Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
In my new book, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, , I spend most of its pages in classic apologetic defense of Mary as Mother of God, defending her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, her Queenship, and her role in God’s plan of salvation as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. But perhaps my most important contributions in the book may well be how I demonstrate each of these doctrines to be crucial for our spiritual lives and even our salvation.
And I should note that this applies to all of the Marian doctrines. Not only Protestants, but many Catholics will be surprised to see how the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, for example, is crucial for all Christians to understand lest they misapprehend the truth concerning the sacred, marriage, sacraments, the consecrated life, and more.
I won’t attempt to re-produce the entire book in this post, but I will choose one example among examples I use to demonstrate why Mary as Mother of God not only matters, but how denying this dogma of the Faith can end in the loss of understanding of “the one true God and Jesus Christ whom [God] has sent” (John 17:3). It doesn’t get any more serious than that!
In my book, I use the teaching of the late, well-known, and beloved Protestant Apologist, Dr. Walter Martin, as one of my examples. In his classic apologetics work, Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Martin, gives us keen insight into why the dogma of the Theotokos (“God-bearer,” a synonym with “Mother of God”) is such a “big deal.” But first some background information.
Truth and Consequences
It is very easy to state what it is that you don’t believe. That has been the history of Protestantism. Protestantism itself began as a… you guessed it… “protest.” “We are against this, this, this, and this.” It was a “protest” against Catholicism. However, the movement could not continue to exist as a protestant against something. It had to stand for something. And that is when the trouble began. When groups of non-infallible men attempted to agree, the result ended up being the thousands of Protestant sects we see today.
Dr. Walter Martin was a good Protestant. He certainly and boldly proclaimed, “I do not believe Mary is the Mother of God.” That’s fine and good. The hard part came when he had to build a theology congruent with his denial. With Dr. Martin, it is difficult to know for sure whether his bad Christology came before or after his bad Mariology—I argue it was probably bad Christology that came first—but let’s just say for now that in the process of theologizing about both Jesus and Mary, he ended up claiming Mary was “the mother of Jesus’ body,” and not the Mother of God. He claimed Mary “gave Jesus his human nature alone,” so that we cannot say she is the Mother of God; she is the mother of the man, Jesus Christ.
This radical division of humanity and divinity manifests itself in various ways in Dr. Martin’s theology. He claimed, for example, that “sonship” in Christ has nothing at all to do with God in his eternal relations within the Blessed Trinity. In Martin’s Christology, divinity and humanity are so sharply divided that he concluded “eternal sonship” to be an unbiblical Catholic invention. On page 103 of his 1977 edition of The Kingdom of the Cults, he wrote:
[T]here cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship, for there is a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word “Son” predicates time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells us, as the Logos, is timeless, “…the Word was in the beginning” not the Son!
From Martin’s perspective then, Mary as “Mother of God” is a non-starter. If “Son of God” refers to Christ as the eternal son, then there would be no denying that Mary is the mother of the Son of God, who is God; hence, Mother of God would be an inescapable conclusion. But if sonship only applies to “time and creativity,” then references to Mary’s “son” would not refer to divinity at all.
But there is just a little problem here. Beyond the fact that you don’t even need the term “Son” at all to determine Mary is the Mother God because John 1:14 tells us “the Word was made flesh,” and John 1:1 tells us “the Word was God;” thus, Mary is the mother of the Word and so she is the Mother of God anyway, the sad fact is that in the process of Martin’s theologizing he ended up losing the real Jesus. Notice, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is no longer the Eternal Son! And it gets worse from here, if that is possible! Martin would go on:
The term “Son” itself is a functional term, as is the term “Father” and has no meaning apart from time. The term “Father” incidentally never carries the descriptive adjective “eternal” in Scripture; as a matter of fact, only the Spirit is called eternal (“the eternal Spirit”—Hebrews 9:14), emphasizing the fact that the words Father and Son are purely functional as previously stated.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of what we are saying here. Jesus revealed to us the essential truth that God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his inner life. For Martin, God would be father by analogy in relation to the humanity of Christ, but not in the eternal divine relations; hence, he is not the eternal Father. So, not only did Dr. Martin end up losing Jesus, the eternal Son; he lost the Father as well! This compels us to ask the question: Who then is God, the Blessed Trinity, in eternity, according to Dr. Walter Martin and all those who agree with his theology? He is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He must be the eternal … Blah… the Word, and the Holy Spirit (Martin did teach Christ to be the Eternal Word, just not the Eternal Son). He would become a father by analogy when he created the universe and again by analogy at the incarnation of the Word and through the adoption of all Christians as “sons of God.” But he would not be the eternal Father. The metaphysical problems begin here and continue to eternity… literally. Let us now summarize Dr. Martin’s teaching and some of the problems it presents:
1. Fatherhood and Sonship would not be intrinsic to God. The Catholic Church understands that an essential aspect of Christ’s mission was to reveal God to us as he is in his inner life as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Jews already understood God to be father by analogy, but they had no knowledge of God as eternal Father in relation to the Eternal Son. In Jesus’ great high priestly prayer in John 17, he declared his Father was Father “before the world was made” and thus, to quote CCC 239, in “an unheard-of sense.” In fact, Christ revealed God’s name as Father. Names in Hebrew culture reveal something about the character of the one named. Thus, he reveals God to be Father, not just that he is like a father. God never becomes Father; he is the eternal Father
2. If Sonship applies only to humanity and time, the “the Son” would also be extrinsic, or outside, if you will, of the Second Divine Person of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, as much as he would have denied it, Dr. Martin effectively creates two persons to represent Christ—one divine and one human. This theology leads to the logical conclusion that the person who died on the cross 2,000 years ago would have been merely a man. If that were so, he would have no power to save us. Scripture reveals Christ as the savior, not merely a delegate of God the savior. He was fully man in order to make fitting atonement for us. He was fully God in order to have the power to save us.
