Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary Matters (Dr. Walter Martin on disbelief in the Mother of God)
Catholic Exchange ^ | JULY 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

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 … Blahthe 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Other Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; christology; mariandoctrine; motherofgod; theology; virginmary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,921-1,924 next last
To: CynicalBear
I think you should explain to us why the Holy Spirit never inspired the apostles to use the words “mother of God”.

Perhaps ANY Catholic could explain that to us.

801 posted on 01/26/2015 5:51:01 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Don't those two ever want to interact with the rest of them?

Well, one does, but she's on her back in the hospital at the moment.

802 posted on 01/26/2015 5:52:58 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
If only you were just an ordinary Skeptical Bear this wouldn't be so startling to the mind.

Let me reiterate:

a follower of Christ, should absolutely expect continuing revelation, angels, ordination, baptism and an organized, orderly church.

The commonly practiced anarcho-Christianity is a very real harm.

Have you ever considered the New Testament? Is not Peter's vision a new revelation for the Church? How about Cornelius' vision, then confirmed by Paul? Isn't Christ bodily risen to be with his Father in Heaven, standing at the right side of the throne?

There's an entire Bible full of continuing revelation and angels. Don't make the mistake of apostate Israel at Christ's arrival. Come, my Cynical Bear, let us reason together. Though your beliefs be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow.

803 posted on 01/26/2015 5:54:23 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Scripture has a tendency to do that, now doesn’t it?


804 posted on 01/26/2015 5:55:10 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Iscool; deputytess

Perhaps the second time it will become clear: I’m not certain I follow you here. Are you saying that Mary was never pregnant by God the Father and that Jesus wasn’t born the normal, natural human way from womb to cervix to vaginal canal, umbilical cord, placenta, etc.?

Are you requesting the phraseology ‘mother of God’ be exactly matched in the Bible? Are you denying Isaiah’s references to her or Jesus’ or both?


805 posted on 01/26/2015 5:58:00 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
It can also be concluded, even though the phrase cannot be found in Scripture, that Mary is the mother of God.

Nope because GOD has no mother.

Jesus did.

Mother of God does not say the same thing as mother of Jesus.

*Mother of God* fails to recognize His humanity and the Incarnation.

I can't help but think that the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He addressed her as *mother of Jesus* instead of *mother of God*.

So it gets back to the fact that the term *mother of God* is a man-made phrase, a human construct.

806 posted on 01/26/2015 5:58:22 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Jn 19:25-27, but you’ll need to understand the Hebraic relationship of a first born son to his mother at the time of the New Testament.

I mean how much more in the Bible can you get than in the Bible?

http://biblehub.com/john/19-26.htm

One shouldn’t take anti-Catholicism to the extreme. Mary is Jesus’ mother and deserves honor for that. One woman before, nor after has been so chosen by God the Father and none ever will. Show a little respect.


807 posted on 01/26/2015 6:04:40 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: don-o; CynicalBear; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; daniel1212; Gamecock; ...
Is Jesus God? I say He is God. What say ye? So, in some unfathomable way, beyond human understanding, God did die.

So, then, when Catholics tell us they are offering the sacrifice of the mass, in which Jesus as the lamb in heaven is perpetually dying and they are participating in that eternal sacrifice that is forever happening in heaven, then they are telling us that God, in some unfathomable way, beyond human understanding, is forever dying in heaven.

God who is Life itself, is forever dying in heaven?

Did you ever think that through?

808 posted on 01/26/2015 6:08:08 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

In your distorted view.


809 posted on 01/26/2015 6:14:02 PM PST by Grateful2God (The devil's strategy: divide and conquer. Charity defeats him. Beware those who seek division!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: Grateful2God
Hate comes from fear, fear from a lack of understanding.

So when God says He hates something, He fears it?

810 posted on 01/26/2015 6:16:43 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
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.

The Church has never defined that Mary is "co-Redemptrix," and most theologians are opposed to such a definition.

There is no teaching of the Catholic Church that ascribes any divine attributes to Mary. Mary is a creature.

How is it contrary to Scripture to say that Mary was conceived without sin, and committed no personal sin?

811 posted on 01/26/2015 6:17:07 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Thus:
Mary is the mother of God.

Mary was the mother of Christ ONLY in His humanity not, as you stated, in His eternal deity.

To say Mary is the mother of God is completely false. Christ existed prior to Mary. It is completely wrong to insinuate that Christ was something less than He was prior to His human birth.

812 posted on 01/26/2015 6:19:46 PM PST by HarleyD ("... letters are weighty, but his .. presence is weak, and his speech of no account.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Grateful2God
Now you're getting the idea: only it was her choice to remain a Virgin, and Joseph's to remain chaste.

Really? Where in the Bible is that?

813 posted on 01/26/2015 6:19:51 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Grateful2God
We've had 21 Ecumenical Councils.

Oh?

WHY?

Do you get NEW doctrine out of them?

814 posted on 01/26/2015 6:20:51 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: Grateful2God

Back atcha!


815 posted on 01/26/2015 6:21:43 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: NYer; caww

Who holds a baby like that to begin with?

And a BLOND curly haired Jesus?

And caww, they painted the baby’s hand doing that handshape thing. Notice his right hand with that occult finger shape symbol.


816 posted on 01/26/2015 6:21:44 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
But that's only Scripture, which always takes second-place to man-made Protestant doctrines.

As usual; an assertion with NO evidence of what the heck you are talking about.

817 posted on 01/26/2015 6:22:40 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

you noticed, too?


818 posted on 01/26/2015 6:23:12 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What honkies did they get for models?


819 posted on 01/26/2015 6:23:55 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: NYer
you are welcome.

Do whatever HE tells you.

820 posted on 01/26/2015 6:24:40 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,921-1,924 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson