When Baptists reject Mary as Mother of God

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

True, but 100% human conceived without Sin, and not stained at all with Sin throughout Her Life and Assumption; full of the Grace of God, then, now, and forever.

We pray to Her as we are called and encouraged to pray to any other Saint in Heaven. We have specific prayers that always invoke Her proper relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, never confusing Her with Him.

She was always involved in the inception of Christ, for Christ is the first-born of all creatures, before all creatures. This being the case, then His Holy Mother has a very special place in all of Creation - that being usurping Satan himself as God's greatest creation.

Wait I don’t understand the significance of 1825, please don’t (1) and done, what happened in 1825? What are you referencing?

That's not when the canon was established formally dude.

Not an argument.

Yeah it was, sorry. I know it destroys your position entirely to know that it was a Pope in the 4th Century who formalized the biblical canon but you just gotta deal with it.

Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven to receive her glorified body. None of this makes her a goddess.

Hahaha. Oh the lengths you Protties will go to with your historical revisionism to justify your completely fabricated doctrines. This one is pretty funny, it's Pastor Jim preserving the KJV for future generations before Constantine gets him level delusion.

Attached: 1ccdd1901b909dafca1e475ef996c6125c078c2117bbceeccc3bb692b9862f0b.gif (320x165, 562.71K)

For men it is impossible but for God all things are possible. If God wants to grant someone the grace to resist sin for their entire life he can, and that's the kind of grace he granted Mary. There is a reason the angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying

Hail is a greeting you use for your superior, the angel was acknowledging Mary as being above himself. Secondly "full of grace" is a title he gives to Mary for the immense grace God bestowed on her as the mother of the incarnate son.

Neither of those are evidence of what was asserted.

Don't act the buffoon in regards to Sacred things, you only emulate Satan.

How? I never asserted this, you must prove I said this, and that any Catholic believes this.

Tradition, which is literal citation from the Apostolic Succession and Deposit of Faith,

Why does Mary's immaculate conception bother you so much? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit picked out Mary like a lottery? Or that Mary had other children? If so, whom? Where are the blood brothers of God?

And thus you reject Chalcedon and follow the logic of Nestorius. Silly Baptist

Funnily all the statements made by Baptists ITT thus far matches that of Nestorius!

As he says(from Russell,pg.136)

Look what follows, heretic. I do not begrudge you the expression ‘Virgin Christotokos’.21 I know that she who received God is venerable, she through whom the Lord of all things passed, through whom the sun of righteousness shone forth. Again I am suspicious of your applause.22 How do you understand ‘passed through’? I did not use ‘passed through’ as a synonym for ‘was born’. I have not forgotten my own words as quickly as that. That God passed through from the Virgin as Christotokos I have been taught by the divine Scriptures, but that God was born from her I have not been taught anywhere.

Nowhere do the divine Scriptures say that God was born from the Mother of Christ, but Jesus Christ, Son and Lord.

See this for the sauce proving Baptists are Nestorians

Citation from the Bible needed
Citation from the Bible needed
Why is 'Creation' capitalized? She played no part in Creation. Everything that was made, was made by Christ (this including Mary).

wew

this

Attached: 7fe368516ec52754a20b3b0fcba0a79c71d95fe08135458c7940635a0251c78c.jpg (540x495, 21.24K)

t.Crypto Nestorians

Funny how no baptist that I've ever met in real life thinks like OP. And the rest of you are just eating it up.

Maybe ask why the Baptists here are thinking like Nestorius

Prove to me that they're real baptists.

They are the only ones here that go Nestorian. Never go Nestorian

Do you accept Mary as Mother of God?

Since Jesus is fully God, yes.
The "baptists" on this board are quite different from real-life baptists that I know. Either they've based all their beliefs on those of the living meme Anderson, or they're false-flaggers who think anderson is what baptists are actually like.

Then good for you on that front.

