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.
Appropriate tat.
Yeah; as the buildings are gone and the BLM has made yet another ADA approved park out of it.
I've visited the older movie set at Old Paria; the newer one after that got burned down, but have only seen the changes on GoogleEarth® after THAT one got destroyed; too.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Old+Paria+movie+set&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&gws_rd=ssl
Since YOUR chosen religion is older; let it first show us the teachings that the SPOTT did NOT exist before Mary gave birth to Jesus.
The Word BECAME flesh...
Each Friday night after work, Bubba would fire up his outdoor grill and cook a venison steak. But, all of Bubba’s neighbors were Catholic and since it was Lent, they were forbidden from eating meat on Friday.
The delicious aroma from the grilled venison steaks was causing such a problem for the Catholic faithful that they finally talked to their priest.
The Priest came to visit Bubba, and suggested that he become a Catholic.
After several classes and much study, Bubba attended Mass and as the priest sprinkled holy water over him, he said, You were born a Baptist, and raised a Baptist, but now you are a Catholic.
Bubba’s neighbors were greatly relieved, until Friday night arrived, and the wonderful aroma of grilled venison filled the neighborhood.
The Priest was called immediately by the neighbors, and, as he rushed into Bubba’s yard, clutching a rosary and prepared to scold him, he stopped and watched in amazement.
There stood Bubba, clutching a small bottle of holy water which he carefully sprinkled over the grilling meat and chanted, “You wuz born a deer, you wuz raised a deer, but now you is a catfish.
Friday isn’t in Torah.. neither is Saturday..
They are in the catechism of h catholic church..
Flee roman slavery
And that Word made flesh has been counterfeited..
And the Messiah of Israel has been changed into a Greco roman Latin version..
The Roman holy days he is worshipped on prove that by itself..
Gabriel’s announcement to Mary preceded any Christian religion. He told her that the child she would conceive and bear will be called the Son of God.
There are Christians who seem to disagree with Gabriel; that the child to be born is not the Son of God.
I am trying to get an understanding of how someone could reach that conclusion. Can you point me to any teachings that explains it?
Music can raise you to the highest heights. It can make you want to lift your hands in praise-—like Sister Amelia Hall does with one of her cds. I only listen to it when I am in the car but maybe I should change that before I have a wreck. She may not be the best singer in the world but she really believes what she sings. I will always treasure my memories of her staying with us when I was a kid.
Amen.
“And that Word made flesh has been counterfeited..”
But duplicated only once...in Christ as God in flesh!
‘And the Messiah of Israel has been changed into a Greco roman Latin version..’
Translations into vernacularized languages have always been difficult....I hear hair was torn out as they labored over the Japanese versions. As for the “personalized” translations of Jesus’ personality as revealed to each believer’s heart by the Holy Spirit, well God certainly knows how to assert himself.
“The Roman holy days he is worshipped on prove that by itself..”
I believe the early associations of certain points of Christian doctrine with various holidays were sincere but mistaken attempts to make Christianity more palatable and not attempts to “dilute” the faith. Christian’s who have aroused consciences concerning such “holidays” should not celebrate such holidays, lest they violate their own consciences, which the Apostle Paul called sin. Other Christians, possessing differing levels of faith may not view such “feast days” as being violations of their consciences, and thus may celebrate them without having sinned.
That was great. A lot of truth in those old songs. Thanks.
Galatians 3:26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,
Did my mother give birth to a 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.”<<
As I showed you, conceive means "to cause to begin". Please show where scripture says Mary caused the second person of the trinity to begin.
Oh what a tangled web they weave.
It was referenced twice - once in Joshua (10:13) and also 2 Samuel (1:18)
Rome’s gospel is not the same gospel Paul preached and taught.
Paul’s plain gospel in 1 Cor 15
The Messiah died for our sins, according to scripture.
(According to scripture, He died for or sins on Passover) that is why called Him our Passover..
And He was buried.
And He was raised on the third day, according to scripture, ( according to scripture, He was raised n the Feast of First Fruits, the day after the first Day of unleavened bread’s Sabbath) that is why called Him our First Fruits.
All of Paul’s gospel, according to scripture, was not according to the new testament. He knew the old testament and the prophets. That is the ‘svriptures ‘ he referenced.
Clevery, romes gospel fits the ‘template’ but not scripture..
As in..
The messiah died for our sins on good Friday, according to Rome.
He was buried and He was raised the third day, Easter Sunday, according to Rome..
It is not the same gospel Paul preached and taught.
It is a similar gospel. But it is another gospel..
And Paul warned people about other gospels and other ‘jesuses’’
Revelation 13 describes a satanic trinity that will cause people to break the first four commandments that deal with worship..
Worshiping when we want to instead of when He mandates it, is not an accident..
And it isn’t an accident the world accepts a calendar named after a pope and holy days that can only be found using the pope’s calendar..
Goodfriday, Easter Sunday and the name Jesus are all Greco roman Latin traditions that can be called substitutes for the genuine.
When we study the Greek word, anti, it doesn’t mean ‘against only like we know it..
It also meant ‘in place of’ , instead of’, or more plainly substitute.
An in place of Christ. An instead of Christ, a substitute Christ..
The scriptures warn about that very thing...
You’re the one that is hung up on friday and saturday.
You’re the one that is deviating from Yehova’s Sabbath.
It means while the world calls today Friday, after some false goddess, His Word, His sky and His calendar shows today is His 1st day..
But it takes faith.,, and to be honest, everywhere you look, a newspaper, TV, phone, computer, radio, they will ‘confirm’ one’s faith that today is Friday..
It is a the difference between trusting His Word or the world..
Each takes faith.. and as His Word says in Romans 12, His will is that we do not conform to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind..
People who like the world should not study our Heavenly Father’s calendar.
The pope has an alternative that the world can follow instead..
His Sabbath was yesterday..
It was a blessing..it always is. But again, I don’t that much faith in Rome’s time keeping but to each his own..
The world concurs with you that today is some goddess friya’s day..
And tomorrow is Saturn’s day..
Tomorrow is simply His 2nd day.. a work day.
Not because the pope’s calendar says so.. His Word, His sky and the calendar He ordained in the sky says so..
But the world is seductive.. and Rome in charge of time is prophetic since Daniel says it would happen..
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.