A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[Xeno.of.athens]

The heresy is dividing Christ into two persons, as heresies have to do with the person of Christ.

This is true; and because Jesus is one person and Blessed Mary gave birth to the Lord, Jesus Christ, it is true and right to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God.

 

[fhansen]

Two separate "tings" (sic)?

Your quote talks about two separate persons. Body is not a person of its own (though it has its own collective "will" and goals, in mitochondria and microbiome).

A human being is a person, and God is a person. And yet God is not human except in the case of Christ where the two natures remain distinct yet in union, undivided. Therefore, because Christ is not divided, nor is He merely God residing in a human body, Mary was the mother of God. This was insisted on by the church not to honor Mary first of all-and certainly not to maintain that God originated with her somehow- but to maintain that she actually carried God in her womb in order to emphatically affirm that unique union of God with man, a critical union because through it both God and man are instrumental in man's salvation.

 

[trophy33]

A human being is a person, and God is a person. And yet God is not human except in the case of Christ where the two natures remain distinct yet in union, undivided. Therefore, because Christ is not divided, nor is He merely God residing in a human body, Mary was the mother of God. This was insisted on by the church not to honor Mary first of all-and certainly not to maintain that God originated with her somehow- but to maintain that she actually carried God in her womb in order to emphatically affirm that unique union of God with man, a critical union because through it both God and man are instrumental in man's salvation.

Let us stick with biblical vocabulary and concepts. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

There is no need for these speculations and additions.

 

[Fervent]

This is true; and because Jesus is one person and Blessed Mary gave birth to the Lord, Jesus Christ, it is true and right to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that people can't object to a disproportionate Marian focus and through that temper any honorifics given to her even if they are technically correct. Some may object on Christological grounds, but those are not the only grounds for criticism (and from what I've seen are the exception rather than the general case).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that people can't object to a disproportionate Marian focus and through that temper any honorifics given to her even if they are technically correct. Some may object on Christological grounds, but those are not the only grounds for criticism (and from what I've seen are the exception rather than the general case).

The truth is that left to themselves people can and do object to every major doctrine of Christianity because they think they have better doctrines with which to replace them. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God and she is without the stain of original sin and she is in heaven now bodily.

 

[fhansen]

There's no disunity among Christians when it comes to Christ.

And what does that even mean? On these forums and elsewhere Christians disagree on what Christ taught. Do we need to obey the ten commandments in order to enter life (Matt 19:17)? Do we need to forgive our brother, from our heart, in order to be forgiven by God (Matt 6:15, 18:35)? Does our righteousness need to surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, and what does that mean (Matt 5)? Do we need to be baptized by water, if possible? Is Christ really present in the Eucharist, or is it just a symbolic memorial service? Is Jesus God? They're arguing that one again more now, based on Scripture. Are we once saved always saved? That's quite a significant matter. Do our own wills play any role in our salvation? Is faith alone enough to makes us just, to justify us, and what does that imply; do our acts/works/deeds/overcoming of sin matter? If we're not holy, if we don't love, if our hearts aren't pure, will we see God?

 

[Dan Perez]

The truth is that left to themselves people can and do object to every major doctrine of Christianity because they think they have better doctrines with which to replace them. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God and she is without the stain of original sin and she is in heaven now bodily.

I believe that many has read John 3:13 that no MAN hath ascended up to heaven , but He that came down from heave , even nthe Son of Man which is in HEAVEN .

Then in Luke 1:45 Mary says that in God MY SAVIOUR // SOTER is in the DATIVE CASE , SINGULAR and MASCULINE ..

Mary says that she was BORN in Sin like all the rest of us , PERIOD !!

dan p

 

[Strong in Him]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of God and she is without the stain of original sin and she is in heaven now bodily.

That is a belief held by Catholics, and maybe others. I do not share it.

