Salvation...and Mary!

[Ignatius21]

Glad I didn't waste time reading it...

I must have the gift of prophecy, because I knew exactly how you'd respond before I posted this

Thanks for not disappointing me!

 

[Ignatius21]

No Calvinist would ever explain TULIP on a philosophical level

Read Sproul lately?

- it is a system solely based on scripture

I could have a field day with this, but that would detract from the OP I spent a good six years believing this to be true. Thankfully the scales fell from my eyes and I saw that TULIP, like any other doctrine, is a tradition based upon a traditon of interpreting scripture.

and therefore its explanation is based upon scripture proofs. Any Calvinist who would attempt to explain TULIP solely on a philosophical level should be ignored.

I never used the word solely, and neither did the article I cited, that you haven't "wasted" your time reading. Of course it is'nt to be explained on solely philosophical grounds. Neither are doctrines of saints or icons or anything else. I said this particular article was written on the philosophical level.

If the writer can't prove his position from scripture then its not worth the time or effort for me to read it. I kind of figured there would be no scriptural proofs but figured I would ask anyway.

He can. You just wouldn't accept the proof from Scripture because (a) you don't accept the same canon, and (b) you don't accept his hermeneutical tradition. By the same token, (a) I accept the OT canon in the broad catholic/orthodox tradition, and (b) I don't accept your Reformed Protestant hermeneutical tradition.

You can talk all day about your doctrines being "based solely on Scripture," but the emperor has no clothes, and your doctrines--same as mine and everyone else's--are based on somebody's tradition. If you can compel me to believe that I should accept your tradition over Orthodoxy's, maybe I'll revert to Calvinism.

Having established that, why not read the article? At least you'll know what you're criticizing

 

[Ignatius21]

Thanks Ignatius21 this article is very timely for me. As you may remember I was an EO catechumen last year. Keeping in mind there is a lot of stumbling blocks for a western minded evangelical believer to get through concerning Orthodoxy, one thing that intrigued me was the scriptural development of the Ark of the Covenant and the New Eve from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Belonging to a Lutheran congregation I am free to explore the topic.

I do realize there are tons of stumbling blocks. There are some I'm still tripping over, and I'm already in the fold. But for years I was taught that ideas like "Mary as Ark of the Covenant" and "Mary as new Eve" were Roman Catholic inventions of recent origin. But golly gee, there they were in Irenaeus...a 16th century papist if ever there was one!

 

[janxharris]

He isn't sticking with Scripture. Nobody is. He's sticking with his Protestant tradition of interpreting Scripture. Ah, the nuances.

At the end of the day, it's tradition vs. tradition vs. tradition vs. tradition.

If you haven't read the article, please do. The whole point is that the verse you've cited does not refute or contradict the idea of praying to God with and through the saints. If asking your pastor to pray for you negates Christ's unique role of mediator, then we can talk. Otherwise, the verse you've cited doesn't apply. Not being combative, just pointing things out.

For what reason would we spend time discussing this? Mary is hardly mentioned in scripture. Why pray to Mary when you can go directly to God through Jesus?

Mary was blessed amongst women, but is the following true?

Matthew 11:11
Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.​

If it gives comfort to pray though Mary, in the same way that you might ask your pastor to pray for you - if it is as innocent as that - then I can't see that there is a great issue here. If you only pray through Mary then I would think something was awry.

 

[AndOne]

Read Sproul lately?

Apparently you haven't...

I could have a field day with this, but that would detract from the OP I spent a good six years believing this to be true. Thankfully the scales fell from my eyes and I saw that TULIP, like any other doctrine, is a tradition based upon a traditon of interpreting scripture.

Even if what you say here regarding tradition is true - and it isn't - at least its a tradition of someone trying to interpret SCRIPTURE and not someone making something up that isn't based on anything - like praying to Mary!

I never used the word solely, and neither did the article I cited, that you haven't "wasted" your time reading. Of course it is'nt to be explained on solely philosophical grounds. Neither are doctrines of saints or icons or anything else. I said this particular article was written on the philosophical level.

Which is why I don't want to read it. Hamm gave me the gist.

He can. You just wouldn't accept the proof from Scripture because (a) you don't accept the same canon, and (b) you don't accept his hermeneutical tradition. By the same token, (a) I accept the OT canon in the broad catholic/orthodox tradition, and (b) I don't accept your Reformed Protestant hermeneutical tradition.

You can talk all day about your doctrines being "based solely on Scripture," but the emperor has no clothes, and your doctrines--same as mine and everyone else's--are based on somebody's tradition. If you can compel me to believe that I should accept your tradition over Orthodoxy's, maybe I'll revert to Calvinism.

At least my tradition does its best to tsay within the confines of scripture. You find nowhere in scripture someone trying to pray to Mary. Sorry - but you can't make an argument for it based upon scriptural grounds and that for me is a problem.

 

[Hammster]

He isn't sticking with Scripture. Nobody is. He's sticking with his Protestant tradition of interpreting Scripture. Ah, the nuances.

At the end of the day, it's tradition vs. tradition vs. tradition vs. tradition.

If you haven't read the article, please do. The whole point is that the verse you've cited does not refute or contradict the idea of praying to God with and through the saints. If asking your pastor to pray for you negates Christ's unique role of mediator, then we can talk. Otherwise, the verse you've cited doesn't apply. Not being combative, just pointing things out.

