Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

I was expecting this passage... and again I understand the objection.

The Apostle Paul also says in the same Epistle that "all Israel will be saved" (11:26). Does this mean that there will be an apocatastasis? Will all Israel in fact be saved?

In another Epistle to the Corinthian Church, the Apostle Paul tells them that they "were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge". (1 Corinthians 1:5). Does this mean that everything the Corinthian Church knew and said was inspired by God? Then why does the same Apostle rebuke the Church in Corinth in the same Epistle for being "still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" (1 Corinthian 3:3)?

Elsewhere, we read: "And they both [Zechariah and Elizabeth] were 'righteous' in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in 'all' the commandments and requirements of the Lord" (Luke 1:6).

In the sight of God, who cannot look upon any sin, they both were 'righteous'...

So, yes we do read: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

But is this literally true? Didn't God say Noah was Righteous? (Genesis 7:1) Was God wrong?

So we see a foreshadow (i.e. a type) of Mary in Hannah. Does this mean that Hannah is Mary's equal? We also find a foreshadow of our Lord Jesus in King David. Does this mean that David is an equal to Jesus Christ? I would argue that to use the foreshadows of Mary and Jesus against them is reckless and does grave harm to our Faith but perhaps you feel it is more important to sew doubt concerning Mary even at the expense of Jesus Himself?

I have never spoken of Mary's sinfulness or sinlessness so it is unclear to me why you argue this point. It is a Consensual Teaching that Mary's righteousness was imputed by Grace through Faith even in the Earliest Church Teaching. We cannot turn to the most extreme positions (Immaculate Conception) and speak of consensus. When we speak of the Consensual Teachings of the Church we are looking at 'all' the teachings and seeking the canon (i.e. measure). I am not speaking about the Canon of the Scriptures but the 'true' canon or measure which enlightens us to a fruitful encounter with the Scriptures. Some call this Holy Orthodoxy... Others call it Holy Tradition.

We should open a new topic title simply 'heresy' because I encounter it 'a lot' here and yet question if the 'inmates have taken over the Asylum' in this regards. No historical study of the consensual teachings would agree with you in your assertion I'm not sure if you and others honestly understand this.

And yet we believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in every Believers... And yet we believe that we are participates in the 'Body of Christ'... Sons of God... not only Sons... but Heirs. Heirs of what?

Perhaps you misunderstand the Teaching of Theosis (i.e. Deification). It is simply the recognition that we, as lovers of Christ, all naturally wish, and are commanded to be perfect. The Lord commands: 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect' (Matt. 5:48). And the Apostle Paul admonishes: "In malice be ye children, but in understanding be men' (I Cor. 14:20). Eslewhere he says: "Stand perfect and complete in all the will of God' (Cor. 4:12); and again: 'Let us go on unto perfection' (Heb. 6:1). The same commandment is also found in the Old Testament. Thus God says to Israel in Deuteronomy: 'Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God' (Deut. 18:13). And David advised his son Solomon: 'And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind' (1 Chron. 28:9). After all this we cannot fail to see that God demands from Christians the fullness of perfection, that is, that we should be perfect in all virtues.

If God asks this of us then surely God also provides a means to achieve it... and the only means that know to achieve perfection is with and in Christ who is our brother, the first of many.

Yes, we can see in Mary a type for every Christian. It would only be our humility and recognition of our distance from God's Holiness which would cause us to pause in comparing ourselves to Her but I see your point and I agree.

It is more Scriptural than you know.

There is only 'one Church' and 'one Body of Christ' though there be 'many parts' there are still 'all one'.

[qoute]God works through local churches which he has ordained in this day and age, just as in the Old Testament, he ordained the Temple to be the symbolic dwelling place of God.[/quote]

Symbolic? Do you also believe the Ark was 'symbolic'?

And yet we are not polytheists. We just claim that every believer is 'the' temple of God (except Mary). :laugh:

Neither is 'Trinity'... yet we claim it as Doctrine.

Elisabeth spoke to Mary: "And how have I deserved that this honor should be granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me" (Luke 1:43)?

As I have stated before, I'm not an apologist, I understand your convictions in upholding the identity of this Baptist Forum. I know you've spent a great deal of time crafting a body of knowledge that would serve you in defending your Faith as your Tradition has taught you. I'm only pointing out that there is a body of knowledge that is older and more complete than being 'a Baptist' it's called being 'a Christian' and it holds to the Consensual Teachings of the Church of the Living God as it was from the beginning, is now and will ever be.

