Mary Matters (Dr. Walter Martin on disbelief in the Mother of God)

In my new book, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, , I spend most of its pages in classic apologetic defense of Mary as Mother of God, defending her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, her Queenship, and her role in God’s plan of salvation as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. But perhaps my most important contributions in the book may well be how I demonstrate each of these doctrines to be crucial for our spiritual lives and even our salvation.

And I should note that this applies to all of the Marian doctrines. Not only Protestants, but many Catholics will be surprised to see how the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, for example, is crucial for all Christians to understand lest they misapprehend the truth concerning the sacred, marriage, sacraments, the consecrated life, and more.

I won’t attempt to re-produce the entire book in this post, but I will choose one example among examples I use to demonstrate why Mary as Mother of God not only matters, but how denying this dogma of the Faith can end in the loss of understanding of “the one true God and Jesus Christ whom [God] has sent” (John 17:3). It doesn’t get any more serious than that!

In my book, I use the teaching of the late, well-known, and beloved Protestant Apologist, Dr. Walter Martin, as one of my examples. In his classic apologetics work, Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Martin, gives us keen insight into why the dogma of the Theotokos (“God-bearer,” a synonym with “Mother of God”) is such a “big deal.” But first some background information.

It is very easy to state what it is that you don’t believe. That has been the history of Protestantism. Protestantism itself began as a… you guessed it… “protest.” “We are against this, this, this, and this.” It was a “protest” against Catholicism. However, the movement could not continue to exist as a protestant against something. It had to stand for something. And that is when the trouble began. When groups of non-infallible men attempted to agree, the result ended up being the thousands of Protestant sects we see today.

Dr. Walter Martin was a good Protestant. He certainly and boldly proclaimed, “I do not believe Mary is the Mother of God.” That’s fine and good. The hard part came when he had to build a theology congruent with his denial. With Dr. Martin, it is difficult to know for sure whether his bad Christology came before or after his bad Mariology—I argue it was probably bad Christology that came first—but let’s just say for now that in the process of theologizing about both Jesus and Mary, he ended up claiming Mary was “the mother of Jesus’ body,” and not the Mother of God. He claimed Mary “gave Jesus his human nature alone,” so that we cannot say she is the Mother of God; she is the mother of the man, Jesus Christ.

This radical division of humanity and divinity manifests itself in various ways in Dr. Martin’s theology. He claimed, for example, that “sonship” in Christ has nothing at all to do with God in his eternal relations within the Blessed Trinity. In Martin’s Christology, divinity and humanity are so sharply divided that he concluded “eternal sonship” to be an unbiblical Catholic invention. On page 103 of his 1977 edition of The Kingdom of the Cults, he wrote:

[T]here cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, for there is a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word “Son” predicates time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless, “…the Word was in the beginning” not the Son!

From Martin’s perspective then, Mary as “Mother of God” is a non-starter. If “Son of God” refers to Christ as the eternal son, then there would be no denying that Mary is the mother of the Son of God, who is God; hence, Mother of God would be an inescapable conclusion. But if sonship only applies to “time and creativity,” then references to Mary’s “son” would not refer to divinity at all.

But there is just a little problem here. Beyond the fact that you don’t even need the term “Son” at all to determine Mary is the Mother God because John 1:14 tells us “the Word was made flesh,” and John 1:1 tells us “the Word was God;” thus, Mary is the mother of the Word and so she is the Mother of God anyway, the sad fact is that in the process of Martin’s theologizing he ended up losing the real Jesus. Notice, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is no longer the Eternal Son! And it gets worse from here, if that is possible! Martin would go on:

The term “Son” itself is a functional term, as is the term “Father” and has no meaning apart from time. The term “Father” incidentally never carries the descriptive adjective “eternal” in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal (“the eternal Spirit”—Hebrews 9:14), emphasizing the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional as previously stated.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of what we are saying here. Jesus revealed to us the essential truth that God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his inner life. For Martin, God would be father by analogy in relation to the humanity of Christ, but not in the eternal divine relations; hence, he is not the eternal Father. So, not only did Dr. Martin end up losing Jesus, the eternal Son; he lost the Father as well! This compels us to ask the question: Who then is God, the Blessed Trinity, in eternity, according to Dr. Walter Martin and all those who agree with his theology? He is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He must be the eternal … Blah… the Word, and the Holy Spirit (Martin did teach Christ to be the Eternal Word, just not the Eternal Son). He would become a father by analogy when he created the universe and again by analogy at the incarnation of the Word and through the adoption of all Christians as “sons of God.” But he would not be the eternal Father. The metaphysical problems begin here and continue to eternity… literally. Let us now summarize Dr. Martin’s teaching and some of the problems it presents:

