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.

[don-o]

That Scripture is not doing what I guess you are thinking it does. We are given no details, but our common sense tells us that Thomas met and handled someone who looked like Jesus and Jesus assured that it was indeed Himself. Thomas simply exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Not, "Lord, You don't feel quite as solid as you were before. What's different?"

That passage from Corinthians does not show that the resurrected Jesus was bloodless. I've never even thought of such a thing until it was posted upthread.

[caww]

.....”So much for Catholics never judging the condition of another’s soul”....

They always do....even their teachings show they do...so of course their membership will do so when they haven’t anything else to stand on.

[delchiante]

It is all about the worship cynical..

Worship is the theme of revelation. It is the final battle..

Worship the enemy.. or worship The Father..

You don’t see Rome’s counterfeits as being anything but false teaching..
It is false worship..

And frankly, they at least try to keep a sabbath day holy, although I believe you have made a comment to me in a previous post about no longer needing to obey those commandments.. that is not what scripture or the Messiah says at all..

The opposite fits the enemy’s plan in revelation 13.. causing the world to break the first four eternal commandments that deal with worship..and specifically worship of the Father..

Worship of the Father... who sent His Son in His (the Father’s Name)

Maybe a catholic should ask you who do you worship?

But again, today is Sunday to the world... but, according to scripture, it is His 3rd day..

Who, when and how we worship is very important..
It is the final battle in revelation..

I know Catholics worship Jesus and Mary...
Man, I know protestants that worship Jesus..

And He and His messengers say to Worship the Father..

Amazingly, I suspect you called today Sunday..certainly a very Roman concept that dates back to ancient sun worship in ancient Babylon..

Worship and giving honor to the created instead of the Creator..

But the enemy is subtle with his ways to steal and rob Yah of worship..

[Grateful2God]

knowing that when Catholics do that, it's for the purpose of labeling and pigeon holing people. Catholics do love their labels. I am not performing on demand to get the usual smarmy Catholic response of *Good girl. Keep it up and you'll soon be a Catholic like me*.

Mindreading? Imputing motive? Believe it or not, there are actually Catholics who are here to find a common ground, and to have an adult, courteous discussion. That quote you described as "smarmy"- can you come up with a post where that came from?

You choose not to disclose an affiliation, for fear of "labeling and pigeonholing." You chose to come into an open forum where Catholics are discussing their beliefs. How would you feel about your denomination getting sniped at, as ours does? Of course you wouldn't like it. It's easier just to hide it. That isn't fair, but it's your choice. I'm Catholic and I'm grateful to be so: that doesn't mean I'm here to recruit more Catholics. I was given the opportunity to choose for myself: God gives us all a free will. It's not up to me. It's up to each person. God bless you, and please don't doubt my sincerity when I say so. I hope we all go to Heaven and meet someday.

Sincerely,

Grateful

[daniel1212]

The writer had better be glad Dr. Walter Martin is deceased and can’t defend himself. I would love to see them in a one on one debate, just not anytime soon .

Indeed, though i myself see Christ as being the Son before His incarnation, yet Martin upheld the preexistence of Christ. . Here are many to hear, which vary from week to week,Walter Martin's Religious InfoNet - Listening Library

And here on TBN her rebukes TBN. CURTAINS FOR WALTER MARTIN & DOUG CLARK AT TBN

[daniel1212]

I thought only the King James Version of the Bible was considered authoritative by Protestants.

No, that is a minority, but i still hold it to be the best.

[metmom]

Jesus shed His blood on the cross.

The body He has now is NOT the body He was born into.

It is resurrected and transformed.

If it wasn’t, He could not have appeared through closed doors, nor survived the ascension.

Just because the body LOOKS the same, does not mean that it is intrinsically the same, that it is made of the same material as our human bodies, which can only survive within a very narrow range of parameters.

[Arthur McGowan]

My comment has NOTHING to do with the condition of another person’s soul.

It has to do only with the fact that in order to be a Christian, one must believe that the man who died on the cross is the same man who rose from the dead.

[Faith Presses On]

Yes, what Jesus said in John 6 was to send away those who didn’t believe and so weren’t His. But the rest of what you wrote wasn’t clear. Jesus did not give His disciples from His actual body and blood to eat and drink. That’s the literal meaning, and some religions have done it. What Communion represents is His sacrificial death for our sakes, which are our food and drink, what we need to survive eternally. I don’t believe it was fully literal, one reason being that He did not give them of His actual flesh and blood, but said the bread and wine were those things. Catholics say that was literal, but again I’ve never heard one bring up themselves that metaphor exists. I do believe when Jesus uses metaphor it’s often not meant as mere men would mean it. I do believe Jesus is also the Word, living water, our Rock, the Passover Lamb, the Lion of Judah, Light, the Sword of the Spirit, and the Tree of Life. I don’t believe these are mere metaphors, but describe a reality we don’t and can’t fully understand here, but God has given us the things of this world, as shadows of the eternal, so we can get a basic sense of it. How Jesus is all those things and more, including part of the Trinity, we only partly understand now. And that goes for Holy Communion, as well. He did not give the disciples or anyone to eat from His body, not at the Last Supper, nor after, from His resurrected body, but I do believe we eat from Him in the sense of Him somehow being all those things - the Word, the Passover Lamb, Light, living water, etc.

