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

[mercygate]

THEOPHILUS†:

You mean about the Council at Ephesus? Well, I know about it. But that doesn’t answer my question: Why do you HAVE to call Mary “mother of God”? Don’t you believe that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

†

“Theotokos,” God-bearer (later afffirmed at Constantinople to mean “Mother of God”), defends against the Arian position.

It seems to be something of a surprise to you that Protestants (even anti-Catholic Protestants) affirm this title for Mary, and you appear to be reacting against it out of habit.

Honest. Accepting this doctrine means only that you affirm that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Don’t worry, we’re not going to mail you a rosary . . .

 

[THEOPHILUS]

“Theotokos,” God-bearer (later afffirmed at Constantinople to mean “Mother of God”), defends against the Arian position.

It seems to be something of a surprise to you that Protestants (even anti-Catholic Protestants) affirm this title for Mary, and you appear to be reacting against it out of habit.

Honest. Accepting this doctrine means only that you affirm that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Don’t worry, we’re not going to mail you a rosary . . .

The Arian position can be opposed by the BIBLICAL doctrine. Read John 1:1, 14. Simple.

Philosophy is not the way to answer Arians.

God doesn’t have a mother. You don’t need to make Him have one just for the sake of defending against the Arian position that is ALREADY refuted.

By the way: what do I have to do with Protestants? You don’t stop reminding me of Protestants…

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Sherlock]

THEOPHILUS†:

God doesn’t have a mother. You don’t need to make Him have one just for the sake of defending against the Arian position that is ALREADY refuted

THEOPHILUS†

When you get Mary wrong, you end up getting Jesus wrong. You say that God doesn’t have a mother: are you saying, then, that Jesus wasn’t God?

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Sherlock:

When you get Mary wrong, you end up getting Jesus wrong. You say that God doesn’t have a mother: are you saying, then, that Jesus wasn’t God?

The opposite: when you don’t get Jesus right, you don’t get Mary right.

Jesus was and IS God. But God is not Jesus alone. That’s why Jesus could pray when He was on earth. To whom did Jesus pray? To Himself?

THEOPHILUS†

 

[mercygate]

THEOPHILUS†:

The Arian position can be opposed by the BIBLICAL doctrine. Read John 1:1, 14. Simple.

Philosophy is not the way to answer Arians.

God doesn’t have a mother. You don’t need to make Him have one just for the sake of defending against the Arian position that is ALREADY refuted.

By the way: what do I have to do with Protestants? You don’t stop reminding me of Protestants…

THEOPHILUS†

Sorry about the Protestant thing; it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that one who rejects the title “Mother of God” is a Protestant because virtually all who deny Mary this title are Protestants who lack complete understanding of the Chalcedonian definition – usually through no fault of their own because it is complex.

Your profile says you are “Christian.” “Christians” – including Protestants – hold to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which includes the hypostatic union, which includes the title, “Mother of God.”

Those who reject the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity are referred to as heretics.

 

[Mickey]

THEOPHILUS†:

She’s not the mother of God, for, no need to say, God doesn’t have a mother.

From Catholic Answers:

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate *and distinct *persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

 

[YinYangMom]

Here is the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that deals with people who talk like that. It is kind of a long read, but its worth it.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM

Thanks for that link.

She did acknowledge that Jesus was Divine while man, but somehow - and this is the part we didn’t get into - there was still a distinction in how He used his Divinity on earth…almost as if, after the resurrection He was no longer confined or constricted by His human nature, but fully Christ. Never did get what difference that would have made with regard to the miracles He performed on earth and His establishing His church before He left.

 

[E.E.N.S]

THEOPHILUS†:

By the way: what do I have to do with Protestants?

Simple, where does the name “protestant” come from? Protesting against the [Catholic] Church of course, and which you are doing yourself. You are a protestant.

 

[Sherlock]

THEOPHILUS†:

The opposite: when you don’t get Jesus right, you don’t get Mary right.

Jesus was and IS God. But God is not Jesus alone. That’s why Jesus could pray when He was on earth. To whom did Jesus pray? To Himself?

THEOPHILUS†

So you acknowledge that Jesus was and is God—so that’s all well and good. So, did Mary give birth to Jesus?

 

[THEOPHILUS]

mercygate:

Sorry about the Protestant thing; it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that one who rejects the title “Mother of God” is a Protestant because virtually all who deny Mary this title are Protestants who lack complete understanding of the Chalcedonian definition – usually through no fault of their own because it is complex.

Your profile says you are “Christian.” “Christians” – including Protestants – hold to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which includes the hypostatic union, which includes the title, “Mother of God.”

Those who reject the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity are referred to as heretics.

