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

[Milliardo]

Singinbeauty:

But I have been told that the catholic church teachings are all the same and unchanging… if that were so your answers would be identical. People have different understandings? Now that sounds protestant to me… I don’t mean to be sounding sarcastic. I understand that is how it can come off but your answers are disagreeing with what I have been told of the catholic teachings.

Let’s clear things up here: Catholic teaching remains the same and unchanging; however, people also have their own understanding on how things are. Does that change Catholic teaching? It doesn’t. Let’s make an example: contraception is against Church teaching, but then there are Catholics who do not exactly agree with it. Of course, these are nominal or cafeteria Catholics, and yes they do seem Protestant. You could say the’yre half-half, but then they still see themselves as Catholic, however nominal they are. Does that mean then Catholic teaching has changed? No, it doesn’t: the Church still teachings contraception is wrong. It doesn’t change then. As for Axion, like I said let’s wait for his reply, as there might be more to what he posted.

 

[Milliardo]

linus:

So says man. Now let’s quote what the Word of God actually says:

*“But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” * (John 1:12).

No mention of Mary.

Does that mean Mary did not receive Jesus then? Perish the thought!

 

[Zooey]

linus:

In respect to Mary, I can go no further than where the Scriptures take her. Men born long after the actual events have said much about her. Scripture, on the other hand, says very little.

Scripture says a very great deal about her, actually. I do know, however,Linus, that you persist in refusing to see this.

Indeed, to say as little as possible about her–and as much as possible of that to be disrespectful–seems to be part & parcel of heretical thought in general, and of Nestorians in particular.
In fact, the bones of that sad soul seem to be quite, well:

http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif

…these days.
God bless.

 

[mlchance]

Singinbeauty:

Let me rephrase that since you want to pick apart grammar… Does this work better for ya…

Imprecision in grammar results in imprecision in understanding.

Singinbeauty:

While Mary is the Mother of God the Son she is not the Mother of God as a whole.

Is that better?

It is clearer, but it isn’t better. Now you seem to be saying that Jesus Christ isn’t wholly God. God doesn’t have three parts, each one only a third of the whole. Each person of the Trinity is wholly and completely God.

roadrunner570:

Well, by saying that Mary is mother of God, it is my belief that is what is being said. A mother gives birth to her offspring, so if she is mother of God, then she gave birth to God.

Exactly right. Jesus is God. Jesus is Mary’s son. Therefore, Mary gave birth to God. The only way to deny this is to deny that either Mary is Jesus’ mother or to deny that Jesus is God, which is basically the direction you start to head in an effort to avoid having to agree with what has been basic Christian doctrine for about 2000 years so that you don’t sound Catholic.

roadrunner570:

No one is denying she gave birth to Jesus Christ, she did give birth to him, in his human form.

And Jesus Christ, in his “human form,” is God.

roadrunner570:

Not in his divine form. Jesus existed prior to his birth here on Earth.

No, the Son of God existed before the Incarnation. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Man-God, was born in Bethlehem. From the get go, Jesus Christ was fully human and fully God. Therefore, when Jesus Christ was born he was God. Therefore, Mary gave birth to God. She changed God’s diapers. She suckled God at her breast.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mercygate]

roadrunner570:

well, it is bait. When you ask a question pretending to want to know why someone believes something, then when they explain it you call them heretics, I don’t know what else you call it. It is definitetly NOT charitable.

roadrunner – you have a good point. The question was "why won’t Protestants call Mary “mother of God?” And we have learned 1) that Protestants do call Mary, “Mother of God.” and 2) why some people do not. You are right to object to being attacked for answering the question.

However, to label the Nestorian Heresy “heresy” qua heresy is not uncharitable. Truth is never uncharitable in itself, even if it is (to our discredit) delivered uncharitably. To identify a position as heretical is not uncharitable.

And you say Christ did not exist prior to being born of Mary?

God has never changed, the Trinity didn’t just spring up in the NT. God has always been the same.

True, but until the Trinity was defined, we did not understand the relationship between the three Divine Persons, and certainly the clear understanding that the Holy Spirit is divine had not yet emerged.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

That sure sounds like Christ to me.

Indeed, the Church has always held it to be so. But it is not the incarnate Jesus.

 

[mercygate]

linus:

In respect to Mary, I can go no further than where the Scriptures take her. Men born long after the actual events have said much about her. Scripture, on the other hand, says very little.

The NT says more about Our Lady than about any other woman.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Singinbeauty:

LOL… I just had to laugh… I do appreciate this E.E.N.S.

And don’t think that EVERY protestant completely ignores Mary’s status within Christianity… I myself really appreciate what Mary did for us. She took an incredible leap of faith to accomplish what she did. And I for one thank her for that. But where the catholics and I differ is HOW I appreciate her. I don’t call her the Mother of God because to me that is a concept I cannot grasp. It’s a paradox to say the least. Yes, she is Jesus’ mother and since He is God in the flesh I can see how the catholic faith sees her as the Mother of God but I cannot see it that way. Here is my thought process on that. She is Jesus’ earthly mother. Just as HER father is Jesus’ grandfather but we don’t venerate him or his wife (Mary’s mother) as the grandparents of God right? The veneration that you extend to Mary should extend to her family, right? This is the way I look at it.

