Francis Chan

[Hans Deventer]

(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.

Sorry, just don't like the title "mother of God". She bore the incarnate Son, who was God. But the normal meaning of the word "mother of ....." has the obvious connotation that she came before and was, so to speak, the "creator of". I'll never deny that Jesus is God, I do deny that Mary was "Mother of God" in the normal meaning of the word "mother". She was the willing recipient and instrument of the incarnation of God. That sounds a lot less ambiguous to me.

So I prefer the Greek. It requires explanation, and the explanation allows one to say that "we are affirming not that Mary is somehow before God, greater than God, etc".

If words carry meaning we do not intend, it's probably best not to use them and seek for others.

[Dan Henderson]

I think that is a reconcilation for us to cope with how God became man because we as humans have this need to know how something was done and not just that it was done. The reason I reject the Immaculate Conception is 1st because it places a condition on God and only God places conditions on himself, and 2d, for this to be true, the whole line would have to be pure. That is for Mary to be "required" to be born a perfect vessel so that she could bear a Dietiy doesn't follow, because Mary's mother would also need to be a perfect vessel in order to issue a perfect vessel and on down the line ad infinitum. This eventually leads to the rejection of the fall of man. Then if man did not foall, no need for reconciliation, then the Bible doesn't have to be true because man is not fallin in the first place so they don't need to be redeemed.

If my logic sounds like a direct tv commercial, sorry, but they are kind of funny. So, I'm not going for the Immaculate Conception, I barely believe in the immaculate reception.

The mystery that God became man, being born of the virgin is enough of a mystery for my shrunken hippocampus. The conditions imposed by this doctrine and the ones like them offer more confusion than mystery.

[Gina Stevenson]

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.

OK, guess I had not tho't much about it from that aspect, having heard over the years the idea of "the sin nature" being passed on paternally, rather than maternally. This, hence, was to explain Christ's -- Holy Spirit-conceived -- being, therefore, sinless by nature, with no earthly father. That sort of counters the idea of its being all "Eve's fault."

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry, just don't like the title "mother of God". She bore the incarnate Son, who was God. But the normal meaning of the word "mother of ....." has the obvious connotation that she came before and was, so to speak, the "creator of". I'll never deny that Jesus is God, I do deny that Mary was "Mother of God" in the normal meaning of the word "mother". She was the willing recipient and instrument of the incarnation of God. That sounds a lot less ambiguous to me.

So I prefer the Greek. It requires explanation, and the explanation allows one to say that "we are affirming not that Mary is somehow before God, greater than God, etc".

If words carry meaning we do not intend, it's probably best not to use them and seek for others.

I still think you're thinking too much into it. For most Orthodox Christians, it's as simple as affirming that Jesus is God. To say that Mary is the "mother of God" is to affirm that Jesus is truly God.

[Hans Deventer]

I still think you're thinking too much into it.

Pretty hard to do when you read stuff from the Orthodox as you quoted, and know about the place of Mary in the RC Church. Don't really know how I could possibly read too much into it.

Anyway, I won't use the phrase unqualified, and prefer not to use it at all.

[Jim Chabot]

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.

Yeah, but aren't they fun to collect!

I've got another folder full somewhere around here of expired certificates, and I've let a couple of these licenses go. With just the ones I need, I'm over $1000 per year in fees and 20 or so hours a year in continuing education.

[Jim Chabot]

Pretty hard to do when you read stuff from the Orthodox as you quoted, and know about the place of Mary in the RC Church. Don't really know how I could possibly read too much into it.

Anyway, I won't use the phrase unqualified, and prefer not to use it at all.

While Ben does make a solid argument for use of the term, although I agree, the RCC usage dwarfs any explanation offered.

A few years back my wife noticed a rainbow bumper sticker on a car in front of us. "Hey that's nice she said, I wonder if the rainbow stickers are something like the fish emblems?" I don't think so I replied. "The rainbow was the symbol given to Noah that he would not destroy the world again, people are probably using these stickers to show that they are God's people" she replied. I'm not sure how to break the news to you my dear, but the rainbow sticker is used in support of the homosexual lifestyle nowadays, I then replied. To which she said "they can't do that!"

Well yes they can, and common usage generally trumps the proper historical meaning of a term unless one is willing to do a lot of explaining.

[Dan Henderson]

Yeah, but aren't they fun to collect!

I've got another folder full somewhere around here of expired certificates, and I've let a couple of these licenses go. With just the ones I need, I'm over $1000 per year in fees and 20 or so hours a year in continuing education.

Attachment 3650

I am NOT looking forward to this in my civilian afterlife. Right now I have one board certification, that one cost me $325 a year to maintain plus Cat I (Face-to-face) CEUs.

[Jim Chabot]

I am NOT looking forward to this in my civilian afterlife. Right now I have one board certification, that one cost me $325 a year to maintain plus Cat I (Face-to-face) CEUs.

I hear that. I've just finished 12 hours covering energy conservation and erosion control. Collosal waste of time since we are already subject to plan review, inspection and enforcement. With this oversight already in place the educational requirements are redundant. I took advantage of the time to read Francis Chan, an iPad fits neatly behind a propped up book. Yes I scored a 97 on the test, it is what I do for a living, I couldn't do my job without knowledge of the material.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that is a reconcilation for us to cope with how God became man because we as humans have this need to know how something was done and not just that it was done. The reason I reject the Immaculate Conception is 1st because it places a condition on God and only God places conditions on himself, and 2d, for this to be true, the whole line would have to be pure. That is for Mary to be "required" to be born a perfect vessel so that she could bear a Dietiy doesn't follow, because Mary's mother would also need to be a perfect vessel in order to issue a perfect vessel and on down the line ad infinitum. This eventually leads to the rejection of the fall of man. Then if man did not foall, no need for reconciliation, then the Bible doesn't have to be true because man is not fallin in the first place so they don't need to be redeemed.

