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.
lol...seems like it, doesn’t it...
They certainly WERE...up until the time that Christ established His church...Peter, upon this rock...that scene, then they were members of His new church. Actually, they were Christians as followers of Christ and soon became known as Catholics....but they were Catholics from the beginning.
Finally, you've got it!
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin.
The Wright Brothers flew for the first time at Kitty Hawk in 1903.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789.
Cleveland is a city in Ohio.
Want more examples?
For non Catholics it's not a big issue...It doesn't change the fact that ALL of the living creation commits sin...
For Catholics on the other hand, the issue is huge since believing one of your two positions can eliminate Mary being the mother of God, being sinless and the whole shebang...
The scriptures of God gives the answer...You guys aren't big on scripture...You get your interpretation of scripture from your 'Church' and your 'Church' doesn't even comment on most of the scriptures while telling you not to go outside of what your religion teaches...
So you guys are left in the dark concerning what God has to say to his church...
When we pull up scripture to explain these things, you are taught to say, 'It's only your opinion'...
That's why, My tiny little brain does not have the answers.
That is in direct contradiction to Scripture. When the women went to Jesus's tomb and found His body to be missing, they were told by the angel "He is not here, He is risen". Not just His Spirit, but His body was no longer in the tomb. Jesus had Thomas touch the wounds in His hands and feet. Jesus appeared to men over a period of 40 days after His resurrection. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus was resurrected physically.
OK...thanks...
You say that as though it were something you disagree with. But you couldn't possibly disagree with it:
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin.
The Wright Brothers flew for the first time at Kitty Hawk in 1903.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789.
Cleveland is a city in Ohio.
Want more examples?
That's absolutely FALSE teaching!
Jesus never gave up his divinity. He is totally and completely God. If you insist on putting human limits on how God exists because you cannot commit to the concept of Trinity on faith, you will never get it.
God did die, and he did not die. Impossible to human logic, but with God all things are possible.
Love,
O2
We have no idea of how the trinatarian nature of God works. He, of course, makes the rules and just how He does things is far above our pay grade.
Actually, the names of the brothers of Jesus are specified in at least 2 of the Gospels. It also mentions His sisters, though doesn't mention them by name.
Jesus was holding bread and wine and both are edible...He transubsstantiated them into His Body and Blood and told us what He was doing and instructed us to "DO THIS"...we do.
Yeah, soon, like the third or fourth century soon.
May I present more Scripture to you?
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Romans 8:11 KJV)
The Scripture clearly states that Christ was raised up from the dead.
>> “There is a story that St. Augustine was walking on the beach contemplating the mystery of the Trinity...” <<
And you wish to raise your little catholic story to the level of scripture?
I do not wish in any way to raise this little story to the level of scripture. It is an allegory that may or may not have happened and is used to illustrate the nonsense of men. We see it on this forum all the time. People are absolutely certain they have answers that cannot possibly be known to our tiny little brains.
IF the bread and the wine were to be transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, then it follows that this would occur when anyone observed Communion. There was never anything in Scripture to indicate that the bread and wine had to be specially blessed by a priest or go through some special ritual - Jesus just said, "do this in remembrance of me". So the argument that anyone taking Communion outside of the Catholic Church would not receive the true "body and blood of Christ" is specious at best.
no it isn't, you were 2nd amendment mama from the moment of your conception way back when....Just because your parents didn't name you until after your physical birth changes nothing....you were who you are from conception.....so is the Catholic church.....same body, new name!
It is original sin which causes us to sin, so without that Mary was able to lead a sinless life.
No, it is not in the bible. But neither is the concept of sola scriptura.
Man can only live 'by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' Not every one of those words is in the bible. Some were never written, but were remembered and passed down. If you do not accept that there could be some traditions that are from God but extra-biblical, then you are not really following God's teaching.
What those traditions are is debatable, but the fact that not 'every word' is in the bible is not.
Love,
O2
Finally, you've got it!
LOL we get the Marian apologetic. IMO it's not the "truth" part that sends us into fits of laughter, so much as the Catholic claims that any of it is "scriptural".
I must acknowledge that there is no explicit verse that directly settles this issue. At the same time, I don’t think that an explicit verse is necessary to prove that something is scriptural. I think that if a doctrine is implied in Scripture or logically follows from what we find in Scripture, and if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes it, then that belief can be considered scriptural.
-- from the thread In Defense of the Immaculate Conception: Part 2
Oh really?
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:
1 Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Now, if you believe that God died and another part of God raised Him from the dead then you believe that the Godhead can be separated. Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? That there are three Gods like the Mormons?
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.