Some quotes for Catholics to ponder...

[Darron Steele]

The article also addresses Daron Steele (and many other fundamentalist) objection based on God existing long before Mary came onto the scene. Please read all the article to get the perspective of many other theologians other than Catholic.

Ma'am: I am not going to argue with you.

I do not argue with the types of people who insist on advancing premises that are absolutely ridiculous. In general, I do not argue with people who insist
1) that laws against gun ownership will deter people from breaking laws against murder,
2) that we are all descendants of a monkey-like creature born wrong,
3) that a person can believe the Bible without really believing it,
4) that peace is possible without all parties desiring it,
5) that withholding benefits afforded the general public from religious entities is not religious discrimination,
6) that abortion is not murdering a baby,
7) that unruly teenagers have as much or more credence than well-trained, vigorously tested and vetted teachers,
8) that mathematical understanding exists even if the student cannot do problems accurately,
9) that being more concerned about wrongdoers than victims is `compassionate' and not partiality to wrongdoers,
10) that an uninformed opinion can outweigh an informed viewpoint
and/or who insist on similarly preposterous ideas.

Similarly, I do not argue with people who insist that a woman can be mother to someone or Someone who existed before her. I point out the folly, but after that, I do not waste my time.

 

[DHK]

This is taken from Wikipedia concerning Martin Luther's views of Mary:

"Despite Luther's harsh polemics against his Roman Catholic opponents over issues concerning Mary and the saints, theologians appear to agree that Luther adhered to the Marian decrees of the ecumenical councils and dogmas of the church. He held fast to the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the Theotokos or Mother of God. Special attention is given to the assertion, that Luther some three-hundred years before the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, was a firm adherent of that view. Others maintain that Luther in later years changed his position on the Immaculate Conception, which at that time was undefined in the Church; however, he maintained belief in Mary's lifelong sinlessness"

News Flash for Lori:
We aren't Lutherans!
You are on a Baptist Board in case you forgot which board you were posting on.
It doesn't matter to us what Luther believed.
What does matter what the Bible teaches. When the Bible speaks, God speaks. Luther isn't God, and neither is the RCC.

Theotokos is a heretical doctrine and certainly can't be backed up by Scripture. It is simply a man-made doctrine. I don't care who believes it. You can't back it up with the Scriptures.

 

[Matt Black]

Well, given that all major Christian denominations, including most Baptist associations, affirm the Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, including the theotokos doctrine, and only some minor sectarians and cults like the JWs reject it, where does that leave you? And why would you want to deny the divinity of Christ in that way, anyway?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Ma'am: I am not going to argue with you.

I do not argue with the types of people who insist on advancing premises that are absolutely ridiculous. In general, I do not argue with people who insist
1) that laws against gun ownership will deter people from breaking laws against murder,
2) that we are all descendants of a monkey-like creature born wrong,
3) that a person can believe the Bible without really believing it,
4) that peace is possible without all parties desiring it,
5) that withholding benefits afforded the general public from religious entities is not religious discrimination,
6) that abortion is not murdering a baby,
7) that unruly teenagers have as much or more credence than well-trained, vigorously tested and vetted teachers,
8) that mathematical understanding exists even if the student cannot do problems accurately,
9) that being more concerned about wrongdoers than victims is `compassionate' and not partiality to wrongdoers,
10) that an uninformed opinion can outweigh an informed viewpoint
and/or who insist on similarly preposterous ideas.

Similarly, I do not argue with people who insist that a woman can be mother to someone or Someone who existed before her. I point out the folly, but after that, I do not waste my time.

Having had this same argument with Catholics many times, myself, I can tell you from experience that the next step in the Catholic play book is to declare you a Nestorian. So you might want to make a pre-emptive strike and explain to Lori (good luck!) what Nestorianism is and why this is not an example of it.

 

[Darron Steele]

Having had this same argument with Catholics many times, myself, I can tell you from experience that the next step in the Catholic play book is to declare you a Nestorian. So you might want to make a pre-emptive strike and explain to Lori (good luck!) what Nestorianism is and why this is not an example of it.

Nah; I just plan to use my time for more useful things, and not argue with her.

Yeah; I know idiots do the `You do not agree with me, so you believe this, this, and that.' If she tries to tell me what I believe, and I hope she is not that foolish, I will address it if it comes to that.

I said enough in that post. There is no point to wishing "good luck" on this, because it is a futile argument. If a person insists that a woman is mother to someone who existed long before she was even conceived, it is not something an argument has any chance of fixing. A person who is determined to hold a preposterous premise will not be convinced.

