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.

[rwa265]

Question (Q): So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to call her “mother of God”?

Response (R): Throughout the Gospels, the writers used the term Jesus when referring to Him. Jesus went, Jesus said, Jesus prayed, etc. In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.

Q: So you can separate the nature of God but not the nature of Jesus the man?

R: This is the central mystery of our faith. How there is one God but three separate and distinct persons, each of whom is God, whole and entire. Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?

Q: You say you are looking for answers but I’m sensing you looking more to re-inforce prior beliefs.

R: What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God. Admittedly, it has reinforced my beliefs.

It appears that the Nestorian doctrine is at play, but I can’t figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.

Maybe an answer to the following would help.

Matthew says that the angel of the Lord told Mary that she will give birth to Jesus because he will save his people from sin. This took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Luke tells us that the angel Gabriel told Mary that she will conceive and give birth to a son who will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and will be called the Son of God.

Does this mean we can say that Mary is:

the mother of the one who will save his people from sin?
the mother of Immanuel (God with us)?
the mother of the Son of the Most High?
the mother of the Son of God?

If not, why not?

[ADSUM]

“my words are spirit” “the flesh profits nothing”.

So you are saying Christ’s flesh (Body and Blood) profits nothing.

“1. The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings - [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).

Having heard Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously. So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh. The flesh demands that everything be obvious to it on its own terms. The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to “see” using its own unregenerate power. And if it cannot see based on its own limited view, it simply rejects spiritual truth out of hand. In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will “force” it to accept something. Absolute proof takes things out of the realm of faith and trust. Faith is no longer necessary when something is absolutely proven and plainly visible to the eyes of flesh. The flesh simply refuses to believe and demands proof.”

Msgr Pope

You fail in your twisted explanation and you reject the Church that Jesus founded. I think you are missing many of the graces that God provides through His Church.

Are you a former Catholic that has rejected some of her teachings?

[boatbums]

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

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??

I'm shocked, but not surprised, how some Roman Catholics find it easier to defend the "sinlessness" of Mary over that of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ! Do they not realize that IF Jesus was a sinner, we are ALL still dead in our sins and there is NO sacrifice that can take away the sins of the world? Amazing!

[mdmathis6]

John 6:63-63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

They are Christ’s words!

[boatbums]

NOPE! He's the Pope of Catholics NOT all Christianity.

NOPE...all Christianity....and the neat thing is that you don't even have to believe it....it's true anyway!!

The Greek Orthodox would disagree with you as would everyone else NOT Roman Catholic.

[ADSUM]

Read post 1542

So you are saying Christ’s flesh (Body and Blood) profits nothing.

I think you missing the intentions of God’s words. You take it out of context.

Msgr Pope:
“The flesh wants to be in control rather than to have to trust in God. Hence it sets up its own observance, under its own control. And when it has met its own demands it declares itself to be righteous. Since the flesh hates being told what to do it takes God’s law and makes it “manageable” based on the flesh’s own terms. So, for example, if I am supposed to love, let me limit it to my family and countrymen but I am “allowed” to hate my enemy. But Jesus says, no, love your enemy. The flesh recoils at this for unless the law is manageable and within the power of the flesh to accomplish it, the Law cannot be controlled. The flesh trusts only in its own power. The Pharisees were “self-righteous” That is to say, they believed in a righteousness that they themselves brought about through their flesh power. But the Law and flesh cannot save. Only Jesus Christ can save. The flesh refuses this and wants to control the outcome based on its own power and terms.

3. The Flesh hates to be told what to do – For when we were controlled by the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rom 7:5)

The disobedience and rebelliousness of the flesh roots us in sinful behavior and prideful attitudes. The prideful attitude of the flesh is even more dangerous than the sins that flow from the flesh since pride precludes instruction in holiness and possible repentance that lead to life. But the flesh does not like to be told what to do. Hence it rejects the testimony of the the Church, the scriptures and the conscience. Notice, according to the text, the very existence of God’s Law arouses the passions of the flesh. The fact that something is forbidden makes the flesh want it all the more! This strong inclination to sin is in the flesh and comes from pride and indignation at “being told what to do.” The flesh is refuses God’s Law and sets up its own rules. The flesh will not be told what to do.

4. Flesh is as flesh does - Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6)”

[boatbums]

I could recommend that you get used to the heat....but that wouldn't be prudent, would it..

