Against Those Who Reject Mary as the Mother of God

[Theophan]

As the title says, this thread is against those who reject sound doctrine. I do not wish to present my own feeble argument since I am no theologian. Instead, I present a true a theologian, St. John of Damascus:

Moreover we proclaim the holy Virgin to be in strict truth the Mother of God
. For inasmuch as He who was born of her was true God, she who bare the
true God incarnate is the true mother of God. For we hold that God was born
of her, not implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the
beginning of its being, but meaning that God the Word Himself, Who was
begotten of the Father timelessly before the ages, and was with the Father and
the Spirit without beginning and through eternity, took up His abode in these
last days for the sake of our salvation in the Virgin’s womb, and was without
change made flesh and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not bare mere
man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate, Who did not bring
down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as
channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting
in Himself . For if the body had come down from heaven and had not
partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man?
For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same
nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph
over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine
apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead . If the first is true the second must also be true.
Although , however, he says, The first Adam is of the earth earthy; the
second Adam is Lord from Heaven , he does not say that His body is from
heaven, but emphasises the fact that He is not mere man. For, mark, he called
Him both Adam and Lord, thus indicating His double nature. For Adam is,
being interpreted, earth-born: and it is clear that man’s nature is earth-born
since he is formed from earth, but the title Lord signifies His divine essence.

And again the Apostle says: God sent forth His only-begotten Son, made of
a woman . He did not say “made by a woman.” Wherefore the divine apostle
meant that the only-begotten Son of God and God is the same as He who was
made man of the Virgin, and that He who was born of the Virgin is the same
as the Son of God and God.

But He was born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as He became man, and
did not take up His abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but
became Himself in essence and truth man, that is He caused flesh animated
with the intelligent and reasonable to subsist in His own subsistence, and
Himself became subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of “made of a
woman.” For how could the very Word of God itself have been made under
the law, if He did not become man of like essence with ourselves?

Hence it is with justice and truth that we call the holy Mary the Mother of
God. For this name embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if
she who bore Him is the Mother of God, assuredly He Who was born of her
is God and likewise also man. For how could God, Who was before the ages,
have been born of a woman unless He had become man? For the son of man
must clearly be man himself. But if He Who was born of a woman is Himself
God, manifestly He Who was born of God the Father in accordance with the
laws of an essence that is divine and knows no beginning, and He Who was
in the last days born of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence
that has beginning and is subject to time, that is, an essence which is human,
must be one and the same. The name in truth signifies the one subsistence
and the two natures and the two generations of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But we never say that the holy Virgin is the Mother of Christ because it
was in order to do away with the title Mother of God, and to bring dishonour
on the Mother of God, who alone is in truth worthy of honour above all
creation, that the impure and abominable Judaizing Nestorius , that vessel of
dishonour, invented this name for an insult . For David the king, and Aaron,
the high priest, are also called Christ , for it is customary to make kings and
priests by anointing: and besides every God-inspired man may be called
Christ, but yet he is not by nature God: yea, the accursed Nestorius insulted
Him Who was born of the Virgin by calling Him God-bearer . May it be far
from us to speak of or think of Him as God-bearer only , Who is in truth God
incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth
conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature
which, as soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so
that these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our
nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by
the Word. And thus it is that the holy Virgin is thought of and spoken of as
the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also
because of the deification of man’s nature, the miracles of conception and of
existence being wrought together, to wit, the conception the Word, and the
existence of the flesh in the Word Himself. For the very Mother of God in
some marvellous manner was the means of fashioning the Framer of all
things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, Who deified
the nature that He assumed, while the union preserved those things that were
united just as they were united, that is to say, not only the divine nature of
Christ but also His human nature, not only that which is above us but that
which is of us. For He was not first made like us and only later became
higher than us, but ever from His first coming into being He existed with the
double nature, because He existed in the Word Himself from the beginning of
the conception. Wherefore He is human in His own nature, but also, in some
marvellous manner, of God and divine. Moreover He has the properties of the
living flesh: for by reason of the dispensation the Word received these which
are, according to the order of natural motion, truly natural .



So, if you disagree with St John of Damascus, please explain why.

 

[Albion]

Mary did give birth to Jesus who was God in the flesh. That's nothing to overlook.

