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

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.

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.

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

I see...You don't see the words, 'sin nature', therefore, you can't find it...

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

There's some more sin nature...

"Here is the first verse in multiple translations and you can click at the top on the "Greek" tab to see the original in various texts: BibleHub on 2 Peter 1:20 The Young's Literal Translation is interesting. My reading is that the prophets weren't speaking their own words but only whatever God told them to say."

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

Well, Alamo-Girl, people will have different opinions as to what any Bible text means, but they really can't have a different opinion about what is actually there in the Greek (and they can't add Greek words that are not there already), and that was my point way back in that earlier post.

As I said in post #587, the Greek for 2 Peter 1:20 (found here - also at "BibleHub", literally says the following:

"This first knowing that any prophecy of scripture of its own interpretation not is"

Various Bible translation teams have come up with many different interpretations for that text, and in that same post #587 on this thread, I included some of the more common Protestant Bible translations of that particular text, as shown again here:

Some Common Protestant Bible Versions Of "2 Peter 1:20"

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - American Standard Version (ASV)

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - King James Version (KJV)

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Protestant Edition)

Get over yourself...

Mar 14:50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

They all left except Peter...On the way to the trial, Peter stayed a ways back to avoid being numbered with Jesus...Peter was fearing for his life and told 3 lies in the process...

John was the only apostle to show up at the crucifixion...Jesus' mother and a bunch of other women were there and off in the distance were some of Jesus' followers...Their names are not given...That's all scripture...

Perhaps you can show some scripture that shows the apostles were at the Crucifixion, besides John...

>>Where in scripture does it say only to rely on scripture?<<

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

If it's not you had better show a different source that shows what the apostles taught.

1Co_4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

They can bet their lives that this is not a reference to what is written in their catechism...

To use the language of metaphysics, the “substance” is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

You fail before you even get started...

"Mar 14:50 And they all forsook him, and fled. They all left except Peter...On the way to the trial, Peter stayed a ways back to avoid being numbered with Jesus...Peter was fearing for his life and told 3 lies in the process... John was the only apostle to show up at the crucifixion...Jesus' mother and a bunch of other women were there and off in the distance were some of Jesus' followers...Their names are not given...That's all scripture... Perhaps you can show some scripture that shows the apostles were at the Crucifixion, besides John..."

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

I see you did not want to take the bet, because, like you've seen, the Bible does not tell us the apostles were not at the crucifixion.

The first Bible text you quoted in your post, was, of course, not talking about the crucifixion, and has no bearing whatsoever on that discussion concerning who was actually at the crucifixion.

The Bible does not say that "John was the only apostle to show up at the crucifixion" - you made that up.

A more careful reading of those earlier posts might prove helpful to you. I did not say "the Bible says the apostles were at the crucifixion", I said "the Bible does not say they were not at the crucifixion". They are two different things altogether.

The Bible does not include a comprehensive list of everyone who was at the crucifixion (either close-up, or at a distance on the periphery), any more than it includes a list of everyone who was at the "Sermon on the Mount".

"Indeed, I looked at all of those things. But the context in which that verse appears (the right block on the link provided) is operative to understanding and therefore, my reading of it."

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

It is always a good idea to take things in context, but you sometimes have to go a bit beyond the "context" shown at BibleHub, or other sites like that.

The Second Letter of Peter was a letter, and it did not logically stop at the end of a chapter. If you continue with "Chapter Two - Verse 1" of that letter, you see that the very next sentence Peter writes in that letter is about false teachers, trying to get people to agree with their own (private) false interpretations of what Peter had been talking about, and Peter goes on to counsel them to not listen to those false teachers (and, by implication, their "private", erroneous interpretations of prophecy and teachings), but to listen rather to the Church leaders (like Peter himself) who continued to instruct them in the correct interpretation of the prophecies and teachings.

That is the broader, and more useful context to read those texts in, as I see it.

(With that, I have to say good night to you, as I have to get up pretty early. God bless you, Alamo-Girl.)

I posted no "quotes" from some theologian. It is God's Word, His Truth. 95% of what I posted came straight from scripture which you choose to selectively believe. Here is yet another confirmation from John. There is nothing irrelevant in God's Word. But there is much that is ignored and misunderstood by the religious.

John 1:11-14 (KJV) - 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And another one to ponder. Better take this one literally too.

Matthew 15:5-17 (KJV) - 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Am I on a roll?
If you are; I hope you're named Carmel Icing!

(Cause our Catholic friends already think you're NUTS!!!!)

Yep Elsie, but I can't possibly be nuts. After all, I left the RCC, the most wonderful thing that ever happened to me. Now, free from the bondage of Romanism, I can get away with all kinds of thing they can't, like I don't have to go to mass, I don't have to confess my sins to another sinner to get them forgiven. I can pray directly to God, I don't have to go through a bunch of other people to get to Him. I can get away with the peaceful feeling of knowing I won't go to Hell, and won't have to worry about purgatory. Mom, Els, is there anything else I can get away with now that I am out of it? I love getting away with things. It does my heart good.

:-) :-) :-)

1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Nope, John is talking about what he himself has written, in that letter, and he doesn't come close to saying that there is nothing else that is true.

It's a reference to what was written in the letter:

For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? [5] The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given. [6] I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. [7] Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Throughout the letter, Paul was admonishing his followers not to forget that they were all following Jesus, not the Apostles, and not to think higher of men like Paul and Apollo than Paul had just written to explain.

The bible wasn't completed when this letter was written, so Paul couldn't possible have meant to only believe what hadn't been written yet. I doubt he knew that his letters would end up as several books of the bible.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Topic of this letter is circumcision. Paul was explaining that those preaching that circumcision was required to become a follower of Christ were wrong. Those preachers were following what was in the bible as regards circumcision, and Paul told them not only did they not have to be circumcised, but that they shouldn't be.

It is doubtful that Paul would be saying that only what is in the bible was true, because he just contradicted it. He said, what I preach to you is more true than what is in the bible. Since the New Testament wasn't written yet, he was saying what is NOT written in the bible is the truth.

Love,
O2

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.