Mary - Christian Prototype

[JoeP222w]

Our Lord, sho we both agree is God, did not describe the widow giving the very last of her money as alms as "filthy rags."

I never said He did.

He (Jesus) knew her heart and she gave out of the abundance of her heart, not because she believed it made her righteous before God.

 

[JoeP222w]

No, we are simply saying that God, in His infinite love, desires our love to be voluntary.

We love God because He first loved us. No one loves God in and of themselves, because apart from the work of grace by God, we are reprobate sinners in rebellion to God.

I don't believe God sends people to Hell; I believe Hell is a self-inflicted condition of misery in which people who reject God's continual acts of grace may ultimately find themselves, Lord have mercy.

Then you are disagreeing with Biblical truth and denying the righteous justice of God against rebel sinners.

I am not a universalist, but I pray for the salvation of all. Christ shed His blood for any who would receive it.

I pray for the salvation of the elect, however, I don't know who the elect are, so by God's grace, I proclaim the gospel to all.

"Christ shed His blood for any who would receive it." And here you are describing the elect. The non-elect will not receive it nor ever have a desire to.

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[JoeP222w]

The process of deification, through which we are saved, leads to us ultimately being able to keep it.

We don't become God, that is what deification is.

 

[JoeP222w]

The souls of the righteousnwere trapped in Hades until set free by our Lord in the Harrowing of Hell.

Verse reference?

 

[JoeP222w]

That is not true. Every action of our Lord was perfectly righteous.

You misunderstood my statement. Your previous statement implicated that Jesus earned His righteousness. My point was that He has always be perfect righteous. And because He is already perfectly righteous, His actions are already righteous. He did not do righteous acts to earn His righteousness.

That is not true; righteousness is a state attained theough thenperformance of righteousnworks.

And that is wrong.

Romans 3:21-31 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (29) Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, (30) since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (31) Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Divine grace is what enables faith, yielding good works. They are two sides of the same coin.

I did not say they were not. However, works do not produce faith.

 

[JoeP222w]

If God is almighty, God has the power to bestow upon people self-determination and free will. Calvinists, in denying the possibility of free will, inadvertantly deny divine omnipotence.

Calvinism does not deny free will. Calvinism denies autonomous free will (that the will of the creature is greater than God's will). Man has free will, but it is limited to his nature. An unregenerate person cannot do that which is righteous and good, apart from the grace of God.

It is a denial of God's sovereignty to say that man has the ability to turn from God's salvation. It is saying that man has the power to frustrate God's will, so that God is eternally saddened that He could not overcome man's will. And that man is in Hell yelling, "I thwarted Jesus' plan to save me! I am all powerful!" This is simply not true.

Also, the Bible says God is Love.

Yes, God is love. But that is not His only attribute. And true love hates sin and no sin will exist in the presence of God, because He is love. God is also holy and just. If He turned a blind eye to lawlessness, then He would be a corrupt judge, and this is not the case. He will not pardon the guilty.

If God is Love, He does not foreordain men to eternal punishment, an act somplainly unloving that it has become one of the main contributors to the growth of the New Atheism as a reaction to some forms of extreme Calvinist Fundamentalism.

Can you demonstrate that from scripture?

And proclaiming the truth of God does not produce more Atheists. They already hate God. Man is not neutral from birth. He is a rebel sinner.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that if we were to compare the bodycount of Catholic to Protestant victims of Catholic vs. Protestant violence, the numbers would come out the same.

It does make me happy however that my church had no part in any of that violence. .

Since this is your own post... I will respond.

While I do understand your second statement - your first one denies all of history. The Lateran IV council calling for the extermination of Jews and heretics occurs at a time when no Protestants exist - no Protestant armies exists - no one is marching against Rome in fact no Protestant army marches against Rome at all - even the French were not "protestant" at the time of Napoleon's attack on Rome.

Rome cannot say the same thing about her own armies going out and marching against Protestants - for centuries before the first Protestant army even "exists" to do anything other than DEFEND its own people against outside attack from the armies of Rome.

History is pretty clear.

As for Mary - I don't know that she would condemn self-defense -- but she certainly never endorsed the idea of doing others bodily harm because they differ with you on doctrine.

So then that brings us to your statement about the Orthodox church - let's compare them to Mary. Can the same be said of the Orthodox church - as is said about Mary? Do they also have a record of not doing others bodily harm simply over differences in doctrine? Do they have a record of freedom of religion? Religious liberty?? There is not one stain on Mary's record in the NT in that regard. Can the Orthodox claim the same record?

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinism does not deny free will. Calvinism denies autonomous free will (that the will of the creature is greater than God's will).

