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

[linus]

Zooey:

You might start with “the Ark of the Covenant”, & go on from there.

Oh, you can find many RC articles written on Mary being the A of the N. C., which might take you “hours” to read, but you won’t find in Scripture that spiritualized interpretation taught by Paul, or Peter, or any of the N.T. writers. I wasn’t talking about “articles,” Zooie, but real, genuine Holy Spirit inspired Scrpture. Though you may be a speed reader you seem to have a hard time comprehending my posts.

My dear man, you might be Nestorius!! If you do not quote him word for word, at times, I will miss my guess…Again: You need to find out just what it was that Nestorius both believed & taught. I have followed this thread from the beginning. You are a Nestorian; not what you want to hear, but, sadly, true.

Wrong again, my dear!!! If I said Jesus was two “Persons,” then I’d be “Nestorian” in my Christology. But my Christology parallels that which was laid down by the Council of Constantinople. Go back and read my posts, but this time, “mas despacio, por favor” (more slowly, please); especially the one where I cover that Council. Constantinople covered the Christological issue far more assiduously than the Council at Ephesus, held 20 years prior (which was more political than theological). At the latter Council the two “natures” of Christ were elaborated on and expatiated.

The truth is, Zooey, you need to understand the historic controversy before you falsely brand people as heretics and wickedly accuse them of being motived by personal “prejudice.” Naughty, naughty!!!

 

[linus]

Zooey:

Yoohoo!!! I’m over here!!! Happy to make your acquaintance…Zooey, Methodist at your service!! “Mary is the Mother of God.” (says I, panting from the jumping & waving).

Zooey, does the Methodist Denomination officially refer to Mary by the title “Mother of God?” Do you find that appellation being employed in their statement of faith and higher echelon of that Denomination? You embrace it, but does the Denomination?

I come from a VERY long family history of Roman Catholicism, being of both Irish and Polish extract. In fact, I and my mother are the only ones in my immediate family (father, brothers and sisters) that are no longer Catholic. My mother was first “born again” and shared the gospel (good news) message of forgiveness of sins and the free gifts of righteousness and eternal through faith in Christ alone with our family. Subsequently, I too believed and was regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Since then I have delved heavily into Biblical and Theological studies (formally and informally), attended various Protestant churches, and have yet to come across the practice of calling Mary by the title “Mother of God” in any of them. They have absolutely no problem with the initial intent of the Council, as an attempt to stress the Divinity of the Messiah she bore, but do not, as you, embrace the title. Because of the history of the various Marian doctrines allowed to developement around that title, many believe the intent of the Council has been entirely obscured. The focus of the title no longer on Christ, but Mary.

Zooey, you call yourself a Methodist and like to put up a flag to draw attention to it. But, by what we’ve discussed here on this thread, you’re far more (if not totally) Catholic in your sentiments and beliefs than “Protestant.” In other words, you seem to be saying, “I’m with you guys, but I won’t join you.” I’ll ask again, what’s holding you back from actually converting? You’ve obviously left your Denomination theologically, spiritually and emotionally. Why not the next step??? What (or who) are you afraid of???

 

[E.E.N.S]

roadrunner570:

I just don’t see the need to call her Mother of God…

The reason has been giving, the title came out of defense of Jesus’ very nature.

roadrunner570:

Scripture says calling Jesus Lord and Saviour is enough and he is that and much more…

Where does it say this? If it was so perfectly clear about His nature, then why the heresies in the first place?

roadrunner570:

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

No need for division, about 1600 years ago this was settled, and it is still true to this day, and will always be as it always has.

 

[roadrunner570]

E.E.N.S.:

The reason has been giving, the title came out of defense of Jesus’ very nature. Where does it say this? If it was so perfectly clear about His nature, then why the heresies in the first place?

No need for division, about 1600 years ago this was settled, and it is still true to this day, and will always be as it always has.

Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Why is it, whenever I try to agree to disagree or find some common ground, someone wants to keep re-treading things to keep an argument going?

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

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.

There is no division about this between Catholics and theologically trained Protestants. Read Zooey-the-Methodist’s posts on this long thread. “Mother of God” is a title that none of the Reformers or their followers to this day reject.

The title is rejected by those who have never studied the history of theology, most particularly the Nestorian heresy. Now, you may think that some old 5th century heresy doesn’t matter any more, but it is a very destructive belief that emerges afresh every six weeks and wreaks all kinds of havoc regarding the Incarnation.

It’s late and I’m getting cranky, but a statement such as “I don’t see the need . . .” is nothing more than a personal a reaction. It is not an idea, nor is it any kind of thought, and it does not illuminate the present subject. None of this is about "what I think." This is about what is true, not about whether I think it’s true or I want it to be true or whether I like it or I don’t like it.

I apologize if you are young. Youth gets indulgences.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

There is no division about this between Catholics and theologically trained Protestants. Read Zooey-the-Methodist’s posts on this long thread. “Mother of God” is a title that none of the Reformers or their followers to this day reject.

The title is rejected by those who have never studied the history of theology, most particularly the Nestorian heresy. Now, you may think that some old 5th century heresy doesn’t matter any more, but it is a very destructive belief that emerges afresh every six weeks and wreaks all kinds of havoc regarding the Incarnation.

