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

[Orionthehunter]

Axion:

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, I think indisputable is a strong word. The Trinity is not bound by constraints of time. However, within our human limitations, it is certain that at a particular moment in “time”, God became incarnate. Concurrently, it is universal doctrine by all Trinitarian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and nearly all Protestant) that God is eternally unchanged and unchanged. This is the great Mystery of the Trinity that is beyond human comprehension.

 

[Axion]

Orionthehunter:

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 never denied that Linus was honestly trying to answer the question.

What is apparant, however, that his attempts to do so led him in to danger of falling into the Nestorian heresy. Which is what I said.

When roadrunner (not linus) says is

Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother because he has no beginning.

This is dividing Jesus into two persons.

 

[Orionthehunter]

When roadrunner (not linus) says is
Quote:
Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother because he has no beginning.

This is dividing Jesus into two persons.

I couldn’t agree more. I hope my previous quote about restricting God to our earthly limitations and notion of “time” leads one to reach conclusions that are false, dangerous, and even blasphemous as they denigrate the nature and majesty of the Triune God.

On a sidebar, this is no trivial matter and this is why the Church has us making the sign of cross so much so that we always keep in the forefront our belief that God is One in Three Persons. To make God less is blasphemy.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Quote:

Jesus in his divine state as the Christ has no mother because he has no beginning.

This is dividing Jesus into two persons.

Not if you believe that Mary was a conduit that God used to put Jesus here on earth. I am not trying to demean Mary in any way. She did something wonderful for us but I don’t think she holds any higher regard than being a human that God used for His wonderful gift to come into play.

God could have just planted Jesus here on earth without parents and even without having to grow as a child. God can do anything. But He chose to use Mary to bring Jesus into this life here on earth the way EVERY person is brought here on earth. So He could experience life just like the rest of us. The birth, the growing up, the work, the sacrifice… For us to FULLY receive that sacrifice that He made for us He became FULLY human and lived just like us. I don’t know if that makes sense…

 

[E.E.N.S]

At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:

As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

Singinbeauty:

God could have just planted Jesus here on earth without parents and even without having to grow as a child. God can do anything. But He chose to use Mary to bring Jesus into this life here on earth the way EVERY person is brought here on earth. So He could experience life just like the rest of us. The birth, the growing up, the work, the sacrifice… For us to FULLY receive that sacrifice that He made for us He became FULLY human and lived just like us. I don’t know if that makes sense…

I couldn’t agree more. God chose to give Jesus a mother rather than “just planting him on earth without parents”. Jesus is God. Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.

 

[Church_Militant]

How can anyone claim that they can define and understand a divine mystery such as this? It defies all human comprehension, just as much as the fact that we know Jesus was God incarnate, and yet does anyone understand just how this works? There is much in the Word of God that tells us that this is so and yet there is nothing that tells us how it can be.

Can you imagine the Blessed Virgin’s own consternation when Gabriel appeared to her with the Annunciation? Great Scott!

This whole debate is made all the harder because there is simply no human understanding of how all these events came to pass.

IMHO you have basically two ways to deal with it.

1. Take the essentially n-C approach which cannot explain the mystery and therefore attempts to pretty much deny it.
2. Take the Catholic approach (which defines a mystery of faith not as something that cannot be understood, but something which cannot be understood completely) and embracing the facts, accepts the reality as best one can.

Naturally…I hold to option # 2.
Pax tecum,

 

[Mickey]

Mickey:

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?

No takers? Linus? roadrunner? singinbeauty?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Mickey:

No takers? Linus? roadrunner? singinbeauty?

You asked this same question in post# 186 and I gave you my answer in #187.

I am non-denominational. I don’t affiliate with a denom because I think that humans have totally screwed with religion and made it unrecognizable.

 

[Mickey]

Singinbeauty:

You asked this same question in post# 186 and I gave you my answer in #187.

I am non-denominational. I don’t affiliate with a denom because I think that humans have totally screwed with religion and made it unrecognizable.

Yes, but where does the theology originate? Did your pastor teach this to you. Many non-denom’s are heavily slanted toward a baptist view–could this be the origin?

Ps–I originally asked the question in post #176. No one has answered as to where they hold to the interpretation that Mary is undeserving of this title.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Mickey:

Yes, but where does the theology originate? Did your pastor teach this to you. Many non-denom’s are heavily slanted toward a baptist view–could this be the origin?

Ps–I originally asked the question in post #176. No one has answered as to where they hold to the interpretation that Mary is undeserving of this title.

Does it have to originate from someone telling me that it’s so? Do I not have a brain to decide whether or not I want to call Mary Mother of God? I have not seen evidence that this is what her title should be. I have had pastors tell me that she is a woman who is dearly loved and appreciated for her leap of faith but we are talking about a paradox here. She gave birth to Jesus but not to God because God did not originate from her. It’s the paradox of the trinity. No mere human can understand it but it’s there.

