Condemning Nectorianism & defending the title Mother of God.

[Veritas41]

I don’t see how you square what you’ve said about God’s glory with the Scripture passages I cited which say we will share in God’s glory – they don’t say we’ll share in a “reflection” of God’s glory. No argument with you that praise and honor should not become worship (“adoration”), and if you look in the OT, worship of God involves sacrifice. In the OT, that was animal, grain and drink offerings, in the NT, that is the Sacrifice of the Mass. And in every Mass it is worship *to *the Father, *through *the Son *by *the power of the Holy Spirit, even Masses celebrated on feast days of the Blessed Mother – all worship is directed to God alone, not Mary.

“Man” hasn’t determined Mary’s status in heaven – God has. Read Rev 11:19 -12:1, 5 John is seeing a vision of the Temple, and in 11:19 it says the ark of the covenant could be seen – but what does John see --a chest ? No – a woman. Mary is the ark of the new covenant, and 12:1 describes her with royal imagery “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars”

When I was Protestant, I wasn’t comfortable with all the attention Catholics paid to Mary (although I knew they didn’t worship her), and I couldn’t understand why she was so important to them, but as I began to study the Catholic faith, I slowly began to understand, first with my head in a purely intellectual way, but then with my heart. Do you have children? I have four, but when I had only one and was expecting my second, I was concerned if I could love a second child as much as I loved my first-born. But once I had the second, I discovered I could - my love for my second-born didn’t “take away” the love I had for my first (and so on with the 3rd and 4th). Love multiplies, it isn’t divided. It may seem hard for you to believe or understand, but loving and honoring Mary our Mother helps us love God our Father and Jesus our Brother even more - she doesn’t compete with God for our affection, any more than our earthly father and mother don’t compete with each other for our love – we love them both. Study the life of any Catholic saint, and you will find someone devoted to the Blessed Mother but completely sold out to God. God has established us in a *family *relationship – we have a heavenly Father, an elder Brother Jesus and fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Don’t all complete families have a *mother? *Wouldn’t God’s family?

Here’s an excerpt from a diary (Divine Mercy in My Soul) by St. Faustina Kowalska, just to give you an example of how love for Mary doesn’t take away from God, and in fact Mary helps us grow closer to Him:

“Mary is my Instructress who is ever teaching me how to live for God. The more I imitate the Mother of God, the more deeply I get do know God. . .before every Holy Communion, I earnestly ask the Mother of God to help me prepare my soul for the coming of her Son. . .She has taught me how to love God interiorly and also how to carry out His will in all things…”

“O Jesus, eternal God, I thank You for Your countless graces and blessings. Let every beat of my heart be a new hymn of thanksgiving to You, O God. Let every drop of my blood circulate for You, Lord. My soul is one hymn in adoration of Your mercy. I love You, God, for Yourself alone.”

“O Mary. . . a terrible sword has pierced Your holy soul. Except for God, no one knows of Your suffering. Your soul does not break; it is brave, because it is with Jesus. Sweet Mother, unite my soul to Jesus, because it is only then that I will be able to endure all trials and tribulations, and only in union with Jesus will my little sacrifices be pleasing to God. Sweetest Mother, continue to teach me about the interior life”

“Most sweet Jesus, set my love on fire for You and transform me into Yourself. Divinize me that my deeds may be pleasing to You. May this be accomplished by the power of the Holy Communion which I receive daily. Oh, how greatly I desire to be wholly transformed into You, O Lord!”

 

[brkn1]

Hi Veritas41,

I’m glad that you understand how a Non-Catholic Christian might be somewhat uncomfortable with some aspects of the Catholic faith.
Catholics always strongly claim that they worship God alone and not Mary, so I will leave it at that.

By being covered by “the righteousnes of God”, the saints will forever be sharing God’s glory.
I see sharing God’s glory as meaning we will be able to forever see, praise, and enjoy God’s Glory in Heaven.
If you are able to resolve our sharing God’s glory with actually also being glorified of ourselves as God is, then there is a problem, but I think we both understand what the real meaning is.

