Mary the mother of God?

[Bunyon]

"First you espouse Nestorianism, now you espouse Sabellianism."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ransom, I'll have to ask you to stop doing that. I have espoused no posistion on how the Godhead is united or separated. I simply pointed out an extension of the reasoning I saw in a few of the post.

 

[Bunyon]

I agree with HankD completely. I think his reasons are identicle to the reason our protestant forfahters had for rejecting the title. And if the title is as problematic as this thread proves it is, why would any protestant want to resurect it??????????

 

[Bunyon]

"As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431"--------------------------------------------------------

I just noticed this councils was held long after Constintine compromised the church by making it a state chruch on the empire's pay roll. Why would we give this council this much weight?????

 

[Bunyon]

Texas,

Just let me ask you this, why do you think it is wise for you to unilaterally defend and promote a title that our protestant forefathers universally rejected, and that the vast majority of our contemporary protestant brothers also reject??????

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by HankD:
I cannot call her the "mother of God" because, as Gold Dragon and others have said, it implies or could be construed by others to imply that she generated the Godhead in her womb as a kind of godess.

I never stated this.

I said that equating mother of God to mother of the Godhead is the non-Trinitarian heresy of modalism.

Those who properly use the title mother of God do not subscribe to modalism because they understand that Jesus is not just a mode of the Godhead but a distinct hypostasis or person in the Trinity.

Those who oppose the title mother of God because they believe it means mother of the Godhead are subscribing to the non-Trinitarian heresy of modalism. Of course those in this thread who do so, do not realize the modalistic implications of their statements.

It seems you have misunderstood my post.

 

[Salamander]

OK, Gold dragon, just how many unsuspecting and under-educated, (as compared to the verbage you use) would even begin to understand what you said??

It is too closely linked to Catholocism to even mention the phrase: "Mary, the mother of God".To understand that Mary was the "motherly" vessel God used to bring forth "her" son has to be the most emphasised truth.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Mary was the Mother of Christ humanity.

I wish someone would answer my question.

Was Jesus divine when Mary gave birth to him, or wasn't he?

Christ is both divine and human at the same time. Jesus was God incarnate.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Texas,

Just let me ask you this, why do you think it is wise for you to unilaterally defend and promote a title that our protestant forefathers universally rejected, and that the vast majority of our contemporary protestant brothers also reject??????

Hey! Don't forget about us IFB's!!! Anabaptists don't go around calling Mary, " the mother of God"

 

[HankD]

Hi Gold Dragon,

I wanted to leave off this discussion as it seemed to be trending down the unpleasant path of name calling and labeling.

However I couldn't leave it without an apology to you.

I am sorry I misunderstood you,

Here are your exact words

You are suggesting the heresy of modalism when you say that Mary being the Mother of God is the same as being the mother of the whole Godhead (or the Trinity).

which BTW seems to have changed a bit (as indicated) since my cut and paste.

I am sorry I misunderstood you.
I am glad you brought it to my attention.

You will also note that I ceded my position somewhat for several reasons.

Also, I might as well answer other objections while I am here.

While there are cases where the Church use words and phrases not found in Scripture such as "Trinity", "missions", "Sovereign Lord" (although some MVs use this phrase) in the case of the phrase "Mother of God" it is historically a pivotal one which reformers, Protestants, Baptists, Anabaptist, etc have all almost unanimously rejected as a phrase which is unscriptural.

The Church of England equivocated the Marian Dogma and the title after Henry the Eighth and vacilated between the Church of Rome and the Church of England for several hundred years.

If one understands the issues of the Hypostatic Union and the distinction of the Persons of the Trinity then I will accept the phrase as scripturally allowable to remove the possibility of being accused of denying the deity of Christ.

However, from my experience as a former Catholic, I was taught taught in effect to worship Mary because she is "the Mother of God".

Bow before her (statue) make the Trinitarian sign of the Cross and address her the same as I would the omnipresent God. Then make my petition known to her as if she were the omnipotent God then thank her and have faith that she hears and answers prayer.

While it is true that the Church of Rome makes a semantic distinction between the worship given to God and the prayers to Mary (Latria vs. hyperdulia - worship vs. veneration) there were no differences taught to us in the practicalities of praying to "the Mother of God". Bowing, requesting, thanking, etc.

I left all that behind me over 40 years ago.

These are the reasons why I myself do not use the phrase.

Others may do as they see fit.

