Why Christians Call Mary the Mother of God.

[David1701]

A few observations.

First, regarding Matthias.
You say Matthias was not Judas' replacement because the apostles chose him rather than God.
But Acts says otherwise.

No, it doesn't.

Peter declared concerning Judas:

"His office let another take" (Acts 1:20).

Which says nothing about how that would be done; however, we know that every apostle had been chosen by the Lord, not by his disciples.

The apostles then identified qualified candidates and prayed:

The apostles presumptuously picked two people whom they thought might be suitable, rather than praying for God to pick whomever he wanted, however he wanted.

"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

Notice they did not ask God to approve their choice. They asked God to reveal His choice.

THEY had chosen two; but, there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate that God wanted either of them. They cast lots, meaning that the "answer" had to be one of those two. There is simply no faith in this episode at all.

Scripture then says:

"And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

So the text explicitly presents Matthias as the one chosen

It does not say that Matthias became an apostle. It says that he was "enrolled" (or "numbered with") the eleven apostles; and this was not done by the Lord, but by them.

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

Moreover, Acts does not merely say that Matthias was "numbered" with the apostles. The office under discussion is explicitly called:

"this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

Matthias was chosen to take Judas's place in that apostleship and was then:

"enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

They presumed to choose two from which God had to (I'm being sarcastic) choose, then numbered him with the eleven (God-chosen) apostles. The lot was an O.C. method of discovering God's will, not a N.C. method (that is prayer and faith); and they had stacked the deck, by limiting God's choice to two people whom they had chosen, and not the Lord.

Whether Matthias is mentioned later in Acts is beside the point. The text itself says he was chosen to take Judas's place in that apostleship.

See above.

And you may believe Paul later received a unique apostolic calling, and I agree that he did. But Paul's later apostleship does not change the fact that Acts 1 records Judas' office being filled by Matthias.

The Lord chose Paul; the apostles chose Barsabus and Matthias, then limited God to picking one of those two. The whole episode is a sad example of presumption taking the place of faith.

More importantly, it demonstrates that the apostles did not conclude that an apostolic office ceased to exist simply because its holder departed. They filled the vacancy.

God filled the vacancy, with Paul; they presumed to force God to pick one of their two candidates.

Second, regarding John 20:23, you have offered an interpretation, but the text itself says:

"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain are retained."

The "are forgiven" and "are retained", in John 20:23, are in the Greek perfect tense (happened in the past, with the result continuing in the present);so, the meaning is, objectively, from the grammar, "Whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven, with that forgiveness continuing in the present; and whose sins you retain have already been retained, with that retention continuing in the present.". In other words, they are only "forgiving" what God has already forgiven; and they are only "retaining" what God has already retained.

The text does not say:

"Announce to people that God has already forgiven them."

Nor does it say:

"Inform unbelievers that their sins remain."

That may be your interpretation, but it is not what the text explicitly says.

See above for an objective analysis of the text.

In fact, Jesus first says:

"As the Father has sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).

Then He breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit.
Then He speaks of forgiving and retaining sins.
That is a remarkably solemn commissioning if all that is meant is ordinary preaching.

See above.

Third, you ask about the phrase "Vicar of Christ."

A vicar is a representative or one who acts on behalf of another, not a replacement.

Paul calls himself:

"an ambassador for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

An ambassador does not replace the king who sends him. He acts under the king's authority.

Likewise, when I say the Apostles and their successors act as Christ's representatives, I am not saying they replace Christ.

Fourth, you keep saying that Catholic priests "replace Christ," but I have yet to see you demonstrate that claim.

In having people's confessions of sin made to them, claiming to forgive sins, issue unbiblical penances, change the wafer into Jesus with an incantation, etc., they are taking the place of the Lord.

Catholics explicitly teach that Christ is the one mediator and the source of all grace. The question is whether Christ can choose to exercise His ministry through human instruments.

Sophistry

You seem willing to accept that Christ preaches through preachers, shepherds through pastors, and works through believers who intercede for one another.

Apples and oranges

Yet when we arrive at John 20:23, suddenly any participation in Christ's ministry becomes "replacement."

Judas was replaced; that is simply a matter of fact.

Most importantly, I think you're bypassing the point I raised about the context.

Jesus is commissioning men who had failed Him spectacularly. They fled, denied Him, and abandoned Him. Yet rather than discarding them, He forgives them, restores them, sends them, gives them the Holy Spirit, and entrusts them with responsibilities concerning the forgiveness and retention of sins.

That tells me Christ intended these forgiven men to participate in His ministry of reconciliation, not merely stand on the sidelines and announce information.

Preaching the gospel should not be caricatured as, "...stand on the sidelines and announce information."!

