What does the Bible say? It NEVER calls Mary the Mother of God. For the simple reason that God has no mother. If God had a mother, then He would be a created being. Christ's human nature had no father. His divine nature had no mother. Just as the article states. The Bible, ERGO, rightly calls Mary the "mother of Jesus", but NEVER the Mother of God.
Only RC Tradition establishes THAT title.
Now, if you care to show me in Scripture where Mary is the Mother of God, then we'll talk. If all you've got is tradition, early church fathers, councils, creeds, etc. then I'm forced to do once again with them what I do with them every time they are used to try to prove or defend a RCC "truth". Ignore them in favor of God's Word.
Only RC tradition establishes the NT canon, do you accept that?
Eastern Orthodox does also and has been pointed out in other threads the Reformers understood that the title Mother of God was an affirmation that Jesus is indeed God.
First of all, it is not “RC tradition” the establishes the doctrine that Mary ought be called Theotokos, which is usually Englished as “the Mother of God” or “the Birthgiver of God”. The Latin church is not the only Christian confession to acknowledge the authority of the Third Ecumenical Council. We Orthodox Christians regard its Acta (along with those of all seven — some of us would argue nine, though we differ from the Latins on which councils count as Eight and Nine — Ecumenical Councils) as authoritative statements of Christian belief, as do the Monophysites (Copts, Jacobites, and Armenians).
There is, of course, an ancient church which objected to the Third Ecumenical Council and went into schism over the issue: the Holy Catholic Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East, to give its full self-proclaimed name, which venerates the heretics Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia as saints, and had converted a great part of Asia to Nestorian Christianity before its near-destruction by the Muslims. Although in theory their patriarch is the bishop of a see in Iraq, he actually resides and has his functional cathedral in Chicago.
Second, are you really so scrupulous as to never use technical language derived from the plain meaning of Scripture, but not used in Scripture? Do you never speak of “the Holy Trinity” as short-hand for “Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God”? Are all the technical words your confession uses really vetted as sound translations of words in the Greek (or Hebrew since I suppose your confession favors the Masorete over the Septuagint) versions of the Scriptures?
Third, the point of the title is christological: Jesus Christ is God, fully and completely, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are God (though there is but one God). He assumed our nature, fully and completely, and was born of the Virgin Mary. She is His mother, and by that fact, that she is His mother, He assumes our nature and all that pertains to it (excepting sin). To deny her the title “Mother of God” one must split the person of Christ into “the Divine Logos and the One From the Virgin” as old Nestorius did, or deny the reality of Christ’s divinity as the Muslims do or of His humanity as the docetists and gnostics did. It’s not about Mary, it’s about Jesus. If you get it wrong, you get wrong who Jesus is.
Of course, if you discount the authority of Holy Tradition, of the Ecumenical Councils and of the local councils whose Acta they adopted, you have a real problem: what constitutes your Bible, which books are Scripture or are not Scripture, is itself a matter of Holy Tradition, set down first by a local council held in Carthage (the Latins regard this as having fixed the canon, since Carthage was in the Patriarchate of Rome and the Pope of Rome accepted its Acta) and made binding on the Church by the action of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (some would argue the Fourth on the basis of a canon ratifying “the ancient canons”, but this is obscure and the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,
called in the west the Trullan Synod or Quinsext Council, explicitly gave the Carthaginian canons, including the
list of the books of Christian Scripture, ecumenical force.) Or, rather, if, as I suspect, you favor Luther’s abridgement of the canon, tossing out books St. Jerome erroneously thought of less importance because the Christ-denying Jews had dropped them from their canon, or mere human tradition.
Jesus is God, genius.
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"Luke 1:43
"Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23
"Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father; and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever." Luke 1:31-32
"And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35
"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:" Galatians 4:4
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"And he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me." John 12:45
"Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known Me? Philip, he that seeth Me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9
"Thomas answered, and said to Him: My Lord, and my God." John 20:28
"For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;" Colossians 2:9
"Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13
Only RC Tradition establishes THAT title.
Hardly.
"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them .... Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." Martin Luther
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor .... Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." John Calvin
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God." Ulrich Zwingli
Ignore them in favor of God's Word.
Sounds like your comprehension of Scripture is quite lacking which isn't unusual since you have obviously never read much of it.
Where is the term Holy Trinity found in Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that we should believe only what is written in Scripture? What was “Scripture” in the first century?