Reformers Called Mary The Mother of God [Open]

Something to contemplate and discuss.

bttt

I think that what changed was a sense that Mary, who by bearing Jesus within herself and bringing Him into this world, was acting in obedience, as all Christians are called to service.

The Honorable service of each of His servants, is each within the context of what gifts they are given, and what situations that are presented to them. The Gifts are not ours, nor are the tasks.

We are Stewards.

One servant's honorable service is not, by any measure on this Earth, any “Greater” or “Lesser” than any other servant's.

Only God can make that statement.

From that perspective, revering any one servant as Greater or Lesser is fraught with error, and should be done with considerable caution

God is eternal. He has, does and will exist forever. Since Mary is a finite human woman, how can she be the mother of God?

It matter little what Reformers taught; what matter is how a doctrine will stand up when examined with the heart and method of a Berean (Act 17:11) which God commends, in the light of the only written (material) authority word which the Holy Ghost affirms is inspired of God and is to be used “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

In the light of which, the title “mother of God” is hardly warranted, esp. in it’s typically unqualified sense, for while she provided the body God had prepared for Jesus (Heb. 10:4), the term “mother” denotes a source of something, and Mary was in no wise a mother of Jesus Divinity. Instead, Jesus as God actually created her! She did help raise him, but in this Mary was no more the mother of Deity than Joseph was the Father of God.

Thus the term “mother of God” is never used in Scripture (which substantiation, like many other R.c. teachings, is not needed by an autocratic Caesario-papacy), while the term “mother of my Lord (Lk. 1:43) makes the often seen distinction between Jesus Lordship as regards his position and His Deity, as regards His essential nature (Jn. 20:28).

(John 20:28) “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

Moreover, if Mary was God’s “spouse,” then He would be a polygamist, as the Holy Spirit only provides one wife for God, that being the church corporate (Jer. 3:14; Eph. 5:32).

As for Jesus Deity, that itself is abundantly substantiated: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html .

One servant's honorable service is not, by any measure on this Earth, any “Greater” or “Lesser” than any other servant's.

Only God can make that statement.

That is what He sent Gabriel to do.

From that perspective, revering any one servant as Greater or Lesser is fraught with error, and should be done with considerable caution

As should refusing to acknowledge it.

popcorn anyone?

Two things:

(1) The Incarnation, the entry of God into His creation as a creature, is an amazing thing. It bends the rules and shatters the concepts we bring to the table, among which is, "You got your CreatOR over HERE and your creatURE over THERE."

(2)We gotta think carefully about what Motherhood is. Mothers and Fathers both contribute to the, ah, exercise, "material" (or something, anyway) which determines what the offspring is. That is true in the case of the Incarnation/nativity as well. God contributed something, Mary contributed something.

Then mothers "grow" and "nurture" the child in their wombs. Then they give birth". And then in the normal course of events, they continue to nurture the child, at least as far as first food is concerned.

All these things Mary did. She was just like every other mother of offspring. And even though PART of the offspring in every case is, so to speak, exogenous, WE don't say, "My wife is the mother of the part of our daughter that doesn't come from me," but, "I am the father, and she is the mother."

Mother hood is not a "stand-alone" status or function. It implies "There's more to this kid than what the mother provided."

Heck, even some of the genetic material in our kid is older than my wife, I'd guess.

So it just seems that if we think about motherhood, it seems like MARY is a mother and she is the mother of Him to whom she gave birth no more and no less than any mother is of what she brings forth.

Mary is the mother of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. If you believe Jesus was God then you believe that Mary was the mother of the Word made Flesh.

the term “mother” denotes a source of something,

No it doesn't.

A wife is not the source of her child (nor its owner - that's the stand of the Pro-abortion crowd, not that stand of humans through time. So the boss-lady is not the source of the 'orrible brat child.

Even Aristotle does not think the mother is the source of the child, qua child. Knowing less about genetics than we think we do, Aristotle thought the mother just provided the "stuff" but the "childness" was provided by the father.

My mother is not the source of me. "Mother of all battles" did not mean the "source of all battles". "Mother of vinegar" is not the source of vinegar but something which metabolizes alcohol into vinegar. Even the pagan "Mother earth" doesn't mean the source of us'ns, but our nurturer.

The bible says almost nothing about Mary, but some of what it does say is surprisingly anti-Marian.

I grew up as an Evangelical & Reformed which merged in the early sixties with the Congressional Church and basically ceased to exist within the UCC construct.

