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

[Zooey]

E.E.N.S.:

The reason has been given, 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.

Yes!!! Thank you!!
You win the Golden Cup!!!http://bestsmileys.com/tropheys/3.gif

 

[Zooey]

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 orthodox Christians accept the doctrine. It is part & parcel of the creeds of the church.

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.

I pass quietly by this. I have thoughts; I will, for the sake of Christian charity, leave them unspoken. (And pray I never bump into you at the coffeeshop on the corner, where I am bound by fewer rules…).

Zooey, you call yourself a Methodist and like to put up a flag to draw attention to it.

At the time that I joined CAF, there was a polite request for non-Catholics to identify their tradition to avoid misunderstandings. I did so. Besides, I happen to be no end of proud to stand in the line of the Wesleys…(OK, more :yup: John’s than Charles’)

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.”

The Anglicans of his day told John Wesley the same thing.

In other words, you seem to be saying, “I’m with you guys, but I won’t join you.”

I have joined the ranks of ORTHODOXY!!! Would that others might do the same!!!

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???

Again: I am in good company here: John Wesley was asked this–repeatedly!!!

What (or who) are you afraid of???

I am not afraid, Linus. I have left the life of fear behind me. I have moved on, to higher ground, to a life of prayer & study.
After a youth spent in unceasing rebellion against Christian faith, after experimentation with all manner of new-age foolishness, after dabbling in the supposed “wisdom” of the East, I have found my way home.
Home, dear Linus, home.
Home in the embrace of a crucified Saviour, who hunted me down where I was wandering.
Home, in the company of those who have discovered that there is nothing like good old-fashioned Christian orthodoxy, to warm the heart, to challenge & satisfy the mind.
There is nothing to fear, Linus…that is why I keep speaking to you. That is why I try to show you what I have found, in the hope that you, too, may be set free of the rebellion that drives you to attack this extraordinary lady who loves us all, & who prays with & for me each day in my path toward her Son.
It is so simple, Linus, so peaceful.I have stopped trying to make up my own religion, & to simply be at home with Jesus Christ.
And in His home, I find Mary, the Mother of God.
God bless you, Linus.

 

[Mickey]

roadrunner570:

Why do you assume that a pastor told me this? I don’t recall ever having said any such thing.

Don’t put words in my mouth roadrunner. I said “guidance” from your pastor. In post #254 you said: “Our pastors and teachers are there to guide us through the process…”

Peace,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

linus:

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.

Sure it does. When the Apostle Saint Thomas was doubting the resurrection and Jesus appeared to show Thomas His wounds, Thomas responded: My Lord and my God.

Whether you want to believe it or not–Jesus is God! And Mary is the Mother of God.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

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

There’s a whole lot more than you care to see about Mary in Scripture. And it’s ALL the divinely inspired word of God.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

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.

With all due respect my dear friend, most of your posts are dripping with gnosticism and nestorianism. I am somewhat horrified that you would be **formally **taught that heresies such as these are in fact orthodox Christianity! Other posters have cited examples of your gnostic tendencies—and your nestorian slanted theology is obvious.

Example: "she gave birth to the Messiah: Christokos (sp) = “Messiah bearer,”

This statement could have come out of the mouth of Nestorius himself!!!

I will pray that you and your mother find your way back home.

Peace and blessings to you, linus
Mickey

 

[linus]

Axion:

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.

Gnosticism??? Oh please. Gnosticism said that Jesus did not take on flesh and blood, matter being evil. I’m saying through the virgin birth He took on humanity - but not the sin of humanity inherited from Adam:

"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (i.e., in Adam, Rom. 5:12).

Hence, the need for the virgin birth.

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.

“Sinfulness” is a spiritual condition inherited from Adam - when Adam sinned we ALL sinned - all humanity being born IN ADAM, its federal head. It’s not passed on through the “flesh.” The body itself is neutral, although subject to death because of “original sin.” That’s why one must be spiritually “born again.” When a sinner turns from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ he is co-crucified, co-buried and co-resurrected with Christ (Rom. 6:6-11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:14-17), no longer in Adam, but IN CHRIST, the “Last Adam” (see Col. 3:1-2). This is pure Pauline doctrine - not heresy. It’s the true believer’s new identity in Christ.

The idea tha Mary was born without original sin (Immaculate Conception) is found nowhere in the Scriptures.

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.

Actually, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Christokos (Messiah bearer) if you know who the Messiah is based on Biblical revelation.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Zooey:

Yes!!! Thank you!!
You win the Golden Cup!!!http://bestsmileys.com/tropheys/3.gif

I will add it to my collection that I don’t have, lol. Thanks Zooey.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Actually, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Christokos(sp) (Messiah bearer) if you know who the Messiah is based on Biblical revelation.

