As a 'catholic' of the Anglican perduasion, i find your videos refreshingly honest, well researched, and showing a compassion for Christians who may not agree with you on every detail. God’s peace to you and your house!
I was an Anglican for a very long time before joining the Church. I really am confused about your description of yourself. Actual Anglicanism does not deny the Marian dogmas. One book recommendation is Thomas Howard’s book- evangelicalism is not enough: worship of God in liturgy and sacraments. He was a brother of Elizabeth Eliot and *this book* was written when he was an Anglican Christian.
Before concerning oneself about the speck in another’s eye, Jesus instructs to remove the log in one’s eye first. Amen. Praise Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth! God is good! @@paulmualdeave5063
As a Catholic you're the only protestant I watch fairly regularly because I feel like most protestants on youtube are either not very well throught through or are total jerks, I won't name any names but you are a breath of fresh air
While not a Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), I too appreciate his charitable and thoughtful tone and obvious love of Christ. People like this are a gift to us all and very necessary if we're going to have meaningful dialogue with each other.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Lol! Maybe... ; p I'm playing a bit, but I do think it's true that both Protestant and Catholic/Eeastern Orthodox RUclips communities are pretty toxic, and I also think it's true that Catholic/E.O. channels and the Catholic/E.O. RUclips community are a little worse than their Protestant counterparts.
THIS IS THE BIBLICAL WAY TO BE SAVED: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2 :21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved. :
Thank you, Gavin, for helping me out so much. As a Baptist mom with 2 Baptist raised children, and happily married to a Roman Catholic man for nearly 22 years, it’s been a tough road for us. Thanks for helping us all be more understanding, loving and kind in Christ. God bless 🥰
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Vatican II was a breath of fresh air that brought renewal and hope to the world and Christianity. We had a brief glimpse of what the authentic church should look like. It had a respect for others that brought down walls of division. There was many positives that are hard to list on a thread like this. I know there were abuses or mistakes made, BUT it was a great era to be alive and experience hope.
If I were the pope, ( for 5 minutes say) I'd ask priests and nuns to agree not to marry each day (a thumbs up or other sign would suffice) rather than make a once for all vow. Anglican priests/ministers can join the Roman Catholic Church as clergy and still be married, ( it seems wrong not to allow this blessing to all willing priests and nuns who fall in love!). Even a more permanent pope should be allowed one wife!
@@NP-vk8de So it was some of the statements that put an olive branch back out to protestants as brethren then? Thanks for answering. May your marriage continue to be blessed and united in Christ.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Good answer, I agree with the caveat that it reflected what the church represented over 2,000 years of Christianity with key elements of Protestant Christianity visible. The Holy Spirit’s guidance was truly evident. Praise Jesus!
Gavin, I know I’ve said it before but it continues to strike me how helpful these videos are. From an inquirer into EO, constantly wrought with church anxiety, to being sure of my Protestant convictions and a newfound appreciation for church history and patristics. The Lord works through these videos, I know firsthand! 😅 thank you and praying for your ministry
Read beyond what Dr. Ortlund presents. How did those Church Fathers practice their faith? Do you see any similarities with how you practice your faith? How did they worship? Do you worship the same way? These are the fundamental questions. It is easy to misrepresent ideas of dead people, but you cannot change their live story.
@@peterw1177 I do, thank you! I would say yes, the fathers practiced their faith and worshipped similarly to what we see in conservative high church liturgical protestantism
Really great thoughts, Gavin! I appreciate your efforts to help navigate the tension between giving biblical figures the proper honor warranted by Scripture without straying into questionable devotions. I considered catholicism once upon a time, but as I learned the provenance of several Marian doctrines, I questioned the epistemology behind RCC teaching.
I considered considering it. I really did pray as I studied Catholicism for myself, open to where ever the Lord would lead me. Having to believe all the Marion dogmas, and pretty much attaching that to my salvation, is a deal breaker. I don't have the option of accepting real tenets of salvation, and dismissing the Mary stuff, which is so non-essential. Then there's purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit and punishment of temporal sins, even after confession and penance. That's a lot of stuff, I'd have to lie to pretend to believe to be Catholic, because it's not acceptable to admit that you don't believe these things. Oh, and even though I do believe in the presence of God in the Eucharist, I'm not a literal cannibal. Which I'd have to be to believe in transubstantiation.
With all due respect, by bypassing Catholicism, you have missed out on a vast treasure of riches. Catholic teaching is biblically based if at times implicitly. The One True Church of Jesus has the fullness of faith, which can’t be said of Protestantism which doesn’t believe in the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 16 18-19
@@justicebjorke2790 I acknowledge that Dr. Ortlund cannot preach at my LCMS church. But, I never claimed to posit “Protestantism” as a “shared positive vision” I simply thanked and praised him for defending the historic doctrine of the catholic Church. A doctrine that can clearly be derived from scripture. I see no issue. Dios te bendice.
A fascinating fact of history is that Nestorius did not deny "Theotokos" per se, but had many of the same concerns as the Reformers: "If any of you or any one else be simple and has a preference for the term Theotokos, then I have nothing to say against it-only do not make a goddess of the Virgin." - Nestorius of Constantinople (Loofs 1914, 32; cf. Sellers 1940, 172-3) What Nestorius seemed to have been concerned about was implying Mary to be the source of the divine nature, but he granted that she was the mother of the human-divine person of Christ.
Seems to me Nestorius (if this an authentic quote) was straw-manning here in his “warning” not to worship Mary. Nestorianism teaches Christ is two persons, not one person in two natures.
It's not clear whether Nestorius really held to what is called "Nestorianism". Seems like churches who were traditionally named Nestorian, like the Assyrian Church of the East were never taught Christ is two persons, but had a different understanding of how the two natures are distinct from each other.
Is that what one of your cult leaders told you? Go look up the quote and try to understand what Luther was saying. Luther was not going to violate the basic Christian faith that Christ is sinless God. Use your brain. It’s free.
“Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.” Luther’s Work, 54:154 What I would highlight is that the attribution comes from Luther's table talk (Tichreden), meaning that someone present (in this case, Johannes Shlaginhaufen) recalled it and later wrote it down. It's void of context and something Luther would have said off the cuff, not in a sermon or lecture. Given the likely dating, the editors of the American Edition of Luther's works suggest a sermon from 1536 as the likely context, in which Luther preached about Christ being regarded by the world as an adulterer (among other things) and talks about the evils of gossip (rumor, lit. "common talk"). But again, I'd go back to not putting much stock in the table talk as a whole. They're not something Luther wrote or oversaw the publishing of; in fact, they weren't published until more than a decade after his death. We shouldn't hold them in the same regard as, say, things he himself wrote or that were published in his lifetime. Not that we need regard the writings of Luther as verbum Dei, but still.
It always surprises me when RUclipsrs don't do any real color grading, I mean any. Many applications have a simple, few clicks, way to set the white balance, at least, and just that can give dramatic improvement to the usual, washed out, RUclips video.
Pastor Gavin, thank you so much, your videos, your books, your kindness helped me a lot to understand my Faith as an evangelical. I wish we were thought this way in our churches, it would ease the communication with the other side, because the sad true of nowadays is that nany protestants are theologically clueless and thus, say lot of things that are not in proper place. Keep doing the good work. I am still waiting for your book to come out. I wish I could study as you did. You have a clear understanding of what you profess.
The first will be last and the last will be first. Those who decreased so that Christ could be increased are exalted in heaven. John the Baptist is also a great saint exactly in his humble ministry which led people to Christ. His image is literally pained on a wall in my church. Our admiration of the saints is never competitive with God because the very reason for their being admired is because of God working in them. Catholics are always Christ first, always. Who ever went lower than he?
No not relevant. Mary’s place of honor is higher than that of John. It is through her obedience that salvation entered the world. So while she played a small part in it, that small part gives her honor above that of St. John or any other saint. There’s no real relevance to what Gavin was getting at. Catholics aren’t going to find that persuasive because the entire of context of John saying that was to show how far beneath Jesus he was so the others would understand.
Catholics are always Christ first? Come on man. The Vicar of Christ. The Substitute for Christ. Vatican - Divining Serpent. The Pope addresses his mass from the literal snakes head. Look at their signs their symbols. Look at their fruits. This is a deception and I am sick of losing good people to it. @@mac3441
@@catholicguy1073if John felt the need to decrease because people were fan boying too much about him, it seems like a lesson for all christians. Lets leave mary out of the equation for this moment. Look at the extreme veneration of other saints. Does it line up with what john is trying to get at here?
@@catholicguy1073 The magnitude of a specific person's honor does not belie the point of the example. Also, if we must hold any who played a critical role in fulfilling the mission of Christ in such honor, then we should honor the likes of High Priest Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate in a similar vein, or even Judas Iscariot. Without their efforts, the Crucifixion would not have happened. Naturally, we don't do this.
"Christ is diminished by those who place their hearts more upon Mary..." I have noticed this a lot around where I am (in an Orthodox Christian country). If I were a Muslim claiming Jesus is not the Son of God, or an atheist mocking and insulting God, they would be less offended by that than me coming as a Christian and saying that we should not pray to her. It is amazing how this doctrine produces that kind of zeal for Mary when it should be for God (You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart...). Especially older women, you should see them, "Pray to the Virgin Mary, pray to her", they say to my wife as we recently had our second child. "Pray she watches over your child, pray she guards you" and all that, that simply stirs up the Spirit in me hearing such blasphemy. And when I try to argue, I need to make sure stones are not around because it doesn't matter how I put it, it always fires them up.
Pit, even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@patriceagulu8315 Nobody is claiming that *all* the Catholics love Mary more than Christ (or the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or the whole Godhead). The comment you are responding to is pointing out examples where particular Catholics give the impression that they love Mary more than they love Christ. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that there are some Catholics (and Orthodox) whose veneration of Mary crosses the line into actual worship, and that there are some Catholics who do in practice place Mary above Christ/God. This doesn't mean that Catholicism teaches people to do that. But the fact that the Catholic church places so much emphasis on Mary (and never seems to issue any warnings about going too far in devotion to her) means it is inevitable that there will be Catholics who are tempted to go too far in this direction. And the sheer number of Catholices means it's inevitable that some Catholics will fall prey to that temptation.
@stephengray1344 of course you are simply speculating that many Catholic Christians place Mary over God! I have yet to meet even 1! Yet, even many Protestant reformers gave great reverence to the Queen Mother of God! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@henrybayard6574 She is in the same place all the saints that have gone to be with the Lord are. She is not divine, she does not exercise authority over creation or over man. Only God does that. She is a servant of God like all the rest of the saints are. So she has been made righteous and sanctified by the same process, that is through the blood of Christ.
I’m glad that I was far from the only one to immediately wonder as to what German word was translated as “twaddle.” I guess there’s a certain type of person that watches these videos, and I’m definitely of that type 😂
Twaddle would be "Geschwätz" or "Geplapper" in German. It looks like its translated from the sermon "Ain mercklicher Sermon von der geburt Marie". Sadly Its not written in standard German and therefore very difficult to read. Basely's translation appears to be paraphrasing, Luther using neither "Geschwätz" nor "Geplapper". :D But Luther says that "the monks made a goddess (like the pagans) out of her" instead of "the monks invented all this abuse" which is kinda interesting. """ ...Darumb hat auch die geschrift gar nichts von jr geburt beschriben/ damit vnd kainer sein hertz auff sy/ stell/ Nu haben pfaffen vnd münch/ der weyber eer herfür ziehen wöllen/ vnd Mariam so hoch erhebt/ *das sy vns ain göttin (nach art der Haiden) auß diser diemütigen dienerin gemacht haben* . Solches nu zubestetigen/ mußten sy lugen brauchen... """
Our concern was always that saying "God bearer" was more proper than saying "mother of God" merely because in English, saying mother first puts the emphasis on Mary, which was not the intent of theotokos. The idea was more of "GOD bearer" more than "MOTHER of god." Gavin is correct here in what he teaches, and thanks for publishing this. The tendency in all humans to make an idol is strong, and we should always self-examine to make sure we're not making one. Theotokos is a proper term, but "Mother of God" is a phrase contributes to putting the emphasis on Mary instead of Christ.
is it false? does it not lead to the precise and necessary Christology to affirm the Holy Trinity? The only reason to attempt to deny the title is to strip the virgin Mary of honor she most definitely deserves.
"Mother of God" is a phrase contributes to putting the emphasis on Mary instead of Christ." The Greek literally says "the Mother of the Lord of me." There is no glorification of Mary here. She always points us to her Son. We listen to her words, "do whatever he tells you." So too in Luke 1, it's all about the Lord, Mary saying: 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, 52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 55 as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” "henceforth all generations will call me blessed;" Interestingly, I don't commonly hear of protestants speaking of v48. Very few times do I ever hear of a protestant referring to Mary as Blessed as scripture says all generations will do. Mostly, she is viewed as just a (sinful) woman chosen by God to give birth to Jesus.
@@stephenwright4973 Why not? It's such an obtuse, retrograde way to demean the mother of God. The disrespect towards the virgin Mary is definitely one of the most off-putting things about protestantism that would make me never consider it viable.
@flavadave3943 Dave, surely you know the 7 deadly sins. The first and most deadly is PRIDE. Use Google as a starting point, then dive deeper. It is good to be curious and aware that we are not the sum of all knowledge 🕊
Dr Ortlund, I really appreciate your work, but I am starting to think that maybe you should start including some historical context for others who may not understand the necessity for situations like this. Maybe a series of videos on where the Creeds came from or the heresies that led to early Councils and basic church history might be a useful series for people to engage with.
@joeoleary the pattern of heresies in the early church was to take NT texts out of context and to twist them in ways contradicting the faith handed down from the apostles. So, these issues are never separate from the authority of the New Testament, and its overall message. Namely, the nature of Jesus, in what manner is He distinct from the Father, how much “God” is He, and how was He distinct from us? Since the NT teaches that He is our mediator and our Saviour, it’s important to get our understanding correct so we don’t needlessly introduce problems into the text, which is what modalism, Arianism and Nestorianism did.
@joeoleary Also, I’m sure you’re aware of how much falsehood circulates about the Council of Nicea and whether the early church taught Jesus’ divinity or not. So for the sake of truth, the real background and lead up between Arius and Alexander, and the role that Constantine ACTUALLY had, and the sea saws between Nicenes and Arians and how Athanasias stood firm on apostolic teaching would be worth exploring as Church History 101.
@Djesparz Yep, like the Trinity. Not just the OT passages and Jewish background, but also step-by-step how the early church understood the issues and wrestled with modalism, then Arianism, then finally Nestorianism.
Hello Gavin, maybe you have a minute to read my comment. Im a protestant believer who just started to engage in the church fathers and their writings (your videos really motivated me to start - thank you for that!). I started to read John Chrysostomus commentary on the book of romans. I loved the beginning of the commentary, when he emphasised that we are saved by faith alone in the gospel. And that we cannot add any work to Christ's finished work on the cross. I found lots of statements like that. However, as I continued to read, I suddenly found opposite statements just as: "Be not a traitor then to so great a gift, but keep guarding this goodly treasure. For in this passage he shows that the Font (baptism) will not suffice to save us, unless, after coming from it, we display a life worthy of the Gift. And so he again advocates the Law in saying what he does. *For when we have once become obedient to Christ, we must use all ways and plans so that its righteousness, which Christ fulfilled, may abide in us, and not come to naught."* (commentary on Romans 8:4) Here he suddenly seems to suggest that we receive salvation as a free gift through faith but later we have to keep it by our own efforts (otherwise we will lose it again). That really saddened me, because it now looks like he teaches a works based gospel. I wonder if I understand him right. I also belive in the eternal security of a believer and therefore that salvation cannot be lost again . I especially struggle with the last sentence. I do not believe that Christ's righteousness in me can cease again. Gavin, i wanted to ask you how you as a protestant view these statements. Is it ok as a protestant, to accept some of the statements of the church fathers and reject others? I shortly wanted to mention that I definitely believe that a born again believer will live a life in growing sanctification, I do not deny that. Thank you so much for your work!