3. This theology completely reduces the revelation of God in the New Covenant that separates Christianity from all religions of the world. Jesus revealed God as he is from all eternity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dr. Martin reduces this to mere function. Thus, “Father” does not tell us who God is, only what God does. Radical feminists do something similar when they refuse to acknowledge God as “Father.” God becomes reduced to that which he does as “Creator, Redeeemer, and Sanctifier” and int he process where is a truly tragic loss of the knowledge of who God is. In the case of Dr. Walter Martin, it was bad theology that lead to a similar loss.
4. There is a basic metaphysical principle found, for example, in Malachi 3:6, that comes into play here as well: “For I the Lord do not change.” In defense of Dr. Martin, he did seem to realize that one cannot posit change in the divine persons. As stated above, “fatherhood” and “sonship” wold not relate to divinity at all in his way of thinking. Thus, he became a proper Nestorian (though he would never have admitted that) that divides Christ into two persons. And that is bad enough. However, one must be very careful here because when one posits the first person of the Blessed Trinity became the Father, and the second person of the Blessed Trinity became the Son, it becomes very easy to slip into another heresy that would admit change into the divine persons. Later in Behold Your Mother, I employ the case of a modern Protestant apologist who regrettably takes that next step. But you’ll have to get the book to read about that one.
The bottom line here is this: It appears Dr. Walter Martin’s bad Christology led to a bad Mariology. But I argue in Behold Your Mother that if he would have understood Mary as Theotokos, it would have been impossible for him to lose his Christological bearings. The moment the thought of sonship as only applying to humanity in Christ would have arisen, a Catholic Dr. Walter Martin would have known that Mary is Mother of God. He would have lost neither the eternal Son nor the eternal Father because Theotokos would have guarded him from error. The prophetic words of Lumen Gentium 65 immediately come to mind: “Mary… unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith.” A true Mariology serves as a guarantor against bad Christology.
Tried to review the thread while away from the hospital and did not see an answer to a simple question I asked, asked twice, I think.
Do you agree or disagree with Nestorius?
Forgive me if I missed your answer.
When you answer questions directly, with Christian charity, without the "LOL"; with respect for me as a person, regardless of the wonderful fact that I am Catholic, I would try to do so. I just don't see it happening. As always, God bless you, but it is you who are blinded, by your admitted hatred of Catholicism. Hatred is an obstacle to Christian discussion.
Also, I’m still wondering how one finds a spirit-filled church without their being some sort of leader, teacher, head of Bible study. Worth repeating, as the question was never answered.
I'm tempted to queue-up "All My Ex's Live in Texas" for a bit of comic relief about now.
No offense...
Another one which comes to mind
Or you didn't recognize it.
Grateful, Rome plays a part in the end times..
And she played a part throughout history..
The first reformers believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist..
And time has softened that belief between catholics and protestants..
Problem is, people have a hard time proving catholics and protestants don’t worship the same Jesus..
Sunday isn’t holy in america’s catholic and protestant churches because the protestant church led the way..
They followed Rome..
And cynical is a rare kind - one who holds the name Jesus sacred while holding that all the story behind Jesus is counterfeit...
That is why there is some disdain for ‘sacred name’ or Hebrew roots in the comments.
Cynical needs the sacred name of jesus used by Rome to be the only thing Rome and Catholics get right all the while rejecting everything else..
And it is hard to argue because bibles all have the name Jesus... except the fact that a bible could be printed with the name Joshua used throughout the old And new testament thanks to newer translators.. and it wouldn’t change one truth in scripture..
