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.
I agree with His. It's all in scripture.
>>I do hope that you understand the Truth.<<
"thou shalt not eat the blood" is pretty clear.
.
The Mikvah has been for salvation since the first man sinned.
Peter affirmed that it still is in the Acts.
The eucharist is a guaranteed trip to the lake that burns.
.
Placemarker
Mazel tov! So was Jesus, His mother and the Apostles.
Well, thank you Elsie, for posting an excellent example of Mary following the will of God!
Indeed they did! They call them icons.
.
>> “Is Jesus God? I say He is God. What say ye?
So, in some unfathomable way, beyond human understanding, God did die.” <<
.
That is not what God’s word says.
God’s word says that a sinless man gave up the spirit of God at the cross, and then said “It is finished,” the required utterance of the high priest after all of the Passover lambs have been slaughtered, and he died.
.
.
No, Icons are forbidden idolatry!
We are forbidden to make any image to focus our attention upon. We are forbidden to bow before any image of any thing “on earth or in Heaven.”
.
Why must I publish my message?The St. Jude novena is unique in that traditionally when you pray to St. Jude you are told you must "promise to publish your request or thanks and encourage devotion to St. Jude". What does this mean? By publishing your message, you demonstrate your faith and commitment to letting God through St. Jude help bring change to your life. This faith is an important step in showing our openness to receiving God's response to our prayers. Without such conviction, all of our prayers are doomed to fail.
Why should I publish my message on the St. Jude Novena Site?
In short, these are the people you should be publishing for and who need your encouragement to turn to St. Jude!
In return for publicizing your message, we ask for a modest payment of $10.00. Your contribution will help expand the ministry efforts of this website as the best-known resource for promoting the good news of praying to St. Jude across the internet, and to increase the visibility of the testimonials people have publicized in this site.So if I don't pay to publish, my prayer won't be answered?
Whether your prayers are answered does not depend on paying to publish. It's up to you to be full of faith and truly open to receiving God's message. However, if you are serious about reaching the largest number of people with your testimony, and truly encouraging devotion to St. Jude, we believe publishing on this website is a great way to do it!
Is that enough?
That is more than enough. It is agreed that Jesus was fully man and fully God.
Now, did Jesus die as man and as God? Was the incarnate Christ a single entity; at once God and man? Or does the Nestorian doctrine hold true; that the Divine and the human were two separate entities. Even so, would it have been sufficient for Christ to die only in His human form? Or was it necessary for Christ to die in His divinity, that is, as God, in order to redeem us from our sins.In Luke 24, Jesus says to the two disciples, “Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” I believe Christ is at once God and man. And I believe that it was necessary for Christ to die in His divinity in order to redeem us from our sins.
As to Psalm 22. The witnesses were saying that He was invoking Elijah. Was He doing that? Did He truly believe the Father had abandoned Him? Was He interpreting what referred to him in the Psalm? I don’t think he was calling Himself a worm. Other than that, I don’t know.
>>And I believe that it was necessary for Christ to die in His divinity in order to redeem us from our sins.<<
Wow! You have the God/man relationship down pat in your mind don't you.
The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, left the body He temporarily inhabited on Earth, but His divine nature did not die, nor could it.
Now, you like asking questions but you don't answer mine. If Jesus is God and God is one who was Jesus talking to when on the cross he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"?
I go by what the Catholic Church teaches. That wise little phrase of Gandhi's just happens to sum it up well in discussion. Our interpretations differ; that's OK with me. If you believe God hates people as opposed to simply hating the evil they do, that's your prerogative. It isn't my prerogative to hate people, only the evil they do. I am obliged to pray for their conversion- not in the sense of becoming Catholic- but in a personal conversion from evil to good.
I believe that God is infinite, and that no one in this life can fully comprehend Him. I don't think of Him as Santa; rather I think of Him as I did of my parents. They loved me unconditionally, guided me both with kindness and punishments, when I had a lesson to learn. They took care of me and taught me what they knew to be right in how to treat other people. When I was away from my Faith, they let me decide for myself. I CHOSE to be Catholic! My story is in a post a few weeks back.
I loved my parents, but God comes first. I believe the Catholic Church has the greatest fullness of Truth. Do I hate those who believe differently? NO! There are many paths to God. I was not pushed, I think no one should be. Read my posts in forum: I look for commonality; I question to understand. Our Holy Father is praying this month for Christian unity; I support him in prayer.
Some are willing to discuss as good, kind Christians. Others, no. What they believe is up to them, but I, while respecting their belief that theirs is the true belief (why would a person stray from what they truly believed was right? Right? :) ) I hold fast to the wisdom of the Church in following God!
Again I thank you for your kind response. It's the first I've had today...
God bless you!
Matthew 1:25
"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
It says nothing about what happened after Jesus was born.
There are several instances in the bible where the word 'till' or 'until' clearly indicates that the preceding action continued. So interpreting this "till' to allow that the abstinence continued after the birth is not unreasonable. Matthew himself uses it again in this context:
Matthew 26:36
Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray.
We know that Jesus didn't mean that they should leave as soon as he went to pray. He came back to check on them and expected them to be there.
Here are a couple more:
Acts Of Apostles 8:40
But Philip was found in Azotus; and passing through, he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Did Philip stop preaching when he reached Caesarea? Unlikely.
Judith 6:4
and thou shalt be stabbed and fall among the wounded of Israel, and thou shalt breathe no more till thou be destroyed with them.
Clearly here the 'breath no more' will continue after the destruction.
There are more, but these show that the word 'till' as used in the old and new testaments doesn't always imply that the action before the 'till' stops afterward.
My interpretation is that the action 'abstinence' did continue after the birth of Jesus. Your interpretation may be different, but it doesn't make mine impossible.
Also, I find it interesting that some posters blame Mary for a 'sexless, sinful marriage' to Joseph as if Joseph had no choice in the matter. I believe that God chose the best people on earth to be His parents, and that they both did what He asked of them.
Love, O2
Enjoy the laugh at my expense, good Christians!
Then focus on your own marital business.
Because not all non-Catholics hate Catholicism.
Judith is gnostic nonsense, not scripture.
Matthew 25 makes it plain that Joseph withheld until Yeshua was born, and then proceeded to follow Hebrew custom, and consummate the marriage.
The proof is in the sons ans daughters they bore, which is acknowledged by the apostles completely.
It is dishonest to attempt to twist it differently, to change Mary into a pagan goddess proxy for Easter.
I'm sure others have already addressed this misinterpretation of scripture with your but, contrary to what you have been told or personally interpreted, scripture says otherwise.
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
Using your measure, then carrying a photo of your family would be considered idolatry.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
I can't help but wonder how you behave toward people you meet in person. If you saw a Muslim Extremist physically attacking someone you knew to be Catholic, whom would you help? To whom would you quote Greek and level the insults you're so free with here? Or would you hide, to avoid being associated with an organized religion? No answer expected... Or necessary.
So instead of learning any bible as Catholics, they make sure you learn that...
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.