I like to read these threads, although they always seem to devolve into the same arguments.
Relative to the original post - this may have been covered, sorry if it was (hard to read 1600 posts to find out). Can someone help me understand the following paragraph (as a start, at least). I don’t understand how the author reaches the conclusion in the next to last sentence that the second person of the Trinity is no longer the Eternal Son if we don’t accept Mary as the “Mother of God”?
“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:”
This is not the author's conclusion. He is citing Dr. Walter Martin whose disbelief in Mary as the Mother of God, has devolved to the point where he (Dr. Walter Martin) no longer recognizes Jesus as the Eternal Son. Hope this clarifies your quandary.
Catholicism reaches LOTS of 'conclusions' that make no rational or biblical sense.