Mary Matters (Dr. Walter Martin on disbelief in the Mother of God)

Catholic Exchange ^ | JULY 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

[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.

[ADSUM]

You vipers. Must be your friends?

Are you a relative of Satan?

You obviously don’t like the words of Jesus: “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”

[MamaB]

I have had my doubts about some 2 year olds I have been around. : )

[2nd amendment mama]

Placeholder

[ADSUM]

You assume a lot. I have posted the relevant part of John 6.

Check out my previous posts.

You have many quotes, some have relevance, and others do not.

Many can not accept the literal words of Jesus.Yes the Bible is full of different literary styles.

Many have responded with personal opinion, but do not refute the clear logical words of Jesus.

The words were important to Jesus, and I believe that many are rejecting His words and rejecting Him.

By your question: “Now, what is the real revelation found in John 6, eating food, or believing in the Living Word?” I believe that you do not understand the The Word or the Truth. It is not about eating food, but accepting God and believing His word.

Many claim to be followers of Christ, but do not believe or accept some of His teachings (even if they say so). Christ knows who believes in Him.

[Iscool]

It is NEVER a valid use of Scripture to rip a word, phrase, or sentence from its context, as though it was intended to answer questions the author was not even thinking about.

Criticism from you one verse wonders...Accusing us of doing what you do...

The word 'all' means all regardless of who was in the audience at the time...Even Enoch and Elijah were sinners...

Rom_5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Mary was under the law...She was a sinner...

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This includes Mary...But ok, now the ball is in your court...Just provide one single verse showing Mary was sinless...

Well, we know you can't possibly do that so we'll skip that...

But to be honest, I am dumbfounded that people of your position don't know this stuff...

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

This also applies to born again Christians who are not under the law...

Rom_7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet

Rom_7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Are you getting any of this??? I have a feeling you aren't...

Mary was under the law...She knew what sin was and it would have been impossible for her not to sin...Jesus is the only person who never sinned...

I will draw your attention to the fact of these scriptures I posted that without the knowledge of the law, there can be no sin committed...Even under grace...

The law points out sin...If you don't know the law, you can not sin...Even what is referred to as the natural law of common sense...If you don't know it's a sin to lust after something and you do lust after something, it is not a sin...

God was pretty smart to lay out this stuff so we can't get confused with babies and the mentally incapable...If they don't know what the law is, they can not sin...

So, knowing that...KNOWING THAT, we can easily conclude that 'all have sinned' does leave a loophole...But as babies grow a little, they will become sinners...And unfortunately for you guys Mary does not fall into that loophole...

Mary knew the law...And as such, was a sinner...Mary was under the law...Mary knew she needed a Savior because she knew she was a sinner...Babies don't need a Savior, they are home free...

Mary was never sinless...Your religion doesn't have a jot or tittle to prove otherwise; it's just a pipedream that one of your religious ancestors made up...

So when Paul said 'all have sinned' we know it was referring to all who had knowedge of sin....And how do we know that??? Because we read the 'rest of the story'...

[Iscool]

Needless to say, all this talk of a “sin nature” is found nowhere in Scripture, and nowhere in Catholic theology.

While it may be true in Catholic theology, Catholicism has very little to do with scripture...The talk of sin nature is found in many places in scripture...But then you have to read the scripture to find it...

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

That's a sin nature...I can post a bunch of scripture to collaborate if you are interested but you guys don't seem to put much stock in God's scripture...

[Iscool]

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.

Just curious, do you know any other scripture???

[Iscool]

That is MormonDude's response sometimes!!

Now that you mention it, that's the Catholic position as well...The big difference is: I believe the scriptures...

[Arthur McGowan]

I see nothing there about a “sin nature.” Must be a man-made doctrine.

I see reference to “the flesh.” That’s human nature in the absence of grace. But it’s not a “nature” distinct from human nature.

[terycarl]

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.

No it doesn't. Protestant ability to do that ended in Luthers time when they ran out of Catholic Bishops who had the authority and lineage to ordain priests.

[Heart-Rest]

"Tell me the exact Bible text that says that the apostles were not with Christ on the cross, as you claim in your post."

"You never read it eh??? Have you read any scripture at all??? You're trying to teach us about God and you don't even know what God says...WoW..."

