Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

Here’s a question I was thinking of, not sure if it was already answered. Also, please correct any misunderstandings I may have:

So Mary was immaculately conceived so that Jesus wouldn’t dwell in an unclean/tainted by original sin vessel, right (someone posted earlier a picture of a dirty bottle)? If so, then how does that work with Mary’s mother? Did she have original sin? Is there a regressive problem with the belief in the Immaculate Conception?

That’s why we don’t argue from the necessity of the IC, but rather argue that it was FITTING that the vessel which contained the Divine Word Made Flesh be pure and immaculate and worthy of carrying divinity.

Mary, not being divine, would have certainly been “fit” for a soiled vessel (the womb of St. Anne–although I suspect that her womb looked more like this: )

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...zUjAEIyM_1Lsba47_5eifzXrkzny8DYpna7Q98ecahQzg

St. Anne’s womb was just not immaculate. Clean, but not immaculate.

 

[PRmerger]

So I cannot find the post I wished to reply to, in which you were saying something along the lines of Islam being the source of Reformation doctrine?

No, not the source. Just an influence.

This is either highly risible, insulting or both.

I’m not sure why being influenced by Islam would be insulting.

There is much truth in Islam. And beauty in Muslim devotions. (I think they simply take the sovereignty of God too far. Because God is so far above his creation, he cannot be incarnate, or even be referred to as father. That’s too far. But they do get it right about God being Master.)

As far as being insulted, this is like saying “You look a bit Hispanic” and the person responding with, “How dare you! How insulting!”

Why in the world would that be considered an insult?

 

[PRmerger]

I seem to recall an Orthodox theologian blaming Muslims for scholasticism, as Aristotle et al were in Muslim hands until their rediscovery by the Church -

I wouldn’t see it as “blaming Muslims for scholasticism”.

Rather, I would see it as giving Islam credit for influencing Christian pedagogy.

Kudos to the Islamic world for its veneration of scholasticism! And if it served as a catalyst for Christian scholarship, this is my response: :tiphat:

there are more grounds for considering Averroes as Aquinas’ intellectual forbear than there is for laying predestination and reprobation at Muslim hands.

I loudly and proudly give the Muslim world a high five for being Aquinas’ intellectual forebear.

I also am thankful and in awe at the Muslim contribution here:

http://www.fodors.com/images/experiences/Spain-Grenada-Alhambra-fountains.jpg

I also offer admiration for their contributions here:

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/Math/mathimages/algeq.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t even believe there is a doctrine called “double predestination”. What you are referring to are two separate doctrines, predestination and reprobation.

Dr. RC Sproul has actually written an article called " ‘Double’ Predestination".

The article cites another author who describes double predestination in this manner (bold mine):

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace,** he neglected and slighted others**, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness… .

How is that different than what I have been presenting as the Reformed position?

 

[nmgauss]

Stephen King has written way more New York Times best sellers.

So because a person has not heard of her it shows a narrow point of view… so she is the center of gravity in religion… and all this time I thought it was God… What do you know?

Have you heard of Jesus Christ and His Apostles? How about Clement of Rome? How about Justin Martyr?, How about Ignatius of Antioch?, How about Polycarp?, How about Irenaeus?, How about Eusebius?, How about Cyprian? You have a couple of thousand of years to catch up if you haven’t.

Stephen King has written fiction. Karen Armstrong is a historical writer of non-fiction. Stephen King has written books for popular entertainment where making money is a major motive. Karen Armstrong has written books for edification where money-making is a relatively minor motive.

God has not written 20 books on religion covering Islam, Muhammed, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and even about God or Yahweh or Allah.

You are being facetious. Sounds like you have an axe to grind about people who read history written by serious scholars.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Stephen King has written fiction. Karen Armstrong is a historical writer of non-fiction. Stephen King has written books for popular entertainment where making money is a major motive. Karen Armstrong has written books for edification where money-making is a relatively minor motive.

God has not written 20 books on religion covering Islam, Muhammed, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and even about God or Yahweh or Allah.

