Martin Luther and John Calvin and the term "Mother of God"

[Byblos]

Rick, what precisely bothers you about the term, "Mother of God?" Is it not false connotations that a mortal somehow birthed a God - as in, Jesus ORIGINATED with Mary - and not just his human portion/form?

Welcome to nestorianism.

[Jac3510]

If Mary is the mother of God, who is the father of God?

If "father" is taken literally (as "mother" is), then the answer is no one. Go back to a post I made somewhere else (too lazy to look it up) where you asked where Jesus' human nature is in the term "Mother of God." I pointed out the human nature is found in the phrase mother of, because mothers are, by necessity, human. (Obviously, if not pedantically, we're talking about human mothers and not mothers generally.) Mothers are the female part of the human reproductive process--they conceive, carry, and bear the child. Fathers are the male part of the human reproductive process--they inseminate the female. Jesus had a mother as he was conceived, carried, and born. He had no father, as no one inseminated Mary.

Or, if this is true:
"Mary is the Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ, her Son, is God. And when Mary gave birth, she did not give birth to a nature, or even two natures; she gave birth to one, divine Person."

Must this also be true:
"The Holy Spirit is the Father of God precisely because Jesus Christ, his Son, is God. And when The Holy Spirit came unto Mary, He did not conceive a nature, or even two natures; He conceived one, divine Person."

See above, and I'll add this: neither Mary nor the Holy Spirit originated the Second Person of the Trinity. We need to distinguish between the man Jesus and the Second Person. The man Jesus is not eternal. The Son of God is. The man Jesus came into being at a point in time. He was human, and no human is eternal. I shouldn't have to get philosophical to demonstrate that. But God the Son is eternal. There's actually a deeper theology of the Incarnation that would surprise a lot of evangelicals, I think, when you get into the nuances of things. You have to be careful here not to fall into a totally different Christological error called Apollinarianism, but the basic idea is that in the Incarnation, the Divine Person takes on a human nature and not a human person. That's a subtle but important point. The Person of Jesus has always existed; the man Jesus has not. The man Jesus came into existence in virtue of the human nature, because the Divine Person assumed a human nature. He did not assume or inhabit a human person. Again, it's not as if there was this human person named Jesus that also had a divine nature. That's exactly backwards. The Divine Person assumed the human nature, so that the Person is eternal and unoriginated, whereas the man (Jesus) is originated. The Apollinarian heresy would be easy to fall into here if you then equate the human nature with all bodily things but then make the Divine Person equivalent to a divine mind that inhabits this human nature, as if the human nature were a car gutted of its original engine (where the engine represents the human mind) and replaced with some super engine (where this super engine represents the divine mind).

From this, it should be clear that neither Mary nor the HS conceived the Divine Person in the sense that she originated Him. Rather, she conceived a man, and that man was also a Divine Person. To the extent, then we can say the Divine Person was conceived, we say He did so in virtue of His human nature and not His divinity (the same as we say with respect to His death or other human traits). The bottom line here is that conception is so closely aligned with the coming into existence of a new being that it is hard to separate it from the assumption of the human nature that happens in the Incarnation. There are other related debates here, i.e., creationism v traducianism, but I think the above should be enough to get you going in the answer of a direction.

edit:

One last clarification--none of the above should be reduced to, "So Mary contributed the human part of Jesus." That is, again, missing the point entirely. Mary did not contribute a human part. She conceived a bore a Person, and that Person was God who had assumed a human nature (and it was in virtue of that human nature He was conceived and born). That is, again, what a "mother" is. The alternative is to say deny that Mary was Jesus' mother at all and claim that she was a mere surrogate "mother"--a mother by analogy only. But that makes Jesus just like Adam, having neither mother nor father, and that violates Gen 3:15. So this stuff is important if you want to be faithful to Scripture.

[RickD]

Rick, what precisely bothers you about the term, "Mother of God?" Is it not false connotations that a mortal somehow birthed a God - as in, Jesus ORIGINATED with Mary - and not just his human portion/form?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying. It doesn't bother me that Mary birthed God incarnate, if that's what you're asking.

Sure, The Son, the second person of the Trinity became incarnate, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.

As I said before, I've only ever heard the term, "Mother of God", from Catholics growing up. And the Catholics that I knew growing up, all prayed to and even worshipped Mary. So, I know at least part of my problem with the term, is that I see it as putting Mary in a place that she shouldn't be.

If Mary is the mother of God, then The Holy Spirit is the father of God. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think there's a reason why scripture never uses the term, "Mother of God", to describe Mary.

I'm still trying to work through this.

Maybe someone can suggest an answer to why I have no problem with the terms, "Mother of our Lord", "Mother of Jesus Christ", "Mother of God incarnate", etc.

Again, someone please address my question here. Maybe that will help me understand.

**edit--
I see Jac addressed my questions.

[crochet1949]

As a Protestant -- Baptist -- I would agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ -- the 2nd person of the Godhead. After the physical death of Jesus Christ on the cross and the bodily resurrection -- He Also ascended Back up to God the Father who is Spirit.

[RickD]

This is another reason why I am uncomfortable with the Catholic title, "Mother of God" for Mary.

Apparently, Mary is the Mother of God, and the Spouse of God too.

[RickD]

And this.

Queen of heaven, rejoice. Alleluia. The Son whom you were privileged to bear, Alleluia, has risen as he said, Alleluia. Pray to God for us, Alleluia. Rejoice and be glad, Virgin Mary, Alleluia. For the Lord has truly risen, Alleluia.

O God, it was by the Resurrection of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, that you brought joy to the world. Grant that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, his Mother, we may attain the joy of eternal life. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

[Jac3510]

So the problem, Rick, is that the over the top devotions aren't related to the title "Mother of God." The title is a logically necessary title based on who Christ is. Suppose I talked about my wife in divine like terms, how I worship her, how she gives meaning to my life, how every breath I take is for her, and so on. Some of that might be sweet, and there was a time and culture in which that kind of poetry was common. But it's a bit over the top today, and if we aren't careful, that kind of language can, in my opinion, get a little inappropriate. But even if I so spoke about her, would that mean that the term "wife" was problematic?

Of course not. By way of comparison, I do think that "Spouse of God" is an inappropriate title. That ought not be used. I think that takes the devotional language too far. But I'm not going to let the Catholic abuse of the doctrine push me into denying or making proper use of what really is true. I'd encourage you to do the same. Reclaim the truth that Mary is the Mother of God. Don't let the fact that other people have misused it push you into implying (unintentionally, of course) things you expressly and correctly do not believe.

[RickD]

I think that "Mother of God", without clarification, is associated too closely with all the Marian beliefs of Catholicism. That's why I think saying "Mother of God" alone, leads me to believe the term refers to the catholic beliefs about Mary.

Up until discussions here, I've never heard anyone except Catholics, use the term. In my mind, maybe what is a proper term, has been hijacked, as to it now having a different/additional meaning, that goes along with all other Marian beliefs.

Maybe, comparing it to how the swastika was hijacked by the Nazis, to actually have a new meaning that it never had before. Just like the swastika is so closely associated with nazism now, "Mother of God" is synonymous with Catholic Marian beliefs.

That's simply why I just won't use the term. Seeing that many other terms are fine.

[Jac3510]

*shrug* I think you are making a serious mistake, Rick, and actually perpetuating a misunderstanding and so contributing to the problem, but I don't know what else I could say to make things clearer. As they say, it's on you, brother.

[RickD]

*shrug* I think you are making a serious mistake, Rick, and actually perpetuating a misunderstanding and so contributing to the problem, but I don't know what else I could say to make things clearer. As they say, it's on you, brother.

That's fine. But I don't see how it's contributing to the problem of Catholics hijacking the term, when I'm pointing out the problem when discussing it.

[Jac3510]

Conceding the term and not using it and instead using terminology that implicitly repudiates the logic of the term and thereby necessarily entailing heresy . . . that's the problem. Most evangelicals reject the term and talk about how Mary is just the mother of Jesus, but not the mother or God. That makes the Nestorian heretics where they know it or not. By refusing to use the term, you perpetuate the tendency toward Nestorianism in the evangelical church.

To further clarify, the Nestorianism is material rather than formal, but that shouldn't excuse people from holding to the error.

[RickD]

As to Christian2, who posted the original post, I can't speak as to why Protestants in general, don't use the term. But since I've only seen it used by Catholics, maybe Protestants associate the term with Catholics, and the rest of their beliefs about Mary.

While "Mother of God" may be a perfectly fine and proper term to describe Mary, without all the other catholic beliefs attached, I believe it has become synonymous with those other Marian beliefs in Catholicism.

So, while it may be fine to use the term, I think using it without any qualifications, will almost always end up at having to explain its meaning outside of Catholicism. And I guess that's not a bad thing, because it leads to discussions about catholic Marian beliefs, and if they're biblical.

[RickD]

Conceding the term and not using it and instead using terminology that implicitly repudiates the logic of the term and thereby necessarily entailing heresy . . . that's the problem. Most evangelicals reject the term and talk about how Mary is just the mother of Jesus, but not the mother or God. That makes the Nestorian heretics where they know it or not. By refusing to use the term, you perpetuate the tendency toward Nestorianism in the evangelical church.

To further clarify, the Nestorianism is material rather than formal, but that shouldn't excuse people from holding to the error.

That's fine Jac. If you want to say that makes me a Nestorian heretic, even though I've already explained to you that I don't hold to nestorianism beliefs, then I guess I don't know what else to tell you. I realize you think my refusing to use the term, necessarily leads me to be Nestorian.

I understand the logic you're using.

[Jac3510]

It's not what I think Rick. it's just a matter of fact. I already granted your Nestorianism is material rather than formal, but that doesn't justify the error. You argue that very point in the OSAS debate. You're just being inconsistent, apparently due to an emotional reaction to Catholicism.

[RickD]

It's not what I think Rick. it's just a matter of fact. I already granted your Nestorianism is material rather than formal, but that doesn't justify the error. You argue that very point in the OSAS debate. You're just being inconsistent, apparently due to an emotional reaction to Catholicism.

Jac, is Christotokos a proper term for Mary?