Actually, the Church does pay honor to the parents of Mary. I gave the name of Anne as the Baptismal name for all of my daughters. I have explained to them that I chose this name for them so they can reflect on the life of Mary’s mother as they try to be a good Christian mother. See the following:

Sts. Joachim and Anne
Parents of Our Lady

Feastday: July 26

By tradition Joachim and Anne are considered to be the names of the parents of Mary, the Mother of God. We have no historical evidence, however, of any elements of their lives, including their names. Any stories about Mary’s father and mother come to us through legend and tradition.

We get the oldest story from a document called the Gospel of James, though in no way should this document be trusted to be factual, historical, or the Word of God. The legend told in this document says that after years of childlessness, an angel appeared to tell Anne and Joachim that they would have a child. Anne promised to dedicate this child to God (much the way that Samuel was dedicated by his mother Hannah – Anne – in 1 Kings).

For those who wonder what we can learn from people we know nothing about and how we can honor them, we must focus on why they are honored by the church. Whatever their names or the facts of their lives, the truth is that it was the parents of Mary who nurtured Mary, taught her, brought her up to be a worthy Mother of God. It was their teaching that led her to respond to God’s request with faith, “Let it be done to me as you will.” It was their example of parenting that Mary must have followed as she brought up her own son, Jesus. It was their faith that laid the foundation of courage and strength that allowed her to stand by the cross as her son was crucified and still believe.

Such parents can be examples and models for all parents.

Anne (or Ann) is the patron saint of Christian mothers and of women in labor

 

[Orionthehunter]

Question: Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Christ existed BEFORE Mary gave birth to him?

Answer: God the Word existed before He was born through Mary. Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, did not.

The above was taken from a previous exchange. There are so many issues in this that it is worthy of paper but I will do my best to give a cliff notes response.

Jesus Christ is fully God in his body, blood, soul, and divinity. To somehow separate Christ into two entities (part human and part divine) is a cracked and distorted image of God. God the Trinity is eternal (always has been and always will be), unchanged, and unchanging.

Now, you might say these two things are in conflict but they are not. I recommend that you read St. Augustine’s discussion in “Confessions” of the mystery of time and eternity. It is imperative that we strive to have a correct image of God and not confine Him in human constraints/concept. While not possible because of our human limitations, when we limit God we do Him a disservice. Another book that I would recommend that be read is A.W. Tozer’s “Knowledge of the Holy.” Tozer is a mid-20th century non-Catholic writer and preacher but this book is a good understandable tome on the how infinite God is.

 

[linus]

Milliardo:

Does that mean Mary did not receive Jesus then? Perish the thought!

You need to respond based on the context, my friend. The assertion was you cannot have God as your Father if you don’t have Mary as your mother. Scripture says differently. You can’t have God as your Father unless you’ve received Jesus Christ as your savior (John 1:12). Mary is not in the Biblical equation.

But to answer your question, yes, Mary did receive Jesus as her savior. She was in the upper room with the 120 in Acts 1:14. And that is the last we read of her in Scripture (no, the woman in Rev. 12 is national Israel, based on the context).

 

[linus]

mercygate:

The NT says more about Our Lady than about any other woman.

And still, that’s not much.

 

[linus]

Zooey:

Scripture says a very great deal about her, actually. I do know, however,Linus, that you persist in refusing to see this.

“A great deal?” I could read it ALL in five minutes or less. Now you could use the phrase “a great deal” in reference to the Son - or even king David, or the Apostle Paul.

Indeed, to say as little as possible about her–and as much as possible of that to be disrespectful–seems to be part & parcel of heretical thought in general, and of Nestorians in particular.
In fact, the bones of that sad soul seem to be quite, well:
…these days.

Of course I said nothing “Nestorian.” What is not dead is your need to accuse falsely. Now that’s disrepectful, my dear.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

And still, that’s not much.

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

 

[Mickey]

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to Linus and others. I’ll rephrase it.

The majority of protestants accept and understand the title and theology behind Mary as “Mother of God”. What affiliation is it that denies this title. How did the founding fathers of your particular affiliation arrive at this new interpretation?

Thank you all ahead of time for your responses.

 

[ronald]

justcatholic:

Mary is not the mother of God because God has no beginning and no end. God in his divine nature existed **before **Mary was born. Mary in scripture is called the mother of our Lord, but never the mother of God. There is a vast difference in that understanding.

Also, when Mary gave birth to Jesus, he already was the divine Son of God before he was in the womb of Mary. Mary in no way attributed to the deity that Christ had prior to his incarnation. Therefore calling Mary the mother of God is a false title and terribly misleading.

Jesus is my God, Mary is His mother, so…Mary is the mother of God. Yes…He is no start and no ending but He became human and that human must have the mother. And he choose our mother Mary.

 

[Mickey]

roadrunner570:

I knew it was only a matter of time before the “H” word came out.

Dear roadrunner,

I have never read an uncharitable post by Axion. I wish I could say the same for myself.