God Bless

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Veritas41,

I’m glad that you understand how a Non-Catholic Christian might be somewhat uncomfortable with some aspects of the Catholic faith.
Catholics always strongly claim that they worship God alone and not Mary, so I will leave it at that.

By being covered by “the righteousnes of God”, the saints will forever be sharing God’s glory.
I see sharing God’s glory as meaning we will be able to forever see, praise, and enjoy God’s Glory in Heaven.
If you are able to resolve our sharing God’s glory with actually also being glorified of ourselves as God is, then there is a problem, but I think we both understand what the real meaning is.

God Bless

The Catholic Church does not have any claim that we shall be like God if I understand your post. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

The Catholic Church does claim that in the Last Days, the final Judgement all believers and live in the righteous of the Lord will be glorified.

It is God’s grace that will glorified us. The Catholic Church have a view that God’s Kingdom is like a family. We are united with Jesus Christ through baptism, and made us “sons and daughters of God.” That is why we are united with the Saints on Earth (Church Militant), Saints Suffering (Purgatory), and Saints in heaven.

Like it said in the Nicene Creed, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Ament.”

The Catholic prospective on Jesus’ kingdom is like the Old Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament. Jesus is the King of this Kingdom, and like in the days of King David and Solmon, they had mothers as their Queen. In Jesus’ kingdom, his mother is the Queen Mother. We can petition prayers to her to “pray for us.” We don’t ask Mary for forgiveness of sins, nor ask her to give us graces. It is Jesus Christ, whom we Catholic is the mediator. We give worship to God alone.

Mary is mere creature, and we Catholics are called to imitate her life.

 

[Zooey]

I know and believe that Jesus Christ is a single divine person of the Trinity.
Jesus was born into this world throught the Holy Spirit as Mary’s Son.

One of the reasons that I can not accept the use of the term “Mother of God” is that it incorrectly implies that Jesus did not already exist as God before He was even conceived. As much as you may try to say otherwise, the implication is there.

“Mother of God” has further implications about the Godhead possibly having a mother, which is nonsense.

The terms: “Mother of Jesus” or “Mother of our Lord” are more accurate and less prone to a wrong interpretation.

Au contraire! It was the misunderstanding of these that gave us Nestorius.

These titles are true, as far as they go. But the Council of Ephesus came to a different conclusion about which title was the most complete and true description of Mary. As a matter of fact, Nestorius favored the formulation “Mother of Christ.” This is true as far as it goes, but it only tells part of the story – and that was Nestorius’ whole purpose.

In spite of my error in arguing against the use of the term “Mother of God”, the fact does remain that there is NO such term in the Bible.
Saying that the biblical term “Mother of my Lord” is identical to “Mother of God” is a twisting of the truth. Such tweaking of biblical words is where much of the real heresy comes from.

The term “Mother of God” is a human invention, since it cannot be found in scripture.

1. How many “gods” are there? One.
   2.How many are Elizabeth’s “Lord”? One.
2. Are these the same One? Yes.
   Ergo: Mother of my Lord = Mother of God.

No problem!

There is but one only, living and true God, who is infinite in all perfections of being and power.
In the unity of the infinitely perfect Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotton of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Eternally means without beginning or end.

I didn’t see anything in brkn1’s post that suggested heresy or lack of understanding of the Trinity, just a reluctance to ascribe the title of “Mother of God” to Mary.

I agree…

PS: How have I missed this thread for so long???

 

[Zooey]

Except it turns out that giving Mary the honor that is her due as the masterpiece of God’s creation (a) really gives glory to the God Who made her who she is, and (b) protects essential truths about Jesus and about the Incarnation.
Put it another way: you can’t get it right about Jesus if you haven’t got it right about Mary.

:clapping:

Have you lost the concept of the Trinity?