I think Protestants and Catholics both agree that you have to accept some of the statements of the Church Fathers and reject others, because the Church Fathers collectively witness to and pass on the faith they received but neither Protestants or Catholics claim that every statement from every individual church father is an infallible witness to the faith. That being said, I the doctrine of eternal security isn't witnessed to among the Church Fathers. I think the only stray statements that would get to eternal security that early in Church History would be from those who falsely taught universalism. If being in a state of grace means that you don't have the ability to reject that grace through disobedience, how would Adam and Eve have fallen in the first place? How do you understand Paul's warnings against those who have severed themselves from Christ (not those who have never been joined to Christ, or those who have made shipwrecks of their faith? The collective witness of the Church Fathers witnessed to a need to guard oneself from the possibility of members of the faith choosing to walk away from it, they saw it present in the Scriptures and in the faith they received from the apostles. It was only some Protestants - not Protestantism as a whole - who later developed the idea of eternal security and read it into the Church Fathers but in a manner that makes the fathers seem to contradict not just each other but themselves as individuals, as the illustration of Chrysostom shows.
Here are a few thoughts I had on your questions: You absolutely can disagree with the church fathers. Everyone disagrees with them at times. There's no way around that. The church fathers were people who were doing their best to analyze the Bible. However, there's a common fallacy that these individuals would be more insightful because they are "closer in time than we are." In reality, most are centuries removed, they weren't able to conduct textual criticism of the New Testament books in the way we can today, and less than a handful knew Hebrew. The best way to really dig in and interpret the New Testament is to study the Old Testament and 2nd Temple Jewish literature. That is the context for the New Testament. The New Testament writers are referencing that material. The goal should be to read the Bible as an ancient Israelite or a 1st century Jew or Gentile because that's who it was written to. It's great to read the church fathers, but that's only one resource, and more importantly, it's not the primary source material. An example to illustrate. If you want to know what the American founders were thinking when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, what would you do? You would want to read what they wrote in the context in which it was written. In essence, you would study the history prior and at the current time. This would provide the background needed to fully understand why they wrote the Declaration of Independence and what it truly meant. You can definitely read material after the fact and should. That however would only give you a limited perspective which might contain biases, etc. May the Lord guide you and bless you!!
@@clayw70 The Old Testament that was preserved through the Hellenization was the Greek translation, not the Hebrew. The ancient Hebrew language is lost; the Masoretic texts are new and centuries after Christ
@TPizzle96 I understand your point, but you're only partially correct. The Dead Sea Scrolls would be one example, but there are others. Either way, it's not an argument worth having.
To add to your point around 2:30, my understanding was that Theotokos also affirms the literal incarnation of Jesus, and that God was truly born as a man, not merely that God put on a human suit, basically as a rebut to Apollonarianism and in the wake of Nestorianism. Correct me if I was incorrect. So calling Mary the Mother of God from this lens is appropriate and right. Again, great video!
@tobertstephens Jesus was God, God made manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). The gospels apply the prophecies about God to Jesus, and while Jesus never explicitly states that He was God during most of His ministry as He had taken the form of a servant and did not want to attract attention to Himself but lived in selflessness, not only do His actions declare that He was God (calming the storm, open the ears of the deaf, etc,) but He fulfills promises and prophecies that are applied to God. Jesus judges on the last day and comes with His angels upon the clouds, while Psalms states that only God rides on the clouds. If no one has seen or heard the voice of God as Jesus said in John 5, who was it who the OT prophets heard and saw when the Angel of the Lord (God, as Jacob reveals in Genesis 48:16-17) appears to them? Why does John describe Jesus’ glory as the glory seen by Isaiah (as in Isaiah 6)? “THE Son of Man” is a heavy messianic claim based on Daniel 7, and you see that when Jesus calls Himself this and applies Daniel 7 to Himself, that Caiaphas calls it blasphemy (in both Matthew and Mark). Now, regarding the gospel of the kingdom. How does Jesus detract from that? He’s the King, no? His authority as the Divine Son of Man and Messiah gave Him the right to speak of the new kingdom. His Incarnation was God becoming Man to fulfill and perfect the role of Servant and Son that Adam, Isaac, Joshua, David and the nation of Israel tried to fill but had mixed success, to put it mildly. This is why Jesus is the fulfilment of the Scriptures, the stories of Adam, Isaac on the altar, Moses, Joshua and David point ahead to Jesus. God Himself became Man to suffer with His creation, save them from the curse of death by an act of love, and provide an example of how to live in light of Jesus’ ministry. This is the meaning behind Philippians 2:6-11. Jesus chose to endure the same suffering that His servants throughout the Scriptures went through. P.S. read Jude 5, where the Lord Jesus brought the people out of Egypt, and how involved the Angel of the Lord is in the Exodus. There are many resources online about the Angel of the Lord and how His Divinity and status as the Logos is consistent with the Scriptures. Sorry for the lengthy write-up but I hope you give it a think.
@robertstephenson Also, Numbers 23 has nothing to do with an incarnation. In context, it’s saying that God keeps His promises and does not deceive. That is the manner in which God “is not like man”.
No it actually isn't. To quote Cardinal Neumann "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." And to be intellectually honest with history also should cause one to also cease to be Protestant.
@@N1IA-4 That should concern you a little. Christianity is supposed to be graspable by children. If you need to have your head up in history & theology in order to reject Protestantism, there’s some mind-tripping going on that’s stealing you away from the simplicity which is in Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I find history & theology fascinating & really enjoy them. But it becomes a form of idolatrous worship of the wisdom of man at some point. And that “point” is when it starts telling you that Salvation is contingent on things which the early Church & the Gospel authors never heard of or mentioned. While I appreciate & respect the brilliance of Catholic philosophy, it’s pretty clear where it starts giving itself too much authority.
@@geomicpri Christianity can be grasped by children because Jesus founded the Catholic Church to teach the faith in every century. You know what a child or someone with limited time cannot do? Figure out the scriptures on his own or navigate countless different interpretations, doctrines, denominations, and contradicting truth claims that all come from people claiming to follow the same Bible. Protestantism is too reliant on the opinions of each individual. If the church says something is true about Mary, we can trust that because we trust Jesus to guide his church. Childlike faith.
@@N1IA-4 Our friend Gavin Ortlund will remind us that this quote is somehow “nuanced” because even though the early church was a structured, apostolic, sacramental, Eucharistic church that prayed for the dead, honored Mary and saints, and submitted to Rome, it also did not have icons and some fathers believed in limbo. Gotta love Gavin’s ability to do mental gymnastics to pretend Catholicism is false 😂.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Jesus didn't found the Catholic church, he founded Christianity. He called us to be followers of him. I'm sure he didn't have in mind a complex church w/ endless doctrines and dogmas, outside of his word. Some of these dogmas telling us that we need to believe lofty things about Jesus' mother to even be saved and stay in good standing w/ his church. That's what Roman Catholicism has turned into. That's why the other poster is talking about the simplicity of the gospel. Our basis of salvation is pretty simple. It's Christ crucified and following him.
Thank you Gavin. I'm RCC convert but I love your channel and get so much from it. I learn alot. If anyone sees this and wants to answer i saw you mentioned a council. I know Orthodox refer to themselves as "Church of the first seven councils"? Do Prostetamts in general have a set agreement on which councils if any are considered authoritive? (I'm not asking about infallibility. I know that's a different issue.. Just if some are considered to having real weight /authority? Thank you again for all you do. I'll continue to learn from you! BTW as a Catholic I do agree that some Marian devotion goes way over the top.. But I don't think it was meant to be that way.. Still I 100% see your concern it can go way too far...
I want to say Protestants generally regard the first two ecumenical councils as authoritative if not infallible, but unsure where I got that. Different traditions will also ascribe to more or fewer depending. Conservative branches of Lutheranism will attempt to adhere to more of the councils' teachings than others, and I suspect the same of Anglicans and Presbyterians. That said, I'm just a RUclips rando, and defer to the expertise of the doctor here and more knowledgeable commenters.
Pretty much everyone on the Protestant side would accept Jerusalem, 1st Nicea, 1st Constantinople, and Chalcedon (the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds) and reject 2nd Nicea (icon veneration). There's some difference on Ephesus, because a lot of Protestants (particularly from less historically-minded traditions) have concerns about what "Mother of God" is understood to mean and about Mariology in general (some of this concern is an over-reaction to Catholics going too far - at least as we see it). I'm not sure about Protestant views of 2nd and 3rd Constantinople (I've not read up on those two councils). When it comes to Protestant views on the councils, it would be better to describe them as having weight than having authority. Agreement with their conclusions from a Protestant viewpoint is about agreeing that they got the theology right, rather than agreeing that they had the authority to determine doctrine. I would certainly understand the councils I accept/agree with as clarifying existing doctrine that goes back to the Apostles in the face of new challenges, and those I reject as teaching doctrines that originated as man-made tradition at some point after the Apostles had gone. Gavin would be able to provide more detail, since he's far more well-read on these issues than I am, as a mere fan of the channel. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about general attitudes to the teachings of the councils I've commented on.
I think most see no problem with the first and second council's. There are other's who don't like creeds but they are a fringe few. But the vast majority of what would be considered Protestantism (Anglican, Lutheran, Moravian, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist) believe the first 2-3 ecumenical councils. councils 4-6 are affirmed in varying degrees but most see no problem with them. I did not include Adventist and Pentecostal as while they are Christians they seem to be restorationist and it is not clear where they stand on the the councils. From my knowledge (and I could be wrong) most, if not all, protestants depart from the conclusions of the seventh ecumenical council. It seems like this is the one which many won't affirm and that is why icon veneration is not practiced in any protestant church that I am aware of.
Stephengray13… has the best answer. The biblical attitude is, “The X Council put its stamp of approval on Y, which refuted ____-ism and which bishop Z taught a hundred years before that. That matches the scriptures and shows that Y is not novel.” What the councils agreed on was generally a response to some deviation from what was already being taught. A given council statement puts a boundary on the latest time that the claims and counter claims could have originated. We should treat each detail coming out of a council the way the “noble” Bereans treated the preaching of the apostles, searching the scriptures to determine veracity.
As a Catholic, we agree, there is cause for concern. That’s why the Church teaches to not idolize Mary. And if you’re heart, mind focus and intention is not directed towards God you should abstain from Marian devotions. If you’re praying more towards Mary, than God, you should cease. This is taught explicitly in the Catechism. So Catholics agree with you there. The honor given to Mary is only to increase the glory towards God. If I say a mountain river or sunset is beautiful and in my heart and mind I am thanking God for creating it. The compliment is God’s. But, yes mother of God was to counteract the heresy which cropped up in the early church that said Jesus wasn’t fully God, or that Jesus only became God after the baptism in the Jordan. Do some Catholics (maybe a lot) take it too far? I can’t judge their hearts, only God can, but from outward appearances it sometimes looks that way. But agreed, saying mother of God shouldn’t be a point of contention between Christians on the surface.
I'm glad you can make those concessions, and understand some of our reservations. There are whole Catholic rites devoted to Marion devotion. That would seem to be imbalance of itself, but it's sanctioned under Rome. I encounter many Catholics who get upset because I don't venerate Mary the way they do. They call it disrespecting or dishonouring her. My honour and devotion is foremost to Christ. W/ any saint, living or dead, a distant second. This would seem to be what the bible teaches.
I was at a mass not too long ago and in his homily/sermon, the priest talked about how Mary should be respected and honored but that she was a human like us and she was an instrument the Lord used for bringing Jesus into the world but that she does not save us. I could sense the discomfort and probably anger building up in many people.
@@EJ-gx9hl I don't think you were imagining discomfort and anger in many Catholics at that teaching. Me and other Christians have said the same things to Catholics and many of them get very upset. I find such imbalance on both sides of Christianity. Some protestants will downgrade Mother Mary to a mere incubator for Christ. Which I don't think the bible backs that either. She was definitely blessed and honoured for her role in delivering and raising our savior into the world. But the RCC has made her near to divine, w/ increasing dogmas that you must believe about her, to be or become Catholic.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 and while I understand RCC says in its dogmas that certain things must be believed and adhered to in order to be saved, I am of the belief that while I may believe them just because I feel as if they’re true, I don’t believe that a catholic or anyone who doesn’t believe them isn’t saved.
@@EJ-gx9hl I think we do a poor job of catechizing our children and the laity. And that’s a serious shame when the Church then requires certain dogmas to be believed in order to remain within the church and to receive communion. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the teachings are wrong or that they shouldn’t be believed. The implementation of V2 was, in part, supposed to help with that; masses having mandated homilies and more use of the common language. But instead, I feel that gave a lot of parents the green light to transfer their obligations to the Church to teach our children rather than them teaching the faith. I think there’s nuance within talking about Mary. Most Catholics who hold their faith at all hear constant attacks on Mary. So in defense they probably get frustrated and feel a need to constantly defend. So when a priest says something not praising her as co-redemtrix, but not fully understanding what that term even means, they probably feel the priest is just another Protestant dismissing Mary as trash. And feel frustration that they would have to hear this same stuff from another Catholic, a priest no less. Is that a right thing to do? No. They should be actively listening to what the other person says and if they’re in agreement, even if not using same words as you, probably should accept the agreement. But problem is a lot don’t exactly know what the words mean (Protestant or Catholic) and so misconstrue the doctrines to where both camps think the words mean the same incorrect thing. So Protestants disagree, but actually think a lot of what the RCC ACTUALLY teaches is correct, but don’t use the words because they think it means something else. Whereas Catholics think the RCC teaches something different than what they should believe and what a lot of Protestants actually believe already. So it ends up kinda funny in a sad sort of way that a lot of Protestant believe what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary but hate the Church for it. And Catholics don’t believe what the church teaches, but think they’re defending the church for it.
Mariolotry is idolotry. Plain and simple. Calling her the “mother of God” is blasphemous. Jesus never told anyone to pray to her for anything, ever. All glory goes to our God, and not to any vessel who carried His physical form for nine months. We can show respect for her, of course - but not worship, as so many misguided people do. Roman Catholicism is a false religious cult. Read your Bibles, people, and learn the truth.
Gary, Elizabeth called Mary, "....the mother of my Lord." Jesus, as her Messiah and as the incarnate God the Son, was Elizabeth's Lord. Don't misrepresent the holy text by making an interpretive leap that you want to make.@@garyr.8116
"Calling her the “mother of God” is blasphemous." Read your bible. Scripture: _43 And why is this granted me, that _*_the mother of my Lord_*_ should come to me?_ (Lk 1) "but not worship" Don't be misguided. Don't be duped. No Catholic worships any creature, only God alone. Attend a Catholic Mass and this will be clear. "Jesus never told anyone to pray to her for anything, ever."' Jesus told us to pray for each other. When we do, we ask, petition, interceded for each other. Rev 5:8 and 8:3 show those in heaven praying for the saints (us) on earth. It only stands to reason that they know our prayers, made known to them by an all powerful God. Glory to HIM. And we want their prayers as _the prayers of a righteous man availth much_ (Ja 5). Questions : - Who was the Queen in the Old Testament Kings (almost always)? - What role did she have on behalf of the people? - How did the king greet her? - Where did she sit? Keep in mind, Jesus is the King of Kings.