Jesus was the only person who could die for the sins of the world because he, alone, was perfect. Had Mary been perfect, she would not have had Jesus at all. She could have given her perfect life as a sacrifice to God for the sins of mankind. God would never have come to earth, never walked in our shoes, felt the things that we feel, experienced rejection, suffering and death.
In the OT a sacrifice was a lamb without blemish. If Mary had no blemish, she would have been that lamb.

And as I said before, I cannot regard Mary as the mother of God - God needs no mother.
No one created him, brought him into being, brought him up, educated him and so on. God is all mighty - mightier than all. He gave us life and brought us to birth.
Mary gave birth to Jesus, the man; she did not give birth to God. God existed long before Mary was even thought of, and is still with us today, centuries after Mary died.

And no, I am not saying that Jesus wasn't God, before anyone says anything.
That is the mystery; Jesus was man and God, but God the Father was still God while God the Son was on earth.

 

[Strong in Him]

And what does that even mean? On these forums and elsewhere Christians disagree on what Christ taught. Do we need to obey the ten commandments in order to enter life (Matt 19:17)? Do we need to forgive our brother, from our heart, in order to be forgiven by God (Matt 6:15, 18:35)? Does our righteousness need to surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, and what does that mean (Matt 5)? Do we need to be baptized by water, if possible? Is Christ really present in the Eucharist, or is it just a symbolic memorial service? Is Jesus God? They're arguing that one again more now, based on Scripture. Are we once saved always saved? That's quite a significant matter. Do our own wills play any role in our salvation? Is faith alone enough to makes us just, to justify us, and what does that imply; do our acts/works/deeds/overcoming of sin matter? If we're not holy, if we don't love, if our hearts aren't pure, will we see God?

But none of those things change what is true about Jesus; that he was both God and man, came to earth, lived among us, died for our sins, was raised, ascended and will come again. That is what we all agree on.
The rest is just working out our faith, his teachings and how we apply them.

Once Saved Always Saved, for example, is an interesting academic debate, or puzzle, but at the end of the day it's not actually our concern. God sees our hearts, knows who has been truly saved, who has fallen away or if anyone has been led astray. He knows if they have renounced the faith deliberately with no intention of turning back, or whether they may have denied the faith through illness, disappointment etc.
Whether someone is saved, and will ultimately be saved, is his business - ours is just to love as he loved us and to proclaim the Good News.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is a belief held by Catholics, and maybe others. I do not share it.

Why?

 

[fhansen]

But none of those things change what is true about Jesus; that he was both God and man, came to earth, lived among us, died for our sins, was raised, ascended and will come again. That is what we all agree on.
The rest is just working out our faith, his teachings and how we apply them.

Who He is doesn't tell us what He wants us to do, how to live our lives. Otherwise we wouldn't need any instructions whatsoever. So great, we agree with who He is and decide not to divide over how to live, even though He came to tell us that. Ok??!!

Once Saved Always Saved, for example, is an interesting academic debate, or puzzle, but at the end of the day it's not actually our concern.

It's of concern because it can affect how we live our lives.

Whether someone is saved, and will ultimately be saved, is his business - ours is just to love as he loved us and to proclaim the Good News.

He tells us in many places what the evidence, the fruit, should be-so that we can know, and seek change if need be, for the sake of our eternal destinies. Somehow methinks yer just sort of grasping at straws here to defend a position that shouldn't require defending. Christians can and should-and do- draw the line somewhere on these and other such matters.

 

[ozso]

And what does that even mean? On these forums and elsewhere Christians disagree on what Christ taught. Do we need to obey the ten commandments in order to enter life (Matt 19:17)?
Do we need to forgive our brother, from our heart, in order to be forgiven by God (Matt 6:15, 18:35)? Does our righteousness need to surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, and what does that mean (Matt 5)? Do we need to be baptized by water, if possible? Is Christ really present in the Eucharist, or is it just a symbolic memorial service? Is Jesus God? They're arguing that one again more now, based on Scripture. Are we once saved always saved? That's quite a significant matter. Do our own wills play any role in our salvation? Is faith alone enough to makes us just, to justify us, and what does that imply; do our acts/works/deeds/overcoming of sin matter? If we're not holy, if we don't love, if our hearts aren't pure, will we see God?

