Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos

[Bballer32]

Let me make it just as clear:
The Father was not born of Mary
The Father is God.
Therefore Mary is not the Mother of God.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:41-43[/BIBLEDRB]

Pretty self explanatory.

When Elizabeth was told she would conceive a child that would go before the Lord and even be filled with the Holy Spirit in her womb. (Luke 1:5-20) But how was Elizabeth supposed to know who the Christ child would be?

Well, in the above bible verse, Mary comes to Elizabeth to help her, but when Mary enters the Baby leaped in Elizabeth’s by being filled with the Holy Spirit of God. That is when Elizabeth realizes that Mary is indeed housing Christ the Son of God making her the Mother of God.

Mary is the Mother of God, yet she is below God. It’s hard for us to interpret because as humans we don’t have a great knowledge of the Trinity (that’s why it’s a Mystery). But it so happens to work out that Mary is still the Mother of God yet a child of God.

 

[fred_conty]

rcjones,
sometimes when the words “mother of God” are said of Mary, it is misunderstood.
She is not the mother of God from all eternity, into existence, but rather in TIME, into THIS world.

Now there are three persons in God, but still only one God. The three persons are distinct not seperate. If seperate, then there would be 3 gods, not one God. Where the Father is, there is God, where the Son is, there is God, and where the Holy Spirit is, there is God. Where one divine person is, there are all three persons, otherwise we are left with the separation or division of God. But God is one and cannot be divided or seperated.

Now when it is said that the Son alone became incarnate and not the Father, and not the Holy Spirit, it is because they are really distinct.

But then some might say, distinct sounds like separate. I couldn’t agree more. But there is a difference even tho this mystery of the divine trinity is baffaling to us.

Just a thought.

 

[rcjones]

rcjones,
sometimes when the words “mother of God” are said of Mary, it is misunderstood.
She is not the mother of God from all eternity, into existence, but rather in TIME, into THIS world.

Now there are three persons in God, but still only one God. The three persons are distinct not seperate. If seperate, then there would be 3 gods, not one God. Where the Father is, there is God, where the Son is, there is God, and where the Holy Spirit is, there is God. Where one divine person is, there are all three persons, otherwise we are left with the separation or division of God. But God is one and cannot be divided or seperated.

Now when it is said that the Son alone became incarnate and not the Father, and not the Holy Spirit, it is because they are really distinct.

But then some might say, distinct sounds like separate. I couldn’t agree more. But there is a difference even tho this mystery of the divine trinity is baffaling to us.

Just a thought.

Thank you Fred. Your reasoning is sound. I have no differing doctrine in the birth of Christ. I simply do not use the term Mother-of-God. As you have said, it can lead to confusion. I have rejected no council since I have not even considered the council. It is a semantic issue for me, not a doctrinal one. I am capable of confessing Jesus as God by saying that Jesus is the fulness of God in the flesh or the fulness of deity in bodily form since his conception without having to use the term “Mother-of-God”.

If I am making a confession of Christ, to me it makes more sense to speak of Christ in clear terms, than to speak of Mary in terms that can be misunderstood.

I cannot fathom why using a particular formula (which can be done thoughtlessly) is more important than the content of a carefully considered doctrine. Previous posters have continually ignored the details of my confession in favor of a mantra.

For them, it is apparent, that a strong-armed confession is more important than a heart belief.

 

[iloveangels]

background: I have been involved in numerous discussions with pro’s who deny, vehemently, the dogmatic titular of “mary, mother of god” (“mary, theotokos”)–as we cat’s pray in the hail mary. The first few times, i was taken completely aback. (how pray tell, to you pretend to be christian, yet you deny such an elementary principle??? Do you also deny the virgin birth? …the resurrection?..the trinity?). Of course, as time went by, and i talked to more and more pro’s, i realized it wasn’t a rare notion, but actually fairly widely held view, amongst pros, particulary of the more fundamentalist variety…

Now, as most here surley know, the question–whether or not mary was ‘theotokos’ was settled by the council of ephesus in or around 430 ad. The rationale, was thus: Mary may rightfully be called the mother of god, because she gave birth to chirst–who is the second person of the trinity, and therefore god…ergo mary gave birth to god…ergo mary is the mother of god…ergo mary theotokos. The declaration was further buttressed by the dogmatic proclamation(s) from necea and constaniople, that chirst was both fully god, and fully man, from the moment of his conceptioin (or true god, and true man, according to the nicene creed).

