Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, I did - and there are exceptions to that rule, too! :)
But seriously, you know that the Pharaoh also hardened his own heart. The Scriptures do not exclude Pharaoh from hardening his own heart, as well as God having something to do with it. Again, this is a mystery that I don't think we can explain - God's work of grace or lack of work in the reprobate.
As to Matthew, certainly, you will agree that God gave Peter the ability to walk on water??? Otherwise, Peter would have sank like a rock (sorry for the pun!) :)
Regards
Well, this is the best anyone has done so far! :-)
Your explanation is that Mary understood that she would undergo a virginal conception, and just wanted to know the mechanism. If she had simply said, "how can this thing be?", then this would be a much stronger argument. She goes on to say, though, "since I know not a man." At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why would she add that phrase if she knew that there would not (and could not) be a man involved in the conception of the Messiah?
I think you misunderstand my fundamental goal here. I am not attempting to argue, based sola scriptura, that the Orthodox belief is correct. I don't think that such a thing would be possible. All that we can maintain is that our beliefs regarding the Theotokos are consistent with Scripture, properly understood. I don't expect you to be convinced even by that, but I acknowledge that it is the very best I would be able to do on a Protestant playing field.
What happened was that I saw monkfan ask a pretty straightforward question -- one that the Orthodox account has a ready answer for. We understand that since Mary had taken a vow before God to remain a virgin and felt called to be a virgin, this announcement by an angel seemed to be placing something holy (a life of virginity in order to be devoted to prayer) in opposition to something holy (bearing a holy child.)
We also understand that she knew that Satan can appear as "an angel of light," and that it is possible to be deceived. We understand that Eve's fundamental mistake was that she did not question the serpent when he said something contradicted what God had told her. Thus, she made bold to question the angel, in order to be certain that she was not being deceived in the same way that Eve was -- we see a direct parallel between these events. Once the angel had answered her definitively and she understood that there was no contradiction, then there were no more questions -- only acquiescence to God's will. We do not see her as being "curious" in the least -- if mere curiosity as to mechanism were the motivation, one would expect that she would have had many more questions for the angel as to details.
I then observed that monkfan wasn't getting a straight answer, and as he points out, if we are going to have these discussions, the playing field has to be "even." Thus I interjected myself. (You are equally free to call us on the carpet when we engage in speculation that isn't supported by our own tradition and standards of faith!)
If Protestants are going to categorically and unequivocally state that the Orthodox belief that at the time of the Annunciation Mary was planning to remain a virgin, is not and cannot be true, and if you are going to state that your absolute certainty on this matter is based on Scripture alone, then you have to have a very good explanation for this particular passage. And so far, I'm still not convinced that you have made an argument that would meet your own standards.
It matches your beliefs, but it doesn't meet your standards of Scriptural proof. I'm perfectly content if you wish simply to say "we Protestants have as a dogma the belief that Mary never intended to be remain a virgin, and thus we have to read that verse in the light of our belief." :-)
Thanks for your reply. I'm hoping to get clear what mean.
"Men were created in the image of God, and fell by the sin of disobedience and pride. Thus, no contradiction. Pre-fall. Post-fall."
So post-fall we are the blood and bones and instinct only whereas pre-fall we are created in the image of God.
Am I correct in this last statement?
She gives up sex (for life!) for God and you think she's being self-serving? LOL! Where are you from?
What about poor Joseph?
What about him?
I suppose your entire argument rest upon the simple phrase, "Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luk 1:34) If she knew from Isaiah 7 that the Messiah was going to be brought forth by a virgin, then why would she asked that question? Is this correct?
My argument expanded when you mentioned Joseph, but nevermind...
Mary was isn’t questioning God’s angel through unfaithfulness as Zachariah did. Mary was simply questioning the mechanics of the situation. Mary is asking HOW can a virgin bring forth a Messiah. I must admit I would probably ask the same question,...
...
Please note the angel’s response:
I believe I've already been there and done that.
Mary was simply asking how God was going to bring about this miracle. The angel told her how it was going to be done. You will find this part is not covered in Isaiah 7. Mary was simply curious.
I think it would take more than just simple curiosity to prompt a person to question The Almighty. But, hey, I'm just speculating here. ;)
On the side, let me say thanks for putting an honest effort into this exercise.
Actually, I think my argument is far stronger than yours-but what would you expect me to say. :O) If we were to suppose Mary included the, "How can this thing be because I am a virgin?" as you suggest, I would say this is no different than the doubting Zachariah statement of how can his wife give birth. Both would be claiming doubt about how God could do a particular thing. But the response from the angel is far different in Zachariah's case than in Mary's case for we know the angel made Zachariah dumb where with Mary he simply answered her question.
This can only mean Mary was not asking it as a question concerning God's ability. With your interpretation such doubts exist with Mary's statement. With my interpretation Mary is not questioning the Lord but simply asking how something is going to transpirer.
I can't argue with your other interpretations of Mary simply because they are not part of the inspired word of God. They are based upon traditions handed down. Some of those traditions may be valid. Some may be fanciful. But few if any is recorded in scripture.
