Mary, the mother of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Bushey

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Christ's divinity is eternal. Could it be correct in using the phrase, 'Mary, the mother of God', given that Christ's divinity is eternal?

Comments?
 
Scott Bushey said:
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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Christ's divinity is eternal. Could it be correct in using the phrase, 'Mary, the mother of God', given that Christ's divinity is eternal?

Comments?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe those are comments. ;) :pilgrim:
 
Something from M. Winzer a few years back:

"Devotionally, I would not call her the mother of God, since such a statement without qualification is liable to misunderstanding, especially given the abuse of the term. Doctrinally, given the opportunity to make the kind of distinctions and qualifications which are taught in the Confession of Faith, I think we are bound to affirm the theotokos. It is not unbiblical to do so. In Acts 20:28, "blood" is ascribed to God, that is, the person who shed His blood is God. Likewise, Mary is called "the mother of Jesus," John 2:3; the person of whom she was the mother is God. True motherhood is motherhood of a person, not a nature. We are warranted in qualifying that the person's human nature alone was derived from the substance of the Virgin, but the unio personalis demands that we acknowledge Mary to be the God-bearer in a qualified sense lest we become guilty of one of the two errors I mentioned previously."
 
I have concluded that to reject the phrase, would be Nestorianism:

The 3rd Ecumenical Council-Ephesus, 431, who re-affirms the title "Theotokos".

Sorry to waste the space. :)
 
Last edited:
Scott,
I reject the R.C. phrase "Mother of God" because it is inaccurate. Theotokos (God-bearer), on the other hand, is perfectly appropriate. What helped me with this was church history; the whole argument (is it Christotokos, Theotokos or something else?) is right in the middle of a particular christological debate (Nicea, Chalcedon), namely, who is this One? Where Rome went wrong is in mis-interpreting church history (at least). When the councils used either term, they were trying to, as best they could, define and explain Christ, not Mary. Rome saw it (and/or hijacked it) the other way. It wasn't that long after Chalcedon (150-200 years?), Mariology was on the radar, and I believe it was because of the aforementioned.....
 
Last edited:
Is there any significant difference between "God bearer" and "mother of God"? Scripture closely ties the terms together (cf. Prov. 23:25, Song of Solomon 6:9, 8:5, Jer. 16:3, 20:14, 22:26, 50:12). Isaiah 7:14 says:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Therefore in this qualified sense, "mother of God" seems appropriate lest we separate His natures. She is the mother of the Person Jesus, not the nature of Jesus apart from that union.

Let's not let the RCC hijack all our terms. :)
 
timfost said:
Is there any significant difference between "God bearer" and "mother of God"? Scripture closely ties the terms together (cf. Prov. 23:25, Song of Solomon 6:9, 8:5, Jer. 16:3, 20:14, 22:26, 50:12). Isaiah 7:14 says:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Therefore in this qualified sense, "mother of God" seems appropriate lest we separate His natures. She is the mother of the Person Jesus, not the nature of Jesus apart from that union.

Let's not let the RCC hijack all our terms. :)
Click to expand...


Tim,
I do think there is a difference in terminology. While Mary bore the One who had a divine nature and a human nature, united in hypostasis (Theotokos), she by no means, preceded God nor is in any way, the cause for the existence of the divine being ( mother of God). If you use the term MOG in conversation with me, I'm not likely to think you have Christological category errors. The term the church settled on helps keep the train on the track and that is good......:2cents:
 
Gforce9 said:
Tim,
I do think there is a difference in terminology. While Mary bore the One who had a divine nature and a human nature, united in hypostasis (Theotokos), she by no means, preceded God nor is in any way, the cause for the existence of the divine being ( mother of God). If you use the term MOG in conversation with me, I'm not likely to think you have Christological category errors. The term the church settled on helps keep the train on the track and that is good......:2cents:
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you mean, but God incarnate, again in a qualified sense, proceeded from Mary in the sense He received His human nature from her (and was not God incarnate prior). God the Son proceeds from eternity from the Father. It does not necessarily follow the one preexisted the other in either case.

In other words, "mother" does not necessitate preexistence, nor does "Father." :2cents:
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
I think I understand what you mean, but God incarnate, again in a qualified sense, proceeded from Mary in the sense He received His human nature from her (and was not God incarnate prior). God the Son proceeds from eternity from the Father. It does not necessarily follow the one preexisted the other in either case.