So…here is my question:

…etc…etc…etc…

incoming!!!

 

[iloveangels]

Background: I have been involved in numerous discussions with pro’s who deny, vehemently, the dogmatic titular of “Mary, Mother of God” (“Mary, Theotokos”)–as we Cat’s pray in the Hail Mary. The first few times, I was taken completely aback. (How pray tell, to you pretend to be Christian, yet you deny such an elementary principle??? Do you also deny the virgin birth? …the resurrection?..the Trinity?). Of course, as time went by, and I talked to more and more pro’s, I realized it wasn’t a rare notion, but actually fairly widely held view, amongst pros, particulary of the more fundamentalist variety…

Now, as most here surley know, the question–whether or not Mary was ‘Theotokos’ was settled by the Council of Ephesus in or around 430 AD. The rationale, was thus: Mary may rightfully be called the Mother of God, because she gave birth to Chirst–who is the second person of the Trinity, and therefore God…ergo Mary gave birth to God…ergo Mary is the Mother of God…ergo Mary Theotokos. The declaration was further buttressed by the dogmatic proclamation(s) from Necea and Constaniople, that Chirst was both fully God, and fully Man, from the moment of his conceptioin (or True God, and True man, according to the Nicene Creed).

…

You know, you don’t have a leg to stand on if you complain that Protestants say bad things about you, and then you viciously attack them like this with nails and fangs out.

 

[bogeydogg]

Thank you Fred. Your reasoning is sound. I have no differing doctrine in the birth of Christ. I simply do not use the term Mother-of-God. As you have said, it can lead to confusion. I have rejected no council since I have not even considered the council. It is a semantic issue for me, not a doctrinal one. I am capable of confessing Jesus as God by saying that Jesus is the fulness of God in the flesh or the fulness of deity in bodily form since his conception without having to use the term “Mother-of-God”.

If I am making a confession of Christ, to me it makes more sense to speak of Christ in clear terms, than to speak of Mary in terms that can be misunderstood.

I cannot fathom why using a particular formula (which can be done thoughtlessly) is more important than the content of a carefully considered doctrine. Previous posters have continually ignored the details of my confession in favor of a mantra.

For them, it is apparent, that a strong-armed confession is more important than a heart belief.

Where the confession of the councils is helpful is that the Gnostics, the Nestorians, the Arians, and Pelagians could all make the same confession that in Christ the fullness of deity dwelt in bodily form. But what sort of body? What does it mean? That is why the confessions declare Him to be fully man and fully God and Mary to be mother of God.

These confession do not create doctrine they simply declare what the Church believes against those who twist pure doctrine. The councils were never called because someone thought it was time to create a Canon, they were called because someone started making a division within the Church by teaching false doctrine. The councils are responses against heresy and are intended to protect the laity from it by clearly defining what is and is not the doctrine taught by the Church given to us from Christ through the Apostles.

Therefore to say we have no need to even consider the councils because they strong arm us into confessions is to make yourself the sole arbiter of orthodoxy and to strong arm the whole world into your definition of orthodoxy. I swear I am not attacking you I just want you to see the problem with your line of thinking.

To confess is to speak with those who have come before, and since the Church is Apostolic we are protected by speaking with those who came before from every whim of false doctrine. That is why St Paul warns St Timothy to remember what he has learned, from whom he has learned it and to hold fast the traditions he has learned. He is strong arming St Timothy he is protecting him and the people St Timothy is bishop over.

Please think about this before you cavalierly throw aside the ancient confessions because they were clung to because they are old, but because they are good.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

‘Mother’ implies that the ‘child’ is formed in the womb since neither Catholics nor Protestants believe in pre-existence.

Since the second person of the Trinity was not formed in the womb, but pre-existed, the term Mother of God does not fit the theology for those who do not call her Theotokos.

