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.
If I can be of any assistance in that decision I would say it's obvious to me that you don't.
>>Are you requesting the phraseology ‘mother of God’ be exactly matched in the Bible?<<
The Holy Spirit inspired specific words to convey a specific message so yes, I am requesting that the use of those specific words should be shown. If they were not used it's rather presumptuous to second guess or try to insert words.
Now tell me, if the humanity and Godhood of Jesus cannot in some way be separate did God die? And if so, which part of God died? If only part of God died can the Godhead be separated? It's either one or the other. It can't be both or neither.
Oh what a tangled web they weave.
LOL....
Then whose sin did she die for? After all "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" says death is the result of sin.
You noticed that also ey? And look at Mary's fingers. The two middle together with the index and pinky fingers separated. Is that natural or is that the letter "m" as some cults would say?
And how is it that the Godhead can be separated like that?
"The Mass is called an unbloody sacrifice to clarify the fact that we do not behold the Lord’s bloody body as it was seen on Calvary. Instead his body and blood are under the appearances of bread and wine. But it is the same sacrifice. This distinction became necessary as the result of the denial of the Mass being a sacrifice by various Protestant groups." Catholic.com
"In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God." Sacrifice of the Mass
How many times do we need to read that Christ is really and truly being sacrificed at the mass?
Um, no, they were all Jews.
Unless the fireman was both God and man it’s invalid.
But you think the Godhead can be?
So the apostles told people not to eat blood but then told them they must eat blood?
Ezekiel 46 doesn’t make the month and the weekly sabbath independent.
New moon day is the first day of every month..
Then our Sovereign says there are six working days in Ezekiel 46..
It is the ignoring of the new moon that has Jews to use the popes calendar to set their sabbath..
There has not been a continuous seven day week.. the battle of Jericho confirms that..
We also see that the first sabbath in the wilderness was on the 22nd day of the month(simple counting from the 15th)
16-21 were the days manna showed up..
His calendar is in His sky, confirmed in His Word..
The 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th days of each of His months are Sabbaths.
And they all are determined by the new moon..
According to the new moon, six work days template given by our Sovereign, today is His 5th day..
The world calls it Tiws day after some false god..
There really is a difference.
It is why the feasts can fall on any day.. they do not fall on ‘any’ day on His calendar.. they are always be same.. they just appear to be moving because of the world’s conformity to a roman calendar named after a pope.
The world discounts the moon and relies on the sun.. interesting that moon and month is the same word in hebrew
At least according to the Catholic Church. After all the Catholic Church says Catholics and Muslims serve the same god.
The dates are not irrevelant to our Heavenly Father.
He taught them to Israel...they were holy appointments where they were to worship Him.
What is amazing is that His Son fulfilled them perfectly.. Israel
Observed them as a memorial but thy were also a shadow of their King..and the Kingdom.. and we are told that they are still a shadow..
And a study of those genuine feast and holy days of new moons, Sabbaths and feasts just confirmed how much of this world, and religion included is counterfeit..
And how times and laws would change by the enemy who as a vested interest in hiding our Heavenly Father’s appointed times He gives His people to worship..
Worship in spirit and truth is different than worship in spirit and error/lies..
Pauls gospel to Corinthians wasn’t good Friday and easter.. it was Passover and first fruits..
And some times those days match.. most of the time they do not..
Therefore the allegation that Christ was talking about the "fourth cup" which was what they say He drank on the cross is totally contrary to scripture. The apostles were not on that cross nor did Christ drink it "with them". In that video they are lying.
Play word games all you want. The passage does NOT say that scripture is not to be interpreted by individuals as Catholics try to imply.
And we see the position of the fingers again! What’s up with that?
Jesus while on earth was God, manifest in the flesh...God has revealed himself to us in the scriptures...
So the Godhead can be seperated but the manhood and Godhood of Jesus can not? How does that work out? And who was it that raised Jesus from the dead?
Then our Sovereign says there are six working days in Ezekiel 46..\” <<
.
That is not of relevance to the fact that the sabbath is eternal, and independent of the months.
There always have been six work days and one rest to every Sabbath.
You need to study the agricultural nature of Yehova’s calendar. The aviv barley is the signal to begin the new year with the new moon that coincides therewith.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the regular Sabbath, that began on day one of creation, and continues unbroken until the Sabbath rest becomes eternal.
Remember his Sabbath to keep it Holy!
Do you understand what Holy means? - It means that it is to be kept set apart from all other things.
>> “The 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th days of each of His months are Sabbaths.” <<
NO! That would be an unholy arrangement!
The Sabbath cannot be set subservient to anything, it must remain Holy.
.
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.