I did read the article. I refuted it. With scripture. But instead of addressing that, we get "he's not sticking with scripture".

 

[Ignatius21]

I did read the article. I refuted it. With scripture. But instead of addressing that, we get "he's not sticking with scripture".

You quoted the very verses that the article was demonstrating don't apply. That "salvation" has more than one sense. So you refuted nothing. You quoted verses. But thanks for reading it first!

 

[Hammster]

You quoted the very verses that the article was demonstrating don't apply. That "salvation" has more than one sense. So you refuted nothing. You quoted verses. But thanks for reading it first!

The article was, in part, about Mary mediating. Maybe YOU should read it, especially the part about the wedding in Cana.

 

[Tzaousios]

No Calvinist would ever explain TULIP on a philosophical level - it is a system solely based on scripture and therefore its explanation is based upon scripture proofs. Any Calvinist who would attempt to explain TULIP solely on a philosophical level should be ignored.

Please explain, as you understand it, the difference between an explanation of TULIP on a philosophical level as opposed to one based upon scripture proofs.

 

[Tzaousios]

I did read the article. I refuted it. With scripture. But instead of addressing that, we get "he's not sticking with scripture".

Was there not a certain set of presuppositions and a rather specific notion of how to interpret those particular verses over and against how the writer would interpret them?

 

[Hammster]

Was there not a certain set of presuppositions and a rather specific notion of how to interpret those particular verses over and against how the writer would interpret them?

I quoted scripture that I thought was pretty plain in its reading, and that it contradicted the article. But as usual, when dealing with EO in most cases, the scripture is either ignored (such as in this case), or it's explained away as not how the ECFs understood it. In other words, all I've gotten most of the time from EO is very genetic argumentation.

 

[Tzaousios]

I quoted scripture that I thought was pretty plain in its reading, and that it contradicted the article. But as usual, when dealing with EO in most cases, the scripture is either ignored (such as in this case), or it's explained away as not how the ECFs understood it. In other words, all I've gotten most of the time from EO is very genetic argumentation.

But that did not answer my specific question about your approach.

 

[Hammster]

But that did not answer my specific question about your approach.

Everyone who posts has presuppositions.

 

[Tzaousios]

Everyone who posts has presuppositions.

Okay, good. Could you please list the ones that are appropriate for the particular prooftexts you chose? Also, my question to you included something about interpretation as well.

 

[janxharris]

This is worth reading...it isn't long. It's a great perspective on "prayer" to Mary. As with everything in the ancient Church, the practice is rooted in the reality of the Incarnation.

Please do not throw flaming darts unless you've at least read the article.

Otherwise, let the calm and rational discourse begin

Saving Mary[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Glory to God for All Things

The collective nature of traditional Christian prayers, Orthodox prayers, illustrates quality of salvation as communion. The Church is not scandalized when it prays “Most Holy Theotokos save us!” Just as the people of Canaan were not scandalized when they appealed to Mary for help in a wedding banquet gone awry. The only word spoken to Christ at that banquet was from His mother, “They have no wine.” His answer (often badly translated) is very intimate, “Woman, what is this between you and me? My time isn’t here yet.” But at her direction, “Do whatever he tells you,” the wedding feast arrives.

Scripture does not say that they appealed to Mary for help.

John 2:3
When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

To insinuate that it was Mary, with her statement, 'Do whatever he tells you', who was directing the situation is unwarranted.

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

 

[sdowney717]

There are warnings from God against calling upon the dead on behalf of the living.
Don't tell me they are not dead these dead saints and dead Mary because here it is saying dead, physically dead people vs physically live people in the 'land of the living' are not to be sought out.

Should not a people seek their God?
yes they should. What scriptural example can anyone show where God or Christ taught the people of God to seek from those who have died for their help?
All we read is how Jesus lives forever interceding for the saints. And that is according to the will of God.

19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God?

Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

9 “When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,

11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such for you.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes and even I, who would accept the fathers more readily than most here (believing they were given their interpretation from the apostles and those they had instructed) am still appalled by this eating "Mary Flesh" idea. Where on earth did that come from...not from the scriptures...no Apostle ever taught it...I do not see even a close resemblance to such a thought in the fathers (at least not until after Nicea). What is "Mary Flesh" and where are we told we must eat of it?
This is just plain made up (like the Assumption), non-scriptural, and abominable.
Neither is there any semblance of language in the early church that says by participating in the body and blood of Christ we BECOME Mary Flesh (certainly not in scripture which all of the fathers make the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine)...man made dogmatic consensus is hogwash...flee...run fast from such an abomination....run now and do not look back...I pray you!

Paul

 

[Hammster]

Okay, good. Could you please list the ones that are appropriate for the particular prooftexts you chose?

No. The OP can either defend himself, or not. Your swooping in to defend EO is becoming tiresome.

 

[Tzaousios]

No, I'm not playing you "defend the poor wittle EO" games. Good grief. When they get challenged, you show up. Just join them and get it over with.

Oh, so now that you presuppose something about my spiritual status, any questions I have or participation that I engage in is to be disparaged? This is not a comment or behavior befitting a CF moderator.

 

[Tzaousios]

No. The OP can either defend himself, or not. Your swooping in to defend EO is becoming tiresome.

The same thing as my previous post. Editing for damage control does not negate my point.