Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An objection against Marian devotion dealt with.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    My point is that there's only evidence for one succouring, and that this of course was ultimately rejected. Your case for Bathsheba as mediator for "people" is not supported by the text.
    So if Bathsheba, who was cleverly deceived by Adonisja, goes forward to Solomon bringing Adonisja's request to Solomon for him... what is she trying to do? No Sola Scriptura proponent I have ever encountered, has ever said that we can only go by what the text itself says and not what it implies.

    However I can also bite the bullet and say "Alright, the text only gives us one account of a person that she intercedes for." So what? We still have the entire role spelled out. She's seated at the right hand of her son, except for her son nobody has as high a place as her, she generously brings a persons request to her son, her son won't refuse hearing her, etc... You can object to the typology not being perfect, but I still don't get why that would be important. If taken as a principle and carried out consistently, you'd have to reject Solomon as a typology for Jesus.

    I think I've repeated this a couple of times now.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      So if Bathsheba, who was cleverly deceived by Adonisja, goes forward to Solomon bringing Adonisja's request to Solomon for him... what is she trying to do? No Sola Scriptura proponent I have ever encountered, has ever said that we can only go by what the text itself says and not what it implies.
      I'm not denying that she's interceding for one person. But is she interceding for people?

      However I can also bite the bullet and say "Alright, the text only gives us one account of a person that she intercedes for." So what? We still have the entire role spelled out. She's seated at the right hand of her son, except for her son nobody has as high a place as her, she generously brings a persons request to her son, her son won't refuse hearing her, etc... You can object to the typology not being perfect, but I still don't get why that would be important. If taken as a principle and carried out consistently, you'd have to reject Solomon as a typology for Jesus.
      I'm not objecting to the typology being imperfect, but to your presentation of the case: making many inferences without sufficient justification.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm not denying that she's interceding for one person. But is she interceding for people?
        She'd be the oddest queen mother if she didn't get requests.

        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        I'm not objecting to the typology being imperfect, but to your presentation of the case: making many inferences without sufficient justification.
        This is asking a bit much of a forum post, I'm not a scholar, very few of us on this forum are. Maybe you do hold a degree in biblical exegesis from a qualified university, some here do. The rest, like me, are just people with opinions. I opened up with a post about a bad objection I keep hearing. Namely that God doesn't need Mary to intercede for us.

        You brought up some good points, I've taken them into account, but I'm not sure what they really change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          She'd be the oddest queen mother if she didn't get requests.
          That's not what I'm saying.


          You brought up some good points, I've taken them into account, but I'm not sure what they really change.
          Well, hopefully it'll change the way you do exegesis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            I'll do a little bit of setup before I get to the point.

            Occasionally when I talk to protestants about whether or not Mary should be venerated as Catholics do, I usually point to the places in the Bible where we have some reason to see that God did give us an example of the position that she'd possess.

            I never try to give a positive defence of traditional views about Mary from the Bible alone, since at the end its ultimately a matter of tradition and doctrinal authority. What I can do to someone who asserts Sola Scriptura, is that I can defend some aspects of it, this usually amounts to little more than defending that Mary is the Mother of God. I can also point to biblical passages that lend credence to traditional teachings.

            In the Old Testament for instance you have Solomon seated in power, with his mother Bathsheba seated at his right hand as mediator.

            1 Kings 2:19-21 (ESV)
            19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” 21 She said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as his wife.”

            Song of Solomon 3:11 (ESV)
            Go out, O daughters of Zion,
            and look upon King Solomon,
            with the crown with which his mother crowned him
            on the day of his wedding,
            on the day of the gladness of his heart.

            Since a lot of Christology is given in the OT by it having analogies that preshadow it, and especially Solomon is given as a parallel, I don't think its unreasonable to see the role of Bathsheba as intercessor and mediator between the king of Solomon, as possible indicating the relationship Mary would have between Christ and man. We do see similarities: she's crowned queen along with her son, Solomon didn't say no to Bathsheba just as Jesus never says no to Mary, people bring requests to Solomon and she succours them, etc...

            The objection then is that Christ, since he's all-knowing, wouldn't have any need of an intercessor. King Solomon might, in that he couldn't personally consider all of the problems of state on his own, and Bathsheba could handle the things he couldn't, and bring particular issues to him. To Christ, Mary is completely superfluous, and perhaps even detracts a bit, since instead of praying to her to intercede for us with Him we could pray to Him on our own.

