Replies

Good morning and thank you for the post and ping. You asked: "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”?"

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.

1,663 posted on 01/30/2015 2:13:03 AM PST by NYer (Without justice - what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)

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.

Funny; I've never come to that conclusion; but then again; I've no clue as to the REAL meaning of 'Eternal Son'.

1,700 posted on 01/30/2015 4:37:32 AM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)