Why do so many non-Catholics/Orthodox deny Christ's Divinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lilyflower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lilyflower

Guest
I do not understand why it is that so many non-Catholics & non- Orthodox believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.

It appears that lots of Protestants deny Jesus Christ is Lord.

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace.
 
So if I do not refer to her as the Mother of God, I do not think he is divine?
So you think I need to publically denounce his divinity?
 
That’s really a misleading and uncharitable characterization of the issue. When we break down the statements, we find that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the facts, but that the exact semantics used are somewhat charged. So first of all, what we all agree on.

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

Ok, so at first glance “Mary is the Mother of God” seems to follow directly from the above statements, and in a sense that is true: that Mary bore and raised Jesus. However, the title “Mother of God” gets a little more complicated than that. If Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, is Mary the Mother of the Father? How about the Holy Spirit? There’s also the fact that motherhood generally implies creation, which is normally the case, but in the case of Jesus, He was not simply created in the womb, but has existed eternally. (I’m not entirely sure I’ve described this well, but we all agree that Jesus existed prior to His conception and birth, don’t we?)

All of these complications and the imprecision of the simple statement “Mary is the Mother of God” account for why Protestants tend to shy away from the title. It’s certainly true in one sense, but the proposition is very vague and prone to misinterpretation.
 
Lilyflower said:
I do not understand why it is that so many non-Catholics & non- Orthodox believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.

It appears that lots of Protestants deny Jesus Christ is Lord.

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace.
Click to expand...
Lilyflower,
I don’t have figures to back me up, but I think you would find that most protestants do believe in the divinity of Christ. Most use a Trinitarian form for Baptism (one can’t believe in the Trinity without the divinity of Christ), and a significant number recognize the three creeds as valid statements of faith.

I honestly don’t know how many would deny Mary as Theotokos.
I know Lutherans and Anglicans certainly don’t deny it, and I suspect many more don’t either.

I might be wrong, but I think you are overstating this.
Jon
 
a_mirror_dimly said:
That’s really a misleading and uncharitable characterization of the issue. When we break down the statements, we find that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the facts, but that the exact semantics used are somewhat charged. So first of all, what we all agree on.

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

Ok, so at first glance “Mary is the Mother of God” seems to follow directly from the above statements, and in a sense that is true: that Mary bore and raised Jesus. However, the title “Mother of God” gets a little more complicated than that. If Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, is Mary the Mother of the Father? How about the Holy Spirit? There’s also the fact that motherhood generally implies creation, which is normally the case, but in the case of Jesus, He was not simply created in the womb, but has existed eternally. (I’m not entirely sure I’ve described this well, but we all agree that Jesus existed prior to His conception and birth, don’t we?)

All of these complications and the imprecision of the simple statement “Mary is the Mother of God” account for why Protestants tend to shy away from the title. It’s certainly true in one sense, but the proposition is very vague and prone to misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
No, you’ve described it very well. The term “Mother of God” arose in response to specific heresies denying that Jesus was God. Taken out of its historical context (which is one of the largest sources of contention between Catholics and Protestants… things being removed from their place in history and Tradition), “Mother of God” sounds like it puts Mary at or above the level of God.

I agree that it was a “misleading and uncharitable characterization of the issue.” Perhaps it would be better worded as, “Since Protestants believe that Jesus is God, how can they deny Mary is Mother of God?” (and, of course, you’ve already supplied the answer).
 
Lilyflower said:
I do not understand why it is that so many non-Catholics & non- Orthodox believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.

It appears that lots of Protestants deny Jesus Christ is Lord.

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace.
Click to expand...
More pointed arguments to prove something that cannot be proven. Your assertion here is absurd.
 
I think that Lily has an honest and genuine question that she has taken to an extreme. Do not be so hard on her. I feel that her intent was honest.

The issue, as has been pointed out, is that they do not deny the divinity. It is with the terminology taken to the highest level. Catholics say Mother of God and leave it as such. Those who question that language take it to mean “mother of God and she who preceded God” or whatever. Muslims are guilty of that as well.

The Title Mother of God says more about her Son than about her. Many non-Catholics do not see it as such. Now, part of that is a fear of all things Catholic. Part of it is a fear of placing too much importance on the BVM.

Please, be kind to each other on here. I am back to being the Charity police, and I am not afraid to call someone on it.
 
ralphinal said:
I think that Lily has an honest and genuine question that she has taken to an extreme. Do not be so hard on her. I feel that her intent was honest.

The issue, as has been pointed out, is that they do not deny the divinity. It is with the terminology taken to the highest level. Catholics say Mother of God and leave it as such. Those who question that language take it to mean “mother of God and she who preceded God” or whatever. Muslims are guilty of that as well.

