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]

If you actually read through that article, which I have no doubt you may have, you can see the error in calling Mary the “mother of God”. The Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers to write “mother of God” for a reason. I hope you noticed the pagan origin of the term “mother of god”. That will give you insight to how many of the things that are done and taught by the Catholic Church entered into that religion.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “. But Mary did give birth to the second person of the Trinity in Christ Jesus.” <<

.
No!!!

That statement is a sophistry. The second person of the trinity, the Logos, existed eternally, thus long before she gave birth to the human boy that his spirit had entered.

The desire for a sinful human to be the parent of God is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.

.

[CynicalBear]

>>Peter didn't become Pope until year 50....is that O.K. now??<<

There was no single person with the title pope until the 11th century. Anybody who desires truth can simply do a little internet search on the history of the title pope and see that for themselves.

[rwa265]

I did read through the article, and found reasons put forth that I haven’t seen before. The discussion in David was quite interesting. It has given me a greater understanding of how it can be said that Mary is not the mother of God. As I mentioned, I found apologetics on both sides of the issue and can also see how it can be said that Mary is the mother of God. It is a discussion that has been going on for 17 to 18 centuries and likely will continue until Jesus comes again.

[CynicalBear]

Calling Mary the “mother of God” is a gross error. It does not originate in scripture and is of pagan origin as are many of the beliefs and rituals of Catholicism.

[rwa265]

>> “. But Mary did give birth to the second person of the Trinity in Christ Jesus.” <<

No!!!

That statement is a sophistry. The second person of the trinity, the Logos, existed eternally, thus long before she gave birth to the human boy that his spirit had entered.

The desire for a sinful human to be the parent of God is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.

---

It wasn’t that Mary desired to be the parent of God. She was troubled by the visit from Gabriel and did not understand how it could be. She most likely would have been quite content to become married to Joseph and have his children. But it was the will of the Father that Mary would be the bearer of the “Word made flesh.” That is why He sent Gabriel to tell her that she would bear a child that she is to name Jesus, and the child to be born will be called the Son of God. And Mary’s response was that she is the handmaid of the Lord, may it be done to her according to his word.

You wrote that she gave birth to the human boy (flesh) that his spirit (Word) had entered. Is this the same as saying that she gave birth to the spirit made the human boy, as in the Word made flesh, and as such can rightly be called the mother of God?

There are apologetics that make a good case that it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God.

There are apologetics that make a good case that it can be said that Mary is the mother of God.

This is a point of contention over which there will continue to disagreement on this forum. After the discussion on this thread, I more clearly understand the reasoning behind both positions.

Peace

[delchiante]

Let me ask a different way...

What made the earth to become ‘waste and void’ as Torah say?

Did He create perfect or waste and void?

The Hebrew in Genesis denotes some sort of time consuming event occurred before Light..

[delchiante]

Another question.. where does it say in scripture that holy convocations can occur on work days?

The verses I see say no work is to be done..

[rwa265]

I know you truly believe that calling Mary the “mother of God” is a gross error, and I won’t further torment you about it.

I will leave you with this statement:

There are apologetics that make a good case that it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God.

There are apologetics that make a good case that it can be said that Mary is the mother of God.

This is a point of contention over which there will continue to disagreement on this forum. After our discussions on this thread, I more clearly understand the reasoning behind both positions.

Peace

[editor-surveyor]

Are you deliberately acting dense?

I didn’t say that Mary desired to be the parent of God.

I said that for any other person to desire her to be “a parent of God” is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.

It is obviously impossible for anyone or thing to be a parent of God.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The Earth didn’t “become” without form and void.

It was a part of the creation process described in Genesis for a large (two light-year diameter) sphere of water to exist, without form and void, before forms were created.

.
Your foolish question is just another attempt to change the word of God, IMO.

Please do not attempt to engage me in pharisaical manipulations of the word.

.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “where does it say in scripture that holy convocations can occur on work days?” <<

.
In Leviticus, where the method of determining the times of those convocations is given.

Each of those days, except for Shavuot, is capable of falling either on a Sabbath, or on a regular day.

Shavuot can only fall on the first day of the week, since it is determined by counting the seven Sabbaths, making it the 50th day (thus “Pentecost”)

It is Shavuot that best demonstrates that what you have said is total nonsense.

.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “There are apologetics that make a good case that it can be said that Mary is the mother of God.” <<

.
There are “apologetics” that make a case that Lucifer (Satan) is an “Angel of Light,” and the “Brother of Yeshua.”

Pick your Poison!!!

.

[rwa265]

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t deliberately being dense.

Scripture tells us in Luke 1 that it was God himself who desired that Mary be the mother of Jesus. He sent the angel Gabriel to tell Mary that she will bear a son, and that she is to call him Jesus. Gabriel further said that this holy child to be born will be called the Son of God.

Scripture also tells us in John 1 that the Word was God, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and that John the Baptist testified that this Word that became flesh was Jesus, the Son of God.

I agree that it is impossible for anyone to be a parent of God, our Father who art in heaven.

But God lowered himself to become flesh in the person of Jesus, the Son of God. So from Scripture alone, it can be said that the woman who gave birth to God incarnate in the person of Jesus, the Son of God, can be called the mother of God while he was in the flesh.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I think you answered your own question, but have not yet accepted that answer.

Since you know that the Logos exists eternally, Mary cannot be called “the mother of God.”

That is an ancient pagan term applied to Easter, and its use is evil at its root.

.

[terycarl]

>>Peter didn't become Pope until year 50....is that O.K. now??<< There was no single person with the title pope until the 11th century. Anybody who desires truth can simply do a little internet search on the history of the title pope and see that for themselves

if your kids caall you daddy, and you find that it is the first time kids have called their father daddy..

does that mean that Adam was not the daddy of Cain and Abel???????????????????????????titles can be retroactive...

[CynicalBear]

ROFL!!!! That was lame.

[terycarl]

There was no single person with the title pope until the 11th century.

Siricius...Papa Siricius(papa=pope) 384-399AD

Next????

[CynicalBear]

Give it a break dude. Every bishop of the time was called that. Those with good reading comprehension would have seen that I said “no SINGLE head of the church was called pope”.

[terycarl]

ROFL!!!! That was lame.

Close enough for government work...or FR.