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.
The bible itself has to lie for that to be a lie, but this does not excuse being spiritually soft. Most who are serious enough about the bible to believe in that catching-up-in-the-air know enough not to be spiritually soft. If you are spiritually soft you will always be playing rope a dope with the devil and get almost nowhere.
The point is the words the Holy Spirit used to convey a message. Intentionally misleading by changing the words He used will not lead to a pleasant outcome.
Why do Catholics always head for that vitriol road?
There must be some intellectually honest, intelligent Protestants in the world. There must be many on FR.
But there are none among those who post about Catholicism.
I have never seen so much equivocation, undistributed middles, and question-begging in my life.
I once asked, Are the following syllogisms formally valid or invalid?
Emily is the mother of Sam.
Sam is a fireman.
Emily is the mother of a fireman.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
I was attacked by about five of FR’s Mary haters, for using “pagan philosophy,” for trying to lead them “down a rabbit hole,” for trying to use “human logic” in talking about God, etc.
I didn't say a "denomination". Christ didn't establish "denominations" or organizations. If the teaching can't be supported by scripture get out of there. Salvation is a personal thing. Sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to guide you as you read scripture. Putting your faith in another man or group of men leads to error. Paul commended the Bereans for checking with scripture to see if even he was teaching truth. He didn't say check with some organization.
Wrong.
Jesus had a mother.
GOD has none.
The term *mother of God* is a fabrication of man, a fallacy that says something different than *mother of Jesus*.
The Holy Spirit picked His words for a reason.
That's right. She had the right blood lines and lived in the right time and place for prophecy to be fulfilled.
It had nothing to do with her intrinsic character. That was fabricated centuries later when someone decided that she needed to be sinless.
Just making the comparison terycarl. All false religions rely on something other than scripture alone. Something added. Additional revelation. A new apparition. Each one looks to something that isn’t found in scripture or that wasn’t taught by the apostles. The list of those that do that includes Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims.
And Catholics call others heretics. Wow!
You have statues of her in your house?
You light candles before her and pray to her and bow down before her statue?
The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul is us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Greek word “grace”
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
Word Origin: from charis
Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace
NASB Translation: favored (1), freely bestowed (1).
If you mean that Mary is the mother of Jesus, then just SAY it.
There's no need to change her title, making her into something she isn't.
GOD has no mother, no beginning. Jesus did. Jesus was born. God wasn't.
If you insist that Mary is the mother of God because she's the mother of Jesus, then you are denying Jesus' humanity and falling into the error of modalism.
Decades at least. I heard it as a teenager.
You need to ask?
What have I been posting all along?
That's completely unbiblical. Christ organized his Church and it functioned as organized after his resurrection.
This assertion is not supported by scripture. Drop it. Get out of there and quick.
Have you read them side by side and compared passages to see if they say the same thing or not?
So, if they use a different word order and say the same thing, do you consider that a *different* interpretation?
So, for Ephesians 2:8 here....
Exactly what difference is there in saying *from* or *of* yourselves? How does that change what is said?
Or is saying *gift of God* as opposed to *gift from God* supposed to make any difference in the meaning?
Is that supposed to be an example of *many and varied interpretations*?
New International Version
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
New Living Translation
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
English Standard Version
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
New American Standard Bible
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
King James Bible
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—
International Standard Version
For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
NET Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God,
GOD’S WORD® Translation
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
Jubilee Bible 2000
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,
King James 2000 Bible
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American King James Version
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American Standard Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Douay-Rheims Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;
Darby Bible Translation
For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God’s gift:
English Revised Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Webster’s Bible Translation
For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Weymouth New Testament
For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God’s gift, and is not on the ground of merit—
World English Bible
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Young’s Literal Translation
for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you — of God the gift,
Preach it, sister!!!!
Nonsense and ahistorical. If true, then the Hebrews would have been right to reject Moses. The Bible is one long continuing revelation and nothing in the Bible definitively states nor can be construed to imply that revelation will end. Quite the opposite.
Christ tells Peter to expect continuing revelation. It comes, most notably via his trance revealing the time to take the Gospel to the gentiles. Look at the same chapter in Acts 10 for Cornelius's experience.
Cornelius' prayers and offerings are acceptable to God. An angel comes to speak to him. Does anyone still read the Bible or do they just stake out a position based on a few snippets?
A person who wants to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, should absolutely expect continuing revelation, angels, ordination, baptism and an organized, orderly church.
The teacher’s told our Social Studies class that all prior versions of the bible were in error. This was in 1976 in rural Illinois. I believe she belonged to the Church of Christ, so if your sect doesn’t believe the same, please do not take offense.
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.