So my question remains:

If John 20:23 means nothing more than informing people whether they are forgiven, why does Jesus connect it to being sent as He was sent, receiving the Holy Spirit, and exercising discernment regarding both the forgiveness and retention of sins?

That seems far more substantial than simply preaching the gospel.

Explained above; and I'm not going to keep repeating myself, if you refuse to receive correction.

 

[Moonwood]

We are both checking with scripture.
How come we don't agree on everything?

The answer is really quite simple, PRIDE!

I acknowledge that unholy pride can be a cause of disagreement. But I don't think it is the only cause, rather a combination of contributing factors.

It's my understanding that what ultimately helps overcome disagreement, division, and lack of charity is an increase of love. I'm not denying that there are people who love, or even love much, but every soul can always love more.

Scripture says:

"Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7).

"The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6).

"Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8).

So the equation seems simple: if you have love, you have God; and if you have God, you have wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

Therefore, if all souls sincerely and continuously asked God for, or at least desired, an increase of love, it would lead us closer to the same wisdom, the same knowledge, and the same understanding. The more one loves, the more room one gives God to act within the soul.

And where God is present, the fruits of the Holy Spirit increase. Such love helps us bear patiently with one another when sincere disagreements arise and overcomes much of the division and lack of charity that often accompany them.

 

[Moonwood]

No, it doesn't.




Which says nothing about how that would be done; however, we know that every apostle had been chosen by the Lord, not by his disciples.


The apostles presumptuously picked two people whom they thought might be suitable, rather than praying for God to pick whomever he wanted, however he wanted.


THEY had chosen two; but, there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate that God wanted either of them. They cast lots, meaning that the "answer" had to be one of those two. There is simply no faith in this episode at all.


It does not say that Matthias became an apostle. It says that he was "enrolled" (or "numbered with") the eleven apostles; and this was not done by the Lord, but by them.


They presumed to choose two from which God had to (I'm being sarcastic) choose, then numbered him with the eleven (God-chosen) apostles. The lot was an O.C. method of discovering God's will, not a N.C. method (that is prayer and faith); and they had stacked the deck, by limiting God's choice to two people whom they had chosen, and not the Lord.


See above.


The Lord chose Paul; the apostles chose Barsabus and Matthias, then limited God to picking one of those two. The whole episode is a sad example of presumption taking the place of faith.



God filled the vacancy, with Paul; they presumed to force God to pick one of their two candidates.


The "are forgiven" and "are retained", in John 20:23, are in the Greek perfect tense (happened in the past, with the result continuing in the present);so, the meaning is, objectively, from the grammar, "Whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven, with that forgiveness continuing in the present; and whose sins you retain have already been retained, with that retention continuing in the present.". In other words, they are only "forgiving" what God has already forgiven; and they are only "retaining" what God has already retained.


See above for an objective analysis of the text.


See above.


In having people's confessions of sin made to them, claiming to forgive sins, issue unbiblical penances, change the wafer into Jesus with an incantation, etc., they are taking the place of the Lord.


Sophistry


Apples and oranges


Judas was replaced; that is simply a matter of fact.




Preaching the gospel should not be caricatured as, "...stand on the sidelines and announce information."!


Explained above; and I'm not going to keep repeating myself, if you refuse to receive correction.

I think we're approaching Acts 1 from two different directions.

I'm trying to read the text as it stands, whereas you seem to be reading it through the assumption that the apostles acted wrongly.

You argue that apostles are chosen by God, not men. I agree.

You emphasize that Matthias was merely "numbered with" or "enrolled with" the apostles, as though that somehow falls short of becoming an apostle.

But Peter himself said Judas Iscariot was "numbered among us" (Acts 1:17). The Koine Greek word used in Acts 1:17 is καταριθμέω which means:

"to enumerate, number with, count with"

Peter then quotes Psalms: 109:8

"'His office let another take.'" (Acts 1:20)

The Koine Greek word used in Acts 1:20 is ἐπισκοπή (episkopēn) which, from the Hebrew, means:

"charge, function"

Then the eleven apostles prayed:

“Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen..." (Acts 1:24)

Notice they did not ask God to approve their choice. They asked God to reveal His choice.

And how did the Lord reveal His choice?

"And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:26)

The Greek word used in Acts 1:26 is συγκαταψηφίζομαι (synkatepsēphisthē) which means:

"to count with, number with, be chosen together with."

And the context immediately preceding it says Matthias was chosen:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

The Koine Greek word in Acts 1:25 is ἀποστολή (apostolēs) which means:

a sending, expedition; office or duty of one sent as a messenger or agent; office of an apostle, apostleship, Acts 1:25; Rom. 1:5; 1 Cor. 9:2; Gal. 2:8

So Acts does not merely present Matthias as being present among the apostles. It presents him as taking Judas' place in the ministry and apostleship.