On the other hand, to make the commemoration or acceptance of this particular title (Mother of God, Theotokos) into a kind of litmus test of one's Christian faith strikes me as wrong to do.

 

[Theophan]

Mary did give birth to Jesus who was God in the flesh. That's nothing to overlook.

On the other hand, to make the commemoration or acceptance of this particular title (Mother of God, Theotokos) into a kind of litmus test of one's Christian faith strikes me as wrong to do.

Whether it strikes you as something wrong to do or not is besides the point. You have completely neglected the question of the thread. This seems quite common around here. I have yet to encounter someone who will actually and genuinely address my questions. Instead, I encouter critics and people who desire to answer questions I never even asked.

 

[Yanni depp]

She definitely bore Jesus' human form. In my eyes she was a vessel. St. John makes it sound like she is responsible for giving Jesus some gift that He couldnt attain otherwise.

"For the very Mother of God in
some marvellous manner was the means of fashioning the Framer of all
things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, "

But Jesus was knit together in the womb by His Fathers hand Psalm 139:13 again she was just a vessel, she didnt bestow anything to God.

 

[Albion]

Whether it strikes you as something wrong to do or not is besides the point. You have completely neglected the question of the thread. .

I must not have given you the answer you wanted.

 

[Theophan]

I must not have given you the answer you wanted.

If I asked you, 'What's the weather like today?' And then you say, 'I'm very hungry.' What does that have to do with anything I asked? You did the same thing.

 

[Albion]

If I asked you, 'What's the weather like today?' And then you say, 'I'm very hungry.' What does that have to do with anything I asked? You did the same thing.

I am wondering if you misunderstood my post.

 

[Theophan]

I am wondering if you misunderstood my post.

No, you misunderstood mine. My post clearly says, 'If you disagree with St John, explain why.'

You did not do this. You addressed a different topic.

 

[Cheylynn]

As the title says, this thread is against those who reject sound doctrine. I do not wish to present my own feeble argument since I am no theologian. Instead, I present a true a theologian, St. John of Damascus:

Moreover we proclaim the holy Virgin to be in strict truth the Mother of God
. For inasmuch as He who was born of her was true God, she who bare the
true God incarnate is the true mother of God. For we hold that God was born
of her, not implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the
beginning of its being, but meaning that God the Word Himself, Who was
begotten of the Father timelessly before the ages, and was with the Father and
the Spirit without beginning and through eternity, took up His abode in these
last days for the sake of our salvation in the Virgin’s womb, and was without
change made flesh and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not bare mere
man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate, Who did not bring
down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as
channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting
in Himself . For if the body had come down from heaven and had not
partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man?
For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same
nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph
over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine
apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead . If the first is true the second must also be true.
Although , however, he says, The first Adam is of the earth earthy; the
second Adam is Lord from Heaven , he does not say that His body is from
heaven, but emphasises the fact that He is not mere man. For, mark, he called
Him both Adam and Lord, thus indicating His double nature. For Adam is,
being interpreted, earth-born: and it is clear that man’s nature is earth-born
since he is formed from earth, but the title Lord signifies His divine essence.

And again the Apostle says: God sent forth His only-begotten Son, made of
a woman . He did not say “made by a woman.” Wherefore the divine apostle
meant that the only-begotten Son of God and God is the same as He who was
made man of the Virgin, and that He who was born of the Virgin is the same
as the Son of God and God.

But He was born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as He became man, and
did not take up His abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but
became Himself in essence and truth man, that is He caused flesh animated
with the intelligent and reasonable to subsist in His own subsistence, and
Himself became subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of “made of a
woman.” For how could the very Word of God itself have been made under
the law, if He did not become man of like essence with ourselves?

