Remitting Sins

[pointer]

I can find the verse that tells us Mary was full of Grace if you feel the need to challenge

Gabriel in Luke says only that Mary was favoured- or lucky, in secular terms.

'And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you."' Luke 1:28-29 NASB

There is no necessary merit in being favoured; God sends His rain on the righteous and unrighteous. Ultimately, God has no favourites, and Mary had to repent or perish like everyone else must. No-one knows what her eternal fate will be.

There is only one way to God, and that is by the offence of the cross, and there are no soft and easy paths that allow human pride.

[st. Worm]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

mother of God is the appropriate description of Mary. That is unless you don't believe Jesus in the flesh was God.

sw

One would have to unpack what was meant by the term "mother of God". Mary did not give birth to Jesus diety in the sense that it did not exist before. Jesus was pre-existant to the incarnation and was always God

You cannot divide his deity from his humanity. He is and was 100% God and 100% man even in the womb. Mary is the bearer of God. A hard pill for you to swallow?

sw

So are you saying that Jesus did not exist as God before he was born of a virgin?

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

[st. Worm]

St. Worm, could you clarify what Nestorian is? You mentioned what Arianism is, but not Nestorian. Thanks.

from wikipedia (looks pretty accurate to me):

The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view (advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople) was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Mother of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius's opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. Such a notion was unacceptable, since (in the Orthodox view) it sabotaged the fullness of the incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. Nestorius's view was anathematised by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), and the title "Theotokos" for Mary was affirmed.

By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata).

________________________________________________________________________________

____

Clearly the Council was proper to call Nestorius a heretic for trying to divide the two natures of Christ.

sw

[st. Worm]

St. Worm, could you clarify what Nestorian is? You mentioned what Arianism is, but not Nestorian. Thanks.

from wikipedia (looks pretty accurate to me):

The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view (advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople) was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Mother of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius's opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. Such a notion was unacceptable, since (in the Orthodox view) it sabotaged the fullness of the incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. Nestorius's view was anathematised by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), and the title "Theotokos" for Mary was affirmed.

By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata).

________________________________________________________________________________

____

Clearly the Council was proper to call Nestorius a heretic for trying to divide the two natures of Christ.

sw

Thanks for the information. Another question. By saying that Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity only, it would seem to me that would not necessarily take away from the truth that Christ was both man and God. It would still leave open that he was also divine because his Father is God. I am not saying I agree with this concept. Actually I tend not to, but don't understand why this is such a destructive teaching, unless, they are also denying Christ's deity. Maybe you could clear that up for me. I have never heard of this group so I might not be fully understaning the extent of the error. Thanks again. I am not asking any of this to argue. This is purely for the purpose of understanding what you are talking about.

Perhaps the most serious problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the value of the atonement for sin on the cross. If Christ is actually two people, one human given birth by Mary as Nestorius said, and one as deity, we have no certainty that Jesus as God took our sins upon Himself. If Nestorius was right perhaps our sins were never atoned for since only God could truly do so. Perhaps it was a human death only and thus of no value to us. The early church took these issues seriously and therefore the Creeds were extremely important as a weapon against heresies concerning the nature of God. Jesus simply cannot be divided into two persons.

sw

[Openly Curious]

St. Worm, could you clarify what Nestorian is? You mentioned what Arianism is, but not Nestorian. Thanks.

from wikipedia (looks pretty accurate to me):

The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view (advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople) was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Mother of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius's opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. Such a notion was unacceptable, since (in the Orthodox view) it sabotaged the fullness of the incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. Nestorius's view was anathematised by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), and the title "Theotokos" for Mary was affirmed.

By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata).

________________________________________________________________________________

____

Clearly the Council was proper to call Nestorius a heretic for trying to divide the two natures of Christ.

sw

Thanks for the information. Another question. By saying that Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity only, it would seem to me that would not necessarily take away from the truth that Christ was both man and God. It would still leave open that he was also divine because his Father is God. I am not saying I agree with this concept. Actually I tend not to, but don't understand why this is such a destructive teaching, unless, they are also denying Christ's deity. Maybe you could clear that up for me. I have never heard of this group so I might not be fully understaning the extent of the error. Thanks again. I am not asking any of this to argue. This is purely for the purpose of understanding what you are talking about.

not that this has anything to do with the topic. But it is a good question that butero is asking. And i must say my curosity is peaked as well I don't see the heresy in saying that Mary was the mother of Christ humanity because Jesus was a human being just as much as He was Lord and God became flesh and took on the form of man in the form of Jesus Christ when he was born in the world and they layed Him in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Mary was a only a chosen vessel in which to bring Christ into the world born of a virgin Mary and Jesus from a small child was raised up in the household of Joseph and Mary until His time was come and He did His first miracle turning the water into wine. Christ was born just like any other human baby that was ever born into this world in the same birthing manner only difference was that she was a virgin and she became with child when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her according to scriptures.

