Replies

In passing, it was two ecumenical councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon, both in the 5th century that, as a matter of Christology, said that it was appropriate to call Mary "theotokos."

I am aware of this, whether It was a group of theologians paid to meet by the emperor, or a group of theologians meeting in a church really doesn't matter. The point being when doctrine "develops" over time it changes and is influenced by the political and social pressures of the day. Mary is only one example within your church. In the Anglican church it is homosexual bishops and same sex marriage. In both cases it is outside Scripture. Why would yours be correct and not theirs?

As to the term Theotokos vs Christokos the latter is probably more apt, but Nestorius had alienated so many the former was adopted. The term Theotokos is less appropriate because it implies that Mary was the Mother of the preincarnate God. She wasn't. The preincarnate God was begotten from the Father and preexisted creation. IOW, the Son of God preexisted Mary not vice versa.

If reason is utterly unreliable, then we are in a position similar to that held by "orthodox" Muslims with respect both to God and to the Koran.

This would be projection. Christians that hold to Scripture as the rule of faith are not supposed to check their brains at the door. What we do though is look at any doctrine through the lens of Scripture. If you can't find it, as is the case with the majority of your church's Marian beliefs, we ignore it.

I would submit to you that your church's Marian doctrines/dogmas have caused your church to miss some fundamental truths. For example, Jesus was born in a stable and laid down in a manger. Because of "developing" doctrine the RCC says Mary was born without sin. The reasoning is along the lines that God can't come into the world through a sin filled vessel. However, you don't see where He was born. A stable is filthy. It's where animals go to the bathroom, it smells and all kinds of vermin live there. A stable is not all that different then our hearts that God indwells when we become Christians. Your "developing" doctrine loses sight of this simple truth in it's attempt to counter greco-roman paganism.

I don't think it's legitimate or necessary to call my conjecture projection. I've spent enough time in therapy to have something of a clue whether I have an unresolved need to have an irrational authority riding herd on me, which need, because it makes me uncomfortable, I end up attributing to others. It's a question about the role of reason.

Why would yours be correct and not theirs? Good question. This is pretty much where it comes down to how you take what the Bible says about the Church, and clearly there's some disagreement there. (News, huh?)

We think the Church is protected, so that even if Theodosius and the bishops in question have dubious motives, the result of their deliberations will be reliable.

Incidentally, the Anglicans (not the homosexual ones, they don't care at all about authority) say that truly ecumenical councils are authoritative but there are none, they say, after 1054. I mention this because of the adoption of many Sola Scriptura folks of Trinitarian doctrine. To US that seems like picking and choosing among councils. I gotta knock off for a while. See ya.