"Evangelicals and the Mother of God"

[bookslover]

Timothy George carries water for the Roman Catholic Church: www.firstthings.com.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think he's right in pointing out that some Evangelicals tend to tack so hard in opposition to Rome that they ignore her blessed status in the Words of Scripture. I think we're right to acknowledge the historical fact of her status and that she is blessed of all women.

At the same time, however, we're left with only historical narrative. The Epistles are dead silent concerning her indicating her relative lack of pre-eminence in the faith life of a believer. She does not occupy so much as a sentence from any of the Apostles in how the believer ought to believe, pray, or act.

I frankly think the "Biblical" or "Evangelical" balanced view of her is to acknowledge the great grace shown to her by God and her obedience to the command as she is encountered in exegesis of the Word.

To create a systematic view of how we ought to consider her apart from these passages is speculative at best and leads to idolatry at its worst.

 

[Pilgrim]

I only skimmed the article and didn't find anything too objectionable but again I didn't read it too closely. But George was a strong supporter of ECT which was certainly objectionable.

 

[SRoper]

I think he's right in pointing out that some Evangelicals tend to tack so hard in opposition to Rome that they ignore her blessed status in the Words of Scripture.

Being unable to reach the article and establish context, I was a bit shocked when I read this. Rich has heard the siren call!

 

[Staphlobob]

Being unable to reach the article and establish context, I was a bit shocked when I read this. Rich has heard the siren call!

My browser won't open the page. I think it's more Comcast's fault than anything else.

However, I may be able to guess the general contents. Is he talking about whether Mary is, or is not, the Theotokos (God-bearer) - the Mother of God? If so, then it's a rather long-in-the-tooth debate.

Most evangelicals say "no", concluding that Mary gave birth to only the human nature of our Lord.

Others (Rome mostly, but also Eastern Orthodox and many evangelicals, Reformed, Calvinist, Lutherans, etc.) say "yes" since one cannot ultimately separate the human and divine natures.

As for Mary being blessed, that's simply Scriptural.

 

[DTK]

However, I may be able to guess the general contents. Is he talking about whether Mary is, or is not, the Theotokos (God-bearer) - the Mother of God? If so, then it's a rather long-in-the-tooth debate.

Most evangelicals say "no", concluding that Mary gave birth to only the human nature of our Lord.

Others (Rome mostly, but also Eastern Orthodox and many evangelicals, Reformed, Calvinist, Lutherans, etc.) say "yes" since one cannot ultimately separate the human and divine natures.

Augustine said "no" on that issue too. Some Roman apologists, if they were consistent in their charges of Nestorianism against Protestants, would have to charge Augustine with the same error...

Augustine (354-430): And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee ?” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VIII, §9, John 2:1-4.

Augustine (354-430): At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.

Augustine (354-430): While hanging upon the cross, at the will and command of the Father, he also abandoned into the hands of men the human flesh which he assumed from the holy virgin, Mary, and commended his divinity into the hands of his Father, saying, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit (Lk 23:46). For Mary gave birth to the body which was destined to die, but the immortal God begot the immortal Son. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, The Arian Sermon §7, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 133.

DTK

 

[Staphlobob]

Augustine said "no" on that issue too. Some Roman apologists, if they were consistent in their charges of Nestorianism against Protestants, would have to charge Augustine with the same error...

Doubtless, they would.

Remember, they worship Mary, not Augustine. (Causistry be damned, hyperlutria = worship.)