            However a person who makes this objection doesn't make it consistently enough: To Christ, the Bible is completely superfluous; if he wanted he could just impart divinely inspired all the knowledge needed into the head of everyone walking around. To Christ, theology of any stripe is unnecessary, again he could simple have Christianity one large mystical experience. To Christ, prayers aren't needed, he already knows our hearts and what we want. The particular way He's chosen to teach us about the Kingdom of God, all go above and beyond what's needed and has much more to do with what is appropriate.

            These are all only done by us because we have reasons to suspect that they are either things he's commanded (pray, worship), respect (the bible is authoritative), or something that we need since we aren't given mystical experiences (natural reasoning based studies of theology). Presumable all these things ultimate serve to glorify God more, if perhaps by distancing us from Him we're more aware of His kingly stature and our own lowliness in comparison.

            If Christ has installed Mary as someone who in Heaven get special grace to mediate for us on our behalf, I don't think anyone can object to it on the ground because its not really needed.

            If you take it consistently to the end point our own salvation isn't needed.
            Only objection I have about the RCC in general, including Marian adoration, is the fact that a lot of the ritual and sacrament have direct relations to pagan rituals. None of these rituals are found in first century Judeo-Christianity. "Queen of heaven," for example, was attributed to Isis prior to Christian adoration of Mary.
            "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chrawnus
              I don't agree with Marian devotion, but I have to ask (under the assumption that you're using this passage to argue against Marian devotion) exactly what you think this passage establishes when it comes to RCC views on Maria?
              The "queen mother" doesn't necessarily sit at the king's right hand, as he claimed.

              Comment


              • #22
                @Leonhart

                Solomon refused Bathsheba's request.

                Comment


                • #23
                  For me, it seems rather incoherent to have a mediator to our mediator. Especially since we are told that there is only one mediator between man and God.

                  1 Timothy 2:4-6
                  New International Version (NIV)
                  4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

                  Shouldn't there be something in there about how Mary is our mediator to our mediator if this is so important?

                  Remember, Mary is among "man", while Jesus is both man and God. How can she be a true mediator to God(Jesus) this way?

                  Then there's the fact that while Mary was blessed above all women, Jesus still didn't seem to give her the kind of honor being ascribed to her by the RCC. In fact, when one person said that His mother should be blessed, He said this.

                  Luke 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

                  28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

                  Then in your Bathsheba example, the seat seems not to be something of power in this situation, but something meant as respect for Bathsheba. Note that it was brought in specifically as she made the request to speak with Solomon. This doesn't look like she was regularly in such a position.

                  1 Kings 2:19 When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

                  This also looks like the first and last attempt at "mediating" for Bathsheba, especially since it's as Solomon's reign is being established. I doubt she would be considered very trustworthy after this event, and it doesn't look like she had any time for doing this before this event.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I don't dispute the need to honor Mary. I believe it goes to far, and there is doctrine that is based not on just Scriptural (Septuigant) Apocryphal/Historical literature and early apostolic tradition, but ideas that go beyond and more than what is appropriate to reverence Mary.

                    Just a note, I am not questioning Mary's rightful honor as the Theotokos, or that she is even an intercessor. I question some other status' that appear idolatrus and seem to have become so.
                    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                    George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      For me, it seems rather incoherent to have a mediator to our mediator. Especially since we are told that there is only one mediator between man and God.

                      1 Timothy 2:4-6
                      New International Version (NIV)
                      4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

                      Shouldn't there be something in there about how Mary is our mediator to our mediator if this is so important?
                      The gospels and the letters are primarily about Jesus and Christian Fellowships. Again I'm not going to defend a Mariology based upon Sola Scriptura. While I think even a highly developed Mariology is completely consistent, even if you have no other sources, I don't think the Bible alone is enough to substantiate all of it in its entirety. All I'm doing in this thread is dealing with one sort of objection I encounter when I give a particular typology.



                      Remember, Mary is among "man", while Jesus is both man and God. How can she be a true mediator to God(Jesus) this way?
                      The exact same way that you can pray for me, and in some sense expect to have your prayer make an impact of sort. We know that prayers are effecacious, we don't merely do them as symbolic gestures, or out of pure submission. Its true that God isn't a coin slot machine, but he also made it clear that if we asked something of Him which was consistent with His will He would grant it.

                      There's also clear passages that God more often listens to the prayers of holy and righteous people. If Mary, who is arguably the holiest person ever to have been created by God, can hear our prayers, then she can mediate our prayers to Christ on account of the grace given to her by God.

                      Then there's the fact that while Mary was blessed above all women, Jesus still didn't seem to give her the kind of honor being ascribed to her by the RCC. In fact, when one person said that His mother should be blessed, He said this.

