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.
Meant to say the pre trib rapture paled in comparison..
However I do understand that of late Rome may very well attempt to make it official in their doctrine that she is definately, for them, co-equal with Jesus Christ and God.
Where did you get that understanding?
The Holy Spirit chose the words “mother of Jesus” rather than the “mother of God”. One would think replacing the words of the Holy Spirit would not be wise. But alas, Catholics do it all the time.
Are you familiar with the Third Ecumenical Council? Would you have identified with Nestorius? Do you agree or disagree with his beliefs?
No, it doesn't. The wife of the Father is Israel not Mary.
Isaiah 66:7 "Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son.
Who was that?
Isaiah 66:8 Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.
Who is that Zion?
Isaiah 66:10 "Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her.
Now, who is our mother and the mother of Christ?
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Catholics corrupt the words of scripture.
Cynical, you just can’t get it through that everything you were ever taught about the savior of the world has a greco roman latin bent to it..
And not just a greco roman latin bent, but a roman catholic bent..
His name, the day Rome says is his birthday, the day Rome tells you He died, the day Rome tells you He was raised. Those aren’t just catholic things.. those are christian things.. and those christian things are nothing but traditions..
All birthed from Rome...
You have to blame modern translators for putting two ‘Joshua’ verses in the new testament where there were none as far back as 1599.
Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in my 1599 bible still says Jesus in those two places’,
But every other bible I have shows Joshua has replaced those two originla Jesus verses..
And that has nothing to do with translating Greek/Latin to English..
That has everything to do with screwing up two verses and making it possiible to have some scrub like me question the very precious greco roman latin name for Rome’s savior.. and have that same scrub wonder why the other 900 plus verses couldn’t be changed from Jesus to Joshua of translators deemed that an appropriate name for two Jesus verses.
If one ever gets to the realization that Rome’s savior is a counterfeit and there isn’t another Jesus or another mary for protestants, that protestants share in her abominations, it may make them sick...or angry....
It isn’t the name that is just an issue.. it is everything that is associated with that name... and everything associated with the name Jesus begins in Rome..
Unless protestants have been boycotting rome’s december 25 and rome’s good Friday and rome’s easter Sunday and nobody told us..
That sort of messes up the whole christian calendar if those days have o meaning..
I guess people could reject Rome’s December 25, Rome’s good Friday and Rome’s easter Sunday and be called christian.. they certainly wouldn’t be called a Roman Catholic if they rejected so much of what Rome teaches and preaches..
How much of Rome do you follow? You may get sick if you studied it.. I have studied it.. and that is why Rome is exactly what the first reformers said Rome is..
And why I don’t accept Rome having anything to do with the Genuine Messiah of Israel..
She is just responsible for counterfeiting Him.. you and protestants can’t say the same because it is that counterfeit that you have your faith in..
I just gave you what the Old Testament says.
I love it. Thank you.
Do you have some scripture for that??? No??? Just some Catholic mythology??? We will have a glorified body...
The Church and the Bible tell us that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven."
Only in Catholic fables...
Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, the "Kingdom of God," or Christ's Church.
David's Kingdom is NOT the Kingdom of God...Nor, is it your 'Church'...
Step away from your catechism and Staples and Hahn and read a bible...It's full of truth that's a mystery to them...
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, (Luke 1:32)
Mary is the mother of the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom. She is the Queen Mother of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, or the "Kingdom of God."
That's just biblical ignorance...If Mary is the mother of God, we Christians are more so...
(The Ark, which contained the manna, Aaron's staff, and the decalogue, was a type for Mary, who held within her womb "the bread of life," the eternal High Priest, and the Eternal Word.)
Really??? How'd she find room in there for manna, Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments and Jesus???
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” (Rev 11:19-12:1-5)
By claiming this is Mary, your religion is talking out of both sides of it many mouths...Your religion claims there was no pain in childbirth for Mary while claiming that this woman who undergoes pain at childbirth is the Mary who doesn't experience pain...What's up with that???
You need a catechism to explain the catechism!
There is such a book. It is called the “Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
What??? You can't do that!!! You have something to base that on???
Those silly non Catholics. They think that those who originally used the word knowing exactly what the original meaning was didn't understand what the word really meant. Right? NO! They knew exactly what the origin of the word was and what it meant.
No one denigrates Mary...That's another false accusation on your part...What we do is reveal the false teaching of your false religion...
Why do people believe that junk? I do not understand. The more I learn, the more thankful I am that I grew up with Bible believing parents, relatives, friends and teachers. I also think it is a cult of the highest degree. Thanks.
Another false accusation by you...There are many types and figures and shadows in the O.T...But Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is not one of them...
So do you have a response to my comment in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3250321/posts?page=171#171
There is exactly zero authority for a Christian in your Catholic catechism...
Your history is filled with lies and forgeries...And you may as well leave the bible out of the equation since you guys don't even believe most of it...
Mary is called the Theotokos. This is properly translated as God-bearer. Mother of God is a poor translation choice.
Mary is the God-bearer because Jesus is one person and not divided. The title Theotokos is important because of what is says about Jesus, and not what it says about Mary.
Mother of God is a poor translation because it starts with the mother, while God-bearer is the proper translation because it starts with God.
The council of Chalcedon includes the following the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood.
So Mary is the God-bearer because she bore the manhood of Jesus. The Mother of God nonsense is tiresome. It is used an an honorific to increase the prestige of Mary, when the origin title Theotokos was to acknowledge the true nature of Jesus.
It's not about Mary, it's about Jesus.
People should. There is a church here where members go on mission trips all over this country and the world. They get the best reception in Israel. They were invited to a church where no other group had been invited.
And thus constitutes another gospel and as Paul said we should consider those who teach it accursed.
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.