The primary focus is who Christ is and what he wants. The primary factor is Christ that wants us to forgive others, he wants us to be baptized, he wants us to eat his body and drink his blood, he wants us to do good works and bear fruit. The bulk of protestantism is going to be in agreement with that. There might be dickering on the finer theological points of those things, but what's most important is doing what Christ wants.

 

[ozso]

Who He is doesn't tell us what He wants us to do, how to live our lives. Otherwise we wouldn't need any instructions whatsoever. So great, we agree with who He is and decide not to divide over how to live, even though He came to tell us that. Ok??!!

It's of concern because it can affect how we live our lives.

He tells us in many places what the evidence, the fruit, should be-so that we can know, and seek change if need be, for the sake of our eternal destinies. Somehow methinks yer just sort of grasping at straws here to defend a position that shouldn't require defending. Christians can and should-and do- draw the line somewhere on these and other such matters.

If you listen to sermons by well known Protestant pastors such as Charles Stanley and Alistair Begg etc, most of their sermons are going to be about our relationship with God and being equipped to serve Christ and others.

 

[fhansen]

The primary focus is who Christ is and what he wants. The primary factor is Christ that wants us to forgive others, he wants us to be baptized, he wants us to eat his body and drink his blood, he wants us to do good works and bear fruit. The bulk of protestantism is going to be in agreement with that. There might be dickering on the finer theological points of those things, but what's most important is doing what Christ wants.

If you listen to sermons by well known Protestant pastors such as Charles Stanley and Alistair Begg etc, most of their sermons are going to be about our relationship with God and being equipped to serve Christ and others.

The question becomes, what do we need to do in order to gain eternal life-and there we have quite a variety of opinions-and some of those exclude anything besides having faith-believing something. And as the ancient churches taught justification correctly, there was never reason for the division that we now have. But I always appreciate right teachings coming from whereover they come and for the most part the majority of Protestants live as if what they do counts, regardless of theology.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why?

If you read the rest of my post, #388, I explained it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus was the only person who could die for the sins of the world because he, alone, was perfect. Had Mary been perfect, she would not have had Jesus at all. She could have given her perfect life as a sacrifice to God for the sins of mankind. God would never have come to earth, never walked in our shoes, felt the things that we feel, experienced rejection, suffering and death.
In the OT a sacrifice was a lamb without blemish. If Mary had no blemish, she would have been that lamb.

Excuse me for being so blunt, but what you wrote is just wrong all the way through.

Blessed Mary was born without the stain of original sin BECAUSE Jesus saved her from it. This is what the immaculate conception is about. Blessed Mary needed a saviour, but the Lord Jesus Christ did not. Blessed Mary's human nature was without the stain of original sin BECAUSE she was saved by Jesus, but Jesus' human nature was without the stain of original sin because he was conceived without it. He needed no saviour because he was perfect in every way, Blessed Mary needed a saviour because she was a human being born by natural procreation and hence inherited a human nature marked by sin but by God's singular act of grace she was preserved unstained by original sin because Jesus saved her.

And even if what you said were true, and it is not true, that Blessed Mary was perfect and therefore could offer her perfect humanity as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and this is not true for other reasons, her offer would not be enough, her sacrifice could not redeem the whole world, it may not have been able to redeem anyone else, besides herself.

Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the whole world because he is God as well as a human being, it was God who gave himself as a sacrifice to save the whole world. Grace that saves is uncreated grace, it is God's giving of himself, it is sufficient for everything that God intended it to do.

 

[Strong in Him]

Who He is doesn't tell us what He wants us to do, how to live our lives.