In other words, "mother" does not necessitate preexistence, nor does "Father." :2cents:
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much (if any) quibble between us; for me it is an issue of clarity. I think Theotokos is very clear, MoG leaves more up to personal interpretation. Our forebearers settled on Theotokos over Christotokos (and possibly other options) and I believe they did right. By the way, can you do Iron Maiden on the piano?
 
Gforce9 said:
I don't think there is much (if any) quibble between us; for me it is an issue of clarity.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Gforce9 said:
I think Theotokos is very clear, MoG leaves more up to personal interpretation. Our forebearers settled on Theotokos over Christotokos (and possibly other options) and I believe they did right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm fine with deferring to that terminology for the sake of clarity. As a biblical concept alone, MOG doesn't bother me for the reasons stated.

Gforce9 said:
By the way, can you do Iron Maiden on the piano?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it wouldn't sound quite as cool. ;) PM me if you have a favorite. I'll see what I can come up with. I've never played them before, but I do play by ear.
 
Scott Bushey said:
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.

I agree wholeheartedly that Christ's divinity is eternal. Could it be correct in using the phrase, 'Mary, the mother of God', given that Christ's divinity is eternal?

Comments?
Click to expand...
Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...
 
Dachaser said:
Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...
Click to expand...

There's more at stake than this, David. Our forefathers knew this and that's why they switched between Theotokos and Christotokos before settling on Theotokos. Dont make the mistake of Rome in misunderstanding that, though given to Mary, the title is to describe the God-man and not Mary.....
 
Gforce9 said:
There's more at stake than this, David. Our forefathers knew this and that's why they switched between Theotokos and Christotokos before settling on Theotokos. Dont make the mistake of Rome in misunderstanding that, though given to Mary, the title is to describe the God-man and not Mary.....
Click to expand...
As long as the title refers to her carrying and giving birth to the God/Man Himself, and not Mother to all of the Godhead.
 
timfost said:
David,

All of us here are advocating this is possibly the best terminology.

Do you understand this thread?
Click to expand...
I think so, as I see the terminology reflecting if one sees Mary as literally bearing God , or else if one sees Mary as bearing in her womb the Son of God, not giving birth to Him as eternal, but to just His humanity.
 
Dachaser said:
I think so, as I see the terminology reflecting if one sees Mary as literally bearing God , or else if one sees Mary as bearing in her womb the Son of God, not giving birth to Him as eternal, but to just His humanity.
Click to expand...

David, did Mary bear the Person Jesus Christ, the Son of God or just the human nature of the Son of God?
 
Dachaser said:
Why not just call Mary the One who bore the Son of God?
Click to expand...

Theotokos (God-bearer) does just that. It was what the early church settled on and it is a fine descriptor. The One in her womb was Vera Homo, Vera Deus (truly God, truly man), so to call her the God-bearer is right and good. The term Mother of God, if properly qualified and understood rightly, could be used. I think MoG isn't as clear as Theotokos. It almost appears that God superintended both Nicea and Chalcedon......
 
Gforce9 said:
Theotokos (God-bearer) does just that. It was what the early church settled on and it is a fine descriptor. The One in her womb was Vera Homo, Vera Deus (truly God, truly man), so to call her the God-bearer is right and good. The term Mother of God, if properly qualified and understood rightly, could be used. I think MoG isn't as clear as Theotokos. It almost appears that God superintended both Nicea and Chalcedon......
Click to expand...
Do Roman Catholics vest any additional meaning in the term Mother of God though?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Mary, the mother of Jesus
Replies
1
Views
2K
SolaGratia
S
ChristopherPaul
  • Locked
Mary: a Surrogate Mother?
Replies
6
Views
5K
KMK
KMK
B
  • Locked
"Evangelicals and the Mother of God"
Replies
6
Views
3K
Staphlobob
Staphlobob
Reformed Covenanter
William M. Hetherington and the "mother of God"
Replies
9
Views
925
ReformedBrit
ReformedBrit
Reformed Covenanter
Johannes Wollebius: Christ’s nativity and the mother of God
Replies
0
Views
471
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top