Theotokos and neo-Nestorianism

[E.C.]

Good to see you Uphill! Can't say the same about the thread necromancy :o

not necessarily so. There are instances of praising Mary for Mary's sake.

something that springs to mind is the Mariologial society, "America Needs Fatima" etc.

That is a Roman Catholic thing. As an Orthodox Christian I don't recognize Fatima.

exactly why it bothers me when a fellow protestant (of whatever ilk) gets up in arms about the title.

it's a mountain out of a molehill, Mary did indeed bear Jesus the Christ, who is God.

on the flip side, I've too oft seen fingerwagging because the title is NOT used (or the like.) I don't ever use it, but then I don't typically use ANY greek in my everyday vernacular.

As for the word itself, I believe it's what linguistics would call a "loanword". The Russians don't say "Theotokos", but say something else that means "Theotokos" in Russian. I think that when Orthodox texts got translated into English whomever translated the text probably thought that it would be best to borrow the word than to translate it into some other word or words in English.

Part of why I personally like the title is because of the history behind it which goes back to the Council at Ephesus in 431. I read up on it before I became Orthodox and it made a lot of sense at the ripe age of sixteen. It seemed a bit foolish, after learning about Ephesus, to reject the title.

this doesn't make sense.

Take Pelagius (sp?) he firmly believed that original sin was a farce.

he was labled a heretic, not for knowingly denying the truth, but denying what someone else said was the truth (or, rather, for having his own "truth."

I haven't read much upon Pelagius, but if he thought original sin in the Augustinian sense is a farce, well, I would have to agree.

Orthodox folks don't believe in original sin, but we believe in ancestral sin. We believe that we suffer the effects of Adam's sin, but we are not guilty of it nor do we have to "pay for it". Augustine was a bit of the mark in several areas, but this isn't the thread for that.


There is a very fine line between a "heretic" and a "follower of a heresy" and "not knowing better". That line is also where forgiveness and compassion come in. Arius would be a heretic. Joe Mormon born and raised in Salt Lake City without exposure or knowledge of any non-Mormon religion would be a follower of a heresy.

But getting back to my original post that you quoted...

Nestorius is a heretic because he rejected Truth. Run of the mill Protestants who say "Mary did not bear God in her womb" I myself would call followers of a heresy because A) they don't know better or else they would know about Nestorius and B) they are not Nestorians per say because while they may have a rejection of the title "she who bore God" towards Mary, they are saying it for a different reason. Not because they are Nestorians and theological descendants of his 5th century heresy, but because of the response to the corruption within the Roman Catholic Church in the Medieval Age.
Such factors must be considered when discussing things with people and that is when things like forgiveness and compassion come in.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I have never encountered, or even heard of, a single one

then I'd warrent a guess that you never look very far out of your own group.



I

hate to tell you this, but America Needs Fatima is a Roman Catholic organization.

aware of that.


[/quote[
Um, most Protestants would disagree with you and claim Sola Scriptura as a defining characteristic, I'm afraid.[/quote]I am a Sola Scripturist.

that does not mean, as was said "One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves."

Good to see you Uphill! Can't say the same about the thread necromancy :o

they're still on that, hmm?

That is a Roman Catholic thing. As an Orthodox Christian I don't recognize Fatima.

I know. I was simply responding to the "all praise of Mary is praise of Christ" thing. I didn't make bones about whether or not it was Orthodox, or Catholic... I just know I've seen it. Wasn't thinking of the Orthodox when I wrote that.

[/quote]
I haven't read much upon Pelagius, but if he thought original sin in the Augustinian sense is a farce, well, I would have to agree.
[/quote] I used the RC accusation of Pelagius only as an example because I'm familiar with it. My point was, it doesn't make sense that someone would be considered a heretic be KNOWINGLY rejecting the truth.

 

[For_Crying_Out_Loud]

Protestantism rejects any veneration of Mary due to how the Roman Catholic Church operated in the Dark and Medieval Ages. However, when Protestants deny the title Theotokos and all the consequences of the title, they are doing two things.
1) They are denying the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity.

2) They are inadvertently adopting Nestorianesque thinking.


