- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,554
- 29,078
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
So I've noticed a fairly common trend over the years. Almost inevitably when the issue of Mary as the Theotokos or mother of God is raised someone will protest by arguing that Mary can't be the mother of God because Mary didn't give birth to God the Father or the Holy Spirit, or that Mary didn't exist before God, or that Mary isn't divine. And, naturally, when this protest is raised our response is to correct that misconception:
By saying Mary is the mother of God we do not mean that she gave birth to God the Father or the Holy Spirit, we do not mean that she existed before God, and we certainly don't mean that Mary is divine. What we mean by it is very explicit and very simple: Mary's offspring, our Lord Jesus Christ, is God. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, since she gave birth to Jesus, Mary is therefore the mother of God because her Child, Jesus, is God.
That really should be the end of the discussion, misconception has been corrected. And yet, almost without exception, that doesn't resolve the dispute. The one who protests will continue to insist that Mary can't be the mother of God because she didn't give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit, or that she didn't exist before God, or that she isn't divine. Yet those things have never been part of what it means to say she is God's mother, it has never meant anything other than that she is Jesus' mother, and that Jesus is God in the flesh.
So then one might argue, "Even if that isn't what is meant, someone might think that is what is meant, and so the risk is great." But that seems to be a failure of a response to me, for one I am unaware of this having ever been a legitimate problem in all the years of Christian history, one would think that if this were a legitimate risk that it would have been something needing to be addressed in the last two millennia but that doesn't seem to be the case. Further, if that concept of "risk" were applied to some other ideas we might see how it fails as an argument, let me provide an example:
Saying Jesus is God. This statement goes with little controversy in the mainstream of Christian churches (only out-and-out heretics say otherwise) and yet we could say this is a risky problem because it could, potentially, lead one to believe that Jesus is God the Father. And, indeed, that has been a legitimate error many have believed over the centuries, and yet the risk of error is accepted because we acknowledge that to address such risk and error is to correct it--we point out that, no, Jesus is not God the Father, He is the Son, and it is as the Son that He is God. The error is corrected, and we continue to confess the Deity of Christ.
And so when we have a statement that could potentially be misinterpreted to heresy and error, we do not throw it away, we explain what it actually means, we correct the error, and we continue to employ its use because, in its proper use, is true.
This is precisely how we go about addressing potential error when it comes to saying Mary is Theotokos and mother of God, it means something specific and is true in its intended meaning, and when someone is misinformed about its meaning we correct it, and if someone falls into error concerning it, we address it and correct that as well.
So where, therefore, is the legitimate protest against the theological truth that Mary, as the mother of our Lord Jesus who is God and man, is God's mother? There is none.
If the protest is due to confusion, it has been corrected.
If the protest is due to risk, we address the risk and correct it if it should appear.
If the protest is due, however, to heresy--that one does not believe Jesus is truly God, indeed the very God-Man--then that is where we have a legitimate problem, and a much bigger concern than the protest as the one who protests has themselves fallen into deep and troubling error concerning the nature and person of Jesus Christ.
-CryptoLutheran
By saying Mary is the mother of God we do not mean that she gave birth to God the Father or the Holy Spirit, we do not mean that she existed before God, and we certainly don't mean that Mary is divine. What we mean by it is very explicit and very simple: Mary's offspring, our Lord Jesus Christ, is God. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, since she gave birth to Jesus, Mary is therefore the mother of God because her Child, Jesus, is God.
That really should be the end of the discussion, misconception has been corrected. And yet, almost without exception, that doesn't resolve the dispute. The one who protests will continue to insist that Mary can't be the mother of God because she didn't give birth to the Father or the Holy Spirit, or that she didn't exist before God, or that she isn't divine. Yet those things have never been part of what it means to say she is God's mother, it has never meant anything other than that she is Jesus' mother, and that Jesus is God in the flesh.
So then one might argue, "Even if that isn't what is meant, someone might think that is what is meant, and so the risk is great." But that seems to be a failure of a response to me, for one I am unaware of this having ever been a legitimate problem in all the years of Christian history, one would think that if this were a legitimate risk that it would have been something needing to be addressed in the last two millennia but that doesn't seem to be the case. Further, if that concept of "risk" were applied to some other ideas we might see how it fails as an argument, let me provide an example:
Saying Jesus is God. This statement goes with little controversy in the mainstream of Christian churches (only out-and-out heretics say otherwise) and yet we could say this is a risky problem because it could, potentially, lead one to believe that Jesus is God the Father. And, indeed, that has been a legitimate error many have believed over the centuries, and yet the risk of error is accepted because we acknowledge that to address such risk and error is to correct it--we point out that, no, Jesus is not God the Father, He is the Son, and it is as the Son that He is God. The error is corrected, and we continue to confess the Deity of Christ.
And so when we have a statement that could potentially be misinterpreted to heresy and error, we do not throw it away, we explain what it actually means, we correct the error, and we continue to employ its use because, in its proper use, is true.
This is precisely how we go about addressing potential error when it comes to saying Mary is Theotokos and mother of God, it means something specific and is true in its intended meaning, and when someone is misinformed about its meaning we correct it, and if someone falls into error concerning it, we address it and correct that as well.
So where, therefore, is the legitimate protest against the theological truth that Mary, as the mother of our Lord Jesus who is God and man, is God's mother? There is none.
If the protest is due to confusion, it has been corrected.
If the protest is due to risk, we address the risk and correct it if it should appear.
If the protest is due, however, to heresy--that one does not believe Jesus is truly God, indeed the very God-Man--then that is where we have a legitimate problem, and a much bigger concern than the protest as the one who protests has themselves fallen into deep and troubling error concerning the nature and person of Jesus Christ.
-CryptoLutheran
