Mary, Mother of God

http://www.catholic.com ^ | October 12, 2013 | Tim Staples

[NKP_Vet]

The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, “The words ‘Mother of God’ are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.”

This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. And we could go on. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.—same nature, Jesus has the “same nature” as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.

And this is not to mention “justification by faith alone.” Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as “Mother of God” because those words “are not found in the Bible,” will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words “not by” are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?

[CynicalBear]

>>You might want to check with CynicalBear about whether some are blessed above others.<<

I would hope that if you would read each of our posts you would see we both said the same thing.

[redleghunter]

In this Ephesians agrees. “...not our actions.” Indeed. It is not actions OR faith but actions AND faith.

I enjoy this type of conversation because it gets down to the bone and marrow of the Scriptures. So thanks!

If someone says they have saving faith and there is no good fruit evidenced, then James would say that faith is dead, basically called into question if it is true saving faith. In that I agree with you.,

Where we may disagree or have not established our positions on, is if human works+saving faith=justification. Looking at Paul's epistles and the OT examples he produces, our works do not count for our justification..."lest we should boast." Oh yes indeed there is WORK involved in Justification, but it is Jesus' Work.

Paul goes further in Romans 4 to point this out:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say?

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

Now rightly James says if you have faith show me your works. And this is what I believe James is talking about:

Romans 12: Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

So we have to ask the question, within the Scriptural context, "does the horse come before the cart or the cart before the horse?" Do our works (hopefully good enough) justify us before saving faith or after? Does faith in Christ's Work on the Cross and Resurrection need a dash of redleghunter's works for justification? I say no! Christ's Work did it all, He justifies, sanctifies and glorifies.

Now if I, redleghunter produce no fruit and claim I have saving faith, all the epistles tell me to examine my life to see if I had saving faith to begin with.

So a long way to answer your post...Saving faith is active and since the Root is Good, so will the fruit.

[daniel1212]

"Profitable or useful" is a long way from "sola." Sola scriptura fails its own test. If you believe in sola scriptura, you can't believe in sola scriptura.

This borrowed polemic has been seen here before and refuted. Scripture as profitable refers to it being used as an instrument, not referring to its necessity, but it does not mean it is superfluous any more than (as an attribute) Godliness is, as "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (1 Timothy 4:8)

And in that interest, what Scripture instrumentally provides for is "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

This is not said of any other instrument, nor is any other transcendent material body of revelation said to be wholly inspired of God, or otherwise promised assured infallibility. And that includes the magisterium, the supremacy of which is the alternative to Scripture being supreme.

Support for SS is based on the fact that as a transcendent material body it is uniquely affirmed to be the word of God , and is abundantly evidenced to be the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

Formally it provides truth for salvation so that a soul can read a sermon such as Acts 10:34-43 and be born again, and grow in grace, while materially it provides for reason, etc and the church, but not with perpetual assured infallibility.

It also provides for a canon, as it evidences that writing's were progressively established as being from God, like as men of God were, due to their unique Scriptural substantiation in Divine qualities, attestation and conflation with had been written.

Moses was the first writer, being first affirmed by supernatural means and holiness confirmatory of the faith of Abraham, and after that the written word (Scripture) is manifest to be the standard for faith and morals, and with additional writings being established as Scripture in conflation and complementarity with it. Like the Divine incense, there is none like unto it. Thus in principle it provides for recognition of a body of inspired writings and lack of any more.

In contrast, recognizing writings as Scripture and being the steward of Scripture and preserving faith neither requires assured infallibility nor means that they possess it.

[Just mythoughts]

Strangely, Revelation 15:3 says the overcomers know and will sing this Song of Moses from Deuteronomy. But rarely do I come across a Christian that is even aware of this prophecy let alone have a clue about the Song of Moses. And according to the Song of Moses there are two ‘rocks’, and their rock is not our Rock!

Bible Basis 101 will have a mass number of attendees during the day of the LORD.

