Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Eliyahu]

With what you have stated above this simple statement of fact should be a "case closed" situation that could be argued with a classic syllogism:

Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Mary is the mother of God

Again which one do you deny?

But some people still balk at referring to Mary as God's mother. The only way they can get around that fact, though, is to do one of the following:

• deny that Christ is God (heresy); ​
• deny that He is both fully human and fully God and that those two natures are in perfect hypostasis and can't be divided (heresy);
• deny that Jesus is the Son of Mary (heresy); or
• claim that Jesus was God before His incarnation, but not while He was in the flesh (heresy).

Luke 1:43 tells us of Elisabeth greeting Mary with, "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" It's all very simple.

Does this mean she is the Mother of God, the Father? No.

Is she the Mother of God, the Holy Spirit? No.

But she is the Mother of Jesus, Who is God. She is the Mother of His human nature, not His divine nature -- but these two natures are now, since the Incarnation, in perfect union and cannot be separated. Jesus is not a "collection of parts" and "natures"; He is a Person. To say that Mary can't be the Mother of God because she isn't the Mother of His divinity is to say that your own mother can't be your mother because she didn't create your eternal soul. You are a person -- body and soul -- and your mother is your mother. You wouldn't say, "My mother isn't really 'my mother'; she's only the mother of my body." It is the same with Jesus, Who is fully human and fully divine -- Who is God.

.

Bound,
I would focus on the Syllogism this time.
My point is that the Human Syllogism doesn't work in Divine Trinity, because the Divine Trinity is much more complicated than what the human logics and reasoning can fathom even by three-dimensional approach.

Following your statement:

1) Mary is Mother of God
2) Mary is not Mother of God the Father ( as per your statement as well)
3) Therefore, God the Father is not God. ( at least you have to admit this in the sentence 1). )

1) Mary is Mother of God
2) Mary is not the Mother of God the Holy Spirit
3) God the Holy Spirit is not God ( Because God the Holy Spirit is not God in the phrase of Mother of God)

In other words, you cannot say Mother of God if you don't deny God the Father is God, God the Holy Spirit is God.

As I said, In the Bible "God" appears more than 3,640 times, and more than 99% of them was used for God the Father. Even in our life, when people say "God", it means almost all the time God the Father unless it specifically explicitly mention about Son of God or God the Holy Spirit.

Mother of God is absolutely misrepresentation of God the Creator and Mary the creature.

2 natures of Jesus cannot be divided, and Mary was not the Mother for the Divinity and God was not produced by Mary at all, and therefore nobody used the term Mother of God, because of the reasons you mentioned as hereises. Your indication is correct, and therefore nobody in the Bible used it, the conclusion is different from yours.

Sarah called Abraham " Lord" ( 1 Peter 3:6) but it doesn't make Abraham God. Jacob called Esau " Adonai" ( Lord) it doesn't mean Esau is God ( Genesis 33:13-14). Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of my Lord" She never called " Mother of God" We must follow her too. Mother of Lord or Mother of Jesus is quite OK. Why do want to stick to Mother of God? Isn't it because you want to insinuate Mary is Someone like God or Godess?

In your Syllogism, please try to find out what is wrong with the followings:

Mary is Mother of God,
David was the Great, Great Grand Father of Mary
King David is the Great, Great Grandfather of God


Mary is Mother of God
Adam is the Ancestor of Mary
Adam is Ancestor of God ( We must respect God's Ancestor !)


Sister of Mary ( Jn 19:25).

Mary is Mother of God
Sister of Mary is Sister of Mother of God
Sister of Mary is the Aunt of God

James, Brother of Jesus

Jesus is God
James is Brother of Jesus
James is God's Brother.

Do we have to venerate God's ancestor as much as RCC do for Mary?

 

[Eliyahu]

At the Psychatric Hospital ( I sometimes work for the Psychiatric Patients)

Patient A) : I am Jesus.
Patient B) : I have had no Son like you.
Patient C) : I am from the school of Gods, but have no one like you among my Alumni.

Mother of God sounds like one of these patients statements.

 

[DHK]

Remember, deification equals sanctification. They are one and the same doctrine.

They are not one and the same thing. But we are talking past each other, and here is why. Here is where you are taking your quotes, information, and defintions from:

*Credit given to St. Athanaius Orthodox Academy.

I don't even read the ECF, and have no reason to. I don't define words according to Athanaius, and have no reason to. I define words either according to the Bible or to how they are used in every day language. Any one today would know that deification means that it refers to a person being made a god. Buddha was deified. Confucius was deified though he was against it. Many religious leaders have been deified--that is they have been made a god and worshiped as one. That is what the word means, and that is how the humanist today uses it. When you attach a new meaning to it, even if it is a meaning that Athanasius used centuries ago, you confuse everyone reading and we simply speak past each other. Deification means to make into a god. We don't go by someone else's obscure definition. We have no reason to.

 

[bound]

Bound,
I would focus on the Syllogism this time.
My point is that the Human Syllogism doesn't work in Divine Trinity, because the Divine Trinity is much more complicated than what the human logics and reasoning can fathom even by three-dimensional approach.

