Replies

I do realize the difficulties. But, I accept it as a paradox. It's not a falsehood. It's a paradox.

God-bearer and Mother of God are differently loaded terms

I like the first better than the second but still strongly prefer the Scriptural term, Mary, Mother of Jesus.

God-Bearer does not intimate that Mary gave God a beginning. She didn't.

Mother of God implies she did give God a beginning.

If you use Theotokos, God Bearer, you don't run into the same issue as badly as Mother of God - since it doesn't cast doubt upon Christ's eternal preexistence. Something having a mother does. However, it does put undue emphasis on Mary herself. Mary isn't the issue. She shouldn't be the emphasis. Christology is the issue.

Mary, Mother of Jesus will do just fine. Develop your Christology from whom Jesus is, not Mary.

Thanks very much for your reply. And it is very refreshing to have a Protestant appeal to the transcendent.

As for the "loaded" Mother of God, perhaps it will help to think of God in this context as a more generic descriptive like we use "man."

I agree that Christology is the issue, but, as I've said too often on this thread, Christology and Mariology are inextricably linked. The Incarnation/Word became flesh/Born of a virgin..

This is very important in the whole. I wish I could get this across properly. That the Word became flesh, born, begotten.. This is important in salvation history. And it differentiates between God inspiring or filling an existing man, it differs from God appearing fully formed as a man/shell, it differs from God appearing as to Moses..

These differences are important to the whole of our faith, up and down, past, present future, within us/outside us..

The Incarnation is a fulcrum point, if you'll allow, for the history of man and his relationship to God, to who man is, and who God is. If the fulcrum is off only slightly, then the whole becomes unbalanced and the endpoint leaves the whole.

This is what we see in the history of heresy and what will occur again and again if we are not properly careful in the formation and transmission of faith.

Now as to possible confusion. This can and does occur. But if a true statement - particularly such an important true statement - is confused by some, then it does not follow that it should be avoided or changed.

It does follow that more is needed to know the Truth. And it is our responsibility to know and follow and pass this along as well as we possibly can.

thanks very much for your reply and consideration and forgiveness of typos...