Posted on 05/14/2008 10:13:07 AM PDT by NYer
Something to contemplate and discuss.
bttt
The Honorable service of each of His servants, is each within the context of what gifts they are given, and what situations that are presented to them. The Gifts are not ours, nor are the tasks.
We are Stewards.
One servant's honorable service is not, by any measure on this Earth, any “Greater” or “Lesser” than any other servant's.
Only God can make that statement.
From that perspective, revering any one servant as Greater or Lesser is fraught with error, and should be done with considerable caution
God is eternal. He has, does and will exist forever. Since Mary is a finite human woman, how can she be the mother of God?
It matter little what Reformers taught; what matter is how a doctrine will stand up when examined with the heart and method of a Berean (Act 17:11) which God commends, in the light of the only written (material) authority word which the Holy Ghost affirms is inspired of God and is to be used “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
In the light of which, the title “mother of God” is hardly warranted, esp. in it’s typically unqualified sense, for while she provided the body God had prepared for Jesus (Heb. 10:4), the term “mother” denotes a source of something, and Mary was in no wise a mother of Jesus Divinity. Instead, Jesus as God actually created her! She did help raise him, but in this Mary was no more the mother of Deity than Joseph was the Father of God.
Thus the term “mother of God” is never used in Scripture (which substantiation, like many other R.c. teachings, is not needed by an autocratic Caesario-papacy), while the term “mother of my Lord (Lk. 1:43) makes the often seen distinction between Jesus Lordship as regards his position and His Deity, as regards His essential nature (Jn. 20:28).
(John 20:28) “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”
Moreover, if Mary was God’s “spouse,” then He would be a polygamist, as the Holy Spirit only provides one wife for God, that being the church corporate (Jer. 3:14; Eph. 5:32).
As for Jesus Deity, that itself is abundantly substantiated: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html .
Only God can make that statement.
That is what He sent Gabriel to do.
From that perspective, revering any one servant as Greater or Lesser is fraught with error, and should be done with considerable caution
As should refusing to acknowledge it.
popcorn anyone?
(1) The Incarnation, the entry of God into His creation as a creature, is an amazing thing. It bends the rules and shatters the concepts we bring to the table, among which is, "You got your CreatOR over HERE and your creatURE over THERE."
(2)We gotta think carefully about what Motherhood is. Mothers and Fathers both contribute to the, ah, exercise, "material" (or something, anyway) which determines what the offspring is. That is true in the case of the Incarnation/nativity as well. God contributed something, Mary contributed something.
Then mothers "grow" and "nurture" the child in their wombs. Then they give birth". And then in the normal course of events, they continue to nurture the child, at least as far as first food is concerned.
All these things Mary did. She was just like every other mother of offspring. And even though PART of the offspring in every case is, so to speak, exogenous, WE don't say, "My wife is the mother of the part of our daughter that doesn't come from me," but, "I am the father, and she is the mother."
Mother hood is not a "stand-alone" status or function. It implies "There's more to this kid than what the mother provided."
Heck, even some of the genetic material in our kid is older than my wife, I'd guess.
So it just seems that if we think about motherhood, it seems like MARY is a mother and she is the mother of Him to whom she gave birth no more and no less than any mother is of what she brings forth.
Mary is the mother of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. If you believe Jesus was God then you believe that Mary was the mother of the Word made Flesh.
No it doesn't.
A wife is not the source of her child (nor its owner - that's the stand of the Pro-abortion crowd, not that stand of humans through time. So the boss-lady is not the source of the 'orrible brat child.
Even Aristotle does not think the mother is the source of the child, qua child. Knowing less about genetics than we think we do, Aristotle thought the mother just provided the "stuff" but the "childness" was provided by the father.
My mother is not the source of me. "Mother of all battles" did not mean the "source of all battles". "Mother of vinegar" is not the source of vinegar but something which metabolizes alcohol into vinegar. Even the pagan "Mother earth" doesn't mean the source of us'ns, but our nurturer.
The bible says almost nothing about Mary, but some of what it does say is surprisingly anti-Marian.
I was catechized for four years for four hours every Saturday morning before making my first communion. No where in any catechism I saw or have seen since (since I left the church and haven't bothered to see if they still have one) did I see any reference to Mary other than as the Virgin Mother of our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The only break with the Catholic Church I can detect is that we did not acknowledge Mary as an Intercessor. It was verboten. Our only Mediator and Intercessor was/is Jesus, Christ. Our liturgy was identical to the RC, some of our hymns were identical (and the majority of our hymns were light-years ahead in terms of musicality and singer-friendliness)., If you didn't like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and four-part harmony vigorously sung, you were pretty much out of luck). We were leery of the Rosary, leery of the statues, not so much because they existed, but because of the "superstition" some attributed to them. Aside from the major sticking point, "Saved by Grace Alone" as opposed to "Salvation by Works," we were as close as any two peas in a pod could be. As a RC, now, I find the Rosary a beautiful meditation on the gospels. I find the Chaplet of Divine Mercy has given me such peace and comfort -- not as a repetitive prayer -- babbling as pagans, but as a reflection on the sinful nature of fallen man and the hope that all will come to salvation. The statues are no more than another vehicle to bring the gospels to life (as in the Stations of the Cross). I don't look to have bloody tears streaming from the face of Mary, or to see her face in a tortilla. I don't expect St. Joseph to move across the sanctuary, but I remember what a leap of faith he took when he listened to God (some today would say the boy was schizophrenic), but I see the devoted servants of God, loving and nurturing the child whose form God took to lead us out of darkness. Whoohoo! I just preached up a mess of goose bumps. There may be some tweaks here and there, but all in all the RC is the Mother Church, and all others can thank God she is still standing -- like her or not, she's a good mother.
Well, it looks like the mere mention of Mary is going to bring out NOT patient and careful discussion but a barrage of statements from every direction which will preclude any real deliberation. Boring.
Name ONE verse.
And back to the topic of the thread, if this is the case then why did EVERY major Reformer declare otherwise?
...that’s the Congregational Church, not the “Congressional Church”.
And this surprises you?
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
And this verse is “anti-Marian” how?
Exactly. Luther was taught that from childhood and probably still believed it. Those beliefs are hard to combat. She was the mother of our Lord, not the ‘mother of God.’
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.