It’s the hypostatic union that’s the problem, I think…
It gives all manner of people troubles. This doesn’t, of necessity, mean they are not Trinitarian…

In brkn1’s posts I responded too, I didn’t see him question whether Jesus was divine or whether God existed as a Trinity of Persons. He seems to understand Jesus is both fully God and fully man and has eternally existed as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The only thing he took issue with was whether Mary should be called “Mother of God” (and whether Mary was considered by Jesus to be especially blessed because of her divine maternity) because he perceived it to imply Mary had something to do with Christ’s divinity or she pre-existed God somehow, which are common misconceptions among Protestants. Even though the Protestant Reformers accepted that title for Mary, modern Protestantism is so far removed from even its original founders that in the 20 years I was an evangelical Protestant, I never heard Mary referred to by that title – she was always called the Mother of Jesus (when she was talked about at all, which was rarely), and all the churches I belonged to had a correct understanding of the Trinity and of Christ. Protestants who hold to traditional basic Christian teaching believe the same things we do about God but they don’t always possess a complete understanding of all the implications of those teachings.

Well said!

All true ​

Equally, it is essential to be clear that she is the Mother of God, & in what sense. What is important is not simply how people feel about her, but this: that it is from her, by the grace & humility of God, that God became one of us, that He became man, “truly, really, and substantially”.

It is because His Flesh, Blood, & Bone is that of One Who is in every way fully man as we are men - sin alone excepted - that He is qualified to be our Mediator: whatever else is true about His mediation, certainly that is. If He is not “one flesh” with us, He is not true man, & “we arte still in our sins”. That He is man, is because He is flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. She performed for Him all that a mother does for her child. His human nature has a source - a human being. She is that human being. So if mothers are true mothers, even though they cannot give their children the spirit of life, she is His Mother.

The title can be misunderstood - what cannot ? Misunderstanding does not make it wrong - it does mean that it needs to be explained; just like anything else. ##

I need a weeping for joy smiley. I need a whole row of weeping for joy smilies!!

 

[Zooey]

I have trouble seeing God sharing His Honor and Glory with anyone in heaven.

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gifI have trouble seeing God coming to earth as a human & subjecting Himself to “death, even the :crying: :crying: death of the cross”…

He did it anyway.:yup: ***He’s like that.:dancing: :bowdown2: :bowdown2: ***

 

[brkn1]

Hi Zooey,

The Honor and Glory of God that I was referring to is the Divine part of Who God is. None of us gets to ever own a part of or share in that. Please don’t be insulted by my clarification of what should be obvious to all of us, but I’m finding it to be necessary to do so.

 

[brkn1]

Since Zooey brought up the great mystery of the hypostatic union, I thought maybe I would use an example that shows that I have at least some idea of what it means.

There is a symbol that God used to demonstrate this union of God and man in one body. It’s called the ark of the covenant.
The ark was a chest made out of shittim wood which represented Christ’s perfect humaninty.
The shittim wood was overlaid inside and outside with pure gold which represents Christ’s perfect Divinity.
Though the ark is made with both wood and gold, these two elements are not fused or merged with each other.
Jesus Christ never performed any act that was a combination of both His Divinity and His Humanity at the same time. Whatever He did was either as a Perfect Man or as a Perfect God.

I’m guessing that some Catholics will have a problem with my example, since they already have Mary as the ark of the covenant.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Since Zooey brought up the great mystery of the hypostatic union, I thought maybe I would use an example that shows that I have at least some idea of what it means.

There is a symbol that God used to demonstrate this union of God and man in one body. It’s called the ark of the covenant.
The ark was a chest made out of shittim wood which represented Christ’s perfect humaninty.
The shittim wood was overlaid inside and outside with pure gold which represents Christ’s perfect Divinity.
Though the ark is made with both wood and gold, these two elements are not fused or merged with each other.
Jesus Christ never performed any act that was a combination of both His Divinity and His Humanity at the same time. Whatever He did was either as a Perfect Man or as a Perfect God.