[daniel1212]

narses, you not only posted this without its attribution, which, while encouraged by at least one RC apologist, is not right, but in so doing you simply provided another example of the manner of specious extrapolation RCs (the Orthodox reject the purgatory of Rome with its indulgences) must engage in to support a tradition of men, which this is provides more evidence that purgatory is such.

And which is the result of a false premise to begin with, that being that a person is justified due to interior holiness, attained (usually) through infant sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith, and unless the infant dies before becoming morally accountable, then they (usually) need to go through an indeterminate time in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) in order to become good enough to enter Heaven. Salvation by grace through merit.

However, in Scripture God justifies the unGodly by faith, and while true faith is that which effects characteristic holiness in heart and deed, “things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) and which includes repentance when one is convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:6,9) yet one either has such faith, which has great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) or he does not. And those professors who do not, but deny the faith as by drawing back in unbelief or impenitent sin, are not promised a second chance but damnation. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39)

Those who are immature and do not always strive lawfully will suffer the grievous disapproval of the Lord and loss of rewards at His return (not at death), but will be saved despite the loss of works being burnt up, referring to what he built the church with, and not because of this loss. See 1Cor. 3 here. This is the only postmortem suffering for believers that is mentioned, and we are not to read into Scripture what is needed for support, or make what can only be speculative to be doctrine.

I am not going to refute these attempts to support Purgatory now, as i need to go out, but search what i wrote here and you should be able to see them dealt with.

[CynicalBear]

>>You can't quite "get" "Mother of God" unless you know precisely what question it was answering.<<

It was actually a little more complex then that. Ephesus was the where the temple of Dianna “queen of heaven” was. There was a contentious group of businessmen who made trinkets and “rosaries” to the “queen of heaven” who thought they were losing their livelihood because of people converting to Christianity. It’s recorded already in Acts. So the direction to assign “queen of heaven” to placate that citizenry was already in the works long before the council in 341 or the one in 431.

[CynicalBear]

Running off into the weeds trying to denounce scripture as the sole source of doctrine leaves out the need for the Catholic to prove that the Holy Spirit told us to look to something other than scripture, which He did do, to see if what men taught was true.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.<<

If Catholics don’t believe that scripture is the only source then it’s incumbent on them to show where the Holy Spirit directed us other than scripture.

[count-your-change]

“Where we may disagree or have not established our positions on, is if human works+saving faith=justification.”

I’ll assume that by human works you mean those of our own choosing. I think that was the point of Matt. 7:22,23, that even powerful works if not done according to Christ’s will are termed “lawlessness”, and without merit.

[D-fendr]

If the sentence begins “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” and concludes “: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished with all good works,” it stands to follow

That you've chosen to leave out the middle where it says it is useful for doctrine.. NOT entirely sufficient for doctrine. Including the doctrine of sola scriptura.. which fails its own test.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“That you’ve chosen to leave out the middle where it says it is useful for doctrine.. “

---

lol, you’re literally just repeating yourself again and again. I’ll stick with Cyril, and you can go stick with your omnipresent Marian goddess.

[CynicalBear]

I can add to that just a little perhaps.

Catholics say their “hail Mary” prayers and say that she is “full of grace” but let’s see what the Holy Spirit really had written as a record.

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured ( kecharitōmenē, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Kecharitōmenē
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full (font color=red> plērēs) of grace (font color=red> charitos) and truth.

plérés
Definition: full, abounding in, complete, completely occupied with.

charitos
Short Definition: grace, favor, kindness

Jesus was “full of grace” as seen in John 1:14. Mary is never referred in scripture as being “full of grace”. The RCC has taken an attribute of Jesus and given it to Mary.

Catholics also state that because Mary is “full of grace” she must be sinless. Well let’s look at more evidence.