Reminder herasies lead to each other:

Yeah it’s a stretch but still, know that all false doctrine leads to hell.

So…. god is not a respecter of persons…. except for Mary?

So God is not a respecter of persons… except for whoever God choses to go to heaven because the original Baptists were Calvinists?

...

Why do you reject Mary as Mother of God?

Calvinist God: “What’s that Joe? You didn’t have faith in my Son Jesus when you got shot in Iraq? Don’t worry, I didn’t want you to go to Heaven anyways.”

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is a constant struggle, something that must be kindled in the fire. Jesus dying on the Cross WAS a free gift, but we must live our lives in a way pleasing to God so that we may grow closer to him.

But to the Thread topic though, God does in fact choose special people to carry out his will. Was God a respecter of persons when he chose Noah to build the Ark, or Abraham to be the ancestor of Christ?

I never said anything about rejecting Mary as the mother of God? I confirm it, she bore God in flesh.

I get that, but sanctification does not equal justification. I hope you don't take me for an antinomian, I don't like that stuff either. That said, I also recognize that the work of the cross was finished once for all and can only be accounted to us by God aside from our wills which are perpetually dead in sin outside His grace, and works of faith are merely confirmation of existing faith that do not increase the measure of grace already given in salvation, nor keep it from decreasing.

What so hard about just being a good effing person?

Is devotion and veneration of Mary vital to the Christological controversy?

Church of the East Christian here

It's tiring to see Nestorius constantly attacked on this board. I want to clarify some things. Nestorius accepted the creed of Chalcedon and the Leo's Tome as orthodox, he was not the heretic you want him to be. He said "In the case of the term Theotokos, I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius." His dispute with Cyril was dyophysitism (as was eventually accepted by the church) vs miaphysitism (which was held by the Cyrillians and is still held in Egypt to this day). Your issue is with the Baptists who hate Mary, not with Nestorius who defended Christ's two natures.

Mods please don't delete

The thing baptists constantly make noise about on this board? I would say so, yes. The saints of God are saints by the power of God, not by their own. I will glorify God in their salvation, but I would not ascribe honor to any saint outside of what God has given them. The good works we walk in are prepared beforehand by God. I think the meme andersonites try to push an issue of the ontology of Jesus Christ where there isn't one according to roman catholics, and the response from rcs is the nestorian heresy.

Perhaps this is true, but his own insistence on using Christotokos and his lack of criticism towards those who misinterpreted his doctrine, however well his own intents were, were factors in his anathema.

Both the terms "mother of God" and "mother of man" were anathematized in the east because they only mention one nature, we use "mother of Christ" because Christ is both God and man. That is why Nestorius insisted on using the term, and because the term is used in scripture while Theotokos is not, but he was not opposed to using Theotokos in an orthodox way.

What are you talking about? He spoke harshly against those who divide Christ into two persons (the Paulinians) and he explained why he did not believe what he was anathematized for.

Read what you are saying though. If God truly will not accept anything from us, our sins never forgiven, then why even follow him? If all god will see us as is sinners, then what good is Worship? I can see OSAS is required in Calvinism, because if we can do nothing for God, then God has to drag us to heaven. We might as well “sin boldly” as Luther said, for really there is no difference in believers and nonbelievers except God’s petty favoritism in Calvinism.

I really don't see it the same way. The scriptures don't give an explanation for the seeming contradiction to our eyes, but they indict mankind for sin all the same while still affirming predestination and the power of God over both disaster and blessing.
I would call it the perseverance of the saints, since OSAS carries that connotation of "wink towards God and that's it, you're saved". The scriptures do say that it is he who keeps the commandments that loves God, not the antinomian who goes right back to his sin.
It is what the scriptures say it is, as far as i am concerned. We start off as people who hate God and love sin, and God shows his mercy after which by His power we start to love him and hate sin.
There really isn't a difference as far as choosing capability goes, otherwise Ephesians 2 flies out the window and we do have something to boast in of ourselves, our sensitivity, intelligence, morality, whatever it may be. So it has to be grace, yeah? That's what the scriptures say, but what comes to sinning Paul also says

...

weak

Attached: lol-farage.jpg (544x366, 38.63K)

Why so mad,heretic. You deny both Ephesus and Chalcedon.

