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.
Yet you would purport to tell us how Jesus being both fully man and fully God functions?
The Holy Spirit did not call Mary the "mother of God". Man giving her that title purporting to understand the nature of Christ is pure folly.
That’s been my experience. At least to one extent or another.
That does answer that question doesn’t it.
“And that goes for Holy Communion, as well. He did not give the disciples or anyone to eat from His body, not at the Last Supper, nor after, from His resurrected body, but I do believe we eat from Him in the sense of Him somehow being all those things - the Word, the Passover Lamb, Light, living water, etc.”
We believe the actual words of Jesus, especially when some questioned eating His Flesh and they did not believe and left no longer followers of Jesus.
Jesus changed water into wine, multiplied fish and bread and many other miracles, Why do you not believe that Jesus could change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood and leave us with His gift of Himself for our salvation.
Jesus said to Thomas, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?r Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
This may help you understand:
http://www.catholic.org/news/international/europe/story.php?id=43101
I didn’t think I was making it personal, just trying to reply to actual comments.
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the biblegateway web site and frequently refer to it. I did not search for the phrase “God the Son” because it was not my intent in using that phrase to directly quote from Scripture, and I knew that I would most likely not find it.
I agree that Mary is called the mother of Jesus in Scripture. I also agree that Mary is not called the mother of God in Scripture. The following if/and/then statement has been put forward many times.
If Mary is the mother of Jesus
And Jesus is God
Then Mary is the mother of God.
Reflecting on that statement, I did a search for the phrase “Jesus is God,” and there were 0 Bible results for NASB and KJV. This does not mean Jesus is not God. John 1 was given as a secondary result, and by reading this passage and others, it can be rightly concluded through several if/and/then statements that Jesus is God.
It can also be concluded, even though the phrase cannot be found in Scripture, that Mary is the mother of God.
What, you say? How can this be? How can Mary be the mother of our Lord and Creator?
I have a couple of thoughts on this.
First, it can be only through the will of the Father that a woman could become the mother of God. It was the will of the Father that the Spirit breathe on Mary. It was the will of the Father that God enter the womb of Mary in the person of Jesus. It was the will of the Father that Mary give birth to God in the person of Jesus. It was the will of the Father that Jesus tarry in Jerusalem to be about his Father’s business. And it was the will of the Father that God in the person of Jesus be subject to Mary and Joseph: “but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.”
This belief can be held without following all of the other beliefs about Mary that are not specifically stated in Scripture. God could have chosen any woman. Mary could have said no and another could have become the mother of God in the person of Jesus. But Scripture tells us it was Mary.
My second thought has to do with the oneness of Jesus as God. From my earliest days, I was taught to bow my head at the name of Jesus. My guess is that this was derived from Philippians 2:9-11:
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
I have a neighbor who actually touches her knee to the ground at the name of Jesus. I don’t go that far, but to this day, at the age of 67, I still bow my head at the name of Jesus. It is ingrained on my heart that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is God. So when I hear the name Jesus, to me it is identical to hearing the name God. And when scripture says Mary is the mother of Jesus, to me it is identical to saying Mary is the mother of God.
In my heart, Jesus cannot be separated from God; they are one and the same. So when it is said that Mary is the mother of Jesus and not the mother of God, I cannot for the life of me understand how Mary can be the mother of one and not the mother of the other. To me it is equivalent to saying Jesus is not God.
metmom, I mentioned it before, but one day when I told my Catholic Dad that I was praying that my Methodist Mom would become a Catholic like us, he chastised me, saying “Son, you better pray that you become as good a Christian as your Mom is.” My sister was raised Catholic and is now Methodist. My daughter was raised Catholic and is now a member of a Christian Church. They are both as close to Jesus as they ever were as Catholics. So, no, I am not one of those smarmy Catholics.
I realize that it is a difficult concept to grasp that God will allow a woman to be His mother, but it is even more difficult for me to understand how Jesus can be something while at the same time God is not that same thing.
CB, If you want to think I am twisting and turning this issue, so be it. I do not think that about you. I believe you are searching as honestly as you can for the truth, just as I am. And we have different understanding of that truth.
With all due respect, the argument that should be on the table is "Which is the best of the original language texts?" Any and all translations must take those original ideas expressed by the writers and move them into a then-current language framework.
Translation is not complete, or accurate, unless the pictures formed in the readers' minds are the same as those intended by the writers. And, frankly, there are several remarks in the King's English that are no longer understood the way they were in the 1600s.
Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
The apostles weren't with Christ on the cross nor were they "in my Father's kingdom". Do Catholics not EVER check with scripture to see if what they are being told is truth? The priest lied Heart-Rest. And evidently he was passing a lie along that he claims came from Scott Hahn who Catholics love to trot out.
That was a perfect example of how Catholicism is built on lies and corruption of what scripture says.
Our eternal destiny lies in who we put our trust in. Eternal bliss in heaven or eternal torment in hell. Choose this day who you will put your trust in. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit's words in scripture or the proven lies of that priest and Scott Hahn?
Still praying. I miss her as well!
Is not scripture God's words?
My only man is Jesus Christ...I follow him and the book he left for us to study...
Well done!!
How about you answer in detail exactly how Him being both God and man works and was accomplished. Did God die?
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
I agree...They fashioned their buildings, attire and customs on a combination of Jewish Old Testament Temple and pagan traditions...They don't even bother with the New Testament instructions to the churches...
When one digs a little, one can find they claim their 'Church' IS the kingdom of God, on earth...When they are successful in 'uniting' all the religions of the world into their religion, THEN their 'Christ' will show up...
I am always fascinated that when they speak of their 'Christ', they rarely if ever mention the name of Jesus...
If Mary was born without original sin and did not sin because she was not fallen, then she would not have been saved through faith but being sinless would not need redemption and would not have called her son Messiah.
2 Peter 1:20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private explanation for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.
The "holy men" there were the prophets. It was the Holy Spirit from which the explanation of those visions came. It was NOT talking about "interpretation of scripture".
As is Catholicism. See here for an example.
Just wanted to let you know that I had been responding to another post and believe the children of Abraham are children of faith of all nations, tongues, peoples, etc. Not just the Jews, because not all Jews are faithful. I don’t even want to think about the debate on Islam.
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.