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.

Yet Catholicism demands belief that Mary is the “mother of God”.

The Roman Catholic Church does hold that Mary is the mother of God, and most Catholics and some other Christians believe this.

And there are Christians, some of whom are Catholic, who do not believe that Mary is the mother of God.

This has been and will most likely continue to be a point of contention on this Forum.

It is true that Mary is not called the “Mother of God” anywhere in Scripture. It is also true that the Triune Godhead, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, has no mother.

But if the Son is willing to come down from heaven and be born of woman, it seems that He would also be willing to consider that woman to be His mother while He was on earth. For this reason only can Mary be called the mother of God.

I have not seen a good reason put forward as to why the incarnate Son of God would not consider Mary to be His mother.

The Trinity is a good place to start.

I believe the following about the Trinity (from the Creed in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer):

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.”

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.”

I further believe that our Lord, Jesus Christ, true God from true God, of one Being with the Father, came down from heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit, became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

In other words, God came down from heaven and was made man from the Virgin Mary.

The Father was not made man. The Holy Spirit was not made man yet proceeds from the Son and the Father. It was only the Son that was made man.

It is true that Mary is not called the “Mother of God” anywhere in Scripture. It is also true that the Triune Godhead, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, has no mother. But if the Son is willing to come down from heaven and be born of woman, it seems that He would also be willing to consider that woman to be His mother while He was on earth. For this reason only can Mary be called the mother of God.

If the term “mother of God” were correct and appropriate those would have been the words he Holy Spirit would have had used. He didn’t. Catholics may want to take the hint.

There are many terms that the Holy Spirit did not put in Scripture. One of them is “Jesus is God.” Yet we still believe that Jesus is God.

>>There are many terms that the Holy Spirit did not put in Scripture. One of them is “Jesus is God.” Yet we still believe that Jesus is God.<<

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Did you miss that, dismiss that, Allagorize that, or simply ignore that?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/88.htm

Hey elsie, here is a link to the book of jasher. A book referenced in our holy bible.

Verse 14 says that the march began on the 1st day of the month.

Using the template God gave Ezekiel in Ezekiel 46, new moon day, six work days,
The seventh day of every one of God’s months is a work day. The 8th day is the Sabbath.
That is why Israel did not violate the Sabbath first thing out f the wilderness..
New moon is a day that was a worship day in scripture. It is only one in the 7th month this day and age..

People accept Rome’ timekeeping because it is all they were ever taught... well, Israel was taught His timekeeping for 40 years in the wilderness..

We may not have 40 years..

New moon day - 1st day of month
Six work days- days 2-7 of month
Weekly Sabbath- day 8 of month

It would then make the 15th, 22nd and 29th day as Sabbaths.

It isn’t an accident those feasts in Leviticus that start on the 15th begin with a sabbath, holy convocation.
He has that built into His calendar.

The first sabbath Israel observed was after 6 days of manna. That started on the 16th day in exodus (exodus 16 I think)

15th day of 2nd month
16th- manna
17- manna
18 manna
19 manna
20 manna
21 6th day of manna
22th day no manna Sabbath

It is under the surface of the bible. And like I state earlier, it was the exact calendar or savior followed with His major life events..

People tend to focus on laws changed.,. Time itself has changed..
That is why with confidence I call today His 6th day of His week and tomorrow is His Sabbath..

And observing this calendar is not possible if you depend on the world..

They will look at you like you are crazy.. or at least peculiar.. I simply call it sola scriptura

So you believe in one God yet part of that God died on the cross and another part of that God raised the part of God that died from the dead? Have I got the right?

Would you please refer to my post 784, where I wrote the following, and stop saying I believe God died? Your comments prompted to rethink that, okay?

No I don’t have it down pat. That’s why I have so many questions. And it is by no means intended to be an inquisition. Your response: “The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, left the body He temporarily inhabited on Earth, but His divine nature did not die, nor could it,” gives me something to ponder. It was necessary for Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory, but maybe it was sufficient for Christ to die in his human form to redeem us from our sins.

I am gentile that understands God’s calendar.

I have never lived in a tent or has to wear one of beanies unless I went to a bar mitzvah for one of my Jewish schoolmates years ago.

I have never been more free
Nor closer to my Savior..

I was a slave of conformity when I called today after some false god, Wooden..like I suspect most of the English speaking world does..
Woden.. tomorrow for a more recognizable god named Thor.

My heart has been circumcised. And I love honoring He that made heaven, earth the seas and fountains of water.

But most will honor wooden or Thor or friya or Saturn or the sun or moon..

And they don’t even know they are conformed to the rudiments of the world..
Praise Yah He has renewed my mind..

It is a journey and love that He will bless us for choices that focus on Him..

It isn’t love if you have to do it.. it is love when you want to do it..

Oh but you keep saying that. Here is your statement.

>>For this reason only can Mary be called the mother of God.<<

If Mary is the "mother of God" and that Son died on the cross and the man/God persona cannot be separated then God the Son died on that cross. Now, we only have two options. Either the "one true God" can be separated or the man/God nature of Jesus can be separated.

We also have another consideration. Jesus said "my God, my God why have you forsaken me". If the man/God nature of Jesus cannot be separated was God forsaking part of God?

Are you getting a sense of how the term "mother of God" can not be used without coming into problems with the rest of scripture?

Like metmom keeps showing. Scripture uses the term "mother of Jesus" and does so for a reason.

Did you miss that, dismiss that, Allagorize that, or simply ignore that?

None of the above. I believe that, even though the words “Jesus is God” appears nowhere in Scripture.

In the same way, the following is why I believe Mary is the “Mother of God” even though those words appear nowhere in Scripture.

Luke 1:28-35 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Today is His 6th day. Tomorrow is His Sabbath..

Not sure you looked up the oword moed in your concordance..

Not sure you would like to see the exact word used in Isaiah detailing Satan wanting to sit on the mount of ‘ Moed’ - Isa 14:13

In that place, moed meant congregation..

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moed.
Since you like NASA for info, I will use wiki to show you what the modern world calls ‘moed’
Here is one from an online concordance.

http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/4150.html

If you still want to think in terms of fall, winter, spring summer I can’t help you..

And maybe in light of what Isaiah says about Satan and the despire to be worshipped and to steal worship, changing times and laws (like the calendar) he can accomplish his goal to have people working when Yah says rest and worship and rest and worship when Yah says work.

But hey, you are welcome to chiun worship on Saturdays..

I don’t doubt that has happened.. and he has used Rome as he vessel

And all the word wonders after the beast..

Either the “one true God” can be separated or the man/God nature of Jesus can be separated.

Luke 1:28-35 shows that the three persons in one God can act independent of each other. That is the concept of the Trinity; three persons in one God. Mary conceives and bears the Son. The Holy Spirit came upon her and the Most High overshadowed her.

It is also revealed in the baptism of the Lord. Jesus is walking out of the water, the Spirit comes to rest over Him in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from the heavens.

The Son can call out to the Father on the cross. But we know that the Father did not truly forsake the Son.

.
Your deviance from the word is leading down a very dark path.

His Sabbath is not to be tampered with.

Being a Wikipedophile is risky too.

You can’t help anyone! You are in serious need of help.

And by the way, Isaiah 14 has absolutely nothing to do with the Sabbath; it speaks to the future casting out of Satan (soon to come to a neighborhood near you...)

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.