I’m guessing that some Catholics will have a problem with my example, since they already have Mary as the ark of the covenant.

Your examples are your intrepretation. The Catholic Belief is held by the Early Christians and I don’t think the CC would reverse its doctrine to deny Mary the title, “Mother of God.” It’s a 2,000 yrs old oral tradition as well as written.

 

[Will_Pick]

There are Non-Catholic Christians out there who do not understand what Catholics and Orthodox as well as others who acknowledge that Mary is the Mother of God, the Son.

Yet dispite this, there are self proclaim Christians who deny it. Little do they know that the Church that to deny such title to the Blessed Virgin Mary would be guilty of a Heresy called Nestorianism.

What is Nectorianism? Let’s take a closer look.

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title “Mother of God.” He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity.

So to those who deny the title Mother of God, it would be better for you to acknowledge the title because it support’s Jesus Christ’s divinity. The title itself pertains to Our Lord Jesus Christ more than it does Mary.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is God
Mary is the mother of God

 

[brkn1]

Hi Will,

Are you trying to say that my understanding of the hypostatic union means that Jesus must be two persons? If you are doing that, then please explain.

I already said that I agree with condemning Nestorianism.

If you want to use the title Mother of God, that’s fine; but I question the right of any of you to require that I use that term when there are other perfectly good terms already in the bible which describe the Virgin Mary. Your term requires an understanding that the God part of “Mother of God” does not include the other two Persons of the Godhead, and that is what I objected to from my own viewpoint.

Speaking about invented titles for Mary, maybe you or someone else could explain why some Catholics call Mary the Ark of the Covenant. I was hoping someone would help me to understand why the RCC goes along with that title.
Thank you.

 

[Victorious]

Hi Will,

Are you trying to say that my understanding of the hypostatic union means that Jesus must be two persons? If you are doing that, then please explain.

I already said that I agree with condemning Nestorianism.

If you want to use the title Mother of God, that’s fine; but I question the right of any of you to require that I use that term when there are other perfectly good terms already in the bible which describe the Virgin Mary. Your term requires an understanding that the God part of “Mother of God” does not include the other two Persons of the Godhead, and that is what I objected to from my own viewpoint.

The trouble is that although you are repudiating Nestorianism, you won’t repudiate the reasoning behind Nestorianism.

 

[brkn1]

Let’s try this: I believe that Jesus is ONE PERSON and that JESUS IS FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN in ONE PERSON.
When the Virgin Mary gave birth to (was the mother of ) Jesus, she carried in her womb the ONE PERSON of Jesus Who was both Perfect God and Perfect Man. There is a mystery about this incarnation that I do not believe any of us can explain. It does not properly get explained by any title of Mary that is either in the Word of God or invented by man’s tradition. If you are able to fully explain the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus, then I know that you are missing something, since it is impossible for imperfect beings such as us to fully explain or understand the Perfect One.

Are you saying that Jesus’ is a merged combination of His Perfections as both God and Man?

 

[Veritas41]

By being covered by “the righteousnes of God”, the saints will forever be sharing God’s glory.
I see sharing God’s glory as meaning we will be able to forever see, praise, and enjoy God’s Glory in Heaven.
If you are able to resolve our sharing God’s glory with actually also being glorified of ourselves as God is, then there is a problem, but I think we both understand what the real meaning is.