Nestorianism is a Christological heresy, which originated in the Church in the 5th Century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the Divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Nestorians reject the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, using instead the term **Christotokos **(Giver of birth to Christ) or Anthropotokos (Giver of birth to a man).

 

[linus]

Nestorianism is a Christological heresy, which originated in the Church in the 5th Century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the Divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Nestorians reject the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, using instead the term Christotokos (Giver of birth to Christ) or Anthropotokos (Giver of birth to a man).

Ah-huh. And what do you see in my posts that I could be labeled Nestorian? Was the Council of Constantinople Nestorian? It recognized the two NATURES of the PERSON of Jesus Christ.

One is not “Nestorian” simply because he doesn’t recognize the title Theotokos predicated to Mary.

 

[linus]

(And pray I never bump into you at the coffeeshop on the corner, where I am bound by fewer rules…)

Ooooh, I’m shaking in my boots!! Actually, my prayers are reserved for far more important things than asking the Lord to keep me from running into you at a coffee shop. But I must say, you do hold a very high opinion of yourself. You know, you can always send me a private message.

At the time that I joined CAF, there was a polite request for non-Catholics to identify their tradition to avoid misunderstandings. I did so.

That didn’t answer my question.

I happen to be no end of proud to stand in the line of the Wesleys…(OK, more John’s than Charles’)

Oh, so it’s pride that holds you back from converting? But isn’t pride a sin? Zooey, to whom will you confess this sin? From whom will you received absolution if you refuse to convert?

 

[linus]

Zooey:

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.

I completely agree that the genealogy in Luke’s Gospel account is Mary’s. Although there is dispute over this view. The genealogies are a study in themselves. But, as usual, the crux of my post flew right over your head. What you state above is superfluous to the point I was making in respect to Adam (of the Garden) and Jesus, the “Last Adam.”

You’ll notice that in both genealogies Joseph is included (that’s why there’s dispute). Luke begins with Joseph, Matthew ends with him. But Luke’s genealogy states Jesus as being “supposedly” (Gr., as it was being thought) the son of Joseph (Lk. 3:23); while Matthew’s genealogy states that to Jacob was born Joseph "the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus (Matt. 1:16). Neither genealogy directly connects Jesus, physically, to the male line. And how could they, He was virgin born and therefore born void of the curse (divine judgment, condemnation and death) of Adam’s posterity through Adam’s sin. God was His Father, not Joseph. In fact, He Himself is another “Adam.” A spiritual Progenitor of a whole new humanity (through the cross) “made righteous” IN HIM.

Luke’s genealogy alludes to this doctrine of the two Adams; both sons of God. But their actions, one of disobedience, the Other of obedience, brought completely different results (read Rom. 5:12-21).

“For through the one man’s disobedience the many (his posterity) were MADE SINNERS, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be MADE RIGHTEOUS” (Rom. 5:19)

“Therefore if any man is IN CHRIST, he is a new creature; the old things passed away (i.e., all who he was in Adam); behold new things have come (now being in Christ)” (2 Cor. 5:17).

So the real question behind true Christianity is not whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, but are you IN CHRIST, a new creation, “made righteous” IN HIM? This is true orthodoxy.

It was she, & only she, whose Son had the Divinely Decreed Right to be the King of the Jews.

WOW, you sure put a “Mary spin” on that sentence. Let me fix it for you: "It was Him, only Him, the One born of Mary, that had the Divinely Decreed Right to be the “King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2; cf. Luke 1:32-33). And He has yet to ascend that Davidic throne.

Ah, I see; we are to reject the Old Testament, then?

Certainly not. “God forbid!” But what we are not to do is spiritualize parts of the Old Testament in order to fit them into our own preconceived ideas. In other words, don’t put words in God’s mouth.

 

[Zooey]

linus:

Ooooh, I’m shaking in my boots!! Actually, my prayers are reserved for far more important things than asking the Lord to keep me from running into you at a coffee shop.

May I suggest a few be aimed at the avoidance of heresy & the preservation of charity?

But I must say, you do hold a very high opinion of yourself.

Indeed, I do, sir; I am a child of the King of Kings, & the Lord of Lords. My eldest Brother in Faith died on a Roman cross to purchase the redemption of a world of lost sinners; what is there not to be proud of??
I glory, dear Linus; I glory in Calvary’s cross.

You know, you can always send me a private message.

FYI: personal messages are subject to the same rules as the rest of the forums.
I was, of course, referring to another kind of meeting altogether; but then, you know that.

