What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

    Read The Gospel Online.

Mother of God?

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Donate View
Mungo said:
Early Christian witness
The early Church Fathers recognised Mary as the Mother of God. Here are a few quotes from them:

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Hippolytus - Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Gregory the Wonderworker Four Homilies 1; 262 AD).

"(Those engaged in the public transport service) came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (Peter of Alexandria The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria; 305 AD).

"While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Methodius Oration on Simeon and Anna 7; 305 AD).

"We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Alexander of Alexandria Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12; 324 AD).

"The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 10:19; 350 AD).

"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Ephraim the Syrian Songs of Praise 1:20; 351 AD).

"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (Athanasius The Incarnation of the Word of God 8; 365 AD).

"Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit" (Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 75; 374 AD).

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (Ambrose of Milan The Virgins 2:2[7]; 377 AD).

This Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity;
And though still a Virgin she carried a Child in her womb;
And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom
became the Mother of God
(St Ephraim, Songs of Praise, 1, 20; c. 381 AD)

"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Gregory of Nazianz Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101; 382 AD).

And don't tell God's revelation is in Scripture alone. That is not Biblical and a heresy.
Click to expand...
We Disagree, Because of non-biblical evidence.

Walter And Debbie
 
Free said:
First, I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit was Jesus's Father; the Father is the Father and the Holy Spirit played a role in bringing about the conception of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I know we both agree 100% on the Trinity...so let's see if you agree at all with my line of reasoning:

Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary...
making her ready for the Power of the Most High to overshadow her
and for this reason the offspring will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
IF only the Holy Spirit were involved in the above, Jesus would still be God...
all 3 Persons are God.

Free said:


Second, my point is precisely that Jesus is both God and man, but that his human nature comes from Mary, not his divine nature. To say that Mary is the mother of God, makes it sound like God had a beginning and that his divine nature came from Mary; it would mean that Mary preceded God. I think it is that which brings into question who Jesus is.
Click to expand...

Nostorius taught the heresy of Christ being 2 persons.
One a human person, and one a divine person.
Or, 1 person with 2 natures.
This heresy was corrected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.

The natures of Christ cannot be divided because if they are, His sacrifice on the cross would be insignificant.
The following is from Ligonier Ministries:


The errors of Nestorianism become evident when we reflect on the atonement. If Christ is two persons, who died on the cross? It cannot be the infinite divine person of the Son, for He has not assumed a human nature. He possesses only a divine nature, which cannot experience suffering. So, it must have been the human person who suffered and died because the human person in Christ has a human nature, which can experience suffering. But then we have the death only of a finite person, for human persons are finite. And the merit of a finite human sacrifice could hardly be applied to anyone besides the finite person who offers it. Thus, the Westminster Larger Catechism 38 says that Christ had to be God—He had to be a divine person with a human nature so as to give His human suffering sufficient worth to atone for many (Heb. 5:9). Nestorianism gives us an insufficient atonement.
source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/nestorian-heresy
If we want to believe in the Trinity, then we have to decide what Jesus was.
Was He existent BEFORE His birth as the Word of God? John 1:1
Yes.
And was the Word become flesh?
Yes.
So then when Jesus was conceived He was already God.
OR, He was NOT God before becoming flesh.
It can't be both.

If Jesus was God...
and Mary was His mother...
then Mary must be the mother of God.


Free said:

Third, believing the doctrine of Mary as the Mother of God has led to other serious errors, such as her immaculate conception and perpetual virginity. It all gets very close to deifying Mary.

Mary is the mother of Jesus, the mother of the God-man, and I think that is where we should leave things so as not to fall into error.
Click to expand...
The problem we Protestants have is the following, as I see it:

When we say Mary is the mother of God, we immediately think of God the Father...Yaweh.
Yaweh had no mother....He always existed.

But if we put the Trinity into this mix, then it's easier to understand why we cannot say that Mary is NOT the mother of God.

Either Jesus was God, or He wasn't.
 
wondering said:
It's unfortunate that the Early Fathers are not read.

Some of the were taught by the Apostles and passed on what they were taught.
Click to expand...
?,

Ephesians 2:18-20


​

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Read full chapter
 
WalterandDebbie said:
?,

Ephesians 2:18-20​

​

​

​

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Read full chapter
Click to expand...
And your point - if there is one?
 
WalterandDebbie said:
?,

Ephesians 2:18-20​

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Read full chapter
Click to expand...
Why the question mark?
What about church history?
What about the early theologians coming up with the Trinity?
The Hyperstatic union?

These are all biblical truths that were clarified and explained because the bible was not clear and many heresies sprung up in the Christian faith.

Was it not the early Christians that retained what we know today to be Christianity?
What if Nostorias had won the battle, or Arian?

Who do you think fought the battles?
 
Mungo said:
No I don't.
"especially when in authority of the household of faith" what does that mean?
"It is according to the source of the doctrine, isn't it?" What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...
According to our belief, we may be right, but we are to speak the same thing as to that 1 Doctrine.
 
