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.
Nope because for one thing, the sin nature comes through the father.
The other thing, which Catholics don't even seem to consider, is that if God could do it for Mary being born of sinful parents, then He could do it for Jesus being born of a sinful mother.
Where has that been expressed?
Please provide the post number.
How is sticking to Scripture rejecting it?
This is what Scripture says about Mary.
Where is the term *mother of GOD* ever found in it?
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
It is the Holy Spirit who teaches and reveals to us Jesus Christ, who if we are In Him, along with the written Word of God, guides us into the truths we need to know about Jesus. ..He is faithful to do so and thereby keeping His promise it would be so.
Jesus spoke to His Disciples saying...
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into ‘all’ the truth;.... for He will not speak on His own initiative,... but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. ...”He will glorify Me, for.....””” He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.”””...John 16
And again in John 14......
.." the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you 'all things' and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
And further...
.."the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."....... 1 Corinthians 2
Place maker
I like the english name Joshua..
It allowed me to see how that is the true English transliteration of the hebrew Aramaic name for the Messiah instead of having to jump into Greek/roman Latin/ transliterations like those translators did with such ease in those two places , quickly deleting the name Jesus for the english name..
I speak English,, not Greek or Latin... (unlike Rome) so it is a welcome thing to see the English name that is prevalent in the old testament for the Hebrew Messiah make its way into the english new testament..
There is some harmony with the high priest Joshua or the Hebrew general Joshua leading Israel into the promised land like Joshua the Messiah will do.
It isn’t an issue with anyone without a concordance or without an early print bible that keeps the name ‘Jesus’ in those two places..
In fact, it would seem like a nothing kind of thing except to someone who was testing and proving ALL things Rome says and does..
And it made me wonder how a Torah observant Hebrew mother named ‘Mary’ would come down here and lie and than point to a Greco roman Latin name for her son when she knew what His real name is.. and she used a name that didn’t exist while she walked the earth..
But again, I was testing from a disproving Mary and Rome point and not from a place trying to reinforce my deeply held faith and beliefs that that Mary confirms in the name Jesus..
I am glad the name Joshua made its way into the newer new testaments.. it wasn’t in my 1599 Geneva bible, certainly not a pro catholic bible edition.
The Joshua of the old testament was a shadow for the new testament Joshua.. the Messiah of Israel.
The beauty of a good counterfeit is the words are not going to be different.. they will look exactly like the genuine.. they will not have different sizes like monopoly money..
The deeds and actions are no different with the Jesus in christendom or the Joshua outside of Christendom..
But the worship is...
And imagine Satan counterfeiting and having his own savior that does nothing but hides the True Messiah from the world..causing the world to actually worship the enemy all the while proclaiming to be God himself.. just one big lie..
I don’t have to imagine it.. I see it in Christendom..
You don’t... we will see at some point..
I don’t have any problem seeing the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist nor seeing the Greco roman Latin Jesus they have created thanks to traditions, as the Antichrist.. a substitute, instead of, in place of, just like my concordance says is possible with the Greek word anti...
That is why I went to study how the name Jesus could be expplained away..
and those two scriptures did it... not something someone would search out unless they are trying to see why the name Jesus is so important to Rome and their mary...
It’s NOT the name. It’s what they teach ABOUT Him. If you can’t see the difference I’m really not interested in continuing this. Whether we call Him Jesus, Joshua, or Emmanuel doesn’t matter as it all comes from scripture. It’s what we teach ABOUT Him and WHO He is.
You can't. either Mary is mother of Jesus, God with us, or she is the mother of GOD, making her deity and making God less than God but giving Him a beginning.
Calling Mary *mother of God* dismisses His humanity and diminishes the Incarnation.
Why do you argue and dismiss the honor and love that we all feel for the Mother of God?
I don't care what you FEEL about Mary. That's your business.
However, when it comes to teaching false things about her and thereby Jesus and God, that's another matter.
NO IT ISN"T and I think you have been shown that before. In no way can the word kecharitomene be made to mean "full of grace".
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Wow. I don’t know how to break this to you gently, but...you are not a Christian.
The risen Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands and feet, and the wound in his side. The risen Christ was the same man who hung on the cross, lived in Nazareth, and was born in Bethlehem.
I hope and pray that you will eventually become a Christian.
I am not evading the issue. The Holy Spirit does not refer to Mary as “mother of God.” I know that. Scripture refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus. My question is whether you agree that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A question which neither of you seems willing to answer. I think I know why. To disagree would be saying that Jesus is not our Lord and Savior. To agree would mean that Mary is the mother of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, God the Son, the Word made flesh, the Messiah (God with us). You have both made it clear that you do not believe that. This is a conundrum for me. I do not understand how Jesus, the son of Mary in human form, can be separated from Jesus, the Son of God. Let me ask this. Do you believe that God the Son, at the behest of His Father, allowed Himself to be breathed into a young girl by the Holy Spirit, so that he could lower Himself to become human in form, given the name Jesus, and suffer and die on a cross to redeem us from our sins? How difficult is that to believe? Is it that much more difficult to believe that God the Son, as Jesus, would have that girl as His mother while on earth?
Wow!! Playing your roll as God now?
Discuss the issues, do not make it personal.
Mind reading is a form of making it personal.
None of which makes Mary the "mother of God". I think you have twisted and turned this issue about enough. The term "mother of God" is deceitful and attempts to conjure up a wrong image. It was NOT used by the Holy Spirit and I would suggest you not second guess His word choices.
When Jesus talked to Thomas, Jesus didn't have any blood...And his flesh was not as our human flesh...
You don't believe Jesus died on the Cross???
And you know that how?
You don't believe Jesus died on the Cross???
Relevance?
Son of GOD is found; "GOD's only son" is found; but Mary's child?
Not so much.
It doesn't make it true or right.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
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.