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.
President Obama's mother must be "greater" than the President, and he must have gotten his presidency from her, since she's accepted as the President's mother (and not merely "Barack Obama's mother").
Be careful - many of Barry Hussein Soetoro's acolytes and devotees probably think he is a divine being, at least by looking at their faces, and I'll bet that many of them could be convinced of Ann Dunham special exalted status with your logic.
The problem with your analogy is that Jesus Christ, is 'monogenes'; single, unique, the only one of his kind. He is God incarnate, the God man. Unlike Deity, Presidents and firemen are all created beings who did not preexist so there is generally no ontological confusion or category error when ascribing titles to their mothers.
As far as I can tell there has been only one post on this entire thread by one poster who objects to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God when he was in Mary's womb, and it is because that poster DENIES the Deity of Christ, (and by "Deity" I mean "the state of being God"). None of the other objectors to the ascription, "Mother of God" deny the Deity of Christ, and certainly not the one to whom you replied, so your reference to "... people objecting to the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was God" is an unresponsive straw man.
And just about this whole thread illustrates daniel1212's point about the general lack of qualifiers in the ascription:
Now if Catholics typically added such a qualifier, that Mary is the mother of God as concerning the flesh (as she provided none of His Divine nature, but which provided her), who is over all, God blessed for ever," then it would be more tolerableRomulus is to be credited (at least on this point if not on other points:^) for providing the necessary qualifiers (at #359, 360 & 362), but generally it's like pulling teeth to get some RC's to even acknowledge the necessary ontological distinctions.
That there are difficulties inherent with the "Mother of God" descriptor is also evident from daniel1212 sourced list of instances of "hyper-exaltation" of Mary, which are factual instances and not merely hypothetical consequences of the practice, and to this documentation you made no response.
Cordially,
If you are bible-only, you’re contradicting what the bible demands of you.
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.”
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
4) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
5) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
6) Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
7) Lk 1:1-5 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
8) Rom 6:17 But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
9) 1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you
10) Gal 1:9ff But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
11) 2 Pet 2:21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known [it,] to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
12) Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent?
13) John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;
14) John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
15) 2 John 1:12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish [to do so] with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
16) Matthew 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
17) Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.
18) Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19) Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20) Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
21) Matthew 13:11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given
22) Luke 8:10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.
23) 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Where is the list of ordinances, traditions etc? All that is left that is authentic is the Word. The Holy Spirit guides believers in its understanding. There is no list, what passes for one in the Catholic church is gnosis. When your tradition collides with God’s Word, God’s Word must yield to it, which gives a good idea from where the tradition arose.
In the face of patient explanation you continue to insist that “Mother of God” is an unwarranted exaltation of Mary. Do you not understand that with the same logic you must say that “Jesus is the Son of Man” is an exaltation of all of us?
Oh, wait.
The Redeemer is Emanuel. One either believe God is “with” us, or one does not. Being perfect, God does not do things halfway, so if Jesus is Emanuel, God is wholly “with-us”, as much as Adam. Is our human nature glorified in being joined in Jesus to the divine nature? You bet it is. The Resurrection and Ascension are occasions for joy because the victory has been won by God-with-us who is one-of-us.
If you believe Jesus is Emanuel, you cannot escape the truth that Mary is the Mother of God.
All that is left that is authentic is the Word.
Would you have said that 2 minutes after Paul had stopped teaching? (I'm sure some did) What difference is made by the passage of time? Either he said things or he did not. Scripture demands that you accept them. This would be a matter of real concern to a true bible-believer. Why are you not searching to discover the authentic apostolic tradition? Why do you deny its vital relevance?
Scripture testifies to the necessity of observing the apostolic oral tradition. You cannot reject the oral tradition without rejecting scripture. You have rejected scripture.
Two reasons:
1. God promised to preserve His Word.
2. God didn't promise to preserve 'apostolic tradition'.
Those two things aside, as honest God-fearing men the Apostles wouldn't have been double-minded writing one thing, preaching the opposite. Whatever their 'tradition', it would have to be aligned with their inspired writings.
Scripture testifies to the necessity of observing the apostolic oral tradition. You cannot reject the oral tradition without rejecting scripture. You have rejected scripture.
Where is this list of apostolic tradition? It doesn't exist, what passes for tradition is whatever the Catholic church says is tradition even when it contravenes God's Word. All information needed to believe Jesus is the Christ and to have life in His Name is contained in the Gospel of John. John 20:30-31. As the Catholic church has levied other requirements for salvation that don't exist in John's Gospel, it preaches another Gospel and is accursed. Making the rest of the argument irrelevant until the Catholic church repents and turns from its sin.