You are being facetious. Sounds like you have an axe to grind about people who read history written by serious scholars.

No. You are trying to adjudicate credibility and ranking by being a New York Times Best Seller. All that means is that you sell books. You also did not provide sources for these claims:

Armstrong has written several New York Times best sellers on religion and is regarded as one of the most respected scholars in this field.

Because you have never heard of her shows how narrow your view is. You are poorly informed.

You have high esteem of Armstrong because:

1. Several New York Times Best Sellers on religion.
2. Is regarded as one of the most respected scholars in this field.

Without any sources whatsoever.

You then formed an opinion that the posters view is narrow because the poster has not read Armstrong. And further, you adjudicated that the poster is poorly informed.

According to your logic, you can only:

1. have a broad view
2. be well informed
   If you have read Armstrong.

And the circus doesn’t stop there. You then come back and say that I am facetious in regards to your poorly written post…

So your introduction to this board is to call people “narrow minded”, “poorly informed”, and “facetious” when they don’t read Armstrong and they don’t regard your opinion of those writings in a value equal to yours.

Are you aware that name calling is the confirmation of a weak argument?

 

[Porknpie]

Interesting.

So what say you, CTG?

“One baptism for the remission of sin”–and you baptize babies. What sin is baptism remitting for those little ones?

 

[nmgauss]

No. You are trying to adjudicate credibility and ranking by being a New York Times Best Seller. All that means is that you sell books. You also did not provide sources for these claims:

You have high esteem of Armstrong because:

1. Several New York Times Best Sellers on religion.
2. Is regarded as one of the most respected scholars in this field.

Without any sources whatsoever.

You then formed an opinion that the posters view is narrow because the poster has not read Armstrong. And further, you adjudicated that the poster is poorly informed.

According to your logic, you can only:

1. have a broad view
2. be well informed
   If you have read Armstrong.

And the circus doesn’t stop there. You then come back and say that I am facetious in regards to your poorly written post…

So your introduction to this board is to call people “narrow minded”, “poorly informed”, and “facetious” when they don’t read Armstrong and they don’t regard your opinion of those writings in a value equal to yours.

Are you aware that name calling is the confirmation of a weak argument?

Read any review of Karen Armstrong’s works and you will find that she is highly regarded in her field. Look at the references she cites in her books and you will realize that she is not inventing what she writes.

When I use the term narrow minded, it is an attribute, not an insult. When I say that you are poorly informed, again this is an attribute, not an insult. I use the term “facetious” when I sense an effort on your part to emphasize non-sequiturs. If you were really serious about a dialogue, you would present rational bases for your statements based on credible sources. You have reacted defensively as if your motive is to win, not learn about ideas you seem to have not had introduced to you. If you refuse to consider new ideas based on credible sources, your attitude is reflected in the phrase, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Read any review of Karen Armstrong’s works and you will find that she is highly regarded in her field. Look at the references she cites in her books and you will realize that she is not inventing what she writes.

Would you agree that Charles Manson is highly regarded in his field? What field is this? Religion is a very broad field.

When I use the term narrow minded, it is an attribute, not an insult. When I say that you are poorly informed, again this is an attribute, not an insult. I use the term “facetious” when I sense an effort on your part to emphasize non-sequiturs.

Regardless of how you want to diverge how your post came out, you can attribute an insult in the same way you can attribute a praise. Nice try thou…

If you were really serious about a dialogue, you would present rational bases for your statements based on credible sources.

How can I be serious about an incomplete post where you completely disregarded the other poster and attributed opinions without any rationality whatsoever, other than the poster not reading this amazing writer of yours?

You have reacted defensively as if your motive is to win, not learn about ideas you seem to have not had introduced to you. If you refuse to consider new ideas based on credible sources, your attitude is reflected in the phrase, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”.

Again you go ad-hominem on a poster and not treat the problem itself: Your poorly written post without any sources for your opinions.