That didn’t answer my question.

I have answered, sir, & answered again; the fact that you don’t like the answers you get is, I fear,http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif your problem, not mine.

Oh, so it’s pride that holds you back from converting? But isn’t pride a sin? Zooey, to whom will you confess this sin? From whom will you received absolution if you refuse to convert?

My dear man, you really must learn that we are not discussing something that involves Catholics vs. Protestants…What we are discussing is a matter of Orthodox Christianity vs. Heterodoxical beliefs that threaten the very souls of those who follow after them.
But again, I think, sir, that you know that…
Again, Linus, you really have to get over the idea that you can believe whatever you want, just because you want to…with no consequences.
We live in a free country, & you are allowed to hold whatever strange notions that you like, but I must point out that, in matters of theology in general, & the Holy Trinity in particular, the ball is in quite another :getholy: Court–but then, you know that, too…
God bless.

 

[Zooey]

WOW, you sure put a “Mary spin” on that sentence. Let me fix it for you: "It was Him, only Him, the One born of Mary, that had the Divinely Decreed Right to be the “King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2; cf. Luke 1:32-33). And He has yet to ascend that Davidic throne.

Not at all, my dear man, not at all; I simply pointed out the indisputable fact that Jesus Christ’s claim to the throne of David is a claim of blood descent. And from whom did He receive this Davidic descent?? From the Virgin Mary, sir! It was she who, in a happier, less wartorn world, would have held the title of Princess Royal; it is she who, in the Heavenlies, holds the title of Queen Mother.
Joseph’s line of descent was, as I have pointed out, tainted by the curse on Jeconias. Mary carried the blood of David in her veins, in straight descent, untouched by curses or other stain.
It was that blood, Linus, that was shed on a hill called Mount Calvary. The blood that Jesus Christ shed for you, for me, for us all–Every drop of it was His inheritance from His beloved mother. It was her DNA that wove & shaped Him, whilst He was still in her womb.
Without that blood, there could have been no cross. Without that blood there would have been no Saviour, for it was from her–her alone–that He gained His sacred Humanity. It was her blood that He bled, when He died for a world of poor ornery people like you & me.

Certainly not. “God forbid!” But what we are not to do is spiritualize parts of the Old Testament in order to fit them into our own preconceived ideas. In other words, don’t put words in God’s mouth.

Ah, well; then cease to do so, Linus; cease to do so. You will, I assure you, be ever so much more at peace when you cease to kick against the goad.
Give up your own preconceived notions, and read with an open mind, & an open heart. You will be amazed, simply amazed at what can be found when you look into the pages of Holy Writ with a clean eye.
Again, God bless.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

One is not “Nestorian” simply because he doesn’t recognize the title Theotokos predicated to Mary.

If one insists on using “Christotokos” instead of “Theotokos”, then one can be considered to be at least “partially” nestorian.

 

[Michael_Francis]

People,
Let’s keep to the topic of discussion and not get into personal exchanges. (That can indeed be done via PM and does indeed require the same charity).The particular traditions that one is currently part of is not really pertinent to the discussion, and coffee shop comments had better be concerned with the kind of caffeinated beverage one intends to purchase for the other…and nothing more.

Charity in all things.

 

[linus]

Zooey:

My dear man, you really must learn that we are not discussing something that involves Catholics vs. Protestants…What we are discussing is a matter of Orthodox Christianity vs. Heterodoxical beliefs that threaten the very souls of those who follow after them.

Absolutely, but not personally accepting the term, the appellation, the title, theotokos, predicated to Mary by men is not heterodxical. To reject the Biblical doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man, certainly is. Souls are not threatened over man-made, extrabiblical terms, titles, or appellations, but one’s belief in or refusal to believe in the Person and work of the One born of Mary.

Again, Linus, you really have to get over the idea that you can believe whatever you want, just because you want to…with no consequences.

But I have personal, Apostolic instructions: 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

We live in a free country, & you are allowed to hold whatever strange notions that you like, but I must point out that, in matters of theology in general, & the Holy Trinity in particular, the ball is in quite another Court

In respect to the Holy Trinity, in particular, what, in particular, have you found in my posts that are, particularily, unorthodox, even heretical?

You see, the disagreement over the term, theotokos, between Catholics and Protestants is never really Nestorian (“but you know this”), never really about the Divinity of Jesus, but the exaltation of Mary far beyond what Holy Writ allows (“but you know this”). Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based on one’s belief concerning Mary, but Jesus Christ. “The faith once delivered to the saints” never used the term “theotokos,” to explain it. If, as you claim, souls are threatened for not using that term, then all before 431 A.D. have perished, including the Apostles (even Mary herself).