It is you that is following a false religion. This is more about the divinity of Jesus than Mary. Jesus founded His One True Church Matt 16 18-19. We do not worship Mary, only God, so the love of her is not idolatry. It is you who blasphemes by refusing to believe that Mary is the mother of God ie saying that Jesus who was born of her is not divine
This actually clarified the problem for me. I never understood this issue--even being a Protestant myself. The problem within the meaning surrounding the relationship of Mary and Jesus never illuded me. Thanks for this video and God bless!
Enjoying all these videos. I still have a couple of issues with using the phrase "mother of God" though.1. In an increasingly ignorant culture about Christianity , there are those who jump to the conclusion that Mary created God (I have met such people) and therefore just not helpful. 2. because the term "mother" carries so much more meaning than merely a birthgiver. Also includes familial closeness, authority, maternal responsibilities etc. That's why we can say adopted mothers are real mothers because they fulfill that role. In this sense is Mary still the mother of God? I would argue no. She was and always will be God-bearer but she doesn't fulfill a motherly role in heaven where we will be like the angels (Luke 20:26) and when Jesus distances Himself from Mary as in the role of His mother (Matt 12:49)(John 19:27).
@SchottischeSchotte - per scripture, she is the Gebirah - read your scripture to see what all that entails! Jesus didn't 'distance Himself from Mary' but rather **pulled us closer to HIM** by making Her our Mother (John 19:27, Rev12:17)!
It can but his point is that it’s not a hard and fast rule. Honoring the big toe is good but if that’s all you do, your approach to the body will be severely skewed because the head became an afterthought.
@@alpinefool8814 I also belong to the body of Christ. Do I need to be honored too or it's only Marry. Let's not pretend that Marian devotion is not a big deal. Every justification people give come across to me as gaslighting
the problem with using that label is that there's absolutely no value in it, unless you are trying to elevate her as somehow being worthy of worship, or someone to pray to, which is of course contrary to God's word and used by the enemy to lead people astray, and if it were possible, even the elect. so while you might make a technical case for using the label, which is purely one of semantics and has no substance, this seems a fairly harmful thing to acknowledge without a strong disclaimer, or a 12 minute explanation of why that doesn't include any of the accompanying heresies that are asserted along with it, like you've tried to do here. that's just not practical for meaningful conversations.
@Taterstiltskin - What you find 'no value in' the Holy Spirit saw fit to guide Elizabeth to shout Mary as 'Mother of God '(Luke 1:43)! Who elevated her but God - "The Mighty One has done great things for me" !(Luke 1:49) "Henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)! Seems you really don't like Gods plan!
@Taterstiltskin I would argue that there is value (Protestant here, btw). If you deny “Mother of God” then you in a sense are denying that God became Incarnate as a true Man. That is the point he’s making and that’s why it is important. God did not just put on a human suit, but He was made flesh and dwelt among us as a man. That is the core truth, and just because certain doctrines take that title in a direction that was never intended doesn’t detract from the core truth of the title “Mother of God”.
Thank you pastor Gavin for this excellent video. In my humble opinion the crux of the matter in Catholic - Evangelical Mariology's dialogue is the relation between veneration and worship of The Mother of God. The Catholic apologists try to justify the practice of veneration of The Mother of God as a sound biblical doctrine that is strongly supported by apostolic tradition, whilst for many Evangelicals that practice it is often within the category of worship that is due to God alone. The Catholic language of the veneration of The Mother of God is at least confusing if not crossing the line that is unacceptable for sincere and loving God's revelation Evangelicals. Let's lovingly pray and study together to find God's light in all of it. We all love our beloved Mother of God, but in practice we express it differently. Glory to God alone.
From the U. of Dayton. An excellent writeup, consistent with Gavin's Christological comment. Meaning of Theotokos Q: What is the meaning of Mary's title: Theotokos? A: Theotokos derives from the Greek terms: Theos / 'God'; and tiktein / 'to give birth'. Mary is the Theotokos, the one who gave birth to God. This single word sums up the meaning of Luke's phrase: 'Mother of the Lord' (Lk 1: 43) and represents a counterpoint to John's teaching that the 'Word was made flesh' (Jn 1:14). Usually the term is translated into English as 'Mother of God'. However, Greek-speaking Christians also used the equivalent Meter Theiou. The latter form offers a more comprehensive vision of Mary's motherhood in line with a personalist point of view. The title, Mother of God, seems to have first been used in liturgical and devotional practice by Christians in Egypt. It appears in an ancient prayer, Sub Tuum Praesidium which dates back to the third century. There was some controversy about the use of this title since the pagan goddess, Isis, was referred to as Mother of God. However, there are radical differences between the myths about divine births to pagan goddesses (e.g. Isis, mother of Horus) and the gospel accounts of Jesus' incarnation in Mary. For example, the Gospels portray Jesus as conceived by Mary in Spirit while pagan myths portray the conception of gods in passion and removed from the mysterious destiny of the Incarnation. Nevertheless, the title, Mother of God, was used in an Alexandrian creedal formula. When challenged in 322, Patriarch Peter of Alexandria defended its legitimacy. Use of the title, Theotokos was formally sanctioned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Church declared that both Divine and human natures were united in the person of Jesus, the son of Mary. Hence, Mary may be called Theotokos, since the son she bore according to the flesh, Jesus, is truly one of the Divine persons of the Trinity. *This Marian title is really a Christological statement, which affirms that the second person of the Trinity, who was born into history as fully human, is really 'God with us'.* Note ... NO Catholic worships ANY creature, Mary included. We follow her words, DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU. Mary always leads us to her Son. We go to her as a means for going to her Son. It's all about her Son. If one attend a Catholic Mass, one would see, it's all about our Lord God.
Matthew 12:48 “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Perhaps we are all theotokos and a Christotokos and should honour and love one another as such.
To some extent, yes. But none of us, apart from the BVM, are the human vessels in which the Incarnation, a critical part of the Christian story, took place.
@@marksmale827That was only for a short time, when Jesus lived on earth. To call her his mother NOW or to think that he even calls her so is blasphemy.
Jesus response was "More blessed are those who do the will of my Father". God's will was that the word will come down and made flesh through the womb of Mary. Mary accepted this willingly by declaring " Let it be done to me according to your words". Jesus is saying his mother is even more blessed with that response
I was JUST talking to my mom about this. That us Protestants should not have a problem with "mother of God" because it's a statement about Jesus not her. Then I see you upload this 3 hours ago. Nice.
@johnmark Because it emphasises that Jesus has a unified divine/human nature rather than being two persons at once, which is an echo of Nestorianism. If Jesus was only God putting on a human suit rather than truly becoming man, then the Word was not made flesh, and Jesus did not become man, could not be tempted or suffer or become our High Priest. Mary being the Mother of God in this lens declares that Jesus was truly Incarnated and became human, and not that Jesus put on a human suit or was split in His very nature, if that makes sense. Now, people do go overboard with Mary sometimes as a result, but this declaration regarding Jesus’ Incarnation was the original intent of the title.
@@samueljennings4809 But there's a huge difference in saying she bore Jesus as the Incarnation, and in saying she bore God Himself in Infinity. Father God is Uncreated and Unbegotten. Would you be comfortable in saying Mary is the Mother of the Father? I would not and am not. She is the mother of Jesus, the Incarnation of the Father on Earth.
@@samueljennings4809 I think you have to also take into account what it means FOR MARY to be Mother of God, Gavin talked about going overboard but that's unwarranted. If a woman can call God her child, that woman is in a position no other human being will ever be in. The amount of condescendance God shows in favor of that woman is beyond anything we can imagine, and that completely warrants a seperate yet connected field of theological study, mariology.
Dr Ortlund, I appreciate your work immensely. Although I disagree with you on many points, I appreciate the irenic tone with which you make your videos and your love for and desire to be faithful to Christ is evident and laudable. Especially in the world we live in, where we are tempted by the twin problems of either relativism, which denies that there is such a thing as truth, or else an angry, sarcastic, combative spirit, which believes in truth, but thinks that it is best defended by mocking and shouting, work like yours is important. We must be faithful to Christ, who is the Truth, but we must do so *as Christians*, cultivating the fruits of the Spirit, and being charitable. As an Orthodox Christian, I can certainly acknowledge that there can be danger in venerating Mary in the wrong way, in a way that could detract from the worship which we owe to God alone. At the same time, I think it's also worth acknowledging that the opposite is dangerous as well. As you say in your video, the point of what we believe about Mary is what it teaches us about Christ. By not honoring Mary, but actively minimizing her, I often see well-meaning Protestants fall into serious Christological and Trinitarian heresies, dividing the Persons of the Trinity in a way that becomes tritheism, denying the full truth of the Incarnation or the deity of Christ, etc. Understanding Mary is important to understanding Christ correctly. For example, I often see Protestants speak of Jesus in a way that treats Him as either not being fully God or not one Person. Speaking as if Christ was capable of sinning (misunderstanding the meaning of temptation and denying the hypostatic union of His divine and human wills in His one Person). Confessing Mary to be the Mother of God is an important Christological litmus test that protects us from falling into serious error that denies the core of the Christian faith.
I've never seen a protestant Christian speak of Christ as anything but divine and sinless. We don't deny his human side, from Mary, or his divine nature, as part of the eternal Godhead. This is why Mary being the mother of God is tricky statement. It could be seen as eternal God having a mother and therefore an origin in humanity. It could also elevate Mary above her status as a created and not a divine being.
This what I’ve thought for so long. No one on the other side has addressed it. The reality is, this infallible doctrine has led to worship of Mary in many parts of the world and communities within the west as well. It’s not taught well, it is blurring lines and leading to error. Literally praying to her. I don’t think she’d ever want that.
Not all prayer is divine worship. We don't offer the Mass to her, meaning we don't eat her body and blood, adoring her in such a way as part of that act. Therefore, Catholics ///at the very least/// don't worship Mary the way they worship Christ, and we would further say that they do not worship her at all, at least in the sense that worship refers to divine worship, the honor due God alone. Prayers and devotionals relying on older language will use older meanings of worship---which means honor, as you would address a judge "your honor" or "your worship"---and on older meanings of prayer----which means ask, as in the phrase "I pray tell."
I think it's the protestant concept of worship that's been skewed, particularly in low church sects, due to the lack of sacrificial liturgy. You literally do not get it.
@@benabaxter "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5 If these vices, which are not offered to any specific party save for the self, constitute idolatry, then one cannot say that only Christian Sacramental worship offered to someone other than God would be idolatry. The category is clearly much broader. "Prayers and devotionals relying on older language will use older meanings of worship---which means honor, as you would address a judge 'your honor' or 'your worship'---and on older meanings of prayer----which means ask, as in the phrase 'I pray tell.'" The querying of an entity is not the issue. The implications about the queried party based on what the query is asking are the issue. If I solicited St. Mary to pass me the salt from the table, I would be asking something dumb, but not idolatrous. On the other hand, if I were asking her to placate Christ's wrath on my behalf (per the prayer often used by Dr. Ortlund as an example of abuse of Marian devotion), that would be idolatrous, as Christ wishes us to seek the things of salvation and sanctification only from Him.
Hello, Dr. Ortlund. I am a Roman Catholic Christian, and I appreciate you defending the Virgin Mary's Divine Motherhood. I would, however, say that the other Marian Dogmas that the Church has defined are also Christological. Additionally, to really understand why we give her the highest veneration of any saint is based upon the proper understanding of grace that the Church teaches. Lastly, the Church, even though we exalt her very highly, still call her a mere creature and that she cannot be compared to God, including God the Son, her Son. Thank you for being fair toward us Catholics and polite. God bless...
great explanation! I honestly really get irritating whenever Catholics exalt Mary to the same position with God. I see many Catholics pastors prayer on social media and the prayer don't even address to God, it's directly to Mary, asking for piece, healing etc, that's crazy! Their Instagram profile is full of image of Mary, some even call themselves Man of Mary, just like some Christians claim themselves Man of God. This is just so wrong, God is next to none. Mary is earthly mother of Jesus, God used her to bear Jesus in her womb. Jesus was there together with father and Holy Spirit creating the world and everything. Jesus created Mary. "Truly truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM"
"Catholics exalt Mary to the same position with God." Don't be duped into believing this. No Catholic worships any creature. We worship God alone. Go to a Catholic Mass and see for yourself. Mary points us to her Son. We follow her words, _do whatever he tells you._ True this: we honor her for saying yes, for bringing our Lord and Savior into the world. Scripture says of her, "all generations shall call me blessed." Do you do so as scripture says??
@@TruthHasSpokenAs someone who tried to convert to Catholicism twice, sadly I can confirm this is not true for all Catholics. I had a good many Catholics tell me point blank to pray to Mary for her intercession to change Jesus mind on a petition I had made since a king always listens to his mother. Then there were the masses where yes the actual mass was about Christ, but everything around it including the 30 minutes of the Rosary and the Litany to Mary and consecration to Mary made me wonder if I was there to praise Mary or God.
@@Theescapist_87 "since a king always listens to his mother." Jesus hears our prayers but doesn't always answer them as WE wish, and sometimes not in the timeline we wish. So too, scripture is clear that persistence in prayer is at times necessary. There's nothing wrong with Mary on your side, interceding for you. It's not either our but both. Pray to Jesus AND have his mother (not to exclude other Saints in heaven), petition her Son for you are as well. " everything around it including the 30 minutes of the Rosary" Keep in mind, when we say the Rosary, we are reflecting on the life of her Son. Mary always point us to her Son; we listen and follow her words, _do whatever he tells you._ My spouse went through RCIA twice. Decades later, they are a terrific Catholic. They have always felt that they were not "leaving" their religion, just adding to it in a richer way.
@@TruthHasSpoken Thanks but I am very happy being a Lutheran now. As a fellow Christian, I wish you and your husband the best in your Catholic faith as you strive to follow Christ.
@TruthUnites Gavin, the reason I do not accept the conclusions of the council of Ephesus is that I've heard the perspective of the church of the East. The council was convened on Pentecost of the year 431 before the bishops that supported Nestorius even arrived. Nestorius refused to participate until his supporting bishops arrived, but the council was convened anyway, and he was condemned in absentia for a heresy he didn't actually teach. Nestorius and the bishops who supported him never got to defend his case before the council. They then counter-excommunicated the council, and this resulted in the first major schism in the church. The church of the east rightly calls this out as a shambolic council that was more of a power play on the part of Cyril of Alexandria rather than a thoughtful gathering guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify doctrine, and as far as I'm concerned, the Council of Ephesus is no better than Nicaea II, that council you have repeatedly pointed out which anathematizes those who do not venerate icons. According to the book "Know the Councils" by Justin Holcomb, the Council of Ephesus was deliberately moved to Ephesus under the influence of Pulcharia, the sister of the emperor Theodosius, who was an enemy of Nestorius, because Ephesus was the site of a thriving Marian shrine. (Ephesus was also the site of the Temple of Artemis, a virgin mother goddess, and it appears that this is where Marian idolatry really entered the church via syncretism with Greco-Roman paganism.) She hoped their influence would be brought to bear against Nestorius, and in fact, the council was under their influence at Ephesus to declare Mary the "Mother of God". The Bible never refers to her as anything other than the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus derived his humanity from her, not his divinity. If we want to make statements about Jesus, we should make them about Jesus and not heap exalted titles upon Mary. All the idolatrous doctrines around Mary minted by St. Alphonsus Liguori (the author of "The Glories of Mary") and St. Louis de Monfort (the author of "True Devotion to Mary") are down-stream of the granting of the title "mother of God" to Mary at the council of Ephesus. Just from the facts that have emerged about this council, I have no confidence in its conclusions, as it appeared to be a thoroughly corrupt council set up to condemn an innocent man and to shoe-horn an inappropriate title into the church, which resulted in the idolatry of Mary spreading like leaven through the church.
