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’m older and wiser. I chose Catholicism for myself and I believe! Follow your own road, Grasshopper! May it lead you to God!
.
The construction of the Ark does not suspend the commandments of God.
The ark was only to be viewed by the priesthood.
Others were struck dead for violations.
.
But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire." Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.
But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Christ is the tangible, divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God.
We read that when the magi were "going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.
The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or "fish emblem."
Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.
No I don’t have it down pat. That’s why I have so many questions. And it is by no means intended to be an inquisition. Your response: “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,” gives me something to ponder. It was necessary for Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory, but maybe it was sufficient for Christ to die in his human form to redeem us from our sins.
I did answer your question about Psalm 22. You said please explain. After offering suggestions, I concluded by saying I don’t know. As to who He was talking to, I have given that some thought in the past. Was it to the Father, to the crowd, to anyone? Maybe in His humanity He was just crying out in anguish. I really don’t know that answer, either.
.
Save the catholic mumbo-jumbo!
Yeshua declared that no part of Torah has been suspended, nor will it be until the universe is destroyed at the end of the millennial kingdom.
All of Yehova’s commandments are in full force, as they were at Sinai..
.
>> “It was necessary for Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory, but maybe it was sufficient for Christ to die in his human form to redeem us from our sins.” <<
.
Not just sufficient, but mandatory.
Only a kinsman can redeem us!
He gave up the spirit of God at the cross before he died.
.
As Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant was incapable of violation of any Commandments: she was conceived without sin!
The ark was only to be viewed by the priesthood.
As Jesus the High Priest was the only One to occupy the Womb of Mary!
Others were struck dead for violations.
As Mary remained a Perpetual Virgin!
And after a long day, I would like to get back on topic! The Immaculate Conception Feast, December 8
(Novena, Nov. 29-Dec. 7)
1. Mary, Mother of God, I believe what Holy Mother Church teaches about your Immaculate Conception: that from the first moment of your conception you possessed justice and holiness—that is sanctifying grace, even the fullness of grace, with the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and with integrity of nature; yet you remained subject to death and other pains and miseries of life that your Son Himself willed to undergo.
For the first time after four thousand years God in His Wisdom and power and love, created again a human being in that state in which He had created our first parents. Immaculate Virgin, you are that human being. Because of sanctifying grace infused into your soul, you were from the first moment of your existence most intimately united with God and endowed with the most precious gifts of heaven. You possessed a perfect faith, a firm hope, a burning charity, a deep humility, a purity greater than that of the angels. Your soul is the creation and the masterpiece of almighty workmanship. The Archangel Gabriel expressed this very clearly: "Hail, full of grace"—there was no room left for sin; "the Lord is with thee"—where God dwells, Satan can have no rights; "blessed art thou among women"—you were elevated above all other women in the world.
Mary, My Mother, you were never without grace. From the first moment of your existence the Holy Spirit made you His temple and blessed you with the fullness of His grace. Your Immaculate Conception, purchased by the Precious Blood of the Son of God Himself and freely bestowed upon you as the highest gift of God, is the most wonderful work of sanctification that the world has ever seen.
One has to wonder how these authors convinced you guys that Jesus wanted those false disciples to stay...To, not leave...
But you know what's funny, after Jesus told them that, while they grumbled, they still didn't leave...You guys never mention that...Why is that??? It wouldn't be to deceive anyone, would it???
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
Even tho Jesus never told any one to change or that he would change bread and wine into anything else...And even tho Jesus never instructed any one how to affect such a change...
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.
It you think that command has to be a literal command to eat flesh and drink blood due to the strong language used, then this is even more literal:
Eze 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Eze 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Eze 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
I think this shreds your evidence to pieces...
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.
Now there you go again...Trying to apply human philsophy to try to understand God...And would you pick a spot, any where in the scriptures where there is a spiritual benefit by putting something into your stomach??? That's more logic I guess, eh???
If you read Matthew 26 the same way, it makes it clear with the same wording that the apostles sat until Jesus went to pray, and then they stopped sitting. Only they didn’t.
That Joseph withheld until Jesus was born is clear, but if you assume he stopped withholding afterward you have to be making an interpretation, because those words are not there.
