Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:We have to be careful when we say things like "God died on the cross" without qualifiers.
We can just as easily say that God was born of a virgin and which would lead us to "so God was Born?" which leads us to God not being God.
It is one thing to say that God died on the cross when WE know and THEY know that we mean God, The Son.
It is quite another to make that statement without qualifiers to others that don't understand this.
If God CAN die, then He is not God.

Paul,

That's absolutely correct. When Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God, one needs to dig deeper into what that actually entails. Queen of Heaven, praying to Mary, etc.

Just like when a Lordship salvation adherent says that they are saved by Grace through faith. We need to see how they define faith, and all that entails.

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
But we can and must say that God, in virtue of His humanity, died on the Cross.

I really have no problem with that. But is not the same as saying "God died".

In the same way, I have no problem saying, "in virtue of Christ's humanity, Mary is Christ's mother".

Which is not the same as saying, "Mary is the mother of God".

But "in virtue of Christ's humanity, Mary is Christ's mother" is not sufficient, because Mary isn't Christ's mother in virtue of His humanity. She's His mother because she carried Him for nine months and the delivered Him. Jesus Christ is a human being. No need to get philosophical on the point of a human having a mom. What you could say is something like, "Christ, in virtue of His deity, is omnipresent." You can say, "Christ, in virtue of His humanity, grew and learned." You can say, "Christ, in virtue of His deity, created the world." You can say, "Christ, in virtue of His humanity, became sleepy." And so on. It doesn't advance the conversation to say that Christ had a mother in virtue of His humanity.

So, again, we say that God had a mother in virtue of His humanity. If you want to press this further, we would deny that the Father has a mother or that the Holy Spirit has a mother. Since a lot of people (wrongly) equated "God" with "the Father," they could object to the notion of Mary as the Mother of God for implying that Mary birthed the Father. But agai that's the problem with the interpreter, not with the doctrine itself. But the Son had a Mother. He had that mother in virtue of His humanity, just as He did all human things in virtue of His humanity (e.g., getting sleepy). But since the Son is God, then we can well say that in Christ, God did this or that human thing (e.g., got tired or sleepy), including having a mother or dying or anything else.

What I encourage my Protestant friends to do on this point is to ask themselves what it making them feel uncomfortable about calling Mary the Mother of God. Figure that out and you can figure out if the problem is with you or not, because on this particular issue, it probably is . . . either you are misinterpreting the doctrine or, frankly, might hold some heretical views about Christ's incarnation!

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We have to be careful when we say things like "God died on the cross" without qualifiers.
We can just as easily say that God was born of a virgin and which would lead us to "so God was Born?" which leads us to God not being God.
It is one thing to say that God died on the cross when WE know and THEY know that we mean God, The Son.
It is quite another to make that statement without qualifiers to others that don't understand this.
If God CAN die, then He is not God.

Paul,

That's absolutely correct. When Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God, one needs to dig deeper into what that actually entails. Queen of Heaven, praying to Mary, etc.

Just like when a Lordship salvation adherent says that they are saved by Grace through faith. We need to see how they define faith, and all that entails.

With all due respect, Paul is not correct, Rick. You are conflating too many issues as if they are one and the same thing. What you are doing is not that different from a non-Christian who denies God exists because there was no global flood.

To walk through Paul's assertions one by one . . .

• We have to be careful when we say things like "God died on the cross" without qualifiers.

We have to be careful about saying ANYTHING about God without qualifiers, even something as basic as "God is omniscient." Without qualifiers, that can be seen as introducing parts in God and so is heretical. All you mean by introducing qualifiers is knowing what the doctrine actually states, and absolutely no one would say that we should affirm or deny a doctrine without knowing what it says. We aren't Congress passing the Affordable Care Act after all.

We can just as easily say that God was born of a virgin and which would lead us to "so God was Born?" which leads us to God not being God.

Nonsense. God was born. As a man. In Christ. In virtue of His humanity. That does not lead to God not being God. We certainly wouldn't say that God was born in virtue of His divinity. But we do say He was born in virtue of His humanity (and specifically, that the Son was born in virtue of His humanity).

It is one thing to say that God died on the cross when WE know and THEY know that we mean God, The Son.
It is quite another to make that statement without qualifiers to others that don't understand this.

Again, this is just saying that we should know the doctrine. Qualifiers aren't necessary when it the qualifiers are understood, and if the qualifiers are not understood, then what is stated is not the doctrine anyway but a straw man. The question is not, "Was God born?" but rather, "Jesus is God and Jesus was born; therefore, in what sense are we saying that God was born?" And apply that to died, had a mother, etc.

