Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[ConstantineTG]

What is the orthodox answer, is what I want to know…CTG already admitted that the CC view clais that Jesus was not the savior of his own mom.

Wow, when did I say that? You are putting words into my mouth. When you asked me if I believe the CC teaches that it was Jesus who saved Mary at the IC, this is my response:

I believe the CC teaches that, and I believe that teaching is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Because we need to be saved from corruption, as St. Athanasius taught. It is not sin (the legalistic understanding of the West) that God came to save us from. He can forgive us our transgressions even if we don’t ask for it, but that is not what saves us. What saves us is becoming like God, first by repentance and then by coming into communion with Him.

So when was Mary saved from corruption?

 

[Tomyris]

Unless someone is singled out as an exception. Would this not be a possibility?

Romans 11:32 (NASB) For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.

I don’t see any way someone could be an exception to this and still be saved. Sinless people cannot be saved outside the covenant of grace, and that means putting aside their own righteousness in favor of Christ’s, which is so much greater than theirs. No one can enter heaven on their own righteousness - what I am hearing is that some are arguing that some people (e.g. Mary, babies, idiots) do. As if Mary and idiots are in the same league.
The price of admission to heaven is the blood of Christ shed on Calvary, and no human can hope to come close to that.

Some who die in infancy are saved, some are not. God chooses some to be saved, others He does not choose. John the Baptist had faith in the womb of his mother - it is possible that the soul begins interacting with God earlier than we realize. The people I hang around with put the emphasis here on divine election - but there is also free will (the both-and of Calvinism, in contrast to the election-only of hyperCalvinism, as I understand it).

 

[Tomyris]

Something the Orthodox and Calvinists have to explain, given their claim that no one is saved, outside of the chronological events of the atoning death of Christ.

I can’t speak for the Orthodox, nor for the Calvinists - I avoid the title as it is extremely misleading. It makes people think they follow Calvin rather than to the Christ he was pointing to, there are all kinds of Calvinism (5-point, 4-point, 3-point, etc.,), and around here, anyway, it is almost a pejorative. Using the term seems to throw fog on the subject. I am more comfortable calling myself Reformed.

I can’t speak for the Reformed either, though. But I will say this: I’ve heard it described more in terms of the logical order of salvation rather than the chronological, especially since we are dealing with some events that are outside of time, some that are within time, and some that are both outside and inside time. For example, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, there was predestination before the foundation of the world, and there is free choice operating in concert with predestination. The crucifixion happened one afternoon, but because it was Jesus Christ the Son of God, it is also an eternal event. And there are eternal events that are wholly non-chronological, such as the Father generating the Son.

Noah was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as much as anyone today is. There have been different covenants but the last one is the overarching one in which all the others are subsumed.

 

[PRmerger]

Some who die in infancy are saved, some are not.

So how do you reconcile that with the verse you cited?

God chooses some to be saved, others He does not choose

That, friend, I respectfully say, makes God to be a monster. He creates a soul and chooses that this soul burns in hell for eternity.

That is contrary to the agape and mercy of a God who is LOVE.

 

[Tomyris]

So when was Mary saved from corruption?

My previous post answers this in background: before the foundation of the world, and on Calvary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

this is my response I believe the CC teaches that, and I believe that teaching is wrong.:

I don’t see the point of contention. That’s one of those “why” questions I mentioned. Mary was indeed predestined and full of Grace before the Cross. Mary was also resurrected before the resurrection also. Now its easy to conclude Mary needed a savior more than anyone. I’ll let you explain the resurrection part.

The Lamb suffered from the foundation of the world for the sake of salvation, he offered Himself up, biblically. Mary was preserved from sin at conception, Christ’s sacrifice applied to her at the moment of her conception, and outside of time. And in a very real way they both suffered together at the Cross.

 

[Tomyris]

So how do you reconcile that with the verse you cited?



That, friend, I respectfully say, makes God to be a monster. He creates a soul and chooses that this soul burns in hell for eternity.