Mungo said:
I don't think it is misleading.
Click to expand...
How can it not be since it leaves out the humanity of Jesus? As I stated, it can lead to at least three heresies, each of which downplays or dismisses Christ's humanity.

Mungo said:
All three doctrines have a basis in Scripture.
None of them contradict Scripture.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see any biblical support for any of them, apart from Mary being the "mother of God," which is a potentially misleading half-truth.

Mungo said:
Early Christian witness
The early Church Fathers recognised Mary as the Mother of God. Here are a few quotes from them:

"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Iranaeus - Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Hippolytus - Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).
Click to expand...
Is AD 189 the earliest reference to "God-bearer?" Note that "God-bearer "is not the same as "mother of God."

Mungo said:
"For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Gregory the Wonderworker Four Homilies 1; 262 AD).
Click to expand...
Is AD 262 the earliest reference to "Mother of God"? That's rather a long way out, don't you think?

Mungo said:
"If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Gregory of Nazianz Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101; 382 AD).
Click to expand...
That is quite the claim. Does the Bible ever as much as imply that one would be "at odds with the Godhead" if one disagrees with Mary being the Mother of God? If it doesn't, then we certainly shouldn't be making it an explicit claim.

Mungo said:
And don't tell God's revelation is in Scripture alone. That is not Biblical and a heresy.
Click to expand...
It isn't, but if any revelation contradicts Scripture it is false; if it has no support in Scripture, it's suspect. All the revelation we need for Christian living and salvation is given in the Bible.
 
wondering said:
I know we both agree 100% on the Trinity...so let's see if you agree at all with my line of reasoning:

Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary...
making her ready for the Power of the Most High to overshadow her
and for this reason the offspring will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
IF only the Holy Spirit were involved in the above, Jesus would still be God...
all 3 Persons are God.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you're addressing here. The Holy Spirit is the means, it would seem, by which Mary became pregnant, but it doesn't follow that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. Only the Father is the Father; Jesus keeps the other two persons distinct.

wondering said:
Nostorius taught the heresy of Christ being 2 persons.
One a human person, and one a divine person.
Or, 1 person with 2 natures.
This heresy was corrected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.

The natures of Christ cannot be divided because if they are, His sacrifice on the cross would be insignificant.
The following is from Ligonier Ministries:


The errors of Nestorianism become evident when we reflect on the atonement. If Christ is two persons, who died on the cross? It cannot be the infinite divine person of the Son, for He has not assumed a human nature. He possesses only a divine nature, which cannot experience suffering. So, it must have been the human person who suffered and died because the human person in Christ has a human nature, which can experience suffering. But then we have the death only of a finite person, for human persons are finite. And the merit of a finite human sacrifice could hardly be applied to anyone besides the finite person who offers it. Thus, the Westminster Larger Catechism 38 says that Christ had to be God—He had to be a divine person with a human nature so as to give His human suffering sufficient worth to atone for many (Heb. 5:9). Nestorianism gives us an insufficient atonement.
source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/nestorian-heresy
Click to expand...
Actually, one person with two natures is the orthodox view.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. Forthe right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance ofthe Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Fatheras touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether,not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

Athanasian Creed


It's known as the hypostatic union, which came from the Council of Chalcedon:

https://www.simplycatholic.com/christology-101-what-is-the-hypostatic-union/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/nestorian-heresy
wondering said:
If we want to believe in the Trinity, then we have to decide what Jesus was.
Was He existent BEFORE His birth as the Word of God? John 1:1
Yes.
And was the Word become flesh?
Yes.
So then when Jesus was conceived He was already God.
OR, He was NOT God before becoming flesh.
It can't be both.

If Jesus was God...
and Mary was His mother...
then Mary must be the mother of God.
Click to expand...
But, Jesus was also human. To not include his humanity in his identity has the potential to mislead to at least those three heresies I gave.

wondering said:
The problem we Protestants have is the following, as I see it:

When we say Mary is the mother of God, we immediately think of God the Father...Yaweh.
Yaweh had no mother....He always existed.

But if we put the Trinity into this mix, then it's easier to understand why we cannot say that Mary is NOT the mother of God.

Either Jesus was God, or He wasn't.
Click to expand...
He was God, but he was also man. To me, to say that Mary is the Mother of God, is only half true. To say Mary is the Mother of the God-man would be the correct way to put it, in my opinion. There is just too much potential for error any other way.
 
Free said:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is both God and man.
God is eternal and uncreated.
Therefore, Mary is the mother only of the humanity of Jesus, since God cannot, by definition, have a mother.
Click to expand...

This appears to be the real point of contention, and goes to intent on what the early fathers meant by the phrase "mother of God." Did they mean He was no longer a man, or that Mary was not an imperfect woman like the rest of us? If so, what does evidence from the early fathers show?

I'm guessing Mungo has some ready-made answers, but while I have to admit I have not looked heavily into it, those would be the better questions to ask, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Donate View
Back
Top