First, let me say that the Doctrine of the Divine Trinity isn't illlogical. If we have to visit the doctrine of the Holy Trinity I'm fine with that. In Western Theology the Trinity is looked at with almost complete confusion but the early Church and the Councils outlined a very 'reasonable' doctrine relying on the Scriptures, Tradition and some philosophic concepts from Greek Platonism.

If you want me to outline the doctrine, I'll be more than happy to.

Following your statement:

1) Mary is Mother of God
2) Mary is not Mother of God the Father ( as per your statement as well)
3) Therefore, God the Father is not God. ( at least you have to admit this in the sentence 1). )

The error of this is you are articulating Tri-theism (i.e. the idea the the three persons of the Holy Trinity share equally in the unity of the Godhead (i.e. essence of God).

The 'fullness' of the Godhead dwell bodily... you're logic would deny this.

1) Mary is Mother of God
2) Mary is not the Mother of God the Holy Spirit
3) God the Holy Spirit is not God ( Because God the Holy Spirit is not God in the phrase of Mother of God)

Again, the 'fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily... you're logic would deny this.

In other words, you cannot say Mother of God if you don't deny God the Father is God, God the Holy Spirit is God.

If the Holy Trinity was a doctrine of Tri-theism you'd be right but it doesn't so you're assertion would be in error. Do you wish to discuss the Oneness of God and how it pertains to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?

As I said, In the Bible "God" appears more than 3,640 times, and more than 99% of them was used for God the Father. Even in our life, when people say "God", it means almost all the time God the Father unless it specifically explicitly mention about Son of God or God the Holy Spirit.

Actually, this is not true. Their is no disunity in the Godhead, where God is the 'whole' of the Godhead dwells also. Christianity does not teach Tri-theism.

Mother of God is absolutely misrepresentation of God the Creator and Mary the creature.

If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation you would not claim this.

2 natures of Jesus cannot be divided, and Mary was not the Mother for the Divinity and God was not produced by Mary at all, and therefore nobody used the term Mother of God, because of the reasons you mentioned as hereises. Your indication is correct, and therefore nobody in the Bible used it, the conclusion is different from yours.

Your mother is not the Mother of your soul either but she is the bearer of your Personhood. Mother bore the person Jesus Christ (i.e. theanthropos "God-Man") We don't look to the originator of souls in order to determine parenthood we look to the bearer of the person born. Mary doesn't have to be the originator of the divine nature to recognize her as the bearer of the Incarnation, she only has to be the bearer of the person Jesus Christ to be the mother of God.

Sarah called Abraham " Lord" ( 1 Peter 3:6) but it doesn't make Abraham God. Jacob called Esau " Adonai" ( Lord) it doesn't mean Esau is God ( Genesis 33:13-14). Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of my Lord" She never called " Mother of God" We must follow her too. Mother of Lord or Mother of Jesus is quite OK. Why do want to stick to Mother of God? Isn't it because you want to insinuate Mary is Someone like God or Godess?

Yes, but we know that Jesus Christ 'is' Lord and so did Elisabeth and the infant John. To say that the Mother of our Lord or the Mother of Jesus would cause us to 'separate' the unity of the person of Jesus Christ (fully God, fully Man). We've been through this already.

In your Syllogism, please try to find out what is wrong with the followings:

Mary is Mother of God,
David was the Great, Great Grand Father of Mary
King David is the Great, Great Grandfather of God

Well, it was foretold that through the line of David the messiah would come but you have to understand that whatever honor we extend to Mary is not a product of her biology but of her participation. I believe it is fair to say that a certain amount of honor 'is' afforded to King David for his role in divine providence as well as those others who did play a role in it's forthcoming (John the Baptist, Joseph, David, Abraham). Of course, your conclusion is a touch non-sequitur but remember 'why' we call Mary the Mother of God. It is to acknowledge Jesus Christ as God not to somehow offer honor to the mother for her biology. Like someone else in the thread said, she was the vessel chosen and for that alone she is honored.

Do we have to venerate God's ancestor as much as RCC do for Mary?

Honestly, we are talking about the Early Church not Rome.

 

[bound]

I don't even read the ECF, and have no reason to. I don't define words according to Athanaius, and have no reason to. I define words either according to the Bible or to how they are used in every day language. Any one today would know that deification means that it refers to a person being made a god. Buddha was deified. Confucius was deified though he was against it. Many religious leaders have been deified--that is they have been made a god and worshiped as one. That is what the word means, and that is how the humanist today uses it. When you attach a new meaning to it, even if it is a meaning that Athanasius used centuries ago, you confuse everyone reading and we simply speak past each other. Deification means to make into a god. We don't go by someone else's obscure definition. We have no reason to.

Well, if you're going to deny them, it would make sense to actually know what you are denying as non-biblical... That just stands to reason.

Understand deification as Peter understood it "partaking of the divine nature"...

Be Well.

 

[Linda64]

What deification is.

Deification means we are to become more like God through His grace or divine energies. In creation, humans were made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) according to human nature. In other words, humanity by nature is an icon or image of deity: The divine image is in all humanity. Through sin, however, this image and likeness of God was marred, and we fell.

When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of Mary, the process of our being renewed in God's image and likeness was begun. Thus, those who are joined to Christ through faith begin a re-creation process, being renewed in God's image and likeness. We become, as Peter writes, partakers of the divine nature" (2Peter 1:4).