That is contrary to the agape and mercy of a God who is LOVE.

Please read what I wrote more carefully. He chooses to save some. Others are not chosen to be saved. That does not mean that He deliberately chooses to send them to hell.

God chooses to save some; he could have chosen to save none. I think your argument may lead you to conclude that God is a monster because He does not save all. As a Catholic you believe in predestination, which is of course what we are talking about here. How do you reconcile what you just wrote with predestination?

 

[PRmerger]

IMary was indeed predestined and full of Grace before the Cross.

Egg-zactly.

This is a point of agreement of both the Orthodox and the CC.

So, CTG, how is it that Mary was full of grace, sinless, predestined prior to the atoning death on the cross?

The Catholic answer is that God’s salvation is outside of time, as so eloquently articulated by Gary Taylor here.

The Lamb suffered from the foundation of the world for the sake of salvation, he offered Himself up, biblically. Mary was preserved from sin at conception, Christ’s sacrifice applied to her at the moment of her conception, and outside of time. And in a very real way they both suffered together at the Cross

 

[PRmerger]

Please read what I wrote more carefully. He chooses to save some. Others are not chosen to be saved. That does not mean that He deliberately chooses to send them to hell.

I noticed you placed the bolded section in the passive voice. Are you able to re-phrase the bolded section so it is not in the passive voice?

How would you articulate that in the active voice? And who is the Subject doing the choosing?

 

[PRmerger]

Not recently, it’s been a few years, but the last time I did so I was being obnoxious and childish. I was also fairly close to being an actual child at the time, it’s not as if I was comfortably into middle age, and I grew up since then as I learned to know better.

sigh!

I am truly saddened by this.

But for the lurkers here, it is important to be able to learn from one’s errors in the past, and, indeed, to “grow up” and learn to digest and consider the arguments that have been presented by knowledgeable Catholics.

Not to let your frustrations get the better of you.

At any rate, the arguments regarding the soteriological aspects of Mary’s IC are worthy of further discussion and charitable dialogue.

I invite any lurker to consider voicing his/her thoughts here, so to foster fruitful dialogue.

 

[PRmerger]

Sinless people cannot be saved outside the covenant of grace, and that means putting aside their own righteousness in favor of Christ’s, which is so much greater than theirs.

This is quite consonant with Catholicism.

No one can enter heaven on their own righteousness

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

• what I am hearing is that some are arguing that some people (e.g. Mary, babies, idiots) do

If you have heard any Catholic argue this, you can tell him that he is arguing a position unsupported by the Church.

No one, including Mary, babies, and the mentally challenged, enters into heaven outside of the atoning death of Christ.

As if Mary and idiots are in the same league.

They are all creatures of God worthy of God’s mercy and salvation. So in that sense, Mary and the mentally challenged are indeed “in the same league”.

The price of admission to heaven is the blood of Christ shed on Calvary, and no human can hope to come close to that

Amen! You have articulated a pithy synopsis of that which is proclaimed here.

 

[Tomyris]

I noticed you placed the bolded section in the passive voice. Are you able to re-phrase the bolded section so it is not in the passive voice?

How would you articulate that in the active voice? And who is the Subject doing the choosing?

God chooses some. God does not choose others.

I will add that those whom He chooses choose Him of their free will, and those He does not choose reject Him of their free will.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t speak for the Reformed either, though.

Yes. I don’t think that there is any equivalent to a Catholic magisterium in Reformed theology. As such, it’s true that no one can speak authoritatively for the Reformed position.

But I will say this: I’ve heard it described more in terms of the logical order of salvation rather than the chronological, especially since we are dealing with some events that are outside of time, some that are within time, and some that are both outside and inside time. For example, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, there was predestination before the foundation of the world, and there is free choice operating in concert with predestination. The crucifixion happened one afternoon, but because it was Jesus Christ the Son of God, it is also an eternal event. And there are eternal events that are wholly non-chronological, such as the Father generating the Son.

