I submit you are the one being irritated, Jim. See my PM.Originally Posted by Jim Chabot
I submit you are the one being irritated, Jim. See my PM.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
And they're still not arrogant. Just reality. What Lewis knew then is not up to par with what is known now.He cannot be referred to as a "scholar" of the Bible in any meaningful way.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Of what use would a doctorate in theology be to Lewis? Clearly many institutions should be clamoring to grant him one even posthumously in order to increase their stature.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Just to clarify as to my point-of-view (these are opinions):
1. I have a high view of academics: Strong theory begats strong practics. Strong practics cannot be formed without underlyig theory.
2. I have a high view of specialists..
3. I have a high view of generalists.
4. Both generalists and specialists are necessary for a wholesome disclipline.
5. Contrary to modern thought, a specialist is not a substitute for a generalists. (I think the inverse is obvious but maybe not)
6. If I want to learn theory (if I want to learn how to learn), I will seek out a research professor, if I want to learn practics (If I want to learn how or what), I will seek out a specialist.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingJim Chabot - "thanks" for this post
??? I'm missing something. What did I say about McLaren (proper spelling)? I have no idea where this comes from. I like Lewis a lot, and have a huge respect for him. I like McLaren too, but these guys are apples and oranges. No comparison.
Anyway, unless I am totally mistaken (and please point out if I am), Lewis was a mainly self taught theologian. As such, a layman. Pretty good one though, would say.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
But condescending and, no offense, pretty ignorant.
I have no problem with being critical of the costs of education - or of the industrial mindset that seems to have resulted in low standards and artificially-constructed degrees that appeal to the lowest common denominator and to make more money. There's plenty to be critical of, but the idea that education itself is only somehow for the less able is pretty fat-fetched.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience - but I don't think it's fair to equate that experience to the norm.
There really is a limit to what one person can learn on their own.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Exhibit A.
I know you actually believe that folks can self-educate themselves in a meaningful and directed way without college, but the results speak for themselves.
You see I agree to an extent. The area of the Bible I know the most about - Paul's soteriology - I have never taken a class in. Nor have I ever had a professor teach me on this matter. However, without even beginning to understand the field in a BIB105: Introduction to New Testament with Dr. James Edward Ellis, I would have been helpless. And do you actually think I'd have known where to begin, and which directions to proceed in?
Again, I think the results speak for themselves (Answers in Genesis).
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'll gladly answer a question that does not show your utter contempt for learning. Way too much arrogance, Jim.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
For the 3rd time.....I hear you, Hans! I don't know if others do, but I do!!!!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hey Ben, I need to apologize. I've been reading you posts for the last day or two and I can't keep from laughing. It's raining here today and I've been bored and apparently I've been amusing myself by messing with you. I shouldn't be doing this and I'll stop. Sorry for the distraction.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Of course if one wants to be totally condenscending they would say: "Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, administrate." (I'm an administrator)
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 5 LaughingPaul DeBaufer, Bill Morrison, Jim Chabot, Benjamin Burch, Hans Deventer - thanks for this funny post
Yes on the condescending, I'll plead guilty, sorry for that. I can't plead guilty on the count of ignorance though. Over the years I have worked with literally thousands of people, and I've employed a few hundred. I'm not speaking from ignorance. Believe this, when you hire someone as a full time employee, you will carefully scrutinize this persons worthiness of the income you provide them. Being an employer is not a hobby, I'm not ignorant of the effects of education and the variations in fertility that exist in people.
I firmly believe that should the artificial roadblocks to employment posed by educational requirements be removed, then it would be demonstrable that this notion is not far fetched. I'm not critical of education, I have availed myself of it. I'm critical of the process whereby we analyze a persons ability based upon a degree that they may possess.
No, I have not had a bad experience at all. I'm very happy and content. I've basically been able to do whatever I have wanted to do for work and I lack nothing that I would desire. While I'm not rich by any means, I'm 53 and semi retired, I own a few homes, I have no debt and I'm free to live life pretty much as I please. I'm thinking that this is a good experience.