I don’t believe that Axion is calling you a heretic. He is simply pointing out that the logic often used to deny the title, “Mother of God” borrows from one of the most widely known and condemned heresies in history.

Peace be with you,
Mickey

 

[E.E.N.S]

linus:

So says man. Now let’s quote what the Word of God actually says:

*“But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” *(John 1:12).

No mention of Mary.

Good job! You just proof texted the entire Bible into one verse taken out of context. Bravo!

But really though, this verse says nothing about carrying your cross, keeping the commandments, loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God above all, yet Christ tells us that we must do all these things if we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is no mention of the Trinity in the verse either, so maybe we should just do away with that belief as well…come to think of it, I can’t find the word “Trinity” anywhere in the Bible - where did we even come up with such a tradition??

 

[Orionthehunter]

“A great deal?” I could read it ALL in five minutes or less. Now you could use the phrase “a great deal” in reference to the Son - or even king David, or the Apostle Paul.Of course I said nothing “Nestorian.” What is not dead is your need to accuse falsely. Now that’s disrepectful, my dear.

I think that Linus is honestly trying to answer this question and I disagree that he is being overtly Nestorian as the following attests from a previous post:

I claim and personally believe Jesus was and is one-hundred percent God and at the same time one-hundred percent human. Yet, because I do not accept the appellation, “mother of God,” predicated to Mary by men, I am being called a “heretic” on this thread.

However, I do feel that need to defend the Mother of God regarding a couple of other comments he has made.

When examining Church history and the development of doctrine, you’d have to admit the term “mother of God,” ulitmately, far more benefited the exaltation of Mary than Jesus.

This is not true. Giving her the title “Mother of God” as opposed to “Mother of the Humanity of Christ” is important in that it recognizes that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. You can’t separate them and to give her the second title does separate Christ’s humanity and divinity and disparages Jesus Christ.

The fact that Jesus was/is God the Son from all eternity did not need to be expressed by men through Mary, since this truth could be very easily concluded by Scripture alone. It lacks absolutely no Scriptural support.

Actually, the entire Annunciation described in Luke is a Biblical expression that Mary is being asked to bear the eternal God. "“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.” I’m totally confused by this comment by Linus.

Yet you’ll never find the term “mother of God” predicated to Mary by the same Holy Writ.

There are numerous references in the OT that indicate that there will be a Queen Mother. I think some of these sites are somewhere in this or other treads. Additionally, Revelations Chapter 12 describes Mary. Verse 17 (Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.) refers to the rest of us as “her offspring”. Hmmm?

Linus, I urge you to please read these quietly and with an open heart (Lecto Divina- spelling might be wrong).

 

[E.E.N.S]

roadrunner570:

In Genesis, Daniel, Joshua and a few other places, Christ appears in the OT, but sometimes as an Angel, or as a “Son of Man” or just as a man, but he was not in his Earthly incarnation yet. But he still appeared.

In the NT, after he is born, he still prayed to God the Father, and was filled with the Holy Spirit, he was God in the flesh, but he was not “born” into being God by Mary, he already was God. He was born in the flesh only to Mary.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God.” The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

 

[Axion]

roadrunner570:

Okay, so now I’m really confused, you say this above, but Axion said this:

God the Word existed before He was born through Mary. Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God, did not.

So which is it?

I don’t see where you find a problem. Did Jesus Christ, fully Man and Fully God, as I stated, exist as such before He was born of Mary?

I don’t think so. That is an indisputable fact.

 

[Axion]

linus:

You need to respond based on the context, my friend. The assertion was you cannot have God as your Father if you don’t have Mary as your mother. Scripture says differently. You can’t have God as your Father unless you’ve received Jesus Christ as your savior (John 1:12). Mary is not in the Biblical equation.

Flawed logic. protestant evangelicals are constantly inventing contradictions where none exist. Receiving Jesus as your Saviour, enables your adoption into the Family of God. One becomes a brother of Jesus, and part of His body. That is why we can call God “Father.” - Because we share Jesus’s sonship by adoption. That is also why we call Mary Mother. As brethren of Jesus, as part of the body of Jesus, Mary is our Mother - as she was to St John.

But to answer your question, yes, Mary did receive Jesus as her savior. She was in the upper room with the 120 in Acts 1:14.

Where did you get this idea?

Kindly look back to Luke 2 and the Magnificat, where Mary says **My Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. **

---

Mary received Jesus as Saviour LONG before the Upper Room. Long before Jesus’s birth in fact. For she does not say “God who will be my saviour.” She speaks in the present tense, since she was saved at conception.

And that is the last we read of her in Scripture (no, the woman in Rev. 12 is national Israel, based on the context).

The context clearly shows the Woman of Revelation 12 to be Mary.

• She is Mother of Jesus
• She is a great sign, just like the Woman and Child of Isaiah 7
• The trio of Mary, Jesus and the Dragon/Serpent are an echo of the same trio in the protogospel of Genesis 3.15
• The figures in revelation 12 are all individuals, not collectives.
• The idea of the Woman being Israel is a recent invention of certain evfangelicals.