Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Orthodox Theology seems to assert then that God's plan was ever in doub, forgetting that God is a nonlinear entity, unconstrained in knowledge by concepts such as "the future". Do you really think that there was ever a chance that Mary would say, no? That God was sweating when Gabriel appeared to her? I'm inclined to think not. Mary's acceptance of God's plan was a forgone conclusion from the beginning of time, not because she couldn't say no, but because she wouldn't say no. God knew Mary would say yes before the Universe was even created. The quality about her that made her chosen, her extreme holiness, is the very same quality that would have precluded her from ever saying no: from holiness comes obedience to God's will. While she technically had the capacity to say no, there was never a doubt that she would say yes. God knew she would say yes.

Couldn't this argument be used to argue for predestination as well? I would argue that God makes Himself not know our choices, because then there would be no point in things like testing Abraham.

Depends on who benefits from the test, God or Abraham? God knows Abraham will overcome his test...but does Abraham? Even walking up the mountain with Isaac, does Abraham know he'll carry it out until he raises the knife? God knows the outcomes to all of these, God has not vested benefit in any of this. God, infinite in Majesty and Grace, profits nothing from our worship and from our Tests, humans do.

If God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who will not, then why would He bother wooing us?

Because then wouldn't wooing still be part of the process. God may know who's going to be saved, but they still need to be saved. Knowing the outcome doesn't preclude the necessity of the action taking place.

Yes, there are things that are predestined, like the second coming, but the lives of specific people and their personal choices? That seems like it is delving a little too closely to Calvinism.

Predestination is a Biblical and orthodox concept. "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me" God is aware of all people and all their doings, past, present and future. Calvinism, takes this too far and asserts that humanity is compelled to act, as opposed to the Catholic position that God has accounted for free will in his plan. What he "Foreknows" he "predestines". God doesn't make us do anything, but still knows what were going to do, and acts accordingly.

As Lee Ermy put it: "He plays his games, we play ours."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Couldn't this argument be used to argue for predestination as well? I would argue that God makes Himself not know our choices, because then there would be no point in things like testing Abraham. If God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who will not, then why would He bother wooing us? Yes, there are things that are predestined, like the second coming, but the lives of specific people and their personal choices? That seems like it is delving a little too closely to Calvinism.

You could say that God's salvation plan for each person is predestined, however its up to the person to either stay or depart from the path.

But we would be remiss in not saying that any deviance from that predestination is already factored into God's predestination.

Take for instance Jonah, God knew full well that Jonah wasn't going to go directly to Ninevah, God knew he would run and he'd have to do this whole thing with the storms and the fish, but he chose him anyway. Thus the questions we should be asking are not, "but counldn't He have done X?" Instead. we must ask, "What is God teaching us, by doing this?"

[Coulee Croche]

You could say that God's salvation plan for each person is predestined, however its up to the person to either stay or depart from the path.

But we would be remiss in saying that any deviance from that predestination is already factored into God's predestination.

I agree.
Excellent point btw.

Take for instance Jonah, God knew full well that Jonah wasn't going to go directly to Ninevah, God knew he would run and he'd have to do this whole thing with the storms and the fish, but he chose him anyway. Thus the questions we should be asking are not, "but counldn't He have done X?" Instead. we must ask, "What is God teaching us, by doing this?"

[Pasong Tirad]

Then again, what's apostasy to some might be enlightenment to others.

Smells like heresy.

Well I am a liberal so I'm probably more heretical than most Christians.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Smells like heresy.

Well I am a liberal so I'm probably more heretical than most Christians.

[Luminesa]

Smells like heresy.

Well I am a liberal so I'm probably more heretical than most Christians.

That's...not how apostasy works. Apostasy is the action of leaving the Church, after understanding completely its teachings and deciding they do not align themselves behind those teachings. Enlightenment is not its automatic equivalent. Enlightenment is the idea of reaching a higher understanding of spirituality, of emotions, and of intellect. A person could leave the Church simply because they do not agree with Her teachings, not necessarily because they have found the truth elsewhere.

[Constantinopolis]

Smells like heresy.

Well I am a liberal so I'm probably more heretical than most Christians.

That depends on whether you mean "liberal" in a theological sense or a political sense.

Theological liberalism is usually heretical.

Political liberalism, on the other hand, is perfectly fine (well, I personally oppose it because I oppose individualism, but, like most political ideologies, it is compatible with Christianity).

[Constantinopolis]

And now back to the Immaculate Conception discussion...

Did she have a choice in whether she would become the Mother of God or not? We believe she did, and this is extremely important, because Mary chose to embrace God's will rather than oppose it, and that is why she is the New Eve. She was faced with the same choice as Eve but took the other path, "crushed the head of the serpent" as God had foretold, and opened the way to salvation.