Thank you, Dr. Gavin. You must have read my mind, because I was hoping just yesterday you would do one on this, as well as why you believe Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve. (A lot of Protestants do not believe in those titles as well.) A fellow Protestant who is close to me (and also very learned) does not believe Mary should have ever been called Theotokos, because it was what ushered in all the abuses. I would love a more in depth coverage of the implications of what calling her Christotokos would have meant beyond affirming the heresy that was being promulgated at the time. Thank you for those last two videos you have done on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. Your work on this channel is so appreciated and gives me a lot to think about! May God bless you and your family!
Well Mary is not the Ark of the New Covenant because the New Covenant doesn't have an Ark nor is there a need for a new Eve becaise it was Eve's son who was the promised Son and she is the mother of all living.
Gavin doesn't believe that Mary is the Ark of the covenant. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't believe Mary is the new Eve either. I can't wait to see what form of glorification Catholics will give to Mary next. She's already Queen of Heaven, the Ark, sinless, born w/out sin, and sigh, it just goes on and on and on and on w/ divine Mary.
I'm glad to see that you are bringing up an issue that is of great concern to Catholic Theologians and the Magisterium, even if you overlook Catholic teaching and focus only on the attacks and misrepresentations. First I'd point out the bias you have shown in questioning what an accurate translation of the German phrase used by Luther would be in English, but Gloss over that when Pope Francis spoke on Marian Devotion it was a translation into English of his statements in (most probably) Italian or Spanish. Example of this bias (not one I've heard Dr. O bring up, so it's just an example of some Protestants and their bias) are those Protestants who post videos of the Holy Week Rites from Rome where the Deacon is chanting about Lucifer coming to us being proof that the Catholic Church worships Satan. The reality is Lucifer is the Latin for one who bears or brings light. In this case it refers to Christ Jesus. Or the often used quote of one of the Pius' who near the end of his life says (In Italian) "The comedy is over." to show that the Pope saw the teachings of the Catholic Church as a farse, rather than what an Italian would understand as Comedia is something that expresses not just a comical farse but any saga or play. He was expressing that his role in history was coming to an end. As to the concerns by the Catholic Church about the excessive or potential excessive positioning of our Blessed Mother above Her Son Jesus. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church you see what Dr. O has seemingly overlooked. The definition of Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia being the first example. Recently Pope John Paul II his resistance to proclaiming Mary Co-Redemptrix was not that She is not, but that many would misunderstand that by using that title the Church means she participated in our Salvation, by giving herself totally to God, just as Paul calling himself Co-Worker with Christ does not mean that he is equal to Christ, Mary is and always has been a creature subordinate to Him. The Assumption, while contested by Dr. O shows that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not equal to Christ, as he was Assumed by the power of God, not of Her own power. There are among the hundreds of cautions against false teachings and excesses taught by both heretics and folks who have gone overboard and beyond what the Church teaches, the example of the Church condemning a heretical Gnostic sect that offered Sacrifice to Mary. The assertion of Dr. O that the Catholic Church does not guard against this or does not do a good enough job of it, is based on a dive into the shallow end of the pool. Since converting to the Catholic Faith almost 50 years ago I have read Catholic theology and history, My library consists of books I bought from Seminary Libraries (Both Catholic and Protestant) and I still each day discover deeper and more intimate the Love God has for us in Christ. I consider myself after those near 50 years just scratching the surface of the Teachings and History of the Catholic Church, and history in general. So I will not fault Dr. O too much for a shallow understanding.
Thank you for adding some much-needed context to this discussion. Time and time again, I find that there is a seemingly impassable cultural barrier at play where modern, American Protestants are demanding that the Church, which is an ancient, old-world organism, change its language to assuage *their* particular cultural prejudices and biases rather than truly trying to understand *how* Catholics live and understand the world. It's also amazing how many Protestants in online comments sections claim to have seen overwhelming evidence of "Mariolatry," especially in countries with cultural ties to Spain, but in my 33 years living as a Catholic in Texas, where Hispanic influence is strong and Hispanics actually represent a slight majority as a demographic, I have yet to meet a Catholic-- European, Lebanese, Mexican, Vietnamese, etc.-- who worships Mary. As usual, those who are properly formed and understand the faith would recoil at the suggestion and are very likely to be regular mass attendees with a mature spirituality. The online examples of "Mary worship" that cause Protestants to wring their hands are almost universally misunderstandings of what is actually going on or fringe examples of ignorant (often badly-educated) individuals who are Catholic-adjacent due to quirks of history but would more rightly be understood as syncretists in dire need of a proper catechism.
@edwardcarlin6397 since we are playing the anecdote game, I lived in Portugal for 5 years and can attest that most people couldn't tell me the first thing about Jesus but were on their knees praying to statues of Mary daily, anointing cows and ritually eating them to receive the Holy Spirit and building shrines to various saints and of course Mary. Unfortunately there is no biblical defense for any of these actions and study of early church history reveals such practices were condemned as unthinkable. It is only far more recent catholic teaching that did an about face and anathematized the refusal of icon veneration and prayer to saints, and catholics ever since have been trying to defend the practice with frankly incoherent arguments and even try to use scripture, when we all know this decision was made by a magesterial council. If you want to take part in practices that are so close to idolatry that you have to redefine the words worship and idolatry to try and justify it, it's your soul so have at it I suppose, but stop trying to gaslight everyone like these practices are common sense derivations from the scripture and early church history
Mais M. Gavin, vous devriez préciser comment vous comprenez la mariologie des catholiques! Il ne faut pas tout mêler, on ne vous comprend plus ! Faites attention ! Marc 7; 22 :C.est du dedans, c’est du coeur des hommes, M Gavin, que sortent les mauvaises pensées… les calomnies, l’orgueil 12:04 12:04 , et les dérèglement de l’esprit … elles souillent l’homme. Ces bonnes paroles sentent les mauvaises pensées !
I would be interested in a video from you in which you explain - in light of the quote you read from Luther - the extent of the honor you feel is allowable. What is she honored for? How does the honor we give to Mary not take away from Christ? And most importantly, how does this honor look in a communal setting? (I.e. how does the community, when gather together, honor her?)
Thanks for the video Gavin. Helpful. Nestorians had a problem with saying Mother of God if I understand right. Have you ever thought about doing a video about them? Especially their missions east. Kind of like your video about Scandinavian. That probably wouldn’t be high on the popularity list, but I feel like it is an important part of Christian history. How did they did get so far east and how did the vast majority of them disappear?
In all fairness, there are many ignorant Christians in all denominations--Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox--whose individual practices are against their own denomination's official teaching. For example, I am a charismatic, evangelical Christian, and there are many uneducated charismatics who do or teach things that are against Scriptures, which is why I no longer attend my local iglesia pentecostal. Official Catholic teaching is that Jesus is the one and only mediator who is worthy of worship. We should be comparing the best of one church with the best of another church.
@ubespam5477 that's why I'm not catholic or prodestant, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, catholics are idolaters with images and prodestants ar idolaters with Greed and gluttony
I highly doubt that. I wouldn't accuse you of lying, but it's possible that your perspective is more of a caricature of their beliefs. However, if it turns out to be true, then they’re just wrong - plain and simple - and they hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such a fundamental error suggests they may be Catholics in name only.
@garyr.8116 no the just have big shines of Mary and have pictures and bracelets of Mary and always ask her for protection or healing , is that good enough to assume they love Mary more than Christ?
Mother of Jesus, who is God in the flesh. But God is a spirit, spirits are not born. No matter where people are in this subject, one thing is very clear. Mary didn't die for our sins, she can't forgive sins, she is no co redemptrix, she is not a goddess, she deserves no worship at all, only respect.
According to Catholicism, Mary will soon be displacing Jesus. Hey, she's already said to be the ark of the covenant, the new eve, co-redemptrix, the queen of heaven, and probably seated at the right hand of Jesus, like a queen would be. Can't wait to see how they displace Jesus w/ her next.
@@saintejeannedarc9460you have it wrong. A greater understanding of Mary, adds to Christology. It has been & still, through Mary to Jesus, with which you will no doubt deny
@@geoffjs I know Catholics definitely believe that. I don't see how it adds to, when so much emphasis on Mary takes away, and certainly divides the Christians attention from Christ. Protestants don't have that distraction. it's not I don't think the Catholic emphasis on Mary doesn't have some benefit. It extols motherhood as a virtue, much better than the protestant faith does. I'll grant you all that.
Due to the imprecision of language, "Mother of God" is not an unproblematic expression. Substitute "the Trinity" for "God" in that phrase (which is not far-fetched for a trinitarian) and you end up with a phrase which is clearly false.
You will know them by their fruits. Even if the catholic church claims it dont worship saints or idols they still have problems with both among their congregation.
@@TruthUnites now that you’ve done videos on the dogmas of the bodily assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and now the mother of God, are you planning on doing one on the perpetual virginity of Mary? I know it’s a belief that is much older, and even many protestants embrace it. However, for those who don’t, I was wondering if you would make a video showing both for the support, as well as arguments against, the dogma. Coming from a Roman Catholic background, this is the one I tackled first, because it’s less controversial. Yet, it was the first one I rejected when I began to really study scripture, because I couldn’t find it there, and felt there was more evidence against it from scripture. Once that happened, the later two controversial dogmas were a lot easier to reject, both from scripture and from the early church. And later, when I began to read the anti-Nicene fathers, I was surprised to see the lack of support for it, as well as evidence against it, even though there’s not a whole lot, but still more against it than for it. Great video by the way. Excellent material as always!
@@garyr.8116 conceived? Was it purely a human type conception? That's something Mormons believe it's the same as human conception ? The Holy Spirit brought the power of God Most High upon Mary so I would say it's a totally unique conception that physically we don't know how God accomplished it. How is Jesus Divine nature as God and human nature as Man present in one individual ? We can speculate and create doctrines but we don't know how this mystery is actually carried out.
@patriceagulu8315 Mary is functionally Jesus’ mother. That doesn’t mean she “created” God. Every human being that descended from Adam and Eve is a creation, including Mary. No one but God (which includes Jesus) is the supreme Creator. God is the ultimate source of creative power can do anything and everything, regardless of our ability to understand how (or why). A human can only create what God enables him to create using His materials, machinery and design.
So great to have Gavin tell all Protestants what they should and should not be concerned about all in the name of "historic Protestantism" which deserves every bit as much deference as "historic Pelagianism" and "historic Donatism".
That was stated in the imperative. Was it a command or more of a suggestion? If the former: we should, of course, "obey our leaders" but it is not clear to me why you think you have authority to issue commands. Delusions of grandeur perhaps? I think this same sickness infects Gavin making him think he speaks for "historic Protestantism." If you wish to follow the teachings of Scripture, you need to stop fawning over self appointed guardians and ask yourself: how was Christ's authority given to the Apostles in the early Church and how did everyone know who the legitimate (not self appointed) authorities were? And you might ask: what is schism and how do I avoid this sin? Food for thought. If you think of me as buzzing, you can think of such food as honey.
@@AnselmInstitute zzzzzzz boring. Vatican 2 changed all that. Why do you still live in the spirit of Trent and Vatican 1?? Ahhhhhh you must hate the new Vatican 2 church !!!!! So looking forward to Synod of Synodality next year!!! Any changes coming you think?
@@ntlearning You are just the cutest little thing. You should read more Pope Benedict on the hermeneutic of continuity. Vatican 2 reversed NOTHING the Church taught at Trent or Vatican 1, which is why you quoted nothing from those councils and instead resorted to banal platitudes you have been spoon fed. You are just as cute as can be.
I noticed you like the "z" sound to imitate animals and sleeping. I wonder do you like the letter "z" in words too. What do you think of the z in the phrase "zeal for the Truth"? Or is it only z's in animal sounds and sleeping that you like?
In the first year of his ministry, at the occasion of his first miracle of changing the water into wine, the last recorded words of Mary are given: “Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you.” (John 2:5) Right at the getgo of Jesus ministry when she could have shared the limelight, Mary fades into the shadows in deference to her son, and is never heard from again.
***Luke 1:43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? . . Mother of My Lord referring to Jesus. The man. The mother of the man that God took the form of. Not of God.
@@thejohnmarkproject She gave birth to the person of Jesus, who is truly man truly God, you're separating Christ's natures as if it were 2 persons, congrats now you are a Nestorian
@@thejohnmarkproject I wouldn't call you a Nestorian, but I'm w/ gondor on this one. I'm not Catholic, but Lord was meant as God in that scripture. When Mother Mary extolled, "My savior and my God", she meant God, as understood in Judaism as well. The same way Elizabeth, John the Baptist's mother would have. I'd go a bit further too, because Elizabeth was proclaiming a prophecy, that she likely didn't understand yet. The Jews had no concept of the trinity, or any idea of a triune nature of God then. It wasn't until after Jesus, and it was a tough sell. If you've ever heard of a Mezuzah, you'll know why. It carries the scripture, "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one". They took that very seriously, which is why it caused such a kaffufle, that the Jews in Jesus own hometown wanted to stone him when he claimed oneness w/ his father.
@@saintejeannedarc9460the word kurios doesn't imply Divinity. Elizabeth may have just meant Jesus was the king Messiah. There seems to be no scriptural mandate for calling Mary "mother of God" and citing councils gets us nowhere.
funny, since the exact opposite is true and it's in affirming the virgin Mary is the mother of God that we affirm the incarnation which requires the orthodoxy view of the Holy Trinity. That anyone would talk about "pagan thought" about this is frankly terrible. The sheer arrogance in it is grotesque.
The problem with this approach is that attempts to prevent error down the road in one direction usually make it easier to fall into an error down the road in the opposite direction. If there's an over-emphasis on something in one generation attempting to correct it usually means that there will be an under-emphasis on it in the next.
Nicely and well done. But, I will disagree with you, having seen the errors in person. The problem lies in even bringing Mary into the discussion. Such was not done in Scripture and it as led to far too many grievous errors, especially within Catholic circles where there the focus is Mary and not Jesus. The theological truth of the Christological discussion need not ever to include Mary, especially as such was not done in the NT.
@@thejohnmarkprojectMost Protestants are fine calling Mary the mother of God. Denying that she's the mother of God is a denial of Christianity, since it either denies the Divinity of Christ or His Incarnation.
The only reason I can think of would be out of caution, that perhaps someone might be concerned that speaking of her this way might inadvertently communicate to someone unfamiliar with Christendom that we believe Mary is the *source* of God by virtue of having mothered Jesus who is God
@@anne.ominous Yes, it makes it sound like Mary is the Mother of the Unbegotten, Uncreated Eternal One who could have had no mother in Infinity. Otherwise, it's a contradiction in terms. It must be specified that she is the Mother of the "Incarnation of" God on Earth as Jesus Christ.
@@doriesse824 The Son of God is not "Unbegotten". He is the "only begotten" or "uniquely begotten". He was begotten, but not created. Also -- and I think you are saying the same thing -- Mary is the mother of Jesus' humanity, not of his divinity. She bore him, who is divine, but contributed nothing to his divinity. Thus, she is "Theotokos" (the bearer of divinity), not "Mētēr tou Theou" (Mother of God).
I merely point out that if the Bible is the infallible Word of God and scripture was written thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit didn't give us titles for Mary like, the mother of God, the new ark, the queen of heaven, that maybe, just maybe there is a reason. In Matthew 12 when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were outside He pointed to the believers in front of Him and said, "Here is My mother and brothers", only to add that anyone who does the will of God is His brother, His sister, His mother... To create what isn't in scripture, such as Mary was without sin, remained a virgin her whole life, was taken to heaven, that we are to avoid the intercession of the Holy Spirit when we pray to God and do an end around and pray to Mary, that we are to have statues and images of Mary everywhere... One would think God saw this coming and that's why Mary is only mentioned by name 19 times.