Point out the folly, and move on.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Nah; I just plan to use my time for more useful things, and not argue with her.

Yeah; I know idiots do the `You do not agree with me, so you believe this, this, and that.' If she tries to tell me what I believe, and I hope she is not that foolish, I will address it if it comes to that.

I said enough in that post. There is no point to wishing "good luck" on this, because it is a futile argument. If a person insists that a woman is mother to someone who existed long before she was even born, it is not something an argument has any chance of fixing. A person who is determined to hold a preposterous premise will not be convinced.

Point out the folly, and move on.

Another problem with her claim is, if God is Triune but One, how can Mary be the mother of the Son, without also being the mother of the Father and the Mother of the Holy Spirit.

Now, obviously, you and I understand that the idea of Mary being the mother of God does not literally mean the mother of God, but was merely a way to defend the deity of Christ, not deify Mary. Catholics, however, believe that she actually is the Mother of God and this is only made more obvious and more troubling when you consider the common Catholic nonsense about Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Please forgive me if this sounds offensive or irreverent, because I truly do not mean it to be, but if what they're saying were true (ie. "spouse of the Holy Spirit", "Mother of God"), then the logical conclusion would be incest.

I don't think Catholics ever actually stop to think about the logical implications of their beliefs. It would be so much easier for them if they would just determine to go by what the word of God says.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If a person insists that a woman is mother to someone who existed long before she was even conceived, it is not something an argument has any chance of fixing. A person who is determined to hold a preposterous premise will not be convinced.

if i may interject, i know you don't like to debate anything 'preposterous', but if you were even remotely familiar with the early Church Councils, you'd understand the obvious...that the term "Theotokos" is more about safeguarding who Christ is, than anything about Mary.

Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ...not God the Logos...the third ecumenical council decreed that Christ was one person, not two separate "people": fully God and fully man, with a rational soul and body. Mary is the Theotokos, because she gave birth not to a mere man, but to God as a man. the union of the two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other.

In XC
-

 

[FR7 Baptist]

if i may interject, i know you don't like to debate anything 'preposterous', but if you were even remotely familiar with the early Church Councils, you'd understand the obvious...that the term "Theotokos" is more about safeguarding who Christ is, than anything about Mary.

Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ...not God the Logos...the third ecumenical council decreed that Christ was one person, not two separate "people": fully God and fully man, with a rational soul and body. Mary is the Theotokos, because she gave birth not to a mere man, but to God as a man. the union of the two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other.

In XC
-

Right. Theotokos doesn't deny that Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, has always existed. It's more about Him having two natures in one person, which was then in Mary from His incarnation to His birth.

 

[Matt Black]

And it's also about "Mother-in-the-sense-of-giving-birth-to" not "Mother-in-the-sense-of-pre-existing/being-superior-to" God. But people here knew that already, right?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

And it's also about "Mother-in-the-sense-of-giving-birth-to" not "Mother-in-the-sense-of-pre-existing/being-superior-to" God. But people here knew that already, right?

Sometimes it isn't about what something means, but about the meaning someone applies to it.

 

[Matt Black]

With that I can agree.

 

[Marcia]

Luther and Calvin?

Did mary only carry Jesus human nature in the womb?

And simply because this page was posted by Catholics, does that automatically mean anything that is said is to be totally rejected?

I understand that the origin of the term "Mother of God" was to defend the deity of Christ, and I have said so on this forum numerous times on many threads.

However, this does not mean Mary is the Ark of the new covenant. This is a different matter because "ark" carries with it a different meaning from the OT. There is no biblical support for calling Mary an "ark" of anything, and there would be some reference that would substantiate this, but there is not.

For one thing, the "ark" of the covenant held the scrolls of the Torah, the scriptures. Mary was not a shelter for God's word (and Jesus is not the Bible; Logos and the word of God as scripture are different).

Christ initiated and is the mediator of the New Covenant through his blood; He is not the New Covenant.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. Heb. 8:6 (also Heb. 9:15, 12:24)

 

[lori4dogs]

News Flash for Lori:
We aren't Lutherans!
You are on a Baptist Board in case you forgot which board you were posting on.
It doesn't matter to us what Luther believed.
What does matter what the Bible teaches. When the Bible speaks, God speaks. Luther isn't God, and neither is the RCC.