An underlying implication here is that Original Sin, is then the source of Agency. If Mary was conceived Immaculately, therefore she would have had no choice in the matter, but because she was under original Sin, she had agency and could therefore make the choice. Ignoring the disturbing conclusions to be derived from such a concept (is then not sin the source of freedom, and Christ's sacrifice oppressive?) you bellied this point in the first paragraph when mentioning Eve. Eve was immaculate, existing in a state of pure communion and grace, prior to the fall. Yet, even in this perfect state, she still had agency and made the choice. Even being Immaculately Conceived free from the stain of Original Sin, would not have removed Mary's agency.

No, original sin is not the source of agency. That's not what I said. Rather, I said that creating a specially-made person in an extraordinary way to fulfill a certain role is something that removes that person's agency - whether or not original sin happens to be involved.

So the issue is not any kind of "sin-as-freedom" concept. The issue is the idea that Mary was given special treatment and that she wasn't born in the same state as the other human beings of her time. Eve was created sinless, yes, but at a time when all human beings were sinless. Eve was not given special treatment apart from the rest of Humanity.

In Orthodox theology, Mary was not inevitably predestined to become the Mother of God. She was an extremely holy person and would have been one of the greatest saints regardless, and this made her a suitable candidate, but she could have turned down Gabriel at the Annunciation. Her decision to accept to become the Mother of God was not a foregone conclusion, embedded in her soul before she was even born. She could have said no. But she said yes. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

The idea of the Immaculate Conception, which implies that Mary was predestined to become the Theotokos, robs her of her agency in the matter. It makes her out to be passive rather than active in our salvation.

The Orthodox Theology seems to assert then that God's plan was ever in doub, forgetting that God is a nonlinear entity, unconstrained in knowledge by concepts such as "the future". Do you really think that there was ever a chance that Mary would say, no? That God was sweating when Gabriel appeared to her? I'm inclined to think not. Mary's acceptance of God's plan was a forgone conclusion from the beginning of time, not because she couldn't say no, but because she wouldn't say no. God knew Mary would say yes before the Universe was even created. The quality about her that made her chosen, her extreme holiness, is the very same quality that would have precluded her from ever saying no: from holiness comes obedience to God's will. While she technically had the capacity to say no, there was never a doubt that she would say yes. God knew she would say yes.

Thus, her predestination as the Theotokos, was done not by God's machination, but by his foreknowledge. As the Good Book says "29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.[a] 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified"

Indeed, the Orthodox stance would agree that Mary's "predestination" as the Theotokos was done not by God's machination, but by His foreknowledge. (well, the word "predestination" is still problematic here, but let's not get into that)

The problem is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception contradicts this statement you just made, because the Immaculate Conception is a machination, and not merely a matter of God knowing in advance what Mary would choose to do or what would happen naturally. That's precisely the problem with it. The Immaculate Conception implies that God created Mary for the purpose of making her the Theotokos, that God's machinations were the source of her holiness. As opposed to God picking her to be the Theotokos because of her holiness.

Basically, the question is: Did Mary become the Theotokos because she was holy? Or did God make her holy so that she would be the Theotokos?

It also creates a massive theological plot hole: If God can just decide to make a person free from original sin at her conception, without any problematic consequences of any kind, why doesn't He just do that for everyone?

Most Christians agree that the reason why God allows sin to continue existing is out of respect for the agency and free will of human beings. So either the Immaculate Conception robbed Mary of her free will (!!!), or, if it didn't, then we are left with the question above: Why doesn't God just make everyone sinless, if that is a thing that He can do without taking away our free will?

Because Mary was indeed a special case. Mary was not made Sinless by God's handwavium, St. Anslem made it clear that Sin cannot be stamped out without payment/recompense. The Immaculate Conception, absolution from the taint of Original Sin, was bestowed upon Mary through the Sacrifice of Christ on Cross. Mary however is unique, in that While all humanity receive the blessings of Grace through the Cross and Baptism, Mary received it, in expectation of the Cross. Mary is the only human being to receive Salvation in advance. She received it on credit, which was paid later by Christ.

But that IS handwavium, because if Mary can receive salvation in advance, why can't everyone else receive that, too?

Why is it that Mary's special case cannot be, or should not be, extended to the entire human race? Why did God do something special for Mary that he cannot or does not want to do for other people?

You say that Mary is a special case, and obviously this special case is better in every way than the normal case. It doesn't seem to have any downsides. So then why is it that God, being all good, does not turn the special case into the normal case? Why isn't everyone immaculately conceived?

