Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156029 | ||
I have to correct you. The party of Nestorius held that Christ was two distinct persons - divine and human. He very much has two natures according to historic Christology (not confused, not confounded, etc.). Otherwise Doc, you stray into the Monophysite heresy when you suggest an amalgamation of divine and human natures into one. This really is the ABC's of classical Christian doctrine. It is alleged, with some validity, that those who do not accept that Mary is the Mother of God are reviving the Nestorian heresy. (It is generally accepted by scholars that 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood is an oversimplication, another story). Historic orthodoxy understands that Jesus is one person and it would be entirely inappropriate to say that Mary is the Mother of his humanity only. A person is a single unit. Catholics talk of the 'communication of idioms' when referring to Mary as the Mother of the Person of Jesus. He only had one mother. The title of Mary, Mother of God, sets important Christological boundaries, if you accept the title Theotokos you should not err in understanding who Jesus really is. Mary is of course, Mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father and this in no way should be understood, or misrepresented, as saying she existed before God. It is most incorrect to refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics as it is a perjorative coined by the English Reformers. It is not on the level of 'papist' 'Romish' and 'popery' but is a perjorative nevertheless. You of course are at liberty to address anyone by a perjorative to make a point but it is certainly not accepted by Catholics, nor do Muslims like being called Mohammedians as the old books say. On the otherhand, you can claim the moniker catholic , small 'c' for yourself, I am of course a baptist, a pentecostal, orthodox etc. in the non-denominational senses of the word. When you call a Catholic a Roman Catholic you are telling him in no uncertains terms "I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles, you are just one of many denominations." The Church Fathers referred to themselves as Catholic, not Roman Catholics and their writings shows they held distinctively Roman doctrine. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers if you disagree, you can get them on e-sword for free. You probably would not do better then reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, which everyone gives amazing reviews on Amazon. It is a masterpiece of erudition. Dalcent MA Catholic Theology |
||||||
2 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | DocTrinsograce | 156042 | ||
Hi, Dalcent... When I say "Roman Catholic" I am quite explicitly saying 'I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles.' The Reformation spelled this out quite clearly. Thank you for helping me clarify this point. Now... back to the study of the Bible... whose sole authority you affirmed when becoming a member of the forum. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156045 | ||
Doc, You wrote 'back to the study of the Bible... whose sole authority you affirmed when becoming a member of the forum' I no more affirmed this than the Bible affirms this about itself when it says in 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. I will check the forum rules to see if this is so. I believe you err, this is not a forum rule surely. I affirm that salvation is in Christ and no one else, and that I follow what scripture says about scripture: follow the oral and written traditions, as opposed to any 16th century theories. |
||||||