It’s late and I’m getting cranky, but a statement such as “I don’t see the need . . .” is nothing more than a personal a reaction. It is not an idea, nor is it any kind of thought, and it does not illuminate the present subject. None of this is about "what I think." This is about what is true, not about whether I think it’s true or I want it to be true or whether I like it or I don’t like it.

I apologize if you are young. Youth gets indulgences.

Why such hostility? And I"m 31 and a Bible student btw, if that matters. I didn’t know I was going to need to post my age and credentials.

I think I am finished with this discussion. I’m trying to be civil and even agree to disagree on points, but people seem to want to get personal and continue to argue.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

Why such hostility? And I"m 31 and a Bible student btw, if that matters. I didn’t know I was going to need to post my age and credentials.

I think I am finished with this discussion. I’m trying to be civil and even agree to disagree on points, but people seem to want to get personal and continue to argue.

Roadrunner, I do sincerely apologize. Testiness is never excusable.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

Roadrunner, I do sincerely apologize. Testiness is never excusable.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[linus]

Lukelion:

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

Check out how the geneology begins in Luke 3:23: “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly (lit. Gr., as being thought) the son of JOSEPH, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi…”

Jesus is given the geneaology of Joseph because he (Joseph) is His legal, adopted, earthly father. Jesus has legal right to Joseph’s, human and Royal genealogy (Joseph being in the Royal, Davidic line). But He was not “born” of Joseph, i.e., of the “seed” of Joseph, who is of the “seed” of Adam (as shown in the geneaological list). According to the prophecy waaaaay back in Gen. 3:15, the Messiah, the Redeemer of the world would be of the “seed” of the woman (the earliest reference to the virgin birth); bypassing the “seed” of the man, Adam, altogether; thus avoiding original sin. Which is the whole purpose of the virgin birth.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

Thank you. Apology accepted.

You da man! You are young, and you DO get indulgences! D’ya like chocolate?

 

[E.E.N.S]

roadrunner570:

Ro 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Why is it, whenever I try to agree to disagree or find some common ground, someone wants to keep re-treading things to keep an argument going?

To confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord, (ver. 13.) is not barely the professing of a belief in the person of Christ: but moreover implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which the calling of him Lord will save no man. (St. Matthew vii. 21.) (Challoner) — This passage must be understood like many others of this apostle, of a faith accompanied by a good-will ready to perform what faith says must be practised; as it is required in this very place, that what we believe in the heart, we should confess with our mouth.

Just professing that Jesus is Lord is not enough, Christ Himself tells us that we must keep the commandments, and that we must pick up our crosses and follow in His footsteps, etc. etc. etc.

This is off topic, but using this one verse out of context does not say that confessing Jesus is simply enough, nor does this verse satisfy the problems that come from defining Jesus’ nature.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

You da man! You are young, and you DO get indulgences! D’ya like chocolate?

huh??

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

huh??

It was supposed to be a joke. Chocolate – indulgence?? Told you I was tired.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

It was supposed to be a joke. Chocolate – indulgence?? Told you I was tired.

oh LOL…I’m a little slow tonight.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

oh LOL…I’m a little slow tonight.

Waiter! bring that man a double mocha cappucino with chocolate shavings: on me! :tiphat:

 

[Axion]

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). 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.

This is totally incorrect. I have no idea where you got this from, but it is some form of Gnosticism, not Christianity!

Jesus is a physical descendant of David and of Adam. If He were not He is a **counterfeit ** human - and incapable of saving us! That is to deny the reality of the Incarnation. If Jesus is not fully God, His sacrifice cannot pay the price for the sins of the world. But if Jesus was not fully man, descended from Adam, then His sacrifice would not be atonement for the sins of men. Scripture several times shows Jesus physical descent from Adam and David.

As for Jesus not inheriting Original Sin, this was one reason why Mary needed to be made sinless - so she would not pass sinful flesh to Jesus.

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.

Christotokos was the form invented by Nestorius to replace Theotokos (Mother of God). Christotokos (Mother of Christ) was rejected by the ancient Church as too vague a term to define the deity and humanity of Christ. Basically, it can mean anything.

 

[Axion]

linus:

Zooey, does the Methodist Denomination officially refer to Mary by the title “Mother of God?” Do you find that appellation being employed in their statement of faith and higher echelon of that Denomination? You embrace it, but does the Denomination?

All mainstream Christian denominations, including the protestant ones, accept the decisions of the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, which defined the nature of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the title of Mary. Mother of God. If you reject these things, you place yourself outside the bounds of recognised Christianity.

I have delved heavily into Biblical and Theological studies (formally and informally), attended various Protestant churches, and have yet to come across the practice of calling Mary by the title “Mother of God” in any of them. They have absolutely no problem with the initial intent of the Council, as an attempt to stress the Divinity of the Messiah she bore, but do not, as you, embrace the title. Because of the history of the various Marian doctrines allowed to developement around that title, many believe the intent of the Council has been entirely obscured. The focus of the title no longer on Christ, but Mary.