As Full Court argued, you will have a far more difficult time arguing with Matt 1:25 than I have with Luke 1:34. There are other places that seems to indicate Mary had other children.
This is a reasonable explanation, but it still does not explain why a girl about to be married presumes the predicted conception to be in any other manner but in the manner how every other girl conceives a child upon marriage.
Also, this is not the only reason to believe in her perpetual virginity, it is simply the most suitable for Protestant style prooftexting. There are also (off the top of my head)
Being betrothed does not mean that the marriage was taking place very soon.
Oh, no!
No!
Aah!
Free from original sin Mary freely chose just like Eve freely chose. To undo Eve she had to defeat her in the same field. Here's the question. The Angel says, -- Your son is going to be the King and reign forever. The Girl says, -- Hm, OK, deal. This is a free will response but this is a concupiscent response. We must know that Mary was free from a disordered desire when she agreed to cooperate with God, -- truly free.
Consider the Apostles, and Judas in particular. They, too, at one point were asked to follow the King, and freely agreed. But their free will was a product of concupiscent minds, so their cooperation was mixed with vanity and betrayal till the Pentecost regenerated eleven of them. Their story reflects the struggle Mary would have exhibited had she been marked with the same stain of Adam. But the gospel sets her apart from the Apostles in her behavior and her role. It is logical to say that her consent was different in kind to their consent.
Unless they repented, I believe they would all go to hell. Unless they have forgiven those who trespassed against them, they could not ask God to forgive their trespasses. Those who showed no mercy can expect no mercy, the Scripture says.
So for you, the scripture says that faith plays no part in whether we go to hell, that it is only determined by the deeds that we do. If this is your view then no scripture I can quote to you will have any meaning. But since we have all committed these acts in our lives, then you must believe that all people go to hell. You also must believe that Christ rescues some. Does He do this one at a time, or does He wait until His return? And, is this the hell of the Bible, with the lake of fire and all the weeping and gnashing of teeth? That sounds like a real bummer. I believe I will skip that part. :)
Adam and Eve did not repent, so they would be in hell.
How in the world could you know if they repented? Or, do you mean that just committing sin one time sends one to hell, generally?
And what is your definition of salvation? It is to accept Jesus as your God and Savior? I don't think there is another way. Well, they didn't know Him -- even if we speculate that they would have recognized Him, they still didn't accept Him because they lived before He did, ...
Faith saved in the OT and faith saves today. In the OT, the faithful looked forward to the Messiah, and KNEW that He would come. Today, the faithful look back on the Messiah, and KNOW that He came.
Neither did the angel indicate any particular timeframe.
Regarding the Scripture you offered, what has been "committed to" the animals, and what have the animals "learned" from whom?
The difference is that Zachary questions that God would give him and Elizabeth the strength to bring forth a child, while Mary questions how the new command from God squares with an obligation to God she already has.
If I am God and I tell you, -- Fly off the cliff! -- and you say "er, no wings" -- you are being disobedient. But if I tell you -- Fly! Swim! -- you are entitled to ask how to do both tasks at the same time.
Regarding (4), I was pulling your leg. It worked.
The Roman Catholics see Mary not as an ordinary human but a very special and uncommon human with a special role that no one can emmulate. Thus she was created to succeed.
In the Orthodox belief, Mary is an "under dog" (a pre-Fall human trying outdo the pre-Fall Eve and succeeding); in the Roman Catholic view, she is simply "created" as a "top dog" (pre-Fall human) with all the grace needed to resist temptations and corruption.
Judaism holds that one is made acceptable to God by works. There is no reason to believe that the OT Patriarchs and Prophets believed otherwise.
How in the world could you know if [Adam and Eve] repented?
They didn't repent when God gave them a chance to repent in the Garden of Eden. Apparently, God did not find it necessary to re-visit their spiritual growth after they were kicked out of the Garden or else something would have been written about it, don't you think?
Besides, the icon of Resurrection shows them being pulled out of their graves in hell...so obviously the Church thought so to. The only thing I don't understand is how come they are fully formed humans (with clothes!) and all this time I thought the bones will not rattle and acquire new flesh until the Second Coming.
Faith saved in the OT and faith saves today. In the OT, the faithful looked forward to the Messiah, and KNEW that He would come. Today, the faithful look back on the Messiah, and KNOW that He came
A Jew who is an atheist can still be considered rigtheous in Judaism, so faith is not required. To the best of my knowledge, in the biblical times there were no atheists.
Today the faithful look FORWARD to Christ's second coming. The OT Jews expected a Messiah, but Judaism's view of the Messiah doesn't even come close to the Christian. The only ting we share is the Greek term.
So, it is fine for earthly godparents to overrule the child for his own spiritual good, but you deny that ability to God for his children who are of age
It's done differently, but in both cases the desired result is an opportunity to improve, change, add, etc. In the case of Adults, God send us numerous blessings and opporutnities, whether they be people, events or even punihsments, for imporvement.
Not really. It's been done before.
The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son(1), yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world(2), not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord(3), meaning after the general resurrection.
-Saint John of Damascus, 8th century
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.