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.
Yes, he wasn’t. I might have put Prophet in quotes to emphasis that, but I was going by his title in Islam which was why Prophet was capitalized. And I don’t believe anyone here believes he is a real prophet.
Being saved does not mean that you will never sin again. Being human, we will still suffer temptation, and will occasionally fall. But to fall does not mean you are not saved or were never saved. And if you cannot know for sure if you are saved until you die, then your religion has a significant flaw.
Now, there is a significant difference between a Christian who falls into sin and repents, and someone who claims to be a Christian but lives a lifestyle of unrepentant sin. As the Scripture says, by their fruits you will know them.
And we have the choice to walk away from God, but that is a choice - no power can pry us from His hand, but we are free to leave if we choose. But I can know I am saved - If I accept the work of the Cross, repent of my sins, acknowledge Him as the God and ask Him to be the Lord of my life, I can be saved and KNOW it. And if I choose not to accept Him or to walk away, then I can also know that I am NOT saved.
I believe Mary was saved - but not in the womb or at birth. Like everyone else, Mary had to accept Christ as her Lord and Savior and have her sins washed by the Blood of the Lamb. That does not make her less important in God's plan or make her less worthy of honor and respect.
Needless to say, all this talk of a “sin nature” is found nowhere in Scripture, and nowhere in Catholic theology.
The burden is on you. YOU defend the repulsive proposition that an infant or a severely retarded person can sin.
“YOU’RE the one who keeps saying that anything that isn’t taught in Scripture has to be untrue.
“I provided you with a host of counterexamples.
You provided logical fallacies by changing the meaning of truth.
Your purported “truths” are not identical to Truth from God by inspired revelation. We are discussing Truth. Not things that are generally true.
When you make up doctrines out of thin air and claim they are Truth - equal to God’s inspired revelation in Scripture, that is different in kind to the examples you made up.
This is why I told you that you can certainly (at least I think) do better at having an actual discussion.
... at least I had hoped you could do better. It hasn’t happened yet. It may not be possible.
Peter and his successors were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
....”the Catholic Church says Catholics and Muslims serve the same god”.....
Christians know otherwise, as you know.
The deception God said would come certainly seems to be increasing throughout the world today. It’s “ripe” for deception and the masses easily mis-lead.
You are still rejecting Jesus and how he tells us to gain salvation.
John 6
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
May Jesus have mercy on your soul.
And he repeated His message so that people will understand.
53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.
But some people rejected Him back then, and some reject Him now.
Why would I or anyone believe that??? However, every word that God spoke that we needed to know pertaining to doctrine and our salvation is written in the bible...
And how did early Christians know what to believe before the New Testament was written?
Because they followed and listened to the preachers who provided physical signs to them, the Jews...
Mat_10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Luk_10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Act_6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
1Co_2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
Now you know...
Deuteronomy 8:3 ...not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
I have just given you an example from the bible, which directly contradicts that unless you believe that EVERY word from the mouth of God is in the bible.
Every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God that he wanted us to have, is in the bible...
So all that stuff about original sin is a bunch of hooey......
6:53–54 This is the fourth and last of Jesus’ strong prefaces in this discourse (cf. vv. 26, 32, 47). It should be obvious to any readers of this discourse by now that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally. By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (v. 40). He expressed the same truth negatively (v. 53) and then positively (v. 54a). He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44).Jesus was again stressing His identity as the revealer of God with the title “Son of Man.” Blood in the Old Testament represented violent death primarily. Thus Jesus was hinting that He would die violently. He connected the importance of belief in Him with His atoning death. The idea of eating blood was repulsive to the Jews (cf. Lev. 3:17; 17:10–14). Jesus’ hearers should have understood that He was speaking metaphorically, but this reference offended many of them (vv. 60–61).
Many interpreters of these verses have seen allusions to the Lord’s Supper in what Jesus said. Sacramentalists among them find support here for their belief that participation in the eucharist is essential for salvation. However, Jesus had not yet said anything about the Christian communion service. Moreover He was clearly speaking of belief metaphorically, not the communion elements. Most important, the New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Jesus’ death, not a vehicle for obtaining eternal life. Nevertheless these verses help us appreciate the symbolism of the eucharist.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 6:53).
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Then you don't plan on dying, eh?
Yes, Mary has sinned...She never fixed dinner for her family...She used to make up stories to get her siblings in trouble...ALL have sinned...
You mean the burden is on God...I didn't say it...I'm just repeating what he said...
I figured out long ago that I don't have to understand everything in the bible...But I sure better believe it...
Without believing it, one will be stuck sucking on a baby bottle for the rest of his life...
Peter didn't have any successors...And it was Peter and his fellow disciples who received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven...
Like I said...These guys are not required to go to bible school...
No. That is not a logical consequence of what I said.
The Catholic Church understands Original Sin to consist in:
The absence of sanctifying grace (charity) at conception;
The absence of “felt grace” in the developing child; i.e., no experience of God as present;
The resulting distortion of the consciousness of the child; it is turned in on itself; it experiences itself as the “center of the universe.” As a consequence, the entire psychic structure, all the faculties, are distorted in such a way that makes charity seem and feel “unnatural” and selfishness and self-seeking feel “natural.”
When the age of reason is reached, the consequence is deliberate sin.
The only “nature” a human being has or inherits is his human nature. Sin is a privation or distortion of what is good, but it is not itself a positive reality. There is no “sin nature” existing as an actual “thing.”
As you can see, there was no warrant for your statement that the Catholic Church does not teach about Original Sin.
You: Nothing.
It appears that my work here is finished.
I'm sorry that your choice requires you to do more work.
Catholicism provides what Catholics must have to enter Heaven.
Sure!
Do I believe that any of them might be needed for salvation?
Just like you.
After having s SWORD ran through her???
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.