Whether they say it or not, they accept the title, because it is an intrinsic part of the decisions of the Councils. A lot of pastors just try to gloss over it.

From the Lutheran Book of Concord. VIII

23] On account of this personal union and communion of the divine and the human nature in Christ we believe, teach, and confess also, according to our simple Christian faith, what is said concerning the majesty of Christ according to His humanity, [by which He sits] at the right hand of the almighty power of God, and what is connected therewith [follows therefrom]; all of which would be naught and could not stand if this personal union and communion of the natures in the person of Christ did not exist realiter, that is, in deed and truth.

24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Oh, you can find many RC articles written on Mary being the A of the N. C., which might take you “hours” to read, but you won’t find in Scripture that spiritualized interpretation taught by Paul, or Peter, or any of the N.T. writers. I wasn’t talking about “articles,” Zooie, but real, genuine Holy Spirit inspired Scrpture.

Ah, I see; we are to reject the Old Testament, then? But, that won’t do, it simply won’t do. We are not allowed to jettison pieces of the Bible in order to come up with something we like.(Though, God knows, enough people have tried it; the line stretches from Marcion to Luther & apparently beyond.)

Though you may be a speed reader you seem to have a hard time comprehending my posts.

Au contraire; I comprehend them only all too well.

Wrong again, my dear!!! If I said Jesus was two “Persons,” then I’d be “Nestorian” in my Christology. But my Christology parallels that which was laid down by the Council of Constantinople. Go back and read my posts, but this time, “mas despacio, por favor” (more slowly, please); especially the one where I cover that Council. Constantinople covered the Christological issue far more assiduously than the Council at Ephesus, held 20 years prior (which was more political than theological). At the latter Council the two “natures” of Christ were elaborated on and expatiated.

Dear Linus,
I believe that you really believe that you are speaking orthodox Christian thought. You are not. Like it or no, you have drifted upon the shoals of heresy.
Re-read the posts yourself; it is still possible to open your eyes to truth, not fancy.
You have, in point of fact, made your way into the camp of the late Nestorius.
Sincerely, Z.

The truth is, Zooey, you need to understand the historic controversy before you falsely brand people as heretics and wickedly accuse them of being motived by personal “prejudice.”

There is an historic principle in American jurisprudence, which we brought across the water with us from our former colonizers. It is this: Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
There is nothing “wicked” nor “false” about calling you Nestorian, Linus, because you are Nestorian.
Your anger at the Mother of God has made you abandon logic & orthodoxy; you have voted with your feet, Linus, & made your way onto a slippery slope. I can only hope & pray that you recover yourself in time, to avoid doing yourself spiritual harm of a drastic sort.

Naughty, naughty!!!

Nay, sir; honest; honest. And plain-spoken to boot.

 

[Zooey]

E.E.N.S.:

To confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord, (ver. 13.) is not barely the professing of a belief in the person of Christ: but moreover implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which the calling of him Lord will save no man. (St. Matthew vii. 21.) (Challoner) — This passage must be understood like many others of this apostle, of a faith accompanied by a good-will ready to perform what faith says must be practised; as it is required in this very place, that what we believe in the heart, we should confess with our mouth.

Just professing that Jesus is Lord is not enough, Christ Himself tells us that we must keep the commandments, and that we must pick up our crosses and follow in His footsteps, etc. etc. etc.

This is off topic, but using this one verse out of context does not say that confessing Jesus is simply enough, nor does this verse satisfy the problems that come from defining Jesus’ nature.

May I here demonstrate an old-fashioned Methodist custom? I shall–may it please you–assume your consent:

and !!!

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Check out how the geneology begins in Luke 3:23: “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly (lit. Gr., as being thought) the son of JOSEPH, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi…”

Jesus is given the geneaology of Joseph because he (Joseph) is His legal, adopted, earthly father. Jesus has legal right to Joseph’s, human and Royal genealogy (Joseph being in the Royal, Davidic line). But He was not “born” of Joseph, i.e., of the “seed” of Joseph, who is of the “seed” of Adam (as shown in the geneaological list). According to the prophecy waaaaay back in Gen. 3:15, the Messiah, the Redeemer of the world would be of the “seed” of the woman (the earliest reference to the virgin birth); bypassing the “seed” of the man, Adam, altogether; thus avoiding original sin. Which is the whole purpose of the virgin birth.

http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/7.gifGaaaacccckk!!!http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/7.gif
Now you’ve gone back to thehttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/25.gif Gnostics!!

Furthermore, the Lucan geneology is NOT Joseph’s in any case; that appears in Matthew, to establish for Jewish Christians the legality of Jesus’ claim to the throne. Luke records the geneology of Mary.
Joseph’s claim to the throne was vitiated by his descent from Jeconiah/Conias whom God, (through the prophet Jeremiah,) removed from the divine plan for the descent of the Davidic kingdom.
Mary’s pure bloodline appears in Luke. It is a testament to the fact that :nope: no ordinary human had the right to the Throne of David. The only possible Successor was Jesus Christ Himself; He gained that right by His birth as the Son of Mary. It was she, & only she, whose Son had the Divinely Decreed Right to be the King of the Jews.