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.
We kind of wandered off of addressing your claim that Jesus ceased to be a man (post 288) when he died on the cross. Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body which to all appearances was that of a man. Do you disagree with that?
It's not that I disagree...
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co_15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Jesus natural human body became corrupted when it died...It was raised as a glorifed, spiritual body...Apparently it took on the appearance of a physical body yet it could disappear and appear, it could travel thru walls, it had far too many holes in it...
So while, in a sense, Jesus appeared in a 'physical' body of a sort, it wasn't the natural body we or he was born with...
Does it not make sense that His defeat of death removed the curse that first Adam’s disobedience brought forth?
I would say no...
First Adam did not become something other than a man. We are not given a very much description about what First Adam was like; but, dare we to say that Second Adam discarded His Manhood? Would that not mean that God has despised the work of His own hands?
You're right...We do not know much about the 1st Adam...We do know he had no sin, no pain, no death and perfect weather, before the fall...God was not too happy with the work of his own hands after the fall of Adam and Eve...
Gen_6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
You may be right...But from where I sit, I see most of the Catholics on this forum talk about the unity of the Catholic religion...
Just think about it...We are all our own pope so it is expected we will not agree on much of anything...But your religion has the magisterium that does the thinking and teaching for everyone...You don't have much room except for unanimous consent...So I would think that saying 'they all' or 'they always' wouldn't be so offensive or out of line...
26 - And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 - To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 - And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 - Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 - And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 - Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 - He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 - And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 - And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 - And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. -- Luke, 1
You are correct sir. We are not discussing brain surgery here. The explanation did not come from some guys putting their heads together. God "breathed" the explanation Himself. Men were simply the ones who wrote it down. We are free to interpret scripture as the Holy Spirit allows us to. The deal is, the only thing that matters, in all of creation, and that is Heaven or Hell, is so simple, that a 3 year old can understand it. It is so simple, it interprets itself.
Yes it does...But you can't get the answer if you're not willing to read the scriptures...
Wow! Just wow! No, God didn't die. It was Jesus fleshly earthly body that died and to which Mary gave birth. The absurd statement and belief that God "in some unfathomable way" died but to not understand that Mary "in some unfathomable way" did not give birth to God is astounding.
He certainly could...But it would be of no benefit...God provided physical food in the O.T....We have no need of physical food...We require spiritual food...Something that goes into your digestive system does not cross over into your spirit...It just goes into the latrine...
>>said unto her: Hail, full of grace<<<>
No, that falsehood is NOT worth repeating.
Every piece of Catholic literature I've read is that way...Distort and pervert scripture...Add and remove words...Interpret the plain words of scripture into something completely out of context...
They know Catholics won't search the scriptures...Even if they did, they became convinced they couldn't understand the easy, plain words of scripture anyway...
No..the jesus of Rome does not save anyone..he simply makes them “savable
In your own interpretation of the Bible, probably not. Too bad.
Wow...Millions of followers...
I was stunned when I watched that video. I was sent there to get an “explanation” if the Eucharist. The thing was based on a lie about what scripture says and attributed to Scott Hahn who Catholics put out there as some sort of example. If Scott Hahn and that priest are so unfamiliar with what scripture says I surely wouldn’t be putting Hahn out there as an example other then a dupe who didn’t know scripture and fell for Catholic lies.
“We are all our own pope.”
Every man for themselves, huh? : )
It's not my own interpretation. There is no way the word kecharitōmenē can be made to mean "full of grace". That has been made abundantly clear on these threads.
There is no such thing as a pope taught in the New Testament. It’s simply a fabrication by the Catholic Church.
The Markian passage (snake handlers special) and the Johanine passage (woman taken in adultery - John 8) are both episodes not found in the oldest of mss. I do not bring this up to offend, but just to point out that the jury is still out as to whether these are actually Scriptural or spurious. Erasmus did not have the benefit of later findings and he was without question, sympathetic to Rome.
But, with respect to "paraphrasing", I offer the following thoughts. Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied". For example, the wooden word-for-word translation of a remark in Koine' Greek, does not mean the same thing in English UNLESS (occasionally) the missing (but understood by Greek speakers) words are "supplied". Are those words then actually "supplied" or are they "required"?
During the years I studied Koine' Greek in college, I began to recognize this important factor when it came to "translating". Thus, sometimes "paraphrasings" can be closer "translations" than what we have ordinarily called, "word for word translations".
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant something quite different 500 years ago. In this example, "prevent" meant "go before" or "go in front of" rather than "stop from doing". Thus, the idea that the KJV moved into English, today leaves one with an incorrect understanding of the intent of the passage, although it was spot on 500 years ago. Our Greek professor embarrassed us all with some of these examples.
When one couples this with the issues of trying to make idiomatic remarks of Koine' move into idioms of the King's English and then into modern idioms, we sometimes have a very difficult time. Again, our objective is to apprehend exactly what the original writer was getting at. No more, no less.
I completely agree that there is no modern translation that seems to hit on all cylinders (idiom). But, reading and re-reading all of the translations, examining the good original language composite texts, using our lexicons, and continuing to "heed the basic Truth in any translation", is very good advice. Thank you for that.
I believe the folks at McKenzie Study Center combine all of this into an "authorial intent" objective. That is, they assume that any particular writer (principally of the NT epistles) is developing (primarily) a single argument throughout their letter. They strive to get the gist of the argument thread well-understood before deconstructing the individual passages or thoughts. Everything in the letter is assumed to support or add to this central argument. Thus, out goes "bumper sticker" theology supported by odd-ball single phrases or even "Verses". For example, how many folks have used John 3:16 as an "offer" rather than a "statement of fact".
Frankly, Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk and often get in the way of the argument, yet KJV, NASB, Geneva, et al, continue to use this formatting. But, to have the text of any "book" translated into a single letter format is actually a very good exercise. That is the way the message came to the original readers, but we modernists tend to love our "references".
Anyway, I ramble. However, I deeply appreciate your remarks on this subject and the others to which you respond. Keep up the good work, my FRiend and brother. Grace to you.
Again, in your opinion!
It is an extortion racket, as are many of the cults. Up until 6 months ago, I had never heard of that nerd, and knew NOTHING about it, but I got educated about it. I see bill boards that say: Believe Apollo, accept Apollo. I just shake my head. The whole congregation wears white. It reminds me of whited sepulchers, nice on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. Nice people, but totally deceived.
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.