If God CAN die, then He is not God.[/list]
Wrong. God did die. And He is still God. But He died in virtue of His humanity, in Christ, not in virtue of His deity. So the Father never died. The Spirit never died. The Son did not die in virtue of His deity. But God, in Christ, died.

------------------

So Rick . . .

That's absolutely correct. When Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God, one needs to dig deeper into what that actually entails.

Which is what we've done here, and there is nothing entailed by Mary being the Mother of God that all Protestants should not agree on.

Queen of Heaven, praying to Mary, etc.

These are not entailed by "the Mother of God." They are different issues, only related to her as Mother of God because we are addressing the same subject (Mary). In other words, you don't get to say that as a Protestant you reject praying to the saints and therefore praying to Mary and therefore that Mary is not the Mother of God. That just doesn't follow.

Just like when a Lordship salvation adherent says that they are saved by Grace through faith. We need to see how they define faith, and all that entails.

Yes, and just like LS people add to the word "faith", what you are doing is adding ideas to "Mother of God" words and ideas that are not part of the meaning. Again, those other doctrines that you reject are of course doctrines that Catholics hold about Mary, but they are not doctrines that flow from her being the Mother of God. Rather they flow from other arguments entirely and are related to the Mother of God only because the same person who you are praying to is also the same person who is the Mother of God. And therefore, taking the two ideas together, you can suddenly ask if praying to the Mother of God is any different than praying to Saint Peter or your own mother. So you are perfectly fine in rejecting that combination of ideas. You are not fine, however, in saying that Mary is not the Mother of God because we have to look at the idea of praying to the saints. Just doesn't follow my good friend.

And since K loves it so much when we say God bless, I'll double and tell you not only, "God bless you" but "May His Mother pray for you"

Jac wrote:

What I encourage my Protestant friends to do on this point is to ask themselves what it making them feel uncomfortable about calling Mary the Mother of God. Figure that out and you can figure out if the problem is with you or not, because on this particular issue, it probably is . . . either you are misinterpreting the doctrine or, frankly, might hold some heretical views about Christ's incarnation!

I can't speak for your Protestant friends, but what's making me uncomfortable is that the only time I hear/see the term, "Mother of God", is in Catholicism. And I know all that it entails in Catholicism.

Why is Christotokos not better than Theotokos? In My limited understanding, nestorians hijacked the term Christotokos and tried to use it to explain the independence of Christ's divine nature, and human nature.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We have to be careful when we say things like "God died on the cross" without qualifiers.
We can just as easily say that God was born of a virgin and which would lead us to "so God was Born?" which leads us to God not being God.
It is one thing to say that God died on the cross when WE know and THEY know that we mean God, The Son.
It is quite another to make that statement without qualifiers to others that don't understand this.
If God CAN die, then He is not God.

Paul,

That's absolutely correct. When Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God, one needs to dig deeper into what that actually entails. Queen of Heaven, praying to Mary, etc.

Just like when a Lordship salvation adherent says that they are saved by Grace through faith. We need to see how they define faith, and all that entails.

With all due respect, Paul is not correct, Rick. You are conflating too many issues as if they are one and the same thing. What you are doing is not that different from a non-Christian who denies God exists because there was no global flood.

To walk through Paul's assertions one by one . . .

• We have to be careful when we say things like "God died on the cross" without qualifiers.

We have to be careful about saying ANYTHING about God without qualifiers, even something as basic as "God is omniscient." Without qualifiers, that can be seen as introducing parts in God and so is heretical. All you mean by introducing qualifiers is knowing what the doctrine actually states, and absolutely no one would say that we should affirm or deny a doctrine without knowing what it says. We aren't Congress passing the Affordable Care Act after all.

We can just as easily say that God was born of a virgin and which would lead us to "so God was Born?" which leads us to God not being God.

Nonsense. God was born. As a man. In Christ. In virtue of His humanity. That does not lead to God not being God. We certainly wouldn't say that God was born in virtue of His divinity. But we do say He was born in virtue of His humanity (and specifically, that the Son was born in virtue of His humanity).

It is one thing to say that God died on the cross when WE know and THEY know that we mean God, The Son.
It is quite another to make that statement without qualifiers to others that don't understand this.

Again, this is just saying that we should know the doctrine. Qualifiers aren't necessary when it the qualifiers are understood, and if the qualifiers are not understood, then what is stated is not the doctrine anyway but a straw man. The question is not, "Was God born?" but rather, "Jesus is God and Jesus was born; therefore, in what sense are we saying that God was born?" And apply that to died, had a mother, etc.

If God CAN die, then He is not God.[/list]
Wrong. God did die. And He is still God. But He died in virtue of His humanity, in Christ, not in virtue of His deity. So the Father never died. The Spirit never died. The Son did not die in virtue of His deity. But God, in Christ, died.

