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.

Thanks for the memories.

Roger that. I had heard of the Blackeood Brothers. If you ever heard of Nancy Honeytree, I met her once, while she was singing gospel music. I met Nicky Cruz, of cross and switchblade fame too. 😄😄😊 He was preaching the gospel in Del Rio by golly, Texas. Keep up the good work. 🆒

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.

The Eastern schism did, indeed, deny the authority of the Pope....that changes nothing....when they return to the fold, and they will, we will all again be under his direct authority. As far as the remainder of Christianity is concerned....they decided to change whatever rules that they didn't like and they did so. Never mind the seven Sacraments, never mind transubstantiation, never mind Penance nor Holy Orders, Infant Baptism, who needs it??...The Eucharist, merely a symbolic meal with no real meaning....and the Popes from Peter on down, oh well we are now all our own Popes and make our own rules...

Good luck with that....sounds like free for all time at the local kindergarden..

Yep. I can not believe the junk they believe.

ALL CHRISTIANS believed it until the revolution....doesn't that mean anything to you???....For one thousand six hundred years EVERYONE WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN believed it and then the revolutionaries told us all that the Catholics were wrong.......I don't think so.

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:

I was, of course, tossing a harmless dig at Mark17 and I indicated it as such....don't take everything so seriously....:) :) :) :)

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.

I merely pointed out my own time constraints...at Mass, when we are asked to pray for special intentions, I remember ALL who aren't blessed with membership in Christ's Catholic church.

I don't know all their names so I kind of include them in a lump request!!...

I was, of course, tossing a harmless dig at Mark17 and I indicated it as such....don't take everything so seriously....:) :) :) :)

Don't worry about it bro. I get my share of digs in too. I am not, however, planning to swim the Tiber, because if I do, Gamecock is going to do GBI to me 😄😇😀

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.

Amazing...a brand new concept of redemption. Well, I guess when you are your own Pope, you can write encyclicals and everything....and the phrase what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven...applies now to you...I'm impressed!!!!

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.

WOW, thanks....Biblehub.com eh?? I knew that there was an inerrant source somewwhere and silly me, I always thought that it was the 2,015 year old Catholic church....Live and learn I guess!!

I like to read these threads, although they always seem to devolve into the same arguments.

Relative to the original post - this may have been covered, sorry if it was (hard to read 1600 posts to find out). Can someone help me understand the following paragraph (as a start, at least). I don’t understand how the author reaches the conclusion in the next to last sentence that the second person of the Trinity is no longer the Eternal Son if we don’t accept Mary as the “Mother of God”?

“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:”

Or we can follow Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I need to know how you do that. You sit down with a Bible. We all agree that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible that you hold was preserved over the centuries by the Catholic Church.

All Catholics believe all the scriptures that are in your Bible.

You believe all the scriptures that are in your Bible.

The scriptures tell us that Christ founded the Christian church....Catholics believe that and you believe that.

Catholicism is the oldest Christian church.

Everybody knows that.

The Catholic church has been under the guidance of the Holy Spirit from the beginning....I will be with you from now until the end of time.

If you are actually following scripture and The Holy Spirit, then you are also following the Catholic church....there is no other possibility...NONE!!

Live and learn I guess!!

Learn? I think not. Otherwise you would left that false, man made religion like me and others have done. Don't be so scared of your own church. There is life after the RCC. Think of all the things that they can't tell you to do, like go to mass and all those other false dead works. It is truly emancipating. Try it, you will like it. The worst thing that can happen, is you might gain Heaven as you lose a religion. How about it folks? Care to start a ping list, ex catholics for Christ, like ex Mormons for Christ? 😄😇🆒😃

You know what one eats at them the most? It's the *Don't have to go to church* one.

Seems to me that one of the original ten commandments said something about keeping holy the sabbath

And Catholics have the MASS, and they have the person, body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at every DAILY Mass....we shouldn't ever consider it an obligation, we should rejoice at the opportunity and most do.

Humans are, by nature a little weak so the church, as mankinds guide to Christ, pushes us a little and insists that we do things for our own good....Kind of like a LOVING PARENT would.

LOL, there you go again. So you are a correctional officer at some so called maximum security juvie joint, if there even is such a thing

Yeah, there is and there is a major difference. You dealt with adults....big time losers and your main job was to keep them comfined and keep them from killing you or one another....a thankless job at best.

My job, on the other hand, besides the things outlined above, was to try to work with, influence as an intelligent male adult (which many of them never knew), educate them in the proper way to live in the world, convince them that our chaplin could do them some good, teach them a respect for females which few of them had, keep them from thinking that they were getting away with anything, insist that they accomplished what our school was trying to teach them (MANY got their G.E.D's,)and instill in them a pride in themselves that was not based on their street skills, their physical prowess, but their value as humans and men.

There is a whole lot of difference in keeping a lion in a cage and helping a seriously misguided youth get back on the right track....and in my opinion only, you are sliding a little.

I was throwing life preservers to people in the middle of the Tiber, if you catch my drift 🆒😇

LOL, I am going to do it again tomorrow, but I have to go buy more life preservers. In fact, never a day goes by, that I don't try to lead others from the cults to the truth. It is a blessing to see people leave the cults. They rather like it too. 🆒. I always tell the truth. I love it, and I love getting away with all kinds of things that you can't. I noticed you had no response to my revelation to you, that I got more experiences behind the walls than you do. I spent a ton of time on death row at San Quentin. Have you ever done that?

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.