                      Luke 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

                      28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
                      I won't deal with this too much, as nothing here is really a problem. I'm also a bit confused by what you write, as you start out agreeing that no woman is as blessed as Mary (and arguably no other man but Jesus I presume), you then seem to... disagree with Jesus? We don't hold her to be the highest of all women simple because she bore Christ, it wasn't the act of being Theotokos (Mother of God), that gave her that title. Among other things she suffered intensely and was extremely obedient, being among the three of the disciples who didn't flee during the crucifixion. The prophet Simeon said that her heart would be pierced by a sword, and he was likely referring to the day she'd watch Jesus suffer and die. Since the place in Heaven you get is proportional to what you gave up for Christ during your life, her place is arguably the highest for that reason since I'm very much sure she'd have taken his place on the cross if it was at all possible for her.

                      So if you want to talk about faith in her Son, she's definitely got it. Unlike the disciples she had full trust in her Sons abilities during the wedding at Cana. She didn't always understand Jesus, but that's not a sin, and she never talks back to His rebukes. Then again even during that scene He did do what asked Him to do.

                      Out of all the women in the world God chose her, to teach Jesus how to talk, walk and even pray to God. Even if you're not a Roman Catholic I'm not sure what other Christian in the world, even Paul, Peter and John, you'd place higher than her.

                      Then in your Bathsheba example, the seat seems not to be something of power in this situation, but something meant as respect for Bathsheba. Note that it was brought in specifically as she made the request to speak with Solomon. This doesn't look like she was regularly in such a position.

                      1 Kings 2:19 When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

                      This also looks like the first and last attempt at "mediating" for Bathsheba, especially since it's as Solomon's reign is being established. I doubt she would be considered very trustworthy after this event, and it doesn't look like she had any time for doing this before this event.
                      I'll be back on this one because its a fair point that I need to address a bit more. As far as I remember all the mothers of the kings in Jesus ancestry became mother queens, which is Mary not being bestowed something similar albeit spiritually strikes me as off.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                        The "queen mother" doesn't necessarily sit at the king's right hand, as he claimed.
                        I don't see how the passage you cited establish anything of the sort. All it establishes is that the place at the left hand and right hand of Jesus is not his to give. Presumably this means that they're the Father's to give. And there would be no contradiction with the passage if the Father decided to give the place at the right hand of Jesus to Mary for being His mother. If you're going to object to the view that Mary has the place at the right hand of Jesus you're going to have to use another passage.
                        ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          I don't see how the passage you cited establish anything of the sort. All it establishes is that the place at the left hand and right hand of Jesus is not his to give. Presumably this means that they're the Father's to give. And there would be no contradiction with the passage if the Father decided to give the place at the right hand of Jesus to Mary for being His mother. If you're going to object to the view that Mary has the place at the right hand of Jesus you're going to have to use another passage.
                          It doesn't. Obsidian really is just that dumb.
                          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                          George Bernard Shaw

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            I don't see how the passage you cited establish anything of the sort. All it establishes is that the place at the left hand and right hand of Jesus is not his to give. Presumably this means that they're the Father's to give. And there would be no contradiction with the passage if the Father decided to give the place at the right hand of Jesus to Mary for being His mother. If you're going to object to the view that Mary has the place at the right hand of Jesus you're going to have to use another passage.
                            Narratively, it's pretty clear that the two on the right and his left are those he is crucified with.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus
                              I don't see how the passage you cited establish anything of the sort. All it establishes is that the place at the left hand and right hand of Jesus is not his to give. Presumably this means that they're the Father's to give. And there would be no contradiction with the passage if the Father decided to give the place at the right hand of Jesus to Mary for being His mother. If you're going to object to the view that Mary has the place at the right hand of Jesus you're going to have to use another passage.
                              Originally posted by Catholicity
                              It doesn't. Obsidian really is just that dumb.
                              If you guys can truly read that passage and glean from it that Mary automatically sits at Jesus's right hand because she is his physical mother, then you are both fools.

                              Originally posted by Paprika
                              Narratively, it's pretty clear that the two on the right and his left are those he is crucified with.
                              That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it is correct. For one thing, the two people whom you mention were not seated.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it is correct. For one thing, the two people whom you mention were not seated.
                                Do you think that there's an actual physical chair on which Jesus is seating at the right hand of the Father? What does Ephesians 2 mean when it says that God has "seated" us in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by myth, 01-22-2022, 11:04 AM
                                7 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post myth
                                by myth
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-19-2022, 09:07 AM
                                12 responses
                                93 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-18-2022, 08:54 AM
                                23 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by mossrose, 01-08-2022, 01:52 PM
                                37 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 12-26-2021, 11:22 AM
                                6 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X