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.
Please show where scripture uses the words “mother of God”.
So?
Sometimes we get so busy discussing, we forget what our priorities should be... : )
The Bible does say, "Pray one for another." God bless!
Really? Exactly where does He announce that?
Chapter and verse?
AKA the words the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write. Are you saying that using the words the Holy Spirit used is wrong?
Why are you associating the Jesus described in Luke 1:31 with the false teaching of when He was born? The Catholic false teaching doesn't change the truth of scripture. It simply claims false things about Him. Their false teaching about Him doesn't change who He is any more than false teachings about Mary change who she really is.
>>Their Jesus is your Jesus.. their Mary is your Mary...<<
Why would you make a false statement like that? I no more believe the Catholic teaching about either Jesus or Mary than you do. Good grief man you're making no sense.
>>We can get a head start or we can stay in Babylon until those walls fall.. rahab is the best example of that.. but she wasnt fighting on her Babylon’s side when the walls fell..<<
You need to walk away from that Hebrew roots and sacred name cult dude. Seriously.
I'm saying the Holy Spirit used the term "mother of Jesus" and that He used them for a reason. He did NOT use the term "mother of God" and I would suspect He did NOT for a reason. Now, if you want to add to or change the words of the Holy Spirit have at it. Do so at your own risk.
Nobody is saying what you or they will have to face. Here's what scripture says.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
See any in there who will not have to "face death"? Christ said the generation which sees the things leading up to that time will not pass. One of the markers was the gathering of Israel back to the land it was promised. That started in 1948. The gathering of the nations against Israel was another. See any of that happening currently?
Not one of us is promised that we will not pass before that day. I have not heard one person express the belief that they "will not have to face death" simply because they belief in the rapture as told in scripture.
So says the Catholic Church.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
So says God.
Hmmmm, who to believe? /sigh
Those Hebrew roots folks had yesterday as their sabbath..
They use Rome too to set their worship.. just like catholics and protestants..and Jews.. and secular humanists..
So rome’s easter means nothing to you?
Thanks for your polite and sincere post.
I am curious, do you think Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus?
The Thessalonians heard a rumor that the resurrection of the dead had already occurred so Paul wrote them again, calming them down.
2 Thessalonians 2
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ’s mother and you shall be saved” Says no verse in the bible.
I have read different versions of the Bible side by side. In fact, there have been several occasions when I am preparing to do a reading from Scriptures where I have looked at different versions to get a better understanding of what I am going to read.
Ephesians 2:8 is a good example of where there is widespread agreement on what the Greek words mean. There are other verses, though, in which obscure words are being interpreted in a way that gives different understandings to the sense of the verse. 2 Corinthians 6:12 is a good example.
New International Version
We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
New Living Translation
There is no lack of love on our part, but you have withheld your love from us.
English Standard Version
You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.
New American Standard Bible
You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.
King James Bible
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
You are not limited by us, but you are limited by your own affections.
International Standard Version
We have not cut you off, but you have cut off your own feelings toward us.
NET Bible
Our affection for you is not restricted, but you are restricted in your affections for us.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your affections
GOD’S WORD® Translation
We haven’t cut you off. Your own emotions have cut you off from us.
Jubilee Bible 2000
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
King James 2000 Bible
You are not constrained in us, but you are constrained in your own affections.
American King James Version
You are not straitened in us, but you are straitened in your own bowels.
American Standard Version
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections.
Douay-Rheims Bible
You are not straitened in us, but in your own bowels you are straitened.
Darby Bible Translation
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your affections
English Revised Version
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Weymouth New Testament
There is no narrowness in our love to you: the narrowness is in your own feelings.
World English Bible
You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections
Young’s Literal Translation
ye are not straitened in us, and ye are straitened in your [own] bowels
Wycliffe
ye be not anguished in us, but ye be anguished in your inwardnesses.
Catholics believe that the woman who gave birth to a Son who would rule with an iron scepter is a reference to Mary, and then in a secondary sense, to Israel.
On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.
Revelation 12: Who is the Woman Clothed with the Sun?
That's complete unadulterated nonsense and a complete misunderstanding of the words He used.
He NEVER spoke them as a command, as they are being presented.
The passage in question is this.....
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
NOWHERE does Jesus command us to *listen to the church* and that "if he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage, which clear meaning is here for everyone to see.
It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church* and a command for all believers to submit to it.
That has been explained to you time and again and yet you still persist in the same error.
She is often depicted with the Cross behind her: she stood helplessly and watched her Son suffer and die. When He was already dead, His Body was pierced through the Heart with the soldier's lance, and His Precious Blood and Water from His Side gushed forth. Jesus was dead. Who suffered the pain of seeing her Son's Body so mutilated? The Prophecy of Simeon was fulfilled. Yet she had to go on, to prepare the Body of Jesus her Son for burial, and watch as the stone was rolled in place. For the first time in 33 years, her Son was not with her, not because He was away preaching, but because He had been tortured, murdered, and His dead Body pierced. If anyone has the right to be depicted next to her Son, it is she. And yes, we interpret as Catholics, that Jesus entrusting her to John, and, in His last hours of life referring to her as Woman, "behold thy son" that she was given all He had: the souls redeemed by His Passion and Death, entrusted to the Woman to whom God had entrusted His Only-Begotten Son. Mary is our mother as well. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day; until then, His Holy Mother grieved. She who had not the concupiscence of sin within her, suffered all these things in innocence.
Who, on Christ's dear mother gazing,
in her trouble so amazing,
born of woman, would not weep?
Who, on Christ's dear Mother thinking,
such a cup of sorrow drinking,
would not share her sorrows deep?
OK. So what are the different meanings then in the passage you chose.
Show us all the varying interpretations (not just translations of the words) and the problems with them.
“No man can come to me unless he comes through my mother”. is not what John 6:44 says.
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.
