Posted on 06/01/2013 2:52:41 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
He is certainly not alone in his position, even less explicitly Christian thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead (a sort of theist) argued persuasively that modern science could only have arisen within the Christian milieu.
A good book on the nature of human "work" is Jacques Ellul's The Meaning of the City, which is a theological parallel to his The Technological Society. Both books (English versions from 1970 and 1964 respectively) were quite prophetic in describing the dynamics of the modern world.
I think your comment about how the notion of fate relieves Muslims of genuine responsibility for their actions—and thus limits progress—is quite germane to Spurgeon's discussion. Although I was raised in the Presbyterian Church with their strong Calvinist leanings, I have always been concerned that the logical end of Calvinist thinking (maybe not so much the man, but some his followers, to be sure) was a kind of Christian fatalism.
I suspect I will continue to wrestle with those issues to some extent until the Lord comes. But, hey, wrestling is a good thing.
As far as bearing our Lord, I would say yes. But that is as far as it goes.
So, it seems logically necessary that she be more blessed than any other human.
Do you think that Mary is more blessed than you? Look carefully at that statement and in it is reflected a certain remorse. Can you look at what God has done for your life and say that you are just as blessed as Mary?
God used Mary to accomplish a purpose in His plan, but that is all. But as far as being blessed by God so are we all. God shows no partiality and each believer has a role to play. That is not to say that we should think of ourselves more highly than others. To be sure some of these roles are great while most are small. Some of these roles led to great honor while others led to suffering, persecution, and death. But God is acting out His will in each one of us to accomplish His plan. In the end, as Mary stated, we are all in need of a Savior.
Was Jesus God? YES
Was Mary His Mother? His physical mother yes.
Now two questions:
Did our Lord Jesus exist before Mary?
Was Mary a child of Adam?
In fact, by the 16th century it led to a cold scholasticism in Calvinistic northern Europe, where the churches were filled with smug communicants who assumed they were part of the elect, which led to spiritual pride and disinterest in missions, etc. The pietistic movement was a reaction to the spiritually-dead Reformed church.
I have also lived in Switzerland (my wife is Swiss), and one can see the negative effects in the state-sanctioned Reformed Churches, where unfortunately one finds precious little evidence of genuine faith.
“So, it seems logically necessary that she be more blessed than any other human.”
Luk 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. (28) But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Mat 12:47-50 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. (48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? (49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! (50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
It seems logical to conclude that whatever blessedness enjoyed by Mary, it was greater in faith than in childbirth. “Whosoever shall do the will of My Father... the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
“I’m afraid I’m too old to be interested in the kind of scholastic argumentation we used to bat around in grad school which bore little relation to the struggles of our lives, serving only as a vehicle to show that we were more clever and “had a better grasp of theology” than the other guy.”
To be honest, this is a statement that is not all that far removed from the “smug communicants” whom you say populated Calvinist Europe. Not everyone has gone to grad school, and certainly the Gospel was not meant to be batted around by bored graduate students who regard Gospel truths as mere “argumentation.”
This is certainly not how Spurgeon, whom you started off praising, would have handled this topic; in fact, he would have regarded such a dismissal of Gospel doctrine on the basis of it having “little relation to the struggles of our lives” to be quite offensive. If the great truth of the scripture is that no man can receive anything except it is given from above, it should be preached on the streets and in every church till the crack of doom.
And as for the “struggles of our lives,” instead of building a Dr. Phil theology around such worldly troubles, let us build our theology around God and “take... no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
It doesn't surprise me. Most people aren't interested in "scholastic argumentation". How juvenile. Once upon a time people were interested in understanding and applying sound doctrine. Augustine was so shocked by his erroneous teachings that he recalled most of his writings and had them burned. Councils were convene to ensure accurate teaching and to highlight heresy. Luther risk everything, including his life, for correct teaching. So did John Hus, Calvin, and Wycliffe.
Today this attitude has gone by the wayside. In our socialization of Protestant Christianity, which started with Finney, it's all "YAWN", "YAWN". No more councils on heresies. No more "arguing" the scriptures. You have your beliefs and I have mine. People want to believe what they want to believe. It's no different than the Samarians who thought they could worship God wherever they wanted-they didn't need the temple. That was a relic of the past and who care what the scriptures stated. During Jeremiah's time they were prophesying in God's name while idols sat in the temple. God loves us-right? He's going to fight for us-right? That was the message they taught. After a time, the corruption of the scriptures take hold and no one really care how far they have drifted.