So by saying Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity I see nothing wrong with that statement and that statement in no way takes away from who Christ was as a person. As He was the son of the living God for He was God in the flesh. These things Mary could never give Him but a natural human birth she could and did give the son of God. And I don't see that as heresy.

OC

[st. Worm]

St. Worm, could you clarify what Nestorian is? You mentioned what Arianism is, but not Nestorian. Thanks.

from wikipedia (looks pretty accurate to me):

The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view (advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople) was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Mother of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius's opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. Such a notion was unacceptable, since (in the Orthodox view) it sabotaged the fullness of the incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. Nestorius's view was anathematised by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), and the title "Theotokos" for Mary was affirmed.

By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata).

________________________________________________________________________________

____

Clearly the Council was proper to call Nestorius a heretic for trying to divide the two natures of Christ.

sw

Thanks for the information. Another question. By saying that Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity only, it would seem to me that would not necessarily take away from the truth that Christ was both man and God. It would still leave open that he was also divine because his Father is God. I am not saying I agree with this concept. Actually I tend not to, but don't understand why this is such a destructive teaching, unless, they are also denying Christ's deity. Maybe you could clear that up for me. I have never heard of this group so I might not be fully understaning the extent of the error. Thanks again. I am not asking any of this to argue. This is purely for the purpose of understanding what you are talking about.

not that this has anything to do with the topic. But it is a good question that butero is asking. And i must say my curosity is peaked as well I don't see the heresy in saying that Mary was the mother of Christ humanity because Jesus was a human being just as much as He was Lord and God became flesh and took on the form of man in the form of Jesus Christ when he was born in the world and they layed Him in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Mary was a only a chosen vessel in which to bring Christ into the world born of a virgin Mary and Jesus from a small child was raised up in the household of Joseph and Mary until His time was come and He did His first miracle turning the water into wine. Christ was born just like any other human baby that was ever born into this world in the same birthing manner only difference was that she was a virgin and she became with child when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her according to scriptures.

So by saying Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity I see nothing wrong with that statement and that statement in no way takes away from who Christ was as a person. As He was the son of the living God for He was God in the flesh. These things Mary could never give Him but a natural human birth she could and did give the son of God. And I don't see that as heresy.

OC

Below is a very important Creed of the church written in response to the heresy of Arianism. Your cavalierness in dismissing what that Council affirmed about the nature of Christ is sad but a true indication of where many believers are today. The natures of Christ cannot be divided. He is fully God and fully man. To say otherwise is to creat a God made in the image of man, a God that cannot save. To say Mary only gave birth to the human part is pure folly and heresy.

sw

THE ATHANASIAN CREED

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

And shall give account of their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

[billie]

Thank you for posting this, SW.

[Openly Curious]

not that this has anything to do with the topic. But it is a good question that butero is asking. And i must say my curosity is peaked as well I don't see the heresy in saying that Mary was the mother of Christ humanity because Jesus was a human being just as much as He was Lord and God became flesh and took on the form of man in the form of Jesus Christ when he was born in the world and they layed Him in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Mary was a only a chosen vessel in which to bring Christ into the world born of a virgin Mary and Jesus from a small child was raised up in the household of Joseph and Mary until His time was come and He did His first miracle turning the water into wine. Christ was born just like any other human baby that was ever born into this world in the same birthing manner only difference was that she was a virgin and she became with child when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her according to scriptures.

So by saying Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity I see nothing wrong with that statement and that statement in no way takes away from who Christ was as a person. As He was the son of the living God for He was God in the flesh. These things Mary could never give Him but a natural human birth she could and did give the son of God. And I don't see that as heresy.