1. Fatherhood and Sonship would not be intrinsic to God. The Catholic Church understands that an essential aspect of Christ’s mission was to reveal God to us as he is in his inner life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Jews already understood God to be father by analogy, but they had no knowledge of God as eternal Father in relation to the Eternal Son. In Jesus’ great high priestly prayer in John 17, he declared his Father was Father “before the world was made” and thus, to quote CCC 239, in “an unheard-of sense.” In fact, Christ revealed God’s name as Father. Names in Hebrew culture reveal something about the character of the one named. Thus, he reveals God to be Father, not just that he is like a father. God never becomes Father; he is the eternal Father

2. If Sonship applies only to humanity and time, the “the Son” would also be extrinsic, or outside, if you will, of the Second Divine Person of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, as much as he would have denied it, Dr. Martin effectively creates two persons to represent Christ—one divine and one human. This theology leads to the logical conclusion that the person who died on the cross 2,000 years ago would have been merely a man. If that were so, he would have no power to save us. Scripture reveals Christ as the savior, not merely a delegate of God the savior. He was fully man in order to make fitting atonement for us. He was fully God in order to have the power to save us.

3. This theology completely reduces the revelation of God in the New Covenant that separates Christianity from all religions of the world. Jesus revealed God as he is from all eternity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dr. Martin reduces this to mere function. Thus, “Father” does not tell us who God is, only what God does. Radical feminists do something similar when they refuse to acknowledge God as “Father.” God becomes reduced to that which he does as “Creator, Redeeemer, and Sanctifier” and int he process where is a truly tragic loss of the knowledge of who God is. In the case of Dr. Walter Martin, it was bad theology that lead to a similar loss.

4. There is a basic metaphysical principle found, for example, in Malachi 3:6, that comes into play here as well: “For I the Lord do not change.” In defense of Dr. Martin, he did seem to realize that one cannot posit change in the divine persons. As stated above, “fatherhood” and “sonship” wold not relate to divinity at all in his way of thinking. Thus, he became a proper Nestorian (though he would never have admitted that) that divides Christ into two persons. And that is bad enough. However, one must be very careful here because when one posits the first person of the Blessed Trinity became the Father, and the second person of the Blessed Trinity became the Son, it becomes very easy to slip into another heresy that would admit change into the divine persons. Later in Behold Your Mother, I employ the case of a modern Protestant apologist who regrettably takes that next step. But you’ll have to get the book to read about that one.

The bottom line here is this: It appears Dr. Walter Martin’s bad Christology led to a bad Mariology. But I argue in Behold Your Mother that if he would have understood Mary as Theotokos, it would have been impossible for him to lose his Christological bearings. The moment the thought of sonship as only applying to humanity in Christ would have arisen, a Catholic Dr. Walter Martin would have known that Mary is Mother of God. He would have lost neither the eternal Son nor the eternal Father because Theotokos would have guarded him from error. The prophetic words of Lumen Gentium 65 immediately come to mind: “Mary… unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith.” A true Mariology serves as a guarantor against bad Christology.

Without that sacrifice to atone for the Original Sin which afflicts us all, how could God cleanse her of her original sin and still be true to His Word?

Catholics believe that Mary was saved out of time. God is not constrained by time. Mary was an exception. I believe that God can make exceptions if He wants to. If He were going to make one, isn't it reasonable that it would be to create a perfect vessel in which to dwell? None of the others called from the womb were to hold God within their bodies.

I have no problem with non-Catholics not believing this, but I don't see any reason why I shouldn't believe it.

I am not and will never be 'sola scriptura'. I believe in the traditions handed down by the Catholic church because I do not see them as contradictions based on my reading of scripture.