Well, nuff said on this topic. I’ll move on to another thread I find interesting. You can have the last word (my impression is that you have made it a rule in your life to always do just that).

May you grow in
the grace and knowledge
of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
(To Him alone be the glory).

 

[mercygate]

linus:

You see, the disagreement over the term, theotokos, between Catholics and Protestants is never really Nestorian (“but you know this”), never really about the Divinity of Jesus, but the exaltation of Mary far beyond what Holy Writ allows (“but you know this”).

Aaargh. Again: there is no disagreement over the term between Catholics and Protestants. And it DOES “reallly” deal with he Divinity of Jesus, not the exaltation of Mary . . . Only in your own mind does the title Theotokos not correspond to the Divinity of Jesus.

 

[Orionthehunter]

linus:

Absolutely, but not personally accepting the term, the appellation, the title, theotokos, predicated to Mary by men is not heterodxical. To reject the Biblical doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man, certainly is. Souls are not threatened over man-made, extrabiblical terms, titles, or appellations, but one’s belief in or refusal to believe in the Person and work of the One born of Mary.But I have personal, Apostolic instructions: 1 Thessalonians 5:21.In respect to the Holy Trinity, in particular, what, in particular, have you found in my posts that are, particularily, unorthodox, even heretical?

You see, the disagreement over the term, theotokos, between Catholics and Protestants is never really Nestorian (“but you know this”), never really about the Divinity of Jesus, but the exaltation of Mary far beyond what Holy Writ allows (“but you know this”). Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based on one’s belief concerning Mary, but Jesus Christ. “The faith once delivered to the saints” never used the term “theotokos,” to explain it. If, as you claim, souls are threatened for not using that term, then all before 431 A.D. have perished, including the Apostles (even Mary herself).

Well, nuff said on this topic. I’ll move on to another thread I find interesting. You can have the last word (my impression is that you have made it a rule in your life to always do just that).

May you grow in
the grace and knowledge
of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
(To Him alone be the glory).

Linus, as you move on, I want to leave you with a parting comment. I understand that your opposition is based on your belief that veneration of Mary is effectively latria worship. While Catholics will disagree until eternity that this is latria worship but instead hyperdulia honor and veneration (there is nothing sinful about holding another person in high honor and expressing that honor), you are totally free to choose to have this opinion (while sinful because you are making a judgment of another’s intent). You are also free to reject numerous scriptural references (ironic for one who claims to believe in Sola Scriptura) to Mary’s special place in Salvation History as free will is a gift from God. However, to wrongly choose to exercise your free will is also sinful.

You claim to believe the following:

You believe in the Trinity as God in three persons. That Jesus Christ is truly man and truly God and that to reject that is heresy. You then assert that you don’t believe that Mary is the Mother of God (theotokos). Logically, the only way this is possible is that you believe that the divinity and humanity of Jesus is separable which by definition is Nestorian.

I really urge you to examine your logic. You rightly assert that “Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based on one’s belief concerning Mary, but Jesus Christ” but then you hold a position that separates Christ’s divinity and humanity. This is a serious matter.

Finally, your assertion that just becuase the word Theotokos wasn’t used prior to 431 A.D. is proof that somehow everyone prior to that is condemned is foolish. All that happened in 431 is that everyone just figured the logical conclustion that if Jesus’ humanity and divinity were undivisible, ergo Mary was Theotokos.

 

[herry]

Why won’t Protestants call Mary the Mother of God?

Here is why I will not call her the mother of God. I hope Im not too far off topic, but it is the original topic.

I do not call Mary the mother of God because it exalts her above God, the Alpha and the Omega. God was not born on the day Jesus was born but existed before the foundation of the world. So did Jesus (John 1:15, 8:58).

When Jesus was born into the earth, He was God in the flesh. Jehovah God took on the sinful nature of His creatures (Romans 8:1-3), and allowed himself to be put through every challenge which Adam failed in (Hebrews 2:16-18) in order to fulfill the law in the flesh, and give us opportunity for a new birth. Jesus said we “must be born again”. We are all born sinners through adam. But because Jesus prevailed where adam failed, and then shed His (God’s) own blood for us, we have a blessed opportunity for a new birth righteous through Christ. And by His death our sins are paid for. Thus we are saved by His life and death.

This was Mary’s purpose. So that Jesus could take on the nature of the flesh, and the seed of Abraham. Calling Mary the Mother of God is whack. Its like saying the microwave created my burrito. Or the refridgerator goes grocery shopping for me.