If my logic sounds like a direct tv commercial, sorry, but they are kind of funny. So, I'm not going for the Immaculate Conception, I barely believe in the immaculate reception.

The mystery that God became man, being born of the virgin is enough of a mystery for my shrunken hippocampus. The conditions imposed by this doctrine and the ones like them offer more confusion than mystery.

I'm not sure I fully accept the "Fall" of man. However, your logic is right. IF God cannot have a sinless Son from flawed Mary, then Mary's mother had to be flawless too, ad infinitum/ad nauseum and just doesn't make any sense. But then I also believe that Jesus had a fully human nature, just as we have and still remained sinless, but I digress.

[Roy Richardson]

We are using Chan's material from http://www.multiplymovement.com/ with my men's group. So far it is not doctrinal in a Calvinist sense, but has a huge emphasis on discipleship, multiplication and bearing fruit as opposed to being barren congregations. In my corner of the world, that will preach.

[Michael Flowers]

We are using Chan's material from http://www.multiplymovement.com/ with my men's group. So far it is not doctrinal in a Calvinist sense, but has a huge emphasis on discipleship, multiplication and bearing fruit as opposed to being barren congregations. In my corner of the world, that will preach.

I would be interested in hearing how it goes, I am thinking about using it this fall but haven't decided yet as I hadn't heard anything about it.

[Billy Cox]

True Calvinism holds that God fully intended that those who will be saved were saved from the beginning of time, and those who will be damned were damned since the beginning of time. There is no choice on our part, and it is God's choice that these things be so, and He is glorified by the unfolding of time to show what He intended.

Anybody who supports a different view isn't supporting true Calvinism.

Other versions of predestination deal more with God knowing before creation who would choose Him, but opinions vary on whether His foreknowledge is causitory or merely observational.

Hey, I wonder if you've ever met someone who believes in predestination who is not also among those predestined to be saved. Hmmmmmmmm...

[Roy Richardson]

I would be interested in hearing how it goes, I am thinking about using it this fall but haven't decided yet as I hadn't heard anything about it.

So far so good. It is pretty well designed for group study.

[Billy Cox]

I just don't know where this idea comes from that professors teach students to agree with them, or what to think.

I have observed that this accusation comes from those with mechanistic view of education - that a student is the sum of all the activities they have engaged over their academic career. If one sees most higher education as a passive transfer of knowledge from a professor to a bunch of empty container students, it's not hard to see indoctrination just about everywhere - especially if the said 'education' is of the non-traditional sort.

When I was at NTS there was one particular professor who had a bit of an entourage of student admirers. They emulated him in many ways, and parroted his catchphrases with annoying accuracy. To a casual observer this could look very much like academic indoctrination.

[Marsha Lynn]

Hey, I wonder if you've ever met someone who believes in predestination who is not also among those predestined to be saved. Hmmmmmmmm...

Not personally, but 19th-century preacher/novelist George MacDonald struggled mightily with a fear of not being among the elect until he rejected the doctrine. I suspect he was not alone, just as there have been many through the ages who have been convinced they had committed the unpardonable sin and were hopelessly lost no matter how they might repent.

From Wikipedia:

MacDonald grew up in the Congregational Church, with an atmosphere of Calvinism. But MacDonald never felt comfortable with some aspects of Calvinist doctrine; indeed, legend has it that when the doctrine of predestination was first explained to him, he burst into tears (although assured that he was one of the elect).

[Billy Cox]

Not personally, but 19th-century preacher/novelist George MacDonald struggled mightily with a fear of not being among the elect until he rejected the doctrine. I suspect he was not alone, just as there have been many through the ages who have been convinced they had committed the unpardonable sin and were hopelessly lost no matter how they might repent.

From Wikipedia:

MacDonald grew up in the Congregational Church, with an atmosphere of Calvinism. But MacDonald never felt comfortable with some aspects of Calvinist doctrine; indeed, legend has it that when the doctrine of predestination was first explained to him, he burst into tears (although assured that he was one of the elect).

Maybe predestination is the Ponzi scheme of the religious world? Aspire to be near the top of the pyramid, lest one end up as one of the poor schmucks at the bottom.

[Hans Deventer]

Hey, I wonder if you've ever met someone who believes in predestination who is not also among those predestined to be saved. Hmmmmmmmm...

Numerous. Lost count.

[Susan Unger]

Numerous. Lost count.

That is so sad. What a stronghold to overcome in peoples' theology.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Not personally, but 19th-century preacher/novelist George MacDonald struggled mightily with a fear of not being among the elect until he rejected the doctrine. I suspect he was not alone, just as there have been many through the ages who have been convinced they had committed the unpardonable sin and were hopelessly lost no matter how they might repent.

From Wikipedia:

MacDonald grew up in the Congregational Church, with an atmosphere of Calvinism. But MacDonald never felt comfortable with some aspects of Calvinist doctrine; indeed, legend has it that when the doctrine of predestination was first explained to him, he burst into tears (although assured that he was one of the elect).

I go through that from time to time

[Billy Cox]

Numerous. Lost count.

Yeah, I initially thought you were joking and then realized that, yes, there are people who have bought a self-serving religious system without being on the winning side of the scheme.

[Billy Cox]

I go through that from time to time

One thing I have never understood is how so many in church circles could have so much anxiety about the gospel being too easy, when so many people outside of church circles need no convincing of their state of damnation.

[Paul DeBaufer]

One thing I have never understood is how so many in church circles could have so much anxiety about the gospel being too easy, when so people outside of church circles need no convincing of their state of damnation.

In my atheism I had some pretty extreme anti-Christian attitudes and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not well defined.