Hence it is with justice and truth that we call the holy Mary the Mother of
God. For this name embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if
she who bore Him is the Mother of God, assuredly He Who was born of her
is God and likewise also man. For how could God, Who was before the ages,
have been born of a woman unless He had become man? For the son of man
must clearly be man himself. But if He Who was born of a woman is Himself
God, manifestly He Who was born of God the Father in accordance with the
laws of an essence that is divine and knows no beginning, and He Who was
in the last days born of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence
that has beginning and is subject to time, that is, an essence which is human,
must be one and the same. The name in truth signifies the one subsistence
and the two natures and the two generations of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But we never say that the holy Virgin is the Mother of Christ because it
was in order to do away with the title Mother of God, and to bring dishonour
on the Mother of God, who alone is in truth worthy of honour above all
creation, that the impure and abominable Judaizing Nestorius , that vessel of
dishonour, invented this name for an insult . For David the king, and Aaron,
the high priest, are also called Christ , for it is customary to make kings and
priests by anointing: and besides every God-inspired man may be called
Christ, but yet he is not by nature God: yea, the accursed Nestorius insulted
Him Who was born of the Virgin by calling Him God-bearer . May it be far
from us to speak of or think of Him as God-bearer only , Who is in truth God
incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth
conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature
which, as soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so
that these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our
nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by
the Word. And thus it is that the holy Virgin is thought of and spoken of as
the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also
because of the deification of man’s nature, the miracles of conception and of
existence being wrought together, to wit, the conception the Word, and the
existence of the flesh in the Word Himself. For the very Mother of God in
some marvellous manner was the means of fashioning the Framer of all
things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, Who deified
the nature that He assumed, while the union preserved those things that were
united just as they were united, that is to say, not only the divine nature of
Christ but also His human nature, not only that which is above us but that
which is of us. For He was not first made like us and only later became
higher than us, but ever from His first coming into being He existed with the
double nature, because He existed in the Word Himself from the beginning of
the conception. Wherefore He is human in His own nature, but also, in some
marvellous manner, of God and divine. Moreover He has the properties of the
living flesh: for by reason of the dispensation the Word received these which
are, according to the order of natural motion, truly natural .



So, if you disagree with St John of Damascus, please explain why.

I have read this excerpt, over a few times. Please forgive my ignorance, I can't seem to make sense of it to agree or not agree. Give me a scripture reference from the bible and I will be able to answer you yay or nay.

 

[JackRT]

I have read this excerpt, over a few times. Please forgive my ignorance, I can't seem to make sense of it to agree or not agree. Give me a scripture reference from the bible and I will be able to answer you yay or nay.

This, like much other theology, is couched in the language of Greek philosophy. This was part of the world view of the time and they expressed their understandings in the only language they could understand. We no longer speak that language nor have that world view. That is why the argument seems so strange to us. The Athanasian Creed is much the same in this respect. What we need are understandings that make sense to us today because the old understandings no longer work the way they used to.

 

[Philip_B]

I am a bit light on here, however my presumption is that John of Damascus wrote in Greek, and so I presume that the term that he used was Theotokos which is generally translated into Latin as Mater Dei. If you translate the Greek into English you would most probably end up with something like God Bearer however if you translate the Latin into English you arrive at Mother of God.

The lack of citation, and the opportunity to check the original, makes the task a little more difficult.

The difference is nuanced, and I am in generally happy enough with the term Mother of God though it it not a term I would naturally use myself, where as the term Theotokos or God Bearer are terms I use more easily. The one exception to that is in the recitation of the Angelus where I am fully aware of the context and the meaning is very clearly God Bearer.

My view is that a lot of my more reformed brothers and sisters in Christ would find the term God Bearer an easy acceptance, and of course if they struggled with that concept then they may be struggling with the question of Incarnation in the way that Nestorius did.

Anyway a link to the passage in the original Greek might be handy.

 

[Athanasius377]

Yes I agree with John of Damascus. If you read the quotation carefully you will notice that his concern is making distinction between Mother of God (or God bearer ) and mother of Christ as part of the Nestorian controversy. John takes the objection by Nestorius against the phrase "Mother of God" and expounds upon it as a refutation of Nestorius's position. So as an orthodox Trinitarian I don't know how I could deny what John wrote.

 

[Hank77]

Yes I agree with John of Damascus. If you read the quotation carefully you will notice that his concern is making distinction between Mother of God (or God bearer ) and mother of Christ as part of the Nestorian controversy. John takes the objection by Nestorius against the phrase "Mother of God" and expounds upon it as a refutation of Nestorius's position. So as an orthodox Trinitarian I don't know how I could deny what John wrote.

Thank you for this explanation, it is very helpful.

