The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

The Church Fathers ^ | 120AD-450AD

[Iscool]

You are devaluing the Incarnation just like Nestorious did

AND NOW, FOR THE REST OF THE STORY...PAGE 2...

Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority that your popes gave themselves...And as the article states,

At the time, Theotokos ("bearer/mother of God") was a popular term in the Western Church (including Constantinople) used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but it was not used in Antioch.

The Nestorians would not bow down to your pope and they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

They didn't fall for the Mother of God stuff that came up from Egypt...

Nestor has far more credibility than anything that came up from Rome/Egypt...

[HarleyD]

HD, do you believe in the Rapture? Is it unBiblical?

No, I don't believe in the Rapture. And if I'm correct, then yes, it is unBiblical for someone to hold this view. And if I'm wrong then I'm a heretic-at least on this matter.

There is only one scriptural truth. Every heretical doctrine leads you AWAY from God. The degree of the heresy and how many heretical doctrines you believe will lead you farther away from God. I have always believed this. Consequently I don't accept doctrine lightly and I do not accept things that I'm not 100% sure of. It was no small effort that I became a Reformer. As far as embracing an eschatology viewpoint, I have not fully made up my mind.

[stfassisi]

Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority ...

Nobody forgot, it's no different than what the Mormons and the Calvinists and others do

they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

They knew how to be heretics in denying the Trinity.

As Saint Thomas Aquinas rightfully points out Nestorius error...

Furthermore, by saying made of a woman two errors are destroyed, namely, that of Nestorious saying that Christ did not take His body of the Virgin but of the heavens and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. But this is false, for if it were true, He would not, as the Apostle says, have been made of a woman. By the preposition “of” [ex] the material cause is denoted. Likewise, the error of Nestorious saying that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but of the son of a man. But this is shown to be false by the words of the Apostle here, that God sent his Son made of a woman. Now one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, it is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God.

Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.”[1] Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said “born” and not “made.”- Saint Thomas Aquinas

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

Gack!Are you really suggesting that hanging out in Antioch guarantees they knew truth? This is like say because I live in NY I must know the complete list of laws of the state of NY

Show us Nestorian writings that links them to the Apostles like writings of Saint Ignatius, Justyn Martyr and others?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“As a Presbyterian (like many other Protestants), we say the Apostles Creed - “I believe in one catholic and apostolic church ...” (I understand catholic has the broader meaning of universal.)”

Alright, let’s start there. Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? Where was Presbyterian doctrine in the first century? If it wasn’t there, then can it be universal? If it isn’t universal, should you as a Christian believe in it?

“Ephesians 4:4 - says there is one body.”

Yes. And when was that one body established? Can those who disagree on the most basic of Christian doctrines - such as how we are saved - be in the same body when that body is freely chosen by its members?

“Christ only has one church - believers He has called out to Himsef. The labels we all give ourselves are man-made.”

Maybe the labels we give are man-made, but is the Church then man-made? No. It is Christ-made. Are all so-called churches Christ-made? Wouldn’t that mean all had been established in the first century? Is that the reality?

[aruanan]

No, I don't believe in the Rapture. And if I'm correct, then yes, it is unBiblical for someone to hold this view. And if I'm wrong then I'm a heretic-at least on this matter.

By Rapture, do you mean:

A. The pre-tribulation secret whisking away of believers immediately prior to 7 years of antichrist rule as described nowhere in the Bible, or

B. The gathering by Christ of his own to himself on the day of his appearance as described by Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians and by Jesus in the Book of Matthew?

[Quix]

Welllll THANK YOU

for your GRACIOUS eagle eye in pointing that out.

Maybe with further coaching I’ll slowly learn to avoid inferring anything from your words.

[Quix]

I don’t think anyone else has it all figured out either.

I sure don’t.

However, I think we respect a lot of one another’s Christianity—regardless of the relentless divisive assaults of some hereon.

[HarleyD]

You left off the following verses:

Eze 33:19 And when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he shall live by this.

Eze 33:20 Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways."

Now do you believe that the wicked can turn away from their wickedness without God's help? If you believe so then you are contradicting Church teaching and have fallen into the Pelagius error.