You may believe Paul later received a unique apostolic calling, and I agree that he did. But Paul's later apostleship does not change the fact that Acts 1 records Judas' office being filled by Matthias.

More importantly, it demonstrates that the apostles did not conclude that an apostolic office ceased to exist simply because its holder departed. They filled the vacancy.

As for Matthias not being mentioned again, several apostles largely disappear from the narrative of Acts. An argument from silence does not overturn what Acts explicitly says about Matthias' appointment.

Regarding John 20:23, you keep saying that it means only declaring a forgiveness that already exists. But that remains an interpretation, not the wording of the text itself.

Jesus says:

"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).

He then breathes on them, gives them the Holy Spirit, and immediately speaks about forgiving and retaining sins.

If all He intended was, "Tell believers they're forgiven and tell unbelievers they're not," then why the solemn commissioning? Why the breathing of the Holy Spirit? Why the language of both forgiveness and retention?
It seems to me that Christ is doing more than merely authorizing the announcement of information. He is entrusting these men, who had themselves received mercy after their failures, with a participation in His ministry of reconciliation.

So my question remains:

Where does the text itself say that Matthias was an apostolic mistake later corrected by Paul, or that John 20:23 refers only to announcing a forgiveness that already exists? Those conclusions seem to be brought to the text rather than drawn from it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Christians don't call Mary the mother of god.
Catholics do, but Christians don't.

Jesus said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
(Matthew 12:50)

That's funny . . .

YOU may not refer to Mary as the Mother of God - but the BIBLE sure does . . .

Matt. 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: HIS MOTHER MARY was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 2:11
On coming to the house, they saw the child with HIS MOTHER MARY, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this MARY’S SON . . .

Luke 1:43
But why am I so favored, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?

Luke 2:2-5
2 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. JESUS’ MOTHER was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, JESUS’ MOTHER said to him, “They have no more wine.”
4 “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
5 HIS MOTHER said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

John 2:1-2
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. JESUS’ MOTHER WAS THERE, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had ALSO been invited to the wedding.

Acts 1:24
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS, and with his brothers.

Jesus is not God AND Man. He is the GOD-MAN (Theanthropos). His 2 natures CANNOT be separated.
Mary didn't give birth to the "human" side of JEsus. She gave birth to othe GOD-MAN . . .


As for Catholilcs NOT being Christians - ummmm, we were the very FIRST Christians.
YOUR brand of Christianity didn't come around until 1500 years AFTER the death of the last Apostle.

In Matt. 12:50, Jesus is speaking metaphorically.
Maybe a little homework might do you some good . . .


PS - your Protestant Fathers also believed that Mary is the Mother of God.
Ummm - were THEY Christians?? . . .

Martin Luther
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the MOTHER OF GOD ... It is certain that MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE REAL AND TRUE GOD."

"St. Paul says 'God sent his Son born of a woman, ' These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 592)

"This article of faith- that MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD- is present in the Church from the beginning and is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 572)

"It is certain that MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE REAL AND TRUE GOD."
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called MARY MOTHER OF THE LORD, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that THE MORTAL MAN ENGENDERED IN THE WOMB OF MARY AS AT THE SAME TIME THE ETERNAL GOD.
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

John Wycliffe
"IT SEEMS TO ME IMPOSSIBLE THAT WE SHOULD OBTAIN THE REWARD OF HEAVEN WITHOUT THE HELP OF MARY. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin." [Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingli
"I ESTEEM IMMENSELY THE MOTHER OF GOD".
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow". [The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905].

Heinrich Bullinger, Ulrich Zwingli’s successor
"Nestorius, the heretic, recognized two natures in Christ, and he understood them as being TWO PERSONS. Indeed he taught that the Word had not been united in ONE PERSON with the flesh, but had only been its habitation in the flesh: that is why he would not admit that THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY WAS CALLED “THEOTOKOS” OR “MOTHER OF GOD.”

Charles Drelincourt, the French Reformed pastor, 1633
"On account of this close and unaccountable union (of the natures of Christ), what belonged to one of those natures can be attributed generally to the PERSON. Hence just as the Apostle, St. Paul, said that the Jews crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2)...we find no difficulty in saying with the Ancients, that the VIRGIN MARY IS THE MOTHER OF GOD; for he whom she bore is GOD above all else, eternally blest (Rom

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Christians don't pray to Mary.
Because Jesus and His apostles never did, not did they teach others to.

Ay, yi, yi . . .

