Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
That is actually the correct translation. However the Hymn to the Theotokos in the Divine Liturgy says, without a doubt, "O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God."
Not only does the ancient liturgy call her "Mother of our God," but the very word God in this case is unmistakably the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, not the Holy Trinity, i.e. Godhead.
Calling Christ God is ontologically correct, justified and theologically true, just as the Creed calls The Holy Spirit, the Lord. Divinity is what is only of God, as humanity is of us. Just just as you or Blogger or I can be equally called "man" (generically, as in human/i>, not gender-wise), so can any of the three Divine Hypstases (Persons) be individually called God.
So, the "confusion" regarding Theotokos being the Mother of God comes only from those who do not fully believe the most basic Christina doctrine, namely the belief in Holy Trinity.
We cooperate with Missions. That's what makes us a denomination. I think that all you have to do to be a member church with our denomination is give to missions (some very very small amount in a year's time, like $100. for the whole church or something like that). I think that is the best thing about our denomination and the only reason that I would prefer such a structure above a non-affiliated denomination. Our missionaries don't have to worry about where their money is coming from. They can concentrate on missions.
The denominational statement of faith isn't much different from local ones. I would prefer not to link to my local SOF because I don't like to give out much about my location on the internet. But my denomination's can be found at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
Agreed with the meaning of catholic. My point was that if you asked a lay-person in my church, they are probably not familiar with creeds since we are non-creedal. But, if you spelled out the various doctrines in say the Nicene and Apostles Creed, they wouldn't have much of a problem with it though the "Catholic" part would have to be explained to them.
She was the human element. God, having created humans, could have done something without human agency I suppose, and still have become a human. But, He chose to use a woman. He did not cease being God in the interim between His enthronement in Heaven and his gestation in Mary's womb. Therefore, no. She didn't give birth to the divine person of Christ in the sense that she caused him to exist. Since God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one, and God was still 100% God even at the moment of conception - no, I don't believe Mary gave birth to God since giving birth implies that God had a beginning. The human part of Jesus had a beginning. But even before conception, He was already God.
I know the church has never officially taught Mary as divine (though it has come mighty close with some of its doctrines- speaking of RC church here); but my point in calling her "Mother of God" is that there was absolutely NOTHING that Mary did to contribute to Jesus's divinity. Zilch. She contributed to his humanity, but not his divinity since she had no divinity in and of herself to contribute.
Wrong. Wrong. and Wrong.
Read my rational on a previous post. I am not repeating it here.
"God is both mortal and immortal, eternal and temporal"
How can God in His intrinsic nature be both immortal and mortal, eternal and temporal? He is essential being, indivisible in His nature. Immutable so He cannot change from life to death, from good to bad. If God died then all of God died since God is one substance, indivisible.
By definition, God cannot die. The incarnate 2d person of the Trinity died on the cross of Calvary.
Another instance where lack of precision in language is unhelpful.
ALL. Before we go down this "Mary as Mother of God" road, lets admit one thing. There are some mysteries we can not explain. We think we have a handle on them, but elements of them remain a mystery. How God could become a man and be 100% God and still 100% man is one such mystery.
Regardless. Mary had no divinity in herself to give Jesus divinity - but he didn't need it. He existed before Mary.
At no point did he ever cease to exist. He had no beginning, as God. He had a beginning as man. Mary gave birth to man, but God the Son was eternally preexistent.
I am not denying Jesus' divinity.
I am not denying the unity of his humanity with his divinity.
I am not denying the trinity.
I am not denying that Jesus was a person (who also was one in person and nature with God- being God Himself)
I am denying that Mary gave God a beginning as God. She was not the mother of God in the sense that she gave him a beginning. Her Son was God. But she didn't give him his beginning as God. She gave him his beginning as man.
A mystery? Sure. But not too difficult for God.
Thanks for the info and the link. I notice the SBC has a no women clause for pastors as well.
Interesting about the missions tying the denomination together.
It says the churches are run democratically, but, there has to be some enforcement of basic doctrine. Obviously a member church couldn't become Unitarian for example. I'm guessing there is some hierarchy that can remove a local church from the denomination.
On the 'creeds' in your next post, I believe you would also have problems with "Apostolic Church" and "Communion of Saints" unless they were defined differently.
thanks very much for your reply..
I will agree with the assertion that 'what contradicts Scripture' must be tossed, however, with two provisos: first, provided the Scriptures are 'rightly divided', that is rightly interpreted, and second, that we accept the judgement of the Church, not the Christ-denying rabbis who met a Jamnia in 90 AD, as to what constitutes the Scriptures of the Old Covenant.
However, I have observed that most 'sola scriptura' types go a step further than what you have advocated, and toss not only what contradicts Scripture, but anything their discursive human reason cannot derive from Scripture. 'Sola scriptura' invariably disolves into private interpretation, with a hermeneutic that ignores the problem of intepretation, and rejects the context in which the Scriptures were written and canonized--the life of the Church--and insists that whatever the interpeter cannot *prove* from Scripture is false. This last is a much stronger assertion than you made, and is contrary to the plain word of Scripture, since a report of one of the deeds of Christ alluded to by the conclusion of the Gospel of John could not be proved from Scripture, but would not be false.