The claim that denying that Mary is the Mother of God implies that Jesus is not God is considered a straw man argument since the divinity of Christ is not denied, nor is it seen to be contradictory to the incarnation at all.

It might be said that claiming that Mary is the Mother of God implies that she pre-existed the second person of the Trinity. This is an unacceptable position since it makes her equal to or part of the Trinity and superior to the Second person.

The Second person of the Trinity pre-existed Mary, and at the moment of the miraculous conception indwelt the flesh within the womb. This is the doctrine held by those who do not name Mary as Theotokos. The Word, which was with God and which was God, became flesh in the womb of Mary.

This is completely false. The truth can be found here:

Calling Mary “Mother of God” Tells Us Who Jesus Is
By Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.
catholicexchange.com/2010/01/02/125718/

The mother of the messiah has been called many things in the last 2000 years — the Virgin Mary, Our Lady, the Blessed Mother. But call her “the Mother of God” and you’ll see some Christians squirm.

This is nothing new. One day in the early fifth century, a priest preached a stirring sermon in the presence of the patriarch of Constantinople. His subject was the holy mother of Jesus. The preacher continually referred to Mary as the “Theotokos” meaning “God-bearer” or mother of God. This was no innovation — Christians had invoked Mary under this title for at least two hundred years. Nevertheless, at the close of the sermon, the patriarch ascended the steps of the pulpit to correct the preacher. We should call Mary the Mother of Christ, said Patriarch Nestorius, not the Mother of God. She was the mother of his human nature, not the mother of his divinity.

His comment sparked a riot. And the dispute rocked not only the congregation, but the entire empire. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, immediately recognized that Nestorius’ Marian theology was a symptom of a much deeper problem, a problem with the incarnation itself. For to deny Mary the title “Mother of God” makes of Jesus a dichotomy, a split personality. It would mean that God had not really embraced our humanity so as to become human. Rather, the humanity of Christ is hermetically sealed off from the divinity, as if Jesus were two persons, as if human nature was so distasteful that God, in Christ, had to keep it at arm’s distance. It is okay, according to Nestorius, to say that in Jesus, God raised Lazarus, or multiplied the loaves, or walked on water. But it is not okay to say that in Jesus God is born or that God died.

Cyril, aware that this was a challenge to the heart of our faith, demanded that an ecumenical council be called to settle the matter. So in 431, the Council of Ephesus met, under Cyril’s leadership, and solemnly proclaimed that Mary is indeed rightly to be honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. It proclaimed that from the moment of his conception, God truly became man. Of course Mary is a creature and could never be the origin of the eternal Trinity, God without beginning or end. But the second person of the blessed Trinity chose to truly become man. He did not just come and borrow a human body and drive it around for awhile, ascend back to heaven, and discard it like an old car. No, at the moment of his conception in the womb of Mary, an amazing thing happened. God the Son united himself with a human nature forever. Humanity and divinity were so closely bound together in Jesus, son of Mary, that they could never be separated again. Everything that would be done by the son of Mary would be the act both of God and of man. So indeed it would be right to say that a man raised Lazarus from the dead and commanded the wind and waves, that God was born that first Christmas day and that, on Good Friday, God died.

The Council of Ephesus, once confirmed by the Pope, became the third ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and its teaching in this matter is dogma, truth revealed by God which all are bound to accept.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The only reason I feel certain protestants will not say this, is simply a visceral emotional reaction to what the phrase “mother of God” might mean. Alot of protestants simply cannot accept that this phrase is in reference to mary Bearing God into the world, instead they seem to think it to mean some sort of creation of Christ on the part of mary, as if Mary by herself could create Jesus. and almost any attempt to explain it is quashed with the simple “Well its not biblical.”

 

[batman1973]

From a wiki entry on Lutheran Marian Theology:
“Lutherans believe that the person Jesus is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, who was incarnated in the womb of his mother Mary as a human being, and since, as a person, he was “born of the Virgin Mary”. Lutherans have always believed that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. Martin Luther said:
he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child… Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God… None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”

 

[rcjones]

Therefore to say we have no need to even consider the councils because they strong arm us into confessions is to make yourself the sole arbiter of orthodoxy and to strong arm the whole world into your definition of orthodoxy. I swear I am not attacking you I just want you to see the problem with your line of thinking.

