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

[Zooey]

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.

The two are one & the same; that is precisely the problem with your theory. If Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, then Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God.

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.

Ah, but you see, these terms were adopted for a reason: heresy. It was necessary–precisely for the souls of men & women everywhere–that correct doctrine be enunciated, and error be exposed to the light of day.
The heresy that was Nestorius’ “brain-child” was an assault on the Person & saving work of Jesus Christ. It clothed itself in innocent sounding terms, perhaps, but it was a deadly spiritual poison.
Again: It is not necessary that you like the term “Mother of God”; what is necessary is realization that it is true. (And no, trying to sidestep it by substituting “Christokos” is not enough. It is, as has been pointed out, just all too vague, and capable of meaning anything.)

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

As do we all: it is the “hold[ing] fast to what is good” that has me here. I am attempting to do precisely that. To hold fast to the truth of the Incarnation, to the Person & work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But we must not throw aside that which is good, simply for the sake of convenience, nor because we don’t like it, or don’t want it. God will do many things. Changing eternal truths in an attempt to please everybody all the time is not one of them.

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

The subdivision of the Person of Christ into separate human & divine bits; the total misunderstanding of the Incarnation; the rejection of the Hypostatic Union. Then, there is the misperception of the meaning of the terms “100% God & 100% man.”

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”).

Stuff & nonsense!! You will go back to this tired old tale. The disagreement is NOT between Catholics & Protestants. It is between those who accept orthodoxy & those who reject it. It is** totally** about the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Lip service is not enough; it is necessary to do more than use the words “Incarnation” & “Trinity”; it is necessary that they mean something other than a personal opinion about what someone might like them to mean.
If one genuinely does not understand this much, that is one thing; God is, after all, merciful. But that is not the subject of this discussion. What I am addressing here, is the rejection of a truth, either because one does not want to believe it, or because one dislikes the messenger; neither is an adequate defense.

Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not based on one’s belief concerning Mary, but Jesus Christ.

It is Jesus Christ that we are discussing here. What we are asked to give the Mother of God is simply the respect due to the Mother of Our Lord. But when we reject the one, we are but a hair’s breadth from rejection of the other.

“The faith once delivered to the saints” never used the term “theotokos,” to explain it.

“Theotokos” has been in use for 1554 years, & in that time, it has saved many a ship from the dangerous shoals. Why–other than prejudice–should anyone reject it now?

If, as you claim, souls are threatened for not using that term,

They are; they are, sadly, threatened indeed.

then all before 431 A.D. have perished, including the Apostles (even Mary herself).

The Apostles, & especially Mary, knew & understood…

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).

Not at all, Linus, not at all; I leave that for the Judge of all the earth.
But I will not let my Master, nor His beloved mother, be treated with disrespect–not while I have breath.

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

The same to you, Linus. The same to you.
God bless.

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

I don’t really know how to say this in a way that doesn’t sound uncharitable, but your reasoning just shows your lack of understanding, not only of what the term means, but more importantly why the title was given her in the first place.

 

[Mordocai]

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.

You say that God was not born? Then you reject the reality of the incarnation. Jesus is fully God and fully man. To say that God was not born is to say that Jesus was not born. You can not seperate them. To do so is to downgrade Jesus, and your goal is to elevate Him.
And yes, you mentioned we must be “born again” well finish the quote from Jesus “We must be born again of water and Spirit” Baptism.
Calling Mary the Mother of God is not “whack” and it is not self-contradictory as you seem to be trying to say. It’s very simple if you look at it this way.
Jesus is God
Mary is the Mother of God

In no way does this put Mary above God in the same way that saying the mother of the president is politically above the president (imperfect analogy I know)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Maybe this will help.

Is Jesus equal to the Trinity? No, He is not. God in all His fullness is the Trinity. Jesus is not equal to the Trinity, however, because the Trinity encompasses all three Persons. If Jesus equalled the Trinity, then there would be no need for the Father or Holy Ghost.

Mary is Mother of God: of Jesus who is God. She is not the mother of the Trinity. She is not the mother of the Creator. She is not above the Creator. She is not eternal, as is each Person of the Trinity and the Trinity as a whole. But she is the mother of Christ, who is God.

 

[Mickey]

herry:

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.