I was catechized for four years for four hours every Saturday morning before making my first communion. No where in any catechism I saw or have seen since (since I left the church and haven't bothered to see if they still have one) did I see any reference to Mary other than as the Virgin Mother of our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The only break with the Catholic Church I can detect is that we did not acknowledge Mary as an Intercessor. It was verboten. Our only Mediator and Intercessor was/is Jesus, Christ. Our liturgy was identical to the RC, some of our hymns were identical (and the majority of our hymns were light-years ahead in terms of musicality and singer-friendliness)., If you didn't like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mendelssohn, and four-part harmony vigorously sung, you were pretty much out of luck). We were leery of the Rosary, leery of the statues, not so much because they existed, but because of the "superstition" some attributed to them. Aside from the major sticking point, "Saved by Grace Alone" as opposed to "Salvation by Works," we were as close as any two peas in a pod could be. As a RC, now, I find the Rosary a beautiful meditation on the gospels. I find the Chaplet of Divine Mercy has given me such peace and comfort -- not as a repetitive prayer -- babbling as pagans, but as a reflection on the sinful nature of fallen man and the hope that all will come to salvation. The statues are no more than another vehicle to bring the gospels to life (as in the Stations of the Cross). I don't look to have bloody tears streaming from the face of Mary, or to see her face in a tortilla. I don't expect St. Joseph to move across the sanctuary, but I remember what a leap of faith he took when he listened to God (some today would say the boy was schizophrenic), but I see the devoted servants of God, loving and nurturing the child whose form God took to lead us out of darkness. Whoohoo! I just preached up a mess of goose bumps. There may be some tweaks here and there, but all in all the RC is the Mother Church, and all others can thank God she is still standing -- like her or not, she's a good mother.

Well, it looks like the mere mention of Mary is going to bring out NOT patient and careful discussion but a barrage of statements from every direction which will preclude any real deliberation. Boring.

The bible says almost nothing about Mary, but some of what it does say is surprisingly anti-Marian.

Name ONE verse.

And back to the topic of the thread, if this is the case then why did EVERY major Reformer declare otherwise?

...that’s the Congregational Church, not the “Congressional Church”.

Well, it looks like the mere mention of Mary is going to bring out NOT patient and careful discussion but a barrage of statements from every direction which will preclude any real deliberation.

And this surprises you?

Name ONE verse.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And this verse is “anti-Marian” how?

Exactly. Luther was taught that from childhood and probably still believed it. Those beliefs are hard to combat. She was the mother of our Lord, not the ‘mother of God.’

Honey-Pie, you can read what you want into that verse — believe me, untold millions have tried, but it doesn't take anything away from Mary's unique position as the Last Eve as Jesus was the Last Adam. Each passed the test Adam I and Eve I flunked in the garden. She is the one, the only, who was visited by and talked to him before she had him. If you know of any other woman who shares that honor, we need to hear about her.

She, like he, was the firstborn among many.

Exactly. Luther was taught that from childhood and probably still believed it.

Luther was taught a great many things from childhood that he had no problem rejecting, why the problem here? The same goes for Calvin and Zwengli. And what of John Wesley, he was NEVER Catholic and still believed all of this.

For that matter, why do Lutherans STILL believe this nearly five centuries later?

Correct, it takes nothing more than the application of a very simple syllogism: Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. QED

However, we must confess not only that Jesus was God and Mary was his mother; but Jesus IS God, and Mary is still his mother.

Even the pagan "Mother earth" doesn't mean the source of us'ns, but our nurturer.

That would depend on which pagans you're talking about...

And this verse is “anti-Marian” how?

Marianism says she remained a virgin, this verse says otherwise.

I’m surprised to hear that there are any people who call themselves Christians who deny that Mary is the Most Holy Theotokos as decided at the Council of Ephesus. It seems the ancient heresies, like Nestorianism, are alive and well in some elements of Protestantism to this day.

“In You, O Woman, Full of Grace,
the angelic choirs and the human race -
all creation rejoices! All creation rejoices! (1)
O Sanctified Temple, Mystical Paradise and
Glory of Virgins, He, Who is our God, from
before all ages, took flesh from You and became
a child! He made Your womb a throne! A throne
greater than the heavens! In You, O Woman,
Full of Grace, In You, O Woman, Full of Grace,
all creation rejoices, all creation rejoices! All
praise be to You! All praise be to You! All
praise be to you!”

“Honey-Pie”?

God is eternal. He has, does and will exist forever. Since Mary is a finite human woman, how can she be the mother of God?