If you are talking about my educational experience, then no, not bad at all. I've taken a bunch of courses as I've required the knowledge gained by them. It hasn't cost me much money at all, especially once I found that you can actually sit in on certain courses for free. Which is the way to go when you don't need or care about grades or credit.
Absolutely true, we all learn from others, and I'm convinced that if we don't learn a few things new each and every day it is because we aren't paying attention. But higher education isn't always the best and surely it isn't the most cost effective way to learn. Some folks need the help and the discipline, thus they need formal education.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I've always heard it said this way. "Those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can't teach must teach teachers."
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
It's funny how C.S. Lewis is one of the primary subjects being discussed in a thread titled Francis Chan.
I have the highest possible regard for Lewis. His books were extremely instrumental in the formation of my personal theology in my late teens. The Great Divorce remains my all time favorite book. Lewis was absolutely a scholar. And a lay theologian.
But, as highly as I regard Lewis, he was not a Bible scholar or a professional theologian. His scholarly work was primarily in literature, with some of his greatest emphasis being focused on the late Middle Ages. Just as his good friend J.R.R. Tolkien was a scholar, focusing on philology. Lewis certainly had some great insights on theology, but he would have been first to call himself a layperson.
Rob Bell, Love WinsSo when the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will “get into heaven,” that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club. The good news is better than that.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I had a mystic experience that caused me to believe. I tried the way of reason and logic, but as near as those might get you you are still only half way. A Zeno's paradox of sorts.
Apologetic writings are for believers not non-believers.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
From my understanding, Lewis could not convert without an academic argument. I believe it took a full academic treatment of the subject on his part in order for him to become convinced. I think his research in the subject, his standard of academics, pushed him well beyond the knowledge of a layman.
By the rule of the disclipline (academics), I do not dispute that he was a layman. What I say, is that, in effect, he is not. I maintain that the circa 1950 Lewis can hold his own at the 75% percentile among circa 2012 formal theologians.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think your timeline is too short. I have been watching the trends and have noticed a re-surgence of ideas, but nothing really new. Your insights into the LXX and Hebrew texts, have been around for as long as both texts have been available. For example, "young woman" versus "virgin, I remember from early teen years. I've been scratching my head in recent weeks as to why its come up again and why it matters. That's an anecdoltal example, meaning it is not meant to be a statisctical sampling of my involvement in those discussions, rather a representative example.
And if you care to know, since the God I believe in is infinite, therefore not only does the Immaculate Conception (the idea that Mary had to be born perfect in order to bear Jesus) not make sense to me, nor do I find it necessary for Mary to have been a virgin. I will point out that, it was probably assumed for that period and culture, that "a young woman pledged to be married" was a "virgin", therefore I think she probably was. Also, translating the word as "virgin" might make it easier to explain, with fewer words, why Joseph was considering "putting her away". However, for God to come to earth and become fully God and fully man, I do not think God either needed Mary to be born perfect anymore than it was neccessary that she be a virgin.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes but you must only speak for yourself, I know for sure that you can't speak for me.
A "mystic" experience would cause me to doubt the validity of the experience. I wouldn't trust something like that for longer that the minute it took to shake it off. But I am only speaking for myself. I required a logical argument. In my case apologetic writings were in fact for this unbeliever.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim and Paul,
My brother came to faith as a result of God using history and logic to break through his mind. God spoke to my soul in a Lutheran church that was going through an ugly split. He can use different ways to bring us to Jesus.
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
What I find interesting is that Mary was by all accounts actually a virgin. I agree that it wasn't necessary, yet even more of interest to me is that the translators of the LXX had this correct over a hundred years prior to the actual event. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. I believe that preservation is superintended, and I believe that our Article on the scriptures supports this as we claim that the story is without error.
While we do have so much more to work with, I fail to see where there is theological importance. The story remains the same, theology is based upon the story, rather than the insignificant details and supposed inconsistencies. Since the scripture that we have today is soteriologically innerrant, then the existence of early texts provides more of a curiousity that it presents theological significance.