Said TC right after he said this about Muslims:

maybe they'll make it, we are not to be the judge of that. I have trouble enough with my own salvation and have no time to worry about theirs!!!

[Gamecock]

maybe they'll make it, we are not to be the judge of that. I have trouble enough with my own salvation and have no time to worry about theirs!!!

A religion that causes so much concern about your own salvation that you can't worry about the salvation of others is not worth being a member of!

Forces one to jettison the Great Commission.

[CynicalBear]

>> In the same way, the writers referred to Mary as the mother of Jesus.<<

Well, that was a non answer.<<

>>This is the central mystery of our faith.<<

I can see that it is.

>>Are you not doing the reverse, separating the nature of Jesus but not of God?<<

Just as I do the three natures of God. Separate and distinct persons just as your statement God is three separate and distinct persons. But you claim Jesus does not have separate and distinct persons. Catholicism says they cannot be viewed as separate and distinct thus they claim Mary to be the "mother of God". Jesus said God had forsaken Him on the cross. Did God forsake the God part of Jesus? In other words, did God forsake part of Himself?

>>What I am looking for is an understanding of how someone can hold that Mary is not the mother of God.<<

Yeah, so I thought.

>>but I can’t figure out how, with Jesus being God whole and entire, it can be said that Mary is the mother of the Son of God without also saying that Mary is the mother of God.<<

Yet you can make the statement "there is one God but three separate and distinct persons". The disconnect in your thinking is striking.

>>the mother of the Son of God?<<

Then my mother can also say she is the mother of "the son of God".

Galatians 3:26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,

Would you say my mother is the "mother of God"? I am after all a "son of God" per scripture. Your line of logic would say she should be.

[2nd amendment mama]

A religion that causes so much concern about your own salvation that you can't worry about the salvation of others is not worth being a member of!

AMEN! I know for a fact that God has used me to bring others to him and it is an absolutely blessing to me! I just LOVE being used by God for his Glory.

[CynicalBear]

>>So you are saying Christ’s flesh (Body and Blood) profits nothing.<<

um...those were Jesus words not mine.

>>Having heard Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, most of his listeners ridicule it and will no longer take Jesus seriously.<<

Yeah, they took it just like the Catholics do. Only difference is that they knew it to be sin but Catholics don't care or explain away the sin in some fashion.

>>So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh.<<

And that is shown in scripture where? Msgr Pope just inserting something there? Jesus said His words were spiritual. He did not say they were physical or literal.

>>The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; it demands that it be able to “see” using its own unregenerate power.<<

Yeah, like Catholics giving us all those examples of proof that the cracker really has blood in it.

>>In effect, the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will “force” it to accept something.<<

Thus the "proven" miracles of the Catholic Church, the proof of "blood" in the host and the visible icons, statues, and rituals of Catholicism.

>>You fail in your twisted explanation and you reject the Church that Jesus founded.<<

I use the words of scripture. You are forced to use the words of the Catholic Church and men like Msgr Pope.

[CynicalBear]

>>They are Christ’s words!<<

And I pray that God will open the eyes of Catholics to understand them.

[metmom]

that statement is correct...God the Father required a lot more than the death of a man for the redemption of mankind...His Son, Jesus Christ, all man and ALL GOD was the only sacrifice acceptable...none other would do.

Wrong. Life itself cannot die.

The thing that conquered death wasn't the death of God, but of a sinless man whom death could not hold because the power of death is then broken.

Death is the penalty for sin. When the sinless man, Jesus, died, that power was broken.

[metmom]

And He was names Immanuel, meaning what?

[metmom]

Peter – rock

Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

Now you have been educated that you are wrong and now you don't need to continue believing the errors you have been taught by the Catholic church.

[metmom]

*No replies. *

[metmom]

I heard a rumor, for each thousand posts on these threads, that someone gets a thousand years off their purgatory sentence. Do you hear that too?

It wouldn't surprise me what with the way some RC's spam the RF with Catholic threads and then spam their own Catholic threads with repetitive spam posts, posting and reposting the same thing every day so that they look like they're getting lots of replies when they're not.

[metmom]

That’s a lousy excuse for explaining away how and why Mary died even though she was (allegedly) sinless.

[metmom]

But God did NOT end the prohibition against eating blood in the NT but rather reiterated it at the Council of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”