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.
Exactly, you chose to ignore the words of Jesus and misdirect to other matters and your personal opinion.
You reject the teachings of Jesus to Eat His
Body and Blood that He sacrificed for you and stated that it was necessary for your salvation.
That is just one example where you have rejected Jesus.
Tim Stsples questioned what he was being taught and believed and found the Truth.
I will pray for you and others so that you may fully understand the words of God and accept His teachings.
Clearly your predictions were correct. I don’t know why you and the others even bother with these posters.
Nope. Only the cult of the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is "queen of Heaven."
Mariolatry at its finest once again.
Hoss
I love the Transitive Property. So logical.
Since the OP contains precise propositions presented in clear language, silly me had the fool's hope that someone might come out of lurkdom and actually at least try to point out where it is wrong.
The opportunity is still there. The usual suspects just do what they do. And that's fine, if boring.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (Iésous): for he shall save his people from their sins. Iésous - Definition: Jesus; the Greek form of Joshua; Jesus, son of Eliezer; Jesus, surnamed Justus.
Luke 3:29 the son of Joshua (Iésous), the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
Now explain to us how the entire New Testament we have today in the Greek is corrupted and it doesn't really say to call Him Iésous. Tell us how the sacred name cult has "corrected" the erroneous documentation we have in the Greek. Can you do that with documentation from ancient manuscripts? Or are you using that Hebrew roots cult nonsense to reverse engineer the words of the New Testament to cast doubt?
Catholics just can’t grasp the difference between the physical and the spiritual can they. Scripture calls that being carnal minded you know.
When his terrestrial body died on the cross...
It’s best to leave that carnal logic to those who have been blinded to the spiritual truths.
I’ve never heard a Catholic bring up, much less answer, why Jesus didn’t give the twelve disciples from His actual flesh and blood since He has and had a body, and was physically present with them both before and after His death and resurrection. Doing *that* was what those who rejected Jesus in John 6 had in mind.
We were told it would happen.
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Those still going to the Catholic Church are still under her false teaching.
More similarity with Mormons!! Wow indeed!
LOL Catholics do that all the time. They think eating the word is actually literal.
Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Ezekiel 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
And Catholics say "I did eat the flesh".
Since Mary was born sinless then her mother must have been without sin and her mother before her ....ect. Since Mary is in the lineage of David and David sinned ... so just wondering ....
So he was just joshing (actually lying) to Thomas?
Obviously that accomplished the turning away of those whom the Father had not given Him, save the son of perdition. On the night of His betrayal, all that was clearly communicated to the men His Father had given Him.
I am going to trust that Bible Christians know the references. Later still were eyes opened in the "breaking of the bread."
Not to throw more fuel on the fire but I have a question:
Since Mary was born sinless then her mother must have been without sin and her mother before her ....ect. Since Mary is in the lineage of David and David sinned ... so just wondering ....
There is a relic of one worn by the “thinking saint” but it is only the button on top.
Protestant thinking caps are about as rare but there are no relics for some reason.
We can see that in the corruptions of scripture by the Catholic Church. You illustrate that in the verse you reference.
2 Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.
That's from a Catholic Bible. Now let's look at it from the Greek.
1 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
That verse is not talking about man interpreting prophecy today. It's talking about how it was God who gave that prophecy and not just man's interpretation. The twisting by the Catholic Church to try to keep people from reading and understanding scripture is pervasive and insidious.
The book of revelation is that uncovering or the revealing of truth that may not be comfortable to people..
Revelation 12 held the mystery of the Messiah’s true birthday, although to read over it, one wouldn’t be able to comprehend it.. and like I said, if December 25 wasn’t truth, I wanted Him and His Word to lead me to full Truth.
And He does!
It took rejection of the world. And it was that point that I saw His plan that was written in the sky way before He ever had it placed on parchment.. and genesis to revelation made sense..and so did the Hebrewness of the Savior make sense where the Greco roman Latinness faded...
and Christendom and its traditions became a counterfeit..
And realizing I was worshipping a counterfeit my entire life paled in comparison to realizing there is no pre trib rapture..
Well magisterium forbid that light be shed on the the deceit and darkness of the Catholic Church and the false beliefs they spread!
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.