Theotokos is a heretical doctrine and certainly can't be backed up by Scripture. It is simply a man-made doctrine. I don't care who believes it. You can't back it up with the Scriptures.

You sure quote Luther a lot to say it doesn't matter what he believed.

 

[DHK]

You sure quote Luther a lot to say it doesn't matter what he believed.

No, I may have referred to him a couple of times. As a general rule I don't quote the reformers or the ECF.

 

[lori4dogs]

Nah; I just plan to use my time for more useful things, and not argue with her.

Yeah; I know idiots do the `You do not agree with me, so you believe this, this, and that.' If she tries to tell me what I believe, and I hope she is not that foolish, I will address it if it comes to that.

I said enough in that post. There is no point to wishing "good luck" on this, because it is a futile argument. If a person insists that a woman is mother to someone who existed long before she was even conceived, it is not something an argument has any chance of fixing. A person who is determined to hold a preposterous premise will not be convinced.

Point out the folly, and move on.

Darron the 'idiot' insinuation is really un-called for. I agree that the term 'Mother of God" is more about Christ divinity that it is about Mary. But the teaching of Mary as Theotokos comes from VERY early on and DHK is completely wrong to assert it is a heresy. For him to accept it would be very problematic for him so I understand his objection. I agree that referring to Mary as the ark of the Covenant is controversial and certainly not an essential belief for any Christian. I just happen to believe it is so. Maybe I'm wrong. Been wrong before and willing to admit it.

But the 'idiot' comment??

 

[DHK]

Well, given that all major Christian denominations, including most Baptist associations, affirm the Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, including the theotokos doctrine, and only some minor sectarians and cults like the JWs reject it, where does that leave you? And why would you want to deny the divinity of Christ in that way, anyway?

No they don't. No Baptist association agrees with it. I don't have a clue about these ecumenical councils that you refer to are and what they believe. They could be totally Catholic for all I know. Theotokos is a Catholic doctrine making Mary the mother of God, God who is pre-existent and Mary's Creator. It then goes on to allegorize Scripture so destructively as to make Mary the ark of the covenant. This type of theology is for the dogs if not worse. It denigrates our Lord and Saviour not lifts Him up.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No they don't. No Baptist association agrees with it. I don't have a clue about these ecumenical councils that you refer to are and what they believe. They could be totally Catholic for all I know. Theotokos is a Catholic doctrine making Mary the mother of God, God who is pre-existent and Mary's Creator. It then goes on to allegorize Scripture so destructively as to make Mary the ark of the covenant. This type of theology is for the dogs if not worse. It denigrates our Lord and Saviour not lifts Him up.

...and Pope DHK has spoken from his BB seat...LOL...

cut DHK some slack...DHK is an example of who St. Paul was refering to in 1 Corinthians 3...DHK is still a babe in Christ and is happy with his milk and the meat will come when he's able to bear it...

In XC
-

 

[JohnDeereFan]

...and Pope DHK has spoken from his BB seat...LOL...

cut DHK some slack...DHK is an example of who St. Paul was refering to in 1 Corinthians 3...DHK is still a babe in Christ and is happy with his milk and the meat will come when he's able to bear it...

In XC
-

Lori, I'm curious, do you think that AgnusDei is being "snarky"?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Lori, I'm curious, do you think that AgnusDei is being "snarky"?

was St. Paul being 'snarky' in 1 Corinthians 3...lol? if DHK isn't ready for meat...he's not ready...some stay on the milk their entire christain lives and that's fine...but to make absolute statements like:

Theotokos is a Catholic doctrine making Mary the mother of God, God who is pre-existent and Mary's Creator. It then goes on to allegorize Scripture so destructively as to make Mary the ark of the covenant. This type of theology is for the dogs if not worse. It denigrates our Lord and Saviour not lifts Him up.​

shows he doesn't have a clue what he speaks of and when he does speak, he speaks like he has some authority on the topic...all fundy's believe that they are their own infallible Pope...

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

shows he doesn't have a clue what he speaks of and when he does speak, he speaks like he has some authority on the topic...all fundy's believe that they are their own infallible Pope...

In XC
-

If I don't know what I am talking about then neither do you or Lori. I would have a hard time accepting theotokos for this reason, as Lori states it:

For him to accept it would be very problematic for him so I understand his objection. I agree that referring to Mary as the ark of the Covenant is controversial and certainly not an essential belief for any Christian. I just happen to believe it is so. Maybe I'm wrong. Been wrong before and willing to admit it