Posted on 04/05/2007 11:10:10 AM PDT by MarkBsnr
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of what this particular title of Mary signifies, and what the Protestant Reformers had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism,
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
We believe that Mary is special to us, not divine, but very special. Please read the article before commenting. Thanks.
So is the author trying to make a distinction between two groups - Fundamentalists, and Protestant Reformers - or does the author intend to use the phrases interchangeably?
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature.
One has to assume that the author, in using the moniker "Fundamentalists" is also referring to Protestant Reformers. And to say that "Protestant Reformers often assert that Mary...only carried Christ’s human nature" is both laughable and libel.
I assume you were sincere in attempting to engage Protestants in a dialog about Mary being the "Mother of God". Still, you couldn't have picked a worse article to start things off. Good luck keeping your thread civil - you're going to need it.
Whether Mary is the mother of God is a pointless discussion. The Bible makes no reference to this concept perhaps because we are incapable of really understanding the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Having a thorough understanding of the Bible is difficult enough without adding man created concepts to confuse things.
oh for cryin’ out loud, not this ____ again!!
I gave birth 7 times.
Each time a little person came out with a physical nature and an immortal nature (the “soul”)
I am the mother of both natures. Why? because as a mother I bore both natures in my womb and gave birth to both natures.
No one has ever claimed Mary created Christ’s divine nature - or even that his divine nature “began” in her womb.
The gospel of John takes care of that notion. (”In the beginning was the Word...”)
Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. His divine nature and physical nature were united in the womb of Mary.
Mary bore both natures and gave birth to both natures.
She is the mother of Jesus - who is God. She is the mother of God.
To deny this is to fall into the heresy of nestorianism.
I can see you getting lots of reactions to this, from all sides. You might consider rewording it.
You're offended by your rewrite of the author's words?
Okie dokie.
Not this one.
Your source must be talking to those other fundamentalists. None I've ever read has said anything quite so silly. Christ was fully man and fully God at all times and was born of a virgin. To believe otherwise is to not be a Christian.
We also think Mary is very special. All generations will, after all, call her Blessed.
Good explanation of the phrase!
Scampers hurredly away....
The idea of "immaculate conception" gets dicey -- especially when theologians begin introducing terms such as DNA in their writings -- such as the one you posted. If Mary supplied all the genetic material for a fetus -- then she gave birth to a clone of herself.
I personally believe that she gave birth to an unusual child who had a direct connection to God. That makes her the mother of god's child -- or mother of god here on earth.
..I’ll take you one more.. Mother is far more than just someone who carries a child.. A mother is the heart that raises the child, a mother is the nurturer, a mother gives more than physical life, a mother gives a part of her own soul to her child...
Not this one.
Or this one. BTW, we need to root out that link to the "Are you a Heretic" quiz. (I can't get to it from work, drat it all.) I think we might get some interesting results from some of the posters here.
Figuratively speaking in this case (I hope)
The text posted is an excerpt. The original, available at the link, makes the distinction between what the "fundamentalists" say and "what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say".
The article elaborates:
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity.
As you can see, no confusion exists: the author distinguishes between "fundamentalists" and "their own theological forebears" Luther and Calvin.
to say that "Protestant Reformers often assert that Mary...only carried Christ’s human nature" is both laughable and libel
For example, at post 3 Angry Write Mail says "Mary was the mother of the MAN Jesus"; how is that different from what you quote and call libel?
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.