Why some Lutheran's disagree with Luther on the EV of Mary -Please let's discuss...

[Philothei]

I don't think it is the straw man you believe it is. Liturgical churches such as the EOC and RCC teach that faith is to be placed indirectly in God through the doctrines and traditions of the church; i.e., they trust in man's interpretations of Scripture and doctrines over Scripture itself. The Israelites rejected God's plan that every man be a priest after first agreeing to it (Ex. 19:5-8) but later feared to follow God and demanded that Moses be their mediator (Ex. 20:18-21).

We are restored to God's original plan under the new covenant (I Pet.2:9), but you insist that you must go to God through men whom we believe to be of dubious authority. Thus your belief that we of non-liturgical churches likewise heed our founders' doctrines.

Every man is directly accountable to God.

It is very much just so statement. Just because we have dogma stemming out of scripture that does not negate anything you have stated. Interpreting individually the scripture is much "going to God through men" just the same...In reality I would rather trust the resolutions of the councils rather than the individual 'dogma' as in the case of individual interpretation.

Your example of Moses... is well poor in comparison. Christ placed his apostles...It is evident in the covenant (new). Go therefore and make disciples .... He said to them.... He gave us Apostles, Prophets etc. not everyone is an apostle or a prophet or a teacher...We are called to it. It is throughout the Acts and the NT. Some are leaders some are teachers some etc. Not everyone serves in the same capacity. We are all called tot he royal priesthood but have different function. We are all members of the body of Christ just different parts with different functions. You missunderstand function and calling for secular idea of leadership...

 

[jackmt]

It is very much just so statement. Just because we have dogma stemming out of scripture that does not negate anything you have stated. Interpreting individually the scripture is much "going to God through men" just the same...In reality I would rather trust the resolutions of the councils rather than the individual 'dogma' as in the case of individual interpretation.

Your example of Moses... is well poor in comparison. Christ placed his apostles...It is evident in the covenant (new). Go therefore and make disciples .... He said to them.... He gave us Apostles, Prophets etc. not everyone is an apostle or a prophet or a teacher...We are called to it. It is throughout the Acts and the NT. Some are leaders some are teachers some etc. Not everyone serves in the same capacity. We are all called tot he royal priesthood but have different function. We are all members of the body of Christ just different parts with different functions. You missunderstand function and calling for secular idea of leadership...

I am having a difficult time understanding your points. Please edit for grammar and clarity. The point about Moses is spot on; Peter, your first pope, was referring exactly to that passage in his letter. There is one mediator between God and man; the(God)man Christ Jesus. Paul commended the Bereans for not merely trusting him but for searching the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. Jesus said to the Sadducees "Is this not the reason you do err; that you know neither Scripture nor the power of God? To the Pharisees, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, but they speak of Me." Again, "Have you not read, in the beginning...?" Jesus encouraged His followers to search the Scripture, to trust in Him and His word, to rely on God. As did Paul, Peter, James, etc. That is why they (He) wrote them. He chided the rulers for their negation of God's word by their traditions, and for preventing those who would enter heaven by their teachings that negate the word of God. But you side with the ruling elite who with their 'higher criticism' of Scripture ask "Yea, Hath God truly said...?" (Gen.3:1)

 

[Philothei]

I

I am having a difficult time understanding your points. Please edit for grammar and clarity. The point about Moses is spot on; Peter, your first pope, was referring exactly to that passage in his letter. There is one mediator between God and man; the(God)man Christ Jesus. Paul commended the Bereans for not merely trusting him but for searching the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. Jesus said to the Sadducees "Is this not the reason you do err; that you know neither Scripture nor the power of God? To the Pharisees, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life, but they speak of Me." Again, "Have you not read, in the beginning...?" Jesus encouraged His followers to search the Scripture, to trust in Him and His word, to rely on God. As did Paul, Peter, James, etc. That is why they (He) wrote them. He chided the rulers for their negation of God's word by their traditions, and for preventing those who would enter heaven by their teachings that negate the word of God. But you side with the ruling elite who with their 'higher criticism' of Scripture ask "Yea, Hath God truly said...?" (Gen.3:1)

If you do not understand me you do not have to answer my post

As far as the "elite" then the Apostles are elite too?

 

[jackmt]

I

If you do not understand me you do not have to answer my post

As far as the "elite" then the Apostles are elite too?

"It is very much so just statement." How am I to interpret this? And to what does it refer? Other statements are hard to parse because of your poor grammar and excessive and erroneous use of elision. (I only think) I am able to understand the rest because I am interpreting it in light of your attitude that shines through so clearly. I always edit my posts for spelling, grmmar, and content before I send them and edit again after if I've missed something the first time because I am trying to communicate clearly. I wish others would do the same. Some of my persistent failures have to do with the fact that I need new glasses.