------------------

So Rick . . .

That's absolutely correct. When Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God, one needs to dig deeper into what that actually entails.

Which is what we've done here, and there is nothing entailed by Mary being the Mother of God that all Protestants should not agree on.

Queen of Heaven, praying to Mary, etc.

These are not entailed by "the Mother of God." They are different issues, only related to her as Mother of God because we are addressing the same subject (Mary). In other words, you don't get to say that as a Protestant you reject praying to the saints and therefore praying to Mary and therefore that Mary is not the Mother of God. That just doesn't follow.

Just like when a Lordship salvation adherent says that they are saved by Grace through faith. We need to see how they define faith, and all that entails.

Yes, and just like LS people add to the word "faith", what you are doing is adding ideas to "Mother of God" words and ideas that are not part of the meaning. Again, those other doctrines that you reject are of course doctrines that Catholics hold about Mary, but they are not doctrines that flow from her being the Mother of God. Rather they flow from other arguments entirely and are related to the Mother of God only because the same person who you are praying to is also the same person who is the Mother of God. And therefore, taking the two ideas together, you can suddenly ask if praying to the Mother of God is any different than praying to Saint Peter or your own mother. So you are perfectly fine in rejecting that combination of ideas. You are not fine, however, in saying that Mary is not the Mother of God because we have to look at the idea of praying to the saints. Just doesn't follow my good friend.

And since K loves it so much when we say God bless, I'll double and tell you not only, "God bless you" but "May His Mother pray for you"

Jac,

You're making a lot of sense. I'll have to think on it more, but perhaps I'm conflating "Mother of God" with what Catholics believe. Since I've never heard anyone but Catholics use the term, I just associated it with the whole belief they have of Mary.

It's still making me uneasy, even after your explanation. If I can separate the doctrine from Catholicism's Mary, maybe I can get past my uneasiness. The two just seem ingrained.

They are ingrained, Rick. And I don't want to discount your uneasiness. I'll admit to feeling some of it myself. But I know myself well enough to know that it's very much what you're suggesting here -- the phrase is such a "Catholic" thing, and it's hard not to immediately think of Catholic doctrines I disagree with when using language that, historically, only the Catholic church has used.

But then I have to be honest and say that it's not the Catholic Church's fault the Protestants and evangelicals in particular haven't used the right language concerning Mary. That was our mistake to cede to them the term. By way of analogy, I know you are completely comfortable with the term "Trinity," but there is no substantive difference in that and "Mother of God." Both ideas follow necessarily from what Scripture says. Both were developed by Catholic theologians. The difference is just that Protestants tended to downplay Mary for whatever reason, right or wrong, and they tended not to use the Mother of God language, and so we can't bring ourselves often to use it today. And that even though we use the language around the Trinity and the hypostatic union and all the rest.

So what I'm saying is that I truly appreciate the work of Catholic philosophers and theologians in working out some of these issues around the Incarnation of God in Christ. I don't appreciate their going beyond the text and developing further doctrines based on tradition. But that goes back to the point I was making earlier. To the extent that we are talking about doctrines rooted in Scripture and reason (Hi Martin Luther!), we ought to cheerfully give assent where we encounter truth, even if that truth has been historically championed by the Catholic Church and wrongly attached to ideas that are not, in our view, true.

I can't believe Jac said this:

Qualifiers aren't necessary when it the qualifiers are understood,

How on earth does one understand a qualifier without knowing it exists ??

Okay, so Mary is the Mother of God.

I worship God, I try and follow Christ, I listen to the HS.

There is only God, really, that matters. I worship (or at least try to) worship Him, and only Him.

The only way to the Father is through Christ, His only begotten Son borne of Mary, the Mother of God.

Storyteller wrote:Okay, so Mary is the Mother of God.

I worship God, I try and follow Christ, I listen to the HS.

There is only God, really, that matters. I worship (or at least try to) worship Him, and only Him.

The only way to the Father is through Christ, His only begotten Son borne of Mary, the Mother of God.

Since you asked the question, and you're content with it now, what's the next question?

Sorry. I need another question answered relating to the previous. Jac, when you call it a doctrine, are you referring to Theotokos?

And could you explain the difference between Theotokos, and Christotokos, beyond their basic meanings?

PaulSacramento wrote:I can't believe Jac said this:

Qualifiers aren't necessary when it the qualifiers are understood,

How on earth does one understand a qualifier without knowing it exists ??

I can't believe you said this.

I didn't say anything about not knowing qualifiers exist. I just said you have to understand them. People who don't understand these qualifiers shouldn't be making claims that something is or isn't true. And if you do understand the qualifiers, you don't need to talk about them. In short, Paul, the problem isn't with the Catholics. It's with us. If we're going to say what THEY teach is not true (if we're going to say that Mary isn't the Mother of God) then it is up to US to use their argument in the way they intend it. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty on our part, and evangelicals have been very dishonest on this issue for a very long time.