There is not one Arminian group that has ever argued that the will of man "is greater than God's will"

And we all know it. Nor has anyone on this thread said "I believe the will of man is greater than God's will" other than to deny such a thing. And we all know it.

It is a denial of God's sovereignty to say that man has the ability to turn from God's salvation.

Just not in real life.

In real life we have this "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11.

Your claim that this denies God's sovereignty is an argument "against the text".

In Isaiah 5:4 God asks "What MORE could I have done that I have not done??" when dealing with the rebellion of man. Calvinism claims God is arbitrary and partial and God knows exactly what He "could have done that He did not do" if He really wanted to fix the problem. In their doctrine He "could have done the SAME thing He always does in the case of the saved"

In Romans 2:11 "God is not partial"
In Calvinism "God IS partial" in His arbitrary selection and election - selecting out just the FEW of Matthew 7 to save.
In John 3:16 "God so Loved the WORLD"
In Calvinism "God so loved just the FEW of Matthew 7"
In 1 John 2:2 "Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
In Calvinism "Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for just the FEW of Matthew 7"
In 1 John 4:14 "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
In Calvinism The Son is sent to be the Saviour of JUST the FEW
In John 12:32 Christ "draws ALL MANKIND" to Himself.
In Calvinism God draws just the FEW of Matthew 7.

In Romans 10 God says salvation works this way --
9 .. if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

In Calvinism "that Romans 10 text denies the sovereignty of God"

The contrast is clear.

 

[JoeP222w]

There is not one Arminian group that has ever argued that the will of man "is greater than God's will"

When one denies the irresistible grace of God, that man has a choice to reject God's grace, that is saying that God fails to save people. Those who promote libertarian free will most certainly promote that man is greater than God. Some Arminian's (not all) promote libertarian free will.

In real life we have this "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11.

Is this referring to salvation, or is this referring to God's judgment on a people?

In Isaiah 5:4 God asks "What MORE could I have done that I have not done??"

This is a verse of judgment against a rebellious people.

In Calvinism "God IS partial" in His arbitrary selection and election - selecting out just the FEW of Matthew 7 to save.

This is a denial of God's absolute free will to chose whom He will chose to save. Calvinism and the Bible never numbers the elect as just a few people, nor does God ever tell us who the elect are. Calvinism never promotes, that I am aware of, that God's will is "arbitrary". Does He not have the right to do with His creation as He, according to His own council, or does He need the approval of man with what to do with His creation?

In Calvinism "God so loved just the FEW of Matthew 7"

Same point. We do not know who the elect are.

In Calvinism "Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for just the FEW of Matthew 7"

Continued mischaracterization.

In 1 John 4:14 "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."
In Calvinism The Son is sent to be the Saviour of JUST the FEW

John uses world ("kosmos") in different meanings in multiple places. He was not using it here to signify every single human being that has ever existed.

In John 12:32 Christ "draws ALL MANKIND" to Himself.
In Calvinism God draws just the FEW of Matthew 7.

Continued error already responded to.

Additionally, the use of the word "all" is defined by the context. "All" does not mean every single human being that has ever existed, context defines the boundaries.

In Calvinism "that Romans 10 text denies the sovereignty of God"

Not that I am aware of. Who will be the one who "believes"? Do you say every single human being that ever existed?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Do they also have a record of not doing others bodily harm simply over differences in doctrine?

Have you read Luke 1?

As I have said, my church has never persecuted anyone

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@BobRyan and @JoeP222w

Please take your argument on Calvinism vs. Arminianism to another thread. It is completely off-topic to this thread

 

[Paul Yohannan]

We don't become God, that is what deification is.

According to the Orthodox Church, we are saved through deification, by becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. As St. Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man could become god."

St. Mary is therefore in a sense deified; while she is not the God, not part of the Trinity, and therefore not wortht of worship, she has become deified, as have all other saved Christians.

St. Athanasius, who developed the Nicene Creed (which is the statement of faith for CF.com) and the 27 book New Testament canon, sets out the concept in De Incarnatione, in opposition to Arianism, which taught that Christ was not God but a subordinate creature. St. Athanasius insisted on the doctrine of homoousios, of one essense between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and indeed of hypostatic union, because this is not only explicitly described in the Gospel of John but also is a required aspect of Theosis (which is also explicitly described in the Gospel of John).

I will not be providing scripture references dor such a central doctrine to the Orthodox Church (that would be like providing scripture to prove the existence of God), but I will say a good list or them can be found in The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I never said He did.

He (Jesus) knew her heart and she gave out of the abundance of her heart, not because she believed it made her righteous before God.