Because of the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the fullness of God has inhabited human flesh, being joined to Christ means that it is again possible to experience deification, the fulfillment of our human destiny. That is, through union with Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature - we "become children of God" (John 1:12). His deity interpenetrates our humanity.

Historically, deification has often been illustrated by the "sword and fire" example. A steel sword is thrust into a hot fire until the sword takes on a red glow. The energy of the fire interpenetrates the sword. The sword never becomes fire, but it picks up the properties of fire.

By application, the divine energies interpenetrate the human nature of Christ. Being joined to to Christ, our humanity is interpenetrated with the energies of God through Christ's glorified flesh. Nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, we partake of the grace of God... His strength, His righteousness, His love... and are enabled to serve Him and glorify Him. Thus we, being human, are being deified.*

*Credit given to St. Athanaius Orthodox Academy.

Deification and sanctification are NOT the same thing.

That definition sounds very New Age. Here is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:

DEIFY, v.t. L. A god, and to make.

1. To make a god; to exalt to the rank of a heathen deity; to enroll among the deities; as, Julius Cesar was deified.

2. To exalt into an object of worship; to treat as an object of supreme regard; as a covetous man deifies his treasures.

3. To exalt to a deity in estimation; to reverence or praise as a deity.

The pope was formerly extolled and deified by his votaries.

DEIFICATION, n. The act of deifying; the act of exalting to the rank of, or enrolling among the heathen deities.

By application, the divine energies interpenetrate the human nature of Christ. Being joined to to Christ, our humanity is interpenetrated with the energies of God through Christ's glorified flesh

This sounds like some kind of metaphysical gibberish...something like the serpent told Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 (ye shall be as gods).

You have not used one Scripture verse to back up this definition. God does not possess "energies"...we are NOT interpenetrated (whatever that means) with "energies of God.


SANCTIFICATION

"Sanctify," "holy," and "saint" are translated from the same Greek words. They mean to be set apart for special service. In the Bible many things other than people are said to be sanctified-the Tabernacle furniture (Exodus 40:10-11,13); a mountain (Exodus 19:23); food (1 Timothy 4:5). It is even possible for a believer to sanctify God in his heart (1 Peter 3:15). Thus, to sanctify, or to make holy, does not mean to purify or to make sinless, but to set apart something for God and for His service.

In relation to the Christian, sanctification or holiness refers to being set apart to God from sin.

 

[bound]

Deification and sanctification are NOT the same thing.

That definition sounds very New Age. Here is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:

DEIFY, v.t. L. A god, and to make.

1. To make a god; to exalt to the rank of a heathen deity; to enroll among the deities; as, Julius Cesar was deified.

2. To exalt into an object of worship; to treat as an object of supreme regard; as a covetous man deifies his treasures.

3. To exalt to a deity in estimation; to reverence or praise as a deity.

The pope was formerly extolled and deified by his votaries.

Ma'am,

The Christian term 'Deification' predates Websters.

DEIFICATION,

n. The act of deifying; the act of exalting to the rank of, or enrolling among the heathen deities.

This sounds like some kind of metaphysical gibberish...something like the serpent told Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 (ye shall be as gods).

In John 10:34, Jesus, quoting Psalms 82:6, repeats the passage, "You are gods."

Is He Satan too?

You have not used one Scripture verse to back up this definition. God does not possess "energies"...we are NOT interpenetrated (whatever that means) with "energies of God.

How can you deny something if you don't know what it is you're denying?

SANCTIFICATION

"Sanctify," "holy," and "saint" are translated from the same Greek words. They mean to be set apart for special service. In the Bible many things other than people are said to be sanctified-the Tabernacle furniture (Exodus 40:10-11,13); a mountain (Exodus 19:23); food (1 Timothy 4:5). It is even possible for a believer to sanctify God in his heart (1 Peter 3:15). Thus, to sanctify, or to make holy, does not mean to purify or to make sinless, but to set apart something for God and for His service.

In relation to the Christian, sanctification or holiness refers to being set apart to God from sin.

As I have stated in numerous posts I am not one who claims grace is to no effect. It's not simply a judical proclaimation from God but making 'heirs with Christ' and "partakers of the divine nature".

Deification is the ancient theological word used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God. Peter speaks of this process when he writes, "As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness... you may be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Be Well.

 

[DHK]

Deification is the ancient theological word used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God. Peter speaks of this process when he wrtes, "As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godiless... you may be partakers of the dvine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Many ancient "theologians" were heretics. I think you may have come across one. If not heretics, at least they held some deviant theology in their theological constructs, and this is one of them.

 

[bound]

It is more correct to say in your post above --

"Though no Bible text says it -- I believe Mary is the Mother of God, corrector of God, instructor of God, and was wiser than God... as all the roles of Mother vs infant in a procreation model would have it"

And your position has already been addressed.

You continue to conflate the divine nature with the human nature of the Incarantion. Although we should never divide them, we should never conflate or co-mingle them either. Being perfect God, Christ the Saviour is at the same time also perfect Man.