Be Well.

 

The "all" here is referring to the remnant living during the Tribulation Period, when Christ shall appear. When He comes, they ALL shall be saved. "He came to his own; and his own received him not."

1Cor.1:5 simply refers to spiritual gifts. The Corinthian Church had them all. And they abused them. Paul deals with this problem quite extensively in chapters 12 to 14.

Every person in the Bible is made righteous in the same way--putting their faith in Christ. Righteousness comes by belief or faith, and no other way. Mary was a sinner, made righteous in the same way that Abraham was--she believed God and righteousness was imputed unto her. There were no works involved to make her righteous.

Of course not. However Noah's righteousness came by faith just like any other believer's.

There is no foreshadow, and they are equals. Both were sinners and both were made righteous by faith.

I stay away from allegorizing the Bible at the expense of throwing doctrine down the gutter. Once you start allegorizing (as you are doing), there is no telling where you will stop. You can make the Bible say anything you want. William Branham allegorizes and comes to the conclusion that original sin is Eve having sex with the Serpent. If you are prone to believe such nonsense go ahead, but I believe the Bible literally, and when common sense makes good sense why make it into nonsense! If there is no indication to spiritualize the text, then it shouldn't be done.

That is really too bad. The true canon is the Canon of Scriptures. There is no other authority that one needs but the inspired Word of God. I am not interested in the words of men, but in the words of God.

I am not interested in "consensual teachings." I am interested in what the Bible teaches. Show me through Scripture where I am wrong. Convince me through the Word of God, not through the ECF, and various coucils of which I do not care about.

The Holy Spirit does not dwell in unbelievers, even if some consider the part of the ECF. So what is your point here?

You need to study this verse out.
The Greek word for "perfect" is teleios. It means mature or complete. It in no way means sinless, and that is not what Christ was speaking about, for no man can be perfect as in sinless. Only God is sinless. The Lord was teaching us to be complete in Him. We are complete when we exercise or show forth the fruit of the Spirit. The Old English word "perfect" also means "complete."

Like I said, you misunderstand the word "perfect" and thus have made up a doctrine that isn't scriptural. Do a study on that particular word before you go astray. The Lord never gives a command that is impossible for his children to obey.

Mary is not a "type." There may be qualities in her life that may be exemplary. But she is not a type.

The Greek word ekklesia means assembly. Your theology is off. It is impossible for their to be only one church according to the meaning of the word. There is no universal church. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

I am an IFB, and speak out of my own knowledge. I don't speak for the board. I speak out of my own convictions based on the Word of God. If I am wrong then show me from the Bible where I am wrong.

I was a Catholic for 20 years. Then you could have accused me of being taught by Tradition. But don't accuse me of that now. My beliefs come solely from the Bible, as I study it. I don't even bother to read the ECF. It is the Word of God that is inspired and authority. Christ commanded us to search the Scriptures, and so we should.

There is no knowledge more authentic and more authoritative than the inspired Word of God. You can go your way and study the works of men. As for me I will continue to study the word of God. It is not "being a Baptist" that you erroneously label me, but a student of the Word of God. Yes I belong to an Independent Baptist Church. But what is important is to be a student of the Word of God, to search out its truth. The so-called "consensual teachings of the church of the living God" is peanuts compared to the teachings of the Word of God, when a believer studies that Word prayerfully asking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

Being 100% divine had nothing to do with Mary or Biology.

Biology is not a pathway to being God

What was Mary the "instructor of"?

What was Mary the "wiser than"?

What was Mary teaching "to add" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "correcting" when he was a small child?

What was Mary "protecting" when he was an infant?

...

"Corrector of God"

"Wiser than God"

"Protector of God"

... Odd how these all serve to exault the HUMAN parent to "QUEEN of the UNIVERSE" rather than exaulting Christ.

To the point that (predictably) we NOW see pictures and images of MARY the adult holding a "tiny Jesus" and we read about worship/prayers "at Mary's altars"

 

Christ as "GOD" "without Mother" as Eliyahu points out in Heb 7 is devastating to the case you would try to make here. It is only in the GOD NATURE of Christ that it can be true that "He had no Mother" --hence NO SCRIPTURE using the term "MOTHER of GOD"

Point and Match.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No you haven't - because it didn't. The theotokos was affirmed as dogma by the whole Church - East and West - at Ephesus and Chalcedon in the 5th century.