Also, if Mary was withholding sex from Joseph after the marriage but before Jesus was born, would that not have been sinful since she was not performing her ‘marital duty?’
You may be clear that the marriage was consummated but you didn’t get that from the bible, because it is never stated there. Even if Jesus had brothers and sisters (which I don’t believe, as the words for relative and brother are also often interchanged), how do we know Joseph didn’t have more than one wife?
And I believe that Mary is neither pagan, nor a goddess.
Once Jesus had been born, Easter would have happened whether she was still around or not.
Love, O2
That is a non sequiter. Angels are created beings, not humans. But one angel thought he WAS equal with God, and we know how that turned out.
You don't even need to prove it to yourself, eh??? Just follow one of the flutes...
By implying that Mary has a role in salvation by calling her a Co-Redemptrix, people are ascribing to her divine powers. The same goes for saying she was without sin (in opposition to Scripture).
It is possible to honor and respect the role Mary had as the mother of Jesus, without ascribing to her aspects of divinity that are reserved for God alone.
Most definitely now...You ought to see my beard...
You guys are on a roll. Preach it brothers.
She wasn't a faithful Jewish wife? That probably came as a bit of a surprise to her other children, like James and Jude. 😄😃😀😊
I choose the Church, and I follow its rules. The narrower path, but for me, the wiser.
Believe what you want, but whatever you choose, avoid the hate. It's human nature, no matter what one's creed, but fight it- fight the hate. Hate destroys: charity builds.
God be with you!
Wait, Elsie and CynicalBear are your brothers?? Small world!!
O2
But the premise is that older copies must be better copies is presumptuous, as the more recent copies can be from even earlier copies which wore out.
You many like this post on this issue, and which is also debated in such forums as here .
In addition, if i recall correctly, the old mss have the greater percentage of real discrepancies btwn each other.
And based upon this older=better premise, the end of Mark is rejected or held as doubtful despite what 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and 99.99% of the Latin manuscripts, and four second-century witnesses, over 40 other Roman-Empire-era witnesses evidence to the contrary.
It is also noted that Christian faith seems to have done quite well with its great revivals before some men removed "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20)
Yet there is more to revival than that!
Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied."
I was aware of that, and sometimes i think the KJV has words that are not in the Greek but are not marked as supplied via the use of italics. Yet often i find the reading clearer without the use the italicized supplied words.
One example is
Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. (Job 34:10)
Of course, the commas are supplied, and punctuation is needed or helpful all over the place.
John 8:58 says before Abraham was, "I Am," (egō eimi) without any added italicized "he." And in Jn. 13:13: "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." But in Jn. 8:24 it adds the "he" in italics, "ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he , ye shall die in your sins." Also in Jn. 8:28.
Likewise in Jn. 18:5-6:
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he . And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he , they went backward, and fell to the ground.
In all these cases i believe it should read "I Am," as it seems John is denoting His deity. Yet in other places the "he" is rightly added in italics, as in "Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he : if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:" (Jn. 18:8) This answers to Christ being the Jesus of Nazareth whom the soldier sought, while I AM is whom they met and could not have touched if the Lord was not also the Lamb of God.
And in Jn. 9:9 Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he .
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant
I rarely have had a problem with such, for as in everyday speck, context usually supplies meaning. They that speak leasing is not referring to Avis.
Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk
Very helpful but not inspired or binding. I use BPbible which enables copying in paragraph style.
Anyway, I ramble.
Me to, but which Scripture Never Does, but provides an abundance of Truth in an economy of words. You may like my Books of the Bible page. Has some interesting stats also. Praise be to God.
Another notable aspect is the variety of literary genres in Scripture and in life, and which variety is part of the unique scope and depth and communication that is unique to humans. A revealing study (and of liberal fantasy) related to this is Project Nim: Can a chimp learn language ?
Carry on soldier!
When Mary gave birth to God, becoming His mother, where was He? Jesus/Jehovah was either in her lap or soon to be.
Was He still in heaven? No, heaven is a place, not a prison.
Are you aware that the name Jehovah means 'I will be that which I will be'? No man can define or delimit God.
***crickets***
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.