Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
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.
Truth and Consequences
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.
Placemarker
Can you point me to any teachings or commentaries that expand on this?
Do you not understand that the Northern Kingdom of Israel was led captive and dispersed across the length of the Mediterranean for worshiping those days?
Attaching Yeshua’s name to them compounds the sin.
.
Do you think the Holy Spirit would not have provided a means to the fledgling church to discern what was from God and what was not? The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Thessaloniki:
To the Roman churches, Paul wrote:
The Apostle John, in his epistle, cautioned believers:
There are many other passages that teach the same thing so it is not at all difficult to see that there was a growing recognition and acceptance of the writings of the Apostles and their disciples as sacred Scripture. Believers were held responsible to ensure these writings were copied, distributed AND obeyed - much like the ancient Jews unto whom were entrusted the "Oracles of God". It was the job of the "church" leaders to make sure this happened, but it was certainly not their job to dictate to the Apostles which writings they would receive or not. Notice Paul warned them to withdraw fellowship from those who refused to receive the teachings and instructions they were given. That doesn't sound to me like the church had the "authority" to make such choices. That they refused to accord the same recognition to spurious writings later on, is a testimony of the sound teaching they had been given from Jesus' hand-chosen disciples who were to build His church.
I know this may make some Roman Catholics' heads explode, but the church at that time is every bit a part of the legacy of ALL genuine Christians as it is claimed exclusively by the Roman Catholic church. It doesn't matter what ones church is identified as just as long as the teachings they hold are backed up by the same rule of faith as that given at the start. Whatever "debt" is thought owed to the Catholic church, we know that the true glory goes to Almighty God who has never left us without the knowledge of the truth. If a church cannot prove their doctrines by God's one and only OBJECTIVE rule of faith - the Holy Scriptures - then they are not binding upon all Christians, no matter what they may claim is their history.
I am pretty much an expert when it comes to recognizing those trying to excuse their own poor choices...they usually go out of their way trying to prove others wrong so that they can justify, in their own minds, the poor choices that they have made.
If you recall a couple of years ago, there were Hollywood types "threatening" to move out of the United States if so and so were elected president. They were going to make the poor decision to give up their citizenship and blame it on those who did something that they did not agree with....same syndrome!!
Over their 2,000++ year history, the Catholic church has a handful of bad leaders. There have been Catholic persons who have made some poor decisions but NEVER a decision which, in any way, jeopardized the truth of Christianity.We have politicians and public figures who constantly cause scandal to the church and why they aren't tossed out is a very good question but individual bad behavior does not condenm an entire institution.
There was a post a little while ago concerning something about the face of Christ....that was 1 individual in the world commenting on something that she says happened...that certainly is not Catholic dogma nor should Catholics be held accountable for it. There are about 1.3 billion Catholics in the world and some of them are weird and many do not represent their religion very well...that's just the way humans are...imperfect.
#1...bibles existed
#2...bibles could be purchasedp #3...if you could locate one and afford it, there is no evidence anywhere that you could not buy it... and if you could read it, you might do so...but very few could either afford or read one.
LOL!
I guess you missed my post to you! Go read the evidence that Bibles were banned and Catholics were punished by the Catholic Church for having one!
Nope! You are totally incorrect! The Catholic church DID, in fact, ban laity from owning and reading the Bible. Instead of parroting what the priests have taught you, you should do your own research.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to some of what such folks are saying...conscience and the work of the Spirit in each person are specific to that person. Yet I know what Paul also said about getting caught up in “grey area” disputes about foods and feast days, and about how “all things are lawful but not all things are expedient”.
Jesus was born into a Jewish Hebrew culture. There are attempts to syncretize Christianity with other religions and there is an attempt to create a “Christian culture” without Christ in it marked by Political Correctness, tolerance, and acceptance of evil sexual norms opposed to traditional Christian family values. The new civic religion will “resemble a form of Godliness but there will be no power in it” as the Bible predicts!
When Christ rules upon the Earth, he will institute rules of worship and living subject to his will and Character. He will rule with a rod of Iron. Even the best Christians in the world who have ever lived or currently live now would chafe under such rules had he or she not been prepared for it. Yet, for those he loves and love him, such a yoke will be borne lightly. What those rules are and what the absolute enforcement of such rules will be like are for God to reveal; only that we know the governance is likened to being “ruled with a rod of iron”.
When I was researching one family of ancestors, I came across the minutes of a church from about 1810. They kicked people out if it for reasons people today would not stand for. One was kicked out for getting into an argument with another man, one for not attending a district church meeting, some for drinking, etc.
You need to read more history. People were forbidden to have Bibles, they could not own a printing device to make their own copies, etc. if they were caught they were charged with crimes or killed. I read an article which said this was still going on about 1823. Will have to research that more.
Luke, speaking in Acts 28:
[22] But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
[23] And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
[24] And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
[25] And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
[26] Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
[27] For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Paul speaking in 1Corinthians 11:
1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Yeshua speaking in Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
There is no other gospel in existence.
.
Yeah, yeah, yeah Editor. All true believers are New Testament Christians. Nullify the grace in your own life but leave the rest of us to bask in the grace and freedom which is from Christ.
“Holy face, Batman!”-—Robin
Don’t give them any ideas.
There does seem to be 'evidence' that if you actually OWNED one, and were NOT part of the power players; it would cause you trouble.
Every one of our Sovereign’s months begins with the new moon.
Ezekiel 46 details three different ‘days’.
A new moon day
Six work days
Sabbath
I don’t know how you count but I add those up and get 8..
I am just reading what His Holy Word says.
New moon day, six ( His Word doesn’t say 5, it says 6) work days
And then the Sabbath..
Day 9 of every month - day 14 of every month - work days
( day 14 in leviticus is the day the Passover was to be sacrificed)
Day 15- sabbath
Day 16- 21 every month)- work days.. ( day 16 considered the 1st day of the week..
Now, the new testament confirms that very template..
Killed on the 14th, rested in the tomb on the weekly (and annual, a High Sabbath), and raised the third day. 16th, the first day of the week..
It matches exactly what Ezekiel says.. and that pattern is throughout scripture..
it is why passover ‘seems’ to fall on a different roman day any given year ... but His template never changes..
I am sorry you cant see it..
You seem to know of new moons but apparently advent studied them to know they begin every month..
And according to scripture, they are different than the six work days or the Sabbath..
It is why you have to think the savior was killed on a roman wodens day..
He laid His life down on the 14th day.. not wodens day...
Scripture really lays it out plainly..
Ps- the 14th day for Israel was on a Monday this year..
With His calendar, the 14th is always a work day, prep day. 15th s always a weekly Sabbath (1st and 7th months thy are also annual Sabbaths)
The 16th is always the first day of the week after the Sabbath.
Every montmont
It needs no postponement rules..
And it matches Torah and the new testament with no need from Rome.
What day did you observe first fruits this year?
Or when was your passover?
You can ignore Ezekiel.. it may seem illogical that there are three different days in His Kingdom calendar.
The world sees work days and weekly sabbath.. two different types of days.
His calendar as 3..
Understanding what a new moon is, and what is isn’t, is a study I suggest you endeavor...
It's right here....
Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture
COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon:
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” (-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.)
Yup - my post #1704 stated similar and had a link to even more info. I love the way they ignore posts that refute what they believe. LOL
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.