Jesus said that his words would not pass away. He said nothing about just the written words.
The apostles were the nearest witnesses to the words of Jesus. It was only they whose minds were opened to understand the scriptures.
Paul in Romans testifies that no one can preach unless he is sent. It doesn’t say self-appointed. It doesn’t say well-read. It says “sent”. Your teachers are not sent. You are not sent.
The Greek word for “sent” is “apostalosi”. All authentic teachers are sent, by successors of the apostles who were sent themselves. It’s the apostles and their successors who are the authentic custodians of Jesus’s teaching. If you don’t know the apostolic teaching, you don’t know Jesus.
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
My preachers are sent, I'm not a preacher. God's church follows John 14:12-17. Preaching in opposition to God's Word is a a slam dunk indication that you aren't His church.
Jesus said that his words would not pass away. He said nothing about just the written words.
So now Jesus was double-minded? What He caused to be written is different than what He spoke? In two posts Jesus is a liar so that Marian doctrine may be true. Who is interested in supplanting the Word of God with anything else? Teaching in contravention to God's Word makes you a teacher for that guy.
Selah! The bare bones of a good sermon! [Funny how a left out “not” can flip something into not what you intend; as you noted with the text beyond the first sentence, what CC post is ‘not’ exactly correct.]
Do you believe you need a Savior, that you are a hopelessly lost sinner? Do you believe you are striving to obtain eternal life?
In Paul’s own written words (like in 2 Thess 2) he refers his readers in Thessalonika BACK TO WHAT HE TOLD THEM when he evangelized them. That should be a close enough transcript for a catholic, but of course it cannot be accepted as such because the mind has already settle on the negative it seeks to support.
Who sent them? And what authorized person sent the ones before, and so on? You cannot point to an unbroken line back to the apostles. The real Church has something called "apostolic succession". Fake churches don't have that.
What He caused to be written is different than what He spoke?
You are being terribly silly. Please calm down.
To begin with, it's the Holy Spirit who caused Scripture to be written. Jesus never commanded the authorship of any book -- or are you referring to some oral tradition of Jesus, not found in Scripture?
Second, you misrepresent me, which is dishonest and discredits you. Oral tradition does not contradict written tradition. It amplifies and authenticates it.
Third, in disregarding the oral teaching of the apostles, you reject their written teaching in Scripture. You are unbiblical. This ought to bother you.
Are you so dull of reading that you don’t see the answer to your own trap question of ‘Got transcripts’? Did Paul not include HIS WORD OR EPISTLES in his query to the worrying Thessalonians? How irrational must one be to remain in the dark ...
Sez you — but you don’t know that. You don’t know that at all.
Nor can the Catholic church despite the rhetoric. The influx of man-made teaching and subordination of God's Word to all things Catholic clearly shows that even if it was a functioning Body of Christ in the past it has jumped the rails and no longer teaches from God's Word. This isn't to say there are no Christian Catholics, the Gospel is read at mass and it is the Power of God.
What He caused to be written is different than what He spoke? You are being terribly silly. Please calm down.
Not being silly nor am I upset. Your line of reasoning must lead to this point. Your 'authority' begins and ends at what the Catholic church decrees. Even when in contravention of what scripture has recorded. In effect we are back to the Garden, and 'did God really say?' when you imply that what Jesus said is somehow different than what has been recorded. The other implication is that only the Catholic hierarchy knows what Jesus really said and it will tell you in good time , or not.
Oral tradition does not contradict written tradition
Never addressed 'written tradition', unless that is what Catholics call scripture nowadays. Put away your offended card.
Third, in disregarding the oral teaching of the apostles, you reject their written teaching in Scripture. You are unbiblical
Once oral teachings passed from the lips of the departed Apostles and came into the possession of others, it no longer is reliable. Fortunately we have their written books, written for those at the times who could hear their 'oral' tradition and for those of us today who can read it. Not an unbiblical stance at all.
Funny considering the possible background of your handle.
The background of my handle is that it was given to me by my best friend — who happened to be a protestant minister.
Your comments about me are false. The scriptural facts I presented are true and unrefuted.
Sure af - Keep saying it. You persuade no one that I can see.
Amazing how the inclusion or exclusion on one, little three-letter word can change everything 180 degrees.
Yes, I agree with you that we have one addition earthly task after our deaths - coming with Jesus in the clouds.
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.
God may have an additional role for us or Mary but there is no clear evidence of any further specific role for Mary beyond that which she has already completed.
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.