[Grateful2God]

"The ONLY time "Mary's son" appears is in context with her OTHER children: Is this not the carpenter's son..."! Son of GOD is found; "GOD's only son" is found; but Mary's child?

Not so much."

Have you never read Luke's Gospel?

[Colofornian]

Christ tells Peter to expect continuing revelation.

(Oh, you mean like from Mormon "prophets" and "apostles," eh?)

Despite Hebrews 1:1-2, Mormons have been told that Jesus can't speak directly to His Church on earth minus going thru the intermediary camped out in Salt Lake City ...even though the writer of Hebrews clearly says that in the PAST God spoke through prophets...now He speaks through His Son, the Living Revelation of God!

(You DO know what the word PAST means, doncha 1010?)

Why has Lds Inc. bumped Jesus Christ out of the picture as the Church's one Living Prophet?
Why has Lds Inc. silenced Him?
Can He not speak directly any more minus having to "relay" everything thru Salt Lake City?

I mean it's downright hypocritical for the Lds Church to insist that God only gives one "prophet" to the church, and then to systematically exclude mention of Jesus Christ as continuing to be THAT SINGLE Living Prophet Himself!!! ...meaning...that the Lds church has replaced Him!

Even though MANY of the Old Testament prophets were contemporaries of each other (God speaking through more than one prophet at a time), Lds Inc. "told" God that He can't do that any more -- they have shut the mouths of God speaking through more than a single prophet.. and what's worse, unlike what Heb. 1:1-2 clearly says -- that Jesus is our everlasting "prophetic" voice we hear (see John 10)...Mormons say "no" -- we've shut up Jesus' voice as well...and we ONLY hear in a church body where "ONLY here is the Lord’s prophet."

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

[metmom]

You choose not to disclose an affiliation, for fear of "labeling and pigeonholing."

Not fear of. I'm not afraid of anything.

I'm just not going to let someone cram me in a box.

How would you feel about your denomination getting sniped at, as ours does? Of course you wouldn't like it. It's easier just to hide it. That isn't fair, but it's your choice.

I freely share my beliefs on the forum. They are found in Scripture.

Any church that recognizes the authority of Scripture is one I can worship at and affiliate with.

I have attended over the years, Baptist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Methodist, Calvary Chapel, CM&A, and an assortment of independent, non-denominational churches, all of which hold to the integrity of Scripture and teach salvation by grace through faith in Christ, resulting in the new birth, and have enjoyed and learned from their worship services and interacting with the other believers I have met there.

Any one of them is fine by me.

Jesus said that where two or three are gathered together, He is there in the midst. I don't even NEED enter a church building to meet with Him. I can do it at work, at home, on the road, at the doctor's office, in the hospital, where ever because He's IN me, not in a building where I have to go to meet Him.

[metmom]

My comment has NOTHING to do with the condition of another person’s soul.

Of course it does.

Telling someone that they are not a Christian is absolutely making a determination about the condition of their soul.

[Iscool]

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.

Well, we can believe you or we can believe God...

Jesus' body died...It was resurrected and glorified...Just as will happen to humans when they are resurrected...We will get spiritual bodies...

What about Jesus' human nature??? Jesus was tempted...He fought temptation and won...He was tempted just as we are...

Do you think Jesus now can be tempted??? If he has a human nature, he can...God can not be tempted...Jesus could only be tempted when he was in the flesh...Jesus no longer has that human nature...

So where do you get your information from??? It's human logic (philosophy) and your religous customs, isn't it??? No scripture involved...

[terycarl]

Catholicism is so far removed from the scriptures, the only sense it makes is that it is a man made religion...

Now that is rich coming from a protestant...who's your man, Luther, Zwingley, Calvin, Wesley, ????

[Grateful2God]

Good for you! You see, you found a common ground with them, you learned from them, and I’m sure they learned from you. That’s Christian charity and brotherhood. I congratulate you!

[terycarl]

Let's try some easy math:

Oh goodie, Mary's time constraints again....what time are they on in Heaven...CST, EST, MST, PST....one of the foreign time zones....I kind of thought that Heaven was eternal and they didn't bother with waatches and clocks and hourglasses....

[caww]

....”Telling someone that they are not a Christian is absolutely making a determination about the condition of their soul”....

Not for someone who might well be unfamilar with what a true Christian is....which in this case could well be.

[MamaB]

It is man made. When people believe in traditions more than the Bible, it is man made. Y’all are great at stating what traditions say but have little to do with what he Bible says. Why is that?