Definition of the word “PRAY”:
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Full Definition of pray:

transitive verb
1: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea<pray be careful>
2: to get or bring by praying

intransitive verb
1: to make a request in a humble manner
2: to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

Acts 27:34
"Wherefore I PRAY YOU to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you".

Tell me - was Paul "worshipping" Timothy when he PRAYED to him?
OR - was he simply making a PLEA?

ALL members of the Body Christ are called to intercede for one another with prayer and supplications (2 Cor. 1:10-11, Eph. 6:18-20, 1Tim. 2:1-4, James 5:16). YOU ask (PRAY) friends to pray for YOU or a loved one.

Tell me something – WHEN did the saints in Heaven get kicked-out of the Body of Christ??

 

[Moonwood]

I can understand push-back from Protestants (of which I'm one) on the assumption,,,,even the Immac Concep (although I think that's pretty solid too)

I understand the human desire to read explicit statements such as "Mary was without sin" or "Mary's body was assumed into Heaven." But much about Mary remains veiled in Scripture. Even so, if we carefully consider what Scripture says about God and about Mary, I think there is still enough to point toward these beliefs.

For example, Scripture tells us that "Holiness befits your house, O Lord, forevermore" (Psalm 93:5), and Christ Himself teaches that "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

So how could the Woman chosen to be the earthly dwelling place of God the Word Incarnate be anything less than specially prepared and sanctified for such a vocation?

For that reason, it seems reasonable that She would have been made pure in body and soul for the vocation God had decreed for Her from all eternity. Through Isaiah, God foretold that the virgin would conceive and bear a son. Mary was not an afterthought in God's plan.

Scripture also seems to present Mary as the New Eve.

Eve was created spotless, yet by her disobedience participated in humanity's fall. Mary, living not in Eden but in a fallen world, received God's messenger and answered, "Let it be to me according to your word." Where Eve's "no" contributed to death, Mary's "yes" opened the way for the coming of the Savior. It is difficult for me to see this parallel as accidental.

Likewise, Luke's Gospel appears to present Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. When David approached the Ark, he exclaimed, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" When Mary came to Elizabeth, Elizabeth exclaimed, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" David leapt before the Ark; John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb before Mary. The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months; Mary remained with Elizabeth for about three months.

The old Ark carried the word of God written on stone, the manna from Heaven, and Aaron's priestly rod. Mary carried within Her womb the living Word of God, the true Bread from Heaven, and the eternal High Priest. If God commanded such reverence for the Ark that bore symbols of His presence, how much more would He prepare the woman who was to bear His presence Himself?

Yet Scripture also preserves Mary's own words:

"...my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47)

So how are these truths reconciled?

Mary indeed needed a Savior. Catholics do not believe otherwise. Rather, they believe She was saved in a unique way: not by being cleansed after falling into sin, but by being preserved from sin through the merits of Christ's future sacrifice. The physician who prevents a disease has saved just as surely as the physician who cures one.

Still, I feel any answer of my own falls short. While not Scripture, I find the following theological and poetic reflection beautifully expresses why Catholics see such holiness as fitting for the Mother of God:

"The Most Holy Trinity descended with Its perfections, inhabited with Its Three Persons, enclosed Its infinity in a small space. But It did not debase Itself by doing so, because the love of the Virgin and the will of God widened this space until they rendered it a Heaven. And the Most Holy Trinity made Itself known by Its characteristics:

The Father, being once again the Creator of the creature, as on the sixth day of Creation, had a real, worthy daughter fashioned to His perfect image. The mark of God was impressed so completely and exactly on Mary, that only in the Firstborn was it greater. Mary can be called the Second-born of the Father because, owing to the perfection granted to Her and preserved by Her, and to Her dignity of Spouse and Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She comes second after the Son of the Father and second in His eternal thought, which ab aeterno took delight in Her.

The Son, being also "Her Son", did teach Her, by the mystery of Grace, His truth and wisdom, when He was but an Embryo, growing in Her womb.

The Holy Spirit appeared amongst men, for an anticipated prolonged Pentecost: Love for "Her Whom He loved", Consolation to men because of the Fruit of Her Womb, Sanctification on account of the Maternity of the Holy One.

God, to reveal Himself to men in the new and complete form, which starts the Redemption era, did not select for His throne a star in the sky, nor the palace of a powerful man. Neither did He want the wings of angels as the base of His feet. He wanted a spotless womb.

Also Eve had been created spotless. But she wanted to become corrupt of her own free will. Mary, Who lived in a corrupt world—Eve was in a pure world—did not wish to violate Her purity, not even with one thought remotely connected with sin. She knew that sin exists. She saw its various and horrible forms and implications. She saw them all, including the most hideous one: deicide. But She knew them solely to expiate them and to be, forever, the Woman who has mercy on sinners and prays for their redemption."

 

[David1701]

I think we're approaching Acts 1 from two different directions.

I'm trying to read the text as it stands, whereas you seem to be reading it through the assumption that the apostles acted wrongly.

You argue that apostles are chosen by God, not men. I agree.

You emphasize that Matthias was merely "numbered with" or "enrolled with" the apostles, as though that somehow falls short of becoming an apostle.

But Peter himself said Judas Iscariot was "numbered among us" (Acts 1:17). The Koine Greek word used in Acts 1:17 is καταριθμέω which means:

"to enumerate, number with, count with"

Peter then quotes Psalms: 109:8

"'His office let another take.'" (Acts 1:20)

The Koine Greek word used in Acts 1:20 is ἐπισκοπή (episkopēn) which, from the Hebrew, means:

"charge, function"

Then the eleven apostles prayed:

“Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen..." (Acts 1:24)

Notice they did not ask God to approve their choice. They asked God to reveal His choice.

And how did the Lord reveal His choice?

"And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:26)

The Greek word used in Acts 1:26 is συγκαταψηφίζομαι (synkatepsēphisthē) which means:

"to count with, number with, be chosen together with."

And the context immediately preceding it says Matthias was chosen:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

The Koine Greek word in Acts 1:25 is ἀποστολή (apostolēs) which means:

a sending, expedition; office or duty of one sent as a messenger or agent; office of an apostle, apostleship, Acts 1:25; Rom. 1:5; 1 Cor. 9:2; Gal. 2:8

So Acts does not merely present Matthias as being present among the apostles. It presents him as taking Judas' place in the ministry and apostleship.

You may believe Paul later received a unique apostolic calling, and I agree that he did. But Paul's later apostleship does not change the fact that Acts 1 records Judas' office being filled by Matthias.

More importantly, it demonstrates that the apostles did not conclude that an apostolic office ceased to exist simply because its holder departed. They filled the vacancy.

As for Matthias not being mentioned again, several apostles largely disappear from the narrative of Acts. An argument from silence does not overturn what Acts explicitly says about Matthias' appointment.

Regarding John 20:23, you keep saying that it means only declaring a forgiveness that already exists. But that remains an interpretation, not the wording of the text itself.

Jesus says:

"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).

He then breathes on them, gives them the Holy Spirit, and immediately speaks about forgiving and retaining sins.

If all He intended was, "Tell believers they're forgiven and tell unbelievers they're not," then why the solemn commissioning? Why the breathing of the Holy Spirit? Why the language of both forgiveness and retention?
It seems to me that Christ is doing more than merely authorizing the announcement of information. He is entrusting these men, who had themselves received mercy after their failures, with a participation in His ministry of reconciliation.

So my question remains:

Where does the text itself say that Matthias was an apostolic mistake later corrected by Paul, or that John 20:23 refers only to announcing a forgiveness that already exists? Those conclusions seem to be brought to the text rather than drawn from it.

I've already pointed out that the apostles, without seeking God's leading, had already chosen two men, from whom God was expected to pick one. This is presumption, not faith. They had no right to pick men from whom God had to choose one. They then used an O.C. method of seeking God's will (casting of lots) and asked God to show which of the two he had chosen (but they had chosen the two, not God); but, the lot, by its nature, will pick one of the two, whether it was God's will or not.

This is not rocket science. It's obvious that they made a presumptuous mistake, and that Paul was God's chosen replacement.

The forgiven and retained sins had already been forgiven or retained (clearly, by God), as the grammar shows , so all the apostles can do is to declare what God has already done; but, they can do it in his authority, knowing that he has already done it. This means that they can say, to one who repents and believes, "You are forgiven.", or, to one who rejects the gospel, "Your sins are retained.".

 

[Moonwood]

I've already pointed out that the apostles, without seeking God's leading, had already chosen two men, from whom God was expected to pick one. This is presumption, not faith. They had no right to pick men from whom God had to choose one. They then used an O.C. method of seeking God's will (casting of lots) and asked God to show which of the two he had chosen (but they had chosen the two, not God); but, the lot, by its nature, will pick one of the two, whether it was God's will or not.

This is not rocket science. It's obvious that they made a presumptuous mistake, and that Paul was God's chosen replacement.

The forgiven and retained sins had already been forgiven or retained (clearly, by God), as the grammar shows , so all the apostles can do is to declare what God has already done; but, they can do it in his authority, knowing that he has already done it. This means that they can say, to one who repents and believes, "You are forgiven.", or, to one who rejects the gospel, "Your sins are retained.".

I think that's where we differ.

You're reading Acts 1 through the assumption that the apostles acted presumptuously and made a mistake. I'm looking for where the text itself says that.

You say:

"They had no right to pick men from whom God had to choose one."

But Acts says they first established the qualifications for the office:

"one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts 1:22).

They then presented two qualified candidates and prayed:

"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

The text does not say:

"Lord, choose one of the men we have chosen."

Rather, it says:

"Lord...show which one... thou hast chosen."

In other words, they believed the Lord had already chosen one and were asking Him to reveal that choice.

Furthermore, Luke never tells us they made a mistake. He never says:

"The apostles acted presumptuously."

or:

"Matthias was not the true replacement."

or:

"Paul later corrected their error."

Those conclusions are not found in Acts 1 itself.

In fact, Luke says Matthias was chosen:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

and that

"the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

You may believe Paul later received a unique apostolic calling, and I agree that he did. But Paul's later apostleship does not change the fact that Acts 1 records Judas' office being filled by Matthias.

More importantly, it demonstrates that the apostles did not conclude that an apostolic office ceased to exist simply because its holder departed. They filled the vacancy.

As for Matthias not being mentioned again, several apostles largely disappear from the narrative of Acts. An argument from silence does not overturn what Acts explicitly says about Matthias' appointment.

And this raises another question:

If God intended Paul to replace Judas, then why did God choose Matthias at all?

According to Acts, the apostles prayed:

"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

Then:

"the lot fell on Matthias" (Acts 1:26).

If Matthias was not God's choice, then where does Acts indicate that the apostles misunderstood God's will, that the Lord refused their prayer, or that Matthias' appointment was invalid?

I don't see that stated anywhere in the text.



As for John 20:23, I understand your interpretation. My point is that the passage itself says more than:

"Tell people that God has already forgiven them."

Jesus first says:

"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).

Then He breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit.

Then He says:

"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain are retained."

If the entire meaning is simply announcing to believers that they are forgiven and to unbelievers that they are not, then why the special gift of the Holy Spirit, and why the language of both forgiveness and retention?
I don't deny that your interpretation is possible. What I'm saying is that the text itself does not explicitly state your interpretation, nor does it explicitly state that Matthias was an apostolic mistake later corrected by Paul.

Those conclusions seem to be inferred from the text rather than stated by it.

 

[David1701]

I think that's where we differ.

You're reading Acts 1 through the assumption that the apostles acted presumptuously and made a mistake. I'm looking for where the text itself says that.

You say:

"They had no right to pick men from whom God had to choose one."

But Acts says they first established the qualifications for the office:

"one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts 1:22).

They then presented two qualified candidates and prayed:

"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

The text does not say:

"Lord, choose one of the men we have chosen."

Rather, it says:

"Lord...show which one... thou hast chosen."

In other words, they believed the Lord had already chosen one and were asking Him to reveal that choice.

Furthermore, Luke never tells us they made a mistake. He never says:

"The apostles acted presumptuously."

or:

"Matthias was not the true replacement."

or:

"Paul later corrected their error."

Those conclusions are not found in Acts 1 itself.

In fact, Luke says Matthias was chosen:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

and that

"the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

As for John 20:23, I understand your interpretation. My point is that the passage itself says more than:

"Tell people that God has already forgiven them."

Jesus first says:

"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).

Then He breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit.

Then He says:

"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain are retained."

If the entire meaning is simply announcing to believers that they are forgiven and to unbelievers that they are not, then why the special gift of the Holy Spirit, and why the language of both forgiveness and retention?
I don't deny that your interpretation is possible. What I'm saying is that the text itself does not explicitly state your interpretation, nor does it explicitly state that Matthias was an apostolic mistake later corrected by Paul.

Those conclusions seem to be inferred from the text rather than stated by it.

No. I'm looking at what the text says, then understanding it, in its immediate context, and in comparison with other scriptures about the same subject. You are looking at the text says, then ignoring the problematic elements of what the apostles did.

I'm going to stop beating the dead horse now.

 

[Moonwood]

No. I'm looking at what the text says, then understanding it, in its immediate context, and in comparison with other scriptures about the same subject. You are looking at the text says, then ignoring the problematic elements of what the apostles did.

I'm going to stop beating the dead horse now.

That's really the point I've been making.

You see "problematic elements" in Acts 1, but I don't see where the text itself identifies them as problematic.

The text says:

"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).

and:

"the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).

If God intended Paul to replace Judas, then why did God show that He had chosen Matthias at all?

In fact, the text explicitly says God chose Matthias for this purpose:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).

The passage never says the apostles acted presumptuously, never says Matthias was the wrong choice, and never says Paul later replaced Matthias.

Those conclusions may be your interpretation of the passage, but they are not statements made by the passage itself.