God chose the authors of Scripture and inspired them to write as they did. He only allowed those books into canon which He approved as His authoritative word. Many of the Bible's authors had other writings that did not "make the cut." We do not know if God chose your councils. We rather think not for their unbiblical doctrines. We do know that fallible men appointed them, and that they consist of fallible men. God says He honors His word above His name (Ps. 138:2). I will trust God and His word over men who seek to negate it with their higher criticisms and unbiblical teachings.

 

[Thekla]

"It is very much so just statement." How am I to interpret this? And to what does it refer? Other statements are hard to parse because of your poor grammar and excessive and erroneous use of elision. (I only think) I am able to understand the rest because I am interpreting it in light of your attitude that shines through so clearly. I always edit my posts for spelling, grmmar, and content before I send them and edit again after if I've missed something the first time because I am trying to communicate clearly. I wish others would do the same. Some of my persistent failures have to do with the fact that I need new glasses.

God chose the authors of Scripture and inspired them to write as they did. He only allowed those books into canon which He approved as His authoritative word. Many of the Bible's authors had other writings that did not "make the cut." We do not know if God chose your councils. We rather think not for their unbiblical doctrines. We do know that fallible men appointed them, and that they consist of fallible men. God says He honors His word above His name (Ps. 138:2). I will trust God and His word over men who seek to negate it with their higher criticisms and unbiblical teachings.

Not everyone who posts in CF is a native (American) English speaker.

Professional authors, and practiced readers, are able to convey and pretty accurately "read" attitude etc. in written form.

But in less than optimal and/or professional circumstances (and even in these) accurately "reading" attitude is not a given.

If you find the post difficult to understand, and clarification is not made, then to tread cautiously in responding or not responding is warranted.

Having stated you find the post difficult to read, it is not unlikely the "attitude" you read may also not be accurate.

Per the content of the above post (yours), you have not provided any support for your claim re: the Councils. Nor any support for your tacit claim that you "read" Scripture aright.

Of course, it would be most fruitful to drop the adversarial approach altogether ...

Are you game to do so ?

 

[jackmt]

Not everyone who posts in CF is a native (American) English speaker.

Professional authors, and practiced readers, are able to convey and pretty accurately "read" attitude etc. in written form.

But in less than optimal and/or professional circumstances (and even in these) accurately "reading" attitude is not a given.

If you find the post difficult to understand, and clarification is not made, then to tread cautiously in responding or not responding is warranted.

Having stated you find the post difficult to read, it is not unlikely the "attitude" you read may also not be accurate.

Fair enough. I assumed from the author's location and a fair competence with the language, relative to others on these forums who are clearly native speakers, and that she is a moderator, that she is a native as well.

Per the content of the above post (yours), you have not provided any support for your claim re: the Councils. Nor any support for your tacit claim that you "read" Scripture aright.

Of course, it would be most fruitful to drop the adversarial approach altogether ...

Are you game to do so ?

She cited her faith in councils above Scripture. I know of no reason to trust them and asked for her reasons. So far no response.

My understanding of Scripture grows as I listen to teachers, read books, study Scripture and pray for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit. I have read it wrongly as a Christian. I am sure I still do. That is why I sit before various teachers: no one of them has the whole picture. Often my error was because I was bringing into my reading unbiblical beliefs and assumptions from my RCC instruction of my youth. I have even had to tone down my visceral rejection of all RCC teachings; nobody is wrong about everything. I have been a follower of Christ for nearly 35 years and a seeker for many years before that. I am still growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and hope to until He takes me home.

And I am too combative at times. I have a hard time (35 yrs. now) getting over my anger at the RCC. And my passion for truth and accuracy sometimes affects my approach. Also I have Asperger's Syndrome, which makes reading others and considering their feelings and points of view difficult. Not an excuse; I am recently Dxed and I am in several therapies to learn to manage it better. I have the responsibilty to continue to learn and to do better.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT

The original post asked a specific question:

Why some Lutheran's disagree with Luther on the EV of Mary -Please let's discuss... Some Lutherans disagree with the founder of their church Luther on the EV of Mary...It is not a dogma but still some do believe it and some do not...For the ones who do believe it why it is important to you that you do....Also for the ones who do not believe it why it is important that you do not...

Can you both offer the explanation... And why it is important to you for both views...Thanks

The topic of the thread is to discuss the differences between traditional Orthodox and Catholic theology, doctrines and dogmatics and the Lutheran tradition of Adiaphora regarding these beliefs.

Please stay on topic.

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[Thekla]

Fair enough. I assumed from the author's location and a fair competence with the language, relative to others on these forums who are clearly native speakers, and that she is a moderator, that she is a native as well.

That's an understandable conclusion - I've interacted with the poster numerous times, so I know that she isn't a native.

She cited her faith in councils above Scripture. I know of no reason to trust them and asked for her reasons. So far no response.