As Man, Christ was born when for Mary, His mother, “the days were accomplished that she should be delivered” (Luke 2:6). He gradually “grew, and waxed strong in spirit” (Luke 2:40). As Mary’s son, He “was subject unto her and her spouse” (Luke 2:51). As Man, He was baptized of John in the Jordan; He went about the cities and villages with the preaching of salvation; not once before His Resurrection did he encounter a need to prove His humanity to anyone. He experienced hunger and thirst, the need for rest and sleep, and He suffered painful feelings and physical sufferings. Living the physical life natural to a man, the Lord also lived the life of the soul as a man. He strengthened His spiritual powers with fasting and prayer. He experienced human feelings: joy, anger, sorrow; He expressed them outwardly: “He was troubled in spirit” (John 13:21), showed dissatisfaction, shed tears for example, at the death of Lazarus. The Gospels reveal to us a powerful spiritual battle in the garden of Gethsemane on the night before He was taken under guard: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matt. 26:38) — thus did the Lord describe the state of His soul to His disciples.

All of these are examples of Christ's humanity. As a 'man' He was truly a man and acted and felt as a man. We can not and should not deny this as this is not only evidenced in the Scriptures but is what was necessary in taking on our human.

Be Well.

 

[bound]

Many ancient "theologians" were heretics. I think you may have come across one. If not heretics, at least they held some deviant theology in their theological constructs, and this is one of them.

If it wasn't the consensual teachings of the Church throughout I might agree but these are not isolated teachings by out of the way theologians.

I would continue to encourage you to study the early Church, if for no other reason but to know what you are denying and perhaps you might find that they are not unlike some of the sincere followers of God's Word that you find in your own tradition. There is nothing inherently wrong with Sola Scriptura as long as the historical exegesis for interpreting the Scripture is maintained within one's hermeneutic. Many of the early protestant traditions maintained this but some didn't and was led astray by their own error in applying the wrong emphasis with their interpretation of the Scriptures.

The Christian past is not scary nor is it all that different from those modern scholars who have a firm grounding in the Scriptures and a Christian hermeneutic. You may disagree with some but I personally believe they offer a wonderful sounding board for our own theological theories. I believe there to be a consensual teaching of the Church which is found throughout history. It never ceased nor has it only recently sprung up in the Reformation.

Bringing up that teaching of Deification illuminates the early Churches own understanding of Sanctification and helps shed light on their views of Mary and the Saints after they ascended into heaven and shared a seat with Christ at the right hand of the Father. This partaking in the divine nature as Peter described it was a union with the Trinity and in a certain sense a 'sharing' in the divine nature as part of the destiny of man. It is from this foundation of understanding that the Saints were understood to be aware and effectual in their prayers for the earthly Church.

I would be curious to know how you interpret 1 Peter 1:3-4? You're theology of Sanctification appears stunted by our refusal to recognize man's participation with and in God.

Again Be Well.

 

[mrtumnus]

We do not share in divine attributes. We have no sense of deity. Divine attributes belong to divinity, i.e., God. We are not gods. This is humanism, the granting of deity to man. Man is a frail creature of dust deserving only of the wrath of God, but accepting the unmerited favor of God, the grace of God that he provided for us on the cross, we can have forgiveness of sin and eternal life as a free gift, though we don't deserve it. I still am a sinner; but a sinner saved by grace.

Forgive me for just butting in here, but I have been following this thread and its predecessors for quite some time, and I am confused. While you (and we) may still be sinners saved by grace, at the point in time when we share fully in eternal life in heaven, aren't we then in a state of glorification?

Glorified -- to make glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or admiration.
Glorious -- possessing or deserving glory
Glory -- praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent. worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

It seems to me that while there is indeed a recognition that while those already in heaven are in no way God, if they are truly 'glorified' wouldn't there is some type of praise that is appropriately theirs? Is offering praise to someone by default identifical to worship?

 

[DHK]

If it wasn't the consensual teachings of the Church throughout I might agree but these are not isolated teachings by out of the way theologians.

Origen was a heretic even by Catholic standards.
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to the age of 80.
Yet these are the men that make up the "consensual teachings of the Church." They are fallible, sinners, and some of them not even saved.

Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will remeber the name of our Lord.
What do you trust in? The ECF? Amazing! It is as if you put their authority above the authority of the Word of God.

I would continue to encourage you to study the early Church, if for no other reason but to know what you are denying and perhaps you might find that they are not unlike some of the sincere followers of God's Word that you find in your own tradition.

I have no need of studying the teachings of these men. I have their writings. I find in their writings countless heresies and strange doctrines and beliefs that are not consistent with the Word of God. Tell me why I should follow the teaching of a man rather than the teaching of God?

There is nothing inherently wrong with Sola Scriptura as long as the historical exegesis for interpreting the Scripture is maintained within one's hermeneutic.

Sola Scriptura is a Biblical principle that is taught all throughout the Scriptures. To deny it is to deny Scripture itself. It was Jesus that said, "Search the Scriptures," not, search the ECF!

Many of the early protestant traditions maintained this but some didn't and was led astray by their own error in applying the wrong emphasis with their interpretation of the Scriptures.