Ah, but you did not provide such a clarification in your prior post. You made a blanket statement that God regards all good works as filthy rags, which is, as we see here by your own admission, unbiblical.

 

[Philip_B]

Calvinism does not deny free will. Calvinism denies autonomous free will (that the will of the creature is greater than God's will). Man has free will, but it is limited to his nature. An unregenerate person cannot do that which is righteous and good, apart from the grace of God.

It is a denial of God's sovereignty to say that man has the ability to turn from God's salvation. It is saying that man has the power to frustrate God's will, so that God is eternally saddened that He could not overcome man's will. And that man is in Hell yelling, "I thwarted Jesus' plan to save me! I am all powerful!" This is simply not true.

• autonomous
  having the freedom to govern oneself or control one's own affairs
  having the freedom to act independently
  acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires
  self-rule

My understanding of Calvinist's I have heard on the subject is to assert predestination over and above free will. To suggest that Free Will is not autonomous seems to my mind at least to intend that Free Will is only an illusion.

"It is a denial of God's sovereignty to say that man has the ability to turn from God's salvation" is a statement that I do have some trouble with as the suggestion of this is that God is some master puppeteer, or that we are simply drafts on the board.

I guess in terms of this thread I ask the question, did Mary have any choice when confronted by the will of God as expressed by the Angel Gabriel? My understanding is that she did, and I can't buy into an image of God that has him as a super-controller manipulating situations so he achieves the outcomes he desires. If Mary had no choice, then it is just a game and salvation is simply some sort of impossible flat pack that has been irrationally packed and some of us don't have all the parts - doomed to an eternity of frustration. I don't buy an idea of the sovereignty of God that sees us all vassals with God capriciously deciding to burn some and reward others. Such a God seems less than human not more than human. It seems a loveless gospel.

 

[JoeP222w]

You made a blanket statement that God regards all good works as filthy rags, which is, as we see here by your own admission, unbiblical.

I think you are mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my remarks. I say that any works that are not done out of a love for God and a love for others are filthy rags. And in wrongly representing what I wrote, you create a Straw Man fallacy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My real question, is there any difference to praying/petitions addressed to Mary vs any other dead saint? My understanding is that those that pray to Mary do so because she is able to better effect the petitions than any other dead saint. Don't know if it is believed that any other dead saint can even effect any petition.

Dead saint is an oxymoron. The Saints are alive in heaven, and we have proof of that in Revelation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not what scripture says. Further Jesus said differently, that John the Baptist was greater than any born of women.

Really? Where does Scripture tell us of a more important woman than Mary? Or where does Scripture say that Mary is not the most important? (John the Baptist was greater than any born of woman...nothing about the most important woman there)

If you want to argue logically, that Mary was the mother of God, than Mary's mother is just as important, and Mary's grandmother, and ...

What about Theo-logically?

Only the Spirit compels me to continue to preach such; to believe what is in scripture and to hold accountable those that promote differently in General Theology. If you just want to preach your doctrine without it being questioned, then just move it to the RCC section.

Understand that those in GT hold a wide range of "interpretation of scripture". As such, people that argue here are expected to defend their positions and not just state them, aka get on a soap box. I belief I am following in the spirit of GT and challenging the positions stated here.

Further, I would like to impress something on you. I think the best way I have learned is to have to defend what I state as my belief. For then I search, personally from scripture the reason for my belief. I have learned more from searching scripture to defend my belief than just what one has stated in their OP in GT.

If you find questioning of your belief difficult or defense of it troublesome then don't blame me for any angst here.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How enlightening. I agree it is scripture. Does the quoted scripture answer either of the questions asked in the initial quote of my post? NO.

I could quote the entirety of scripture and not have any support to answer the second quoted question. "Can Mary hear what we say aloud and silently?"

This is a good reason against sola scriptura.

 

[BobRyan]

Have you read Luke 1?

As I have said, my church has never persecuted anyone

Yes - a clear case of incarnation "Jesus' Birth" vs "procreation" John's birth.

Still we find there - no statement about Mary issuing threats to anyone for not believing doctrine as she believed it - and no reference there about Joseph "stronger than God" etc. Acts 6 - Stephen is "full of grace" and in Luke 1 we are told that this is not a case of "procreation" .

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??

 

[BobRyan]

How enlightening. I agree it is scripture. Does the quoted scripture answer either of the questions asked in the initial quote of my post? NO.

I could quote the entirety of scripture and not have any support to answer the second quoted question. "Can Mary hear what we say aloud and silently?"

Fortunately we have sola scriptura to answer it.

1 Thess 4 - Mary is now in the group that Paul calls 'the dead in Christ'.

The Bible says a lot about just how much the dead know.