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.

[CynicalBear]

>>So, courtesy ping to CB and Iscool to let them know that they were talked about without the courtesy of a ping.<<

I'm thinking it's because there's some deception in there that I pointed out. If you read the first three points you will see the word "on" the cross. There was a sly word changed in point #4 where "on" was changed to "at". I pointed it out so eliminating me from the conversation would reduce the chance that I would point it out again.

Read post 1648 again and see. Sly ey?

[CynicalBear]

>>In the English language, the term "being with Christ on the cross" can mean being "on the cross with Christ" (like the nails were), or it can also mean being "at the location where Christ is on the cross".<<

In what country would that be so? I can't even imagine a grown adult making that statement.

[CynicalBear]

>>Nope, up until the time that perverted forms of the Bible began to appear, you could own all that you could find and all that you could afford.....and that was VERY FEW.<<

Do Catholics just say what they think fits at the time. From "no one could read" to "you could own all you could find" is a rather interesting switch. An honest study of history might do your credibility some good.

[2nd amendment mama]

Nope! You are totally incorrect! The Catholic church DID, in fact, ban laity from owning and reading the Bible. Instead of parroting what the priests have taught you, you should do your own research.

From VatiLeaks

Origin of ‘heresy’

When the basic New Testament canon started to develop towards the end of the Fourth Century (generally) the laity was strictly ‘forbidden to read the word of God, or to exercise their judgment in order to understand it’.³ Damasus recorded that ‘bad use of difficult passages by the simple and poor gives rise to hear-say’ and the general populace was denied access to the compilations. The word ‘hear-say’ developed into ‘heresy’ and people who opposed Church opinions were subsequently called ‘heretics’.⁴ It was with a resolution of that council that the ban was officially established but some members of the priesthood had trouble understanding the new terminology. The unreliability of their explanations of heretics and heresies is illustrated in the case of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (d. 403) who mistook the Pythagorean Sacred Tetrad (the number 4), for a heretic leader.

After he suppressed the Bible, Damasus created an array of formidable penances and additional anathemas ‘designed to keep the curious at bay’⁵, the chief tendency of the priesthood was to keep the Bible away from people and substitute Church authority as the rule of life and belief.

Owning a Bible was a criminal offence

In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by ‘soldiers of the Church military’ (Diderot’s Encyclopedia, 1759). In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, ‘to be spoken of with detestation’, passed another Decree ‘that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue’. By the 14th Century, possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake.

With the fabricated Christian texts safely hidden from public scrutiny by a series of Decrees, popes endorsed the public suppression of the Bible for twelve hundred and thirty years, right up until after the Reformation and the printing of the King James Bible in 1611.

Another link about the subject: Vatican Archives Reveal Bible Was Once Banned Book

[CynicalBear]

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

So why did the Catholic Church change it? And while were there, why did the Catholic Church take out the 2nd commandment about not making any images?

[CynicalBear]

>>I can do no wrong because whatever I do is O.K.<<

Please show where anyone has said that.

[CynicalBear]

>>skipped history class didn't you???<<

LOL The changed history of the Catholic Church and Public Scrools isn't real history.

[CynicalBear]

>>which line was wrong and why??<<

All of it except the Bible being inspired.

[Gamecock]

**In what country would that be so?**

Philippines? I've always said the more 3rd World the country, the more Rome's pagan roots show.

[CynicalBear]

>>and, therefore, had to be teaching something based on their own personal interpretation of the scriptures and prophecies<<

"Scripture and prophecies??? When did "prophecy of Scripture" get changed to "prophesy and scripture? Or is that like on the cross is the same as at the cross?

[CynicalBear]

>>Our present pariah has hugh youth and teen participation<<

Hugh you say!!!???? I would also caution anyone to stay clear of that "pariah".

[CynicalBear]

What is comfined?

[CynicalBear]

What is recist? Is it something I should avoid?

[CynicalBear]

Them are some sick individuals.

[Mark17]

I'm sure you've run across plenty of folks who found a genuine repentance and conversion during their stint behind bars.

Care to share any stories?

For the most part, there really aren't any stories. There is always a remnant of course. Obviously, California prisons are not typical of the outside world. As a custody officer, I had to sit in on some of their so called Christian discussions. The garbage I heard, included everything from Hinduism to Wicca. Not exactly Biblical material. The vast majority of the inmates that even claimed Christianity, were involved in the chapel program, because the other inmates left the ones in the chapel program alone, and did not mess with them. They still ran their drugs and illegal activities. We busted them regularly. In 25 years, I think I could count on one hand the number of criminals that I personally thought might have been sincere about their faith. When they paroled, they left their Bibles at the gate. For the most part. that was true of the black muslims too. It was a spiritual wasteland, even though the chaplains were doing the best they could. I wish I could be more positive about it, but that is the reality. It wasn't pretty.

[rwa265]

Good morning!

I was out celebrating my grandson’s first birthday last night.

I did read your comments and metmom’s.

The comment that struck me was metmom’s statement that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity.

The infancy narratives tell us that Mary will conceive and give birth to a son who:

will save his people from sin;
they will call “Immanuel” (which means “God with us”);
will be called the Son of the Most High; and
will be called the Son of God.

These are all attributes of the Second person of the Trinity.

So how can it be that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity?

Is it because the two natures of Jesus, true God and true man, act independently of each other? That while Mary conceived and gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, the divine nature was outside of that process?

Is it because the divine nature of Jesus did not join the human nature until some point after His birth? Maybe when “the anointed one” was consecrated to the Lord at the presentation?

Are there any teachings you can point me to that expand on the tenet that Mary is not the mother of God?

Or is it simply because the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers to call Mary the mother of God, and our feeble attempts to try to understand why are like trying to empty the ocean into a hole in the sand?

[CynicalBear]

>>So how can it be that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity?<<

Because the second person of the trinity pre-dated Mary by at least a couple of years.

>>Is it because the two natures of Jesus, true God and true man, act independently of each other?<<

Let me quote you.

>>"How there is one God but three separate and distinct persons, each of whom is God, whole and entire."<<

You also claim that the son died independently of the Father. If find it very interesting that you use two different criteria.

>>Are there any teachings you can point me to that expand on the tenet that Mary is not the mother of God?<<

Conceive - to cause to begin.

Would you explain to us how Mary "caused to begin" the second person of the trinity?

[rwa265]

Would you explain to us how Mary “caused to begin” the second person of the trinity?

---

The angel Gabriel said to Mary: “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God...”

Because of this, many Christians believe that Mary conceived and gave birth to the Second person of the Trinity “through the power of the Most High.”

There evidently are also Christians, including you and metmom, who believe that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity.

Can you point me to any teachings, such as doctrines of the Weslayan, Methodist, Lutheran, or other faith, that further explains how Mary did not give birth to the Second person of the Trinity?

[Elsie]

Enough already!

I get the point!

[Elsie]

Dagnabbitt! If we are REALLY eating Jesus' flesh and His blood in the Roman Eucharist; then just WHERE do they park all their crosses at?

In the foyer??

---

Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me.

---

Until I see our oh so religious Catholics doing the VERY WORDS OF JESUS shown here; they can just SHUT up!