God Bless

I highlighted in red what I think underlies our disagreement – how we are made righteous in Christ. You hold the classic Protestant view of extrinsic justification, where the believer is covered over with the righteousness of Christ while remaining objectively sinful. Catholic, biblical, teaching is otherwise: we are *made *objectively righteous and holy by God’s grace – there is no cover-up job. “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” (2 Peter 1:3-4)
We become partakers of the divine nature through grace, becoming holy through continuous cooperation with God’s grace, not just a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior. “. . .continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Philip. 2:12-13). There is nothing to work out if salvation is a covering over of sinfulness. We become glorifying to God by actually becoming objectively holy as he is (“be holy because I am holy” 1 Peter 1:16). And how does God reward us for this? “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-7). We are *raised up *and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms. Why? To show the incomparable riches of His grace. This is what Mary does – she shows the incomparable riches of God’s grace – to take a lowly maiden, create her without stain of original sin and preserve her from personal sin by grace so that she may become a worthy vessel to bear the God-man, Jesus Christ. Mary’s assumption into heaven and coronation as Queen of heaven, all the work of God’s gratuitous grace, give us an image of what is in store for us through our relationship with Jesus Christ by the power of His grace, which makes us *perfect *and *holy *as He is.
If salvation is just being covered over with the righteousness of Christ without necessarily becoming objectively righteous and holy ourselves, then it wouldn’t make sense that God would exalt any one human over any other, but if salvation means responding to the grace of God, given in varying degrees and responding in varying degrees, so that we all attain different levels of holiness, some less, some greater, then it makes sense some will receive more honor than others (Matthew 16:27, 1 Cor. 3:8-14, Matt 10:41, 2 John 8, Rev 2:23).
We see this in Revelation 4:4, “Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.” Then it says in verse 10, “the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne . . .” They rule with Christ (having crowns) but that rule doesn’t take away from Christ’s rule and doesn’t mean they become objects of worship themselves. If this is true for these saints mentioned in Revelation, why wouldn’t it be true for Christ’s Mother?

 

[Zooey]

This is such a great post! Eloquently said, & expressing with clarity, the essential truths of the Scriptures…
God bless.

I highlighted in red what I think underlies our disagreement – how we are made righteous in Christ. You hold the classic Protestant view of extrinsic justification, where the believer is covered over with the righteousness of Christ while remaining objectively sinful. Catholic, biblical, teaching is otherwise: we are *made *objectively righteous and holy by God’s grace – there is no cover-up job. “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” (2 Peter 1:3-4)
We become partakers of the divine nature through grace, becoming holy through continuous cooperation with God’s grace, not just a one-time acceptance of Christ as Savior. “. . .continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Philip. 2:12-13). There is nothing to work out if salvation is a covering over of sinfulness. We become glorifying to God by actually becoming objectively holy as he is (“be holy because I am holy” 1 Peter 1:16). And how does God reward us for this? “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-7). We are *raised up *and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms. Why? To show the incomparable riches of His grace. This is what Mary does – she shows the incomparable riches of God’s grace – to take a lowly maiden, create her without stain of original sin and preserve her from personal sin by grace so that she may become a worthy vessel to bear the God-man, Jesus Christ. Mary’s assumption into heaven and coronation as Queen of heaven, all the work of God’s gratuitous grace, give us an image of what is in store for us through our relationship with Jesus Christ by the power of His grace, which makes us *perfect *and *holy *as He is.
If salvation is just being covered over with the righteousness of Christ without necessarily becoming objectively righteous and holy ourselves, then it wouldn’t make sense that God would exalt any one human over any other, but if salvation means responding to the grace of God, given in varying degrees and responding in varying degrees, so that we all attain different levels of holiness, some less, some greater, then it makes sense some will receive more honor than others (Matthew 16:27, 1 Cor. 3:8-14, Matt 10:41, 2 John 8, Rev 2:23).
We see this in Revelation 4:4, “Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.” Then it says in verse 10, “the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne . . .” They rule with Christ (having crowns) but that rule doesn’t take away from Christ’s rule and doesn’t mean they become objects of worship themselves. If this is true for these saints mentioned in Revelation, why wouldn’t it be true for Christ’s Mother?

 

[Veritas41]

This is such a great post! Eloquently said, & expressing with clarity, the essential truths of the Scriptures…
God bless.

Thank you!!!

