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.
So you disagree with all the documentation provided?
I’m always SO impressed with your Greek. </sarc> Did it just come to you? Where did you learn it? Oh, yes, you don’t answer questions. Sorry, can’t discuss.
Defending Catholicism in the light of facts does get frustrating doesn’t it.
You left out "sinless" when describing His Body. Heretics have stumbled since the beginning with the seeming impossibility of true divinity in a true human body.
Did you ever answer the question: Is Jesus God?
It is a quite simple question. Arius got it wrong. There are both full blown and semi-Arians all over the place today.
Once you get that settled - even though not understood but accepted like a little child, ones outlook changes. Mine sure did.
I am looking for some Orthodox hymns that are sung at the Lamentations at the tomb on Great and Holy Saturday, but cannot find them right now. One of them says to the effect - Thou who did create the sun, stars and moon now lie dead in the tomb -
In Orthodoxy, our hymns contain our belief and this one has stuck with me. Wish I could find it and be precise.
Your comment: “Because He would have been sinning by eating blood and encouraging others to sin also”
You keep calling Jesus a sinner and a liar.
You do not accept the words of Jesus. You are entitled to your personal opinion and belief.
Why is your passion so against the intentions of Jesus and He certainly clarified that the meaning was not figurative and was literal?.
You call yourself a follower of Jesus, but your firmly reject His words and advice for your salvation.
But many more believe....
BIBLE PROVES REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN EUCHARIST
Rev. Daniel Maher
In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus promised to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. To those of us who profess belief in Christ in the twentieth century, the thought that Jesus would become for us actual food and thereby enter into us to provide nourishment and refreshment to our soul is a wonderfully consoling thought.
For those Christians who profess the faith of the Catholic Church, this thought is much more than mere consolation, it is the core belief of Catholics regarding their encounter with Christ in the action termed Holy Communion.
If we project ourselves back to the time of Christ and envision ourselves as among those of a Jewish background who had been drawn by the dynamic preaching and inspiring example of Jesus of Nazareth, His promise would perhaps be seen in quite a different light. Upon Jesus’ extraordinary revelation contained in this section of the gospel, there occurs a mass exodus of followers from His camp, seeming to indicate that those who were somewhat skeptical disciples of this self-proclaimed Messiah saw those words not so much as a consolation, but as instead more of a confirmation of sorts.
The thought that one would proclaim His flesh to be food and His blood to be drink must have confirmed for many what some had no doubt always suspected, “Jesus of Nazareth is crazy!”
According to Jewish custom, the blood of a person or animal was the life force of that being and therefore sacred and incapable of being shed or drunk by a believer. It is easy to understand, but no less regrettably felt, that the fledgling faith of so many of those original disciples was shaken by words uttered by the Savior himself.
What a tragedy that the Lord who wanted to be so generous as to share His own life-force with them, as He did for us all through the outpouring of His blood from the cross, should be rejected as a sort of madman for possessing such a love for His chosen children!
Yet today still we see around us continuing rejection of Christ’s instructions that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life.
This decision by most Christian denominations to interpret such a key section of the Bible in a figurative way seems curious in light of the fact that flocks of disciples walked away from Jesus at the time of its proclamation. One would think that if His message had somehow been taken too literally by the disturbed crowds, and in fact He intended it in only a symbolic way, Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding among the departing throngs, rather than let them walk away from His saving message.
The assumption that Jesus was speaking only figuratively also would seem a bit deflated by the language employed in this section of Scripture itself. The Greek language in which John’s gospel was originally written is consistent in its use of words which translate into English as “eat” and “flesh,” words which would seem rather strong if the eating intended was merely spiritual or if the flesh partaken of was meant in a spiritual sense too. Instead it seems more logical to assume that a real partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ is commended, an act of eating which produces marvelous spiritual effects.
In the Mass, Catholics believe that simple bread and wine brought to the altar as a token offering to God are marvelously changed by God’s power during the praying of the Mass into the body and blood of Christ for distribution to believers in the action of Holy Communion. God is so aflame with love and longing for His people that He will go to even seemingly crazed extremes to express that love. Holy Communion is one of those cases where God’s love is so great as to make His zealous love for His people appear mad. What a different world it would be if we strove to return God’s love with an equal passion!
