Subscribe: Comments on: Holy Theophany!
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
aml  bob cheeks  bob  christ  church  doctrine  faith  figure protestants  god  human  man  mary  position  problem  puerile  tension 
Rate this Feed
Rating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Holy Theophany!

Comments on:

Place. Limits. Liberty

Last Build Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:12:54 +0000



Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:55:16 +0000

Thanks for the apology, Bob. All the best, AML

By: Dale Nelson

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:49:01 +0000

Many Lutherans would be surprised to read this:'s_views_on_Mary

By: Bob Cheeks

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:32:42 +0000

AML, allow me to apologize. What flipped my switch was your previous comment: "If you think original sin is essential to human nature, then Christ must have been guilty of it as well since he was of a fully human nature." Obviously, no Christian believes Christ was born with O.S. and that's what set me off. So, again, allow me to offer an apology for insinuating that your comments were "puerile." And, again, thanks for explaining the church's position on the Co-R, it's been an enjoyable thread.


Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:18:33 +0000

^^If in fact you think my comments are puerile please show what is puerile and why you think so.


Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:16:05 +0000

Bob, I think your last comment is a bit unfair. I have not been trying to use gotcha remarks, but rather have attempted to show what I perceive to be the problem with your position. Whether or not you wish to address those issues is indeed up to you. Perhaps you might address my points rather than accuse me of being puerile.

By: Bob Cheeks

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:46:06 +0000

AML, I meant to thank you earlier for this fascinating conversation. RE: Mgsr Sokolowski, he's a favorite. I reviewed his "Human Faith and Christian Understanding" for Crisis (before it went under, and I hope my review didn't have a hand in that) and would gladly read anything the man writes. Re: the "divinization of Mary" well that's my story and I'm sticking to it. First, no one should question the authority of the church lightly, but on the other hand when church leaders step beyond a foundation predicated on sola scriptura, and here I think the Protestants are correct, then the issue must be engaged. Priests, teachers, preachers are in fact responsible for the souls they reach and consequently affect and in the matter of God, they are responsible to be clear and accurate as to the teaching. As you or someone pointed out the idea of Mary as Co-Remptrixt isn't dogma but the Church allows it continue without criticism, indicating the possibility that it will be dogma someday. That, in and of itself is, I think, gross error on the part of the church fathers, if not the pope. I haven't answered several of your questions because they were rather puerile and below the level of this conversation. I understand why you asked; the urgent psychological need to "win" this debate and the consequent decline into "gotcha" remarks. It isn't necessary. My remarks here are offered in the love of God and truth. If I'm in error, I'll gladly accept and acknowledge that error.


Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:17:31 +0000

Bob: Credo ut intelligam Based on your last post, I would highly recommend Robert Sokolowski's The God of Faith and Reason. It is an excellent treatment of the connection between faith and the desire to know. Re Mary: I fail to see how the idea of Mary as co-Redemptorix divinizes her. This doctrine stems from Christ's humanity. Because our savior was fully human, he required a human mother. Through her willingness to bear the Son of God, she was a cooperator in man's redemption. No Mary, no redemption. Simple as that. That is not to say she is any way equal to the Logos. This all follows from an incarnational theology in which Christ posses two natures in one person.

By: Bob Cheeks

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:39:30 +0000

The problem I think that many Christian sects have is the desire to “know.” In essence it is an age-old problem centered on and related to man's inclination and natural fondness toward sundry Gnostic heresies. Specifically many derailed Christians seek to explicate the Divine Mysteries in terms of immanence, to immanentize the tension of existence in much the same manner that the ideologues of the past century have done in the secular world. It is, of course, a totally human thing to do, at least in the sense of man as a 'fallen' creature, a being engaged by the libido dominandi where symbols of the truth experienced are removed from reality. We see everywhere in the secular world where the revolt against theology and metaphysics failed, as Voegelin points out, to recapture the tension of existence and derailed into “a new doctrine of world-immanent consciousness.” To some degree and to some extent, the church is guilty of this same phenomenon, spurned on, I think, by the secular, ideological derailments of the previous century. Succumbing to the gnostic temptation the church failed to believe, to have the faith, that God could do everything (if you remember what the angel asked Abraham regarding the pregnancy of the 99 year old Sarah) and allowed itself, at least in part, to abandon a devotion and a profound faith in the transcendent pole of the metaxy wherein we find the tension or movement of human existence. And, more specifically the church in not faithfully accepting the reality of the “divine mysteries” produced among its people an alienation established on the disorder engendered in the explication of “mysteries” (in this case that Mary is the co-Redemptrixt) that have no foundation in the Word of God (sola scriptura). Regarding this particular conversation re: Mary, the mother of God, we must understand that our participation in the Divine, the metalepsis, is located within our perspective as being. It is our consciousness that is both the sensorium of the tension and the “whole tension including its pole of the timeless (site).” And, here the problem become luminous when the church father's derail in their efforts to explicate a “knowledge” that results in the “divinization of man (in this example, Mary).

By: Rob G

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:55:21 +0000

"For the life of me, I can’t figure out why protestants don’t have a doctrine of Mary." Romophobia?

By: Jeffrey Polet

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:23:13 +0000

Well Bob, you can't have it both ways. A teaching, by definition, can't be both "the position of the Church" and a heresy. I would recommend for your reading John Paul II's encyclical "Redemptoris Mater," which is a fine articulation of the Church's position. JPII takes the obedience of Mary to be the fullest form of human kenosis, and thus determines the limits of human participation in the economy of salvation. For the life of me, I can't figure out why protestants don't have a doctrine of Mary. I think it leaves their doctrine of justification over-determined as regards grace.