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.
Oh, so suddenly now it's SPIRITUAL meaning.
How hypocritical.
If y'all are going to demand literal interpretation of eating and drinking His flesh and blood to give you life, then be consistent and demand that it is literal physical in this body life. The same body that ate and drank.
Don't be hypocrites and switch in the middle of a discourse.
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens,Evaristus, AlexanderI, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius I, Anicetus, Soterius, Eleutherius, VictorI, Zephyrinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus....and that only taakes us up to the year 250 or so.....who do you suppose that these people were???????????????
I guess what you're saying is ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Do they worship our God before they worship a God who doesn't exist or just do it in a poor way. My goodness, talk about a convoluted sentence.
I don't understand....really....someone quotes a Bible verse and you respond with you vipers....what the hell does that mean??????really...????
It comes right after the one where you show that she sinned...
When Jesus tossed the money changers out of the temple and turned over their tables, and deprived them of their livlehood, and cost them who knows how much money, and deprived their families of supper that night.......did He sin??
just curious....if you don't believe that, why would more scripture make you change your mind?????
as written by who??...the Catholics, or Luther, or Storch, or Calvin, or knox, or Smyth, or Wesley, or Otterbein, or Campbell...or etc etc etc etc etc.
Mostly Jews were the writers of the Bible. Moses wrote the 1st 5 books sometime before 1400 BC. Was Moses Catholic? That refutes the falsehood that you keep posting that Catholics wrote the Bible.
AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT......PERFECT. desciption of Protestantism....I'm not responsible for anything that I do...Christ forgave all sins so I can live as I like....I can get away with anything....who are you to challenge me, all my sins are forgiven...even those that I haven't comitted yet.....Look out girls, here I come, survival of the fittest I say....if you have it and I want it.....IT IS MINE....Purgatory you say....Hell, I'm not responsible for anything so what does that mean to me????....Nothing I say...WATCH OUT WORLD, HERE I COME AND IT IS ON MY TERMS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.....
Good luck with that theory but.....thanks but no thanks!!
You still don’t understand the words of Jesus about His Body and Blood that is for our salvation contrasted against the old mosaic law about eating blood and meat of sacrificed animals to idols.
I partake of the Eucharist because Jesus told us to do so. I believe that it is His Body and Blood and I feel much closer to God.
If you can’t or won’t understand the difference in a gift of God for our salvation compared to a general statement of a Jewish custom, then perhaps you are not listening to God’s word and following false teachings.
It seems to me that non Catholics struggle to come up with a minor issue/distraction/excuse to avoid dealing with God’s explicit words.
I suggest that the Catholic Church’s teaching that only Catholics should receive the Eucharist, then non catholics have to deny this teaching of Jesus.
NOPE...all Christianity....and the neat thing is that you don't even have to believe it....it's true anyway!!
Nope, he's the Pope of all Christianity....he was in the year 100, and the year 500, and the year 1000, and the year 1,900, an the year 2015....nothing changed. Along about the 1600's, some decided to change the definition of Christianity.
That didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Christianity is the Catholic church and those who decide to practice it outside the true church.....O.K., but it's still Christianity and he is still the Pope of Christianity....
Hey mom, we got us a live one here. I love to get away with stuff that catholics can't, such as, I get away with not going to mass, not going to confession to a sinner, not participating in worthless rites and rituals. I LOVE to get away with those kinds of things. I LOVE it. Sorry you can't get away with those things, but I couldn't be happier. See you at the pearly gates, again. 😇🆒
something miraculous happened to the true believers there, they recieved the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine just as He promised that they would!!!!!!
You did not show any such thing (like you claim in your post), but I am not at all surprised that you are claiming you did.
In my post which you were responding to here, I offered another poster this wager, (and please read it more slowly and carefully this time):
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?Would you care to make that wager CynicalBear? (There is still time.)
(By the way, CynicalBear, when you learn of a painting titled "Christ on the Cross with Saints Mary, John the Evangelist and Catherine of Siena", does your understanding of the English language tell you that that only can mean that Saint Mary, Saint John the Evangelist, and Saint Catherine of Siena have to actually be up on the cross with Jesus in that painting, or do you comprehend the correct meaning of that precise usage of that language, as shown here?)
Here is that picture, for your enjoyment and personal edification.
Christ on the Cross with Saints Mary, John the Evangelist and Catherine of Siena
(Perhaps you ought to try to analyze that phraseology in the Greek.) :-)
He did.....then He rose from the dead....remember now???????
Kindly show me in Scripture where true believers received Jesus' Soul and Divinity through the Eucharist? I have NEVER heard that before! That's simply an outrageous claim.
or later when it says "take and drink of this, this is a cup of my blood which shall be shed for you for the remission of sin"......and unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink of his blood you shall not have life within you...
but then, He was probably just kidding or something????
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.