That is why I said we are approaching Acts 1 from two different directions. I'm trying to derive my conclusions from what the text explicitly says, whereas your conclusion that Matthias was a mistake seems to come from assumptions brought to the text.

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand the human desire to read explicit statements such as "Mary was without sin" or "Mary's body was assumed into Heaven." But much about Mary remains veiled in Scripture. Even so, if we carefully consider what Scripture says about God and about Mary, I think there is still enough to point toward these beliefs.

For example, Scripture tells us that "Holiness befits your house, O Lord, forevermore" (Psalm 93:5), and Christ Himself teaches that "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

So how could the Woman chosen to be the earthly dwelling place of God the Word Incarnate be anything less than specially prepared and sanctified for such a vocation?

For that reason, it seems reasonable that She would have been made pure in body and soul for the vocation God had decreed for Her from all eternity. Through Isaiah, God foretold that the virgin would conceive and bear a son. Mary was not an afterthought in God's plan.

Scripture also seems to present Mary as the New Eve.

Eve was created spotless, yet by her disobedience participated in humanity's fall. Mary, living not in Eden but in a fallen world, received God's messenger and answered, "Let it be to me according to your word." Where Eve's "no" contributed to death, Mary's "yes" opened the way for the coming of the Savior. It is difficult for me to see this parallel as accidental.

Likewise, Luke's Gospel appears to present Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. When David approached the Ark, he exclaimed, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" When Mary came to Elizabeth, Elizabeth exclaimed, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" David leapt before the Ark; John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb before Mary. The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months; Mary remained with Elizabeth for about three months.

The old Ark carried the word of God written on stone, the manna from Heaven, and Aaron's priestly rod. Mary carried within Her womb the living Word of God, the true Bread from Heaven, and the eternal High Priest. If God commanded such reverence for the Ark that bore symbols of His presence, how much more would He prepare the woman who was to bear His presence Himself?

Yet Scripture also preserves Mary's own words:

"...my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47)

So how are these truths reconciled?

Mary indeed needed a Savior. Catholics do not believe otherwise. Rather, they believe She was saved in a unique way: not by being cleansed after falling into sin, but by being preserved from sin through the merits of Christ's future sacrifice. The physician who prevents a disease has saved just as surely as the physician who cures one.

Still, I feel any answer of my own falls short. While not Scripture, I find the following theological and poetic reflection beautifully expresses why Catholics see such holiness as fitting for the Mother of God:

"The Most Holy Trinity descended with Its perfections, inhabited with Its Three Persons, enclosed Its infinity in a small space. But It did not debase Itself by doing so, because the love of the Virgin and the will of God widened this space until they rendered it a Heaven. And the Most Holy Trinity made Itself known by Its characteristics:

The Father, being once again the Creator of the creature, as on the sixth day of Creation, had a real, worthy daughter fashioned to His perfect image. The mark of God was impressed so completely and exactly on Mary, that only in the Firstborn was it greater. Mary can be called the Second-born of the Father because, owing to the perfection granted to Her and preserved by Her, and to Her dignity of Spouse and Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She comes second after the Son of the Father and second in His eternal thought, which ab aeterno took delight in Her.

The Son, being also "Her Son", did teach Her, by the mystery of Grace, His truth and wisdom, when He was but an Embryo, growing in Her womb.

The Holy Spirit appeared amongst men, for an anticipated prolonged Pentecost: Love for "Her Whom He loved", Consolation to men because of the Fruit of Her Womb, Sanctification on account of the Maternity of the Holy One.

God, to reveal Himself to men in the new and complete form, which starts the Redemption era, did not select for His throne a star in the sky, nor the palace of a powerful man. Neither did He want the wings of angels as the base of His feet. He wanted a spotless womb.

Also Eve had been created spotless. But she wanted to become corrupt of her own free will. Mary, Who lived in a corrupt world—Eve was in a pure world—did not wish to violate Her purity, not even with one thought remotely connected with sin. She knew that sin exists. She saw its various and horrible forms and implications. She saw them all, including the most hideous one: deicide. But She knew them solely to expiate them and to be, forever, the Woman who has mercy on sinners and prays for their redemption."

You won't get any argument from me.

There is literally too much to say about this.
Here is what some Father's stated:

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is ‘the dwelling of God . . . with men’” (CCC 2676).


Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant:

Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant	Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11).	Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).	John the Baptist – of priestly lineage – leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).
David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam. 6:9).	Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43).
David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).	Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of Mary (Luke 1:42).
The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).	Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).	The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45).
The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11).	Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant	Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the law – the word of God inscribed on stone	The body of Jesus Christ – the word of God in the flesh
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness – the miraculous bread come down from heaven	The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest	The actual and eternal High Pries

source: Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

 

[GodsGrace]

I acknowledge that unholy pride can be a cause of disagreement. But I don't think it is the only cause, rather a combination of contributing factors.

