and the fact that the ELCA has done nothing about Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which calls itself “herchurch” with its neo-Paganist influence, for example, are toxic to Orthodoxy, since we agree with the Confessional Lutherans like the LCMS / LCC of the importance of theological consistency in who one is in communion with, which is why both groups practice closed communion.

I myself would love to see communion established with the confessional Lutherans but it would require a great deal of theological work which would need extreme precision, because the last thing we would want to do is inadvertently embrace some aspect of liberal theology in an attempt to gloss over doctrinal differences, which is a legitimate risk. But I do feel like the Eastern Orthodox ought to avoid discussions with the LWF without also talking to the confessional Lutherans, because at the very least we should endeavor to replicate on the denominational level the great friendship and warm relations that exists on Christian Forums between the Lutheran and Orthodox members, such as my relationships with @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch and other members of the LCMS and LCC who I care for very much.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

According to this verse did Mary give birth to God?

This is crass Nestorianism. Separating the Divine nature from the Human nature. A mediocare class in in college level Christology would inform you of this fact. Mean while, enjoy being a Nestorianist.

 

[The Liturgist]

Such weird theology! When Mary gave birth to Jesus it was not twins....one person of a human nature and one person of a Divine nature. She gave birth to ONE PERSON with two natures. Both natures (Divine and human) are the result of two supernatural miracles by the HS. 1) Jesus was conceived without Joseph 2) the HS overshadowed her and specifically allowed the Second person of the Trinity to be apart of that impregnation. Duh! There is nothing in Mary that merits this impregnation but only the power of the HS acting up her. Of course she gave birth to the God-Man. Duh!

Indeed. In His incarnation, Jesus Christ assumed our humanity while retaining his divinity, uniting both hypostatically, without change, confusion, separation or division of either His humanity or divinity. This is the belief of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, confessional Lutherans, most Anglicans (except for those who adhere to certain novel and unusual doctrines), and other traditional Christians. Indeed even the Assyrian Church of the East, which once believed in Nestorianism, now follows this formula.

 

[jas3]

Maybe we need to stop feeding the trolls; the get bolder the more attention they get.

True, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not interested in spending time explaining something to someone who doesn't want to hear it, or entertaining a refusal to engage with any arguments until one is shown "chapter and verse" where a doctrine is laid out explicitly (and never mind the double standard on that when it comes to the Trinity).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus is God. We can’t apply this to Mary. She gave birth to Jesus.

This has been discussed at length. If one wants to pray and worship Mary that’s a choice. Not something Jesus taught for us to do. Mary was never elevated in scripture the way she is today.

Was Jesus God when Mary gave birth to Him?

 

[jas3]

Mark 7:13 which is erroneously used by Restorationists and other non-traditional Christians to falsely accuse traditional Christians such as Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, and of course the Roman Catholics who so many of them seem to regard opposing as essential to the faith (in some cases, with some Restorationists and people like Jack Chick, very essential), when it is in fact if read in the context of the larger chapter of Mark 7 a specific condemnation of the Pharisees, whose Oral Torah often had the effect of nullifying parts of the actual Old Testament based on hyper-legalistic interpretations of the text, which unfortunately persisted into Rabinnical Judaism.

Your comment reminded me of another verse used by Restorationists to argue their position: Matthew 16:18, ironically.

The claim with this verse is that when our Lord said, "...I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it," that "prevail" has the implied meaning of "prevail in the end," so their "restored" church is actually the fulfillment of Matt. 16:18, even if there were no true believers for the better part of two millennia.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Was Jesus God when Mary gave birth to Him?

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is fully man. Hence why no scripture says Mary is mother of God, but says mother of Jesus.

Going in circles. Take care

 

[BNR32FAN]

Such weird theology! When Mary gave birth to Jesus it was not twins....one person of a human nature and one person of a Divine nature. She gave birth to ONE PERSON with two natures. Both natures (Divine and human) are the result of two supernatural miracles by the HS. 1) Jesus was conceived without Joseph 2) the HS overshadowed her and specifically allowed the Second person of the Trinity to be apart of that impregnation. Duh! There is nothing in Mary that merits this impregnation but only the power of the HS acting up her. Of course she gave birth to the God-Man. Duh!

I had problems with the term until I read Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius. After that, the way he explained it, what it means and what it doesn’t mean, I didn’t have any problem with it at all. What I find hilarious is that I’ve literally seen Sabbathblessings make connections in scripture that are way more far fetched than this to support her theology. The fact that she can’t make this connection just shows that it’s not a scriptural issue, its a refusal issue.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your comment reminded me of another verse used by Restorationists to argue their position: Matthew 16:18, ironically.

The claim with this verse is that when our Lord said, "...I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it," that "prevail" has the implied meaning of "prevail in the end," so their "restored" church is actually the fulfillment of Matt. 16:18, even if there were no true believers for the better part of two millennia.

Lol I guess He meant His church will eventually prevail?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is fully man. Hence why no scripture says Mary is mother of God, but says mother of Jesus.

Going in circles. Take care

You didn’t answer the question. Was Jesus God when Mary gave birth to Him?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I had problems with the term until I read Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius. After that, the way he explained it, what it means and what it doesn’t mean, I didn’t have any problem with it at all. What I find hilarious is that I’ve literally seen Sabbathblessings make connections in scripture that are way more far fetched than this to support her theology. The fact that she can’t make this connection just shows that it’s not a scriptural issue, it’s a refusal issue.

Than prove it through scripture . The case could be settled easily with one scripture saying Jesus is mother of God. Scripture says mother of Jesus. It’s easy to make accusations, it’s another to actually prove it.