Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
Mary: Mother of God?
This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."
This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.
Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?
The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.
Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".
This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."
It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.
They CAN’T argue on doctrinal issues simply because all they have is “that’s what we believe and we are the ONE”. Reading the way some talk to strangers here, I wouldn’t go to their church to get out of the rain much less to be spiritually fed. Thank God he led us out of false religion and into the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
The Protestant never denied the principle of apostolic tradition or oral instruction. It’s just that oral transmission suffers from a high decay rate. Word-of-mouth may be adequate when it comes straight from the mouth of an Apostle to the ear of a contemporary. But there’s a categorical difference between the viva voce of the Apostles and a "process of living Tradition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶83.). Oral tradition is no substitute for a permanent record. It was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. That’s precisely why revelation was committed to writing (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 31:9,13,26; Ps 102:18; Isa 30:8). Human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. The rediscovery of the written law code (2 Kgs 22:8ff. 2 Chron 34:14ff.) powerfully illustrates the inadequacies of unaided memory in keeping a people from apostasy—a point made by R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1986), 66.
To take another example, (a) Papias was, according to Irenaeus, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John. He made an earnest effort to collect the agrapha of Christ. Yet despite his proximity to primitive recollection, his gleanings are remarkably meager, and have an unmistakably derivative flavor. Owing to the short shelf-life of oral tradition, as well as the incentive to fabricate tradition (e.g. the NT apocrypha), no formal authority attaches to mere tradition, although some of it may afford probative evidence for past practice.
Moreover, Sacred Tradition, as currently redefined, is not the same as an oral mode of transmission. It ceases to be a conservative force and becomes a revisionary dynamic. Again, Jesus warns us against the dangers of man-made tradition, and judges that tradition by the standard of Scripture (Mt 7:7-8,13). But when human tradition comes to be identified with a divine teaching office, it is then impervious to the correction of Scripture, and we’re right back to the situation that summoned forth our Lord’s reproof. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html
I think you just won the argument. High Five.
Standing back a bit, we can see that progressive revelation within Scripture is a Scriptural principal, and men like Moses, the Lord and His apostles did give additional revelation, such as the mystery of the church in the latter case, “...Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,” (Eph. 3:3-5) though it was based upon and explained and expanded upon prior revelation of God-inspired Scripture, and thus such conflated with and complimented it.
But unlike the typical strawman of sols scriptura (SS), this does not mean that all that can be known is in Scripture, as that would be contrary to Scripture; (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)
Or that Scriptura is all we can use in discerning and teaching truth, for that would reject reason itself which Scripture appeals to, and teachers, commentaries, historical helps, etc, all of which Scripture materially provides for;
Nor does it mean it must reject all practices otherwise loosely termed “traditions,” (wedding ceremonies, etc.):
But what it require is that all be subject to Scriptural warrant and conflation, it being alone as the assuredly infallible rule of faith, and is able to make one wise unto salvation and materially providing for all that is needed to make one perfect, and which nothing is equal to in authority (on earth), unto which body nothing is to be added.
And as per the latter, it provides for the church and its magisterium, among other things (and of course, we see in Scripture that writings were established as Divine Scripture without a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium, due to their qualities, conflation and attestation.)
The Westminster confession states,
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
CHAPTER XXXI.
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm Cf. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
**From Alister McGrath’s The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith.
There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers’ understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html
Sorry for the length, but i think some clarification is needed in this foundational issue of authority.
No one has said it isn’t. The principal set down by Paul was that relying on oral transmission is not reliable and needs to be judged by the written word. Until the death of the apostles who were eye witness new information was relevant. After their deaths it becomes less and less reliable. The admonition to “search the scriptures to see if these things are true” still stands as sound advice.
>> But unlike the typical strawman of sols scriptura (SS), this does not mean that all that can be known is in Scripture, as that would be contrary to Scripture;<<
But I can assure that anything additional would agree with scripture in all respects.
>> Nor does it mean it must reject all practices otherwise loosely termed “traditions,” (wedding ceremonies, etc.):<<
I know of no non Catholic who has said otherwise.
>> And as per the latter, it provides for the church and its magisterium, among other things<<
Say what? It supports no hierarchical structure.
>> Sorry for the length, but i think some clarification is needed in this foundational issue of authority.<<
No one has said there aren’t traditions. There are local traditions, regional traditions and traditions which are nationwide. When Christ was denigrating the “traditions of men” he wasn’t talking about those. He was talking about the requirements for salvation. The “foundational issue of authority” only relates to the “elder” of the local Christian community who have grown in knowledge and the faith and the given gifts of teaching etc. No “organizational structure” for the “church” other than Christ as the head is given or implied. In every instance of increased “authority” with the leadership of the church on earth human greed and power has corrupted.
