Why won't Protestants call Mary "Mother of God"

[mercygate]

Singinbeauty:

Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. She did not pass anything on to Jesus.

Zooey and Axion have both addressed this very well, :tiphat: so I’ll pass on this one.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Check that quote: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb 13:8) The “Christ” part is critical. Was Jesus incarnate before the Incarnation?

She was a way for God to get Jesus onto this earth the same way the rest of us have. If she had said no God would have had someone else that He would have gone to. But Mary did not say no and I thank her for that.

Well, not to put too fine a point on the first part of this statement, the fact that you are grateful to Our Lady puts you ahead of the pack in many ways! And I am sure her son thanks you in return!

Are you saying that God cannot do something??? Through God ANYTHING is possible.

Actually, there are things God cannot do. He cannot stop being God. He cannot step outside of his own will. He cannot be evil . . .

He could have planted Jesus on this earth without a mother… or do you not believe that Adam got here on this earth this way? Adam had no mother… So he was a counterfeit human?

“Jesus” without a mother would have been something other than the Son of God Incarnate; it would not have been Jesus, Son of God, Son of Mary. The incarnation is necessary to the point you make about Adam. Only God could save mankind from Adam’s great offense against Himself; yet a human being had to redeem the sin because a human being committed it. Here is how Peter Chrysologus views the relationship between Jesus and Adam:

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.” (Sermo 117)

 

[Mickey]

roadrunner570:

Sorry, I have a day job.

Me too! :clapping:

roadrunner570:

most protestants that I know do not go by every single teaching every early protestant came up with

But all adhere to the man-made false doctrine of sola Scriptura.

roadrunner570:

Thats why we read and study the Bible on our own. That is the understanding I’ve come up with…

Catholics, Orthodox, and many protestants, understand and accept the 1600 year teaching of Mary as “The Mother of God”. Nestorianism was defeated and the hypostatic union was confirmed. Yet you have read the Bible and decided on your own (with some “guidance” from your pastors), that this teaching is wrong! Go figure.

And whence is this to me that the **mother of my Lord **should come to me? Luke 1:43

 

[linus]

Axion:

She is Jesus true mother. This is how Jesus is a descendant of Adam and of David.

It is true Jesus is a descendant of David but, strictly speaking, He is not a desecendant of Adam. If He was He would have been born with original sin (Rom. 5:12). This is the reason for the virgin birth. Jesus is, in fact, another “Adam.” You might say, “grafted” on to the old by the virgin birth, but not physically “descended” from the old. Through the virgin birth He takes on humanity, but not the sin of humanity, which every man, naturally born into this world, inherits from Adam.

Again, you seem very confused about this. How can Mary give birth to Jesus but not God - if Jesus is God? There are not two Jesuses, one who is God and one who isn’t!

She gave birth to the Theanthropic Man, the God-man, Jesus Christ. One Person with two natures. One nature fully man, one nature fully God. But the human did not become divine, nor the divine human = the hypostatic union. Otherwise He would have been born some kind of hybrid in respect to His humanity. If the Divine (nature) was at all communicated to the human (nature), then the human, as such, would have ceased to exist. That’s the mystery of the hypostatic union. Jesus is ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES.

This is why the term “*Mother of God,” * theologically speaking, is totally inefficient. Mary was the vessel whom the Holy Spirit chose to provide His humanity (human nature), but He was from all eternity, God. Yes, she gave birth to the Messiah: Christokos = “Messiah bearer,” but this Messiah was both FULLY man and FULLY God. And was Himself another “Adam” through Whom a whole new humanity would exist (be *“born again”) * through faith in Him. Mary included.

 

[Mickey]

Singinbeauty:

If she had said no God would have had someone else that He would have gone to.

I’ve seen this comment by protestants many times. It is a way to trivialize the Mother of God, by speculating that God would have chosen another woman if Mary had said “no”. I call it the “IF” argument.