(Fr. Daniel Maher is a graduate of the College of William and Mary and of St. Charles Seminary. He has served as associate pastor of St. Leo the Great Church in Fairfax, VA and as spiritual director of the Fairfax Curia of the Legion of Mary.)
Do Catholics not read responses to them? Jesus was fully man and fully God.
Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Is that enough? There are more if your not convinced.
Now that we have that cute diversion out of the way.
God did not die. Now explain the next verse to me.
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?<<
Please read my post 705.
He did change bread and wine into His Body and Blood
As I said, many have rejected the words and intentions of Jesus Christ.
How can you be a follower of Jesus, yet reject His words and His gift of His Body and Blood in Holy Communion?
Why are you different from the followers mentioned in the Bible who did not believe in words of Jesus and left?
Stone that man has hewn now conceals
the Stone of Life’s Foundation;
mortal men entomb God as mortal man,
causing you , O earth, to tremble in dismay.
You have set the measures
of the earth, yet this day
in a narrow tomb now dwell, Jesus, King of all,
Who has raised those who were dead up from their to
tombs.
He Who is the Master
of creation appears
as a corpse and lies entombed in a fresh-hewn grave
,
though He emptied every gravesite of its dead
I’m a Catholic. I believe with all my heart. Dealing with people who hate Catholicism: frustrating, no. There always will be those. Hate comes from fear, fear from a lack of understanding.
I’ll answer your questions as you do mine.
No, I don't. It's Catholics who claim He was eating blood and getting the apostles to do the same.
>>You call yourself a follower of Jesus, but your firmly reject His words and advice for your salvation.<<
Once again you made a false claim. I take Jesus words as He meant them and explained them.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Still Catholics reject those words and insist that it is the flesh. Jesus wasn't talking about eating the physical flesh and blood any more the Jeremiah was eating the physical scroll. Neither does a literal river of water flow from the belly of believers.
>>In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus promised to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.<<
As I just showed He also explained that His words were spirit and that He was not talking about the literal physical flesh and blood.
>>Upon Jesus’ extraordinary revelation contained in this section of the gospel, there occurs a mass exodus of followers from His camp<<
Yes, they also took Jesus to mean literal flesh and blood and as that was specifically forbidden by God and they followed that prohibition they knew it couldn't be from God. Catholics just don't care about that prohibition. The apostles had faith enough in Jesus to stay for His explanation and then understood that He wasn't talking about the literal physical flesh and blood.
It's interesting that Catholics don't catch that the apostles later, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, reiterated the prohibition against eating blood for the New Testament believers. Catholics must believe they were double minded apostles or something. Prohibiting the eating of blood while at the same time encouraging it? Preposterous.
See here for some information on your educated ones.
In what? The false teaching of the Catholic Church like I showed here?
The passage you cite began the 7th Biblical month, not the 6th. NASA’s computers confirmed that fact about 24 years ago.
The beginning of the 7th month remains the sign of our salvation to this day, and is confirmed by Daniel’s 1335 days from the appearance of Antichrist at Purim, to the feast of Trumpets, the first day of the 7th month.
.
Not so far. You have shown no documentation to show that kecharitōmenē can mean "full of grace".
Thanks, Don-o. I am praying a novena for the Mrs. I hope she is doing better.
.
>> “He was circumcised on the 8th day, per Torah.. and the 8th day of every month ( after the new moon day and six work days) is a weekly Sabbath.” <<
.
First, the months and weekly sabbaths are completely independent. The sabbaths run from the first day of creation, continuously, unbroken.
`
The circumcision has been celebrated on “HaShanah Rabbah,” The Last Great day, the day following the close of Sukkot,the eighth day, since Sinai. I’m sure that you don’t want to change that!
The only new moon that is ever a holy convocation is that of the seventh month. All of the other feasts fall on a day other than the beginning of the month.
That fact is the basis of the pronouncement Yeshua made “Of that day knoweth no man, but the Father in heaven.” Failing to grasp that ancient Hebrew idiom has the churchians believing that he would keep his own in the dark, when what he really was doing was telling them exactly what day he would return.
.
I'm the one who is Roman Catholic. I know what my Church teaches.
Revelation 3:1-6
1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Sardis write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits[b] of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Good question!
1 Corinthians 7:8-11
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
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.