Theotokos

[Keachian]

While not being an explicitly biblical term, I am of the impression that we should be able to say that in Christ's incarnation God was born, the problem and rightly so with the use of this term is the abuse of it by Rome in the heretical elevation of Mary beyond where she should rightfully be.

Thoughts, rebuttles?

 

[twin1954]

While not being an explicitly biblical term, I am of the impression that we should be able to say that in Christ's incarnation God was born, the problem and rightly so with the use of this term is the abuse of it by Rome in the heretical elevation of Mary beyond where she should rightfully be.

Thoughts, rebuttles?

Theologically it is impossible for God to be born. What we can say is that the man who is God was born. The physical manhod of Christ was born but He was eternally the Son. Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given. Isa. 9:6

 

[Keachian]

I'm not sure that your argument against is particularly sound, I could understand it as anargument against saying the conception of Christ had Mary's involvement, this is unbiblical, I'd possibly even attribute to God the main actions of normal conception. We also should already Biblically believe that life begins before birth, that is why we stand againts all forms of mistreatment of pre-born human life
Also theologically speaking we cannot say God died, yet I believe that the Spirit inspired Scriptures go close enough to say that.

 

[Catherineanne]

Christ was both fully God and fully man. St Mary was his mother. Therefore, she is the mother of God; the Theotokos or God-bearer. Theotokos is more an Orthodox than Roman term, but both would accept it, I think.

What part of this is heretical to you?

 

[Catherineanne]

Theologically it is impossible for God to be born. What we can say is that the man who is God was born. The physical manhod of Christ was born but He was eternally the Son. Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given. Isa. 9:6

I am not sure if this is Reformed teaching or not, but it is certainly not mainstream Christian, or in line with Nicene. God was indeed born in Christ; not God the Father but God the Son. As the Word of God Christ is co-eternal with God, and he was born to St Mary in the Incarnation; fully man (ie human) and fully God.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Christ was both fully God and fully man. St Mary was his mother. Therefore, she is the mother of God; the Theotokos or God-bearer.

What part of this is heretical to you?

What she said. To deny that Mary is the Theotokos, or Mother of God, is heretical becasue the arguments against it end up being close to Nestorianism. Because of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus is fully God and fully man. You can not say Mary was the bearer of the Man and not also bearer of God. I was actually taught tha at a Reformed Seminary

 

[twin1954]

I'm not sure that your argument against is particularly sound, I could understand it as anargument against saying the conception of Christ had Mary's involvement, this is unbiblical, I'd possibly even attribute to God the main actions of normal conception. We also should already Biblically believe that life begins before birth, that is why we stand againts all forms of mistreatment of pre-born human life
Also theologically speaking we cannot say God died, yet I believe that the Spirit inspired Scriptures go close enough to say that.

The problem with saying God was born isn't one of abuse by the RCC but one of theological accuracy. It is impossible for God to be born and it is impossible for God to die but it isn't impossible for the man who is God to be born and the man who is God to die. The fact that Christ Jesus the Lord is both God and man is extremely important. We can never separate the 2 natures of Christ but we can also never make one to obliterate the other. In His manhood He is fully man and in His Godhood He is fully God. He must be both to save us.

Moreover if we blend the 2 natures of Christ to such a point where we can say that God was born or that God died then we run the risk, and it almost always goes in that direction, of making God to be like a man. We have the tendency to rob God of His Godhood and make Him to be just like us.

Also it is a confusing statement at the very least to say that God was born.

We ought to always be as clear and simple in our statements as possible so that people understand what we are saying clearly. It may ruffle feathers often but at least folks know where we stand.

 

[twin1954]

What she said. To deny that Mary is the Theotokos, or Mother of God, is heretical becasue the arguments against it end up being close to Nestorianism. Because of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus is fully God and fully man. You can not say Mary was the bearer of the Man and not also bearer of God. I was actually taught tha at a Reformed Seminary

She is the mother of the God-Man not the Mother of God. To elevate her to a status of more than a chosen vessel is to make her to be more than she was. She would not do so herself. Yes she was blessed above all women but not elevated above all women. She didn't give birth to God but to the Man who is God.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

So many times evangelicals are so afraid of sounding "Catholic" that they refuse to listen to the teachings of the Ecumenical Creeds. As an Anglican I can be both evangelical and Catholic and yet not elevetae Mary higher than she should be. Oh well. These arguments go round and round. No point is going through it again.

 

[twin1954]

So many times evangelicals are so afraid of sounding "Catholic" that they refuse to listen to the teachings of the Ecumenical Creeds. As an Anglican I can be both evangelical and Catholic and yet not elevetae Mary higher than she should be. Oh well. These arguments go round and round. No point is going through it again.