Christ promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. It seems to me a very odd faith to believe that that leading into all truth is confined to the fixing of the canon of Scripture, and does not also extend to the Church judging the content of the Proto-Evangelium of James of the Didache, of accounts of the lives of the saints (as, for example The Martyrdom of Polycarp) to be sound and truthful, even though none of these documents meet the standard of undoubtable Apostolic authorship. (The Didache is a set of 'lecture notes' on the teachings of the Apostles, refered to in ancient patristic texts, a copy of which was found in the library of the Great Chruch of Constantinople in the 19th century.)
Pounding the table doesn't refute an argument. I presented a trilemma. You can either refute it, or simply pound the table and assert that it is wrong.
-A8
One thing that seems to be a mysterey to you is the meaning of "Mother of God." as Catholics use the term. It is simply that Mary bore the man-God Jesus. It was through her that God became incarnate.
What truth is there outside the word?
I've read the Didache and am aware of many (not all) of the non-canonical books.
Also, I believe the clear teaching of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit guides ALL believers into the truth. This doesn't mean that everything believers or church bodies struggle with is the truth. The Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, etc., certainly had issues that they struggled with. And many of the churches in Revelation seemed to officially sanction some really bad things (putting up with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and allowing the harlot 'Jezebel' to spread her heresies being examples).
So, with that said, just because it is more than one person, doesn't mean that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe many doctrines that have gotten the support of the church over the years fall into that category.
Other things that have come about, I do not see any contradiction with Scripture and while they may not be my experience; generally, I keep an open mind as to them occurring. For example, some stories I have heard of some really wild things happening to missionaries, including a few stories of raising the dead. It happened in Scripture. I never hear of it happening in these parts today. But could God do it? Yes. And so, I reserve judgment on it (unless the person claiming it is known to be a false prophet or something to that affect).
So. You are correct. I do not demand that everything be able to be proved by Scripture before I give it the possibility of being true. But I do demand that it not stand in opposition to Scripture.
Like the famous saying; in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
The Holy Spirit is not for pontiffs and priests. He is for all believers. He indwells all believers. He is our comforter and our teacher. We don't always listen. We don't always get it right. And sometimes, we even fight amongst one another. But it makes it no less true that He is here.
Earlier on the thread, I mentioned how I believe that Christ left some things in scripture ambiguous so that we would struggle with one another over it. It is called Iron sharpening Iron. We believe something. It is contradicted by another person. And then we are left to dig in Scripture to see if we have the support needed to back up our belief. Some struggling and debate is good for us. And, yes, I believe that God designed it that way.
If we never argued over anything, what would cause us to dig in His Word?
Anything that is true is God's truth.
I assume by "intrinsic nature" you actually mean "divine nature". God is immortal in His divine nature. But because the Second Person of the Trinity has a human nature, and human nature is mortal, therefore God is mortal in His human nature.
Christ is eternal in His divine nature, temporal in His human nature.
Christ is indivisible in His divine nature, visible and composite in His human nature.
Christ is immutable in His divine nature, mutable in His human nature.
If God died then all of God died since God is one substance, indivisible.
That claim simply denies the incarnation, that whoever died on that cross was not God. The Second Person of the Trinity died that day on Calvary 2000 years ago. He died through His human nature, so that, although the Second Person of the Trinity did not cease to exist. In fact, He continued to uphold all things by the word of His power, just as He had done in from the beginning of creation, in Mary's womb and throughout His human life. But He truly died, because He was truly man, and when He breathed His last upon the cross, His human soul was separated from His body, so that He truly died, and remained dead until He rose from the dead on the third day.
-A8
So are you denying that Jesus Christ is God?
-A8
'The word' or 'The Word'? The Word said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Or do you misapply the 'Word of God' to the Scriptures rather than to Christ?
Outside of Christ, there is no Truth. There is plenty of truth outside the Scriptures: St. Seraphim of Sarov was transfigured in light during his conversation with Motovilov, even as Our Lord was on Mount Tabor; St. James the Just, Brother of the Lord, was martyred by being thrown from the Temple in Jerusalem; and the Virgin Mary, who had grown up in the Temple after being entrusted to the priest by her parents Joachim and Anna, was betrothed to the aged and pious widower Joseph, father of James, Jose and Salome, as a way of preserving her vow of perpetual virginity. All these things and many others are true, though there is no record of them in the Scriptures.
I understand the meaning. I object to the term. My earlier answer was in response to why I think using theotokos makes it more confusing. She did not give God a beginning. So therefore she is not his mother in the normal way that most folks would understand the word mother. Did God use her to become incarnate? Yes. I dislike the phrase though - plus, it and all the other "Mother titles" of Mary tend to elevate her to a level of devotion that she should not have. She is a role model. Was a virtuous woman. Is to be admired. She is not the queen of heaven, and given its context in Jeremiah would probably find the term abhorent. She is not the co-redemtrix. Her sorrow did not pay for my sins. Jesus's blood did. She is not a lot of things that have been thrown on her outside of Scripture. And don't you think that if the Holy Spirit comes and doesn't testify of Himself but of Jesus Christ, that Mary wouldn't draw attention and devotion to herself but to her Son?
What I'm saying is that you use the language loosely.
Do you think the Godhead died on Calvary? Is that what you're saying?
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.