 

[nmgauss]

Would you agree that Charles Manson is highly regarded in his field? What field is this? Religion is a very broad field.

Regardless of how you want to diverge how your post came out, you can attribute an insult in the same way you can attribute a praise. Nice try thou…

How can I be serious about an incomplete post where you completely disregarded the other poster and attributed opinions without any rationality whatsoever, other than the poster not reading this amazing writer of yours?

Again you go ad-hominem on a poster and not treat the problem itself: Your poorly written post without any sources for your opinions.

You have contributed nothing to this dialogue. What you write is a waste of words.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You have contributed nothing to this dialogue. What you write is a waste of words.

http://themoderatevoice.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/08/Good_bye.jpg

 

[joe371]

You have contributed nothing to this dialogue. What you write is a waste of words.

Wow…::nope:

 

[joe371]

I must admit and I must apologize deeply that I have allowed myself to be dragged off tangent. The conversation has veered away from the point I was trying to make as a number of folks keep trying to attack the Orthodox view and are interested more in winning debates than understanding what the theological differences are. I’ve tried again to reign in the discussion by going back to the basics and just explaining what are the Orthodox objection to RC Marian dogmas and Mariology in general are. Not that this is a justification, but if you are bombarded by multiple off tangent questions, you’d become confused too. So please, forgive me.

I copied and pasted this past post:

I was reading this article and this really made sense:

"Orthodox reject the possibility that original sin could be a stain or tainting…yet both of us proclaim in the Creed, “one Baptism for the remission of sin”. Since we baptize babies, and babies cannot have sinned (actual sin), in essence we are having the taint/mark of original sin remised (washed away), as well as restoring God’s grace to our soul.

Since infant babies could not have done actual sin, they have only original sin remised by virtue of grace as well as undergoing the symbolic death (to sin) and rebirth (born again) which represents Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism remitting sin is already proclaimed by St Peter in Acts 2:38."

“One baptism for the remission of sin”–and the Orthodox church baptize babies. What sin is baptism remitting for those babies and small children?

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like you have an axe to grind about people who read history written by serious scholars.

Actually, there have been at least 3 others here on this thread who have called you out on your inappropriate, and frankly quite arbitrary, assignation of Karen Armstrong as being the shibboleth of being religiously informed.

So no one has been grinding an axe. We just want to have reasonable, not arbitrary, arguments presented here.

 

[nmgauss]

Actually, there have been at least 3 others here on this thread who have called you out on your inappropriate, and frankly quite arbitrary, assignation of Karen Armstrong as being the shibboleth of being religiously informed.

So no one has been grinding an axe. We just want to have reasonable, not arbitrary, arguments presented here.

Honours

In 1999 Armstrong received the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Media Award.[15][16][17]

Armstrong was honoured by the New York Open Center in 2004 for her "profound understanding of religious traditions and their relation to the divine."18]

She received an honorary degree as Doctor of Letters by Aston University in 2006.[19]

In May 2008 she was awarded the Freedom of Worship Award by the Roosevelt Institute, one of four medals presented each year to men and women whose achievements have demonstrated a commitment to the Four Freedoms proclaimed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 as essential to democracy: freedom of speech and of worship, freedom from want and from fear. The institute stated that Armstrong had become “a significant voice, seeking mutual understanding in times of turbulence, confrontation and violence among religious groups.” It cited “her personal dedication to the ideal that peace can be found in religious understanding, for her teachings on compassion, and her appreciation for the positive sources of spirituality.” [20]

She has also received the TED Prize 2008.[21]

In 2009 she was awarded the Dr. Leopold Lucas Prize by the University of Tübingen.[22]

Armstrong was honored Nationalencyklopedin’s International Knowledge Award 2011[23] “for her long standing work of bringing knowledge to others about the significance of religion to humankind and, in particular, for pointing out the similarities between religions. Through a series of books and award-winning lectures she reaches out as a peace-making voice at a time when world events are becoming increasingly linked to religion.”
On November 30, 2011 (St. Andrew’s Day) Armstrong was made honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Saint Andrews.[24]
Reception

Armstrong has been called “a prominent and prolific religious historian”[25] and described as “arguably the most lucid, wide-ranging and consistently interesting religion writer today”.[26] Juan Eduardo Campo, author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a “more or less objective” (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America.[27] She is in demand as a speaker on the Abrahamic tradition; in the last decade increasing interest in and debate surrounding Islamic issues has brought her even wider visibility.