He doesn't tell us how to live our lives though.
Neither Jesus, nor Scripture, tell us what job to do, where to live, who, or whether, to marry, whether or not to have children, and if so, how many, who to vote for, how to spend our money or anything else.
We are told to put God first, to be salt and light for the world, to proclaim the Good News, to love as Jesus loved and so on. Everything else has to be worked out by us.

So great, we agree with who He is and decide not to divide over how to live, even though He came to tell us that. Ok??!!

Like I said, he didn't come to tell us how to live our lives.
He came to reconcile us to God and to demonstrate God's love for us, Romans 5:8, 1 John 3:16. He came so that we, godless sinners, might become children of God, John 1:12 and have eternal life, John 6:29, John 6:40.

It's of concern because it can affect how we live our lives.

In what way?

He tells us in many places what the evidence, the fruit, should be-so that we can know, and seek change if need be, for the sake of our eternal destinies.

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace etc. These aren't possible without the Holy Spirit; HE produces them in us, we can't make the chnge on our own.

Somehow methinks yer just sort of grasping at straws here to defend a position that shouldn't require defending.

What position? All I said was that we have to work out a lot of things for ourselves.
It would be a lot easier if Scripture said, "live in this place, don't have more than 3 children, don't spend your money on that, vote for ......... don't agree with government policy on this" etc etc, but it doesn't.

Christians can and should-and do- draw the line somewhere on these and other such matters.

Yes, of course - but sometimes it will be a personal line.
Some Christians may say, "I could never go to a church which taught ............", while other Christians have no problem with it.
Probably most Christian women would never have an abortion - while for a few, it might be right/necessary.
In this country, guns are illegal - except for specially licensed guns - so the question of whether to carry one is a non starter. Whereas Christians elsewhere may firmly believe they have a right to own one.
In some countries, women seem to be treated much as they were in NT times - no worth, rights, identity. Whereas other countries teach that we have a right to work, to own property, to vote etc - and also a right not to do these things if we believe them to be wrong.

Again, it would be so much easier if Scripture addressed these matters - but it doesn't.

 

[Strong in Him]

Excuse me for being so blunt, but what you wrote is just wrong all the way through.

Obviously you are going to say that; you're a Catholic.

Blessed Mary was born without the stain of original sin BECAUSE Jesus saved her from it.

Jesus' death saved people from sin.
He hadn't died before he was born.

Blessed Mary's human nature was without the stain of original sin BECAUSE she was saved by Jesus, but Jesus' human nature was without the stain of original sin because he was conceived without it. He needed no saviour because he was perfect in every way, Blessed Mary needed a saviour because she was a human being born by natural procreation and hence inherited a human nature marked by sin but by God's singular act of grace she was preserved unstained by original sin because Jesus saved her.

Jesus saved Mary from sin after he had died on the cross - just as he saved everybody else.

And even if what you said were true, and it is not true, that Blessed Mary was perfect and therefore could offer her perfect humanity as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and this is not true for other reasons, her offer would not be enough, her sacrifice could not redeem the whole world, it may not have been able to redeem anyone else, besides herself.

No, it would have redeemed the whole world.
No one among God's people had ever been perfect - shown perfect obedience to God and been able to keep his word perfectly.
If Mary had been able to do that, she would have been the spotless lamb, without blemish, that was sacrificed for sin. If she had been perfect, she would not have needed to redeem herself.

And just one minor thing; when I was younger, and this may still be the case, "blessed" was used as a mild swear word. As in "that's a blessed nuisance", "that blessed cat's got out again."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus' death saved people from sin.
He hadn't died before he was born.

If the application of Christ's saving acts were limited to the time after his resurrection then all the old testament saints would be doomed. But they are not doomed because time does not limit God's grace. You ought to know that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No, it would have redeemed the whole world.
No one among God's people had ever been perfect - shown perfect obedience to God and been able to keep his word perfectly.

You speak as if you had sure knowledge of this claim yet the scriptures tell us that Job was perfect and that Enoch pleased God so God took him directly to heaven without dying. Your claim is not consistent with what is written so I will not spend more time on it than I have already.