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.
And yet you guys FAILED to include the writings of the ECFs and look at the mess you've created now by saying they should be listened to!
(I never knew that an albatross could stink so badly.)
What a concept!
Answer Jesus' question:
"Are you still so dull?"Matthew 15:16
Can Prots be teaching error when we say...
I just LOVE the smell of boiling oil in the morning!
You've chosen Rome's church, which has come up with some very strange ideas of it's own...
Beats flunking Logic 101!
A very good summary of Rome’s tactics.
Right up there with a Patton speech to the men!
Flesh and blood will NOT inherit...
Oooops!
Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline!
Every call is important to us.
If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet, Press 1 to be connected to Catholic Answers
If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet en Espanol, Pulse 2 para ser conectado a Catholic Answers
If you wish to talk to GOD Himself, please realize His time is limited. Many other representitives and even His mother is available to handle your request, praise, plea, prayer and/or worship/adoration/veneration.
Stay on the line and one will be with you shortly.
Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline! All lines are presently in use...
After receiving an answer from Heaven's Hotline, Press 3 to hear instructions for the correct amount of alms to be given to the poor. (Or Hail Marys...)
(Cue background music: Ave Maria )
See what THINKIN' 'll get ya when you're not used to it?
You should have been AWAKE during the religion class that taught...
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Ooops!
Nothing about apples here. It appears that Mary must have materialized in front of some Early Church Father and clued him in on the TRUTH of the matter.
Looks like EVE was the FIRST Catholic, too; adding to the words of GOD! and you must not touch it
Catholics that do NOT toe the party line!
How could you concieveably refute that statement ?????? The same way that...
How could you concieveably CREATE that statement to begin with??????
Where to start?
(Catholic in the making...)
Looks like they got it on later to me; but then, I didn't pay real close attention in my English classes.
He’d say...
Are those REAL candles or LED flicker lights?
Jesus was all man and all God and you cannot separate the two....You didn't pay real close attention in Religion class, did you???
So you disagree with the prior statement? And the unqualified use of the extraBiblical title "Mother of God," which normally, as seen in Scripture, denotes ontological oneness?
Why do not Catholics follow the Holy Spirit who distinguishes in what sense an entity brought forth Christ, that being "as concerning the flesh," and emphasize and exalt God,not the vessel?
Does the Son of God owe His flesh and blood to her, or she to Him?
If instrumentally being used of God as a channel of grace exalts one, then why do not Catholics exalt Mary's mother as the grandmother of God (the mother of the mother of God), and follow that back to Eve?
Do you agree with Scripture that we are not to think of men above that which is written, or (1Co. 4:6) Or sanction and join the hyper exaltation of Mary as an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to, whose [Mary] merits we are saved by, who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin," and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father," even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation," and whose power now "is all but unlimited," for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God," "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse." Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose," and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven," including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels," whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests," and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess," and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .
It no wonder what Moses and Mary would think of such, as both magnified the Lord, not themselves, and Mary said "he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name, (Luke 1:49) not what great things she did for God. And as one who feared God she would not sanction the hyper exaltation of her which goes far far beyond what is written.
Tim Staples has said in the past (I heard him say it on Catholic Answers Live) that the title “Co-redemtrix” is not a title that is dogmatically defined. He also said that in his opinion it will be so defined soon by the Church. This probably explains why he feels free to use it (along with Redemptrix, another title not defined dogmatically but one he feels will be soon).
To be clear though that’s his opinion. I tend to agree with him (that it will be defined dogmatically soon) but it’s not yet dogmatic. So Catholics are free to disagree with applying that title to Mary if they wish.
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.