How many times did I post in this thread.
Count them.
And in how many of them did I say anything about Mary?

Check and Mate.

That is precisely the same thing Nestorius did. At least he is more accepting of it than you, making you more heretical than him

...

It's funny how butthurt Mary-"venerators" in this thread immediately cling to the idea that Nestorius was condemned for using the Christotokos label for Mary, when, in fact, that was only a consequence of his true heresy which was putting a wall between the human Christ and the divine Christ, when even we protestants agree that they are indivisible.

What? He implied that Mary was part of the Godhead?
Not my reading of the condemnations of his teachings.

Attached: Oh_wait,_you're_serious_-_Imgur.gif (320x240, 4.2M)

Nice to see you ignored the explicit quotes from Cyril himself, the core authority of Chalcedon and Ephesus. What does he say about Nestorius? He says he denies the title of Theotokos because it leads to the misunderstanding that Mary is an originator of the Godhead. In OP, Cyril literally quotes Nestorius rhetorically charging those who support the title Theotokos as this.

It's funny how ignore the very mouth of Cyril himself, which shows how Baptists who deny Theotokos, the same people you support, literally spout the reasonings that Chalcedon and Ephesus had to counter. All this shows is Baptists just don't care about what the Fathers and Councils have to say

...

The proof is by your rejection of Cyril, the very authority behind Ephesus and Chalcedon. All Baptists needed to do was say they accept the title but not the veneration. Even more funny, even in the quotes from Cyril in OP, nothing of Mary's veneration is implied, only the typical Baptist line when faced with being so butthurt of that title.

But even worse for Baptists, Against Nestorius literally uses Marian veneration as a cause to argue against Nestorius!

So Baptists only show themselves to be the heretics the early Church had to contend with

Tell me, therefore, (((why do you begrudge such a title to the holy Virgin, and moreover deprive her of the dignity of divine birth and say that she is not Theotokos?))) When you condemn the term as unsound and declare that it is full of blasphemy, how is it that you allow those who wish to do so to attribute it to the holy Virgin? Furthermore, I hear you calling her venerable. (((How then do you consider this term which is so blasphemous (as it seems to you alone) fit to adorn the most venerable one and you pretend to crown her, presenting this calumny against the Word of God as if dedicating some choice gift to her?))) For if it is utterly detestable to the Word that has come from God to undergo physical birth, and yet you allow her who did not give birth to God to be called Theotokos, is it not true to say that you have manifestly despised the Lord’s will? Will you not be caught insulting the venerable one rather than, as you yourself think and say, choosing to honour her by assigning her a title detestible to God? (pg.137)

For ((do you not say that Elizabeth or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? Does it not follow that you would not object if anyone were to choose to call these too Theotokoi?))) But I think you would totally disagree with this and say, ‘That is not so. For they gave birth to sanctified human beings and nobody among them was God by nature.’ Therefore (((take away this term from every woman, or if you allow of all of them only the holy Virgin to have this))), what words will you use in your defence? For if the saying is true with regard to her and she really did give birth to God, confess with us that the Word who is from God has become flesh and you will deliver yourself from the charge of impiety. But if she did not give birth to God, to allow anyone to call her Theotokos is to participate in their impiety. But she is Theotokos, because the Only-begotten became a man like us, having been united with flesh and undergone physical birth and not having despised the laws of our own nature, as I have already said.(pg.138)

Nice Hotwheels meme, friend.

As you can clearly see, you rebuttal means nothing, as by your own logic, the person you have called your mother is not actually your mother.