 

[brkn1]

Hi Veritas41,

I will use the expected standard Protestant response to Paul’s (Philippians 2:12-13) by saying that you can’t “work out” your salvation without God first working it in. Personal salvation is God-“wrought in” by grace through faith apart from works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:7-10)

I love how the focus of Philippians is upon Jesus Christ and our unity in Him.

It would be negligent for me not to go to that classic verse in (Philippians 3:9) also: “And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”

James is correct that true faith will be evident by the good works God works into us as He continues to conform (sanctify) us into the “image of His Son Jesus”. No true Christian will be satisfied unless he, without looking back, presses forward in “fear and trembling” (carefully) towards the goal of God’s upward call in Christ Jesus.

This thread got more intense than I expected, and it seems to be a good time for me to bow out.

God Bless.

 

[Veritas41]

Speaking about invented titles for Mary, maybe you or someone else could explain why some Catholics call Mary the Ark of the Covenant. I was hoping someone would help me to understand why the RCC goes along with that title.
Thank you.

I’ll take a stab at it Here goes:

In an earlier post, I mentioned Rev. 11:19-12:1, where John is given a vision of the Temple, and in verse 11:19 he mentions seeing the ark of the covenenant, but in 12:1 he doesn’t describe a chest but a woman. That woman gives birth to a male child (verse 5) that can only be Jesus, so the woman is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Also compare to passages, one in the OT, one in the NT and note the striking parallels:

2 Samuel 6
6:2 David “arose and went”
David goes to the hill country of Judah
David says, “How can the ark of th Lord come to me?” (6:9)
David danced before the ark (6:14,16)
The ark remained in the hill country 3 months (6:11)

Luke 1
Mary “arose and went” (1:39)
Mary went to the hill country of Judah
Elizabeth says at Mary’s approach, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (1:43)
John the Baptist “leaps” in his mother’s womb at Mary’s approach (1:44)
Mary remained with Elizabeth for 3 months (1:56)

Compare the contents of the two Arks:

OT Ark
Rod of Aaron, the High Priest
Manna, bread from heaven
Word of God written on stone tablets

NT Ark
Jesus, *the *High Priest
Jesus, the Bread of Life
Jesus, the Word of God made flesh

 

[Veritas41]

Let’s try this: I believe that Jesus is ONE PERSON and that JESUS IS FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN in ONE PERSON.
When the Virgin Mary gave birth to (was the mother of ) Jesus, she carried in her womb the ONE PERSON of Jesus Who was both Perfect God and Perfect Man. There is a mystery about this incarnation that I do not believe any of us can explain. It does not properly get explained by any title of Mary that is either in the Word of God or invented by man’s tradition. If you are able to fully explain the mystery of the incarnation of Jesus, then I know that you are missing something, since it is impossible for imperfect beings such as us to fully explain or understand the Perfect One.

Are you saying that Jesus’ is a merged combination of His Perfections as both God and Man?

No, we have been saying, however, that Jesus is *one Person *with two natures, human and divine. Mothers are mothers of persons, not natures, so since Jesus is divine as well as human, we can rightly call Mary “Mother of God” because of the union of Christ’s divine and human natures into ONE Person. You are inconsistent in insisting that the title “Mother of God” appear explicitly in the Bible in order to be true, but you don’t have a problem with using the term “Trinity” to describe God, which appears nowhere in the Bible. In both cases, the term/title describes something taught in Scripture, even if they don’t appear explicitly in the text (this is one of the arguments anti-Trinitarian groups use against the doctrine of the Trinity – that the term doesn’t appear in the Bible and doesn’t appear until a couple of centuries after the apostles, as if the appearance of the term indicates the time the doctrine first appears).

 

[brkn1]

Hi Veritas41,

You last post (#78) inspired me to bow back in.

By calling me inconsistent, you seem to be saying that my agreeing with the use of some unbiblical terms requires that I go along with ALL unbiblical terms.
I reject that requirement as both illogical and unbiblical.