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full (plérés) of grace ( charitos) and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Wow! Look at that. Stephen was “full of grace” just like Jesus! Was Stephen sinless? NO, so how can Mary, who was not even said to be “full of grace” be sinless when they don’t claim Stephen was? Why would Catholics follow an organization that lies to them?

[narses]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Body divine? Not sure what you mean. God is pure spirit. Jesus is a Divine Person; and He has two natures, divine and human. He acquired a human nature when He was conceived in His mother’;s womb.

[Mrs. Don-o]

She certainly had the three greatest gifts; Faith, Hope, and Love. And she had the gift of her Son: pretty special, that.

[metmom]

The title "Mother of God" was not adopted in order to add a new layer of honor onto Mary, or to invent some new status, but as a way to assert the eternal and continuous Divinity of Christ. So, if Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the Mother of God.

I know why they claim they changed Mary's title to mother of God, nevertheless, what I said earlier still stands.

They'd have been better off correcting the doctrine than treating the symptom. Changing Mary's title only leads to MORE confusion and does not correct anyone's thinking on who Jesus is.

[metmom]

She certainly had the three greatest gifts; Faith, Hope, and Love. And she had the gift of her Son: pretty special, that.

We have the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. We have Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith.

Christ living IN us is far more intimate than just carrying Jesus as a baby and raising Him. Granted it was a privilege that only one woman could have had, however, with Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith, we have mind to mind, soul to soul, and spirit to Spirit communion with Him ALL THE TIME.

That makes us all pretty special.

[D-fendr]

you’re literally just repeating yourself

No I didn't, I focused on the doctrine aspect here. You haven't refuted the logic of how your proof text fails.

You have, once again, appealed to authority - which I believe would not be strictly sola scriptura either.

If, however, you really did hold to the views of those you cite, you would also believe in the real presence:

"Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?" - St. Cyril

Cherry picking the Church Fathers is no better than cherry picking scripture.

[daniel1212]

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full (plérés) of grace ( charitos) and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. Wow! Look at that. Stephen was “full of grace” just like Jesus! Was Stephen sinless? NO, so how can Mary, who was not even said to be “full of grace” be sinless when they don’t claim Stephen was? Why would Catholics follow an organization that lies to them?

And yet there is not record of anyone praying to the martyred Stephen! Or to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord for that matter.

[daniel1212]

narses, you not only posted this without its attribution, which, while encouraged by at least one RC apologist, is not right, but in so doing you simply provided another example of the manner of specious extrapolation RCs (the Orthodox reject the purgatory of Rome with its indulgences) must engage in to support a tradition of men, which this is provides more evidence that purgatory is such.

And which is the result of a false premise to begin with, that being that a person is justified due to interior holiness, attained (usually) through infant sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith, and unless the infant dies before becoming morally accountable, then they (usually) need to go through an indeterminate time in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) in order to become good enough to enter Heaven. Salvation by grace through merit.

However, in Scripture God justifies the unGodly by faith, and while true faith is that which effects characteristic holiness in heart and deed, “things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) and which includes repentance when one is convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:6,9) yet one either has such faith, which has great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) or he does not. And those professors who do not, but deny the faith as by drawing back in unbelief or impenitent sin, are not promised a second chance but damnation. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39)

Those who are immature and do not always strive lawfully will suffer the grievous disapproval of the Lord and loss of rewards at His return (not at death), but will be saved despite the loss of works being burnt up, referring to what he built the church with, and not because of this loss. See 1Cor. 3 here. This is the only postmortem suffering for believers that is mentioned, and we are not to read into Scripture what is needed for support, or make what can only be speculative to be doctrine.

I am not going to refute these attempts to support Purgatory now, as i need to go out, but search what i wrote here and you should be able to see them dealt with.

Yet another convincing argument.

[NKP_Vet]

Catholic bashers have your fun with this. It’ll be the last time I post anything about Catholicism to the general FR audience. Am sick and damn tired of the constant, childish putdowns, especially of the Blessed Mother. I think all of you Mother Mary bashers need to have your damn head examined.