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.
You're offended by your rewrite of the author's words?
Okie dokie.
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?
:: 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. ::
Thanks, I probably will.
Luther and Calvin did not reject the title. They were, however, basically opposed to a kind of mariology that is really a second-class version of Christology, which tends to make Jesus rather remote to us. I agree, however, that modern evangelicals, in their haste to abandon the creeds and confessions, and left us with almost no clear doctrine ABOUT the Trinity. I have heard monarchism, Arianism, and Nestorianism from different members of the same churches. Someone—who I do not remember—has characterized this as the monotheism of Jesus, which I think is closer to monarchism than the others.
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. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary's divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
Martin Luther was quite vehement in his defense of the title "Mother of God". (Well, he was quite vehement most of the time, but that's a quibble. :-0)