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.
Grace doesn’t remove sin, it is the state we are in when we are free of sin, and can share in the Divine life.
Explain why saying that Mary is the mother of God denies the humanity of Jesus.
Jesus has two nature, divine and human. But he is one divine Person. So it is IMPOSSIBLE for Mary to be the mother of Jesus without being the mother of God.
We've NO problem with the stuff you guys have come up with (so far) that is NOT found in the Bible.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by your comment, but I interpret it to mean that you have proved God's Word and the teachings of His Church false.
You may think that you proved something false, but your talking points don't address the issue directly and your responses are either misdirected to other issues or they are merely personal opinion (or talking points).
Just one example where you completely ignore the direct words of Jesus and actually reject the teachings of Jesus and His Church.
For example the Eucharist John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a
Yes, Mary and Joseph were faithful Jews, so they made the offering in accordance with the law; do you believe that childbirth really makes the woman impure? Do you believe that physical deformity or infirmity implies sinfulness, as did Jews of the time?
I have the utmost respect for Mary as the woman who was blessed to bring about by sinless birth the Messiah.
With that said, Mary the Mother of God, perpetual virginity and assumption into heaven and queenship is simply not scriptural.
Show me biblical scripture that proves the above and I will believe it. It's not there. Mary was a created being that found favor with God, but so was numerous others throughout the bible.
Seems in some catholic circles, there is much more emphasis on Mary than on the Messiah Jesus. Looks backward to me.
Why do you constantly raise this objection when it has NOTHING TO DO with the title "Mother of God." Once again, the title "Mother of God" has NEVER meant that Mary is the origin of the eternal, Triune God. It has always meant that, because Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is one divine Person, not two persons, Mary is the mother of God.
You seem to be a user of the English language, yet when it comes to this issue, you seem to lapse into a kind of psychosis, in which language makes no impression on you. When you look at the words I write, do you see words, or just random letters? Or is it all a blur?
Well said.
Which we only need watch the current efforts to bring all religions together lead by the pope to understand is already happening.
That brings about a question in my mind. If the angels are sinless...do they not have free will? Just asking...curious because satan was the greatest of the angels, he and a third of the angels were cast out of heaven for sins against God...right?
So how was Jesus delivered? Cesarean? Did Jesus not live in Mary's womb? Was Jesus not born of a woman?
If you're going to thump your Bible, you should at least read it.
Jesus is both Heavenly Father's and Mary's son. He announces so himself on the cross.
Does anybody still read the Bible or do they just stake out a position and support it with a snippet?
Freewill is the nature of this world and angels have it too, as you’ve just demonstrated.
The Angels have free will, but, as purely spiritual beings, exist outside of time. They make their choice to love and obey God once, for all eternity.
Please tell me whether the following syllogism is formally valid or invalid:
Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.
Then, please tell me whether the following syllogism is formally valid or invalid.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
That’s two yes-or-no questions.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
>>Just hypothetically, if you were to know God did will<<
We know what "God did will". We don't need the Catholic Church "hypothetically".
The 7 Capital Sins and their Contrary Virtues
Capital Sin
Definition
Contrary Virtue
Pride Unrestrained appreciation of our own worth
Humility
Greed Immoderate desire for earthly goods
Liberality
Lust Hankering for impure pleasures
Chastity
Anger Inordinate desire for revenge
Meekness
Gluttony Unrestrained use of food and drink
Temperance
Envy Sorrow over another’s good fortune
Brotherly Love
Sloth Laxity in keeping the Faith and the practice of virtue
Diligence
Note:
The 7 Capital Sins, also known as “The 7 Deadly Sins,” are those sins that give rise to other sins. They were first enumerated by Pope St. Gregory the Great in “Moralia in Job.”
Note:
Genesis 4, Genesis 18, Exodus 2, James 5, respectively. Elaboration on “the sin of Sodom,” from the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, Chapter XX: “The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.” In other words, do not think that this particular sin is just about acting on homosexual impulses; it isn’t.
Note:
From the Catechism of St. Pius X, “The Main Kinds of Sin,” Question 9-10:
Q: What injury does mortal sin do the soul?
A: (1) Mortal sin deprives the soul of grace and of the friendship of God; (2) It makes it lose Heaven; (3) It deprives it of merits already acquired, and renders it incapable of acquiring new merits; (4) It makes it the slave of the devil; (5) It makes it deserve hell as well as the chastisements of this life.
Q: Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin?
A: To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.
So why don't Catholics do that? His direction for prayer was to pray to the Father directly. Never once did He tell us that Mary or one of your so called "saints" would be tasked with performing certain functions for people on earth.
Those are simply weasel words.
Catholics understand the dual nature of Jesus as human and divine. It was stated that the Word became Flesh. The two natures are combined and not separate.
So through the grace and actions of God, Mary became the Mother of God, Jesus, both his human and divine natures.
So do you not believe that God can do all things? Do you not believe that Jesus is both God and human? So do you split Jesus in half and deny that He is both? Your logic and reason escapes me.
Did you listen to whole interview of Tim Staples where he explains the importance of Mary and the need to accept her as the Mother of God?
NO, Christ new all along who is called out were. In spite of the apostate Catholic Church who tried to replace that ekklesia Christ protected His called out from the atrocities of that false religion and when technology was in place to supply His word to all people inspired some to rise up and avail themselves of that technology to enable the light to shine and bring His word to "all the world" in spite of the efforts of the usurper to confine it.
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.