Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.

I am not sure if you are looking for a response your unreasonable unloading, but I see it as a very superficial broadbrush. Yet the subjects behind your complaint are fundamental and worthy of some analyzation and investigation, which I would try to briefly address.

In essence, they believe they've said the magic words, so now Jesus Christ is indebted to and obligated to them, and that they are in no way indebted to or obligated to Christ...In their view, they are the Potter and Christ is their clay.

While antinomianism has been a problem from before the Reformation, that sola fide historical overall marginalized works is clearly contrary to its overall testimony.

And while today a superficial form of Protestantism is increasingly manifest, taking upon the characteristics of the society in which it exists, this decreasing camp stands in contrast to evangelicals (yet, a remnant) who manifest more commitment to the supremacy of Scripture and core Protestant distinctives, and which is the type of faith I think is overall behind what is often contended for here. Rather than liberal Protestantism being a product of Sola Scriptura as the word of God after its historical Scriptural “tradition,” they evidence rejection of the Scriptures as the supreme authority and the word of God.

Meanwhile, contrary to your depiction, like liberal Protestantism, it is Roman Catholics who overall testify to “easy believism” being inferior to evangelicals in areas of commitment and doctrine. While this laxity is not official teaching, faith is know by its works, and this easy believism is what Rome largely effectually promotes by fostering confidence in her power and one's merit, and by her lack of any real discipline of abortion and homosexual, etc. promoting Catholics, in which she conveys that as long as one dies in the arms of Rome she will get them in, no matter if they evidenced impenitent basic moral beliefs that were critically contrary to Christ.

Therefore Roman Catholicism has two camps: the Traditionalists, some of whom go so far as the sedevacantist schism, and want the powers Rome once had as it took upon much of the form and means of the empire in which it was found, and seem to long for the days of the inquisitions, while the majority of Catholics who follow after the liberal interpretations fostered by Vatican II.

And while you can seek to relegate these liberals to be non-Catholics, yet these are honored in life and in death as members. And this necessary inclusion impugns the validity of your message, as unlike us, you do not simply preach a faith but a particular supreme Church as an intrinsic part of that faith, and thus what it officially teaches as well as presently effectually fosters is what you argue for.

As we've seen clearly in this thread, even denying the deity of Christ as it is spelled out in the New Testament doesn't matter to such folks.

As touched on above, rather than being characterized as denying such core essentials, as the deity of Christ, those denominations which have held to the Scriptures as supreme as the word of God historically have contended against such as deny them, as well, as against the traditions of men being made equal to the Scriptures by Rome, as the aberrations of both groups are the result of a shared practice, that of effectively making the church magisterium supreme over the Scriptures. And which groups from the Mormons to the Watchtower Society also do.

The Invisible Church of The Most High Self

Rather, while those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture recognize that the one true church only consists of born again believers, (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) yet such typically are manifest in known visible bodies, whether be Southern Baptist or Calvary chapels.

And as holding the Scriptures as supreme means as they also uphold the teaching magisterium of the church, they thus each have a higher magisterium over their own particular flock. And in which is all the power Rome effectively has, even if it presumes universal jurisdiction. And while such evangelical magisterium's do not presume to claim assured infallibility as per Rome, which is an attribute they hold is only given on Earth to Scripture, instead requires all teaching to be substantiated and warranted upon the weight of Scripture, so strong is this evidence as regards certain core teachings that overall one will be marked as a heretic if they deviate from them.

And thus while lacking a centralized administration, yet as said, like Catholics, evangelicals manifest a common consent to certain core teachings, while allowing varying degrees of liberty in other things. And which is also true in Roman Catholicism, although there is far more that Catholics can and do disagree on than the average one realizes or might admit to.

Therefore, while RCA's often charge that every Protestant is his own pope, yet in contrast to the pope, no one who holds to SS can presume assured infallibility, which the Sola Scripturist only holds the Scriptures are, and like the noble Bereans, (Acts 17:11) he seeks to prove all things by that which is proved to be of God; it being the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) and which is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.

In addition, while Roman Catholic apologist often attack evangelicals based upon their reliance upon fallible human reasoning, however prayerful — an infirmity which the supreme magisterium of Rome asserts they are immune from when speaking in accordance with their infallibly-defined criteria — yet the Catholic himself makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.

Therefore both the Catholic and evangelical claim to have and assuredly infallible authority, but neither claim to be assuredly in fallible themselves.

In contrast, the type of assurance which Scripture promises the believer in the Scriptures, is not based upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, though that does not disallow that believers and the church can speak infallible truth, but the assurance promise therein is based upon conformity to the assuredly infallible Scriptures and its means of attesting to truth, especially to new revelation. And which is what Acts 15 and other examples testifies to.

That is all for now.

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.