It's my understanding that what ultimately helps overcome disagreement, division, and lack of charity is an increase of love. I'm not denying that there are people who love, or even love much, but every soul can always love more.

Scripture says:

"Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7).

"The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6).

"Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8).

So the equation seems simple: if you have love, you have God; and if you have God, you have wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

Therefore, if all souls sincerely and continuously asked God for, or at least desired, an increase of love, it would lead us closer to the same wisdom, the same knowledge, and the same understanding. The more one loves, the more room one gives God to act within the soul.

And where God is present, the fruits of the Holy Spirit increase. Such love helps us bear patiently with one another when sincere disagreements arise and overcomes much of the division and lack of charity that often accompany them.

There are different reasons why we do not agree with each other as we should.

Jesus wanted unity:
John 17:20-21
20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21that they may all be one;


Paul taught the same:
Philippians 2:1-2
1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

The church (small c) remained united for almost 2 thousand years.
I suppose the Reformation was needed in some respects.
But it divided Christianity and we find ourselves with hundreds of denominations, if not thousands.

This is not what Jesus wanted and it's always man to cause ruination.

 

[Moonwood]

There are different reasons why we do not agree with each other as we should.

Jesus wanted unity:
John 17:20-21
20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21that they may all be one;


Paul taught the same:
Philippians 2:1-2
1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

The church (small c) remained united for almost 2 thousand years.
I suppose the Reformation was needed in some respects.
But it divided Christianity and we find ourselves with hundreds of denominations, if not thousands.

This is not what Jesus wanted and it's always man to cause ruination.

I agree that pride has played a significant role in many divisions. Human weakness, self-will, ambition, and lack of charity have often contributed to creating and deepening disagreements. At the same time, I don't think pride is the only factor. We are finite and imperfect, and sometimes sincere people reach different conclusions even while honestly seeking God.

Christ prayed that His followers would be one (John 17:20-21) and taught that there would be "one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). As a Catholic, I believe the Catholic Church today is the same Church founded by Christ and entrusted to the apostles. Through apostolic succession, the authority Christ gave to the apostles has been handed down from generation to generation through the bishops. While divisions later occurred and Christians became separated into different communions, the Catholic Church has maintained that apostolic lineage and continuity.

For me, apostolic succession is important because Christianity was not intended to be passed on merely through private interpretation of Scripture, but through a living Church entrusted to the apostles and their successors. This continuity helps safeguard the faith Christ gave to His Church and reflects His desire that His people remain one flock under one shepherd. While many who became separated were sincere in their intentions, I believe Christ's call remains the same: unity in truth, charity, and communion with the Church He established.

What seems most important to me, however, is the remedy. Scripture repeatedly points us toward love: "Whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7), "The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6), and "love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8). If God is love, then the more we allow His love to grow within us, the more receptive we become to His wisdom and understanding.

Paul urged believers to be of the same mind and united in spirit (Philippians 2:1-2). I believe growth in genuine love is one of the primary ways God leads us toward that unity. Even where sincere disagreements remain, greater love helps us bear patiently with one another, seek truth humbly, and avoid the bitterness and lack of charity that so often accompany division.

In that sense, the problem is not merely that people disagree, but that we do not yet love as fully as we could. Every soul can grow in love. As love increases, room is made for God to act more deeply within us, producing the fruits of the Holy Spirit and drawing us closer not only to Himself, but also to one another.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Here's a link to an R.C. site, which claims that Mary is our "Co-redemptrix" and that this assertion comes from the so-called "Magisterium". Needless to say, it's the usual tedious R.C. sophistry.

Mary, Coredemptrix: The Significance of Her Title in the Magisterium of The Church

PLEASE do your homework before posting on ANYTHING having to do with the Cathollic Church . . .
First of all – “Co-Redemptrix” is NOT an official o0r dogmatic title. It's more opf a term of endearment.

Secondly, the title itself does NOT mean that Mary is somehow “equal” to Jesus. Mary is a created being whereas, Jesus is the Creator.

Thirdly – the Latin term, “Co” does NOT mean “equal to”. That is a modern English transliteration of this word, which simply means “With”. She cooperates(ed) with God’s grace to bring the Savior into the world.

Referring to Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” simply means that she cooperates with God’s grace.
It is in THIS sense that we are ALL called upon to be Co-Redeemers by cooperating with God’s grace and living a Christian life of faith, hope and CHARITY. This includes prayerfully interceding for one anotheer.

If you're NOT - then, there is a question as to whether or not YOU are truly redeemed . . .