It would mess up Christendom though... all of it..
That is why I made the comment that I met the Savior as Jesus.but He didn’t let me stay there.
Amazing Grace indeed!
(And it was a nice catholic and his rosary beads that helped along the way - no hatred here for catholics- powers and principalities is what we battle)
And Truth is the goal..
Are you saying that using the words the Holy Spirit used is wrong?
No, I am not saying that using the words of the Holy Spirit used is wrong. I fully agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I am asking if you agree that Mary is the Mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
That's right! There are people all over who don't know Christ, or accept Him. That's where it's got to be tough, but rewarding! And preaching in the Holy Land! We're each called to serve God, but what a special privilege to be able to go there of all places!
One of my favorite films is, "The Inn of the Sixth Happiness" based on the true story of Gladys Aylward. She was turned down for a missionary journey to China, just prior to the Sino-Japanese War. So she decided to go on her own!
The people were shy of her at first, but she embraced them and their culture. She came to be known as "Jen-Ai" the "One Who Loves People". When the war broke out, she led nearly 100 orphans over rough, hilly terrain, with little food, to the safety of mission miles away.
It's a special calling, that's for sure. And I believe there's a special place in Heaven for people like that! Do you know if there were a lot of young people on that trip? It's always heartening to see them pray and witness. There were "Walks for Life" all week throughout the country. The young who believe in God are our hope for the future and it's a gift to see their enthusiasm!
Thanks, MamaB! God bless you, and may He bless all missionaries! I will keep the group you mentioned in prayer!
There has to be a leader in there somewhere. You learned from someone, did you not?
I was not mind-reading. I was describing her activity.
So, you refused to answer my simple question, and changed the subject.
what blasphemy
She got married to the Holy Spirit??
You guys keep proving what the articles I keep posting saying
It isn’t veneration, t is worship, and that is blasphemy.
I "share" it with what scripture says.
Iēsou - Definition: Jesus; the Greek form of Joshua; Jesus, son of Eliezer; Jesus, surnamed Justus.
>>Can you explain to me how translators have replaced the name Jesus with the non Greco, roman Latin name Joshua in acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8?<<
Because they were referencing a long known individual from the Old Testament known to all as Joshua.
transliterate - to transcribe (a word, etc, in one alphabet) into corresponding letters of another alphabet: the Greek word λογοσ can be transliterated as ``logos''
In Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 they were referring to a known Hebrew man so stayed with the Hebrew understanding of who that person was. In the New Testament they were referring to a New Testament individual.
Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshuah" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus. [Ilan, Tal (2002). Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part I: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 91). Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr. p. 129.] [Stern, David (1992). Jewish New Testament Commentary. Clarksville, Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications. pp. 4–5.]
>> Why the need to change those two verses with the sacred names of Jesus with the unholy name of Joshua?<<
Unholy name? Joshua meant and still means "Yahweh saves" as does the transliteration into English.
If you want to go down the name trail explain to me why the angel said to call Him Iēsoús when is Isaiah 7 it said His name would be Immanuel? Are you in error not calling Him that?
Or so you have been led to believe. Of course is scriptural. Only the pre trib rapture does. All others will run into trouble with the rest of scripture.
I misunderstood the point you were making. Your statement: “We can see that in the corruptions of scripture by the Catholic Church” gave me the impression that you were saying the Catholic translation was twisted, and I didn’t see that much of a difference between the Catholic translation and the Greek. I now see that you were questioning how some Catholics interpret that particular verse to mean that no one should be interpreting scripture. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?
If you can’t see the different meanings, I am not going to point them out to you. There are too many.
Excuse me but isn't it Catholic doctrine that all are born with "Original Sin" therefore the answers to your questions according to Catholic doctrine is that, yes, the babies are sinners. Isn't that the reason that they have to be baptized so quickly? To wipe away the "Original sin"? Why else would you baptize a baby if they weren't "sinners".
No, *Hebrew Roots* is NOT Catholicism.
It’s a bunch of Jewish rabbi wannabe’s, with false prophet Micheal Rood being one of the worst.
Such strident reactions shouldn't, of course, prevent us from at least trying to explain our positions and reasons for rejecting their dogmas - and they ARE solid and Biblical ones. Until and unless God first opens eyes and hearts to the truth of the Gospel of grace, arguing one-on-one may only be like talking to a wall. There is a blindness that outraged Mary devotees don't realize they have. It's a good idea to remember that we are commanded to always "speak the truth in love" and to "answer everyone that asks us of the hope that is within us with gentleness and respect". God will honor our words and His truth WILL reach hearts He has prepared for it.
Catholic tactic.
Accuse someone of something outrageous and then ask them why they believe it and make them waste the next couple years demanding an answer and defending themselves from something they never said.
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.