Bibliography
Journal articles:“Women, Tourism, Politics” (1977)
“The Holiness of Jerusalem: Asset or Burden?” (1998)
“Ambiguity and Remembrance: Individual and Collective Memory in Finland” (2000)
Books:Through the Narrow Gate (1982)
The First Christian: Saint Paul’s Impact on Christianity (1983)
Beginning the World (1983)
Tongues of Fire: An Anthology of Religious and Poetic Experience (1985)
The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)
Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today’s World (1988)
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (1991)
The English Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (1991)
The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)
A History of God (1993)
Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (1996)
In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (1996)
Islam: A Short History (2000)
The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)
Buddha (2001)
Faith After September 11 (2002)
The Spiral Staircase (2004)
A Short History of Myth (2005)
Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006) ISBN 978-0-375-41317-9
The Bible: A Biography (2007)
The Case for God (2009) ISBN 978-0-307-26918-8
Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life (2010) ISBN 978-0-307-59559-1
A Letter to Pakistan ISBN 978-0-19-906330-7

 

[PRmerger]

Honours

In 1999 Armstrong received the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Media Award.[15][16][17]

Armstrong was honoured by the New York Open Center in 2004 for her "profound understanding of religious traditions and their relation to the divine."18]

She received an honorary degree as Doctor of Letters by Aston University in 2006.[19]

In May 2008 she was awarded the Freedom of Worship Award by the Roosevelt Institute, one of four medals presented each year to men and women whose achievements have demonstrated a commitment to the Four Freedoms proclaimed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 as essential to democracy: freedom of speech and of worship, freedom from want and from fear. The institute stated that Armstrong had become “a significant voice, seeking mutual understanding in times of turbulence, confrontation and violence among religious groups.” It cited “her personal dedication to the ideal that peace can be found in religious understanding, for her teachings on compassion, and her appreciation for the positive sources of spirituality.” [20]

She has also received the TED Prize 2008.[21]

In 2009 she was awarded the Dr. Leopold Lucas Prize by the University of Tübingen.[22]

Armstrong was honored Nationalencyklopedin’s International Knowledge Award 2011[23] “for her long standing work of bringing knowledge to others about the significance of religion to humankind and, in particular, for pointing out the similarities between religions. Through a series of books and award-winning lectures she reaches out as a peace-making voice at a time when world events are becoming increasingly linked to religion.”
On November 30, 2011 (St. Andrew’s Day) Armstrong was made honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Saint Andrews.[24]
Reception

Armstrong has been called “a prominent and prolific religious historian”[25] and described as “arguably the most lucid, wide-ranging and consistently interesting religion writer today”.[26] Juan Eduardo Campo, author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a “more or less objective” (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America.[27] She is in demand as a speaker on the Abrahamic tradition; in the last decade increasing interest in and debate surrounding Islamic issues has brought her even wider visibility.

Bibliography
Journal articles:“Women, Tourism, Politics” (1977)
“The Holiness of Jerusalem: Asset or Burden?” (1998)
“Ambiguity and Remembrance: Individual and Collective Memory in Finland” (2000)
Books:Through the Narrow Gate (1982)
The First Christian: Saint Paul’s Impact on Christianity (1983)
Beginning the World (1983)
Tongues of Fire: An Anthology of Religious and Poetic Experience (1985)
The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)
Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today’s World (1988)
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (1991)
The English Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (1991)
The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)
A History of God (1993)
Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (1996)
In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (1996)
Islam: A Short History (2000)
The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)
Buddha (2001)
Faith After September 11 (2002)
The Spiral Staircase (2004)
A Short History of Myth (2005)
Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006) ISBN 978-0-375-41317-9
The Bible: A Biography (2007)
The Case for God (2009) ISBN 978-0-307-26918-8
Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life (2010) ISBN 978-0-307-59559-1
A Letter to Pakistan ISBN 978-0-19-906330-7

Irrelevant.