I understand your point and agree. But that isn't why I make the distinction. I do so because I want to be clear when I speak. I have enough problem with folks misunderstanding things already so that when I can I want to eliminate all reasons for confusion.

To say that Mary was the Mother of God, whether it is stated that way in the creeds or councils, is to assume a theological knowledge that may not exist. When we speak to eternity bound sinners we must never assume that they know anything. As a mtter of fact we ought to speak as though they know nothing. Those who do know are reminded and strengthened and those who don't are able to learn.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I understand your point and agree. But that isn't why I make the distinction. I do so because I want to be clear when I speak. I have enough problem with folks misunderstanding things already so that when I can I want to eliminate all reasons for confusion.

To say that Mary was the Mother of God, whether it is stated that way in the creeds or councils, is to assume a theological knowledge that may not exist. When we speak to eternity bound sinners we must never assume that they know anything. As a mtter of fact we ought to speak as though they know nothing. Those who do know are reminded and strengthened and those who don't are able to learn.

True most people, even most Christians, are theologically uninformed. So we do need to be careful to explain what a word or prhase does and does not mean.

 

[bsd058]

I agree that Mary was Theotokos. She was the mother of God and man in Jesus Christ. That's just the way it is. God was born. God died. It doesn't mean that Mary brought God into existence, nor does it mean that God failed to uphold the universe at his death. We don't cease to exist when we die, why would God?

When we say that Jesus was born of Mary as a man but not as God, that is separating the human and Divine natures, thereby making Jesus not fully Divine; a mere human with a special connection with God, but not possessing the nature of Deity.

I really do think it's just that protestants are fearful of returning to Rome that some are afraid of this doctrine.

 

[JM]

I really have no problem with Theotokos either. It has to do with the incarnation and not the eternitality of the God man Christ Jesus.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I agree that Mary was Theotokos. She was the mother of God and man in Jesus Christ. That's just the way it is. God was born. God died. It doesn't mean that Mary brought God into existence, nor does it mean that God failed to uphold the universe at his death. We don't cease to exist when we die, why would God?

When we say that Jesus was born of Mary as a man but not as God, that is separating the human and Divine natures, thereby making Jesus not fully Divine; a mere human with a special connection with God, but not possessing the nature of Deity.

I really do think it's just that protestants are fearful of returning to Rome that some are afraid of this doctrine.

Amen. You "got it". And that is all the phrase is saying too. It does NOT equal worshipping Mary. Not at all.

 

[All Souls]

You could argue that using the communication of idioms. But I'd suggest a read of The Human Face of God by John A.T. Robinson.

 

[JM]

This morning I was reading through Exodus and found a note in my Orthodox Study Bible that really struck me. It read, "The tabernacle also prefigures Mary the Theotokos, whose womb will be the tabernacle in which the Lord will dwell as he takes his flesh from her." I've never really had a problem with the Theotokos as a theological idea but it never struck me so powerfully until I read, "he takes his flesh from her."

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

You could argue that using the communication of idioms. But I'd suggest a read of The Human Face of God by John A.T. Robinson.

My Christology is close to Robinson's, but I think it's possible to defend theotokos even when using modern Christology. Nothing that Jesus did or that happened to him happened to just a human being. However you describe the Incarnation, the point of it is that in Jesus' life, including birth and death, we see both a human being and God.

However I'm convinced that the way theotokos took shape and was used historically did involve more Mariology than I'm comfortable with. The almost fanatical opposition to Nestorius was almost certainly not due just to a concern about Christological errors, but that he attacked a major foundation of Mariology.

 

[Tigger45]

Theotokos means God bearer. Mary bore the fetus Jesus the God-child therefore the term is perfectly acceptable.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My Christology is close to Robinson's, but I think it's possible to defend theotokos even when using modern Christology. Nothing that Jesus did or that happened to him happened to just a human being. However you describe the Incarnation, the point of it is that in Jesus' life, including birth and death, we see both a human being and God.

However I'm convinced that the way theotokos took shape and was used historically did involve more Mariology than I'm comfortable with. The almost fanatical opposition to Nestorius was almost certainly not due just to a concern about Christological errors, but that he attacked a major foundation of Mariology.

Thank you for the excellent reply. I think the modern defenders of theotokos tend much more toward Mariology than they care to admit.

 

[Job8]

I am of the impression that we should be able to say that in Christ's incarnation God was born

Only the God-Man could be born. So to say that "God was born" is to introduce error. God is self-existent and from everlasting to everlasting. That is why Scripture is careful to say that Jesus (the God-Man) was born.