A great majority of people that have been led astray have been led astray because they have been so influenced by the ECF. When you allow man to influence you rather than the Scriptures you will indeed be led astray. For years the "fad" was belief in "amilennialism." Why? Because of a belief in man's system of eschatology, instead of an objective study of the Word of God. It doesn't matter how many people believe in that system of eschatology or how famous they were, that doesn't make that particular system of belief correct. What is correct? Thus saith the Lord, is correct. Sola scriptura is correct in spite of what these men say.

The Christian past is not scary nor is it all that different from those modern scholars who have a firm grounding in the Scriptures and a Christian hermeneutic.

Modern scholars like Nietsche, Karl Jaspers, Jean-Paul Sartre, August Comte. What modern scholars do you have in mind?
It is quite apparent that all, if not most, of the ECF did not have a good grounding in the Word of God.
Tertullian waffled back and forth on baptism. Which Tertullian will you believe? Formerly he believed along with the "consensus of teaching" as you would say that baptism did not have to be by immersion. But then Tertullian got saved in his later years and became a Montanist. He totally rejected his former beliefs on baptism. Now he believed that salvation was by faith alone, and baptism by immersion must follow. Believing such he placed himself outside of the "consensual teaching," but inside of the teaching of the Bible. Where do you stand?

You may disagree with some but I personally believe they offer a wonderful sounding board for our own theological theories. I believe there to be a consensual teaching of the Church which is found throughout history.

Which one: RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, etc. The Bible speaks of churches, not any universal Church.

Bringing up that teaching of Deification illuminates the early Churches own understanding of Sanctification and helps shed light on their views of Mary and the Saints after they ascended into heaven and shared a seat with Christ at the right hand of the Father.

That view is foreign to the Apostles, to the early Christians, and to the Bible. It borders on heresy.

This partaking in the divine nature as Peter described it was a union with the Trinity and in a certain sense a 'sharing' in the divine nature as part of the destiny of man.

No it in no way is. Peter teaches no such thing. That is a perversion of Scripture.

It is from this foundation of understanding that the Saints were understood to be aware and effectual in their prayers for the earthly Church.

This is not early Christianity; it is Roman Catholicism. Is that what you have been reading? If you are referring to the so-called saints in heaven, you have no Biblical proof that they have any awareness at all of anything that is happening on earth.

I would be curious to know how you interpret 1 Peter 1:3-4? You're theology of Sanctification appears stunted by our refusal to recognize man's participation with and in God.

1 Peter 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
2 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Verse one says that God has begotten us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the main part of the verse when you take away the prepositional phrases. Peter praises God because of the new birth (we are born again from above) by the resurrection. Without the resurrection there is no gospel. You must be born again. That is what "begotten" refers to.

The ultimate object or hope of our salvation is further described in verse two: to an inheritance uncorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you. All of this is ours as a result of our faith in Christ. It is our inheritance.

 

[DHK]

Forgive me for just butting in here, but I have been following this thread and its predecessors for quite some time, and I am confused. While you (and we) may still be sinners saved by grace, at the point in time when we share fully in eternal life in heaven, aren't we then in a state of glorification?

A believer, when he is saved, is given the gift of eternal life. However, that gift is not realized until he gets to heaven.
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life."
I will not see heaven until I die or until Jesus comes: one of the two. Thus there is no way that I can share in the glory of those that are dead, or those that have died and whose spirits are now in heaven.

Glorified -- to make glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or admiration.
Glorious -- possessing or deserving glory
Glory -- praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent. worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

It seems to me that while there is indeed a recognition that while those already in heaven are in no way God, if they are truly 'glorified' wouldn't there is some type of praise that is appropriately theirs? Is offering praise to someone by default identifical to worship?

No, not at all. What kind of honor do they need. They did not merit anything in order to get to heaven. What did they do? Absolutely nothing? The thief on the cross did nothing but steal. For what reason do they need to be hoonored? There is none.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--Thou (GOD) alone is worthy to receive glory and honour.
God and Him alone is worthy.

 

[Matt Black]

Be interested to see what everyone makes of this, which is a request to Mary dated c250AD - ie: long before Ephesus in 432 and certainly predating by a good 70+ years the 'nasty, Catholic-Church-founding' Constantine.

 

[mrtumnus]

A believer, when he is saved, is given the gift of eternal life. However, that gift is not realized until he gets to heaven.
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life."
I will not see heaven until I die or until Jesus comes: one of the two. Thus there is no way that I can share in the glory of those that are dead, or those that have died and whose spirits are now in heaven.

No, not at all. What kind of honor do they need. They did not merit anything in order to get to heaven. What did they do? Absolutely nothing? The thief on the cross did nothing but steal. For what reason do they need to be hoonored? There is none.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
--Thou (GOD) alone is worthy to receive glory and honour.
God and Him alone is worthy.

So why do Baptists believe we will reach a state of 'glorification' if by definition this means worthy of glory, yet say then that God alone is worthy of glory, and it would be incorrect to offer praise to those who have gone before us and are in that state?

To say the good thief did 'absolutely nothing' doesn't quite seem correct to me either. If that was the case, why was he welcomed into the kingdom and the other one not?

 

[bound]

Origen was a heretic even by Catholic standards.
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to the age of 80.
Yet these are the men that make up the "consensual teachings of the Church." They are fallible, sinners, and some of them not even saved.