Noah was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as much as anyone today is. There have been different covenants but the last one is the overarching one in which all the others are subsumed.

Ah, Tomi! So eloquently and beautifully articulated!

I am saving this to the harddrive and will use it oft (citing you of course) here on the CAFs!

:tiphat::clapping:

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[PRmerger]

God chooses some. God does not choose others.

And that, friend, is what makes this Reformed God a monstrous God. He creates an eternal soul yet chooses to reject it.

 

[Tomyris]

And that, friend, is what makes this Reformed God a monstrous God. He creates an eternal soul yet chooses to reject it.

Did you read the rest of my post?

God creates all souls.
Not all souls enter heaven.
Does that mean that God rejects those souls that do not enter heaven?
I think you would say yes.
By your argument then God is a monster.

I’m saying God chooses some, He does not choose others. The first is an action, the second is a non-action. Because of the fall, if God did nothing, we would all go to hell. But He chose to save some. His ‘not choosing others’ is not a deliberate choice: it is a non-action. You are calling God a monster because of something He did not do. Hmmmm.

 

[nmgauss]

That is, do you understand how Mary needed a savior yet never sinned better now that you can visualize a woman being saved before falling into a pit, while the rest of the world fell in?

Karen Armstrong in her “A History of God” makes the point that Jews are expected to follow the Law as presented in the Torah. There are 613 commandments (mitzvot) that Jews must follow to avoid sinning. Human nature being what it is, it is likely that no Jew can follow all 613 mitzvot. Therefore, Jews in general are sinners. They are pardoned for their sins through the process of atonement.

In the days of Jesus, whose mother Mary was a Jew, the Laws of the Torah were in effect. Thus, Jesus and Mary must have been sinners just like the rest of the Jews.

 

[pablope]

Karen Armstrong in her “A History of God” makes the point that Jews are expected to follow the Law as presented in the Torah. There are 613 commandments (mitzvot) that Jews must follow to avoid sinning. Human nature being what it is, it is likely that no Jew can follow all 613 mitzvot. Therefore, Jews in general are sinners. They are pardoned for their sins through the process of atonement.

In the days of Jesus, whose mother Mary was a Jew, the Laws of the Torah were in effect. Thus, Jesus and Mary must have been sinners just like the rest of the Jews.

The gospel of Luke would disagree with you:

Luke 1…The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold
5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.

 

[Porknpie]

And that, friend, is what makes this Reformed God a monstrous God. He creates an eternal soul yet chooses to reject it.

PR - when did this type of theological thought first begin…curious I am.

 

[Tomyris]

There are a number of problems with your post. The first is I can find no clear reason why what you posted should in any way be considered a response to the post you cite.

]Karen Armstrong in her “A History of God” makes the point that Jews are expected to follow the Law as presented in the Torah.

I never heard of her. Why should I listen to her?

There are 613 commandments (mitzvot) that Jews must follow to avoid sinning.

That is a number, but consider the number of laws and regulations we live under now: a lot more

Human nature being what it is, it is likely that no Jew can follow all 613 mitzvot.

Here your logic breaks: in the preceding, “it is likely” and you conclude from that via the 'therefore" that it must be so. This does not logically follow.

Therefore, Jews in general are sinners. They are pardoned for their sins through the process of atonement.

In the days of Jesus, whose mother Mary was a Jew, the Laws of the Torah were in effect. Thus, Jesus and Mary must have been sinners just like the rest of the Jews.

Here you have moved from your generality “Jews in general” to two Jews in particular. This is another logic break.

It is also clear that you seem unaware of the debate about this on the thread - and the unspoken assumption, based on Scripture and Church teaching, that neither was a sinner. Jesus as the spotless lamb of God, innocent of sin, who made peace with God through His blood, the Son of God without sin, is absolutely foundational to Christianity. How could you miss that and so blithely state that He is a sinner?