Luke 1:26-35. It says that the Angel Gabriel came to a young maiden who was betrothed to be married and told her that she *will* conceive and bring forth a son. She responds by asking how that is possible since "I do not know a man." People often misread that as if Gabriel told her that she had already conceived and she objected that that was impossible since she was still currently a virgin. But that isn't what the Gospel says. He tells her that she will conceive, in the future tense and she objects, not by saying that she hadn't yet known a man, but that she does not know them, as a blanket statement. If she had not already pledged herself to a life of virginity, and was about to enter a normal marriage, there would be nothing strange about what Gabriel said. It would be entirely natural to assume that he meant that she would conceive with her husband in the natural way. All the other times like this in the Scriptures, with Abraham and Sarah, Zachariah and Elizabeth, etc the objection is one of age. The women are too old to conceive. But Mary isn't too old. And she's betrothed. And yet, she still objects, saying that she does not know a man.
@@AmericanwrCymraegYou spoke truth, she was not yet married, had not yet been with a man! Back them if one wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage one risked suffering huge consequences. She at no time said she took a vow of celibacy, she at no time stated she would never be with Joseph. There is a reason Mary is only mentioned by name 19 times in scripture. Luke is the only one to tell you the virgin story from Mary's point of view. He is also the one to tell us he knew the difference between relative and brother. He said Elizabeth was Mary's relative and the brothers of Jesus were His brothers. He mentioned Mary 12 times here and the last time she is ever mentioned in Acts 1 when he said, "Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers"! Matthew told the virgin story from Joseph's point of view. In scripture God/angel only spoke to Mary once and after that all future communication went thru Joseph. Matthew mentioned her by name 5 times. Mark never mentioned the virgin story and only mentioned Mary by name one time. That was when he told us of the siblings of Jesus in Chapter 7. John, caretaker of Mary never mentioned her by name. Obviously there was nothing about her that was required for our salvation. He also told us that the brothers of Jesus didn't believe in Him. Jesus even said John the Baptist was greater!
@@glennherron9499 None of that answers the point at all. It just repeats random word counts from other places in the Scriptures. The point is this: If Mary was betrothed and was going to have a normal marriage, when the Archangel Gabriel told her that she would conceive (ie in the future), there was nothing strange about that. He didn't tell her that she *had* conceived, in which case it would make sense for her to object by pointing to her current virginity. He told her that she would conceive in the future. Being young and engaged, that would be a very normal, natural thing, for her to conceive in the future. But she objected by saying that she **does not** know man ("επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.") If at your engagement party, your grandmother came up to your fiancée and told her that she would end up having children, you might wonder why she was that certain, but you wouldn't wonder how it would happen. You would assume that it would happen in the normal way.
As a response to the "both-and" section-- I do actually agree with you, Gavin, even with myself being a Catholic with a strong Marian devotion (I had a particularly powerful encounter on a pilgrimage to Lourdes, France). While in my case, and the vast majority of fellow Catholics' cases in my life at least, strong Marian piety have only increased love for and adoration of Christ, I have witnessed a bit of an unhealthy elevation of Mary among the more cultural or not as practicing/well-catechised Catholics. This is the important distinction, though-- Catholics or other Christians who elevate Mary to a "more important" role than our Lord are usually doing so because they often lack the proper catechesis or have been taught incorrectly. That being said, I cannot emphasize enough the role in which the Blessed Mother has brought me into deeper relationship with our Lord. Nevertheless, I understand that this is difficult and confusing for many of my Protestant brothers and sisters. I try to be as open to listening and dialoguing as I can. I am glad we can agree on this Marian dogma, though. I earnestly pray every day that there will be an end to the division among the baptized. God bless you, brother.
Your "Both-And" section should be required listening for all Catholics. Period. Mary is not an extension of the grace of Christ, nor do we derive additional "saving grace" from praying to her. She was an honorable, obedient servant of the living God of the Bible, but not a demi-deity to whom we need pray/venerate/"hyper-dulia"-ize. I'm done with my rant, and apologies if my tone is too confrontative. Gavin, as always, many prayers for you/yours/your church.
well the good thing is that the Church has never taught that saving Grace is attributed to the virgin Mary. As far as the cautionary tale of venerating the saints or Jesus' mother too much, it's an informal complaint and nothing more. It's akin to demanding people should never use fire to cook because if they're not careful they can burn down their house.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Yet many Catholics, including my nan when she was alive, build shrines to Mary and visit the sites of Marian apparations (Lourdes, Medjugorje, etc), seeking grace/indulgences from these activities. If the Church has "never" taught that grace (in any of the forms that are taught by the Church) isn't dispensed via Marian veneration, then why do so many Catholics do it? Why have the past 3 popes dedicated their papacies to her? Again, don't want to be confrontative, but the demonstrated behavior of my Catholic family (and what I was taught growing up in a Catholic family) isn't consistent with your statement.
@@brianetheredge7323 Building a shrine to the virgin Mary is a pious and excellent act. God bless your grandmother. So, is habitual Grace in your sect attributed to whoever your formal leader dedicates their ministry to? where does the Catholic Church teach that Grace is obtained through veneration _at all?_ Does your experience of having a bad catechesis modify the formal teachings of the Church? This wouldn't bother me if by now it weren't tripling down on the idea that "marian idolatry" must exist because you want it to exist.
I swear these people just make up some fictional idea of catholicism in their head and then attack it to avoid facing an existential crisis when they realize how novel and not in accordance with history, scripture or reality their doctrines are.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj What do you mean by "habitual Grace?" And...sorry if it seems I'm overselling grace as if received from Mary herself or that that is taught as dogma by the RCC. I was simply pointing out that the demonstrated behavior of the Catholics I know (I was raised Catholic, I know many) is inconsistent with your attitude toward how Catholics venerate Mary today.
Thank you for this Mariology series; I've found it to be very helpful. I agree that calling Mary the Mother of God should not be a point of division. I was wondering though about another title I often hear Roman Catholics use for Mary, "Queen of Heaven". I really don't know much about the history of this term or the theological convictions that underly it, but the term seems more problematic to me than Mother of God. If you could address this topic in a future video I would appreciate it. Thanks and God bless.
I appreciate your explanation about the historical context of this phrase and how it's properly understood! However, I still have concerns about it that this video didn't completely alleviate. 1) In response to your claim that historical Protestants were fine with it - that might be more convincing to me if I, like Catholics, believed in the infallible authority of some church body. However, the whole point that you have made in these videos about Protestantism is that it can continually reform. Therefore, as a Protestant I'm not obligated to agree with something just because Luther, Calvin, or other Reformers believed it, and it's completely acceptable to look back and note areas in which they may not have gone far enough. 2) You mentioned but did not consider carefully enough the fact that the statement "Mary is the Mother of God" is technically correct but can be misleading. In my view, it can be fatally misleading. As a child I used to think it meant that Catholics believed Mary eternally pre-existed God! And while you can dismiss that as a child's confusion, it's not actually all that crazy when you think about how this language sounds to those outside of Christianity. Colloquially, when we say "mother of _" we are usually referring to someone who pre-exists and originates whatever that thing was. We are using language that can drastically confuse the uninformed about what our true beliefs are. 3) Couple the previous concern with the fact that the language is not found in Scripture. I'm all for using language not found in Scripture to describe Christian beliefs, if that language is accurate and likely to help people properly understand Christianity. But when language carries such a deep danger of misleading others and is ALSO not found in Scripture, it should be treated very carefully! At least we should not name church buildings after it (a church in my town is called "Mother of God of _" which is even worse because it implies that God has a mother and also is only God of a particular place/thing!) Those are my concerns, and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Thanks again for helping us all come to more clarity in these discussions.
I understand why hearing that Mary is the Mother of God would sound alarming to a lot of Christians. It is more accurate to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I like to call her Mother Mary. I know she is the virgin Mary, but that's like calling Jesus, the baby Jesus all the time. Jesus is our resurrected savior and Lord. Mary is the very blessed woman that God chose to bless and give the incredible responsibility of birthing and raising our savior. The attributes the Catholic church gives to Mary are really uncomfortable. I respect Mary more as a mortal woman, born in sin like the rest of us. Not this sinless, perfect saint and co-redemptrix that the RCC had turned her into. There is no real sacrifice or difficulty in a perfect person birthing the savior. My mind can't quite grasp how she is still mortal w/ the attributes given to her by the RCC as well. Nevertheless, I can understand that the title of Mary being the mother of God points to Christ's deity, as a member of the trinity. It's a concession I can make w/ Catholics as fellow Christians. Even if for reasons you stated, and my own, the language is still uncomfortable for me. It's more the least of my differences w/ Catholics and their doctrines.
Per 1, good point. Per 2, it really just means that we need to be more careful about inquiring after things we don't understand. Mother does have other meanings and contexts, like the "Mother of all Storms". That just means a whomping big storm, not some weird progenitor hurricane that predated all other cyclonic weather systems. Per 3, Abusus non tollit usum. We should be careful when teach anything to make sure we get it right, but just because something can be misunderstood does not mean it can only be misunderstood. One can still understand it properly, and therefore, the title still has a use in doctrine and teaching.
Full disclosure I’m a Protestant but inquiring into EO. One point that has begun to stick with me is the idea Mary is at Jesus’s right hand similar to how a kings mother would stand at his right hand (the place of honor) in ancient Israel. Any concerns from you as a Protestant on this view point? I have to admit my evangelical background really doesn’t honor Mary much at all compared to EO and RC but it will come as a shock to many evangelicals who feel the same way if Mary has the place of honor next to Jesus.
We can honor Mary without over-elevating her as the RCC do and as many EO tend to. No need to go East nor to incorporate what is entirely a speculative presupposition (that the relationship of the Trinity and Jesus as the Second Person of same with Mary is analogous to kingship relations in ancient Israel) without Scriptural merit into your view of the Church. And if you want the view of Tradition on the matter, I would argue you could do no better than looking at the three Ecumenical Creeds which define orthodox belief, the Apostle's, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. None of them discuss Mary beyond pointing out that Jesus was born of the Virgin. Nothing about her being a co-redemptrix (heresy) nor anything about her being at the right hand of Jesus, who is described in Scripture as being at the right hand of the Father.
@steadydividends571 - correct my friend - Jesus being The King makes Mary the defacto Gebirah - the Queen Mother! Scripture shows us the Gbirah interceded to the King for the lowly - you 'sola scriptura' types take note!
@@garyr.8116 How often we try to fit our human reason into something that seems logical and reasonable forgetting as scripture says " My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways" If I may say your statement about Mary being Queen and and even Queen mother I believe are of this sort. There is nothing in scripture that even suggests that Mary is or should be recognised as the Queen of Heaven and or the Queen Mother. God uses many figures of speech to describe his people collectively:- "a chosen people, a royal priesthood a holy nation" (1 Peter 2 vs. 9) Collectively the people are the "bride" of Christ the "wife of the Lamb". 2 Corinthians11 vs 2 See also 2 Corinthians 11 vs. 2 Ephesians 5 vs. 32 Matthew 19 vs 15 Ephesians 5 vs 26 and on and on. According to scripture we the people of God collectively are called to be the bride of Christ we are called in this life to make ourselvelves ready for the bridegroom. Revelation 19 vs. 7. Mary indeed was a very blessed woman and to be called such ( "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Luke 1 vs. 48). Blessed she was but not the Queen of Heaven as an undividual. She like all believers will with all believers, be the Bride of Christ
@@sarahlaslett3279 Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus is King - do you deny that? If Jesus is King then by definition (not YOURS, but scriptures) Gebirah, that is Queen Mother! Perhaps you don't understand the Davidic Kingdom? It's right there in SCRIPtURE!
To me your concerns are based in part that some people MAY commit idolatry by asking Mary to intercede on our behalf to God. I’ve never seen any practicing Catholic give prayers to Mary that are reserved for God alone. Prayers for a Saints intercession is dulia while to adoration and worship of God alone is latria. Now if a teaching is difficult to understand it must be explained more clearly but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught. One of the most difficult theological positions for someone to understand is the Trinity yet that is taught and there are many I’d say both Catholic, Protestant, & Orthodox who do not really understand the Trinity and this confusion led to breakaway groups such as the JW, and the LDS church. But I’m sure you’d say it IS important to teach the Trinity. Lastly a rejection of Sacred Tradition is probably the big reason for the stumbling block to more fully understand Marián dogmas which due point us to Christ. If someone is worried about Mary the Mother of God interceding for you to Jesus then one in my view should be logically consistent and not ask someone else to pray for them. How this is missed by many Protestants I find mind boggling. I enjoy your work even when we disagree 😊 By the way no Catholic is told that THEY MUST pray to a Saint including Mary to ask for her intercession never has been. However it is proper to ask for intercession from them as it is to ask a member of my family to say a prayer to Jesus on my behalf. So Luther’s concerns there seem unwarranted that one is Required, he knows full well that was not the case is his time.
The biggest problem I think is the elevation of tradition as the lens to interpret Scripture which includes ex cathidra statements made as recently as the 1950s.
@@RealCaptainAwesome The Bible comes from Sacred Tradition. The highest level of authority IS Scripture then Sacred (Oral) tradition working with the Scriptures and then the teaching office of the CC the magisterium through which the interpretive lens for us to more fully understand Gods Word is there for us to understand. Sacred Tradition is not above the written Word The Church and their teaching orally existed before the Scriptures were written and what they didn’t place into writing those oral teachings have been passed down through the Church. This was perfectly normal for the Church as all the Apostles were Jewish and that’s how it was done in that faith as well. Back then the oral word carried more weight than the written word especially as about 90% of people couldn’t read. They were taught the faith orally, using art, smells, music, prayers to be memorized etcetera so the laity carried the gospel within themselves and was always with them. The expense of a Bible was astronomical before the printing press. If an oral tradition is contradicting the written word the oral tradition is what would be that’s wrong. The measure is the written word. The church though does not just discard the oral teachings that have been kept and preserved for 2000 years. And there is small “t” traditions that can change like with the liturgy and other things so it’s also more nuanced than I think most Protestants understand
@@catholicguy1073 The teachings of the church were taught orally for about the first century, but they also had the OT as well as the writings of the apostles and some of the gospel accounts. Yes, I know RCC likes to claim that they made the Canon and evil "Protestants" just changed it randomly but they isn't true as the Canon was pretty consistently established in the second century well before the claim about the seat of Peter was added to "sacred tradition"
I usually really agree with you about a lot but I don't think mariology or catholic theology was accurately represented in this video. The church affirms that all mariology has at its center Christ. No marian dogmas in the church are about Mary to an end of Mary's own sake. Just like how Theotokos is a christological affirmation, so are all of the Marian dogmas are. Protestants are actually the ones who tend to object to mariology because they themselves treat mariology as Mary as its end when Catholics don't do that. So by affirming that theotokos is christological you are actually correctly affirming the Catholic position on not only theotokos but all other marian dogmas.
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus. Likewise, Joseph would have been Jesus' earthly father. Mary was not the mother of Jesus the same way that our mothers are to all of us. The same would be said of Joseph as the "father." This is why the phrase "the mother of God" is misleading and inaccurate. Jesus is eternal and descended from heaven. No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. John 3:13 The term "God bearer" for Mary is more accurate. An uncreated God cannot have a "mother" in the normal use of the word.
Mary was also the mother of Jesus, the God. Sure, calling Mary the mother of God does have some unfortunate implications, but you can’t separate the two natures of Jesus. If so, then who died at the cross? The humanity of Jesus or the divinity of Jesus? If you say humanity, then a mere finite human died on the cross, thus His blood did not affect us and we are still in our sins.
