Mary, the Mother of God

[NDfan]

What do Protestants have say about Martin Luther’s statement calling Mary the Mother of God?

From Martin Luther “Commentary on the Magnificat” –

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: THE MOTHER OF GOD. No one can say anything greater of her…”

“She is RIGHTLY called not only the mother of the man, but also THE MOTHER OF GOD…It is CERTAIN that Mary is THE MOTHER OF THE REAL AND TRUE GOD.”

“God is born…the child who drinks his Mother’s milk is eternal; he existed before the world’s beginning and he created heaven and earth…these two natures are so united that there is only ONE God and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks him, and carries him.”

God bless,

Mary “Mother of GOD” was a term used to defend the divinity of Christ. It was not used to say that Mary was literally the mother of our GOD in Heaven. The early church had its share of groups that held differing opinions on the nature of Jesus. Some groups focused on the earthly nature of Christ while others focused more on His divinity. What many had trouble with was the fact that Jesus was a human being with an earthly mother and at the same time was GOD incarnate. As the Pope once said Jesus was 100% man and 100% GOD period end of story.

The church never tried to imply that Jesus inherited His divinity from Mary which presented a problem for some early Christians. The logic was that if Jesus had an earthly mother He surely could not be divine. The church then adopted the term “Mother of GOD” to defend Jesus’ divinity saying yes Jesus was GOD in the flesh and Mary was His mother here on earth.

I don’t have an issue with Martin Luther as he was a Catholic Priest and certainly would understand why the title mother of GOD was ascribed to Mary. I don’t believe he meant it any other way. Stressing the fact that she was the mother of the real and true GOD just further confirms the divinity of Christ. Luther may have gotten a little carried away with some of the stronger statements he made but he’s entitled to his own opinion. It does not make it Gospel nor should Protestants have a problem with it.

PEACE

 

[ralphinal]

Mary “Mother of GOD” was a term used to defend the divinity of Christ. It was not used to say that Mary was literally the mother of our GOD in Heaven. The early church had its share of groups that held differing opinions on the nature of Jesus. Some groups focused on the earthly nature of Christ while others focused more on His divinity. What many had trouble with was the fact that Jesus was a human being with an earthly mother and at the same time was GOD incarnate. As the Pope once said Jesus was 100% man and 100% GOD period end of story.

The church never tried to imply that Jesus inherited His divinity from Mary which presented a problem for some early Christians. The logic was that if Jesus had an earthly mother He surely could not be divine. The church then adopted the term “Mother of GOD” to defend Jesus’ divinity saying yes Jesus was GOD in the flesh and Mary was His mother here on earth.

I don’t have an issue with Martin Luther as he was a Catholic Priest and certainly would understand why the title mother of GOD was ascribed to Mary. I don’t believe he meant it any other way. Stressing the fact that she was the mother of the real and true GOD just further confirms the divinity of Christ. Luther may have gotten a little carried away with some of the stronger statements he made but he’s entitled to his own opinion. It does not make it Gospel nor should Protestants have a problem with it.

PEACE

Are you saying Luther was prone to hyperbole?

 

[The_Way]

Thanks guys for your posts. I was rather interested in what Protestants had to say about what Martin Luther believed and what Protestants believe today. In my experience most Protestants I have come across do not believe Mary to be the Mother of God as Martin Luther did…

How do Protestants reconcile their belief concerning this doctrine with Martin Luther who initiated the reformation?

God bless,

 

[agiosotheos]

They also seem to have a problem with Mary being “mater de theos”.

No. English speaking EO refer to Mary as the Mother of God all the time.

 

[agiosotheos]

Of course Mary is the mother of God.

I didn’t realize this was up for debate?

LOL

 

[agiosotheos]

It is my understanding that the difference between the EO usage of Theotokos (God-bearer) and the Western use of Mother of God is a linguistic and not theological one. The Theotokos title confers the same position: she who bore the Lord

There are plenty of Greek Fathers who used “Meter Theou”. There are plenty of modern English speaking EO who use “Mother of God”. The distinction you are referring to is pretty much artificially constructed by someone who thought it convenient to their agenda.

 

[agiosotheos]

Theotokos (God-bearer)

An important thing to point out: Theophoros means God-bearer and does not convey at all the same meaning. Ignatius of Antioch was referred to as a God-bearer. Theotokos, on the other hand, is more appropriately translated as “birth-giver of God”.

 

[ralphinal]

An important thing to point out: Theophoros means God-bearer and does not convey at all the same meaning. Ignatius of Antioch was referred to as a God-bearer. Theotokos, on the other hand, is more appropriately translated as “birth-giver of God”.

Already been corrected on that one. Thanks, though.

I think that the most important part is that the concept of Mary as Mother of God is to focus us on Jesus, not on her

 

[agiosotheos]

Both affirm that Mary is the Mother of God as stated in the Council of Ephesus (431).

I don’t think “Meter Theou” was used at this council. And “Mother of God” is not really an appropriate translation of Theotokos. But you are right that they were used to convey essentially the same meaning.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There are two Latin equivalent of Theotokos: Deipara and Deigenitrix.

NONE of these words are intended to men “progenetress of the Divine Nature.”

They are really about who JESUS is–God and Man in one Person.

No less a church historian than the German Calvinist Philip Schaff said that Reformed Christology tended towards Nestorian, precisely because they would not use the terms “Mother of God” or “Theotokos.”

 

[NDfan]

Are you saying Luther was prone to hyperbole?

Ralph no I’m not saying that at all. Actually I don’t no why you use the term hyperbole as what about any of the statements the OP provided would be considered an exageration??

Not sure I understand your question.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph no I’m not saying that at all. Actually I don’t no why you use the term hyperbole as what about any of the statements the OP provided would be considered an exageration??

Not sure I understand your question.

My statement was in response to this line

Luther may have gotten a little carried away with some of the stronger statements he made but he’s entitled to his own opinion.

Luther was, in fact, known to use hyperbole more than once. Many of the harsher statements from him, when read in context, are not as bad.

 

[NDfan]

Thanks guys for your posts. I was rather interested in what Protestants had to say about what Martin Luther believed and what Protestants believe today. In my experience most Protestants I have come across do not believe Mary to be the Mother of God as Martin Luther did…

How do Protestants reconcile their belief concerning this doctrine with Martin Luther who initiated the reformation?

God bless,

The Protestants you come across probably don’t understand why the early church used the term Mother of GOD for Mary, hence their unwillingness to believe it. You’re trying to equate or reconcile Reformed theology with what Luther believed as if they are exactly the same. Luther held many beliefs that are more consistent with Roman Catholic teachings. The reformation was not a complete adoption of Martin Luther’s singular beliefs therefore it’s not really a valid question to ask a Protestant to reconcile his/her beliefs against Luther’s. I know many Catholics that do not believe in the sinless nature of Mary. Over 50% of Catholics don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. We could ask them the same question of how do you reconcile your beliefs against the Roman Catholic church when you are supposed to be Catholic. There is no need to reconcile it. If you truly understand the teaching then you have to decide either you believe in it or not.

 

[NDfan]

My statement was in response to this line

Luther was, in fact, known to use hyperbole more than once. Many of the harsher statements from him, when read in context, are not as bad.

Ralph I understand now. That’s what I was referring to. We know Luther made many strong statements that when understood in the proper context turned out not to be that strong.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph I understand now. That’s what I was referring to. We know Luther made many strong statements that when understood in the proper context turned out not to be that strong.

Cool. we agree on something

 

[NDfan]

An important thing to point out: Theophoros means God-bearer and does not convey at all the same meaning. Ignatius of Antioch was referred to as a God-bearer. Theotokos, on the other hand, is more appropriately translated as “birth-giver of God”.

Excellent point!!! In fact if I might add on to that, some in the early church wanted to adopt the term Christotokos (spelling?) for Mary. Meaning Mary as the birth giver of a savior. But the church leadership felt this term diminished the fact that Jesus was GOD in the flesh and decided to use Theotokos which is just as you state above.

 

[NDfan]

Already been corrected on that one. Thanks, though.

I think that the most important part is that the concept of Mary as Mother of God is to focus us on Jesus, not on her

Ralph right on the money brother!!! And that’s the problem most Protestants have with the term Theotokos, they don’t realize the purpose.

 

[agiosotheos]

Excellent point!!! In fact if I might add on to that, some in the early church wanted to adopt the term Christotokos (spelling?) for Mary. Meaning Mary as the birth giver of a savior. But the church leadership felt this term diminished the fact that Jesus was GOD in the flesh and decided to use Theotokos which is just as you state above.

There is nothing wrong with using Christotokos. There is something wrong with using Christotokos and refusing to use Theotokos, which is what Nestorius and his lackies did.

 

[The_Way]

The Protestants you come across probably don’t understand why the early church used the term Mother of GOD for Mary, hence their unwillingness to believe it. You’re trying to equate or reconcile Reformed theology with what Luther believed as if they are exactly the same. Luther held many beliefs that are more consistent with Roman Catholic teachings. The reformation was not a complete adoption of Martin Luther’s singular beliefs therefore it’s not really a valid question to ask a Protestant to reconcile his/her beliefs against Luther’s. I know many Catholics that do not believe in the sinless nature of Mary. Over 50% of Catholics don’t believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. We could ask them the same question of how do you reconcile your beliefs against the Roman Catholic church when you are supposed to be Catholic. There is no need to reconcile it. If you truly understand the teaching then you have to decide either you believe in it or not.

Thanks for answering my question; you have helped to clarify my understanding of Protestant theology.

Just so you know any Catholic that denies any of the doctrines of the Catholic Church such as Transubstantiation are considered to be heretics. The doctrines of the Church are not up for discussion or “personal beliefs”.

God bless,

 

[jlhargus]

mark