www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Theotokos? Ever Virgin?

Yes sister,

We ask of our Lord His perfect grace and forgiveness both in life and in death. We cannot or should say that we are guaranteed the kingdom by just saying that we have been saved as so many of us born again Christians claim. This is an unbelieveable arrogance on our part.

Being born again is the turning away from sin to receive the King of Glory. This is something that does not happen in the twinkle of an eye or with the proclaimation of "once saved, always saved!"

True conversion of our hearts, minds, and souls is only accomplished by the letting go of our wills to accept Christ not once, but each day of our earthly pilgrimage. This is theosis as I understand it. But how is it possible for us as frail beings to meet this standard of holiness? I believe it is possible and part of God's wonderful plan for abundant life to take on the spirtual exercise of hesychia or the inner stillness of prayer.

There is a prerequiste to this and it is humility.

Yes sister,

We ask of our Lord His perfect grace and forgiveness both in life and in death. We cannot or should say that we are guaranteed the kingdom by just saying that we have been saved as so many of us born again Christians claim. This is an unbelieveable arrogance on our part.

I forgot to throw in my "two cents" about Schleirmacher and Barth. My paternal grandfather was Lutheran (my maternal Grandfather was Anglican-the women were Catholics). I know a little about the fights in Lutheranism which were provoked by the advent of the writings and teachings of Bultmann and others, and "higher criticism" of Holy Scripture. The "modernism" of that time was a combination of rationalism ( a suspicion of the supernatural in Scripture-Bultmann was definitely guilty of that), and subjectivism (the notion that Religion is a "funny inner feeling", and that one cannot know religious truth in a dogmatic sense, i.e., "my truth is as good as your truth"). From what I remember, Schleiermacher was definitely a leading subjectivist. Also, from what I recall, Barth was also a leading "luminary" in Liberal Protestantism. I can see where they would be inclined to downgrade the status of the Mother of God. What has been taught about her down through the ages doesn't line up well with the "Christ of History" whom their adherents are still trying to find (as opposed to the "Christ of Faith", which they see as being not the same Christ, but an invention of the pious). So, even if I were a Missouri Synod Lutheran (they uphold the supernatural in Scripture, and dismiss the scribblings of Bultmann and Schleirmacher), I would be inclined to regard favorably the terms "Theotokos" and "Ever Virgin Mary", for no other reason than that Bultmann, Barth, and Schleiermacher rejected them. Enough of my rambling. Hope this contributed something constructive to the conversation.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Actually, Barth was associated with Liberal Protestantism only early in his career. He would become a leading force among Protestants who would reject the approach associated with Schleirmacher and Bultmann.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist home, and came into the Eastern Church when I was thirty. Of course as a child, wakes were held in the homes of those who had passed, in the south we didn't have funeral homes.