[Coulee Croche]

But that IS handwavium, because if Mary can receive salvation in advance, why can't everyone else receive that, too?

Well the Orthodox do agree that Mary was sinless, even before Christ's birth. God saved her from sin through grace, which she freely responded to.

[Constantinopolis]

But that IS handwavium, because if Mary can receive salvation in advance, why can't everyone else receive that, too?

Well the Orthodox do agree that Mary was sinless, even before Christ's birth. God saved her from sin through grace, which she freely responded to.

Yes, but she was not conceived or born in an exceptional way. She was conceived and born like any other human being, but grew up to live an extremely holy life as an adult.

Our concept of ancestral sin (or original sin) is also a little different, so that plays a part in our rejection of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, as it would have been unnecessary anyway.

[Angleter]

Max points for enthusiasm.

[Coulee Croche]

Well the Orthodox do agree that Mary was sinless, even before Christ's birth. God saved her from sin through grace, which she freely responded to.

Yes, but she was not conceived or born in an exceptional way. She was conceived and born like any other human being, but grew up to live an extremely holy life as an adult.

Our concept of ancestral sin (or original sin) is also a little different, so that plays a part in our rejection of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, as it would have been unnecessary anyway.

It isnt that it would be necessary in Catholicism, its that it would be more fitting for the mother of God to have been born with sanctifying grace, rather than be deprived of it.
Pope Pius IX described it when he defined the Immaculate Conception; that it'd be fitting for Christ's mother to be so prepared, not that it'd be necessary that she be so prepared.

Edit: I'd say that it befits her role as the New Eve, and like Eve, was created in original holiness and justice; the sanctifying grace that was disinherited from mankind during the fall.

[Luminesa]

Max points for enthusiasm.

ONCE MORE WITH FEELING!!!

Geez, they make it look like he's killing the children...like...calm down...

[United Marxist Nations]

Max points for enthusiasm.

...The guy in the video isn't even who they claim it is. That clearly isn't Patriarch Ilia.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Is it permissible to resist Caesar when he poses an existential threat to humanity?

[Nordengrund]

Well I am a liberal so I'm probably more heretical than most Christians.

That depends on whether you mean "liberal" in a theological sense or a political sense.

Theological liberalism is usually heretical.

Political liberalism, on the other hand, is perfectly fine (well, I personally oppose it because I oppose individualism, but, like most political ideologies, it is compatible with Christianity).

It depends on how define political liberalism. Idk what liberal means in your country, but modern American liberals aren't that big on individualism, it seems. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. The liberalism you're thinking of is called classical liberalism in the Anglophone world.

[Oultremer]

Hello everyone.
I've posted in previous threads on a few occasions. Mainly as Galmarch.
I have been thinking of going to church tomorrow on sunday. First time in many many years if I do end up going.

I am a member and got confirmed in the Church of Sweden but have been thinking of leaving it.

[United Marxist Nations]

Hello everyone.
I've posted in previous threads on a few occasions. Mainly as Galmarch.
I have been thinking of going to church tomorrow on sunday. First time in many many years if I do end up going.

I am a member and got confirmed in the Church of Sweden but have been thinking of leaving it.

I wouldn't blame you at all for leaving the Church of Sweden. It has bishops who deny critical doctrines of the faith (in particular, the Virgin Birth).

[Constantinopolis]

Is it permissible to resist Caesar when he poses an existential threat to humanity?

It is permissible to resist Caesar for a number of different reasons, including but not limited to that one.

[Oultremer]

Hello everyone.
I've posted in previous threads on a few occasions. Mainly as Galmarch.
I have been thinking of going to church tomorrow on sunday. First time in many many years if I do end up going.

I am a member and got confirmed in the Church of Sweden but have been thinking of leaving it.

I wouldn't blame you at all for leaving the Church of Sweden. It has bishops who deny critical doctrines of the faith (in particular, the Virgin Birth).

They have a very universalist (I may have the wrong idea of what that is) feel to them.
The church I was thinking of attending mass tomorrow is a Roman Catholic one.
To be honest I am not very religious and have a hard time believing in most of the essential things. I like the idea of it all though.

[Salus Maior]

I wouldn't blame you at all for leaving the Church of Sweden. It has bishops who deny critical doctrines of the faith (in particular, the Virgin Birth).

They have a very universalist (I may have the wrong idea of what that is) feel to them.
The church I was thinking of attending mass tomorrow is a Roman Catholic one.
To be honest I am not very religious and have a hard time believing in most of the essential things. I like the idea of it all though.

Honestly, I think that's how a lot of Christians start out.

I'd definitely say that the Roman Catholic Church is a lot better when it comes to consistent theology and beliefs.