Storyteller wrote:Okay, so Mary is the Mother of God.

I worship God, I try and follow Christ, I listen to the HS.

There is only God, really, that matters. I worship (or at least try to) worship Him, and only Him.

The only way to the Father is through Christ, His only begotten Son borne of Mary, the Mother of God.

Strictly true, but I wouldn't even mention Mary at all. It's completely and totally superfluous. If you are going to say that the only way to the Father is through Christ who was born of Mary (and therefore the Mother of God)--if you're going to bring one fallen human being into it--why stop with her? Why not say that the only way through the Father is through Christ who was born to Mary the Mother of God who was born to Anne the mother of the Mother of God and the Grandmother of God who was born to . . . and so on.

Seriously, why stop at Mary? There's no reason to whatsoever. My objection here is that when we talk about getting to the Father, we should leave all people out of it who are not the ones getting us to the Father. In this case, there is only one Person who gets us to the Father, and that is Jesus. No one else, not even Jesus' mother, should be named in that equation. To be the Mother of God is a high honor, and we ought to honor Mary. But to honor her does not mean to mention her where it is not fitting to do so, and to mention her in the same breath as the mention of Jesus as the only means to the Father is a terrible mistake.

RickD wrote:Sorry. I need another question answered relating to the previous. Jac, when you call it a doctrine, are you referring to Theotokos?

And could you explain the difference between Theotokos, and Christotokos, beyond their basic meanings?

Yes, I am referring to theotokos. We should not use the term Christotokos, not because it isn't true (strictly, Mary is the Christotokos--the mother of or bearer of the Christ) but because the basis for the term was to be in opposition the term theotokos. It was used by those who refused to follow the Council of Ephesus, which is the council at which Nestorius was condemned. In other words, you only use that term if you are signaling that you are a Nestorian. Think of it as a political label. Imagine someone in an abortion debate constantly using the term "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life." So, sure, the former might technically be true, but the fact that they are using that specific term tells you a lot about their position. And that's what is going on here. We would say Mary is the Christotokos if we want to affirm that Mary bore Christ while denying that Mary bore God. But there are only two ways to do that: the first is to be Arian or some form of that, in which you just deny the divinity of Jesus (so if Jesus wasn't God, then Mary isn't theotokos); or else you say that in Christ there were two persons, a human person and a divine person, such that the human person was born by Mary but the divine person was not. But then you have Nestorianism, which is rightly rejected as a heresy. Christ is not two persons. He is one person. Therefore, we should just call Mary what she is: theotokos, or the Mother of God.

Jac wrote:
We would say Mary is the Christotokos if we want to affirm that Mary bore Christ while denying that Mary bore God.

And I'm still uneasy about this. "Mary bore God" just doesn't sit right with me. Whereas "Mary bore God incarnate", doesn't sound as bad.

"Mary bore God" sounds like it's saying that Mary had some influence on God's existence.

It's still not sitting right with me.

Jac wrote:
In other words, you only use that term(Christotokos) if you are signaling that you are a Nestorian.

If "Mother of God" is the proper, scriptural term, why is it never in scripture? Instead, the term, "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" is used.

She had an influence on Him in His human form.

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
We would say Mary is the Christotokos if we want to affirm that Mary bore Christ while denying that Mary bore God.

And I'm still uneasy about this. "Mary bore God" just doesn't sit right with me. Whereas "Mary bore God incarnate", doesn't sound as bad.

"Mary bore God" sounds like it's saying that Mary had some influence on God's existence.

It's still not sitting right with me.

Jac wrote:
In other words, you only use that term(Christotokos) if you are signaling that you are a Nestorian.

If "Mother of God" is the proper, scriptural term, why is it never in scripture? Instead, the term, "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" is used.

For the same reason 'Christ is God' is not found in scripture but we know it's true.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac wrote:
We would say Mary is the Christotokos if we want to affirm that Mary bore Christ while denying that Mary bore God.

And I'm still uneasy about this. "Mary bore God" just doesn't sit right with me. Whereas "Mary bore God incarnate", doesn't sound as bad.

"Mary bore God" sounds like it's saying that Mary had some influence on God's existence.

It's still not sitting right with me.

Jac wrote:
In other words, you only use that term(Christotokos) if you are signaling that you are a Nestorian.

If "Mother of God" is the proper, scriptural term, why is it never in scripture? Instead, the term, "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" is used.

For the same reason 'Christ is God' is not found in scripture but we know it's true.

Sorry for my slowness today, but I'm still not seeing it.