=============================================================

That has to be one of the most insolent, ignorant posts I've ever received.    Your statement in your post "You're trying to teach us about God and you don't even know what God says", is a falsehood.    You don't know what I know, and you should not pretend you do.

I urge you to read what Jesus says here about the truth and about lies.

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."     John 8:44

In my post to another poster which you were replying to here, I was making the simple point that the Bible does not tell us that the apostles were not at the crucifixion (like that poster had claimed in his post), when Jesus received that wine on His cross.    If you believe I am wrong about that, then I'll be happy to make you a friendly public wager right here and now.

If by the end of the day tomorrow (1/28/15), you can show me a Bible text that says that the apostles were not at the crucifixion, I will immediately donate an additional $100 to Free Republic, and if you can't, you will immediately donate an additional $100 to Free Republic.    Do we have a wager?    (Or are you going to weasel out of your snarky, rude, insulting, false statement in your post?)

[terycarl]

But you sure are trying to tell us how the God/man nature of Christ works. God raised Jesus from the dead. So did God raise another God from the dead?

I never said that God didn't raise Jesus from the dead....of course Jesus IS God so did He need any help...???? we know that He ascended on His own!!

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you went, but do not make it personal.

[terycarl]

Eve did eat the FRUIT, but when were their eyes opened? Read the account instead of listening to corrupted versions of the account that you have been taught.

Oh good grief, fruit/apple....whatever!!!

[terycarl]

repeat......The term *God the Son* appears no where in Scripture

But we know that He was, don't we????.....kind of like we know that Mary was His mother....the Mother of God.

[editor-surveyor]

Then you are a pagan worshiper.

Seasons are not appointed times for worship.

Yehova’s days have no names, they are numbered only.

Your worship is completely man made, you might just as well join the catholics now, since you’ll be joining them later.
.

[Heart-Rest]

"Play word games all you want. The passage does NOT say that scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals as Catholics try to imply."

=============================================================

It is hard to believe that you would have the audacity to talk about "playing word games", CynicalBear.

In your post #298, you said "Now let's look at it from the Greek", but then, instead of looking at the Greek like you said you were going to do, you posted those two Bible texts word for word from the "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)" English translation of 2 Peter 1:20-21

When you contemplate the terms "honesty", and "integrity", and "truth", exactly what do they mean to you?

Here is a layout of your so-called "Greek-to-English look" at those texts, along with that "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)" English version of those same texts, for quick comparison:

CynicalBear's personal "English" translation he said he derived from the "Greek" text (as claimed here in CynicalBear's post #298, where he said "Now let's look at it from the Greek".)

The "New International Version - UK (NIVUK) English" version of that text (as found here in this very loosely translated "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)" of 2 Peter 1:20- 21.)

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	Above	all,	you	must	understand	that	no	prophecy
NIVUK-English =========>	Above	all,	you	must	understand	that	no	prophecy

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	of	Scripture	came	about	by	the	prophet's	own
NIVUK-English =========>	of	Scripture	came	about	by	the	prophet’s	own

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	interpretation	of	things.	For	prophecy	never	had
NIVUK-English =========>	interpretation	of	things.	For	prophecy	never	had

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	its	origin	in	the	human	will,	but	prophets,
NIVUK-English =========>	its	origin	in	the	human	will,	but	prophets,

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	though	human,	spoke	from	God	as	they	were
NIVUK-English =========>	though	human,	spoke	from	God	as	they	were

CB'S "Greek-to-English" ===>	carried	along	by	the	Holy	Spirit.	2 Peter 1:20-21
NIVUK-English =========>	carried	along	by	the	Holy	Spirit.	2 Peter 1:20-21

The truth is, you did not have us "look at the Greek" like you said we were going to do (which says something completely different from the version you posted), but, rather, you had us look at the very questionable "NIVUK English translation" of those two texts in your post #298.

I see from one of your posts in this thread that you are familiar with the following classic poem, and I urge you to contemplate it once again, carefully and prayerfully (in the English version).

   

[editor-surveyor]

.
Yes, I’ve been aware of that for quite some time now.

.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Educating the man is not a food fight.

.

[Heart-Rest]

Is the sentence “You’re trying to teach us about God and you don’t even know what God says” (a falsehood I was replying to) personal?