My friend is a baptist missionary who serves in a Catholic Third World Country. He said, "To say that Mary is the Mother of God is error. To say she is holy is blasphemy."
I replied that the NT calls the saints/believers holy, and so we can call Mary holy as well. And that the ancient church determined it was ok to call Mary the God-bearer.
I stated: She IS the Mother of God though, Theotokos. Please don't abandon historical Trinitarianism. And she is holy, and a great example for us, blessed among women.
He replied: You may not be aware of the context that I live in, which is Roman Catholic. "Holy Mary, Mother of God..." is the beginning of a prayer played by the cathedrals every day. When they say Mary is holy they are referring to the "immaculate conception" of Mary. As to historical Trinitarianism, the RCC have replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary. Mary gives birth to Jesus (the Son). She does not give birth to the Holy Spirit or the Father. Is Jesus God? Yes. But, is the fullness of the Trinitarian God-head found in the person of Jesus? No.
I replied:
you are still rejecting historical Trinitarian orthodoxy and are siding with Nestorious.
I usually try not to debate theology via Facebook, but this issue has been thorny among Baptists lately and I don't like where many are headed.
I am sure you probably agree with Turretin's clarifications, right? Just because Catholics pervert the title theotokos does not mean Mary is not the Blessed Theotokos. Maybe you should quote Turretin. He gets at the heart of your concerns without ever rejecting orthodoxy.
https://heidelblog.net/.../turretin-what-we-mean-when.../
He replied: When dealing with a culture that is cult-saturated, we cannot simply use the same terms (mercy, grace, faith, etc.) without defining them. When orthodox Christianity speaks of the "holiness" of a believer, it is clear that it is imputed/alien holiness. It is not by divine conception nor merit. It is fascinating that every Filipino had no problem understanding what was meant. RE: Turretin's quote: I certainly appreciate those me who have gone before and thought greatly about Scripture, but they are not authoritative. I can find verses that refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27, Acts 1:14, etc.). I find no verse that refers to her as the mother of God. That description is inaccurate and can only lead to confusion. Modalism comes to mind...Let me try it this way, please. Jesus is God but not all that is God is Jesus. It is like "water is blue but blue is not water" [a = b but b does not necessarily equal a). Jesus is the only member of the Trinity to have a physical body ("The Word became flesh..."). The Father and the Holy Spirit did not take on flesh. Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God (Trinity), but only of the Son. This seems plain and simple to me.
I replied:
Mary is the mother of the WHOLE Christ, not merely his human nature, and therefore, is properly called the Mother of God contrary to Nestorious and other heretics.
https://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/.../william.../
He replied: I will not engage in "copy-paste" discussion. I will talk to you. I ask you plainly, is Jesus the complete God-head? Do you accept that there are three different persons of the God-head? And if so, were all three persons present in the body in the womb of Mary?
I replied:
This is no copy-paste discussion. I am well-versed on this topic and you are following the error of Nestorius. Mary IS the Mother of God AND Mariolatry IS sin. Both are true. You don't combat Catholicism by becoming a Trinitarian heretic. You should clarify HOW Mary is and also is not the Mother of God.
No hard feelings but don't let the Filipino environment alter your orthodox Trinitarianism. I understand where you are coming from. It is hard.
QUESTIONS:
1 Why are baptists so bad with the Trinity?
2. What do you think of his comment that Mary did not bear God but only Jesus the Son?
3. How would you have handled this?
I replied that the NT calls the saints/believers holy, and so we can call Mary holy as well. And that the ancient church determined it was ok to call Mary the God-bearer.
I stated: She IS the Mother of God though, Theotokos. Please don't abandon historical Trinitarianism. And she is holy, and a great example for us, blessed among women.
He replied: You may not be aware of the context that I live in, which is Roman Catholic. "Holy Mary, Mother of God..." is the beginning of a prayer played by the cathedrals every day. When they say Mary is holy they are referring to the "immaculate conception" of Mary. As to historical Trinitarianism, the RCC have replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary. Mary gives birth to Jesus (the Son). She does not give birth to the Holy Spirit or the Father. Is Jesus God? Yes. But, is the fullness of the Trinitarian God-head found in the person of Jesus? No.
I replied:
you are still rejecting historical Trinitarian orthodoxy and are siding with Nestorious.
I usually try not to debate theology via Facebook, but this issue has been thorny among Baptists lately and I don't like where many are headed.
I am sure you probably agree with Turretin's clarifications, right? Just because Catholics pervert the title theotokos does not mean Mary is not the Blessed Theotokos. Maybe you should quote Turretin. He gets at the heart of your concerns without ever rejecting orthodoxy.
https://heidelblog.net/.../turretin-what-we-mean-when.../
He replied: When dealing with a culture that is cult-saturated, we cannot simply use the same terms (mercy, grace, faith, etc.) without defining them. When orthodox Christianity speaks of the "holiness" of a believer, it is clear that it is imputed/alien holiness. It is not by divine conception nor merit. It is fascinating that every Filipino had no problem understanding what was meant. RE: Turretin's quote: I certainly appreciate those me who have gone before and thought greatly about Scripture, but they are not authoritative. I can find verses that refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27, Acts 1:14, etc.). I find no verse that refers to her as the mother of God. That description is inaccurate and can only lead to confusion. Modalism comes to mind...Let me try it this way, please. Jesus is God but not all that is God is Jesus. It is like "water is blue but blue is not water" [a = b but b does not necessarily equal a). Jesus is the only member of the Trinity to have a physical body ("The Word became flesh..."). The Father and the Holy Spirit did not take on flesh. Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God (Trinity), but only of the Son. This seems plain and simple to me.
I replied:
Mary is the mother of the WHOLE Christ, not merely his human nature, and therefore, is properly called the Mother of God contrary to Nestorious and other heretics.
https://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/.../william.../
He replied: I will not engage in "copy-paste" discussion. I will talk to you. I ask you plainly, is Jesus the complete God-head? Do you accept that there are three different persons of the God-head? And if so, were all three persons present in the body in the womb of Mary?
I replied:
This is no copy-paste discussion. I am well-versed on this topic and you are following the error of Nestorius. Mary IS the Mother of God AND Mariolatry IS sin. Both are true. You don't combat Catholicism by becoming a Trinitarian heretic. You should clarify HOW Mary is and also is not the Mother of God.
No hard feelings but don't let the Filipino environment alter your orthodox Trinitarianism. I understand where you are coming from. It is hard.
QUESTIONS:
1 Why are baptists so bad with the Trinity?
2. What do you think of his comment that Mary did not bear God but only Jesus the Son?
3. How would you have handled this?