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.
is that yet ANOTHER protestant denomination.....????
I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!after the Mary's time line post, could the list of naughty Popes be far behind???? WOW, that was quick!!
If you focus too much on Jesus as a baby, you might just lose sight of his real mission.
I haven't had a chaance to look them up yet but if they are all ruined and no longer teaching errors then they have been replaced by the Protestant churches who have a whole lot more than seven teaching error....THOUSANDS in face, and not all in Asia!!
....”If you focus too much on Jesus as a baby, you might just lose sight of his real mission.”....
They need to do so in order to keep their mariology in view...what’s mary without a baby!
It’s like Jesus as the man and savior that he IS... is consistantly and methodically being pushed aside for the sake of anthing the moment might call for...be it rose beads...the next image someone sees in a tree or bush...and on and on and on...it’s just endless “stuff”.
The word-for-word literal English translation of the Greek for "2 Peter 1:20", as found at Biblehub.com is:
"This first knowing that any prophecy of scripture of its own interpretation not is"
Where do you see the term "the prophet's own interpretation" in the Greek for 2 Peter 1:20? (Hint: The term "the prophet's" isn't there in that Greek Bible text, "2 Peter 1:20". That was not in the Greek, but was added in your English translation shown in your post #298.)
It is plain that your so-called "Greek translation" is simply not accurate, CynicalBear. It has been creatively doctored up, with a phantom phrase added to the English "translation" you posted, which simply does not appear in the Greek text. It is bogus, with those words "the prophet's" shamelessly inserted into that Bible text, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses insert various things in their own "New World" translation of the Bible not found in the Greek, to subtly change the meaning of various Bible texts, in order to try to add false support for a false position.
Now here are some common Protestant translations of that verse. (You may want us to believe that you are a better translator than all the teams of English translators who translated all these Bible translations, but I'm certain that nobody here believes that for a split second, and I'm pretty sure we never will CynicalBear. At least the people who translated these English versions of the Bible, didn't try to insert imaginary phrases not found in the Greek texts for "2 Peter 1:20".)
Some Common Protestant Bible Versions Of "2 Peter 1:20"
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - American Standard Version (ASV)
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - King James Version (KJV)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Protestant Edition)
(It is always a good idea to stick to the truth.)
(And, by the way, the nonsensical claim that the Catholic Church "tries to keep people from reading and understanding scripture" is also blatantly and grievously false, as any Catholic here will be able to truthfully confirm for you.)
no they don't
Want me to lay it out there for you?.... Better still pay attention to what the Vatican is doing and you can learn alot about what you’re apparently uninformed of currently.
Your welcome :). I don’t believe Our Lady is a co-redeemed. That title belongs only to Our Lord. I believe that as His mother she is in a unique position to advocate for we mortals both here and in the after life. As I mentioned in my original post she also acts as His messenger. In the Hail Mary we don’t ask her to forgive our sins, only Jesus can do that rather we ask her to pray for us us sinners that we might be forgiven.
“You guys like James so much for it’s FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD; so here is more of what he wrote: James 2:10...For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
That popped out at me when I read James a few weeks ago. Talk about agreement with Paul! Same fatal diagnosis for anyone seeking justification through works of the law. James’ seemingly counter arguments need to be seen in light of this truth.
We are capable of being tempted because we do not see God as he is, but only by analogy, through our various experiences in this life.
Jesus was tempted, but there was never any danger that he would sin because he could not be deceived. That's the whole point of his temptations: He was tempted like Adam, at the very beginning of his public ministry, but unlike Adam, Jesus did not sin. Jesus' temptations are NOT about his being WEAK, but about his TRIUMPHING over sin.
Jesus, in heaven, remains both God and man. He cannot sin because he sees God as he is, not, as we do "as in a glass, darkly," as St. Paul says.
You seem to be a Manichean or some other form of Gnostic: "Spirit is good, the body is bad," or "Divine is good, human is evil."
Gnosticism is a perennial distortion of Christianity.
4.....” We Ourselves called this the heralding of the “SOVEREIGNTY OF MARY”......
19.....”Be enthroned, Lady, for it is fitting that you should sit in an exalted place since you are a Queen and glorious ABOVE ALL KINGS.”
20.....”the perpetual Queen beside the King, her son, (Equal to)
21.....”O my Lady, my SOVERIEGHN, You who RULE over me.”
22.... “the Queen of ALL creatures, the Queen of the world, and the RULER OF ALL.”
27.....”the ranks of the heavenly army bow before thee”.
29.....” thou art greater than the many-eyed cherubim and the six-winged seraphim . . . Heaven and earth are filled with the sanctity of thy glory.”
30.....”rejoice because she reigns WITH Christ forever.”
32....”Mary as Queen and Empress seated upon a royal throne adorned with royal insignia, crowned with the royal diadem and surrounded by the host of angels and saints in heaven, and ruling not only over nature and its powers but also over the machinations of Satan.
Oh there’s so much of this on the Vatican site...just go there and see for yourself....
...”Gnostic-ism is a perennial distortion of Christianity”....
So is catholic-ism.
What you say would be true if “Christian” meant “good person.”
But it doesn’t.
He established His church and then waited for the Catholic Gutenberg to invent the printing press so His word would be spread........O.K., but He sure took the long way around and wasted 1,600 years doing it...
That's beautiful, thank you! Please pray for me; I find it hard to forgive sometimes; and you're right- that does disturb one's peace!
God bless you!
Grateful : )
Perhaps applicable:
1 Corinthians 15 King James Version (KJV)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
And this same chapter:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
To post 596: EWTN has TV, internet, Short wave, phone streaming; satellite radio: name it. The Gospel is being proclaimed throughout the world! Amen!
....”The Gospel is being proclaimed throughout the world!”...
Which Gospel..there are several floating around out there..
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.