@ChristIsKing-eh3hj For the most part, I agree with you. Where I differ is simply on terminology. The term "God bearer" for Mary would be more accurate. Likewise, I would agree that Mary would be Jesus' earthly mother. In the same way, Joseph would have been Jesus' earthly father. The problem I have with mother of God is in the way that the term mother is typically used or thought of by people. Mary would not fit that description because an uncreated God cannot have a "mother." I hope that made sense.
@@clayw70The uncreated God doesn't have a mother, doesn't nurse, doesn't grow, doesn't suffer, doesn't die... Except, out of love for us, He does all of that. He becomes fully man, shares completely in our humanity. That's the scandal and the wonder of the Incarnation.
The title "Mother of God" might sound a bit weird to modern ears, but properly understood, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Might be a good situation to apply the "weaker brother" scenario described by St. Paul.
@@geoffrobinson Ambiguous terms should be clarified when used in front of people who don't understand the ambiguity. Saying they should be abandoned altogether is problematic. What do you do in the thousands of cases where a Biblical term is ambiguous?
@@stephengray1344Ambiguous terms in scripture translations isn’t a good comparison. Mother of God, at face value, misleads. Mary was not mother of the Creator’s divine Person; God the Son did not begin with Jesus’s conception. Jesus does not represent the whole of God. To say “mother of God” is to say Mary was mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Theotokos had a context, refutation of Gnosticism, that gave it one meaning. Without that context, the meaning changes. Is it really that hard to say “mother of Jesus’s human nature” or “mother of Jesus?” Only a desire to elevate Mary above her actual station could motivate clinging to the archaic, obsolete, misleading, unscriptural title.
Luther’s extended quote reveals that he got it exactly right regarding the appropriate honor to be given to Mary. (In a limited context - high honor, but not to rival Christ!)
@@chaddonal4331"If only…" No if. Don't follow the teaching of anti-Catholic men. Don't be duped. The Church explicitly teaches that one worships God alone. I wouldn't be Catholic IF ONLY were true !
@@TruthHasSpoken But in practice, millions of Catholics worship Mary and put her first. If you deny this, you are simply unaware. Spend some time in the Philippines, for example, or South America or Mexico. Regardless of the small distinctions that official RCC teaching makes between “worship” and “veneration”, those distinctions are lost among the popular masses who learn not from official treatises but from local and family modeling.
@@chaddonal4331 No Catholic worship Mary despite what you THINK you see. Don't follow the anti-Catholic talk of some protestants. Don't be duped. Attend a Catholic Mass. The WHOLE Catholic Mass is ALL about the worship of God ALONE. From the writing _Lumen Gentium_ : “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it. … “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. “For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.” Note, a great video here on what is and is not, WORSHIP. ruclips.net/video/lg4S1VYac-Y/видео.htmlsi=HQMeNGjV6SGXG4-M
That is NOT whatsoever the case. Mary is the mother of the seed of the woman, of the flesh that the word became, the human Jesus. God never had at any time whatsoever a 'mother'.
@Morewecanthink - and Mary was carrying that seed (ovum/egg) from before Her own birth! (scientific fact - a woman is born already carrying all the eggs she'll ever have!)! Halleluiah! (Just as your own mother was born already carrying the ovum/egg - her contribution to your incarnation - BEFORE she herself was born, and even before it became fertilized (conceived) to become YOU! )
@@AmericanwrCymraeg - That is not the case. To deny that the human Mary gives only birth to what's human is blasphemy and heresy: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3, 5-8 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1, 18-25 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1, 26-38 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3, 31-36 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10, 1-10 The God the Holy Spirit implanted in Mary what was necessary to prepare the eternal God a human body. To this human body, the human nature of the Lord Jesus was Mary blessed to give birth. She only contributed as God's human creature her gift of procreation to the LORD Jesus' human nature that is unaffected by the adamic sin-Nature of Adam's descendants which is inherited only by the male contribution to the genetic information necessary to build a human being.
@@garyr.8116 - The intelligent information to built, develop, sustain and reproduce human bodies is created, coded and stored intelligently by the Originator and Owner of the universe in DNA / RNA but brings nothing forth than what is layed into it: human life reproduces human life. And as the human adamitic sin-Nature is reproduced through the human genetic information of a male God's way to create HIMSELF HIS doorway into humanity, to prepare HIMSELF a human body by HIMSELF, HIS holy Spirit who, the creator, originated the human male genetic information directly to fertilise this one of the human creature Mary's eggs to prepare HIMSELF the eternal uncreated God, the body with which the eternal Word that was in the beginning, was God and there is NOTHING that was NOT created by HIM, should become flesh (1 Tim. 3, 16). For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15, 21-22, 45-50 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5, 12-21
Matthew 12:48-50 NKJV But Jesus answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
and who did the will of the Father Mary as the first Person To say Yes to Gods plan for redemption Mary Was the First person to say thy will Be done Mary thru who the WORD was made Flesh All generations will call her blessed for she is blessed among women. Of all women, our Lord chose her holy womb, full of grace, as His own dwelling. The power of the Most High overshadowed the mother of our Redeemer and she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord Himself honoured her as His own mother and we must honour whom the Lord honours. Blessed be her name, Mary, and blessed be the name of the fruit of her womb, Jesus. The Lord will honour His own mother, blessed Mary, for all eternity & we cannot but follow His example and honour her as He does: hail, Mary, the Lord is with thee! He is flesh of her flesh & bone of her bone. We are born of Him & He is born of Her and of the Father. The blood which was poured out for us was blood of her blood. A spear pierced His side & a sword pierced her heart. Unless we eat His flesh, which is of her flesh, we have no life within us. Hail Mary, who gave birth to incarnate Love and Salvation and who raised for us sinners the Hope of Israel. The Lord is with her. With her is Redemption, with her is Forgiveness for all iniquities. Blessed be her name by all generations! “If you’re ever worried about loving the blessed Virgin Mary too much don’t be, you can never love her more than Jesus does.” - St Maximilian Kolbe Mary does not take away from the redemptive work of Christ nor does she add to it. If you want proof that Christ's redemptive work is perfect look to exhibit A- The blessed virgin Mary.😎😎
The Error of the Protestant Lie: "But as for the cowardly and unbelieving, and abominable and murderers, and fornicators and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their portion shall be in the pool that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8, ignored by all liars. See Rev 21:27 also. It is a foregone conclusion that Jesus Christ founded only one Church.💋💋
1) Why then, do Protestants ignore this fact and continue to splinter the Body of Christ? 2) There is no Protestant who can trace his or her church back any farther than the Protestant revolt of the early 16th century. Where is the verse which authorized them to break from the true Church in the first place? 3) No Protestant can show that their church was founded by Jesus Christ, yet Scripture says there is only one Church, the one founded by GOD (Psalms 127:1, Matthew 16:18). 4) They deny that the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ founded, yet they cannot name the Church which He did found in its stead. Isn't it strange that Scripture has said that GOD's Church will last forever (Isaiah 2:2,59:21, Matthew 28:20, Ephesians 3:21), and yet Protestants refuse to name it? If Scripture can be believed at all, why then do they refuse to name GOD's one and only Church?
5) They cannot name the person who founded the Catholic Church while at the same time they deny that it was Jesus Christ. That is strange also, since every Church on earth was founded by a person with a name. Every single one of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects can be traced back to a human person with a name, as its founder. Why is it that Protestants refuse to name the founder of the Catholic Church? Isn't that the epitome of arrogance as I touched upon in a previous segment? 6) Why do Protestants spread the lie that the Catholic Church apostatized soon after the last Apostle died, and therefore the Church of today is not the one that Jesus Christ founded? This lie flies in the face of Matthew 16:18, as Protestants must then have to admit that the 'gates of hell' did indeed prevail, that the Bible was in error, and that all of the verses I have previously listed that promise the perpetualty of Christ's Church must be in error as well. This so-called "great apostasy" lie is then magnified a hundredfold since no Protestant can produce genuine historical documents which record such a "monumental, universe shaking event". Every writer who was alive at the time had to have witnessed that supposed "profound event", and those who have lived ever since (up until the time that the lie was invented by Protestantism), did not write about it either. What with the "greatest event since the crucifixion" at hand, why didn't they? It is because it never happened, that's why. Simply put, "No lie is of the truth", 1John 2:21, so therefore no lie can be proven. Scripture does say that people within Christ's Church will apostatize, but not the Church itself. For you see, it is impossible, since Christ is the Head, and the Church is His Body. How could the Body of Christ rebel against, and leave His Head? They are inseparable forever. "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." Ephesians 5:22-23 Okay Protestants, explain those verses? Is Christ really the Savior of His Body, or did He desert it as Protestantism would have us believe? Is Holy Scripture in error yet again according to Protestant false charges? Are we to believe the Protestant lie, or the truth of the Word of GOD? Do you recall the story of the wheat and the chaff, where the weeds will co-exist with the righteous up until the very end, and then they will be separated out and burned (Matthew 13:24-30)? "For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." 1Corinthians 11:18-19. From those two verses we have a perfect example of the apostasy of individuals within the Church, those who cause divisions and factions. Now from what I have shown in many places in this writing, just who is the cause of divisions and factions? It is none other than Protestantism. Protestantism has already created over 36,000 divisions and factions, and which number is still increasing unceasingly every week to this very day. Who are the 'genuine among you'? They are the faithful of the one and only Church that Jesus Christ founded and which is still with us after almost 2000 years of persecution. Read Acts 5:38-39 for the reason why this longevity. For those who continue to spread the lie of the so-called, and non-existent, "great apostasy", please re-read Revelation 21:8, and endeavor to explain Ephesians 5:23-24? 7) How many verses have I shown in this writing that Protestants ignore? Isn't it a lie to say that you follow Scripture literally to the word, and yet ignore so many Scriptural verses? 8) Why do Protestants take the whole Bible literally except for John chapter 6, which they call symbolic? One chapter in the whole Bible is symbolic? How can that be true? 9) How can Protestants say that Sola Scriptura has been in use from day one, when for over 1400 years almost no one had a Bible, and even if they did, the great majority of the masses were illiterate anyhow? 10) Since Protestants believe that "all Scripture is inspired (2Tim 3:16)", then why aren't the gospels of Peter, Philip, Nicodemus, Bartholomew, Andrew, Thomas, etc, in their Bible? 11) Where in Holy Scripture did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith is to be solely based on a book? How about the same question except for using the Apostles instead of Jesus? 12) Why do Protestants say it is the Bible which is the pillar and foundation of truth when the Bible clearly says it is the Church (1Tim 3:15)? Please give me the name of that Church? 13) Why do Protestants reject Apostolic Tradition when the Bible clearly says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours." 2Thessalonians 2:15, yet another verse ignored, and taught against by Protestantism. 14) Why do Protestants deny that the Bible came from the Catholic Church when they cannot name a truthful and provable alternate source, and where there are literally hundreds of genuine historical documents which prove them to be wrong in their denial? 15) Protestants deny that Peter was given primacy in Matthew 16:18. Nothing in Scripture is done without a purpose. For what purpose then, did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter? 16) Why do Protestants deny that the Papacy is Scriptural, when in fact, it is very Scriptural? 17) Why is it that Protestants can never supply genuine historical documents to "prove" their false charges? Is it because the lie can never be proven, but the truth can be? It is simple, if you have no truth, then you have no proof. Catholics can, and do, supply genuine historical documents to prove what they teach. Why then do Protestants refuse to read them? Romans 1:18, 2:8
18) Why do Protestants deny the unbroken line of succession of Popes down through the centuries from St. Peter to the present Pope, when the Catholic Church has given free access for anyone to research genuine historical documents to prove it to be true, but Protestants refuse to read them? Anyone can go to a secular encyclopedia and see the same succession of Popes. 19) Why do Protestants deny that the Catholic Church has existed from the first century, when hundreds of genuine historical documents, written by scores of Holy men and women, are freely available to prove them wrong in their denial? However, Protestants simply refuse to read them. As explained earlier, Protestants teach that history ended with Acts 28:30 and did not begin again until Luther came along. 20) I saved the worst Protestant lie as the last one on this list. When asked who founded the Catholic Church, there are some who answer correctly that it is Jesus Christ who founded it, but they quickly add that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy and is not the same Church today as the one founded by Jesus. Of course they have no documented proof of this world shaking event as to the who caused it and when and where it happened. By making this false charge they may have condemned themselves because they have just called Jesus Christ a liar. You see there are verses in Holy Scripture which they either choose to ignore or do not understand, and the verses show that Jesus in fact did promise that His Church would last for all time and so did St Paul:
@bibleman8010 God chose Israel and the Davidic line to produce Mary and the Messiah Jesus and yet Israel, David and his descendants hold no intercessary significance or preeminent position.Stop diluting the Christ centered message of the Bible with this bizarre Trinity + 1 culture.
Thank you for the Barth and Luther quotes which articulate what I cannot. Frankly I still will not use the term "Mother of God" because it is too loaded but will prefer Theotokos. I affirm the proper Christology and am not Nestorian, but will avoid using that term. God Bless.
I agree. "Mother of God" suggests something different from Theotokos. The technical term is "Theotokos" and not "Matér tou Theou". Mary is Theotokos (bearer of divinity) in that she bore a divine being, the Son of God. But, she has never been mother in the sense of imparting some of her own substance to Jesus' divinity. She imparted his humanity. I, too, will not use the expression "Mother of God". But I do acknowledge Mary to have borne the Son of God. She is Theotokos.
@@musar03580 That's why I don't understand how Catholics will say they don't worship Mary or see her as divine. They say they understand that she was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus as part of the trinity makes her mother of God. That would all be ok, except in practice, the Marion dogmas increasingly make her pretty close to divine. She's sinless, born w/out sin, Immaculate, full of grace, like no other person, assumed into heaven like Jesus, and even co-redemptrix. So where is Jesus' humanity w/ a mother like that. It's near to cancelled out. If we have another century or so, she won't be human anymore. And truly, if they were able to look at all their dogmas and hyperveneration of her objectively, then she's already superhuman now.
Theotokos was used in response to a specific heresy. Outside that context (e.g., the English-speaking world 1500 years later), the meaning defaults to face value. The prima face meaning denies that Christ pre-existed and that He had authority over Mary, even though He submitted to her authority at times. It also obscured the Trinity. Obviously, Mary did not give birth to the Father and Holy Spirit. Such confusion could be cleared up by saying mother of Jesus. It’s no harder to say than mother of God.
Good point. I think that's something many protestants (myself included before I read Georg Koepgen) are unaware that many (most) dogmas were put up in reaction to a heresy. And they often therefore border on "saying what can't be said", forging mysteries of faith into walls against the tides of heresy.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj There is confusion to be had, unless you want to state that Mary is eternal, and therefore somehow gave birth to the eternal God Almighty, in his full Godhead. Which we do understand is not the case. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was both God and man. Born of a woman, and born of the Holy Spirit. I don't see how it needs to be contentious. We can recognize Mary as the mother of God, only if we have those caveats. So why not just state that Mary is the mother of Jesus, as both God and man.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 The only way the title could be confusing is if you're planning to deny the Holy Trinity. Mother of God is a perfect filter to screen out would be heretics.
You've gotten so many compliments from Catholics, Gavin. 🚩 The REAL TRUTH DIVIDES. "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4) As a TRUE CHRISTIAN, I fix my eyes on Jesus--the author and perfecter of my faith 👉 Hebrews 12:2. I very rarely think about Mary--she's neither my savior nor my mother.
@@LayDownAndRot no brainer. The folks that can't call Mary the mother of God are those that confuse "mother" with "creator." No person who calls Mary the mother of God, claims that she created HIm. Another case of a confused person blaming their misunderstanding on someone else.
