Some quotes for Catholics to ponder...

Clearly there has been a failure to read my post, or a bit of acting is going on -- hopefully the former.

I was describing the `You do not agree with me, so you believe this, this, and that.' You know, idiots who claim they know what a person believes better than s/he does. I do not see you telling people what they believe. Therefore, I was not referring to you.

Next time you decide to get insulted, please take the time to read a person's post to see if you were even a subject. You reduce your credibility when you play the victim of an insult where the comment/s very clearly did not even address you.

 

Lori is speaking of Mary as a 'TYPE' of Ark of the covenant we read of in the OT...we can see 'types' through out Holy Scripture, and many of these 'Types' are discussed among the Fathers of the Church...

The "Theotokos" has nothing to do with Mary as a type of Ark (if it does, then i'm not farmiliar)...and as we've went over in class once before, there was NO 'Roman Catholic Church' during the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 AD...the title 'Theotokos' is not a 'Roman Catholic Church' term. Meaning, the Roman Catholic Church as we know the Church today, did not come up with the title...although the RCC today does use the title for Mary.

Since I'm Orthodox and not RC, I'm not sure what definition the RCC applies to the term 'Theotokos'...all I know is how the definition as applied to the term per the Third Ecumenical Council, and even then the title 'theotokos' is not a new term specific to the Thrid Ecumenical council...the title for Mary was being used long before 431 AD, as Nestorius was challenging Mary's title of the 'Theotokos' with his own new title 'Christotokos' (Mother of Christ).

In XC
-

 

My mistake, I did think you were referring to me. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

However we have debated this before.
Theotokos was originally used as a defense for the deity of Christ. I realize that. But now it has become much more than that, especially in light of the RCC. It adds to their doctrine of Mariolatry. I do not accept their "Mother of God" theology. Mary was the mother of Jesus. God used her (as God could have used any other virgin at that time in history) as a human vessel to bring Christ into this world. That is all she was--a vessel. Her womb was being used by God to bring Christ into the world. He had to use someone. He chose Mary. That doesn't make Mary the mother of God. Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary. It was a miraculous birth in which Christ maintained his deity and being God became incarnate, or fully man and fully God at the same time. Mary was but a vessel of God used in that process. She was more of a "care-taker" of Jesus than a mother. God has no mother. She took care of his needs as a child until he could take care of himself or until his ministry started. Even throughout his ministry he referred to her as "woman" not mother.

 

like i said before, i'm not sure 'how' the RCC uses the title and quite frankly, i really don't care...when i see the title 'theotokos' i don't automatically assume we're talking about Roman Catholic 'Mariology' and it's not the Chick term 'Mariolatry'...

but in any event, the proper definition of Theotokos is Mother of God'...You will agree the Word was made flesh, per John 1:14...therefore, Mary is God's mother, for she bore the Word of God made flesh.

what Mary bore was not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided person, who IS God and man at once...do you understand this DHK?

As you rightly point out...the term 'Theotokos' safeguards the unity of Christ's person and to deny Mary this title is to separate the Incarnate Christ into two, breaking down the bridge between God and humanity and erecting within Christ's person a middle wall of partition.

hope that helps, but something tells me you still haven't or will grasp this...

in XC
-

 

To deny Mary the title "Mother of God" does not "break down the bridge between God and humanity..."
It simply states that she is not the mother of the pre-incarnate Christ, and never will be. She is the mother of Jesus, a woman used of God to bring the man, the God-man, Jesus Christ into the world. But that does not make her the Mother of God.

 

Newsflash for you! Baptists do believe this doctrine. EG:

That's just two examples. The bolding are mine. The quoted portions of the Confessions recite the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I (the divinity of Christ), Ephesus (the union of the divine and human in Christ and His one personality) and Chalcedon (His possession of two Natures, one human and one divine); in particular the bolded parts faithfully follow the theotokos doctrine laid down at Ephesus: that Jesus was fully God and fully man and, as such, was born of Mary, making her the bearer of God.

What does your own church's statement of faith say on the subject?

 

Here's a Canadian IFB's statement of the theotokos doctrine:

 

Matt, you are being deceptive.

In neither of these statements is Mary called "Mother of God."

You might try to take extracts of these statements, twist them and make the precept out of it -- but the precise words are not there.

Further, having twisted them to make them appear to be affirming the precept, you and I both know that the people who wrote those statements were/are very unlikely to affirm that precept.

I am disappointed. I thought this was beneath you.

 

Deceptive? At what point have I said that these statements refer or imply that she is 'Mother of God'? I have said that they state the theotokos doctrine, which is not quite the same thing.

Please retract your statement and revise your opinion of me!

 

If they are not the same, they are close enough.

As you and I both know, the word "theotokos" is pretty much a Greek form of the same precept that gets called `mother of God' in English. If there is a difference, it is insignificant.

Nice try at weaseling your way out of it. You would have done better to admit you did wrong, or to silently drop it. Your weaseling actually reduced my opinion of you.

 

Now I think it's you who is being disingenuous here: you know full well, as a sensible and educated man, that theotokos means 'God-bearer' ie: 'she who gave birth to God' which is not the same as 'Mother of God'. The Baptist statements of faith which I quoted clearly state that Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was fully God, and therefore they state the theotokos doctrine.

I stand fully by what I said. If you consider I am in error then please state how theotokos='Mother of God'.

 

Matt: you and I both know that those statements did not affirm the precept you twisted them to appear to endorse.

If you want to claim that somehow `mother of God' is different from `gave birth to God,' fine -- even if so, neither of those confessions stated either version of that precept. Further, those who wrote those confessions would likely have denied the precept.

That is what it ultimately comes down to: you twisted Baptist confessions to make them appear to endorse a precept you know Baptists typically would refuse to affirm. It was dishonest, and your continuing weaseling compounds it.

 

In what way do those statements not affirm the theotokos doctrine, then? Plain English: Christ was born of the virgin Mary; he was fully God. In what way is that 'twisting' the statements? They say what they say.

 

Matt, quote a Baptist confession of faith, statement of faith, etc. that states: We believe the Catholic doctrine of the "theotokos." You won't find it. You won't even find it without the caveat of "Catholic doctrine". It is not there.

 

You don't have to use the word theotokos to state the doctrine: your argument is akin to that of the JWs who claim that, since the word 'trinity' is not found in the Bible, neither is the doctrine. Presumably, as a Trinitarian Christian, you think their reasoning is skewed, and I would trust you would apply the same principles to your own argument. OK, so having moved beyond that issue, I ask again: in what way is the doctrine notstated in the Baptist confessions?

 

The doctrine of theotokos is not stated in the Baptist confessions.
It is not stated in the Bible.
It is not taught in the Bible.
It is not inferred in the Bible.
It is heretical, and Baptists do not believe in heresy. I hope that clears it up for you.