Seems like your point is missing stuff, as it doesn't make sense. Not sure what you're going for dude

For some, it's they're religion

Amen.
How long do you wager it'll take for them to revert back to "everything I don't like I'd Gnosticism!"? I'd wager a six-ish weeks,

The fact that no Baptist bothers to engage with what Cyril have to say and outright oppose him shows their denial of his Christology, as his veneration of Mary is tied to it. So much so the first decree of Ephesus starts off with demanding Mary as Mother of God

hmmm Ephesus, wonder if that has anything to do with Diana…
Dog returns to its vomit.

Worse than a Nestorius

Why?
Here is a question, was the emperor Theodosius correct in making paganism illegal and Christianity the only legal religion of the Roman Empire?

Rather than ask about Theodisius, ask, why did all the early Christians worship saints early on?

Making Salvation legally required is never a bad thing. LARPagans can cry all they want about it, but I would much rather worship Jesus Christ as God then some stupid little man like the Caesar cult in Rome or Esoteric Hitlerists.

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, (((and to become possessors464(literally "have fellowship with)of his holy flesh))). For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, (((that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466 affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!)))

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html

What year are you referring to in which they started? What? 33 AD?

So what you're saying is, is that a human being, by legal action, can force people to be saved, and it's not God that saves people on a personal level?

Right, nothing like modern Catholics. These Christians didn't worship saints, unlike:

Let's see, do you honour the Apostles by baptizing converts on account of them?

Why did the Ethiopian eunuch have to believe first to then be baptized?
You can't magically perform a ritual that saves someone.
John 3:8

Nope. Try again. No Baptist are so desparate as to "possess" or want to have fellowship with remains of their martyrs or saints. No Baptist or even Protestant consider the flesh of a martyr to be holy.

And none of them contest amongst each other to be the first to touch the skin of a martyr.

Like it or not. Those are idolatrous by your standards. Be consistent

No wha I’m saying is it makes it a whole lot easier for people to decide to trust in God if everyone else around them is doing the same.

I will not deny that Nestorius is hard to decypher (he says one thing in his writings and yet denies it when he is being accused), but I don’t think of him as a sinful person, just someone trying to understand what the church admits cannot be understood. I have no doubt that he is in Heaven and that were it not for him, Christianity in the Far East (such as India and even China) would not have been nearly as strong.

I don't know, if a loved one was murdered and their body defiled wouldn't you want to take it back from the defiler? I feel as though this is what was happening, at least extremely early on.

Meanwhile, all of NT Scholarship disagrees with you

Attached: Screenshot_20180420-094404.png (1080x1920 681.87 KB, 559.96K)

Except that is not what the context says. Why would the author call the dead flesh of a martyr holy and use a Greek word that when literally translated means "have fellowship with"?

Stop making excuses and address these plain obvious points

And even worse, look at the context. The reason why the authorities dont want to allow Christians to have the martyr's body was so that the Christians wont 'worship' Polycarp. It literally have nothing to deal with what you say

Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites

What you're saying is that whenever the Bible says faith is what is needed for salvation, you read it as faith + baptism?

John 3:36

Do you think that should be:

What sayest thou, scribe?

Maybe the author was a fallible man living in an emotionally traumatic time. I have to go by biblical standards. "God is not a respecter of persons"

Yup because a Baptist who cant even read the basic english of Martyrdom of Polycarp sure as hell know the Koine Greek better than those who actually study it.

God is not a respector of persons. And he isnt a respector of the arrogant either. Woe to you 'scribe' and 'hypocrite'!

Try again when even Calvinist Douglas Moo doesnt pull off this nonsense

Attached: Screenshot_20180818-120351_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920 651.43 KB, 1014.36K)

Well in the martyrdom of Polycarp it is states these Christians did not worship saints, yet we see Catholics in this thread saying they did.

Nope. As I had pointed out, the martyrdom of polycarp is idolatry by your standards. You cant even address context or even the basic Greek translation of the text.