Origen is not the origin of these teachings, they pre-date him and post-date his censure by the Church. They have never been criticized nor challenged by the concilar Church.

Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will remeber the name of our Lord.
What do you trust in? The ECF? Amazing! It is as if you put their authority above the authority of the Word of God.

I simply trust in our Lord and Saviour. I trust in His promises that He will be with us always. What I don't trust is my own personal ability to interpret the Scriptures void of those Brothers and Sisters who walked in Christ before me. I don't outright reject the evidence of a historic Christian exegesis because my own personal tradition says otherwise.

As much as you desire to divide the early Church from the Scriptures or the Early Fathers from the Scriptures you fail to recognize that your own methods of interpretation are born from a 'tradition' all it's own. To be honest we should 'test everything' including our own 'traditions' conclusions against what is evident as the interpretations of those who walked before us.

As I've said before, the Jews had the Law and the Scriptures and neither kept them from straying. You're apriori presumption that the 'word of God' will save you from error has no foundation in experience. You know this, I know this but you would still through these 'strawmen' up as 'good sound bites'. Come now, DHK.

I have no need of studying the teachings of these men. I have their writings. I find in their writings countless heresies and strange doctrines and beliefs that are not consistent with the Word of God. Tell me why I should follow the teaching of a man rather than the teaching of God?

Again you strive to divine that which doesn't necessarily have to be antithetical to one another. Again this is your apriori assumption.

Sola Scriptura is a Biblical principle that is taught all throughout the Scriptures. To deny it is to deny Scripture itself. It was Jesus that said, "Search the Scriptures," not, search the ECF!

Jesus taught His own Disciples on the Road to Emmaus an means of interpreting the Scriptures. If it wasn if it was already present in the Scriptures why did our Lord have to teach it to them? This is what we look for to be handed down...

A great majority of people that have been led astray have been led astray because they have been so influenced by the ECF.

You could say the very same thing about the Scriptures. The very enemies of Christ used the Scriptures against Him. Satan used the Scriptures against Him. Again this is not an excuse to demonize the ECF's nor the Scriptures but sin. If Jesus taught an 'exegesis' to His Disciples on the Road to Emmaus then it was kept secure within His Church and we can seek it within the works of His Chruch.

When you allow man to influence you rather than the Scriptures you will indeed be led astray. For years the "fad" was belief in "amilennialism." Why? Because of a belief in man's system of eschatology, instead of an objective study of the Word of God. It doesn't matter how many people believe in that system of eschatology or how famous they were, that doesn't make that particular system of belief correct. What is correct? Thus saith the Lord, is correct. Sola scriptura is correct in spite of what these men say.

Going to the very beginning and looking for evidence of the exegesis Jesus taught to His Disciples on the Road to Emmaus isn't a "Fad" it's Life and Death. Without this teaching, the Scriptures have no life.

Modern scholars like Nietsche, Karl Jaspers, Jean-Paul Sartre, August Comte. What modern scholars do you have in mind?

How about modern "Biblical" scholars. You know full well I was not speaking of secular scholars.

It is quite apparent that all, if not most, of the ECF did not have a good grounding in the Word of God.

Would it be fair to say that such is born from the presumption that you a judging them by the standards of your own exegesis?

Tertullian waffled back and forth on baptism. Which Tertullian will you believe? Formerly he believed along with the "consensus of teaching" as you would say that baptism did not have to be by immersion. But then Tertullian got saved in his later years and became a Montanist. He totally rejected his former beliefs on baptism. Now he believed that salvation was by faith alone, and baptism by immersion must follow. Believing such he placed himself outside of the "consensual teaching," but inside of the teaching of the Bible. Where do you stand?

Which Tertulian should we believe? I would suggest we look at the 'consensual teachings' and not individuals. Individuals can and do error but the Church as a whole can and do lead us to a body of teachings which are lead by the Spirit of Truth.

Which one: RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, etc. The Bible speaks of churches, not any universal Church.

The evidence points to the West being mislead. The whole of the Western Christian traditions are the same datum "a" with either an "+a" or an "-a" before it. I would suggest that first recognize that and then seek the earlier concilar teachings of the Church pre-schism.

That view is foreign to the Apostles, to the early Christians, and to the Bible. It borders on heresy.

You were there? Honestly, you can assume that but such is not a foregone conclusion.

No it in no way is. Peter teaches no such thing. That is a perversion of Scripture.

The historical evidence by the testimonies of many Desert Fathers suggests that you are wrong.

This is not early Christianity; it is Roman Catholicism. Is that what you have been reading?

I am in the business of reading 'First Sources', Friend. If you want to talk about Roman Catholicism and it's errors I'm all for that.

If you are referring to the so-called saints in heaven, you have no Biblical proof that they have any awareness at all of anything that is happening on earth.

Even Biblical 'Proof' isn't 'Proof'. Many errors in Christain History have been supported by Biblical 'Proof'. It wasn't too long ago that Slavery was argued to be supported by Jesus Himself. Just because one can string verses together that give the appearance that something is supported by the Scriptures doesn't make it so.