As a 'catholic' of the Anglican perduasion, i find your videos refreshingly honest, well researched, and showing a compassion for Christians who may not agree with you on every detail.
God’s peace to you and your house!
Yes, he makes being wrong sound pretty good with his personality lol ☺️
I was an Anglican for a very long time before joining the Church. I really am confused about your description of yourself. Actual Anglicanism does not deny the Marian dogmas. One book recommendation is Thomas Howard’s book- evangelicalism is not enough: worship of God in liturgy and sacraments. He was a brother of Elizabeth Eliot and *this book* was written when he was an Anglican Christian.
Before concerning oneself about the speck in another’s eye, Jesus instructs to remove the log in one’s eye first. Amen. Praise Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth! God is good! @@paulmualdeave5063
As a Catholic you're the only protestant I watch fairly regularly because I feel like most protestants on youtube are either not very well throught through or are total jerks, I won't name any names but you are a breath of fresh air
While not a Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), I too appreciate his charitable and thoughtful tone and obvious love of Christ. People like this are a gift to us all and very necessary if we're going to have meaningful dialogue with each other.
Protestant RUclips channels are almost as bad as Catholic one in this regard.
@@Real_LiamOBryan
almost? is that sarcasm?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Lol! Maybe... ; p
I'm playing a bit, but I do think it's true that both Protestant and Catholic/Eeastern Orthodox RUclips communities are pretty toxic, and I also think it's true that Catholic/E.O. channels and the Catholic/E.O. RUclips community are a little worse than their Protestant counterparts.
THIS IS THE BIBLICAL WAY TO BE SAVED:
There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God.
Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2 :21
Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved. :
Thank you, Gavin, for helping me out so much. As a Baptist mom with 2 Baptist raised children, and happily married to a Roman Catholic man for nearly 22 years, it’s been a tough road for us. Thanks for helping us all be more understanding, loving and kind in Christ. God bless 🥰
@@NP-vk8de How did Vatican II assist in your blended Christian marriage?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Vatican II was a breath of fresh air that brought renewal and hope to the world and Christianity. We had a brief glimpse of what the authentic church should look like. It had a respect for others that brought down walls of division. There was many positives that are hard to list on a thread like this. I know there were abuses or mistakes made, BUT it was a great era to be alive and experience hope.
If I were the pope, ( for 5 minutes say) I'd ask priests and nuns to agree not to marry each day (a thumbs up or other sign would suffice) rather than make a once for all vow. Anglican priests/ministers can join the Roman Catholic Church as clergy and still be married, ( it seems wrong not to allow this blessing to all willing priests and nuns who fall in love!). Even a more permanent pope should be allowed one wife!
@@NP-vk8de So it was some of the statements that put an olive branch back out to protestants as brethren then? Thanks for answering. May your marriage continue to be blessed and united in Christ.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Good answer, I agree with the caveat that it reflected what the church represented over 2,000 years of Christianity with key elements of Protestant Christianity visible. The Holy Spirit’s guidance was truly evident. Praise Jesus!
Gavin, I know I’ve said it before but it continues to strike me how helpful these videos are. From an inquirer into EO, constantly wrought with church anxiety, to being sure of my Protestant convictions and a newfound appreciation for church history and patristics. The Lord works through these videos, I know firsthand! 😅 thank you and praying for your ministry
Read beyond what Dr. Ortlund presents. How did those Church Fathers practice their faith? Do you see any similarities with how you practice your faith? How did they worship? Do you worship the same way? These are the fundamental questions. It is easy to misrepresent ideas of dead people, but you cannot change their live story.
@@peterw1177 I do, thank you! I would say yes, the fathers practiced their faith and worshipped similarly to what we see in conservative high church liturgical protestantism
@@dawsonwhite9790 Thanks for your response. I agree. There are some similarities with conservative high church liturgical Protestantism.
@@dawsonwhite9790That simply isn't the case. They practiced the intercessions of the saints, venerated relics, etc.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg No, they didn't.
Really great thoughts, Gavin! I appreciate your efforts to help navigate the tension between giving biblical figures the proper honor warranted by Scripture without straying into questionable devotions. I considered catholicism once upon a time, but as I learned the provenance of several Marian doctrines, I questioned the epistemology behind RCC teaching.
I considered considering it. I really did pray as I studied Catholicism for myself, open to where ever the Lord would lead me. Having to believe all the Marion dogmas, and pretty much attaching that to my salvation, is a deal breaker. I don't have the option of accepting real tenets of salvation, and dismissing the Mary stuff, which is so non-essential. Then there's purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit and punishment of temporal sins, even after confession and penance. That's a lot of stuff, I'd have to lie to pretend to believe to be Catholic, because it's not acceptable to admit that you don't believe these things. Oh, and even though I do believe in the presence of God in the Eucharist, I'm not a literal cannibal. Which I'd have to be to believe in transubstantiation.
With all due respect, by bypassing Catholicism, you have missed out on a vast treasure of riches. Catholic teaching is biblically based if at times implicitly. The One True Church of Jesus has the fullness of faith, which can’t be said of Protestantism which doesn’t believe in the literal Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 16 18-19
As a Lutheran, thank you defending the historical catholic faith. Keep up the good work brother!
@@justicebjorke2790 I acknowledge that Dr. Ortlund cannot preach at my LCMS church. But, I never claimed to posit “Protestantism” as a “shared positive vision” I simply thanked and praised him for defending the historic doctrine of the catholic Church. A doctrine that can clearly be derived from scripture. I see no issue. Dios te bendice.
Thanks for this excellent video, Gavin! Thoughtful, considerate, and yet uncompromising in the truth as always.
Any Protestants in the comment section 🙋♂️
here!
Hi
Protestants as you call them call themselves CHRISTians,
@@TheUnknownCountry seems that ALL those denominations cause confusion
I think added the first comment on the other video requesting this. Thank you so much!
A fascinating fact of history is that Nestorius did not deny "Theotokos" per se, but had many of the same concerns as the Reformers:
"If any of you or any one else be simple and has a preference for the term Theotokos, then I have nothing to say against it-only do not make a goddess of the Virgin." - Nestorius of Constantinople (Loofs 1914, 32; cf. Sellers 1940, 172-3)
What Nestorius seemed to have been concerned about was implying Mary to be the source of the divine nature, but he granted that she was the mother of the human-divine person of Christ.
Seems to me Nestorius (if this an authentic quote) was straw-manning here in his “warning” not to worship Mary.
Nestorianism teaches Christ is two persons, not one person in two natures.
Nestorius is still a heretic. Stop simping for him. Also, don't use an icon pfp, especially with laser eyes.
It's not clear whether Nestorius really held to what is called "Nestorianism". Seems like churches who were traditionally named Nestorian, like the Assyrian Church of the East were never taught Christ is two persons, but had a different understanding of how the two natures are distinct from each other.
@@1962mrpaul
Nestorianism teaches that but Nestorian didn't teach that, atleast in the writings attributed to Nestorius.
I think Mar Nestorius was getting too defensive to the point he was making up arguments and strawmaning his opponents.
She was called theotokos because of Jesus. God bless your family and ministry ❤🙏
thats an orthodox term
@@nkoppa5332 What's your point?
Theotokos was meant for Christ it is an abuse to refer to Mary as theotokos
@@westleyhurtgen4275 Exactly!!
Even Martin Luther called her "Gottesmutter" - mother of God.
Loving these back to back posts on my fav subjects! God Bless!
These videos are so helpful to me, thank you so much for your intelligent and considered reasoning.
Excellent choice of quotes. Luther knows how to ring the bell in a way you never forget.
Luther said Jesus was an adulterer. So, does Gavin ever quote that?
Is that what one of your cult leaders told you? Go look up the quote and try to understand what Luther was saying. Luther was not going to violate the basic Christian faith that Christ is sinless God. Use your brain. It’s free.
“Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.”
Luther’s Work, 54:154
What I would highlight is that the attribution comes from Luther's table talk (Tichreden), meaning that someone present (in this case, Johannes Shlaginhaufen) recalled it and later wrote it down. It's void of context and something Luther would have said off the cuff, not in a sermon or lecture. Given the likely dating, the editors of the American Edition of Luther's works suggest a sermon from 1536 as the likely context, in which Luther preached about Christ being regarded by the world as an adulterer (among other things) and talks about the evils of gossip (rumor, lit. "common talk").
But again, I'd go back to not putting much stock in the table talk as a whole. They're not something Luther wrote or oversaw the publishing of; in fact, they weren't published until more than a decade after his death. We shouldn't hold them in the same regard as, say, things he himself wrote or that were published in his lifetime. Not that we need regard the writings of Luther as verbum Dei, but still.
@@mrlemons2904 Luther said it, no matter how much stock you wouldn’t put in it.
St. Paul wrote that Christ became sin. 2 Cor 5:21
What a scandal!
Off topic, but as a photographer and editor, I appreciate the new camera/lens and the color grading ❤
It always surprises me when RUclipsrs don't do any real color grading, I mean any. Many applications have a simple, few clicks, way to set the white balance, at least, and just that can give dramatic improvement to the usual, washed out, RUclips video.
Videos are looking really good btw. Great production quality
Pastor Gavin, thank you so much, your videos, your books, your kindness helped me a lot to understand my Faith as an evangelical. I wish we were thought this way in our churches, it would ease the communication with the other side, because the sad true of nowadays is that nany protestants are theologically clueless and thus, say lot of things that are not in proper place. Keep doing the good work. I am still waiting for your book to come out. I wish I could study as you did. You have a clear understanding of what you profess.
Really good point about john the baptist. Really good.
The first will be last and the last will be first.
Those who decreased so that Christ could be increased are exalted in heaven. John the Baptist is also a great saint exactly in his humble ministry which led people to Christ. His image is literally pained on a wall in my church. Our admiration of the saints is never competitive with God because the very reason for their being admired is because of God working in them. Catholics are always Christ first, always. Who ever went lower than he?
No not relevant. Mary’s place of honor is higher than that of John. It is through her obedience that salvation entered the world. So while she played a small part in it, that small part gives her honor above that of St. John or any other saint.
There’s no real relevance to what Gavin was getting at. Catholics aren’t going to find that persuasive because the entire of context of John saying that was to show how far beneath Jesus he was so the others would understand.
Catholics are always Christ first? Come on man. The Vicar of Christ. The Substitute for Christ. Vatican - Divining Serpent. The Pope addresses his mass from the literal snakes head. Look at their signs their symbols. Look at their fruits. This is a deception and I am sick of losing good people to it. @@mac3441
@@catholicguy1073if John felt the need to decrease because people were fan boying too much about him, it seems like a lesson for all christians. Lets leave mary out of the equation for this moment. Look at the extreme veneration of other saints. Does it line up with what john is trying to get at here?
@@catholicguy1073 The magnitude of a specific person's honor does not belie the point of the example.
Also, if we must hold any who played a critical role in fulfilling the mission of Christ in such honor, then we should honor the likes of High Priest Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate in a similar vein, or even Judas Iscariot. Without their efforts, the Crucifixion would not have happened.
Naturally, we don't do this.
"Christ is diminished by those who place their hearts more upon Mary..." I have noticed this a lot around where I am (in an Orthodox Christian country). If I were a Muslim claiming Jesus is not the Son of God, or an atheist mocking and insulting God, they would be less offended by that than me coming as a Christian and saying that we should not pray to her. It is amazing how this doctrine produces that kind of zeal for Mary when it should be for God (You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart...). Especially older women, you should see them, "Pray to the Virgin Mary, pray to her", they say to my wife as we recently had our second child. "Pray she watches over your child, pray she guards you" and all that, that simply stirs up the Spirit in me hearing such blasphemy. And when I try to argue, I need to make sure stones are not around because it doesn't matter how I put it, it always fires them up.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Mary is righteous and is now sanctified and glorified next to her son??
Pit, even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@patriceagulu8315 Nobody is claiming that *all* the Catholics love Mary more than Christ (or the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or the whole Godhead). The comment you are responding to is pointing out examples where particular Catholics give the impression that they love Mary more than they love Christ. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that there are some Catholics (and Orthodox) whose veneration of Mary crosses the line into actual worship, and that there are some Catholics who do in practice place Mary above Christ/God. This doesn't mean that Catholicism teaches people to do that. But the fact that the Catholic church places so much emphasis on Mary (and never seems to issue any warnings about going too far in devotion to her) means it is inevitable that there will be Catholics who are tempted to go too far in this direction. And the sheer number of Catholices means it's inevitable that some Catholics will fall prey to that temptation.
@stephengray1344 of course you are simply speculating that many Catholic Christians place Mary over God! I have yet to meet even 1!
Yet, even many Protestant reformers gave great reverence to the Queen Mother of God! Even the blameless before God Elizabeth felt unworthy as the Mother of the Lord approached her, she whom all generations shall call blessed! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@henrybayard6574 She is in the same place all the saints that have gone to be with the Lord are. She is not divine, she does not exercise authority over creation or over man. Only God does that. She is a servant of God like all the rest of the saints are. So she has been made righteous and sanctified by the same process, that is through the blood of Christ.
I’m glad that I was far from the only one to immediately wonder as to what German word was translated as “twaddle.” I guess there’s a certain type of person that watches these videos, and I’m definitely of that type 😂
I read a lot of Luther in German. I would guess by his usual style that he used the word : "Geschwätz".
Twaddle would be "Geschwätz" or "Geplapper" in German. It looks like its translated from the sermon "Ain mercklicher Sermon von der geburt Marie". Sadly Its not written in standard German and therefore very difficult to read.
Basely's translation appears to be paraphrasing, Luther using neither "Geschwätz" nor "Geplapper". :D
But Luther says that "the monks made a goddess (like the pagans) out of her" instead of "the monks invented all this abuse" which is kinda interesting.
"""
...Darumb hat auch die geschrift gar nichts von jr geburt beschriben/ damit vnd kainer sein hertz auff sy/ stell/ Nu haben pfaffen vnd münch/ der weyber eer herfür ziehen wöllen/ vnd Mariam so hoch erhebt/ *das sy vns ain göttin (nach art der Haiden) auß diser diemütigen dienerin gemacht haben* . Solches nu zubestetigen/ mußten sy lugen brauchen...
"""
Our concern was always that saying "God bearer" was more proper than saying "mother of God" merely because in English, saying mother first puts the emphasis on Mary, which was not the intent of theotokos. The idea was more of "GOD bearer" more than "MOTHER of god." Gavin is correct here in what he teaches, and thanks for publishing this. The tendency in all humans to make an idol is strong, and we should always self-examine to make sure we're not making one. Theotokos is a proper term, but "Mother of God" is a phrase contributes to putting the emphasis on Mary instead of Christ.
is it false? does it not lead to the precise and necessary Christology to affirm the Holy Trinity?
The only reason to attempt to deny the title is to strip the virgin Mary of honor she most definitely deserves.
"Mother of God" is a phrase contributes to putting the emphasis on Mary instead of Christ."
The Greek literally says "the Mother of the Lord of me." There is no glorification of Mary here. She always points us to her Son. We listen to her words, "do whatever he tells you." So too in Luke 1, it's all about the Lord, Mary saying:
46 And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”
"henceforth all generations will call me blessed;"
Interestingly, I don't commonly hear of protestants speaking of v48. Very few times do I ever hear of a protestant referring to Mary as Blessed as scripture says all generations will do. Mostly, she is viewed as just a (sinful) woman chosen by God to give birth to Jesus.
We gladly refer to her as the Blessed Virgin Mary. But not as Queen of Heaven, not as Co-Mediatrix or Co-redemptrix, not as mother of the Church...