OC

Below is a very important Creed of the church written in response to the heresy of Arianism. Your cavalierness in dismissing what that Council affirmed about the nature of Christ is sad but a true indication of where many believers are today. The natures of Christ cannot be divided. He is fully God and fully man. To say otherwise is to creat a God made in the image of man, a God that cannot save. To say Mary only gave birth to the human part is pure folly and heresy.

sw

Openly Curious

st. worm I don't think I am making light of the nature of Christ as you say. If I was I wouldn't have asked or inquired further. But after reading what you wrote I don't think it is heresy I do not believe the natures of Christ can be divided either as He was fully God and fully man. But God was created as a human being just as you and I grew within the womb of our mothers until birth. God literally took on the form of a man and grew in the womb of Mary for nine months and was born a little child. Christ has a fleshly nature or flesh and bones just as you and I do and he was subjected to temptations just as we are He was very much man. And man as we know in the book of Genesis was created in the image of God so it is not wrong in my opinion that Christ was not also created in the image of God as a man. And to say that it absolutely is in no way meaning or implying that Christ cannot save.

As Christ was being formed in the womb those nine months by the Father's will Christ was from the beginning in the bossom of the Father He was the word from the beginning. Mary could never put inside of Christ what He had been from the very beginning of time while Christ was growing in the womb of her. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. And so was Christ the bogotten son of the living God. Christ also was formed in the womb and it was the Father who fearfully and wonderfully caused His Son to grow until the time of His birth. Mary gave birth to the Son of the living God who was indeed flesh and bones as we are and He was in all points tempted as we were yet without sin.

God became flesh so that "He" could identify with our nature so that "we" could identify with His divine nature which Christ also had. And it is through Christ we are made partakers of the divine nature.

OC

[st. Worm]

St. Worm, could you clarify what Nestorian is? You mentioned what Arianism is, but not Nestorian. Thanks.

from wikipedia (looks pretty accurate to me):

The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view (advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople) was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Mother of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius's opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. Such a notion was unacceptable, since (in the Orthodox view) it sabotaged the fullness of the incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. Nestorius's view was anathematised by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), and the title "Theotokos" for Mary was affirmed.

By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata).

________________________________________________________________________________

____

Clearly the Council was proper to call Nestorius a heretic for trying to divide the two natures of Christ.

sw

Thanks for the information. Another question. By saying that Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity only, it would seem to me that would not necessarily take away from the truth that Christ was both man and God. It would still leave open that he was also divine because his Father is God. I am not saying I agree with this concept. Actually I tend not to, but don't understand why this is such a destructive teaching, unless, they are also denying Christ's deity. Maybe you could clear that up for me. I have never heard of this group so I might not be fully understaning the extent of the error. Thanks again. I am not asking any of this to argue. This is purely for the purpose of understanding what you are talking about.

Perhaps the most serious problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the value of the atonement for sin on the cross. If Christ is actually two people, one human given birth by Mary as Nestorius said, and one as deity, we have no certainty that Jesus as God took our sins upon Himself. If Nestorius was right perhaps our sins were never atoned for since only God could truly do so. Perhaps it was a human death only and thus of no value to us. The early church took these issues seriously and therefore the Creeds were extremely important as a weapon against heresies concerning the nature of God. Jesus simply cannot be divided into two persons.

sw

I don't see how Christ can be two people. Are you saying that according to their doctrine, he became God at times and was man at others. That he was a natural man sometimes and diety at others? If that is the case, I see your point. I was taking the original statement to mean his divinity came from his Father and his humanity came through Mary, yet he was both a man and divine at the same time, throughout his whole life.

I am not sure exactly what you are asking (but I am just waking up!). Christ is not two people. He is one person with two natures. It is the Nestorians who attempt to divide his natures. They wanted to keep the humanity separate from the Deity. They were trying to say his birth through Mary was only a human birth because like some today they do not want to acknowledge that Mary was indeed the bearer of God. If anyone cannot affirm that Mary was the bearer of God then they are a heretic, a Nestorian. Its that simple.

(edited by moderator)

sw

[Guest drbelitz]

yes, after the roman church had taught it for so many years previous to the orthodox church.

It is noce to have the writings of the Catholic Fathers, else we wouldn't know much concerning scripture and the proper interpretation from people at the time.

The remission of sins is normatively between you and God for venial sins, asking and confessing directly to Him, even though scipture never says to confess your sins to God directly.

The remission of deadly sins normatively are confessed to the ordained men Christ Himself sent forth the Bishops and presbyters(priests,elders0 of the Church(catholic)