1 Peter 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
2 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Brother, I errored. I meant to asked how you interpreted 2 Peter 1:3-4...

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. ~ 2 Peter 1:3-4

This is what we mean by Deification or Sanctification. Grace is to an effect.

Be Well.

 

[Eliyahu]

If the Holy Trinity was a doctrine of Tri-theism you'd be right but it doesn't so you're assertion would be in error. Do you wish to discuss the Oneness of God and how it pertains to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?

.

I would focus on the Trinity in Mother of God.

If you emphasize the Oneness of God, then are you claiming that Mary is Mother of God the Father because God cannot be divided?

You claimed Mary is the Mother of God, then it should mean Mother of God the Father and Mother of God the Holy Spirit, because God cannot be divided, right?

Is God the Father not God? Is He God? then why is He not the God in the sentence of Mother of God?

As for Adam, Adam was the Ancestor of Mary, which nobody can deny.

Why don't you call Adam, the Ancestor of God? It is unfair !

Didn't David obey to God when the prophecy came to him about the kingdom of God? Why don't you call David, the Great Great Grandfather of God? It is unfair, and your exalting Mary as Mother of God can be accepted only as the exaltation of the woman, goddess !!!!! A heartful confession by the devout goddess worshippers !!! Strong Paganism !

 

[bound]

I would focus on the Trinity in Mother of God.

If you emphasize the Oneness of God, then are you claiming that Mary is Mother of God the Father because God cannot be divided?

You claimed Mary is the Mother of God, then it should mean Mother of God the Father and Mother of God the Holy Spirit, because God cannot be divided, right?

Is God the Father not God? Is He God? then why is He not the God in the sentence of Mother of God?

You are confusing the 'oneness of God's essence' in all three persons of the Holy Trinity.

The Godhead is 'fully' present in each person of the Holy Trinity. Where one person is the fullness of God dwells. Jesus Christ 'is' God among us, not in part but in full as the verses I have offered for you to ponder.

Mary is the Theotokos (God-Bearer) just as Jesus is the Anthropos (God-Man).

The second person of the Holy Trinity entered creation through Fleshly Doors of Heaven, Mary. Why do we call Mary the 'Fleshly Doors of Heaven'... because God passed through them into His Creation! He chose her as His mother, the vessel of our salvation (i.e. ark).

As for Adam, Adam was the Ancestor of Mary, which nobody can deny.

Why don't you call Adam, the Ancestor of God? It is unfair!

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ~ John 3:6

From a sermon by Augustine, bishop of Hippo:

Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her... did she not do the will of the Father?

Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.

Mary isn't the Mother of God because of flesh and blood but of faith 'do unto me what you have said'. Mary's Fiat (i.e. her participation) was to His Glory and her reward.

Didn't David obey to God when the prophecy came to him about the kingdom of God? Why don't you call David, the Great Great Grandfather of God? It is unfair, and your exalting Mary as Mother of God can be accepted only as the exaltation of the woman, goddess !!!!! A heartful confession by the devout goddess worshippers !!! Strong Paganism !

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ~ John 3:6

Mary isn't honored because of flesh and blood by because of her faith, obedience and participation in Salvation. His Glory, her reward.

Be Well.

 

[DHK]

Origen is not the origin of these teachings, they pre-date him and post-date his censure by the Church. They have never been criticized nor challenged by the concilar Church.

Does it matter who originates a heresy and who believes it. Both are heretics.

In his lifetime he was often attacked, suspected of adulterating the Gospel with pagan philosophy. After his death, opposition steadily mounted. The chief accusations against Origen's teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about pre-existent souls and world cycles; dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation, thus turning Christianity into a kind of Gnosticism, a heretical movement that held that matter was evil and the spirit good. None of these charges is altogether groundless.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/...&bts=1&zu=http://www.ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml

Are you still sure this is one of the men you follow that make up the consesual teaching that you and your church follows.

I simply trust in our Lord and Saviour. I trust in His promises that He will be with us always. What I don't trust is my own personal ability to interpret the Scriptures void of those Brothers and Sisters who walked in Christ before me. I don't outright reject the evidence of a historic Christian exegesis because my own personal tradition says otherwise.

But the Bible doesnt' say otherwise.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--We trust the Spirit to give us understanding, not the ECF.

As much as you desire to divide the early Church from the Scriptures or the Early Fathers from the Scriptures you fail to recognize that your own methods of interpretation are born from a 'tradition' all it's own. To be honest we should 'test everything' including our own 'traditions' conclusions against what is evident as the interpretations of those who walked before us.

1. Sola scriptura is not a tradition but a Biblical truth.
2. We should test everything against what the Bible says, not what other men say. Your method will only lead to heresy, especially if you follow men like Origen.

As I've said before, the Jews had the Law and the Scriptures and neither kept them from straying.

--an example of sola scriptura. (only the Scriptures.). They strayed because they rebelled against God. The people that have strayed furthest from the Word of God are those that follow after Tradition (the RCC, who have murdered millions in their history, millions of actual Bible-believing Christians). They have no gospel, no truth, and preach heresy.

You're apriori presumption that the 'word of God' will save you from error has no foundation in experience.

