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.
Elsie, the above quote was referring to Catholicism.
Protestantism is a HERESY!!! I believe it to be the most dangerous religion on earth.
This is your reply. Maybe you could decide which religion really is the most dangerous in your mind... Perhaps Muslim Extremism? That is the one chopping off heads NOW.
Take a listen, and find out!
Nah...I pretty much know the gospel they’re preaching and it isn’t the Gospel of Jeusus Christ of the Bible..but something other than.
So why don’t you explain to us ‘what Gospel’ they’re preaching....I mean you shouldn’t draw people to something you yourself might not know.
Besides didn’t Jesus tell us to be prepared with His Gospel...so I’m certain you could explain it to us. Right?
I am not anyone special. My daughter told me years go that I am really easy going. When I got in the situation I was in, my first thought was of those parents of the Amish children who were killed at their school. If they could forgive the killers, then I had to forgive just like the Bible teaches. Some still think I am nuts for still being friends but that is ok. I am just odd that way. : )
MamaB, that forgiveness makes you special, just as it did the Amish you spoke of. Their example helped you to forgive. We never know how God will choose to work through us in this life, and how out of every evil His will allows, He makes a greater good. Who knows how many people those Amish touched? Now you are an example here with your post! God works His wonders in so many ways and through so many people! Have a blessed day!
And you know that how?
From studying the scriptures... Christ has a body of “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39), but there is no blood in His body, because it was all poured out for sin upon the cross. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lv 17:11).
The life of the natural flesh was in the blood, but that body is transformed in resurrection: “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor:15:44). The old flesh that gives us such trouble will be no more after the resurrection, but we will have “spiritual” bodies like Christ’s. We couldn’t die if we wanted to!
Christ now lives in “the power of an endless life” (Heb:7:16), and “being raised from the dead dieth no more” (Rom:6:9). So it will be with us, for we shall be “in the likeness of his resurrection” (Rom:6:5).
Christ told Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side…” (Jn:20:27). If Christ had blood in His body He would be bleeding from five wounds. There must be a gaping hole in His side for Thomas to have been able to thrust his hand into it! He will forever bear the marks of Calvary as a constant reminder of the cost of our salvation.
Not...The bible tells us that everything we need to know to receive salvation is within the written scriptures...There will be no new doctrines...No new Gospels...No new revelations pertaining to new doctrines...
So God lied and the Catholic church straightened him out...Well that's good to know...
The rest of the post is just make believe stuff...
Bull!
And this idea is based on what??? Absolutely nothing but a fable...Someone makes this stuff up and then Catholics come to FR and repeat it like it has some legitimacy...
We kind of wandered off of addressing your claim that Jesus ceased to be a man (post 288) when he died on the cross. Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body which to all appearances was that of a man. Do you disagree with that?
Consider also Christ as Second Adam. Would you not agree that Adam was a man?
Does it not make sense that His defeat of death removed the curse that first Adam’s disobedience brought forth? First Adam did not become something other than a man. We are not given a very much description about what First Adam was like; but, dare we to say that Second Adam discarded His Manhood? Would that not mean that God has despised the work of His own hands?
Something to think about?
Here's a suggestion before I must be about my day...
Think about how the tone of this forum would be if we ALL ceased from the "they always...." type of comment. It adds nothing to the force of the argument and serves only to engender resentments.
Veni Sancti Spiritus, Veni per Mariam.
Amen.
Thanks for this.
Thank you. Pray. Pray. Pray.
She’s slowly improving. The challenging thing is that there is no timeline possible. It’s one day at a time.
I think you should explain to us why the Holy Spirit never inspired the apostles to use the words “mother of God”.
He did no such thing...He doesn't know what he's talking about...He claimed Jesus drank the drink of Mat 26:29 while on the Cross...Apparently it was the vinegar this guy is trying to pass off due to an inability to accurately respond to the question the Protestant ask him...Here's the verse...Just tell you guys any thing...You'll believe any thing...
Mat_26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Did Jesus drink vinegar with the disciples on the Cross??? Of course not...This priest doesn't have a clue but yet you guys put him out there like he's some sort of authority...
And sadly you guys believe him because you obviously don't bother to check the scriptures to see if he is telling the truth...And he isn't...
He did no such thing...He doesn't know what he's talking about...He claimed Jesus drank the drink of Mat 26:29 while on the Cross...Apparently it was the vinegar this guy is trying to pass off due to an inability to accurately respond to the question the Protestant ask him...Here's the verse...Just tell you guys any thing...You'll believe any thing...
And he got his information from Scott Hahn...
Mat_26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Did Jesus drink vinegar with the disciples on the Cross??? Of course not...This priest doesn't have a clue but yet you guys put him out there like he's some sort of authority...
And sadly you guys believe him because you obviously don't bother to check the scriptures to see if he is telling the truth...And he isn't...
In the O.T. Jesus, as the angel of the Lord had no trouble communicating with numerous men...
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.