 

[Noxot]

I don't deny that mary served God and provided genetic material to fashion Jesus as a human in the earth but it is Jesus Christ who gave himself his humanity because being a human is more than inheriting your genetics and for that mary can take no credit and I doubt that she would ever think that she gave God his humanity when in fact God gave his own self the fullness of humanity.

i'm near certain that mary would not at all want to take even half the credit that most people give her. if I was mary I would certainly not want anyone ever thinking anything of me.

 

[1213]

As the title says, this thread is against those who reject sound doctrine. I do not wish to present my own feeble argument since I am no theologian. Instead, I present a true a theologian, St. John of Damascus:...

So, if you disagree with St John of Damascus, please explain why.

I personally believe what the Bible tells and Bible seems to disagree with St. John, because according to it, Jesus himself says:

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28


This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

And Paul says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

And Bible tells God is Spirit and love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24


He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

You don’t need to believe me, but I hope you believe Jesus and Bible.

 

[Athanasius377]

Whether it strikes you as something wrong to do or not is besides the point. You have completely neglected the question of the thread. This seems quite common around here. I have yet to encounter someone who will actually and genuinely address my questions. Instead, I encouter critics and people who desire to answer questions I never even asked.

 

[DeaconDean]

Because as a Baptist, the ECF's hold no authority over me.

Were they sincere? Yes

But were they, or are they as authoritative as scriptures? No

And besides all that, the main thing is your wanting to discuss is "theology".

Only one single person ever on the face of the earth has had a "theology" that was 100% correct on 100% of what He taught.

And we all know who He was.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

I don't deny that mary served God and provided genetic material to fashion Jesus as a human in the earth but it is Jesus Christ who gave himself his humanity because being a human is more than inheriting your genetics and for that mary can take no credit and I doubt that she would ever think that she gave God his humanity when in fact God gave his own self the fullness of humanity.

i'm near certain that mary would not at all want to take even half the credit that most people give her. if I was mary I would certainly not want anyone ever thinking anything of me.

Most Christians think that Mary deserves honor for having given birth to Jesus, but that's not an invitation for all the rest that has been declared or done in her name.

And if there is any doubt about that--which of course there is, considering the vehemence of the counterattacks that come from those who insist that she should be prayed to, have shrines to her erected, special feast days, claims that our salvation is hers to decide, etc.--consider how Jesus himself treated his mother.

It certainly was not to put her on some pedestal, push her to the head of the crowd, introduce her around in every place that the two of them went, grant her special responsibilities in his ministry, or any of that.It was just the opposite!

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

In the Bible before we get to Luke there are two prophecies regarding the virgin birth and coming of Messiah. The seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent is followed though the genealogies to Mary with the emphasis on the seed not the woman. Isaiah 7 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Abraham we are told in his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed. This is putting the focus on Jesus.

Isaiah 9 again speaking of Jesus
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

When you list the scriptures detailing the life and ministry of Jesus we see a complete script of His deity, and mission. With Mary we see she is as she said the maidservant of the LORD. She is truly blessed among women and if you want to call her mother of God that is ok because in a sense she is. But like Esther who stepped up and risked to go before the king Mordecai rightly told her
“For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

The magnification of Mary is way beyond what scripture has spoken of regarding her. Jesus said before Abraham I am and they took up stones for blasphemy. The scriptures say to test the spirits and where in scriptures does it say anything about Jesus sending his mom to pop up from time to time all over the world? Her message at Guadalupe is that Jesus wanted to honor her with a shrine. Look up images of this Cathedral it is certainly a spectacular shrine. The place Mary holds now in many Catholics minds is not right.
Mary is now comediator of all graces and coredeemer too and assumed to have ascended to heaven and takes the Title queen of heaven.

This message is parallel to the heart of Lucifer.
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[fn] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

Mary is great and these apparitions in my view are lying spirits just as scripture warns Satan can transform himself into a angel of light. The appearances of Fatima were proceeded by an angel of light. If you give all of your devotion and prayer and worship to Jesus you are in line with scripture. All other paths are a detour.

 

[PaulCyp1]

How can anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as God deny that His mother is the mother of God?? I am a biologist. Is there any possible way that my mother could not be the mother of a biologist?