Another thing that most Protestants either do not realize or fail to take note of is that any honor due to Mary goes to Christ. In every icon of the Theotokos Christ is present. The one exception to that is the icon of the Annunciation. If we deny that Mary bore God in her womb, than we deny that Christ is God. This does not mean that she bore the entire Trinity. She bore God the Son and God the Son only. By denying her being the Theotokos we either deny Christ's divinity, His unity of two natures in one body or both.

I'm a so-called "protestant", (I prefer the term Christian because I'm a son of God), and I can totally guarantee that no-one with half a brain would deny that Mary gave birth to the Christ Jesus.

What we believe is that there is no point praying to Mary, or Abraham, or any other dead saint. That"s an abomination. We should only speak to the living.

 

[prodromos]

What we believe is that there is no point praying to Mary, or Abraham, or any other dead saint. That"s an abomination. We should only speak to the living.

Christ is Risen!

We believe that Christ defeated death through His own death and resurrection. Thus there are no 'dead' saints. We only seek the intercessions of the living.

John

 

[MrPolo]

f you're testing you're interpretation against Scripture, you're not left to your own interpretation, but rather to God's word.

This is a perfect illustration of how the principles of the Westminster Confession are forever circular with members of each generation "testing" the prior generations' interpretations. And since such a person assumes he himself is the one correctly guided by the Spirit, then he must conclude that the true interpretation throughout history is the one that agrees with----himself.

Lurkers, for reference, see paragraph X in Chapter 1 of the WC. I've had supposed learned Reformers confirm this. You have to interpret for yourself.

 

[MrPolo]

What we believe is that there is no point praying to Mary, or Abraham, or any other dead saint. That"s an abomination. We should only speak to the living.

We know Jesus violated the rule you set forth here at the Transfiguration. Just as Paul numerous times asked other members of the body of Christ to pray for him (Rm 15:30, 1 Th 5:25, etc...), so too can we ask other members of the body of Christ to pray for us---whether they be alive on earth or alive in heaven, Scripture does not pose the limit you suggest.

 

[Standing Up]

This is a perfect illustration of how the principles of the Westminster Confession are forever circular with members of each generation "testing" the prior generations' interpretations. And since such a person assumes he himself is the one correctly guided by the Spirit, then he must conclude that the true interpretation throughout history is the one that agrees with----himself.

Funny. You've taken a page from CaliforniaJosiah and turned it upside down. RC (and LDS) is the only denomination that agrees with itself. It's the way apostasy is not recognized as it falls further and further away when the rule of faith is exchanged from scripture to traditions of men; that is, whatever we say.

 

[MrPolo]

One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

Hi, UB, I'm curious how you would rephrase the principle of Sola Scriptura then if it is not each individual depending on his own interpretation?

 

[E.C.]

I know. I was simply responding to the "all praise of Mary is praise of Christ" thing. I didn't make bones about whether or not it was Orthodox, or Catholic... I just know I've seen it. Wasn't thinking of the Orthodox when I wrote that.

Well, in every Orthodox icon of Mary she is depicted with Christ as a child and a large portion of those icons have her pointing to Him like so:

If we gave her honor to the point of obsession like many erroneously insist than Christ would not be there at all. The only icon that has Mary and only Mary without Christ is the icon of the Annunciation.

To really understand why we give her some degree of honor it may be a good idea to read up on the Council of Ephesus in 431.

I'm a so-called "protestant", (I prefer the term Christian because I'm a son of God), and I can totally guarantee that no-one with half a brain would deny that Mary gave birth to the Christ Jesus.

What we believe is that there is no point praying to Mary, or Abraham, or any other dead saint. That"s an abomination. We should only speak to the living.

Hi! I'm a Christian too!

Define "death".

 

[MrPolo]

Funny. You've taken a page from CaliforniaJosiah and turned it upside down. RC (and LDS) is the only denomination that agrees with itself.

This line of thinking has long been debunked.

 

[Standing Up]

This line of thinking has long been debunked.

Really? So, EO and RC agree? So, OO and RC agree? So, RC internally agrees with itself? So, P and RC agree?

So, all the current dogmas may be found in the ECFs back in 100-300ad? Goodness gracious, we don't even have the first apostles to bishops clearly and cleanly established with RC. One ECF says this; another ECF says that. There's no unequivical connection at all. No, RC agrees solely with itself over the years.

 

[MrPolo]

Really? So, EO and RC agree? So, OO and RC agree? So, RC internally agrees with itself? So, P and RC agree?

So, all the current dogmas may be found in the ECFs back in 100-300ad? Goodness gracious, we don't even have the first apostles to bishops clearly and cleanly established with RC. One ECF says this; another ECF says that. There's no unequivical connection at all. No, RC agrees solely with itself over the years.

I don't even know where to begin with this SU, but it does not describe Catholic teaching on the nature of divine revelation, doctrinal development, Apostolic Succession, conciliar pronouncements, etc... at all. Your post does describe the strange fictional caricature of Catholicism that critics impose on it that all ECFs must agree at all times, which by definition makes it a straw man.

At any rate, the Westminster Confession necessarily places the individual as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't even know where to begin with this SU, but it does not describe Catholic teaching on the nature of divine revelation, doctrinal development, Apostolic Succession, conciliar pronouncements, etc... at all. Your post does describe the strange fictional caricature of Catholicism that critics impose on it that all ECFs must agree at all times, which by definition makes it a straw man.

I said RC agrees with itself. You responded that is not true.

Fictional? Like Tertullian or Irenaeus are fictional now? Sorry, don't agree. The apostolic connection and first 6 or so bishops are contradictory. That is news to me that RC cares not about that anymore.

At any rate, the Westminster Confession necessarily places the individual as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture.

Again, no. You are creating a fictional caricature of how it works.

Eph. 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Rom. 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

When you don't do that (and other stuff), you end up with all sorts of denominations, OO, RC, EO, Protestants, etc. And again, as noted above, it helps to have that first apostolic unadulterated connection.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hi, UB, I'm curious how you would rephrase the principle of Sola Scriptura then if it is not each individual depending on his own interpretation?

it would be a hard job for me to do, since the paradigms are so far apart.

but simply, we aren't to read it, and then just make up our beliefs.

although I will admit that it happens very frequently. I personally do not think that Scripture is all that mystifying though, the vast majority of it is clear cut (which explains why a very very large portion of orthodox, and non orthodox beliefs are the same.)

I've gotten way past the quibbling about it. But I tell you this, I'd like to believe some things differently than what scripture states (for instance, I'd love to believe in universalism, because it would be cool if everyone was redeemed, but scripture doesn't detail that.)

I don't know if I have the gumption to try and make the distinction, only to have it argued over again and again. (not from you.)

Well, in every Orthodox icon of Mary she is depicted with Christ as a child and a large portion of those icons have her pointing to Him like so:

If we gave her honor to the point of obsession like many erroneously insist than Christ would not be there at all. The only icon that has Mary and only Mary without Christ is the icon of the Annunciation.

To really understand why we give her some degree of honor it may be a good idea to read up on the Council of Ephesus in 431.

indeed, I wasn't intending in casting stones. I just feel the statement that "all marian devotion is devotion to Christ" is erroneous, I have seen some pretty over the top Marian.... let's say "practices."

I don't even know where to begin with this SU, but it does not describe Catholic teaching on the nature of divine revelation, doctrinal development, Apostolic Succession, conciliar pronouncements, etc... at all. Your post does describe the strange fictional caricature of Catholicism that critics impose on it that all ECFs must agree at all times, which by definition makes it a straw man.

At any rate, the Westminster Confession necessarily places the individual as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture.

I think, Polo, that one of the hardships for a Prot, is that we are often told that Catholicism is validated by the concensus of the ECF... that their agreement on doctrinal matters is of vast import in proving that the early Church did indeed have (roman) Catholic beliefs.

it's not hard for people to make the small leap to believing that the Catholic church state that they all agreed all the time.

it could be viewed by an outsider as having your cake and eating it to, (I.E. It's true because they agreed, but they didn't have to agree all the time for it to be true.)

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

I think, Polo, that one of the hardships for a Prot, is that we are often told that Catholicism is validated by the concensus of the ECF... that their agreement on doctrinal matters is of vast import in proving that the early Church did indeed have (roman) Catholic beliefs.

it's not hard for people to make the small leap to believing that the Catholic church state that they all agreed all the time.

it could be viewed by an outsider as having your cake and eating it to, (I.E. It's true because they agreed, but they didn't have to agree all the time for it to be true.)

Heh, heh.

It is an eye opener simply to realize that the whole Peter to X or Y or Z isn't historically verifiable Besides Peter himself tells us about his transferance of authority; it's in scripture. Oh yes, that thing that no one can understand Of course not, if we could, we'd read from Peter himself what he did

Oh well, carry on as they say.

 

[MrPolo]

I think, Polo, that one of the hardships for a Prot, is that we are often told that Catholicism is validated by the concensus of the ECF... that their agreement on doctrinal matters is of vast import in proving that the early Church did indeed have (roman) Catholic beliefs.

I think you should research for yourself and not always let someone tell you how the Church identifies truths. There are indeed issues on which the early Church was simply unanimous on a teaching, like the regeneration of baptism or Real Presence in the Eucharist and a number of other issues. And then there are other issues with a diversity of opinions, such as whether or not circumcision was necessary in the NT as discussed at the council in Acts 15. Of course, the Church then didn't let the differing views prevent them from identifying the correct truth. And the fact that there were varying views on the issue prior to Acts 15 doesn't invalidate the decision made at the council. And it was not circular reasoning for leaders of the Church after Acts 15 to say they professed the truth of uncircumcision because they agree with themselves---it would be nonsense to accuse them of that. And it's no matter of insignificance that the Church believed matters can be sorted out authoritatively in spite of disagreement.

So as a rule of thumb, whether the Church is universally teaching a matter consistent through the years, or whether there are honest differing beliefs like in Acts 15, we believe the Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. It is only in the Spirit we trust the truth to be revealed. And if there are no deeper understanding of divine revelation until the end of the age, then the Spirit wouldn't really be active in guiding the Church in truth.

Anyway, like I said, it's good to study for yourself if you think you're getting a line of bull from apologists who claim the Church matches exactly to every degree of understanding in all dogma to the early Church (although I know of none who put it that way). I will agree with the sentiment that all dogmas can be traced to the original apostolic deposit of Scripture whether in a seed form or further developed, but either way we believe all the Church's understanding of truth flows from the same source.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

not necessarily so. There are instances of praising Mary for Mary's sake.

I don't know what this means.

something that springs to mind is the Mariologial society, "America Needs Fatima" etc.

What about them? I'm on their email list. You will have to be more specific.

exactly why it bothers me when a fellow protestant (of whatever ilk) gets up in arms about the title.

it's a mountain out of a molehill, Mary did indeed bear Jesus the Christ, who is God.

But they have a problem with it because they fail to understand the Incarnation. Orthodoxy is one thing and one thing alone -- a correct understanding of the Incarnation. All heresies derive from a confusion regarding it.

One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

utterly false.

Then why is that one of the tenets of the Protestant Rebellion?

 

[Standing Up]

Then why is that one of the tenets of the Protestant Rebellion?

Heh, heh. Another good one

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

Uhh, no. If you're testing you're interpretation against Scripture, you're not left to your own interpretation, but rather to God's word.

OTOH, if you're not doing that, then you're left with traditions of men, etc.

Not with the traditions of men, but the Sacred Traditions given to us by God.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

We will stand fast by Scripture and the Apostles. Scripture only makes any sense within the context of the Church. To try to take Scripture out of context results in chaos and confusion, as we have seen.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't know what this means.

you have to piece it together.

assertion was made: Praise of Mary is for Christ's sake.

I've observed the opposite.


[/quote]
What about them? I'm on their email list. You will have to be more specific.

I won't say any more about them, since you consider them valid. I can only offend you if I speak my mind on those groups.

Then why is that one of the tenets of the Protestant Rebellion?

oh, you're one of THOSE.

the people who think us modern day protestants are in "rebellion" to the Roman Catholic church.

we won't get anywhere going down this road.