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.
For Mary, conceived without the stain of Adam, original sin. For everyone else, through baptism and the sacrament of penance.
no they don't
The Holy Spirit, or each individual to his own ideas? Arguing over words and missing the point...
O.K., you're excused...there are Roman Catholics and the schismatic Eastern Catholics....all Catholics and in communion with each other....there are thousands of protestant denominations all of which insist that they are right....they aren't!!
Do you proselytize to them as well?
Well, do you? You didn't answer.
Or are you still "ROTFL"?
oh please...a protestant is one who protests....nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are...they protest against true Catholic Christianity...
I will endeavor to remove the mote from my eye if you will remove the beam from your butt.
what he accomplished was a MAJOR disaster...he could possibly be the direct cause of more people to lose their souls than any other person in history...he led literally millions of people away from the true church of Christ.
Brilliant. I still find tremendous comfort and sustenance in the Bible today partly due to Luther.
Nonsense. Every human with the exception of Adam, Eve and Christ Himself was conceived in sin.
This is why Mary needed grace just as every human does. She herself in Luke 2 called God her Savior because she humbly knew that she also was in a sinful condition and needed salvation from it.
wait until you hear from the Catholic drop outs...they can get really violent in attempting to justify their poor decision to leave Christ’s church to follow whatever church is happening now!!!
Heart Rest posted a link to a discussion between Tim Staples and Fr. Mitch Pacwa. In the video, Fr. Mitch recalls a debate he had with Dr. Martin. You can watch the video HERE. I don't know if that debate is available on the internet but will do some surfing and let you know if I find one. God bless.
No they haven’t....
Your comment: “There will be NO comments from the usual suspects confronting, point by point by point, the Christological and Trinitarian problems that arise when Mary is denied the title “Mother of God.””
They have trouble proving that the Word of Jesus and teachings of the Catholic Church are false. As Catholics, we are grateful that we have the Words of Jesus and the teachings of the Catholic Church and we attempt to live by them and share them with others.
They have trouble accepting the words of Jesus that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord among many other teachings of Jesus. They just keep repeating their talking points and seem to have closed minds on real understanding. They seem to protest too much and don’t add to positive understanding of God and His teachings.
It strengthens my understanding to repond with Catholic teachings and I hope that a few many begin to understand. I can’t imagine the anquish and hurt that God has when people do not understand and reject God.
Thank you, Father, for your participation in spreading God’s word on the FR.
I appreciate Tim Staples scholarship and understanding that he presented and I have a greater appreciation of the Blessed Mother.
“A true Mariology serves as a guarantor against bad Christology.”
The essential elements of the Gospel, as Paul defined it in 1 Corinthians 15, contains absolutely NOTHING about Chirst’s mother, Mary. The reason for this is because a person does not need to even know Mary existed to learn of Christ’s saving work.
A heretic is someone who overemphasizes a Biblical concept or idea to the point at which it becomes twisted, distorted, or corrupted. This is EXACTLY what Catholicism does with a minor character in the pages of scripture. Is she important? Sure. Does her importance warrant claims that Mariology is essential to Christology. NO!
Does her important role warrant making images of her to bow toward, to make sacrifices to, and to offer prayers to? NO!
For these things the Word of God is explicitly clear that those who commit these acts of idolatry will have their part in the lake of fire. These are not merely my opinions, or the opinions of other mere men, but the Word of God.
Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
As the real Mary of the Bible is holy, she would reprove the wicked idolatry that is being promoted in her name, just as the apostles and holy angels have done before when men were tempted to bow and worship them. This is not merely because such acts dishonor her, but also because they damn men’s souls to a Christless eternity in the lake of fire. Those who advocate this have not repented of their error themselves and have made a career of promoting it to others. They would make this woman of God out to be like Satan, calling for men to bow down and worship him. But Christ rebuked Satan for this, quoting scripture, which if Satan had obeyed, he would have been forced to bend his own knee to the One he was tempting to commit idolatry and Satan worship.
Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”
Woe to the impostors! Those who promote the worship of Mary are not content to rush headlong to destruction alone, they insist on taking many with them. But these errors will not go unanswered.
Matthew 23:13, 15, 24, 27-33
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Probably voted for Obama too...there goes their credibility!!!!! :)
Your comment:”Nonsense. Every human with the exception of Adam, Eve and Christ Himself was conceived in sin.”
Who made you God? and all knowing? You offer no justification for your statement.
There are well written explantions of the Catholic Church teachings on this subject.
I can’t believe that you call Jesus a sinner.
Yep - all the hallmarks are there.
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.