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.
Did Jesus take the sins of the world upon Himself? Yes He did and that's why He had to die. Now, tell us who's sins Mary had to die for.
.
Who raised God up after he died?
.
Once again. Was the Godhead separated when Jesus died or was Jesus manhood and Godhood separated.?
As to the rest of your post I do believe you have been chastised for "making it personal" have you not? And also isn't in considered courtesy in these threads to ping anyone you mention in a post?
The woman constellation is the sixth in His order..
The first was the Ram/lamb... it headed the year (the sun was located in this sign at the spring equinox) a few thousand years ago..
The seventh sign would be the scales or the balances in the sky when the ram/lamb is the first.
(It would make the 6th sign the woman)
We have been living with the two fish as the start (sun location at spring equinox)
When the two fish are the first, the seventh month is the woman..
1st month ram/lamb. 7th month then - the scales/balance
1st month two fish. 7th month then - the woman
Next one:
1st month water bearer. 7th month then - lion
We dont need NASA.. We have His sun, moon and stars as our guide..
His plan of salvation, genesis to revelation, in His sky..
And He set them around His Feasts.
The first and seventh month.
The passover lamb and the atonement that equals the balances.
The fisher of men and the virgin bride, His church.
The outpouring of His Spirit And the return of the Lion of Judah..
All up there before pen met parchment..
.
Nowhere does scripture say “Faith cometh by hearing the word of God interpreted.”
The word is to be read and heard, but never “interpreted.”
Interpretation is always an act of man and the acts of men are all of filthy rags.
Take the word as written.
and not one of them attempted to change Christianity and start their own version of what Christ's church really meant....
The agriculture was nowhere to be found for those 40 years in the wilderness..
They used the sun and moon.
How?
You will see in a coming months that the sliver crescent will appear in the bottom of the moon, like it is smiling.
It will travel each month (moon) up up about 90 degrees through the year and back down again that can be seen with no crops..
The had no crop to plant in the wilderness and yet they knew how to tell time..
And we today can ignore our smart phones and look up..
His redemption draws near..
Saturn day isn’t holy.. in fact scripture warned us that saturn worship could and would happen.. see chiun..
The battle of Jericho began on a new moon day ( book the f jasher). And lasted seven days and no sabbath was violated..
the popes calendar can’t do that.. But His does it every month..
.
>> “The first was the Ram/lamb... it headed the year (the sun was located in this sign at the spring equinox) a few thousand years ago.” <<
.
This is evil pagan nonsense!
Yehova’s year is not dependent on the sun! That idea is the essence of the paganism that Yehova prohibited.
Yehova’s year depends only on his barley, and can never be subservient to the sun.
The catholic’s chief error is their worship of the sun!
They constantly make Mithra’s sign of the sun across their heart.
They eat the sun cake, and credit it with their salvation.
You are making yourself a sun worshiper if you hold his Holy year dependent in any way on the sun.
.
Me too, and I follow the church that He founded and the church which compiled and preserved that book...
.
>> “They used the sun and moon.” <<
.
No they did not!
At no time has the sun in any way controlled any part of the worship of Yehova.
.
To tell time!
.
Can you not see that only the setting of the sun is of importance in Yehova’s scheme, and it is not what sets the time for the day. It divides the days only.
.
John 6:63 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Jesus was explaining why they left.
.
The barley that controls the year is not planted, it re-seeds itself, and grows over all of the wilderness in which Israel dwelt before their entry to Canaan.
.
Your assumptions are blocking the word of God.
.
I use His Sun, moon and stars for signs, seasons (appointed times for worship) days and years just like it says in Genesis 1:14 that He gave them to us, and that is pagan?
That is funny,. Calling today His 5th day and thanking Him for what He made on His 5th day, not calling it after some god named tiw is pagan..
I guess the verse he ordained the stars is lost on you..
Jessus, God, did indeed die...the only sacrifice that was acceptable to the Father was His son...God...a mere man would not have been sufficient.
.
Seasons are not “appointed times for worship.”
His appointed times for worship are set out in Leviticus 23.
The stars are for signs, and the moons are for months, in fact the word ‘month’ means moon.
.
never mind what the Bible says...the Protestants get to make up their own interpretations...makes Christianity so much easier to understand.....like "take and eat of this,THIS IS MY BODY" doesn't really mean that.....
The Hebrew word used there is moed
If you have a concordance, look it up.. #4150..
See people think its spring, summer fall and winter...nope
..
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.