Hmmm… you combine two separate statements, one about the councils and one about the participants of this forum in order to lie about my position and then say you are not attacking me…

Do you see the problem with your thinking?

As for being sole arbiter… Where were you or the church when God changed my life? Since when does the Catholic church assume a role of authority in my life? No one has made a case that I should submit to it. As for now Christ is the sole arbiter of my soul. Why should I submit to the CC when the OC and other churches are making the same claim? So councils do not get an automatic pass because the church has not won a place in my heart.

The fact that no one seems to be able to even represent my clearly stated positions here does nothing to warm my heart toward it either.

 

[bogeydogg]

Hmmm… you combine two separate statements, one about the councils and one about the participants of this forum in order to lie about my position and then say you are not attacking me…

Do you see the problem with your thinking?

As for being sole arbiter… Where were you or the church when God changed my life? Since when does the Catholic church assume a role of authority in my life? No one has made a case that I should submit to it. As for now Christ is the sole arbiter of my soul. Why should I submit to the CC when the OC and other churches are making the same claim? So councils do not get an automatic pass because the church has not won a place in my heart.

The fact that no one seems to be able to even represent my clearly stated positions here does nothing to warm my heart toward it either.

And how did I lie about you? That is a serious accusation. I would appreciate it if would clarify how I had done so.

I am not suggesting you submit to the Roman Catholic Church, I am suggesting you submit to the Church Catholic. The Church founded by Christ given to the Apostles. The Church of which Christ Himself said, “Who ever receives you receives me and who ever receives me receives the One who sent me.” You see to set aside all authority in the Church for the sake of personal confession is to set aside the Word who saved you. I did not say this… He did.

As far as combining the two statements I did so because one flows from the other. Those on here encouraging you to consider the wisdom of the councils you called “strong arm confession”. So I do not think it out of place at all to equate your statement that the councils’ confessions are strong armed as well since what the other posters on here are espousing is the wisdom of those councils. You see you are not rejecting the wisdom of the other posters but of the councils themselves. The reason why is that basically no one, and certainly not me, has given you personal opinion on this matter but rather submitted faith that flows from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

So in rejecting that you are setting yourself up as sole arbiter whether you intend to or not.
I am sorry if you find this to be offensive or slanderous, but perhaps that is good you do because it will expose the difficulty of dilemma into which you have placed yourself.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

From a wiki entry on Lutheran Marian Theology:
“Lutherans believe that the person Jesus is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, who was incarnated in the womb of his mother Mary as a human being, and since, as a person, he was “born of the Virgin Mary”. Lutherans have always believed that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer. Martin Luther said:
he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child… Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God… None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”

Nicely posted.

Unfortunately, modern Protestants have “protested” themselves even further away from the Church to the degree that they no longer accept what the founders, Luther, Calvin and others, had to say.

 

[jrtrent]

I have to admit that this is one of those wranglings in the early church that I never saw the significance of. I’ll have to do more reading on the topic, but there is a short article that suggests that Christotokos was the earlier and accepted appellation while Theotokos was a later development.

“By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos,) was being referred to as the God-bearer, (theotokos.) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21st century.” contenderministries.org/Catholicism/marymother.php

I like the line about “at first this matter drew little attention.” I still see it as deserving little attention. Everyone seem to agree that Jesus is both God and man, and that He was born in time of the virgin Mary.

*8) Summary nestorian.org/nestorian_theology.html

Nestorius spoke of Christ as one person (prosopon) in two natures (physis), human and divine.

The Monophysites spoke of him as one person (hypostasis) and one nature (physis), both God and man.

Chalcedon referred to Christ as one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physis), in essence a compromise between the Nestorian and Monophysite positions.

