Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a mans mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through hernot Josephthat Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Sons divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine personJesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christs human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christs human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct personsone divine and one humanunited in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Marys 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 Marys divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
The Church would like to link Protestant thought to the Nestorian error when in actually they credit Mary with doing everything herself, which is far from true. There is no evidence that Mary supplied anything-even an egg. The only thing we know about the holy birth is that Mary carried our Lord Jesus. The divine nature and human perfection that comprised our Lord Jesus came from the Holy Spirit.
Catholics are fond of comparing Mary to the Ark. Keep in mind that everything inside the Ark was supplied by God.
As they should be. It's clear from seeing all the "venerating" of Mary that RC's do, they think of her as more than the God Bearer. It's claimed that it isn't worship, but it sure looks like it.
Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christs human nature.
Well I guess the RCC isn't opposed to misrepresenting others beliefs.
In this case I would argue that the material came from God's Holy Spirit; not Mary. God creates things-not humans.
I would agree. I think the most appropriate way to view Mary is she was blessed to be the God Bearer.