 

[Mickey]

Singinbeauty:

Does it have to originate from someone telling me that it’s so? Do I not have a brain to decide whether or not I want to call Mary Mother of God? I have not seen evidence that this is what her title should be. I have had pastors tell me that she is a woman who is dearly loved and appreciated for her leap of faith but we are talking about a paradox here. She gave birth to Jesus but not to God because God did not originate from her. It’s the paradox of the trinity. No mere human can understand it but it’s there.

Thank you kindly for your response singinbeauty. So you are saying that your conclusion originates from yourself. I am interested to see what Linus and roadrunner have to say.

Blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[mercygate]

Singinbeauty:

Does it have to originate from someone telling me that it’s so? Do I not have a brain to decide whether or not I want to call Mary Mother of God? I have not seen evidence that this is what her title should be. I have had pastors tell me that she is a woman who is dearly loved and appreciated for her leap of faith but we are talking about a paradox here. She gave birth to Jesus but not to God because God did not originate from her. It’s the paradox of the trinity. No mere human can understand it but it’s there.

Singin’, you’re pretty smart. When you say, “Do I not have a brain to decide whether or not I want to call Mary Mother of God?” you are asking the wrong question. The point does not turn on whether you “want to” call Mary the Mother of God but rather on whether she is the Mother of God, which has nothing to do with anybody’s personal “want to,” one way or the other.

Taking a deep breath here because I sense that this will come off as confrontational, which it is, but I really LIKE you, and do not mean to offend.

If you have followed this thread – particularly Zooey-the-Methodist’s well crafted posts – you now know that the title, “Mother of God,” emerged in response to a serious challenge to the Person of Jesus Christ. Even allowing for Zooey’s excellent explication, I would propose that if you have given this matter no more consideration than the reading of this thread (which you did not join until post #185, though you may have read what went before), your claim that you have “not seen evidence” is premature because you haven’t truly sought any.

Just for perspective, are you really prepared to go head-to-head with people like John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, who formulated this matter? These are REALLY big guns: Doctors of the Church, formidable thinkers. Their theology has never been surpassed or supplanted and has withstood 1600 years of scrutiny.

 

[roadrunner570]

Axion:

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.

Christ, the Son of God did in fact exist before Mary. To say that he did not is heresy.

 

[roadrunner570]

Mickey:

No takers? Linus? roadrunner? singinbeauty?

Sorry, I have a day job.

And I don’t know what you mean by where this “theology originates” most protestants that I know do not go by every single teaching every early protestant came up with. Thats why we read and study the Bible on our own. That is the understanding I’ve come up with.

And if you want to say “see thats the problem with others interpreting scripture”, well, from what I see on here, some of you can’t even agree on what Catholic doctrine teaches itself.

 

[roadrunner570]

mercygate:

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.

Thank you. Though I cannot answer for why some protestants do or don’t. I personally don’t know any protestants who call her mother of God.

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.

I’m not even all that familiar with this Nestorian business. THere seems to be this belief among Catholics here that all protestants hold to every teaching every single protestant teacher has had through history, but this is not the case. Most of us read our own Bibles and study for ourselves and determine what it is it says. Our pastors and teachers are there to guide us through the process, not tell us what to believe.

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.

The Holy Spirit did appear in the OT. He was sent to David, Samson, and others. Just because it was not defined, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. God only chose when and how much of himself to reveal to us.

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

No, it was not Jesus in the flesh, but it was Christ, the Son of God

 

[roadrunner570]

Milliardo:

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.

Kind of like how we believe the Bible says certain things are wrong, but some protestants like to pick and choose what they believe from it, or they’re own “understanding”. You guys are more protestant than you realize.

 

[Milliardo]

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)

I would think the Jews would have a different notion to that. Does that mean our Jewish brethren does not have God as their Father because they do not accept Jesus? Again, perish the thought! You’re getting deeper into trouble here. But onto the topic then: the saying is pretty clear in that one should think of a parent-offspring relationship. If you cannot accept Mary as mother, how can you accept Jesus as brother, and Saviour actually? Mary goes into the package, or none at all.

Ah, Revelation 12. Tell me, linus, did Israel chase itself into the desert?

 

[Milliardo]

roadrunner570:

Kind of like how we believe the Bible says certain things are wrong, but some protestants like to pick and choose what they believe from it, or they’re own “understanding”. You guys are more protestant than you realize.

Of course, you do realize I’m talking mainly about cafeteria Catholics, right?

 

[roadrunner570]

Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I don’t see any mention of Mary in this verse.