I don't know specifically, but perhaps her reasons are much like what you describe below.

My understanding of Scripture grows as I listen to teachers, read books, study Scripture and pray for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit. I have read it wrongly as a Christian. I am sure I still do. That is why I sit before various teachers: no one of them has the whole picture. Often my error was because I was bringing into my reading unbiblical beliefs and assumptions from my RCC instruction of my youth. I have even had to tone down my visceral rejection of all RCC teachings; nobody is wrong about everything. I have been a follower of Christ for nearly 35 years and a seeker for many years before that. I am still growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and hope to until He takes me home.

I think most of us use the methods you mention above. Some come to know God intimately first, and then find Him more in the Scriptures, too.
What is known of many of those who attended the Councils (through their writings, for example), central is often a deep and lasting relationship and love for God.

I'm not RCC (nor is Philothei), and we thus don't agree with everything about the RCC either. But you're right - when something is in accord with God, it just is.

Glory to God that we may all continue to grow in our journey in Him

And I am too combative at times. I have a hard time (35 yrs. now) getting over my anger at the RCC. And my passion for truth and accuracy sometimes affects my approach. Also I have Asperger's Syndrome, which makes reading others and considering their feelings and points of view difficult. Not an excuse; I am recently Dxed and I am in several therapies to learn to manage it better. I have the responsibilty to continue to learn and to do better.

God with you in your struggle ! I don't know personally, but from what I do know, your cross is not one that is easy to bear.

I can relate to some of what you say, though; I also get irritated with inaccuracy

Thank you, JackMT !! I'm always so encouraged by how knowing each other better, we can benefit so much more from what God has given to each of us ...

 

[Philothei]

That's an understandable conclusion - I've interacted with the poster numerous times, so I know that she isn't a native.





I don't know specifically, but perhaps her reasons are much like what you describe below.


I think most of us use the methods you mention above. Some come to know God intimately first, and then find Him more in the Scriptures, too.
What is known of many of those who attended the Councils (through their writings, for example), central is often a deep and lasting relationship and love for God.

I'm not RCC (nor is Philothei), and we thus don't agree with everything about the RCC either. But you're right - when something is in accord with God, it just is.

Glory to God that we may all continue to grow in our journey in Him



God with you in your struggle ! I don't know personally, but from what I do know, your cross is not one that is easy to bear.

I can relate to some of what you say, though; I also get irritated with inaccuracy

Thank you Thekla, JackMT !! I'm always so encouraged by how knowing each other better, we can benefit so much more from what God has given to each of us ...

Thanks Thekla for filling in for me. Jack! I am not a native American...(if anyone can accurately define this term ..since native means Indian in its true meaning) still instead of dealing with my difficulty you could pm me to discuss this in private if that is your intent. If you intent is indeed to insult -as many do around this forum- then may God be with you my friend! I would advice you to concentrate on the topic rather than who and why another poster or mod is replying to you. It is up to you to ask for explanation and communicate with me or not. I on the other hand have no obligation to respond to you either still i would not feel it is right to discuss this in the thread.

Thanks

 

[Dorothea]

Me too because I've never really heard any EO take the issue with this view. It always seems to be arguing over if it's true or not, and not examining the root of it. Long standing pious traditions are often taken as doctrinal even when many times they don't really meet the criteria. I'm not advocating that these should be flippantly discarded, but rather that they are really internal matters, meant for personal contemplation and spiritual growth after illumination and are not really part of the Gospel proper that is proclaimed to the world.

The EV of Mary in the EOC is a dogma according to this link:


The whole dogmatic teaching about our Lady can be condensed into these two names of hers: the Mother of God (Theotokos) and the Ever-Virgin (aiparthenos). Both names have the formal authority of the Church Universal, an ecumenical authority indeed. The Virgin Birth is plainly attested in the New Testament and has been an integral part of the Catholic tradition ever since. “Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary” (or “Born of the Virgin Mary”) is a credal phrase. It is not merely a statement of the historical fact. It is precisely a credal statement, a solemn profession of faith. The term “Ever-Virgin” was formally endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). And Theotokos is more than a name or an honorific title. It is rather a doctrinal definition-in one word. It has been a touchstone of the true faith and a distinctive mark of Orthodoxy even before the Council of Ephesus (432).

The Ever-Virgin-Mother of God - Orthodox Christian Resource Center

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Some Lutherans disagree with the founder of their church Luther on the EV of Mary...It is not a dogma but still some do believe it and some do not...For the ones who do believe it why it is important to you that you do....Also for the ones who do not believe it why it is important that you do not...

Can you both offer the explanation... And why it is important to you for both views...Thanks

I don't think Mary was ever-virgin, but it's not a big deal for me, if she was, in the same way that I don't see what the problem is, if she and Joseph had other children, conceived naturally. What IS a big deal, is that she was a virgin, when she conceived Jesus.