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 Gods 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 wont 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 dont 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. Thats 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 MariologyI argue it was probably bad Christology that came firstbut lets 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. Martins 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 Martins 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 Martins 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 Marys son would not refer to divinity at all.
But there is just a little problem here. Beyond the fact that you dont 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 Martins 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 SpiritHebrews 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. Martins 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 Christone 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 Martins 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.
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4:31-32(And this thread is too long already, and it is time for football-gate, so I'll wish you good evening.)
You're projecting?
I've found that most of the time when people assign motive, it's because they think that others think like them. Being all they know, they figure that others would react as they do.
It makes sense to them so they presume it of others.
I don't think you really know what I do or don't "understand", so you should probably stop trying to assume you do. You made a bet challenging Elsie to prove a negative from Scripture - something RCs count on for quite a few of their dogmas. "Show me", you said, "a Bible text that says that the apostles were not at the crucifixion.". You began with the argument, "the Bible does not say they were not at the crucifixion". Your challenge then, was based on the Bible NOT saying the Apostles were NOT there at the crucifixion. The only way to win your "rigged" bet was to bring forth a verse that explicitly said, "The Apostles were not at the crucifixion.". How you rigged it was you already predetermined that ONLY a specific explicit verse would be acceptable and you already knew no such verse said it, though there was certainly plenty of inference that all but John were nowhere to be found with Christ at His crucifixion and a few verses that said they were hiding from the authorities in an upper room so what would make anyone think they were brave enough three days prior when the execution was going on? Catholics base many of their beliefs on the premise that, "Well, the Bible doesn't say it didn't happen.".
My Dad made a bet over a boxing match with my step-mom. She bet on the loser and Dad won the bet. What he didn't tell her was they were watching a repeat of the fight and he already knew who the winner was. Would you call that "rigging the bet"? When the challenger already knows the outcome - unlike, say, two people betting on the Superbowl tonight - any bet he makes with someone who isn't "in" on the facts is being conned, the bet is rigged and not fair to the one challenged.
You can keep arguing this silly point, not missing any chance to make, yet again, derogatory comments about "Protestants", or you can drop it. I'm done explaining it to you.
My calculator says that 5 decades are equivalant to 50 years and I gave you that...what more do you want????
Peter didn't become Pope until year 50....is that O.K. now??
Sorry; but history SHOWS that it was ALL bibles they wanted 'kept out of the hands of'...
OF COURSE IT WAS...You keep the perverted bibles out of the hands of the people by keeping ALL versions out until you are able to discern the difference and remove the bad ones from existance...The people couldn't differentiate because they did not know the difference...
Just exactly how would you have just kept away the bad ones.....remember, we are in the year.....1178....you be the church, what would you do???
>>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.<<
That is a deceptive question.
I do not mean to be deceptive. But I now see where we are focusing on two different things. You on conceiving and I on giving birth.
I will concede your point on conceiving. But Mary did give birth to the second person of the Trinity in Christ Jesus. And Mary raised the second person of the Trinity in Jesus. These are both attributes of a mother. So how can it be said that Mary is not the mother of the second person of the Trinity?
Again, any teachings you can share with me that explains this would be appreciated.
Oh?
Then which one is redundant?
Can we then merely toss out the first; since your second is EXACTLY like it?
HMMMmmm...
I guess the church of Rome has learned this; too?
Quite true; but referring to a time when NONE existed.
Wasn't that SOMETHING!!!!
What a different that a few waning moments of the game makes!
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
THIS guy had a Roman doctor clear up his infected fingernail.
...and let GOD sort them out!
Placemarker
bump
I’ll simply leave you now to the torment of trying to figure that out.
Ezekiel 46 details that our Heavenly Father has three types of days on His calendar.
My point is not only are new moons are separate from Sabbaths, they are separate from work days!
If they weren’t, we would have seen Ezekiel speak of five work days, not six like scripture says..
New moons are the first day of every month of His calendar.
And new moons are not one of the six work days or the sabbath..
New moon (1), work days 1-6 (days 2-7 of month), sabbath 7th( day 8 of month)
Repeat until next new moon.
Days 9-14 are work days, 15th day is sabbath
Days 16-21 are work days, 22nd day is sabbath
Days 23-28 are work days, 29th day is sabbath.
Look for new moon..
The pattern of new moon day, SIX Work days, Sabbath is exactly what Ezekiel 46 gives us.
You can’t get more basic reading comprehension..
The question should be what happened to new moon days? Who got rid of them?
Ad if one studies new moon days in scripture, they have an important piece in counting days.. scripture doesnt say the 266th day from the new moon..
All the counting in EVERY MONTH starts with something..
That something s the new moon.
And our Sovereign says they are different than the six work days and the Sabbath. Unless Ezekiel misquoted Him..
That is why I can know today is the 12th day of His month... simple counting.. and ezekiel’s template confirms Torah and the Feast Days..
The 14th day of every month will be a preparation day... if one counts from the new moon.
Which is why the moon and month is the same word...
New moons have no use in the world. On His calendar, they begin every month count.. and they set up the work week, sabbath and feasts..
They are not just different than the Sabbath, they are different than the work days.
Amos 8:5 helps us to know that too.
New moon isn’t one of the six work days or sabbath..
People stuck with the world’s calendar have no category for the new moon day.
That is why it isnt shocking the world ignores them.
Scripture doesn’t.
.
>> “Ezekiel 46 details that our Heavenly Father has three types of days on His calendar.” <<
.
No, it does no such thing.
A “Holy Convocation” can fall on either a work day or a Sabbath, and it doesn’t effect the count of days.
Ezekiel was simply stating that in addition to every regular Sabbath, The East gate is opened for every Holy Convocation.
The type of day is solely governed by the eternal count.
You’re trying to change God’s word.
.
I haven’t really seen that much on this thread to be tormented about.
Doing an internet search, though, I did find commentaries and apologetics on both sides of the issue.
You might find the following interesting. It’s title is “Scriptural Proof: Mary is Not the Mother of God.” It helped me understand how it can be said that Mary is not the mother of God. Whether Mary is or is not the mother of God, the bottom is always our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the one.
http://contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php
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.