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.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Remember O Most Gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known, that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your intercession, was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of Virgins, my Mother. To you I come, before you I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in your mercy, hear and answer me, Amen.
Dear Mother Mary, we pray that you ask your Son to bring about healing for Mrs. Don-o. But if what we ask is not for the glory of God or the good of our souls, do obtain for us what is most conducive to both.
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Oh, good grief, now I know where you're coming from....WE ARE SAVED FROM OUR SIN NATURE, we can no longer sin, temptation is a thing of the past, no matter what we do it has already been forgiven by Christ...........I don't think so.
I may be wrong (I don't think so), but I'd place a large bet on the fact that you've never taken a course in logic, and if you did, you didn't do real well in it....
Let's see...online resources have been available for.....say 25 or so years...where did we go before that??? I know, The Catholic church!!!!....and they still have all the answers!!
WOW, Mormans believe that...they even think that they get their own planets and stuff....what a ball that would be (women need not apply however)
amen from me too!!
“Probably voted for Obama too...there goes their credibility!!!!! :)”
Unfortunately, so do the NYers :(
For starters, whoever wrote that article does not seem capable of distinguishing between symbols and reality. For example, when St. Paul said the following, he was not saying he was literally up on the cross with Jesus Christ during His crucifixion, but only "crucified with Him" in a symbolic manner of speaking.
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20Any mother whose child is crucified right there in front of the mother, is also "up there on the cross with their child" (although not literally), and every astute and honest person realizes that they are not up there literally (and those pictures of symbols you posted of Mary and the Baby Jesus on a cross are just that: pictures of symbols, and it really should not be difficult for anybody to figure that out).
That type of analysis applies to all the pictures and erroneous points in your post.
Another clear example is the photo you have labeled with the following:
"Mary sitting in the place of God on the Ark of the Covenant, St. Stanislaus Kostka, Chicago"
=============================================================
No, that label assertion is a completely false assertion. In fact, that photo is of an iconic "monstrance" called "Our Lady of the Sign – Ark of Mercy", where the Sacramental Presence of God in the Blessed Sacrament is lovingly placed for Adoration (as you can see in the picture), and that iconic monstrance is demonstrating how Mary is the "Ark of the New Covenant", who was chosen by God to hold the special Presence of God (Jesus Christ) inside her body.
God willed His special Presence to be in the old "Ark of the Covenant" of the "Children of Israel", and God also willed His special Presence to be inside of Mary as well, making her the "Ark of the New Covenant". (That was God who willed that Mary hold God's Presence in a uniquely special way like she did, and to denigrate that Holy action of God shown to that one solitary human being favored by God named "Mary", is to denigrate God.)
(To learn more about those important matters, carefully read the following sources, starting with reading the first one on youtube.)
In addition, certain words in one language, have absolutely no corresponding words in the other language, or they might have a more distinctive set of words for something expressed in only one nebulous word in the first language, so translators often have to make their best effort to estimate (guess) exactly what was being said in the first language, and possibly use a bunch of words in the second language to try to approximate to the best of their ability what they believe was probably meant by the first language.
There is also the problem of words changing very much over time. Even in English (from old English to new English), it is often very difficult to know exactly what the old English was saying, and the biblical texts were written a long time before that old English was written (and we do not have any experts from those biblical days to explain exactly what those Hebrew and Greek writings really mean today).
In addition to all that, translators always bring their own biases to their translation efforts, so if they are vague in their own mind about something, or not quite really sure, they likely err to the side favoring their own beliefs and prejudices when making uncertain choices.
You can look up the biblical Hebrew and Greek and individual words online, or in your own Hebrew or Greek Old and New Testaments and Dictionaries, but those online dictionaries were certainly not written by the Holy Spirit, and those various dictionaries often differ with each other as to the precise, exact meanings of different words, phrases, and sentences (and the printed dictionaries do likewise).
It is not a prudent or honest thing for anyone to stick their nose way up in the air, and try to brag that they looked up some Greek words in an online or printed Greek dictionary or interlinear translation (or other language study tool like that), and claim that they now know everything there is to know about a particular text, as that is quite simply never the truth, and anyone who believes it is, is just deluding himself or herself.
Whenever people trust themselves to be special recipients of the Holy Spirit's personal guidance, making their self- interpretation of the Holy Scriptures better than everyone else's "Holy-Spirit-guided" self-interpretation of those same Holy Scriptures, you end up with the folly we have today, with so many contradictory interpretations of every text in the Bible.
After praying for the Holy Spirit's interpretive guidance, William Miller, one of the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination, interpreted some scriptures in the books of Daniel and Revelation in the Bible, then declared that Jesus Christ was going to return to Earth in the "Clouds of Glory" in 1844.
He was wrong too.
As St. Peter said:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20
Someone at that site included another link to another site which contains links for those same debates.
Here is that second link:
Of course the gospels call Mary the “mother of Jesus.”
You know why?
BECAUSE SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS!!!
And because Jesus is God, Mary is the mother of God.
There is no contradiction between these two proposition:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Mary is the mother of God.
The only way there could be a contradiction between those two propositions is if “Jesus” and the Second Person of the Trinity were TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS.
In other words, the only way you can deny Mary the title “Mother of God” is to deny that God became man.
In other words, the only way you can deny Mary the title “Mother of God” is to cease to be a Christian.
Now that's funny, I don't care who ya are...
When it is explained for the billionth time that the title “Mother of God” does not mean, and has never meant, 'Mother of God'...
God chose Mary above all women to bear His son. Our Lord hung on her every word as a child. She prepared him for his role as Saviour of the world. She acts as his messenger. We Catholics ask for her intercession. We don’t worship her. We honor her as we do our own mothers.
The best advice is to ignore what so called Catholic and Protestant scholars think about it...Read and learn what God thinks about it...
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Just from those 2 scriptures alone, one can see that grace does not remove sin from anyone...Grace is unmerited favor that teaches us and allows us to chose to live Godly, if we desire...
That is the position of this Staples guy as well and that is ignorance of the Trinity...
In heaven, do people see the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost???
That is so true...The bible makes perfect sense...Catholicism is so far removed from the scriptures, the only sense it makes is that it is a man made religion...
I say: The title “Mother of God” has never meant that Mary is the mother of the eternal Triune God.
Your position is: I reject the title “Mother of God” because Mary could not be the mother of the eternal Triune God.
I explain again: The title “Mother of God” has always meant that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and because Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, who is God, and Mary is his mother, Mary can be properly called the “Mother of God.”
You answer: I reject the title “Mother of God” because Mary could not be the mother of the eternal Triune God.
Am I following the conversation accurately so far?
That part is true...
Our Lord hung on her every word as a child. She prepared him for his role as Saviour of the world. She acts as his messenger. We Catholics ask for her intercession. We don’t worship her. We honor her as we do our own mothers.
Everything else there was made yp by your religion...
bump
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.