 

[Lukelion]

Linus

It is true Jesus is a descendant of David but, strictly speaking, **He is not a ** desecendant of Adam. If He was He would have been born with original sin (Rom. 5:12).

Check out Luke 3 listing the genealogy of Jesus. Verse 38 "son of Enos, son of Seth, son of ADAM , son of GOD
Lukelion

 

[Lukelion]

The whole reason for listing all of Jesus’s linage was to show how human Jesus really was.
Lukelion

 

[bookgirl]

Lukelion:

Linus

Check out Luke 3 listing the genealogy of Jesus. Verse 38 "son of Enos, son of Seth, son of ADAM , son of GOD
Lukelion

Thank you, very much:yup: .

Also, I thought that the purpose of the virgin birth was so that God could be the father???

 

[Mickey]

linus:

This is why the term “*Mother of God,” *theologically speaking, is totally inefficient. Mary was the vessel whom the Holy Spirit chose to provide His humanity (human nature),

For the umpteenth time–Mary gave birth to God the son–fully human and fully divine. She did not give birth to a nature. She is the Mother of God. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? :banghead:

 

[Singinbeauty]

Mickey:

For the umpteenth time–Mary gave birth to God the son–fully human and fully divine. She did not give birth to a nature. She is the Mother of God. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? :banghead:

I understand your frustration… I really do. And after some serious thinking, pondering, and prayer I think it all boils down to, at least when it comes to me, I would more accept it if she had the title of 'Mother of God the Son rather than ‘Mother of God’. When it comes to the Holy Trinity it is a paradox for the human mind. How can God be three distinct persons yet be one? In my mind she gave birth to God on earth. To say that she is Mother of God is saying, and this is in MY mind, that she is the mother of God as a whole. But she isn’t. It’s a paradox to say the least.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Singinbeauty:

I understand your frustration… I really do. And after some serious thinking, pondering, and prayer I think it all boils down to, at least when it comes to me, I would more accept it if she had the title of 'Mother of God the Son rather than ‘Mother of God’. When it comes to the Holy Trinity it is a paradox for the human mind. How can God be three distinct persons yet be one? In my mind she gave birth to God on earth. To say that she is Mother of God is saying, and this is in MY mind, that she is the mother of God as a whole. But she isn’t. It’s a paradox to say the least.

Be glad that she doesn’t have the title “Mother of the Trinity.”

 

[Mickey]

Singinbeauty:

I understand your frustration… I really do. And after some serious thinking, pondering, and prayer I think it all boils down to, at least when it comes to me, I would more accept it if she had the title of 'Mother of God the Son rather than ‘Mother of God’. When it comes to the Holy Trinity it is a paradox for the human mind. How can God be three distinct persons yet be one? In my mind she gave birth to God on earth. To say that she is Mother of God is saying, and this is in MY mind, that she is the mother of God as a whole. But she isn’t. It’s a paradox to say the least.

Yes. You are not the first to struggle with this concept. You should read some of the discussions amonst the bishops at the ecumenical councils.

St Gregory of Sanai states it as such:

**God is known and understood in everything in three hypostases. He holds all things and provides for all things through His Son in the Holy Spirit; and no one of Them, wherever He is invoked, is named or thought of as existing apart or separately from the two others. **

 

[E.E.N.S]

Mary is also OUR Mother…

“This one and that one were born in her.” According to the explanation of some of the Fathers, the first man born of Mary is the God-man, Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ, the head of mankind, is born of her, the predestinate, who are members of this head, must also as a necessary consequence be born of her. One and the same mother does not give birth to the head without the members nor to the members without the head, for these would be monsters in the order of nature. In the order of grace likewise the head and the members are born of the same mother. If a member of the mystical body of Christ, that is, one of the predestinate, were born of a mother other than Mary who gave birth to the head, he would not be one of the predestinate, nor a member of Jesus Christ, but a monster in the order of grace.