God judges everyone according to their ways. And it's interesting that people CONTINUOUSLY say that this is unjust of God (just as He states). How many times do I hear that God isn't "fair" if someone doesn't hear the message and is cast into hell. We invent all sorts of goofy doctrine to find an excuse to make God "fair".

God is perfectly right to judge each of us for what we are. People are wicked and evil (yes, even kindly Aunt Murdle) and God would be unjust if He didn't give us the wages due-just what we ask for. We cannot overcome our wickedness even though God commands it. Heck, He told Cain that sin was "crouching" at the door and he had to overcome it. Cain couldn't and he murdered Able his brother. That is the nature of man. We're corrupt. And each one of us deep down knows that we would do something just as vile to become successful, popular, or for some other lascivious reason.

What you are missing in Ezekiel is the other part of the story. God tells the people that He will put a new spirit in us and cause us to walk in His statures and obey His ordinances (Eze 36:26). People can't do it-but God can. This is the grace of God. God purposely overcomes this nature of our by ripping out our rebellious heart and spirit, giving us a new one instead. God being so rich in His mercy that He takes it upon Himself to show mercy and grace when we deserve the torments of hell. Why He selects one and not another is His perogative, just as He calls some to be apostles and some teachers. It is according to HIS MERCY-not our "turning" from something.

Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

But you might say this isn't "fair" of God if He doesn't do it for everyone. If so reread this again.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm afraid you mean something different by prayer from what I mean by it. You say:
Notice He spoke with them, He NEVER prayed to them.

I say that's a distinction without a difference. I tried to suggest that with my example of Jesus praying to Mary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Also you speak a different kind of English from that which I speak, while it appears some judge by outward appearances, a practice against which there is Biblical advice.

Using the RSV, Matt 6:7: I find "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their empty words. Leaving aside the peculiar word βατταλογησητε, of which we seem to have little attestation, I would just go to the adjective "empty" and to the attribution of motive.

The words we say are not empty. SO we do not see ourselves as disregarding the first part of the advice. I find the words full of meaning.

Further, as I said, while we repeat these prayers, we are meditating on various periods of our Lord's life, or that of his mother. So the Rosary is very rich.

And, I do not think I will be heard for my many words. That's the bad part.

Many-ness and repetition are offered to us in Psalm 136 -- "for his steadfast love endures forever" 26 times! If we thought that the may repetitions were the problem, we couldn't pray that psalm. And anybody who thinks that multiplying words will make God hear them isn't paying attention.

So the problems are emptiness and a kind of prayerful works righteousness, not many-ness or repetition. The outward appearance is repetition, But the emptiness and the other is not to be seen. It is something somebody brings with him to the observation.

"Isn't it odd ...?"

No it isn't, not to me. Knotted and beaded strings have been used a long time to keep track of things. The cheap little rosary I have with me is handy.

If other people use malas and whatnot, that's not my problem. I worship the Lord who conquered death. He's not afraid of a bit of string and some beads.

[HarleyD]

Oooooo...good question.

I believe Christ will return and believers will be caught up in the clouds. I can’t say much more than that but I don’t see an advantage of an “antichrist” rule.

[Mad Dawg]

Hey Mad Dawg - Idolatry bells should be going off big time!

Why?

[HarleyD]

Eschatology is very confusing. While I know some really stress the value of it, I think it's far more important to understand the will of God verses the will of man. There is no such thing as “free will”. I strongly believe from this misconcept every heresy springs.

[HarleyD]

This is a first-a Catholic supporting Luther. Are you saying you enjoy reading Luther? I wouldn’t let this leak out to the Vatican if I were you. ;O)

[Quix]

I don’t know of a single Christian who sees the Anti-Christ’s rule for 3.5-7 years as

“an advantage.”

Scripture calls it the worst time that ever was or ever will be again.

However, I trust that God has His reasons.

And certainly, HE knows best.

FREE WILL . . . is a tricky subject Biblically.

There’s Scriptures on both sides. And there’s no, imho, definitive Biblical solution to that tension. So, I accept BOTH parts of Scripture and wait for God to resolve them in eternity.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you for at least noticing the quote.