You have made an arbitrary assignation of one particular religious writer as your personal shibboleth.

There are a multitude of religious writers to whom any one of us could declare to be our arbiter of who’s informed or not.

I could pick one of my own, and upon your declaration of ignorance of this writer, proclaim you to be narrow minded and uninformed…

but that would be just plain odd for me to do so. Who says that I get to pick which religious writer is the one who must be read to be informed?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Honours

…

Mary, daughter of Joachim and Anne.

In the 1st century, the angel Gabriel sent by the Living God came to her and said:
“Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with you”
and he announced to her that she would conceived a child by the Holy Spirit of the living God.
She said:
“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

And through her the Son of the Living God became flesh, for the salvation of our souls, for that those who believe in Him might not perish and have eternal life.

Even pompous arrogants like yourself.

And sinners like me.

House is all in and you are out.

 

[Porknpie]

Irrelevant.

You have made an arbitrary assignation of one particular religious writer as your personal shibboleth.

There are a multitude of religious writers to whom any one of us could declare to be our arbiter of who’s informed or not.

I could pick one of my own, and upon your declaration of ignorance of this writer, proclaim you to be narrow minded and uninformed…

but that would be just plain odd for me to do so. Who says that I get to pick which religious writer is the one who must be read to be informed?

Aquinas she is not…

The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)

Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)

The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)

There’s better reading out there…even from non-Catholics

 

[GaryTaylor]

We just want to have reasonable, not arbitrary, arguments presented here.

…And we have read Calvin and the Reformed on predestination. I don’t see any difference in this particular area. I do see how this is made to seem palatable earlier.

Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils, especially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain, that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as dependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing in future or past, but all things are present; and present in such a manner, that He does not merely conceive of them from ideas formed in His mind, as things remembered by us appear present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually placed before Him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world, and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death. This God has not only testified in particular persons, but has given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, which should evidently show the future condition of every nation to depend upon His decision. “When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, the Lord’s portion was His people; Jacob was the lot of His inheritance.”

" but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others."

So then the Almighty God, the Word- perfection itself defined, creates souls to exist and knows at that very moment they are sentenced eternally to hell.

However not to belabor the point but the reformed personal posts were vague.

Moving on the CCC and predestination is here…

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art4p2.shtml

#599

Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” [Acts 2:23] This Biblical LANGUAGE does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God. [Cf. Acts 3:13]

and…

#600

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: ‘In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.’ [Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2] For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. [cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18]

past/present/future=I AM

Various views of predestination

predestination.com/

and Presbyterians…“Calvin argued from Scripture that God has “predestined” or “elected” some people to be saved in Jesus Christ and others not to be.”

I see a vagueness not a difference from Calvin. Just saying.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I copied and pasted this past post:

I was reading this article and this really made sense:

"Orthodox reject the possibility that original sin could be a stain or tainting…yet both of us proclaim in the Creed, “one Baptism for the remission of sin”. Since we baptize babies, and babies cannot have sinned (actual sin), in essence we are having the taint/mark of original sin remised (washed away), as well as restoring God’s grace to our soul.

Since infant babies could not have done actual sin, they have only original sin remised by virtue of grace as well as undergoing the symbolic death (to sin) and rebirth (born again) which represents Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism remitting sin is already proclaimed by St Peter in Acts 2:38."

“One baptism for the remission of sin”–and the Orthodox church baptize babies. What sin is baptism remitting for those babies and small children?

And just to re-enforce the “order” which seems to be confused at times. I suspect St Paul would suffice since Romans 5:12 has been quoted exhaustively.

Romans 6:14 … ‘For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.’