Christians hold to the BIBLICAL doctrines, not human philosophies. The Bible teaches that there is ONE God, the Father, and there is ONE Lord, Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So if you say that those three are that ONE God, I agree with you, because I am Christian. But when you say that the blessed Virgin is the mother of that God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I do not agree with you, because that’s not what God says in the Bible and because that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Milliardo]

THEOPHILUS†:

Christians hold to the BIBLICAL doctrines, not human philosophies. The Bible teaches that there is ONE God, the Father, and there is ONE Lord, Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So if you say that those three are that ONE God, I agree with you, because I am Christian. But when you say that the blessed Virgin is the mother of that God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I do not agree with you, because that’s not what God says in the Bible and because that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity.

THEOPHILUS†

Mary is mother of God the Son–do you have any problem with that now? Even early Protestants do not argue with that. I wonder why Protestants now argue this point–or is it because they just like to argue anything Catholic?

 

[THEOPHILUS]

From Catholic Answers:

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Let’s use the same logic:

“Since Mary is the mother of God, and if God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit, and she’s also the mother of the Father. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by vain classical HUMAN logicians since before the time of Christ.”

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate *and distinct *persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized.

“Your claim that Mary is the mother of God attempts to separate the three Persons of the Trinity, creating three separate and distinct Persons, the three of them divine, united in loose affiliation. It is therefore Mormonism, which even Roman Catholics must recognize.”

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

“Since affirming that Mary is God’s mother implies that the three Persons of the Trinity are three separated Gods, it is clear why all true Christian have been unanimous in denying that Mary is God’s mother and strongly holding to the fact that Mary is the mother of the INCARNATED God.”

By the way: no Christian doubts Jesus’ divinity. I don’t need to make God have a mother so that I may know that the second Person of God was incarnated.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Sherlock:

So you acknowledge that Jesus was and is God—so that’s all well and good. So, did Mary give birth to Jesus?

I really believe what the Bible says… Believe me… I strongly believe that Jesus is God, but I also strongly believe that the Father and the Spirit are also the SAME God. And I don’t see where is the problem if we just believe what the Bible says about the blessed Virgin that she is the mother of the Lord. Don’t think that God doesn’t know how to choose the words…

As for your question: YES, Mary gave birth to Jesus, our Lord.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Milliardo:

Mary is mother of God the Son–do you have any problem with that now? Even early Protestants do not argue with that. I wonder why Protestants now argue this point–or is it because they just like to argue anything Catholic?

I wonder why you always call me Protestant? Is it that because Roman Catholics think that the only other Christians on earth are Protestants?

Anyway, no one is arguing about Mary being the mother of the INCARNATED Son of God. We’re looking if she can be called mother of God without contradicting biblical doctrines.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Milliardo]

THEOPHILUS†:

I wonder why you always call me Protestant?

By what you post, most people here assume you are Protestant, unless you claim otherwise; what is your denomination anyway?

Anyway, no one is arguing about Mary being the mother of the INCARNATED Son of God. We’re looking if she can be called mother of God without contradicting biblical doctrines.

Ephesus might be quite ambigious in the term Theotokos, though no one then or now suppose Mary to be the mother of God the Father. The point of the title is that she is mother of God the Son, which is Jesus. Again, is there a problem with that one?

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Milliardo:

By what you post, most people here assume you are Protestant, unless you claim otherwise; what is your denomination anyway?

Armenian Apostolic. And I believe the Church is one. It’s not just the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Ephesus might be quite ambigious in the term Theotokos, though no one then or now suppose Mary to be the mother of God the Father. The point of the title is that she is mother of God the Son, which is Jesus. Again, is there a problem with that one?

Yes, Ephesus is ambiguous, and we don’t need to be ambiguous ourselves.

Mary is the mother of the INCARNATED Son of God. The Son is not SEPARATED from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Montie_Claunch]

One SDA acctually told me that it was to “Catholicy” for him.

 

[Mickey]

THEOPHILUS†:

Mary is the mother of the INCARNATED Son of God. The Son is not SEPARATED from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Exactly! Hence, Mary is the mother of God.

 

[revbrothomas]

Since the extent of Mary’s contribution to the Incarnate Christ is limited to His humanity Mary can not be “the Mother of God”. To believe otherwise is to attribute divinity to Mary that simply is not there.( and a major sin by the way) It is from this positions, the need to make Mary somehow distinct in all creation (almost, if not, semi-divine) that Rome had to develop, embrace and perpetuate other such fallacies of the faith. I.e. The Immaculate Conception, Mary’s perpetual virginity, and the Assumption of Mary.
So while the pronouncement of Theotokos might have been adequate in providing a distinction between Orthodoxy and Arianism; relying upon extra scriptural sources (i.e. their own reasoning) has facilitated the entire gambit of the Marian Doctrines of which Scripture clearly demonstrates are non-essential unto Salvation.

 

[Mickey]

revbrothomas:

Since the extent of Mary’s contribution to the Incarnate Christ is limited to His humanity Mary can not be “the Mother of God”.

That’s a revisitation of the nestorian heresy! :bigyikes: