# Mary, the mother of God



## Scott Bushey (Apr 25, 2018)

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?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Apr 25, 2018)

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.
> 
> ...


Yes, I believe those are comments.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 25, 2018)

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."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 25, 2018)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

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.....

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

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*."
> 
> ...




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......

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

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......



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."


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2018)

The format of those Augustine quotes looks strangely familiar.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

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."



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?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 26, 2018)

DTK said:


> The format of those Augustine quotes looks strangely familiar.



David,
Please forgive me for not crediting you for the citations:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/evangelicals-and-the-mother-of-god.19183/#post-239734

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> I don't think there is much (if any) quibble between us; for me it is an issue of clarity.



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.



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?



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.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

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.
> 
> ...


Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...



Can God bleed? (Acts 20:28)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...



David,
If u would take the time to read through the thread, u would see (as I have) that the phrase is acceptable and was discussed centuries ago @ the 3rd ecumenical council:

http://www.peraair.com/third-ecumenical-council-the-first-council-of-ephesus-431

To hold to my previous position (and yours), is to fall into a Nestorian net.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

timfost said:


> Can God bleed? (Acts 20:28)


trick question, as God the Son could and did, but the Father and Spirit cannot.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> If u would take the time to read through the thread, u would see (as I have) that the phrase is acceptable and was discussed centuries ago @ the 3rd ecumenical council:
> 
> http://www.peraair.com/third-ecumenical-council-the-first-council-of-ephesus-431
> ...


I would see it acceptable as defined by non Catholics, but not in the sense that they tend to use it.


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> trick question, as God the Son could and did, but the Father and Spirit cannot.



So if God the Son can bleed, can God the Son be born?


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Should be Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, not of God...



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.....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

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.....


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.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

timfost said:


> So if God the Son can bleed, can God the Son be born?


Born as became Flesh among us, but not born as in now starting life, as He is eternal in His Deity.


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> 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.



You really need to read the thread.....This has been worked through already....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> You really need to read the thread.....This has been worked through already....


Why not just call Mary the One who bore the Son of God?


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Why not just call Mary the One who bore the Son of God?



David,

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

Do you understand this thread?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

timfost said:


> David,
> 
> All of us here are advocating this is possibly the best terminology.
> 
> Do you understand this thread?


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.


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2018)

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.



David, did Mary bear the Person Jesus Christ, the Son of God or just the human nature of the Son of God?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

timfost said:


> David, did Mary bear the Person Jesus Christ, the Son of God or just the human nature of the Son of God?


Mary bore Him, but she gave to Him His Humanity, as He always was God.


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Why not just call Mary the One who bore the Son of God?



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......


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

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......


Do Roman Catholics vest any additional meaning in the term Mother of God though?


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do Roman Catholics vest any additional meaning in the term Mother of God though?



They sure do!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do Roman Catholics vest any additional meaning in the term Mother of God though?


See:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/messiahs-mother/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See:
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/messiahs-mother/


Thanks, interesting article on how we can regard Mary either too highly, or not enough.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Apr 26, 2018)

I feel it's an oddity of the Bible that it occasionally uses a title fitting Jesus' divine nature when it speaks of things that fit his human nature. Things that otherwise could not be said of God nevertheless get attributed to God—in the person of Jesus.

One example has already been mentioned: Acts 20:28 says God (divine title) ransomed the church "with his blood." Another that's especially relevant to this discussion is Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord." If we take_ Lord_ in this context to be a divine title (and I think we should), it means the divine title is paired with having a mother. And it means Mary is, in a certain sense, the mother of God.

Do I suggest we should usually speak this way? No. It too easily leads to confusion and requires much explanation. I think it's smarter to stick to personal titles, like_ Jesus_, when discussing things that fit his human nature.

But neither do I want to correct Paul and Luke on their usage. Scripture puts things in this odd way now and then, so it must be acceptable. Perhaps it has something to teach us about the unity of Jesus' person.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DTK (Apr 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Please forgive me...


Not necessary! I know few have access to the new Rotelle translations of Augustine, which made that one familiar.

I agree with another person here that the term Θεοτόκος means "God-bearer," and was originally used with the intention to affirm the deity of Christ, not to elevate Mary. The early church fathers who rejected the term were attempting to deny that Christ became God (or that his deity originated) in Mary's conception and his birth, per Augustine and others.

While Θεοτόκος is a perfectly acceptable term, so also (in my humble opinion) is the term Χριστὸκος, for Mary did indeed give birth to the God-man (Christ), which puts me at risk of being charged with Nestorianism. Romanists love to toss around that charge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 26, 2018)

DTK said:


> Not necessary! I know few have access to the new Rotelle translations of Augustine, which made that one familiar.
> 
> I agree with another person here that the term Θεοτόκος means "God-bearer," and was originally used with the intention to affirm the deity of Christ, not to elevate Mary. The early church fathers who rejected the term were attempting to deny that Christ became God (or that his deity originated) in Mary's conception and his birth, per Augustine and others.
> 
> While Θεοτόκος is a perfectly acceptable term, so also (in my humble opinion) is the term Χριστὸκος, for Mary did indeed give birth to the God-man (Christ), which puts me at risk of being charged with Nestorianism. Romanists love to toss around that charge.



This is one of the reasons I find church history so interesting; men laboring over terms in order to get things right (usually). It is easy to see how (and why) Theotokos and Christotokos were both affirmed and rejected at different times......fascinating.


----------



## SavedSinner (Apr 27, 2018)

I don't care how historic the title of the post is--- to any believer it should be offensive to say or read in any language that God has a mother. Why should we restrict our words to the four used by the Catholics?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 27, 2018)

SavedSinner said:


> I don't care how historic the title of the post is--- to any believer it should be offensive to say or read in any language that God has a mother. Why should we restrict our words to the four used by the Catholics?



If you read the links I posted, you will find the term not so offensive. I understand your attitude-it was the same fueling mine. I am now more comfortable with the terminology. You don't want to fall into Nestorianism, do you?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

SavedSinner said:


> I don't care how historic the title of the post is--- to any believer it should be offensive to say or read in any language that God has a mother. Why should we restrict our words to the four used by the Catholics?


It all depends on what is intended in that term used, as Mary did bear and bring forth the Son of God, but she was not the Mother, as in the source of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------

