Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos

[Rosinante]

Sorry. doesn’t wash. Calvin/Zwingli path was their own.

I don’t think you’ll find a credible source for it.

Jon

The Holy Spirit led me back to my office…and to check back in real quickly…

Here is one source–not the one I had previously BM’d, but rather the fruit of a 5 second google search (this isn’t exactly privilidged information I’m referring to here, sir):

The very founder of the “Reformation”, Martin Luther, was the “regrettable” one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused. His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks…

***“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” ***

De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they (the Catholic Church) say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

All of this and much more was written by the founder of the Reformation, just a short time after, when he noted the chaos he had created. By this time, Munzer had run in this direction (in 1521, the same year that Luther broke away), Zwingli, had run in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop.
Regretful, he certainly was as:
“Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it.”
Luther had become the victim by not heeding the consequences of this simple proverb.

“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.”
Psalms 127:1

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071113161018AAp2Sqr

Of course he regretted it–he was dead wrong, and he created a monster.

Inadvertaantly or not, Luther single handedly fractured the Body of Christ–and he knew he had.

VIVAT JESUS!

(…and Merry Chirstmas!).

 

[JonNC]

The Holy Spirit led me back to my office…and to check back in real quickly…

Here is one source–not the one I had previously BM’d, but rather the fruit of a 5 second google search (this isn’t exactly privilidged information I’m referring to here, sir):

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071113161018AAp2Sqr

Of course he regretted it–he was dead wrong, and he created a monster.

Inadvertaantly or not, Luther single handedly fractured the Body of Christ–and he knew he had.

VIVAT JESUS!

(…and Merry Chirstmas!).

And the same to you. Be Blessed!

May I suggest the following:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-luther-regret-reformation.html

Jon

 

[asd72]

So, those of other movements were simply lemmings who followed him, yet didn’t follow him.

Zwungli, Calvin, the anabaptists, etc., are responsible for themselves.

Source.

Jon

I just don’t really understand why anyone would accept Luther’s authority to change doctrine. Fortunely the Lutheran Church is closer than most to Apostolic Christianity, still I don’t fault other reformers for not following Luther, I don’t think he had any valid doctrinal insights, his strength was his Catholism! Only God knows the responsibly of each person involved in the reformation though.

I’m not trying to fault the Lutherans here because I think you guys are close to Catholics, but the reformation lead to such confusion and it was only in a roundabout fashion I got away from fundamentalist Protestantism and found Catholism, so I feel personally effected by the reformation.

 

[joe370]

Listen… I got it.

Jesus is God.
He was born of Mary.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

Let me make it just as clear:
The Father was not born of Mary
The Father is God.
Therefore Mary is not the Mother of God.

I do not deny that Jesus is God. Any attempt by anyone to say otherwise is pure fabrication no matter what sophistry you put to it.
I choose not to call Mary Theotokos because she is not the Mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Ghost. Period. End of Story.

You think it is a contradiction? Live with it.
Jesus is the incarnation of the Unbegotten Only Son and he is the Only Begotten Son. Sound like a contradiction? Live with it.

The question was do I deny that Jesus is God by refusing to call Mary Theotokos. No I do not. Can it be said any more clearly? Or are you simply looking for an argument? Find it elsewhere. Thanks.

I was going to respond until you said: “end of story…live with it…” OK…Merry Christmas…

 

[joe370]

I just don’t really understand why anyone would accept Luther’s authority to change doctrine. Fortunely the Lutheran Church is closer than most to Apostolic Christianity, still I don’t fault other reformers for not following Luther, I don’t think he had any valid doctrinal insights, his strength was his Catholism! Only God knows the responsibly of each person involved in the reformation though.

I’m not trying to fault the Lutherans here because I think you guys are close to Catholics, but the reformation lead to such confusion and it was only in a roundabout fashion I got away from fundamentalist Protestantism and found Catholism, so I feel personally effected by the reformation.

They are about as close as it gets, in terms of the 16th century reformation. The thing that really drew me to the catholic church was the fact that, as Christians belonging to the CC, we are only accepting the teachings of Jesus the Christ passed down from generation to generation, via sacred scripture + sacred tradition - in perpetuity. I needed that continuity, to know for sure (via faith of course) that doctrines such as the one discussed here on this thread, are in fact true and trustworthy i.e. infallibly knowable.

In my very humble opinion, when any one individual steps outside that apostolic continuum, and endeavours to continue the apostolicity on his/her own, he/she becomes more susceptible to teaching something contrary to the deposit of faith handed down from the apostles, beginning on Pentecost, for the simple fact that he/she is choosing to leave the providential guidance and protector of truth, namely the Holy Spirit, as per the NT.