Dear herry,

Please read this entire thread and then post again if you wish. Your conclusions are nestorian. All of your comments have been addressed–except of course your burrito theology and “whack” terminology. :whacky:

 

[Singinbeauty]

I guess something else that I am trying to wrap my head around is the fact that we are trying to apply human terms when it comes to the relationships between God and humans. Mary being the Mother of God??? Then, as someone else pointed out here, Mary would have had to create God. Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

Maybe I should explain it this way… (this is still a thought in process so bare with me… ) I think we can all agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus but what is tripping up the protestants is that we do not give her the position of giving birth to His divinity. Because that is impossible. God the Son existed WAY before Mary was a twinkle in Adam’s eye. When a mother here on earth gives birth to a child she gives birth to his/her body and personality. The child takes on attributes of it’s mother, right? Just like Jesus would have had attributes of Mary. But this child did not inherit it’s soul from it’s mother, right? That came from God the creator. He breathed that Life into us while we were still in the womb. This is the way that I have viewed Jesus. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself. So His divinity came from God making Him fully man (from Mary) and fully God (from God). So she gave birth to His humanity but NOT His divinity. Just like my Mother did not give birth to my soul but God did. I don’t know if this makes ANY sense, like I said it’s still in the stage of me trying to find words to articulate it, so feel free to try and rip it apart… I know that there are some salivating out there to do so…

 

[Lazerlike42]

Singinbeauty:

I guess something else that I am trying to wrap my head around is the fact that we are trying to apply human terms when it comes to the relationships between God and humans. Mary being the Mother of God??? Then, as someone else pointed out here, Mary would have had to create God. Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

I think the problem is actually trying to take theological terms like Mother of God and apply standard everyday usages to them

 

[Mickey]

linus:

what, in particular, have you found in my posts that are, particularily, unorthodox, even heretical?

In prior posts, linus says:

"Mary is the mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus: i.e.,* “Christokos”* (Christ-bearer) but not “Theotokos” (God-bearer)".

"Jesus Christ, the man, was the son of Mary".

**“no one disputes that Mary was the mother of the human **Jesus”

---

These are just a fraction of the thoroughly unorthodox, even heretical statements. Pure nestorianism.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Singinbeauty:

I guess something else that I am trying to wrap my head around is the fact that we are trying to apply human terms when it comes to the relationships between God and humans. Mary being the Mother of God??? Then, as someone else pointed out here, Mary would have had to create God. Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

Maybe I should explain it this way… (this is still a thought in process so bare with me… ) I think we can all agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus but what is tripping up the protestants is that we do not give her the position of giving birth to His divinity. Because that is impossible. God the Son existed WAY before Mary was a twinkle in Adam’s eye. When a mother here on earth gives birth to a child she gives birth to his/her body and personality. The child takes on attributes of it’s mother, right? Just like Jesus would have had attributes of Mary. But this child did not inherit it’s soul from it’s mother, right? That came from God the creator. He breathed that Life into us while we were still in the womb. This is the way that I have viewed Jesus. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself. So His divinity came from God making Him fully man (from Mary) and fully God (from God). So she gave birth to His humanity but NOT His divinity. Just like my Mother did not give birth to my soul but God did. I don’t know if this makes ANY sense, like I said it’s still in the stage of me trying to find words to articulate it, so feel free to try and rip it apart… I know that there are some salivating out there to do so…

I see you have put some thought into this.

Let me just make a few distinctions (though I could be wrong myself as I am nobody special):

Creating and birthing are two seperate things, we procreate with God.

Mothers DO give birth to souls (body and soul together), because the the body and soul are one, not seperate.

(I just got called to a meeting, so I have to wrap up my thoughts now, lol)

Keep in mind that this is a mystery - don’t try to fully understand it…(we can’t fully undersatnd the Trinity, nor being outside of time, nor many other mysteries, but blessed are those who do not see and believe.)

 

[bookgirl]

Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

Actually, haven’t we established that only God is the creator? He uses our mothers as a vessel to bring us into the world, but they don’t create us, much less God. We’re “pro-creators”, we aid in creation, we support creation, but we don’t create. And neither did Mary. But saying that our mothers didn’t create us does not make them not our mothers. Just as Mary was Jesus’ mother, even though, like all mothers, she did not create Him. And, again, since He was both human and God, and she was his mother, she can be called the mother of God.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Singing, I am racing to be the one to respond to your posts. They are always such honest questions and posed with a real spirit to discernment.

Mary being the Mother of God??? Then, as someone else pointed out here, Mary would have had to create God. Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

Not at all. God is the Creator. We create nothing. Not even a mother creates her children. We all just choose to exercise our God-given free will and cooperate in God’s plan for his creation. And because of the choice that Mary made, it is worthy to eternally express our gratitude.