And here's the thing. Calling Mary Theotokos isnt worshipping her. Venerating saints isnt worship as Martyrdom of Polycarp shows

Sorry if facts dont care about your Baptist feefees and fantasy

Do you think Elijah is a god then?

I need a citation from the Bible accepting sola scriptura.

As for Jesus Himself, He gave the Church of St. Peter (His Church) the authority to bind and loosen the Law.

I capitalized Creation because I feel we are talking about sacred subjects, do not project your non-arguments onto me.

Satan was the highest and most beautiful Angel of God before the Fall, with the Assumption of Mary, we proclaim that Mary was destined to always usurp Satan as God's greatest creation.

What problem do you have with this, Satan?

No… no he never gave Peter the authority to bind and loose the LAW OF GOD. Binding and loosing on heaven and on Earth is referring to saving people's souls. Saving them here on Earth is saving them in Heaven.

Please, I beg you, read the Bible with no preconceived notions. I care for your soul, and I hope you see that it alone is the word of our God.

Related question. Don't the rules of this board say that nestorians aren't allowed here? The same way non trinitarian fags got kicked out these heretics should as well. Every other regular prot believes in the Theotokos so why don't baptist believe it? Are they Muslims inside the closet?

Attached: IMG_20180101_183149.jpg (800x753, 102.91K)

What law did we change? Its not my fault that your founder wasn't born earlier to instruct us on the true path. Jesus must have made a mistake and never cared to correct it.
The apostles themselves are heretics since St. John died in communion with the pope and the church of Rome, the apostolic fathers were heretics as well, the Bible Canon was defined by heretics, christendom was spread throughout the world by heretics until John Smyth, the smartest man alive schismed from a church that schismed from that first heretical church and founded the true Church as divided as their number of members.

...

Why do you think there must be a visible church of God?

Do you really think any so-called "church" today is truly the church of God?
No, the invisible Church of God is not built with hands.
All who believe on Christ Jesus, that he died once and for all to wash away all their sins, they are the invisible church of the invisible God.
John 3:8

Legitimate question about the Mary thing, where do you find evidence that Mary never sinned? I don't really see this addressed by those who hold her in higher esteem. No disrespect intended.

Because it's a necessary part of catholic doctrine that she effectively is equal to or is God, hence the sinlessness.

Attached: 20181014_195007.png (370x370, 93.21K)

Kecharitomene in the Angelic Salutation in Luke which means perfectly and entirely filled with God's grace. If she was perfectly filled with God's grace then there is no room for sin. Also she was the Mother of God and bore him in the most intimate union, if she had been stained with sin then God would also be stained with sin which is a logical contradiction. Sacred tradition also holds that St Joseph and st John the Baptist were quickened in the womb (baptised) and given the grace to never sin.

Catholics don't believe Mary is equal to or is God.

Tradition. Mary wasn't chosen randomly. She was created by God for the express purpose of giving birth to the incarnation. Mary was chosen to be the ark of the new covenant, as such she was given grace by God beyond that which any other creature receives. She was selected to be the new Eve, who rather than taking life by eating the forbidden fruit, gives it back by birthing the savior of the world, the blessed fruit of her womb.

More legitimate is why Baptists deny Mary as Mother of God and resort to Nestorian reasonings to defend their decision. As many ITT does

You guys say this a lot about a lot of things you do and actively believe.

Yeah we do. It's because Protestants have nfi what Catholics actually believe so we need to constantly explain the very basics of the Christian faith to them over and over. Maybe if you guys stopped the complete lies about us worshipping Mary/Saints/Idols then we wouldn't need to act like your sunday school teacher in every single thread.

Because Jesus did found one church back then and it had its Bishops and priests as we can see from Paul.
No, the invisible Church of God is not built with hands.
How can we be part of the same "church" if we have completely opposite views on salvation and even about the nature of Christ. Also the invisible God made Himself visible in Jesus Christ.
And I don't know where you trying to get with that quotation from John since that part is about the baptism not the church, but wtv.