People on a number of occasions have stated to me that I'm completely wrong on free will. But yet they'll say they don't understand the paradox. One has to wonder if they don't understand, how do they know I'm wrong? But at the risk of sounding arrogant, there is no greater truth that I know than this-that free will is a lie of the worst sorts. Of course, then again, all I did was read the arguments handed down by the fathers.
You have apparently lived a very interesting, or at least, well-travelled life.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the conflict between Islam and the West came down to a battle between two groups of people who—thanks to fatalistic leanings and corresponding understandings of who is among the elect—considered themselves to be spiritually entitled.
Come to think of it, isn’t this attitude on “scholastic argumentation” thee same one Erasmus had on this very same topic? It seems Erasmus is alive and well, but so is Luther, and God is on his side.
Amen. It seems the Luther and Calvin's great Reformation lives on even if it's not in Switzerland. ;O)
As I said I don't have time for dry, scholastic arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But I do agree that having a sense of "spiritual entitlement" leads to pride, our deadly enemy. I have come to realize (though by no means have fully put into practice) that humility is at the heart of true spirituality - and genuine Christian faith. When I was in Bible school I thought I pretty much had the right theological beliefs. After earning my Ph.D. I am not so certain, but the one thing I seek to know is Christ, and Him alone! All the best!
Hi Harley -
Yes, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, begotten of the Father before all ages, existed before Mary.
Yes, Mary was descended from Adam.
And yes, too, Mary is his physical mother.
So, where is the difficulty?
Well, if she is not the Mother of God, too, then who or what was born that blessed day? Just a man? A holy man? A man favored by God?
That doesn’t work too well either, right?
How about this then: Mary gave birth only to Christ’s human nature along with His body.
But then that raises the question “WHEN, exactly, did Christ’s divine nature and human nature unite after His birth?”
Presentation at the Temple? Return from Egypt? Transfiguration? Beats me.
This was the big fight between Nestorius and Cyril back in the day.
Nestorius argued against Theotokas, citing the same reasons as you, — how can Mary be considered the Mother of God when Christ exists from all eternity?
Cyril got upset, but probably not for the reason you think.
The really big problem with denying Theotokas is that you end up inadvertently blowing up the doctrine of the hypostatic union — the complete and inseparable unity of the divine and human natures in the one person of Christ.
Seems you can’t have one without the other. But how so?
Cyril and others argued “the Word became flesh” through the hypostatic union of the Divine Nature and the Human Nature at the moment of Christ’s conception in the flesh.
So, at the Annunciation, with Mary’s fiat, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, God, assumed a human nature in a perfect unity with His divine nature at the moment of conception. Still God. Still Jesus Christ. Except with a human nature and a human body.
But now He is God with a human nature he didn’t have from all eternity, but still God. He never stopped being God when he assumed a human body and they were never separated after that moment.
So now, back to the earlier question, Who or what was born that blessed day? Our choices are: a) a body, but not God; b) God with His body, aka “God incarnate”.
Goin’ with “b” myself.
Lucky Strike Extra Bonus Chromosome Question: Which of His parents does Jesus most resemble physically?
Sorry this is so late. And so long. This is a tough one to wrap one’s head around.
Here’s a link to Nestorius’ Letter to Cyril articulating a position similar to yours and some other stuff on the debate if you’re interested.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM#2
Whenever we attempt this discussion it seems people want to argue about the Lord and say that we’re following Nestorius. The issue isn’t with our Lord Jesus, as we would both agree that He was fully God and fully man.
The issue really rest with what precisely was Mary? Some would make her out to be much more than a child of Adam-claiming her to be divine, holy, an ark, etc. In actually, she was nothing more than a sinner used by God, no different than Moses, Abraham, or Paul. Mary states so herself that she was in need of a Savior. And our Lord Jesus equates her to the same role as other believers. This seems to be lost on our Orthodox and Catholics friends.
With all due respects to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, there is no biblical basis for praying to Mary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.