Maybe I should explain it this way… (this is still a thought in process so bare with me… ) I think we can all agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus but what is tripping up the protestants is that we do not give her the position of giving birth to His divinity. Because that is impossible. God the Son existed WAY before Mary was a twinkle in Adam’s eye. When a mother here on earth gives birth to a child she gives birth to his/her body and personality. The child takes on attributes of it’s mother, right? Just like Jesus would have had attributes of Mary. But this child did not inherit it’s soul from it’s mother, right? That came from God the creator. He breathed that Life into us while we were still in the womb. This is the way that I have viewed Jesus. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself. So His divinity came from God making Him fully man (from Mary) and fully God (from God). So she gave birth to His humanity but NOT His divinity. Just like my Mother did not give birth to my soul but God did. I don’t know if this makes ANY sense, like I said it’s still in the stage of me trying to find words to articulate it, so feel free to try and rip it apart… I know that there are some salivating out there to do so…

This makes perfect sense and is totally consistent with the Church’s teaching except to your comment about not giving “birth to his divinity”. In short, nothing in Catholics referring to Mary as the Mother of God in any way asserts that she created anything (either Christ’s humanity or divinity). God is the only creator. However, by virtue of her choice to accept God’s invitation to cooperate in His plan for salvation history, she became the Mother of God just as your mother is your mother. When Jesus chose to become 100% human, he retained inseparably his 100% divinity and Mary was the mother of Jesus.

She did give “birth” to His divinity but that doesn’t mean that she created His divinity or that His divinity didn’t exist prior to His Incarnation. (I think this is where your human experience and limitations is getting in the way. We need to think rightly of God the incomprehensible, His eternal self-existance, self sufficiency, infinitude, immutability, omniscience, wisdome, omnipotence, transcendence, goodness and on and on). Christ’s divinity is eternal, never changing. Birthing is just a cooperation with God the Creator similar to how my wife and I cooperated in the procreation of our children.

 

[bookgirl]

Singinbeauty:

I guess something else that I am trying to wrap my head around is the fact that we are trying to apply human terms when it comes to the relationships between God and humans. Mary being the Mother of God??? Then, as someone else pointed out here, Mary would have had to create God. Because here on earth a mother is someone who gives ‘life’ to a child. Not a soul but ‘life’.

Maybe I should explain it this way… (this is still a thought in process so bare with me… ) I think we can all agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus but what is tripping up the protestants is that we do not give her the position of giving birth to His divinity. Because that is impossible. God the Son existed WAY before Mary was a twinkle in Adam’s eye. When a mother here on earth gives birth to a child she gives birth to his/her body and personality. The child takes on attributes of it’s mother, right? Just like Jesus would have had attributes of Mary. But this child did not inherit it’s soul from it’s mother, right? That came from God the creator. He breathed that Life into us while we were still in the womb. This is the way that I have viewed Jesus. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself. So His divinity came from God making Him fully man (from Mary) and fully God (from God). So she gave birth to His humanity but NOT His divinity. Just like my Mother did not give birth to my soul but God did. I don’t know if this makes ANY sense, like I said it’s still in the stage of me trying to find words to articulate it, so feel free to try and rip it apart… I know that there are some salivating out there to do so…

ALSO, our mothers give birth to us with our souls intact, but they don’t give us or create our souls. They pro-create the body. God infuses the soul into the body. They don’t exist seperatly in any of us. This doesn’t make our mothers mother of just part of us. Again, doesn’t make Mary mother of just part of Jesus. She didn’t have to create anything in Him to be His mother. You’re right, she gave Him his human genes, she carried Him in her womb, and as far as I know, that’s what constitutes all mothers as mothers. If we agree that this is what Mary did, as a mother, then we can agree that she was mother to the ONE person of Jesus, which fully included his divinity.

 

[Mickey]

Singinbeauty:

IYes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself.

Yes. This is the stumbling block for protestants. It has been said many times here that Mary did not give birth to a nature. She gave birth to the whole person, Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine. This is the focus of the nestorian heresy. This is why he was condemned and cast out as a heretic. Your thought process is the same as Nestorius (that is not meant as an insult). Many theologians have struggled with this concept. It is a mystery beyond human comprehension. We are to accept this mystery in all it’s glory. Mary gave birth to Jesus–the fully human and fully divine Jesus. Hence she is the mother of God. This ties into another glorious mystery–the Trinity. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity, one in substance and undivided.

Peace to you.
Mickey

 

[sententia]

Um, if the title was good enough for Elizabeth “Mother of My Lord” then it is good enough for me.

 

[mercygate]

Orionthehunter:

Singing, I am racing to be the one to respond to your posts. They are always such honest questions and posed with a real spirit to discernment.

