You know, Kolo...wait, you don't know anything about how I arrived at my thinking, do you? It is hardly "anti-papalism" - how odd a description. I was responding to the OP about the council regarding Nestorian. You may want to go back and follow the thread.
I am sorry you missed my point, but it has nothing to do with being against Roman Catholism. My point is, if you find yourself having to backtrack to try to explain to the "unenlightened" that although Mary is referred to as Mother of God, you don't mean it to imply she is to be worshipped alongside the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that she did not preceed the Son nor is she sitting on her own special throne right next to them, then why come up with the unscriptural title in the first place?
Finally, I am not trying to "advance my Protestantism". How utterly silly. What I care about the most is the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Yes, sola fide. When a religion that calls itself Christian messes up that simple doctrine, just about everything else they profess should be examined as well. That's how I see it. I am still allowed, right?
A fitting one, if your posts are any guide.
Pretty nasty statement, especially when it's a matter of Biblical interpretation. I could throw "faith without works is dead," and all that back at you, but I will not question your Christianity in like manner.
...just about everything else they profess should be examined as well.
Please do examine anything and everything to your hearts content. :-)
“...wait, you don’t know anything about how I arrived at my thinking, do you?”
Sure I do; I read your about page.
“I am sorry you missed my point, but it has nothing to do with being against Roman Catholism.”
You wrongly claimed that the term Theotokos was dreamed up by some teachers in Rome. That is untrue. If you knew that was untrue, why did you post it? If you didn’t know what you were talking about, why did you post anything?
“I was responding to the OP about the council regarding Nestorian.”
I know what the thread was about and what you were responding to. The Council was in Ephesus, btw, not Rome and the heretic’s name was “Nestrorius” not “Nestorian”.
“My point is, if you find yourself having to backtrack to try to explain to the “unenlightened” that although Mary is referred to as Mother of God, you don’t mean it to imply she is to be worshipped alongside the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that she did not preceed the Son nor is she sitting on her own special throne right next to them, then why come up with the unscriptural title in the first place?”
Orthodoxy has never taught anything like that; the Creed makes it clear that she did not precede the Logos and we have no idea where she is “sitting”. The “unscriptural” (what would +Elizabeth know, right?) title Theotokos was applied to make clear that Christ is indeed God and not some demi-god a la Arius or divinely animated human form drone a la Nestorius. You do believe that Christ is God do you not?
“Finally, I am not trying to “advance my Protestantism”.”
Of course you are, your very own version of it. It appears to have as its defining hallmark the expected degree of anti-Romanism purely for the sake of anti-Romanism.
“I am still allowed, right?”
Of course you are still allowed. You can embrace any of the ancient heresies you wish, but when called on it, it would be better if you had a good scriptural and/or patristic or even scholastic argument for you position (+Paul’s epistles are full of good stuff to (wrongly in my opinion) base heresy on)and leave off the “Rome came up with this so it must be wrong” routine.