Thank you so much for keeping the tone of your posts so pleasant.

Love,

Catholics do that all the time. I really do not think they care what the Bible says. I really feel sorry for y’all. By the way, some Catholics on here hate Protestants with hatred I have never seen before. The impression I get is that traditions are way more important that the Bible.

I believe in the traditions handed down by the Catholic church because I do not see them as contradictions based on my reading of scripture.

Ok; now just show WHY we Prots should 'believe' them?

What vital things are we MISSING that'll keep us outta Heaven by NOT accepting them?

Catholics believe that Mary was saved out of time.

I understand that is what Catholics believe. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support that idea. And since that concept is in opposition to Scripture, which says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", that would seem to make this one of those traditions that have to be abandoned...

Yes.

Nothing.

Catholicism provides what Catholics must have to enter Heaven.

What you believe is your business. When you ridicule what I believe, that is my business.

As to your belief that God has spoken words that are not in the bible, do you believe that some unwritten words may have been passed down by the Apostles and their disciples?
(This is a trick question, given that for many years after Christ there was no written bible).

Love,
O2

So why haven’t told us who’s sins Mary died for?

They don't believe Mary died - they believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven. Now we know that this type of thing happened at least twice in the Old Testament - Enoch and Elijah. But you would think that something that significant would have merited at least a passing mention by the authors of the New Testament, particularly by John, since he was the apostle to whom Jesus entrusted Mary. Out of the 5 books written by John, never was anything written about Mary to suggest she was taken directly into heaven without seeing death. Neither did John write anything about Mary being sinless or her being a mediator, etc. Kind of a major omission, don't you think?

>>They don't believe Mary died - they believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven.<<

Actually that's not correct. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that they don't rightly know. But then they have writings that describe how the apostles were present at her death an assumption but use that officially or something. But then to add to that they have the feast of the "dormition" of Mary. Dormition = death. So on any given day you could get any of those positions from a Catholic. Any wonder why Catholics don't know for sure if they are saved?

>>Now we know that this type of thing happened at least twice in the Old Testament - Enoch and Elijah.<<

And was well documented like you said. But consider this. Ever wonder who the two witnesses will be who are killed and left in the street for 3 days?

>>Out of the 5 books written by John, never was anything written about Mary<<

Not only that but there is absolutely no information either from secular writers or religious writers about her after the day of pentecost. Not one word about where she spent her last days. Evidently she was inconsequential to anyone from that time.

you were who you are from conception.....so is the Catholic church.....same body, new name!

Yes, I am who I am and my name doesn't matter. However....that is Absolutely, positively FALSE teaching with regard to the Catholic Church! The early Christians were absolutely NOT Catholics. Some of them chose to become Catholics when Constantine decided that religion could help merge the Roman Empire. He allowed religious tolerance with the Edict of Milan in AD 313 (since it was, at that time banned by the Roman Empire). Then, in 325 AD, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. His church was a mix of Christianity and Roman Paganism. This is the church that wen on to become the Catholic CHurch under the Roman Empire. This is when the Roman Papacy was created with the support of the Roman Emperors.

I doubt I can convince you otherwise, but neither will you change my mind on this one.

Jesus saved Mary before she was born and before He was born. She needed Him just like everyone else. She just got him before anyone else did. It would only be a contradiction if God is limited by time.

Doesn’t this support the concept of being saved? That if you are truly saved you will not choose sin? Why does Mary not sin when other humans who have been saved do? The non-Catholic answer to that is that ‘they weren’t truly saved’. The Catholic answer to that is that none of us are truly saved (at least that we know of) until we die. In spite of original sin being wiped away by Baptism, the effects it had are still present in that we still are likely to give in to sin as long as we are alive. Until we are dead, we continue to have our own free will, and we will always be at risk of falling into sin or turning away from God. But Mary was cleansed of original sin before she was born, so she was spared that weakness.

So if Mary was truly saved, she is not a contradiction, but a fulfillment of scripture. She shows what happens to all of us eventually when we are finally saved, body and soul in Heaven with God.

Like I said, I understand that you cannot accept this tradition. I very happily do not see the same contradictions.

Love,
O2

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.