 

[roadrunner570]

Okay, here is the million dollar question, why is this such an issue? Where in the Bible does it say:

THOU SHALT CALL MARY “MOTHER OF GOD” or even give the impression that is a requirement? There are plenty of passages reinforcing Jesus’ divinity and commanding us to call him Lord, but I see nothing saying we must call Mary the mother of God. So why is this such an awful thing if we don’t?

 

[roadrunner570]

Mickey:

Yet you have read the Bible and decided on your own (with some “guidance” from your pastors), that this teaching is wrong! Go figure.

And whence is this to me that the **mother of my Lord **should come to me? Luke 1:43

Why do you assume that a pastor told me this? I don’t recall ever having said any such thing. I read the Bible and the Holy Spirit helps me understand it. If my pastor or any pastor tells me something that opposes what I know the Bible says, then he’s wrong. Period.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

Okay, here is the million dollar question, why is this such an issue? Where in the Bible does it say:

THOU SHALT CALL MARY “MOTHER OF GOD” or even give the impression that is a requirement? There are plenty of passages reinforcing Jesus’ divinity and commanding us to call him Lord, but I see nothing saying we must call Mary the mother of God. So why is this such an awful thing if we don’t?

It is a big issue because it touches the Doctrine of God. I think you came in late on this thread, so maybe you missed the point that this title refers more to the Person of Christ than to Mary.

Regarding the doctrine of God, the first and great Commandment is to love the Lord with all our heart and mind and strength.

Love with our mind.

Since we are called to worship God, and God alone, “in spirit and truth,” it is therefore a very big “issue” that we attempt to understand these things to the best of our ability.

 

[E.E.N.S]

roadrunner570:

Okay, here is the million dollar question, why is this such an issue? Where in the Bible does it say:

THOU SHALT CALL MARY “MOTHER OF GOD” or even give the impression that is a requirement? There are plenty of passages reinforcing Jesus’ divinity and commanding us to call him Lord, but I see nothing saying we must call Mary the mother of God. So why is this such an awful thing if we don’t?

This title came in defense against an awful heresy against Our Lord…are you saying that we should just drop the title? This title not only honors Mary (which we are called to do - 4th commandment), but it honors Jesus as well.

 

[linus]

Mickey:

For the umpteenth time–Mary gave birth to God the son–fully human and fully divine. She did not give birth to a nature. She is the Mother of God. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? :banghead:

It would be far more accurate to say she gave birth to the PERSON Christ who is both fully human and Divine. The title “theotokos” (“God” bearer) does not adequately express this.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

It is a big issue because it touches the Doctrine of God. I think you came in late on this thread, so maybe you missed the point that this title refers more to the Person of Christ than to Mary.

Regarding the doctrine of God, the first and great Commandment is to love the Lord with all our heart and mind and strength.

Love with our mind.

Since we are called to worship God, and God alone, “in spirit and truth,” it is therefore a very big “issue” that we attempt to understand these things to the best of our ability.

Well, I do worship God with all my heart, mind and soul…I throw myself at the feet of Jesus every day and have devoted my life to doing his work. While I have a great amount of respect and admiration for Mary, I just don’t see the need to call her Mother of God. Scripture says calling Jesus Lord and Saviour is enough and he is that and much more.

I just don’t see a reason for division on this issue.

 

[linus]

Mickey:

NOT MUCH!?! IT’S THE DIVINELY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!

We’re talking in the context of quantity, not quality.

 

[roadrunner570]

E.E.N.S.:

This title came in defense against an awful heresy against Our Lord…are you saying that we should just drop the title? This title not only honors Mary (which we are called to do - 4th commandment), but it honors Jesus as well.

I’m saying that why is it heresy for someone to NOT call her that. Like I said many times on here, the OP was asking WHY protestants don’t call her mother of God. I think this has been answered more than sufficiently. And like I said above, I don’t think it needs to be a point of division.