Not at all. God is the Creator. We create nothing. Not even a mother creates her children. We all just choose to exercise our God-given free will and cooperate in God’s plan for his creation. And because of the choice that Mary made, it is worthy to eternally express our gratitude.

This makes perfect sense and is totally consistent with the Church’s teaching except to your comment about not giving “birth to his divinity”. In short, nothing in Catholics referring to Mary as the Mother of God in any way asserts that she created anything (either Christ’s humanity or divinity). God is the only creator. However, by virtue of her choice to accept God’s invitation to cooperate in His plan for salvation history, she became the Mother of God just as your mother is your mother. When Jesus chose to become 100% human, he retained inseparably his 100% divinity and Mary was the mother of Jesus.

She did give “birth” to His divinity but that doesn’t mean that she created His divinity or that His divinity didn’t exist prior to His Incarnation. (I think this is where your human experience and limitations is getting in the way. We need to think rightly of God the incomprehensible, His eternal self-existance, self sufficiency, infinitude, immutability, omniscience, wisdome, omnipotence, transcendence, goodness and on and on). Christ’s divinity is eternal, never changing. Birthing is just a cooperation with God the Creator similar to how my wife and I cooperated in the procreation of our children.

What a refreshingly clear, “simple” elucidation of these concepts.

Of course, it didn’t hurt that Singinbeauty framed her questions with equal care. Good goin’ gang.

 

[Zooey]

sententia:

Um, if the title was good enough for Elizabeth “Mother of My Lord” then it is good enough for me.

Exactly!!

 

[mlchance]

Singinbeauty:

I think we can all agree that Mary gave birth to Jesus but what is tripping up the protestants is that we do not give her the position of giving birth to His divinity. Because that is impossible.

And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the term “Mother of God” does not now nor has it ever meant “giving birth to His divinity.” It’s about time this straw man was put away.

Singinbeauty:

God the Son existed WAY before Mary was a twinkle in Adam’s eye. When a mother here on earth gives birth to a child she gives birth to his/her body and personality. The child takes on attributes of it’s mother, right? Just like Jesus would have had attributes of Mary. But this child did not inherit it’s soul from it’s mother, right?

Exactly right. No child inherits his soul from his mother. All souls are created uniquely by God.

Singinbeauty:

That came from God the creator. He breathed that Life into us while we were still in the womb. This is the way that I have viewed Jesus. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus and gave Him her human attributes BUT she had no way of passing on His divinity because she did not have it herself.

And, again, the title “Mother of God” does not mean that the Incarnate Man-God received His divinity from His mother. The title has never meant that.

All the title Mother of God means is this: That Christ Jesus is God, and that Mary is his mother. That’s it. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

To paraphrase Martin Luther, Mary indeed is the Mother of God. She nursed God at her breast.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Orionthehunter]

mlchance:

And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the term “Mother of God” does not now nor has it ever meant “giving birth to His divinity.” It’s about time this straw man was put away.

Exactly right. No child inherits his soul from his mother. All souls are created uniquely by God.

And, again, the title “Mother of God” does not mean that the Incarnate Man-God received His divinity from His mother. The title has never meant that.

All the title Mother of God means is this: That Christ Jesus is God, and that Mary is his mother. That’s it. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

To paraphrase Martin Luther, Mary indeed is the Mother of God. She nursed God at her breast.

– Mark L. Chance.

Singing, I hope that we have given you some clarification to this and it makes sense to you. Zooey’s, Chances, and many other people have done a good job to explain why Mary deserves the title as Mother of God and ultimately the honor such a title is entitled. Christ will see the honor you give His mother as great reverence to His Incarnation! Have you gone out an bought a rosary yet?

 

[bookgirl]

SB,

I really do appreciate your posts, just wanted to tell you that.

 

[herry]

Mordocai:

You say that God was not born? Then you reject the reality of the incarnation. Jesus is fully God and fully man. To say that God was not born is to say that Jesus was not born. You can not seperate them. To do so is to downgrade Jesus, and your goal is to elevate Him.
And yes, you mentioned we must be “born again” well finish the quote from Jesus “We must be born again of water and Spirit” Baptism.
Calling Mary the Mother of God is not “whack” and it is not self-contradictory as you seem to be trying to say. It’s very simple if you look at it this way.
Jesus is God
Mary is the Mother of God

In no way does this put Mary above God in the same way that saying the mother of the president is politically above the president (imperfect analogy I know)

Neostorian?..Downgrading Jesus?

All I am saying is that God existed before Mary. To call Mary the mother of God is to say that Mary existed before God. Jesus was indeed fully God and fully human. But He got that humanity from Mary, He got His divinity from God. Does that make more sense?