The Nestorian bishops, in a statement drawn up in 612, stated: “There is a wonderful connection and indissoluble union between [Christ’s] human nature, which was assumed, and God the Word who assumed it, a union existing from the first moment of conception. This teaches us to recognize only one Person (parsopa), our Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten in the nature of his Godhead by the Father before all ages, without beginning, and born finally in the nature of his Manhood of the holy Virgin, the daughter of David.” *

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know its getting more and more difficult to rationalize the use of the term “Protestant”. I’m not sure how well this term serves anyone’s efforts here including many Protestants in mainline church’s.

 

[PRmerger]

Listen… I got it.

Jesus is God.
He was born of Mary.
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

Let me make it just as clear:
The Father was not born of Mary
The Father is God.
Therefore Mary is not the Mother of God

The above syllogism is fallacious because it depends in an equivocation - the meaning of the terms is not preserved. Specifically:

“Jesus is God” means “the man Jesus of Nazareth is a Divine Person”: “God” here stands for “God the Son”.

But in your syllogism, “God” stands for “God the Father” rather than the 2nd Person of the Godhead.

Each syllogism is valid separately, but together they are fallacious, because of the equivocal use of the word “God”.

 

[PRmerger]

I cannot fathom why using a particular formula (which can be done thoughtlessly) is more important than the content of a carefully considered doctrine. Previous posters have continually ignored the details of my confession in favor of a mantra.

Because the teachings of Christianity are a seamless garment. Loosing the thread of one teaching can lead to the loosing of the entire garment of Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Since when does the Catholic church assume a role of authority in my life?

You give tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from the New Testament, rc.

For the ONLY way that you know that, say, the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos is through the authority of the Catholic Church.

You would not know it any other way, but have deferred (tacitly) to her charism of infallibility to discern for you what is inspired revelation and what is not.

 

[rcjones]

And how did I lie about you? That is a serious accusation. I would appreciate it if would clarify how I had done so.

Lets see if I already explained it:

Hmmm… you combine two separate statements, one about the councils and one about the participants of this forum in order to lie about my position and then say you are not attacking me…

Do you see the problem with your thinking?

You said : Therefore to say we have no need to even consider the councils because they [the councils] strong arm us into confessions …

I said:
Previous posters have continually ignored the details of my confession in favor of a mantra. For them [previous posters], it is apparent, that a strong-armed confession [forced by the posters] is more important than a heart belief.

If you have a problem understanding something I have said, please ask me to clarify it rather than plowing ahead with false accusations. I never said that councils strong-armed anyone. The fact that everyone in this forum (except Fred) has twisted what I have said in order to make some accusation says to me that this forum was never intended for dialog but for ambush.

You people are so blindly ANTI-non-catholic that it is a lie to use ‘brethren’ in the title. I’ll return to forums where I have been welcomed. Good luck with your future ambushes.

 

[rcjones]

The above syllogism is fallacious because it depends in an equivocation - the meaning of the terms is not preserved. Specifically:

“Jesus is God” means “the man Jesus of Nazareth is a Divine Person”: “God” here stands for “God the Son”.

But in your syllogism, “God” stands for “God the Father” rather than the 2nd Person of the Godhead.

Each syllogism is valid separately, but together they are fallacious, because of the equivocal use of the word “God”.

Yes. Thank you. That’s why the term causes confusion as stated previously.

 

[rcjones]

Because the teachings of Christianity are a seamless garment. Loosing the thread of one teaching can lead to the loosing of the entire garment of Christianity.

My God is bigger than yours. He said he would preserve his word and guide us in all truth. I do not believe that one person misunderstanding one doctrine makes all Christianity fall apart. If it were so fragile, then terms should be used that do not cause confusion as you have pointed out in the syllogism. The same word should have the same meaning everywhere it is used to prevent such misunderstandings.

“Mother of God” is not clear because it can be mistaken to be “Mother of the First Person of the Trinity” as you have pointed out in the false syllogism.

“Mother of the Second person of the Trinity” is not clear because it could be mistaken to mean that Mary preceded the second person of the Trinity.

My formula “Mother of the incarnate form of the Second person of the Trinity” is clear on all counts. Thank you. So what is the real reason for trying to force me into using a less clear mantra?