Mary is/was a woman

Mary gave birth to Jesus

Jesus is God

Women that give birth to children are called Mothers

Ergo Mary is the Mother of God

I’m surprised to hear that there are any people who call themselves Christians who deny that Mary is the Most Holy Theotokos as decided at the Council of Ephesus.

I'm surprised to hear that there are any people who call themselves Christians and don't care at all about what the Bible says and doesn't say about Mary.

Nooo, she’s the mother of the earthly Jesus, not the heavenly God.

The article says that it isn’t known when the Protestants dropped the title. Is this true? Who is the earliest Reformer to be known as rejecting it?

Freegards

Your interpretation of this verse is incorrect.

Here is the Church’s explanation:

“25 “Till she brought forth her firstborn son”... From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”
http://drbo.org/chapter/47001.htm

Do we Protestants believe everything that Luther or Calvin wrote is without error or do we believe the Holy Bible? Do we follow Luther and Calvin or do we follow the Lord Jesus Christ?

John Calvin's writings are not the Gospel. Luther's writings are not the Bible. God's Word, the Holy Bible, is what we stand upon. The Word of God contains no errors - it is infallible - and we must rightly divide the Word of Truth. We must be careful to line up all things with the Holy Bible. Each of us must, of course, go by the Bible no matter what John Calvin or Luther or anyone else taught.

Luther and Calvin were fallible men and neither would ever have wanted people to blindly follow his teachings.

Nooo, she’s the mother of the earthly Jesus, not the heavenly God.

You have just advocated Nestorianism which (to the best of my knowledge) ALL Protestants (as well as Catholics and Orthodox) reject as heresy.

Do you know when the Reformers rejected the teachings about Mary?

Freegards

Nooo, she’s the mother of the earthly Jesus, not the heavenly God.

So, Jesus on earth wasn't God?

Scratch a Maryphobe and find a deficient Christology.

This does not mean that Mary had sexual relations after she gave birth. Our English word "until" doesn't always communicate the meaning of the Greek very well.

For example:

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

God is eternal. He has, does and will exist forever. Since Mary is a finite human woman, how can she be the mother of God?

That Mary is called the mother of God is not claiming that she is the originator and source of God's being. Mary is, indeed, the only mother Immanuel, meaning "God with us," ever had. As Elizabeth said when Mary came to stay with her, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" This was a Jewish woman speaking about the Lord of Israel, the King of the Universe, the one who rescued Israel from Egypt, the eternal God.

She was the mother of our Lord, not the ‘mother of God.’ And why are they not the same? Why are you right and Luther wrong?

Do you know when the Reformers rejected the teachings about Mary? This is JUST A GUESS, but as far as I can tell, anti-Catholic bigots (especially in the United States) began realizing sometime in mid-19th Century that anti-Catholic sentiment was greatly diminishing and used the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception to incite bigotry. What they failed to realize was that all the Church had done was DEFINE something that had always been believed and taught, but then again they are generally defined by their ignorance.

So, Jesus was not divine until...when?

So around somewhere between 1800-1900? I wonder who the first guy was who influenced Protestant thinking on the issue.

Freegards

the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

I do not doubt that there has been some ignorance in their having reproved this mode of speech, — that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God … I cannot dissemble that it is found to be a bad practice ordinarily to adopt this title in speaking of this Virgin: and, for my part, I cannot consider such language as good, proper, or suitable… for to say, the Mother of God for the Virgin Mary, can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstitions. —John Calvin, 1552

The article says that it isn’t known when the Protestants dropped the title. Is this true? Who is the earliest Reformer to be known as rejecting it?

I just study the bible not the "reformers". The term "reformer" is misleading because it implies that no one understood the bible until fairly recently. Millers Church History, and other works I'm sure, point out that it has been known that the RCC was not scriptural since it was started some 300 years AD.

I don’t know, as I said it’s all pretty much an educated guess on my part. Most anti-Catholics completely dismiss any reference to the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854. You will also notice on threads such as these that they will go to great lengths to completely ignore the Marian beliefs of the Reformers. Moreover, they fail to realize that by denying even the possibility of the Immaculate Conception, they are also denying God’s Omnipotence.

Your interpretation of this verse is incorrect.

Your cut and pasted interpretation is incorrect. The words speak for themselves. It takes much work and cutting and pasting and articulation to unsay what they clearly say.

You are entitled to employ YOPIOS even though Scripture clearly warns against it.

Your Freeper name is so sweet, I couldn’t resist. ;-)