The Title Mother of God says more about her Son than about her. Many non-Catholics do not see it as such. Now, part of that is a fear of all things Catholic. Part of it is a fear of placing too much importance on the BVM.

Please, be kind to each other on here. I am back to being the Charity police, and I am not afraid to call someone on it.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. My problem with the title is that it implies God’s beginning with Mary, does it not? Jesus didn’t begin with Mary technically either. Jesus said that before Abraham, “I Am”. Let’s be clear here. Mary was a vessel for Jesus to become incarnate as God made flesh (the second person of the Trinity), the Saviour of the world. Purpose driven is the whole idea here.
 
SIA said:
Point well taken. My problem with the title is that it implies God’s beginning with Mary, does it not? Jesus didn’t begin with Mary technically either. Jesus said that before Abraham, “I Am”. Let’s be clear here. Mary was a vessel for Jesus to become incarnate as God made flesh (the second person of the Trinity), the Saviour of the world. Purpose driven is the whole idea here.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it implies God’s beginning with Mary, SIA. We all know that “In the beginning was the Word…” I really think that Ralphinal was right
[Now, part of that is a fear of all things Catholic./QUOTE] At least for some of this.
Click to expand...
But overall, I think this is somewhat a non-issue. Some protestants are more comfortable, for whatever reason, with mother of Jesus. Some of us, Theotokos, God-bearer, Mother of God. So long as “mother of Jesus” is not an attempt to deny his divinity, seems ok to me.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
 
Lilyflower said:
I do not understand why it is that so many non-Catholics & non- Orthodox believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.
Click to expand...
Lilyflower…can you expound on this?

The only non-Catholics that I know of that do not accept Christ’s divinity are the Jews, and of course non-believers…and the JW’s.
It appears that lots of Protestants deny Jesus Christ is Lord.
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t say that I have ever heard a Christian say that.
To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God
Click to expand...
Yes.
To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Again yes, and denying the truth is to deny God.
Blessings and peace.
Click to expand...
And with you also!!

Lily, here in the US…the most common phrase that is seen on Church signs of Christian denominations are these words: Jesus is Lord, or Christ is Lord. These are seen on "mainstream Christian Church signs and they are countless in number. You even see it on full sized roadside billboards.
 
So if I do not refer to her as the Mother of God, I do not think he is divine?

**Exactly!

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Eizabeth called Mary “Mother of my Lord”–in effect, Mother of YHVH.

And who is Lord but God?**
 
SIA said:
My problem with the title is that it implies God’s beginning with Mary, does it not?
Click to expand...
This seems to be the recurring problem with it, but it’s really not why the term came into usage, or what it currently means. From my understanding, it shows:
  1. That the child of Mary is God. By affirming Mary as “Mother of God,” we are without reservation acknowledging Jesus as fully God, not simply Divine. On occasion, people will say, “Mary’s not the Mother of God, she’s just the Mother of Jesus.” That person is misunderstanding Jesus’ place as God, and as equal to (though subservient to) God the Father.
  2. How incredibly Blessed Mary is. I mean, getting to choose your own mom is pretty unusual: God not only had His pick of all the women through all creation and time, but He’s the Creator… so He didn’t just pick her: He specially made her. I’ve heard many Protestants claim simply that Mary was “just a vessel” for Jesus, which is like calling the Ark “just a box” for the Ten Commandments and manna [Mark Shea describes this as viewing her as “a mere incubation unit, completely interchangeable with any other woman on earth”]. The term draws our attention to the fact that Mary was created with the purpose of being the person who taught Jesus how to live as a boy in 1st century Israel, an enormous task (and honor). She was with Him at His birth, and at His death, and huge intervals in between. To ignore her, simply because she wasn’t into writing epistles, is to deprive ourselves of the person who knew (and knows) Christ best.
 
A human soul does not exist prior to conception, so my mother preceeds me. However, Jesus did exist prior, so Mary cannot and did not exist before her Son. It is a part of the paradox of the Incarnation.
 
ralphinal said:
A human soul does not exist prior to conception, so my mother preceeds me. However, Jesus did exist prior, so Mary cannot and did not exist before her Son. It is a part of the paradox of the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that it is well explained here?

The Athanasian Creed
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Personally, I find that Creed a little dificult to understand but very good at covering the Trinity. I wish it were more well known in Christian circles.
 
ralphinal said:
Personally, I find that Creed a little dificult to understand but very good at covering the Trinity. I wish it were more well known in Christian circles.
Click to expand...
Sadly, we only use it once a year in church. I agree it should be used more and explained better.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top