A weighty and worthy submission, which strongly argues, that having infallible defined herself as infallible, Rome’s justification for such from history, Tradition and Scripture, must mean what she says they mean. And which Cardinal Manning basicially states, as quoted here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2830085/posts?page=171#171
Note that assurance of the infallibility of such cannot rest upon the weight of Scripture (lest Scripture become the supreme authority for assurance), but while it may be invoked, assurance rests upon the premise of assured perpetual formulaic infallibility, which is what gives authority to any text invoked in support, although arguments behind infallible decrees are not themselves necessarily infallible.
Where are you even coming from???!!! I do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ, he is Almighty God incarnate, God in the flesh and I have NEVER denied him. I am also a former Roman Catholic who has no need to pretend about anything but, from the start, I have truthfully testified of my conversion. I praise the Lord that he led me to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who saves us by his grace through faith. Do you think such hateful and vindictive words against those here who have also stated the same glorifies the Lord? Has it occurred to you that you may repel others from Christ? Do you think the way you speak to others honors God or draws people to your church?
Why not accept that we can dispute doctrines of the Catholic Church and do so without being "rabid anti-Catholicism"??? YES, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be given to lead believers into all truth and it was a promise not just to the Apostles but ALL believers. The revelation of Jesus Christ that the writers of Scripture recorded was done so that we can all know truth from error. The Holy Spirit does not change because God does not change and he is just as ready to illuminate the truths of God to believers here and now as he was in the first century. Wallow in that for a while, why don't you.
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
>>Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.<<
That’s why we have to take all of scripture to understand and not try to deceive with portions taken out of the context of the entire scripture. Your attempt to intimate that the verse in James means something it doesn’t would have made other portions of scripture untrue.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Once again you contend that scripture is yopios?
I do not think there was any real disagreement but so often SS is misrepresented by those who oppose it.
As for “it provides for the church and its magisterium..,” it does just that, of pastors, teachers, etc, in the interdependence of the body and its gifts and offices, and in which bishops/elders refers to one office of leaders/overseers among brethren, (Mt. 23:8; Titus 2:15; Heb. 13:7) and not after the vast Roman bureaucracy and its most reverend Lord Archbishops, etc.
As re “foundational issue of authority,” i was speaking of Scripture versus an office of men being assuredly infallible and supreme.
How do you dare disagree with such an interpretation of yourself by one who belongs to the (self-proclaimed) infallible church???
Have a god night.
How do you dare disagree with such an interpretation of yourself by one who belongs to the (self-proclaimed) infallible church???
Have a God night.
Of course they do. Some confuse it with Solo Scriptura and some just obfuscate and inject a meaning that isn’t true.
>>one office of leaders/overseers among brethren<<
Nein! Severs of the brethren. Overseers of truth perhaps.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Jesus says.....
John 3:16-18 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 6:28-30 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
John says.....
John 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
So explain the contradiction that the Catholic interpretation of James causes, that works are required to earn salvation.
When someone goes even further and blatantly calls Christ Himself a liar by denying that He is present in the bread and wine when we remember Him, they are deliberately denying the deity of Christ by directly calling Christ a liar.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
So why do Catholics deny the very words of Jesus where He explains that what He just said was spiritual truths and not physical.
"the flesh is no help at all."
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, “I never knew you” from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.
Blatant and outright hypocrisy and obviously a power grab.
The claims for Scriptural support are just to mollify the objections of the non-Catholics. If it weren't for the demand of Scriptural support from non-Catholics, I don't doubt for a minute that the church would just claim tradition alone as enough support to raise tradition to that level and tell its membership that's all that's necessary and they'd better believe it.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome’s teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7
What a joke. It's true because we say so????
Really?
When it’s all they got...
Those words of Jesus are not directed at those who deny the deity of Christ. They are directed at those who appeal to their works to get them into heaven. Catholics love to take that verse out of context, so here it is IN context.
Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The works that get those *sheep* into heaven were works that they weren't even aware that they were doing, as opposed to works the first group did to earn brownie points with God.
Deliberately doing works to earn salvation or even to contribute to it is an ... EPIC FAIL, that too many people are going to find out about too late.
You have time. Repent and confess and put your total faith in Jesus alone for salvation. Not the church, not Mary, not your works, not sacraments, not anything but the finished work of Jesus on the cross.
It's all you need to do, throw yourself on the mercy of (the court) God.
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.