No, that is not true. The gospel comes from the Bible alone. The commands of Jesus come from the Bible alone. One doesn't need the ECF to know how to be saved and what to do after one is saved. To believe such is pure naivete. The NT is very simple. It is not complicated. It is easy to follow. It is God's handbook for mankind to follow. It was written in Koine (common) Greek, for the common man to understand.

Again you strive to divine that which doesn't necessarily have to be antithetical to one another. Again this is your apriori assumption.

It is not an a priori assumption to believe that the ECF had very strange doctrines contrary to the Word of God. I have quoted to you Origen, and can give you some other direct quotes if you like. It seems to me that you are the one that are ignorant of the writings of the ECF, not me.

Jesus taught His own Disciples on the Road to Emmaus an means of interpreting the Scriptures. If it wasn if it was already present in the Scriptures why did our Lord have to teach it to them? This is what we look for to be handed down...

How can you miss this? Jesus never taught tradition, never taught the ECF, but only "sola scriptura!" He used only the Scriptures. He expounded to them the Word of God.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

He went through the OT, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, he showed them all the Scripture that pertained to Him--"corncerning Himself." There is no better example of sola scriptura than that.

You could say the very same thing about the Scriptures.

The Scriptures don't lead anyone astray. Evil men do.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The very enemies of Christ used the Scriptures against Him. Satan used the Scriptures against Him. Again this is not an excuse to demonize the ECF's nor the Scriptures but sin. If Jesus taught an 'exegesis' to His Disciples on the Road to Emmaus then it was kept secure within His Church and we can seek it within the works of His Chruch.

This gives no reason to trust the ECF, but reason not to trust them.

Going to the very beginning and looking for evidence of the exegesis Jesus taught to His Disciples on the Road to Emmaus isn't a "Fad" it's Life and Death. Without this teaching, the Scriptures have no life.

Correct. Jesus said: "I am...life." The ECF are not life; Christ is; therefore go to Him. You will find him in the Bible. He expounded the Scriptures concerning himself to the ones traveling to Emmaus.

How about modern "Biblical" scholars. You know full well I was not speaking of secular scholars.

Every Biblical scholar speaks the truth of the Word of God (for the most part) because they study the Bible (thus the term "Biblical"), instead of studying the ECF.

Would it be fair to say that such is born from the presumption that you a judging them by the standards of your own exegesis?

How do you exegete an ECF? Let's be realistic here! Exegesis applies to the Bible, not the writings of men. When dealing with history it is up to the historian to search for the actual truth in whatever way he can. I have read some of their writings, enough to know that many of them are not Biblical. I have read what others have studied about them, enough to know that a good many of their materials are not Biblical. If I need to recheck their references I am fully capable of doing so.

Which Tertulian should we believe? I would suggest we look at the 'consensual teachings' and not individuals. Individuals can and do error but the Church as a whole can and do lead us to a body of teachings which are lead by the Spirit of Truth.

You are wrong and have been deceived by the teachings of a church. You look at the man and what he has been taught, and what he has taught. You look at history. The "Church" as you define it (not even Biblically), has not been led by the Spirit, and you have no evidence that it has. It has led many into heresy. It has led many into wars. Does the Spirit lead to murder? to destroy the Word of God? to heresy? I say not!!

 

[DHK]

The evidence points to the West being mislead. The whole of the Western Christian traditions are the same datum "a" with either an "+a" or an "-a" before it. I would suggest that first recognize that and then seek the earlier concilar teachings of the Church pre-schism.

You still don't get it do you. Seek to understand the meaining of ekklesia, the word from which "church" is translated. It means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a universal church. There is no such thing as a denominational church. It is not found in the Bible.

You were there? Honestly, you can assume that but such is not a foregone conclusion.

I don't have to be there. I have the Scriptures, the words of the Apostles, and those of the Prophets. That is sufficient enough for me.

The historical evidence by the testimonies of many Desert Fathers suggests that you are wrong.

Again, the Scriptures are sufficient. Your interpretation of that passage is foreign to orthodox Christianity.

I am in the business of reading 'First Sources', Friend. If you want to talk about Roman Catholicism and it's errors I'm all for that.

Many of "the first sources" were filled with gnosticism, Arianism, and other sources. Every NT books warns against false teachers, teachings, and prophets. There were many of them circulating at the time of the Apostles. Paul especially warned of them. What makes you think that you are not following some of their "first sources," instead of the Bible? I follow that which God has inspired. I know it is true, and reliable.

Even Biblical 'Proof' isn't 'Proof'. Many errors in Christain History have been supported by Biblical 'Proof'. It wasn't too long ago that Slavery was argued to be supported by Jesus Himself. Just because one can string verses together that give the appearance that something is supported by the Scriptures doesn't make it so.

Slavery isn't condemned by the Bible. The OT made use of slaves. God condoned it in the OT. It was the abuse of slavery that was wrong. Many countries in this world have a form of "slavery" that is perfectly acceptable. It is the same thing that was in the NT, except under a different name. It is an employer-employee relationship. It is not much different than a person hiring a live-in care-taker. They take care of children, or more likely an elderly person. They are given room and board. And on top of that they are given some other expenses. The same was true in the NT. It was called slavery. We have a different name for it. But essentially it is the same thing. The abuse of it is what is wrong.