My point, and I do have one, is that the word "prayer" means more than making petitions. It's an imprecise word which is used to convey many things. We speak of silent prayer, prayer of adoration, even wordless prayer.

While the word and the words it translates seem to have started out with a sense of petition, they now mean far more.

In fact, it's hard to make a clear distinction between "pray" and "communicate", when we think of prayer in the broadest sense. But even with petitionery prayer, it seems to me entirely plausible that Jesus asked Mary to help him with his sandals when he was a toddler just learning to speak.

You see, the arguments against the intercession of the saints just don't make sense to me. It seems they are always based on an unspecified but firmly held meaning of prayer, a denial of the oneness of the body of Christ and of the Spirit which makes us one, and a careless reading of our Lord's teaching on prayer.

The usual way to proceed in such a case would be to identify the differences on which the disagreement is built and to discuss the meanings of the passages and the words used in them.

But so many are so interested in winning or in showing the other side up, that this exercise, which could be done in fellowship and charity is ignored for accusations of idolatry and the dangerous fun of thinking oneself more righteous and more blessed that others. ( I did not say"wrong"; I said "dangerous".)

Jesus communicated with Mary. That, to me, is equivalent to prayer except that neither party has died yet. And Jesus probably asked Mary for something. So we have petitionery prayer. All we ask her for are her prayers, while at other times (scattered lightly in the daily prayers of Catholics) we ask God to hear Mary's prayers.

If that's "brainwashed", then I'm brainwashed. I think the idea that, even after the Transfiguration and the Resurrection, communication with those who have 'gone before' is impossible is itself unBiblical, for surely Moses and Elias went before, and sure we are one in the Spirit.

[Mad Dawg]

I have enjoyed reading Luther. I don't have to agree with a theologian either to profit from him or to enjoy him

Heck, I enjoy reading Calvin.

[narses]

Luther did not set out to “destroy” the Church (nor could he), he saw problems and was trying to correct them. Some things he was right about. Some he clearly was not. Sadly his own pride kept him from working with the Holy Spirit and the end result was ugly, but certainly anyone with sense will study what he did and who he was if they want to understand today’s religious landscape, no?

[NEWwoman]

* Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? ...*

There were no denominational labels, Catholic, Prebyterian, Baptist, .... that I know of in the first century.

As for the other questions of doctrine - etc.

In the first century, we did have the Old Testament, and the New Testament in the form of Gospels, the letters, the history by Luke, and the Revelation of John. From that, Christians derive our doctrine. And I thank the Catholics for putting the New Testament together and preserving it.

The crux is to believe Jesus is the Son of God and trust Him as our Savior. Why do we make it so complicated? That is totally universal - totally catholic.

And believing God for salvation goes way, way, back before the first century to the Garden of Eden - the seed of the woman (Jesus born of a virgin) will crush the head of the serpent (the devil). Abraham believed God and it counted to him as righteousness. The nasty Ninevites that Jonah preached to - all believed God and He showed them mercy. (That’s all God has asked any sinner to do - believe Him.)

You are absolutely right that the Church is Christ-made.

[Cronos]

cronos: Why exactly did Jesse Duplantis believe that he zoomed to heaven, met Abraham and David and comforted Jesus?

What was that you were saying about believeing in unbiblical stuff straight from hell?

Quix: Because he was awake when the trip began and awake when it ended and that’s what his senses etc. told him he experienced.

Rot -- Jesse Duplantis was/is a liar and a con-man through and through.

What is worse is the utterly unbiblical stuff he spouts --

Jesse Duplantis, the guy who preached that You, not God, Decides When to Die

“I’m going to say something that will knock your lights off. Go has the power to take life, but He can’t. He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t. He says, “Death and life is in the power of” who’s tongue? Yours. You ready for this? You want something that’ll knock your lights off? You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.

As you said "wholesale gross UNBiblical deceptions from hell" -- what do you think of Herr Duplantis now?

[Cronos]

Yes, exactly my point — your posts do not display the fruit of the Holy Spirit at all. Falsehoods are not the fruit of the Holy Spirit, so cast it aside