HankD

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by HankD:
If one understands the issues of the Hypostatic Union and the distinction of the Persons of the Trinity then I will accept the phrase as scripturally allowable to remove the possibility of being accused of denying the deity of Christ.

However, from my experience as a former Catholic, I was taught taught in effect to worship Mary because she is "the Mother of God".

Hi Hank D. I believe your position is one that is perfectly understandable considering your history. I have no problem with those who choose not to use the title mother of God because of abuses of that phrase for the purpose of Mariolatry and specifically Catholic abuses of that phrase. I personally do not use the title myself except in these discussions.

I also commend you for recognizing the doctrinal significance of the proper use of this title in Trinitarian theology. I have no problem with your position on this.

It is when opposition to abuses of the title Mother of God leads to even worse abuse of the doctrine of the Trinity that I consider it a problem.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Salamander:
OK, Gold dragon, just how many unsuspecting and under-educated, (as compared to the verbage you use) would even begin to understand what you said??

It is too closely linked to Catholocism to even mention the phrase: "Mary, the mother of God".To understand that Mary was the "motherly" vessel God used to bring forth "her" son has to be the most emphasised truth.

It isn't really about education. It is about being so intent on declaring abuses in Catholicism wrong that some don't recognize they are making worse abuses with the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Salamander]

But what I was saying is that most never egt that deep into theology to understand what you said and that for the most past, most people understand the "mother of God' to embellish Mary as deity.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Salamander:
But what I was saying is that most never egt that deep into theology to understand what you said and that for the most past, most people understand the "mother of God' to embellish Mary as deity.

Then they are misunderstanding the proper use of that title.

Just an fyi that modalism is what many baptists are quick to denounce as the heresy of the Oneness Pentecostals. Yet, when those who oppose the title theotokos commit the same error, it's ok as long as it makes Catholics look wrong?

While I consider both to be wrong, I'm also probably more open to accepting both as erroneous brothers and sisters in Christ. I wonder if those who say mother of God is the same as mother of the Godhead would accept Oneness Pentecostals whose theology makes the same implications.

 

[Artimaeus]

The headline this morening read. "N Carolina carries out 1,000th execution". Now, this can be taken a couple of different ways but, the most powerful first reading seems to be saying that N Carolina has executed a total of 1000 people. When you read the article you find that it is the United States which has executed 1000 people since executions were reallowed in the early seventies. While it is technically true that N Carolina carried out the 1000th esxecution, the more powerful connotation is not true. The same thing is true with the phrase "Mother of God". It is technically true, in a sense, but the more powerful connotation simply is not. The primary meaning is true but would not even be repeated let alone used strongly if it weren't for the secondary meaning. No one uses the phrase/title "Brother of God" or "Sister of God". There would not even be a discussion if the secondary meaning of Mary having some sort of authority or special influence were not implied.

 

[Ransom]

Salamander said:

But what I was saying is that most never egt that deep into theology to understand what you said and that for the most past, most people understand the "mother of God' to embellish Mary as deity.

So instead of mollycoddling people's ignorance, how about we tell the truth, instead?

 

[bapmom]

but Ransom,

it is very easy to portray the truth about Mary without using the term "Mother of God".

There is no need to use a title for her which is so fraught with automatic misunderstanding and misapplication.

 

[Ransom]

it is very easy to portray the truth about Mary without using the term "Mother of God".

That is true, but if someone were to read church history without a sense of the proper understanding of the term, they are likely to get a very wrong impression of what the Council of Ephesus was all about, and what the early church was like.

Church history is not just an arcane subject for academics, hobbyists, and sermon illustrations. It is integral to our identity, telling us who we are and how we got to be that way. We ignore or misunderstand history at our peril.

If that sounds harsh or alarmist, just go back a few pages and read the blatantly Nestorian understanding of Christology that many sincere Christians obviously hold without even realizing they believe heresy.

 

[Bunyon]

Ransom, would you agree that the church of the Holy Roman Empire was a wayward chruch?

 

[Ransom]

Ransom, would you agree that the church of the Holy Roman Empire was a wayward chruch?

The church in Ad 431, at the time of the Council of Ephesus, was not "the church of the Holy Roman Empire." It was the Catholic church, at a time when the word "Catholic" actually meant what it meant - universal.

 

[Bunyon]

Ransome????? Do you always read into what someone is saying. LOL. I know the Holy Roman Empire was not yet in existance in 431AD. You are jumping the gun. I did not say anything about the Councils. I simply asked if you thought the Church of the Holy Roman Empire was wayward? I am going in that direction, but buy a different route. So do me the honor.