Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
The argument from authority is the weakest argument.
I read his book. He deals with dozens of passages in Scripture, and with dozens of arguments from apologists who deny the dogmas he is defending.
Nothing I have said about Staples’s book is based on his credentials. It’s all based on what’s actually in the book.
Staples cites dozens of them. I don’t have them memorized.
Sadly too much evident. But when men become the supreme authority above Scripture, with ensured veracity, then you have cultism.
Although technically Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God
Well, yes, since the Holy Spirit made him the chief writer of the NT, and as these are the only wholly inspired transcendent and substantial records of what he preached, it is these that must judge all that is attributed to him.
To hold that what Rome says he or anyone else said via her amorphous "oral tradition" is the infallible word of God rests upon her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial. And what Rome claims to infallibly declare certainly is not wholly inspired of God.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any past Christian’s role is over.
As Paul says in 1 Co 2: “9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
After all, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
Their specific earthly roles in the redemption story are completed.
After all, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
Isn't it possible that the testimony of these witnesses is their COMPLETED actions on earth? Hebrews 12:1 is a concluding statement for Hebrews 11 - which details historical examples of faith. If a martyr does nothing else, he or she has already provided a testimony for us through his or her faithfulness unto death.
. That's the number one problem with roman catholicism.
That is exactly correct, either, CC. We return with Christ at His coming, Re 19: 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Also, we are judges: 1 Co 6: 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
While their completed testimony is certainly a blessing, there is more revealed in the bible about the missions God could have for His saints who have gone on.
a. Moses and Elijah DID appear with Jesus conversing with Him.
b. Jesus did tell the story of an incident in Abraham's life after Abraham's death. (The Rich man and Lazarus)
c. Jesus did say that Abraham was living and not dead. Jesus said that God "is the God of the living and not of the dead."
The angel who guided John around heaven did say to John when John attempted to worship him: "Rev 19:10 - "10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." "
Their specific earthly roles in the redemption story are completed.
That is NOT exactly correct, either, CC. We return with Christ at His coming, Re 19: 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Also, we are judges: 1 Co 6: 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
While their completed testimony is certainly a blessing, there is more revealed in the bible about the missions God could have for His saints who have gone on.
a. Moses and Elijah DID appear with Jesus conversing with Him.
b. Jesus did tell the story of an incident in Abraham's life after Abraham's death. (The Rich man and Lazarus)
c. Jesus did say that Abraham was living and not dead. Jesus said that God "is the God of the living and not of the dead."
The angel who guided John around heaven did say to John when John attempted to worship him: "Rev 19:10 - "10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." "
Yes bro. Anyone standing at the great white throne is in dire straits. They are not there to be judged either saved or lost, but to determine their punishment in the lake of fire. Thank you, but if it's all the same to you, I don't plan on being there, unless this is the place where the men of Nineveh, and the queen of the south, will rise in judgment over this generation, and condemn it. 🔥
Do you affirm that Jesus is Emmanuel ?
Do you affirm that Emmanuel means “God with us?”
Do you affirm that Jesus is “God with us?”
Yet, she is never referred to in this manner in the Word.
This is an indication of truly not being able to see the truth when it's in front of you.
Do you believe in the Bible ? Do you believe in the Trinity ?
“You can keep repeating the faces-in-the-clouds metaphor all you want, but unless you cite the SPECIFIC Scripture passages Staples discusses, and show EXACTLY HOW he is misinterpreting them, you are merely making gratuitous assertions”
Sorry Arthur, but unless you post something here to be discussed, you are just making an unsupported claim - the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. In addition, we do not recognize Mr. Staples as an authority.
We do recognize the Word of God. I’m certain people will respond to your claims, if you post specifics. I’m guessing a priest should be quite capable of doing that. If you don’t wish to, for whatever reason, that is fine. We will move on.
“The scriptural facts I presented are unrefuted:”
Your use of the facts makes them into a falsehood. That is where we disagree.
Best
We can see what Paul believed by his letters that were inspired by God. Do you have proof he preached contrary to what he wrote? Can you see what you must do to the Word of God, the Apostles and prophets to uphold a belief of your church? It must be worth it to you, but it does no service to the Lord.
LOL, you just pulled an oral tradition of your own straight out of your...hat.
Just shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, shouting LALALA as loud as you can.
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.