 

[joe370]

.

She is the mother of the Son of God, most blessed among women, and a model of virtue, humility, patience and faith. What I don’t understand is why the church has gone beyond what the Scriptures say, but that isn’t the topic here, so I won’t pursue it.

Just a little clarification: the blessed Mary, in terms of when Jesus walked the earth, was only the mother of the Son of God, as opposed to being the mother of Jesus the Christ, God Incarnate.

I suppose that would be true if in fact Jesus had temporarily* (as the Son of God walking the earth for approximately 33 years)* stopped being the second divine Person of the Trinity until His ascension and return to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Is this what you believe, or do you believe that the Holy Trinity remained intact the entire time in spite of Jesus’ incarnation?

 

[Cachonga]

joe370, Scripture tells us that Jesus laid aside His glory while He walked among us (and that voluntarily), but He never left off His divinity. Yes, the Trinity remained intact and Jesus was (and is and will remain) fully God and fully man.

 

[joe370]

joe370, Scripture tells us that Jesus laid aside His glory while He walked among us (and that voluntarily), but He never left off His divinity. Yes, the Trinity remained intact and Jesus was (and is and will remain) fully God and fully man.

 

[PRmerger]

joe370, Scripture tells us that Jesus laid aside His glory while He walked among us (and that voluntarily), but He never left off His divinity. Yes, the Trinity remained intact and Jesus was (and is and will remain) fully God and fully man.

Exactly.

Which is why it is appropriate to call Mary the Mother of **God. **

 

[joe370]

Exactly.

Which is why it is appropriate to call Mary the Mother of **God. **

I was reluctant to push the obvious…

 

[batman1973]

Exactly.

Which is why it is appropriate to call Mary the Mother of **God. **

Amen.

 

[CopticChristian]

Listen… I got it.

Jesus is God.
He was born of Mary.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

Let me make it just as clear:
The Father was not born of Mary
The Father is God.
Therefore Mary is not the Mother of God.

I do not deny that Jesus is God. Any attempt by anyone to say otherwise is pure fabrication no matter what sophistry you put to it.
I choose not to call Mary Theotokos because she is not the Mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Ghost. Period. End of Story.

You think it is a contradiction? Live with it.
Jesus is the incarnation of the Unbegotten Only Son and he is the Only Begotten Son. Sound like a contradiction? Live with it.

The question was do I deny that Jesus is God by refusing to call Mary Theotokos. No I do not. Can it be said any more clearly? Or are you simply looking for an argument? Find it elsewhere. Thanks.

RC,

I believe that the OP has confused the issue…

Theotokus…God Bearer, is to ensure the humanity and Divinty of Christ and not the motherood of Mary…

The Hail Mary is a separate issue.

I understand your splitting hairs…

Sometimes mystery is the best…

The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God…let us agree…

To satisfy you it would be safe to say Mary is the Mother of the Son who is God and that would settle the issue. It would also be fair to say that Mary consented to the Father and was united in the Holy Spirit to bear the Son of God…sort of puts her in the mix of things does it not…? Her Yes, caused a whole heap of things to happen after that, would you not agree?

So, agreeing with…

Theotokus means you agree that Mary is the God bearer…that is all…this was because there were some that said Jesus was not fully God in His humanity…

 

[Rosinante]

And the same to you. Be Blessed!

May I suggest the following:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-luther-regret-reformation.html

Jon

That’s just patently embarrasing.

First, you pretend to be ignorant of any such claims ("…I doubt you’ll be able to [produce] any credible sources")…

…then you refer me to “Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM”, a cite virtually acknowledging a multitude of such quotes from Marty (then lamely trying to spin them, or explain them away).

Thanks anyway for the link–was good for a few laughs…

But next time, may I kindly suggest owning that you are aware of Marty’s various back peddles, but simply have a your own spin on them, to wihch you subscribe (or I’m sure you’d rather phrase it as you disagree with my characterizations thereof, or conclusions drawn therefrom…).

Okham’s razoor however, suggests rather compellingly, that Marty meant what he said–not what protestants wished he had meant by what he actaully said.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

RC,

I believe that the OP has confused the issue…

Theotokus…God Bearer, is to ensure the humanity and Divinty of Christ and not the motherood of Mary…

The Hail Mary is a separate issue.

I understand your splitting hairs…

Sometimes mystery is the best…

The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God…let us agree…

To satisfy you it would be safe to say Mary is the Mother of the Son who is God and that would settle the issue. It would also be fair to say that Mary consented to the Father and was united in the Holy Spirit to bear the Son of God…sort of puts her in the mix of things does it not…? Her Yes, caused a whole heap of things to happen after that, would you not agree?

So, agreeing with…

Theotokus means you agree that Mary is the God bearer…that is all…this was because there were some that said Jesus was not fully God in His humanity…

I didn’t confuse any issue, and he read me loud and clear.

The ultimate question, when it comes down to it, is upon what authority do our more radically ‘reformed’ brethren, reject Church authority, going back to the most recent of the major early Church Councils.

His answer was crystal clear:

“I CHOOSE NOT TO…LIVE WITH IT”.

I see no need to sugar coat anything. He believes, as virtually all protestants do, thathis interprestation of scripture, and his idea of what the Faith is, is not only as valid, but actually more valid, than that of the Church which Yeshua himself founded.

Point made.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Cachonga]

PRmerger:

Which is why it is appropriate to call Mary the Mother of God.

I strongly disagree with your assertion (and I believe the men at the Council of Ephesus would disagree with you as well).

 

[Rosinante]

I strongly disagree with your assertion (and I believe the men at the Council of Ephesus would disagree with you as well).

So what are you waiting for? You know you’re just dying to lecture us po’ ig’nant Cat’s about how/why those Church Fathers in attendance erred in finding in favor of “Mary, Theotokos”…or is it, how/why we got the Council of Ephesus wrong?

Either way, by all means sir…do elaborate.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[PRmerger]

I strongly disagree with your assertion (and I believe the men at the Council of Ephesus would disagree with you as well).

Firstly, these men at the Council of Ephesus were bishops. Catholic bishops.

And could you please proffer some documentation to support your view that these bishops thought that Mary was the mother of a different Jesus? Perhaps a Jesus who was* not* God?

 

[Truthstalker]

I am in the Reformed camp but I affirm the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. It is quite logical. The whole reason it came up was because some people were running around claiming that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. These people denied that Jesus is the God-Man with two natures in one person. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God was to deny a critical fact concerning the incarnation. SO we say Mary is the Mother of God, the God-bearer, Gk theotokos. At one point, to profess that Mary was the mother of Jesus was to say that she was the mother of his human nature only, meaning He was adopted or something. There were a number of heresies related to His nature that get refuted when you say Mary is the Mother of God. That does NOT mean Mary is divine.

Protestants would do well to do their research. Catholics would do well to show Protestants the logic behind theological positions and stop posting some random quote from someone no one has ever heard of as if it authoritative to a Protestant, which is never is (if that’s on this thread, I overlooked it and I apologize - I don’t mean to call anyone out). And Protestants almost never pay attention to what bishops say per se. If they paid attention to Catholic episcopal authority they would not be Protestant, Augustine being the exception seemingly. But he is so prolific and nuanced I tend to discount quotes from him just because he is so prolific and nuanced and he seemingly said enough stuff that anybody can grab a boatload from him to support a position.

So I guess I am trouble with both sides. And I like Athanasius.

 

[PRmerger]

I am in the Reformed camp but I affirm the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. It is quite logical. The whole reason it came up was because some people were running around claiming that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. These people denied that Jesus is the God-Man with two natures in one person. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God was to deny a critical fact concerning the incarnation. SO we say Mary is the Mother of God, the God-bearer, Gk theotokos. At one point, to profess that Mary was the mother of Jesus was to say that she was the mother of his human nature only, meaning He was adopted or something. There were a number of heresies related to His nature that get refuted when you say Mary is the Mother of God. That does NOT mean Mary is divine.

:bowdown::extrahappy::dancing::clapping:

 

[batman1973]

I am in the Reformed camp but I affirm the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. It is quite logical. The whole reason it came up was because some people were running around claiming that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. These people denied that Jesus is the God-Man with two natures in one person. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God was to deny a critical fact concerning the incarnation. SO we say Mary is the Mother of God, the God-bearer, Gk theotokos. At one point, to profess that Mary was the mother of Jesus was to say that she was the mother of his human nature only, meaning He was adopted or something. There were a number of heresies related to His nature that get refuted when you say Mary is the Mother of God. That does NOT mean Mary is divine.

Protestants would do well to do their research. Catholics would do well to show Protestants the logic behind theological positions and stop posting some random quote from someone no one has ever heard of as if it authoritative to a Protestant, which is never is (if that’s on this thread, I overlooked it and I apologize - I don’t mean to call anyone out). And Protestants almost never pay attention to what bishops say per se. If they paid attention to Catholic episcopal authority they would not be Protestant, Augustine being the exception seemingly. But he is so prolific and nuanced I tend to discount quotes from him just because he is so prolific and nuanced and he seemingly said enough stuff that anybody can grab a boatload from him to support a position.

So I guess I am trouble with both sides. And I like Athanasius.

Agreed!