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.
No one argues that and it was 400 years prior to the revolution...There were NO OTHER CHRISTIANS THERE...and perverted versions of the bible and scripture came about...
Mention them to who....it was written to the Catholics and its purpose was to keep the perverted editions out of the hands of Christians ALL OF WHOM WERE CATHOLIC.
Yeah, right, that's why our orthodox brothers are much more world renowned and much more in the limelight and much more influential in the worrld thaan those little known Roman Catholics......there aren't 20 people in your congregation who know the head of the orthodox Catholics nor know where its headquarters is....Not that it really matters...we are all Catholics!!!!
Sure he did, even wikipedia will tell you that...and of course I used 2,015 years and 30 days simply because it was Januaty 30, 2015.....get a sense of humor.....and let's say I was off by 5 decades...that's 50 years...big deal, I'll take that.
No, he didn't. Wikipedia is only as "right" as the contributions people make to the knowledge base. Many Roman Catholic topics' documentation comes from ...guess who? And I'll "get" a sense of humor when you get a calculator and stop asserting things as "facts" that are nothing but jokes. That is if veracity means anything to you.
Sorry; but history SHOWS that it was ALL bibles they wanted 'kept out of the hands of'...
But; you can keep repeating YOUR version as long as you like.
>>There are Christians who seem to disagree with Gabriel; that the child to be born is not the Son of God.<<
Please show where anyone said that or even suggested that. Post # please.
It has been both said and suggested that the child to be born is not the Second person of the Trinity. It is my understanding that the Second person of the Trinity is the Son of God. Is this not so?
Is that not so?
I have not seen anyone make that claim. Could you please point out where you saw that?
>>It has been both said and suggested that the child to be born is not the Second person of the Trinity.<<
I have not seen anyone make that claim. Could you please point out where you saw that?
Please refer to your post 1717
I asked: “So how can it be that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity”?
You responded: “Because the second person of the trinity pre-dated Mary by at least a couple of years.”
There have been other posts, as well.
>>I asked: “So how can it be that Mary did not conceive and give birth to the Second person of the Trinity”?<<
Conceive - to think of or create, to cause to begin.
My response was that she could NOT have conceived "caused to begin" the third person of the trinity because the third person of the trinity preceded Mary. That does NOT indicate that Jesus was not the third person of the trinity. The human and divine natures are united yet Mary could not have possibly "conceived" "caused to begin" the third person of the trinity.
So, NO, I did NOT say Jesus was not the third person of the trinity.
So, NO, I did NOT say Jesus was not the third person of the trinity.
I agree that you did not say Jesus was not the third person of the Trinity. We were discussing the second person of the Trinity.
Regardless of who wrote what, do you agree that the Son of God is the second person of the Trinity?
Because that is the central point.
The Angel Gabriel said to Mary (from KJV): “thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.”
The word ‘conceive’ in this sense means “to become pregnant.”
That is why Mary said: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man”?
And the angel responded: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Is “that holy thing which shall be born of” Mary and “shall be called the Son of God” the same God that is the second person of the Trinity?
To become pregnant - to cause to begin - to have a conception - to begin a new life.
So do you believe the second person of the trinity was conceived in Mary? Did Mary's pregnancy cause the second person of the trinity to begin? Yes or no?
So do you believe the second person of the trinity was conceived in Mary?
This is why I ask: “Is ‘that holy thing which shall be born of’ Mary and ‘shall be called the Son of God’ the same God that is the second person of the Trinity.
Because if the answer is yes, then Gabriel told Mary that she conceived the person who in John 1 was called the Word who was in the beginning, was with God, was God; who was the Word made flesh and dwelt amongst us; who was Jesus Christ; who was the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father. It was also the person John the Baptist called the Lamb of God, Andrew said to Simon was the Messiah, Philip said to Nathanael was the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, and who Nathanael called the Son of God, the King of Israel.
If the answer is no, who is that holy thing that is born of Mary?
Again I ask, can you direct me to any teachings that expand on how Mary is the mother of Jesus and not the mother of God?
That is a deceptive question. Originally you have used the word "conceived". Now you drop the word "conceived" and switch your approach. Mary did not "conceive" (bring into being) the second person of the trinity. Yet you have consistently tried to get me to agree that Mary conceived the second person of the trinity. She did not. Therefore she can not be considered the "mother" of God. She can, as the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write be considered the mother of Jesus because she did conceive (bring into being) the man Jesus. I'll simply leave you now to the torment of trying to figure that out.
For example, one person might say that the church getting that new lesbian "pastor" down at the corner of Devil's Lane and Weird Boulevard is a Lutheran church, while the other party says, no, that church is Presbyterian. The first party might then say, "Bet me." If the other party accepts the wager, they have a bet. Both parties to that bet believe they already know the answer for sure, but only one of them can be right (and they might both be wrong, if their knowledge is incorrect). If the one offering the bet knew for sure it was a Lutheran church, they are still not at all rigging the bet. That's just the way those kinds of bets work, and all bettors are aware of that. Your claim there is wrong.
You are also missing my whole point about post #1281.
Here is the contents of that post:
If you read Elsie's post there carefully, you will see he quotes me in the first line of that post, and also in the last line of that post, and he separates those two quotes by "but", as if those two lines are not saying the same thing, but, in fact, they are saying the same thing.
[me:] I said "the Bible does not say they were not at the crucifixion".
[Elsie:] True; you DID say this; BUT..
[Elsie:] ...your CHALLENGE said THIS:
[me:] 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...
1,281 posted on 1/28/2015 7:38:43 AM by Elsie
That was why I offered the same bet to him - his post made no logical sense.
The reason I offered that wager to the first person I offered the wager to, was because that poster had said that the reason I never saw such a statement in the Bible (about the apostles not being at the crucifixion) was because I must never read the Bible. (I already showed that to you in post #1648.) That was why I offered him that wager, after he made that kind of remark.
(I really did not want any kind of wager - I was just making a point.)
For example, in this passage, we read the following:
And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Acts 1:10-11What they said about Jesus returning like that applies to some time in the future, not the Apostles own day back then.
Of course, there have been false teachers ever since the time of Christ (Judas, Rastifarians, Zoroastrians, "Elsie's Yoga", etc.), and there are many today. When you read with just a little more precision and understanding, you will see that I did not say "Exclusively Protestants", I just said "Protestants".
You don't know much about making bets either, do you CynicalBear?
The person offering the wager is the one who chooses the wording of the wager. The wording is right there in the open, not hidden, or "based on deceit". That assertion is completely false.
If the one to whom the wager is offered does not like the wording of the wager offer, they can change the wording, and offer the revised wager back. Or, they can make a completely new wager offer. Or, they can just refuse to make the wager.
I also never claimed that "at" is synonymous with "on". That is another horrendous falsehood.
The English statement "There is CynicalBear on his rocking chair with his family", could validly mean that the whole family is actually on the rocking chair with CynicalBear, or it could also validly mean that the whole family is there in the room with CynicalBear, who is on his rocking chair. People with common sense can figure out which meaning applies in that situation, based on the context.
People who do not grasp this simple difference, just do not understand the mechanics of the English language completely.
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.