I'm puzzled by the claims of the innerantist folks who claim that the scriptures as originally penned contain no errors, yet these folks seem to be quite content with the scriptures that they hold in their hands and read in their own language. Seems contradictory to me.But then on the other side of the coin we have folks who's claim is that the scriptures may contain errors, what is important is that the delivered story is without error for it perfectly leads us to salvation. My take is that these folks, who are us, would be completely content with the scriptures that we hold in our hands and wouldn't have much interest in early manuscripts for any reason other than a passing curiosity.
Just seems strange, really strange
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Amen and amen. I have a good friend who came to Christ through the liturgy and majesty of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm glad that their form of worship spoke to his heart. I'm more each day convinced that diversity is better than unity when it comes to forms of worship and the institutional side of our faith.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Your fundamentalist cred appears to be crumbling....
The Five Fundamentals
The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
It is essential because, had Christ been born of 'ordinary generation', that is two human parents then he would have been born a sinner. The redeemer needed to be both divine and human.
** Now back to our regularly scheduled program about Francis Chan; which is about C.S. Lewis...**
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
See my previous comments on "five point fundamentalists"
I said nothing concerning 'two earthly parents"
However "Born of the Virgin" conveys succincty the neccessary meaning while "born of the young woman" does not
The Chan discussion was based on forcing him under a label. I figured Lewis and Chesterson bashing would be more fun.
Last edited by Dan Henderson; April 23rd, 2012 at 09:14 PM. Reason: Added Afterthought
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think I was speaking for myself, hence the singular personal pronoun. I could very well explain away my experience with psychology, philosophy yet, for me, those explanations fail. Reason fails, it was mystical not logical. Prior to that experience I could and did explain away tellings of such experiences. They are so easily refutable, except to the one who has had it. Yet, when I apply those same refutations to my experience... I know what I know, no changing it, no going back, in that moment I knew God existed, know it. Prior I denied His existence strongly, vehemently your logic and reason could not convince me otherwise, the arguments all fell short.
I'll not deny you your experience. Yours is yours, who am I to say differently? No one.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
How would you describe Paul's Conversion? I would describe it as both/and. Or at the least a mystical conversion confirmed/maintained by logic, scholarship, and apologetics.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Not trying to deny or minimize your experience Paul. You said that apologetic writings were for believers not non believers. It was that statement that I took exception to.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Disclaimer #1: I am not Paul DeBaufer
Disclaimer #2: I am not Paul of Tarsus
Disclaimer #3: I do not know whether to put stock into Luke's account of Paul's conversion or not.
Thoughts if Luke's account is true:
Paul's conversion seems to follow his own writings which suppose the necessity of the divine agency interrupting and doing something revelatory in order for one to come to faith.
As to it's being "confirmed/maintained by logic", I would say that this is quite a bit different than convincing an atheist of our faith. Paul already shared (a) the same deity, (b) the same theological foundation, (c) the same scriptural tradition. Thus, it would seem that it was not a matter of confirmation, but conformation. That is, what he already believed had to be conformed to fit the revelation of God given to him in Christ.But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.
I'm not sure that scholarship or apologetics had much to do with Paul's own faith, whatever we may want to say it did play in his preaching/teaching (we really only have the one account of any such thing in Acts 17), it doesn't seem to have played much of a role in his own personal faith or conversion from anything that we can tell in the Scriptural writings. Also, it seems that scholarship was already a part of Paul's faith before conversion. It simply needed to be conformed as well.
Thoughts if Luke's account is not true:
Paul does not attribute any human agency to his conversion (as stated above). For Paul it is purely divine, and doesn't seem to be one of "convincing", but one of "electing". That is, Paul was not "convinced" to convert, but was "chosen" to convert, by grace.
A few notes:
(a) Paul understands that the God of Christianity is the same God as the one whom the Jews worship(ped) (I won't bother providing sources!)
(b) Paul understands the Church to be "God's Church" (1 Corinthians 15:9)
(c) Paul seems to think that Christians' faithfulness and life ethics are a matter of public knowledge, knowable even when one does not know the Christians in question (Romans 1:8)
(d) Paul seems to think that the validity of Christianity over against the Law is found in Christian conversion's ability to produce righteousness (Romans 2:13-16, 25-29; 8:4), and the Law's inability to produce said righteousness (Romans 7).
(e) Paul also seems to think that, when he's honest enough to admit to a level of righteousness attainable under the law, that this sort of righteousness pales in comparison to that found in conversion to Christianity, and that the latter is that which the Law always aimed towards (Philippians 3:9).
Therefore, I'm inclined to think that if we follow Luke's representation of Paul's conversion, apologetics don't really apply, but it also doesn't seem to add anything to the conversation at all. If we do not follow Luke's representation, but construct a possible scenario given Paul's own believes in regards to Christianity vs. Judaism, thus coming to a conclusion on why Paul would chose to convert from one to the other, it seems to follow thus:
Paul was persecuting a group of Jews who claimed to follow Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified and risen from the dead, and through his encounters with them, came to find a level of torah righteousness among them that he did not find in his time as a faithful Jew. This seemed to be the consistent expectation of the Church throughout Judea. There may even have likely been a case where he was shown kindness by some of them (with a dude named Ananias), even though he had been their enemy and sought to kill them. This was convincing enough for Paul who, then, exegetically worked his way through his own Scriptues (which were accepted as sacred a priori and came to a conclusion that this truly was the "Way."
This seems rather in line with what I have offered here:
I'm thankful to God that apologetics has been effective for some. I do not invalidate this.
I do, however, believe it rests not in the validity of the case made, or even its persuasive power, but in a certain desire within the person to find the arguments compelling and to make the logical leaps necessary to follow the faulty logic which apologetics seems to always supply through to persuasion.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I was born into the church, personally, and have spent my time since then trying not to have my faith forced out of me by other Christians.
It's strange the things that we'll cling to as important within the church which have nothing to do with the Imago Dei.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
My apologies.
Now reason and logic had a role in that proffered arguments during several months moved me along toward belief, just didn't quite get me there. I read many compelling arguments, just none were convincing, none I could not poke holes in. I held on to my god, my atheism like the neo-fundamentalists hold on to inerrancy (although as a neo-atheist, I was quite the fundamentalist (in the derogatory sense)).
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Not sure why the idea of immaculate conception would even begin to be tied to the virgin birth, anyway. Hmmmm . . . .
BTW, nearly forgot this was the thread where logic ~vs~ mystical experience was also going on. While reading this, another one turned from atheism to Christ via research meant to disprove Christianity = Josh McDowell.
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
It has to do with inherited guilt/original sin. "Inherited guilt" is a Western doctrine tied to original sin which is accepted by most Western Christian traditions but, if I remember correctly, not Wesley. This "stain" was passed on from the mother to the child. Most believed through child birth. Thus, to keep Jesus' humanity clean from this "stain", Mary would need to be without it.
However,
(1) I reject inherited guilt in terms of a "stain"
(2) I find this response to the Immaculate conception most helpful
"The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God."
Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997Although most of his apologetic work is philosophically, empirically, and logically unsound and unhelpful. I'm glad somehow he was convinced to become Christian by the stuff he "found". However, I wouldn't suggest others follow his footsteps/books.another one turned from atheism to Christ via research meant to disprove Christianity = Josh McDowell.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I prefer Theotokos over "mother of God". Don't believe in any sinless human being but Christ."The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God."
Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
No apologies need Paul, we were talking past each other due to misunderstanding. As I read my reply I can see how you could have taken it as personal. I should have been more careful in my wording. Especially in the sense that I didn't wish to convey that anyone's conversion experience was somehow superior to anyone else's. Whatever got us to the place where we accepted salvation should be celebrated.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes, I believe that is an improvement. My preference is just plain old Mary, fully human in every way. The mother of Jesus, wife of joseph and mother to James, Joses, Simon, Jude and perhaps sisters as well. While I don't think that it was necessary for Mary to have been a virgin for the sake of being suitable for God's purposes. I do believe that she was a virgin as scripture says that she was, along with the clarification presented by the LXX translators in Isaiah. It does make sense that God would choose a virgin in order to act in a way in which is not possible for humans.