[Oultremer]

They have a very universalist (I may have the wrong idea of what that is) feel to them.
The church I was thinking of attending mass tomorrow is a Roman Catholic one.
To be honest I am not very religious and have a hard time believing in most of the essential things. I like the idea of it all though.

Honestly, I think that's how a lot of Christians start out.

I'd definitely say that the Roman Catholic Church is a lot better when it comes to consistent theology and beliefs.

I guess, also from what I've read and learned from my lurking is that if I do end up going to the Catholic church in Gothenburg that I do not take the Eucharist during the mass as I'm not Catholic right?
There are many things I do not really know about, other things I disagree on and have plenty of vices.

[Salus Maior]

Honestly, I think that's how a lot of Christians start out.

I'd definitely say that the Roman Catholic Church is a lot better when it comes to consistent theology and beliefs.

I guess, also from what I've read and learned from my lurking is that if I do end up going to the Catholic church in Gothenburg that I do not take the Eucharist during the mass as I'm not Catholic right?
There are many things I do not really know about, other things I disagree on and have plenty of vices.

Right. Yeah, you don't take part unless you're a member of the Church, same with Orthodoxy.

Well, that's why you ask questions. You should talk with the Priest after the service if you can. And remember, nobody's perfect. We've all got our skeletons in the closet, it's whether we have the will to improve ourselves that's important.

[Constantinopolis]

Yes, but she was not conceived or born in an exceptional way. She was conceived and born like any other human being, but grew up to live an extremely holy life as an adult.

Our concept of ancestral sin (or original sin) is also a little different, so that plays a part in our rejection of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, as it would have been unnecessary anyway.

It isnt that it would be necessary in Catholicism, its that it would be more fitting for the mother of God to have been born with sanctifying grace, rather than be deprived of it.
Pope Pius IX described it when he defined the Immaculate Conception; that it'd be fitting for Christ's mother to be so prepared, not that it'd be necessary that she be so prepared.

Edit: I'd say that it befits her role as the New Eve, and like Eve, was created in original holiness and justice; the sanctifying grace that was disinherited from mankind during the fall.

Well, I know we are absolutely splitting hairs on this issue. The difference between the two stances is, objectively speaking, quite small. And I think the Orthodox Church would most likely have no problem with the Immaculate Conception as a theological opinion held by some people. It's the fact that the Catholic Church raised it to the status of infallible dogma that is annoying. We absolutely cannot accept it as dogma; but as an opinion it's okay.

That depends on whether you mean "liberal" in a theological sense or a political sense.

Theological liberalism is usually heretical.

Political liberalism, on the other hand, is perfectly fine (well, I personally oppose it because I oppose individualism, but, like most political ideologies, it is compatible with Christianity).

It depends on how define political liberalism. Idk what liberal means in your country, but modern American liberals aren't that big on individualism, it seems. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. The liberalism you're thinking of is called classical liberalism in the Anglophone world.

All liberalism, including the modern American version, is founded on an individualistic view of the world. The different types of liberalism disagree on how best to promote the freedom of the individual, but they all agree that the freedom of the individual is the most important political concern.

Just argue with a modern American liberal about almost any social issue and you will immediately see him frame things in terms of promoting individual freedom.

[Constantinopolis]

I wouldn't blame you at all for leaving the Church of Sweden. It has bishops who deny critical doctrines of the faith (in particular, the Virgin Birth).

They have a very universalist (I may have the wrong idea of what that is) feel to them.
The church I was thinking of attending mass tomorrow is a Roman Catholic one.
To be honest I am not very religious and have a hard time believing in most of the essential things. I like the idea of it all though.

Yes, the Church of Sweden has become so all-embracing of all sorts of mutually incompatible viewpoints that it can hardly even be called a Christian Church any more. It would be more accurate to call it a religious organization that contains many Christians and many non-Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is much better. You should also attend a few services of the Orthodox Church if you can, although I'm not sure how many Orthodox churches there are in Gothenburg. Apparently there are a few? This blog seems to have information on them, although I don't know Swedish so I can't read it: Ortodoxakyrkan

I guess, also from what I've read and learned from my lurking is that if I do end up going to the Catholic church in Gothenburg that I do not take the Eucharist during the mass as I'm not Catholic right?
There are many things I do not really know about, other things I disagree on and have plenty of vices.

Yes. All of the ancient Churches follow the rule that you may only receive the Eucharist if you are a member of that specific Church, and if you have had a recent confession of your sins. Other conditions may also apply, which vary from church to church. Receiving the Eucharist is supposed to be treated like a great honour, which requires preparation - not like a routine thing.

As for the other things, you've come to the right place, this thread has people from all of the major Christian Churches who can explain things quite well.

And all of us, of course, have our vices.