On the contrary, it is absolutely central to orthodox Christology and thus mainline Christianity - only the sects and cults reject this Christology (and it seems, sadly, some members of this board).

No, I have shown it to be firmly grounded in Scripture - Scripture states very clearly that Mary carried Jesus in her womb and gave birth to Him; Scripture also states very clearly that Jesus is 100% God. Case closed.

It's total orthodoxy to believe it.

No, I'm afraid it's you who sound like a JW or Christadelphian or any other of the fringe cults who possess a sub-orthodox Christology.

 

I'm not Orthodox, I'm Anglican. I'll let Agnus and any other Orthodoxen asnwer that accusation.

 

To quote the Gipper, "there you go again", contradicting yourself!

 

None of the above answers the question; and we are quite able to read, please don't be patronising. We are just asking for a straight answer from you. To assist, permit me to home in on your #188: please clarify at what point you believe that Christ became fully God and fully Man; was it when He was lying in the manger, lying in Mary's womb, or His conception?

 

I said 'affirmed', not 'invented'. The truth is very much there in Scripture as I have demonstrated.

 

Then Mike posted

good post!

What is the link/reference for that?

 

But of course you predict that using scripture will never resolve a dispute.

So here is the perfect opportunity to show how an appeal to "tradition" will fix the problem here - in THIS example of "difference of opinion".

hmmm funny how that is not a solution based on your own criteria "existence of difference proves the source for doctrine is insufficient"

in Christ,

Bob

 

Eliyahu hits a home run

 

Wow Bob, that’s totally new to me…I wonder how the Early Church missed that?

Seriously Bob, my statement responding to DHK “laying aside” Divinity says nothing of Mary being responsible for Christ’s Divinity.

Mary supplied the Flesh, hence the term “Incarnation”. Christ’s Divinity was clothed with humanity through the “Incarnation” via Mary.

The term theotokos is all about preserving Christ's humanity and His Divinity. Educate yourself in regard to the Third Ecumenical Council. The Council wasn't concerned about "Mary", the Council was addressing heresy in regard to Christ's humanity being seperated from His Divinity.

Educate yourself...you'll be better off.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

The issue is not HOW the purveyors of error convinced themselves to introduce non-Biblical doctrines and positions regarding the "mother of God" nor even how they foisted those errors onto the Christian world.

(you seem to argue that IF they had a good thought in their heads while doing it then the error can be overlooked)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Being 100% divine had nothing to do with Mary or Biology.

Biology is not a pathway to being God

There is no "INCARNATION" of God simply by having the biological event of birth. ALL of our mothers "supplied the flesh" and NONE of us are "INCARNATE GOD" -- because biology has nothing to do with getting to the result -- which in the case of incarnation is - "God". BIOLOGY gets you to the MAN the BIOLOGY - the HUMAN part of the equation - but not the GOD part.

So the Bible NEVER (no not even once in all of scripture) refers to Mary as "MOTHER of GOD" or "WISER than GOD" or "PROTECTOR OF GOD" or "STRONGER than GOD" or "CORRECTOR of GOD" or "INSTRUCTOR of God".

This just isn't that hard to get.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Yes I do predict that, and my prediction has been sadly borne out and doubtless will be again - there will be those here who will say "but that Scripture doesn't mean that." Hence the need for Tradition and in this case the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon to interpret Scripture aright. But I was attempting to appeal to a criterion of truth on the level of those who demanded it - ie: Scripture

 

Wow, I'm stunned. That statement is truly incredible coming from a so-called "biblicist".

What saith the Scriptures?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother was betrothed to Joseph...." Matthew 1:18

Was Matthew wrong is saying Mary was the mother of Christ?

"And when they [the wise men] had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him." Matthew 2:11

Again, it refers to the mother of the Child. Was Matthew wrong in saying Mary was His mother?
Or do you suppose the Child was other than Christ?

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (said Elizabeth to Mary) Luke 1:43

Was Elizabeth wrong is saying Mary was the mother of her Lord?

"And Joseph and His mother marveled at the things which were spoken of Him." Luke 2:33

Was Luke wrong in referring to Mary as His mother?
Or the "His" refer to someone other than Christ?

(Of course there are many more Scriptures stating that Mary was in fact the mother of Christ Jesus)

Do you now want to retract your statements that "Mary never was Christ's mother" and that "Christ had no mother"?

 

Easy question, Bob: Was the Person in Mary's womb God the Word (God the Son)? Yes or no?