Wesley's mariology is probably the chief reason for which I don't trust him in matters of ecclesiology. A close second would be my observation that he was able to fully function in his church for many years without taking salvation for himself.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Same here Gina! While I got to salvation on my own, Josh's writings filled in a lot of blanks and helped to solidify my faith.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Perhaps the fatherhood of Jesus was being put into question?
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
That would be my guess.
I agree with this - but this seems to apply more to practics than to education as a whole. Do I need a degree in accounting to be a good accountant? Not necessarily - but likely I need some sort of certification to ensure that other people trust me to be a good accountant. It becomes even more serious when the topic is medicine.
It gets complicated when we move to things like theology or history or sociology, which require a foundational knowledge.
Perhaps your statement was really just too broad. I suspect I agree with what you meant when you wrote it and that you disagree with what I understood when I read it.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We have gone certification crazy on everything in the business world. There are very few professional jobs without some type of board certification. Not to be confused with state lisensure. I think that the doctorate is the "certification" and master's is the entry level for university teaching. Eveen though the university is technically free to hire anyone they want, if their quota of teachers with masters and doctorates fall below a certain percentage, they have to justify it to maintain their accredidation. I was hired as an adjuct accounting teacher over two CPAs (I do not have CPA certification) because I had a master's. I even offered to "ghost teach" and let the CPA have all the pay, but for whatever reason, the university seemed to think that a non-CPA with a masters was a better choice for teaching that a CPA with a bachelors. I took the job because there were about a dozen military student's who would not be able to meet their graduation requirements for lack of an accounting teacher. I remembered how difficult it was for me moving through 5 different schools trying to put together a bachelor's and could not let it pass when I could do something about it.
I honestly don't think it's any different. For me, it's a distinction without a difference. For any human that we know of, the one who "bears" them is their mother. I also do not believe that you can separate it from what was being communicated at the time. For those who coined the term "Theotokos", it would appear from everything I've read that "Mother of God" was equally interchangeable. Even the link you provides suggests such:
I think to try and make that distinction between the two is to pull Theotokos out of its historic context.Λαβομένη η Θεοτόκος των εκ του αχράντου και παναμώμου αυτής θυσιαστηρίου σαρκωθέντα ζωοποιόν και ανέκφραστον άνθρακα ως λαβίδι ... επί τούτοις παρουσιασάμενος ο δίκαιος και τη προτροπή είξας της διακονησαμένης Θεώ προς ανθρώπους Θεομήτορος ... περιφανώς ιερά θεομήτωρ εξετέλει
Also, the theology behind it is incredibly important. Just as Nestorius attempted to say "Christotokos" to avoid the uneasiness of Theotokos, and Cyril won in the eyes of the Church for theological reasons, so too must we be careful to think past the uneasiness of the phrase "Mother of God" in order to see what it is that such a title is affirming.
(1) Is Jesus God?
(2) Was Jesus made flesh?
(2) Is Mary Jesus' Mother, the human means/vessel through which he became flesh?
Then, in affirming that Mary is "mother of God", we are affirming not that Mary is somehow before God, greater than God, etc. We are affirming that Jesus was the Word made flesh, 100% human, 100% God.
Cam Pence was asking me he other day what The ECUSA officially believes about the Eucharist. I replied with the words from the Liturgy because I fundamentally believe that we may say we believe a lot of things, but it is what we say and do in worship which most accurately reflects what it is we believe. The Liturgy (or worship service) is the place where theology is communicated. In light of this, I found it interesting that some will not say certain things in the Liturgy, precisely because they do not agree with that thing. That becomes an interesting way to view dissent. It is a quiet, submissive disagreement.Don't believe in any sinless human being but Christ.
In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Orthodox), that Mary is both "ever-virgin" and "sinless" is affirmed. So:
(1) It appears to have been a very important doctrine dating as far back as the 5th Century (I'd have to check the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great)
(2) I would tend to agree with you, and were I ever to become Orthodox, I would silently and submissively dissent.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