@@stephenwright4973
Why not? It's such an obtuse, retrograde way to demean the mother of God.
The disrespect towards the virgin Mary is definitely one of the most off-putting things about protestantism that would make me never consider it viable.
Exactly 💯...Thank you!
I know pastor Ortlund is a fellow mainliner when he quotes Karl Barth 2:40
If you are using this as a critique, please re-listen to his spoken preparation prior to referencing Barth.
@@chaddonal4331 No, it's not a critique! I am also a Mainline Protestant and have the same view has he does about Barth. It was a compliment :)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Ah, gotcha. Where I sit, most views of mainliners are disparaging (due to theological liberalism for the past 100 years).
God bless! Thanks for doing what you do!
It absolutely blows my mind that we even need to have this conversation. But thank you for explaining this and other issues so concisely.
OK, Dave, you are amazed. Perhaps you know all, and you are flabbergasted that so many are ignorant? Sounds one of the deadly sins is on display.
@@fddooley1 uh, what??
@flavadave3943 Dave, surely you know the 7 deadly sins. The first and most deadly is PRIDE. Use Google as a starting point, then dive deeper. It is good to be curious and aware that we are not the sum of all knowledge 🕊
Dr Ortlund, I really appreciate your work, but I am starting to think that maybe you should start including some historical context for others who may not understand the necessity for situations like this. Maybe a series of videos on where the Creeds came from or the heresies that led to early Councils and basic church history might be a useful series for people to engage with.
What necessity? If the entire NT doesn't mention something, how can we argue that thing is essential to Christianity and salvation?
Like the Trinity? Not explicit, but definitely taught
@joeoleary the pattern of heresies in the early church was to take NT texts out of context and to twist them in ways contradicting the faith handed down from the apostles. So, these issues are never separate from the authority of the New Testament, and its overall message. Namely, the nature of Jesus, in what manner is He distinct from the Father, how much “God” is He, and how was He distinct from us? Since the NT teaches that He is our mediator and our Saviour, it’s important to get our understanding correct so we don’t needlessly introduce problems into the text, which is what modalism, Arianism and Nestorianism did.
@joeoleary Also, I’m sure you’re aware of how much falsehood circulates about the Council of Nicea and whether the early church taught Jesus’ divinity or not. So for the sake of truth, the real background and lead up between Arius and Alexander, and the role that Constantine ACTUALLY had, and the sea saws between Nicenes and Arians and how Athanasias stood firm on apostolic teaching would be worth exploring as Church History 101.
@Djesparz Yep, like the Trinity. Not just the OT passages and Jewish background, but also step-by-step how the early church understood the issues and wrestled with modalism, then Arianism, then finally Nestorianism.
Hello Gavin, maybe you have a minute to read my comment. Im a protestant believer who just started to engage in the church fathers and their writings (your videos really motivated me to start - thank you for that!).
I started to read John Chrysostomus commentary on the book of romans. I loved the beginning of the commentary, when he emphasised that we are saved by faith alone in the gospel. And that we cannot add any work to Christ's finished work on the cross. I found lots of statements like that. However, as I continued to read, I suddenly found opposite statements just as:
"Be not a traitor then to so great a gift, but keep guarding this goodly treasure. For in this passage he shows that the Font (baptism) will not suffice to save us, unless, after coming from it, we display a life worthy of the Gift. And so he again advocates the Law in saying what he does. *For when we have once become obedient to Christ, we must use all ways and plans so that its righteousness, which Christ fulfilled, may abide in us, and not come to naught."*
(commentary on Romans 8:4)
Here he suddenly seems to suggest that we receive salvation as a free gift through faith but later we have to keep it by our own efforts (otherwise we will lose it again). That really saddened me, because it now looks like he teaches a works based gospel. I wonder if I understand him right.
I also belive in the eternal security of a believer and therefore that salvation cannot be lost again . I especially struggle with the last sentence. I do not believe that Christ's righteousness in me can cease again.
Gavin, i wanted to ask you how you as a protestant view these statements. Is it ok as a protestant, to accept some of the statements of the church fathers and reject others?
I shortly wanted to mention that I definitely believe that a born again believer will live a life in growing sanctification, I do not deny that.
Thank you so much for your work!
I think Protestants and Catholics both agree that you have to accept some of the statements of the Church Fathers and reject others, because the Church Fathers collectively witness to and pass on the faith they received but neither Protestants or Catholics claim that every statement from every individual church father is an infallible witness to the faith.
That being said, I the doctrine of eternal security isn't witnessed to among the Church Fathers. I think the only stray statements that would get to eternal security that early in Church History would be from those who falsely taught universalism.
If being in a state of grace means that you don't have the ability to reject that grace through disobedience, how would Adam and Eve have fallen in the first place? How do you understand Paul's warnings against those who have severed themselves from Christ (not those who have never been joined to Christ, or those who have made shipwrecks of their faith?
The collective witness of the Church Fathers witnessed to a need to guard oneself from the possibility of members of the faith choosing to walk away from it, they saw it present in the Scriptures and in the faith they received from the apostles. It was only some Protestants - not Protestantism as a whole - who later developed the idea of eternal security and read it into the Church Fathers but in a manner that makes the fathers seem to contradict not just each other but themselves as individuals, as the illustration of Chrysostom shows.
The Church Fathers don't teach Sola Fide. What St. Chrysostom is teaching isn't "works based salvation" but sacramentalism.
Here are a few thoughts I had on your questions:
You absolutely can disagree with the church fathers. Everyone disagrees with them at times. There's no way around that. The church fathers were people who were doing their best to analyze the Bible. However, there's a common fallacy that these individuals would be more insightful because they are "closer in time than we are." In reality, most are centuries removed, they weren't able to conduct textual criticism of the New Testament books in the way we can today, and less than a handful knew Hebrew.
The best way to really dig in and interpret the New Testament is to study the Old Testament and 2nd Temple Jewish literature. That is the context for the New Testament. The New Testament writers are referencing that material. The goal should be to read the Bible as an ancient Israelite or a 1st century Jew or Gentile because that's who it was written to. It's great to read the church fathers, but that's only one resource, and more importantly, it's not the primary source material.
An example to illustrate. If you want to know what the American founders were thinking when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, what would you do? You would want to read what they wrote in the context in which it was written. In essence, you would study the history prior and at the current time. This would provide the background needed to fully understand why they wrote the Declaration of Independence and what it truly meant. You can definitely read material after the fact and should. That however would only give you a limited perspective which might contain biases, etc.
May the Lord guide you and bless you!!
@@clayw70 The Old Testament that was preserved through the Hellenization was the Greek translation, not the Hebrew. The ancient Hebrew language is lost; the Masoretic texts are new and centuries after Christ
@TPizzle96 I understand your point, but you're only partially correct. The Dead Sea Scrolls would be one example, but there are others. Either way, it's not an argument worth having.
To add to your point around 2:30, my understanding was that Theotokos also affirms the literal incarnation of Jesus, and that God was truly born as a man, not merely that God put on a human suit, basically as a rebut to Apollonarianism and in the wake of Nestorianism.
Correct me if I was incorrect. So calling Mary the Mother of God from this lens is appropriate and right.
Again, great video!
The problem arises when the lens, response to a heresy, is not present. What matter today is the prima face meaning.
@tobertstephens Jesus was God, God made manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). The gospels apply the prophecies about God to Jesus, and while Jesus never explicitly states that He was God during most of His ministry as He had taken the form of a servant and did not want to attract attention to Himself but lived in selflessness, not only do His actions declare that He was God (calming the storm, open the ears of the deaf, etc,) but He fulfills promises and prophecies that are applied to God. Jesus judges on the last day and comes with His angels upon the clouds, while Psalms states that only God rides on the clouds. If no one has seen or heard the voice of God as Jesus said in John 5, who was it who the OT prophets heard and saw when the Angel of the Lord (God, as Jacob reveals in Genesis 48:16-17) appears to them? Why does John describe Jesus’ glory as the glory seen by Isaiah (as in Isaiah 6)?
“THE Son of Man” is a heavy messianic claim based on Daniel 7, and you see that when Jesus calls Himself this and applies Daniel 7 to Himself, that Caiaphas calls it blasphemy (in both Matthew and Mark).
Now, regarding the gospel of the kingdom. How does Jesus detract from that? He’s the King, no? His authority as the Divine Son of Man and Messiah gave Him the right to speak of the new kingdom. His Incarnation was God becoming Man to fulfill and perfect the role of Servant and Son that Adam, Isaac, Joshua, David and the nation of Israel tried to fill but had mixed success, to put it mildly.
This is why Jesus is the fulfilment of the Scriptures, the stories of Adam, Isaac on the altar, Moses, Joshua and David point ahead to Jesus. God Himself became Man to suffer with His creation, save them from the curse of death by an act of love, and provide an example of how to live in light of Jesus’ ministry. This is the meaning behind Philippians 2:6-11. Jesus chose to endure the same suffering that His servants throughout the Scriptures went through.
P.S. read Jude 5, where the Lord Jesus brought the people out of Egypt, and how involved the Angel of the Lord is in the Exodus. There are many resources online about the Angel of the Lord and how His Divinity and status as the Logos is consistent with the Scriptures.
Sorry for the lengthy write-up but I hope you give it a think.
@robertstephenson Also, Numbers 23 has nothing to do with an incarnation. In context, it’s saying that God keeps His promises and does not deceive. That is the manner in which God “is not like man”.
@ricksonpr
@ricksonora Correct, that is a good point that I forgot to mention.
“Dragging Mary by the hair”. That’s a great term for some of these Marian dogmas.
No it actually isn't. To quote Cardinal Neumann "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." And to be intellectually honest with history also should cause one to also cease to be Protestant.
@@N1IA-4 That should concern you a little. Christianity is supposed to be graspable by children. If you need to have your head up in history & theology in order to reject Protestantism, there’s some mind-tripping going on that’s stealing you away from the simplicity which is in Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I find history & theology fascinating & really enjoy them. But it becomes a form of idolatrous worship of the wisdom of man at some point. And that “point” is when it starts telling you that Salvation is contingent on things which the early Church & the Gospel authors never heard of or mentioned. While I appreciate & respect the brilliance of Catholic philosophy, it’s pretty clear where it starts giving itself too much authority.
@@geomicpri Christianity can be grasped by children because Jesus founded the Catholic Church to teach the faith in every century. You know what a child or someone with limited time cannot do? Figure out the scriptures on his own or navigate countless different interpretations, doctrines, denominations, and contradicting truth claims that all come from people claiming to follow the same Bible. Protestantism is too reliant on the opinions of each individual. If the church says something is true about Mary, we can trust that because we trust Jesus to guide his church. Childlike faith.
@@N1IA-4 Our friend Gavin Ortlund will remind us that this quote is somehow “nuanced” because even though the early church was a structured, apostolic, sacramental, Eucharistic church that prayed for the dead, honored Mary and saints, and submitted to Rome, it also did not have icons and some fathers believed in limbo. Gotta love Gavin’s ability to do mental gymnastics to pretend Catholicism is false 😂.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Jesus didn't found the Catholic church, he founded Christianity. He called us to be followers of him. I'm sure he didn't have in mind a complex church w/ endless doctrines and dogmas, outside of his word. Some of these dogmas telling us that we need to believe lofty things about Jesus' mother to even be saved and stay in good standing w/ his church. That's what Roman Catholicism has turned into. That's why the other poster is talking about the simplicity of the gospel. Our basis of salvation is pretty simple. It's Christ crucified and following him.
Well spoken Gavin, I appreciate the scholarship you put into pastoral care.
Thank you Gavin. I'm RCC convert but I love your channel and get so much from it. I learn alot. If anyone sees this and wants to answer i saw you mentioned a council.
I know Orthodox refer to themselves as "Church of the first seven councils"? Do Prostetamts in general have a set agreement on which councils if any are considered authoritive? (I'm not asking about infallibility. I know that's a different issue.. Just if some are considered to having real weight /authority? Thank you again for all you do. I'll continue to learn from you! BTW as a Catholic I do agree that some Marian devotion goes way over the top.. But I don't think it was meant to be that way.. Still I 100% see your concern it can go way too far...
I want to say Protestants generally regard the first two ecumenical councils as authoritative if not infallible, but unsure where I got that. Different traditions will also ascribe to more or fewer depending. Conservative branches of Lutheranism will attempt to adhere to more of the councils' teachings than others, and I suspect the same of Anglicans and Presbyterians.
That said, I'm just a RUclips rando, and defer to the expertise of the doctor here and more knowledgeable commenters.
Pretty much everyone on the Protestant side would accept Jerusalem, 1st Nicea, 1st Constantinople, and Chalcedon (the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds) and reject 2nd Nicea (icon veneration). There's some difference on Ephesus, because a lot of Protestants (particularly from less historically-minded traditions) have concerns about what "Mother of God" is understood to mean and about Mariology in general (some of this concern is an over-reaction to Catholics going too far - at least as we see it). I'm not sure about Protestant views of 2nd and 3rd Constantinople (I've not read up on those two councils).
When it comes to Protestant views on the councils, it would be better to describe them as having weight than having authority. Agreement with their conclusions from a Protestant viewpoint is about agreeing that they got the theology right, rather than agreeing that they had the authority to determine doctrine. I would certainly understand the councils I accept/agree with as clarifying existing doctrine that goes back to the Apostles in the face of new challenges, and those I reject as teaching doctrines that originated as man-made tradition at some point after the Apostles had gone.
Gavin would be able to provide more detail, since he's far more well-read on these issues than I am, as a mere fan of the channel. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about general attitudes to the teachings of the councils I've commented on.
Historic protestants like the main four, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist and Anglican all affirm the first 6 councils, though some would say 5.
I think most see no problem with the first and second council's. There are other's who don't like creeds but they are a fringe few. But the vast majority of what would be considered Protestantism (Anglican, Lutheran, Moravian, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist) believe the first 2-3 ecumenical councils. councils 4-6 are affirmed in varying degrees but most see no problem with them.
I did not include Adventist and Pentecostal as while they are Christians they seem to be restorationist and it is not clear where they stand on the the councils.
From my knowledge (and I could be wrong) most, if not all, protestants depart from the conclusions of the seventh ecumenical council. It seems like this is the one which many won't affirm and that is why icon veneration is not practiced in any protestant church that I am aware of.
Stephengray13… has the best answer. The biblical attitude is, “The X Council put its stamp of approval on Y, which refuted ____-ism and which bishop Z taught a hundred years before that. That matches the scriptures and shows that Y is not novel.”
What the councils agreed on was generally a response to some deviation from what was already being taught. A given council statement puts a boundary on the latest time that the claims and counter claims could have originated.
We should treat each detail coming out of a council the way the “noble” Bereans treated the preaching of the apostles, searching the scriptures to determine veracity.
As a Catholic, we agree, there is cause for concern. That’s why the Church teaches to not idolize Mary. And if you’re heart, mind focus and intention is not directed towards God you should abstain from Marian devotions. If you’re praying more towards Mary, than God, you should cease. This is taught explicitly in the Catechism. So Catholics agree with you there. The honor given to Mary is only to increase the glory towards God. If I say a mountain river or sunset is beautiful and in my heart and mind I am thanking God for creating it. The compliment is God’s.
But, yes mother of God was to counteract the heresy which cropped up in the early church that said Jesus wasn’t fully God, or that Jesus only became God after the baptism in the Jordan.
Do some Catholics (maybe a lot) take it too far? I can’t judge their hearts, only God can, but from outward appearances it sometimes looks that way.
But agreed, saying mother of God shouldn’t be a point of contention between Christians on the surface.
I'm glad you can make those concessions, and understand some of our reservations. There are whole Catholic rites devoted to Marion devotion. That would seem to be imbalance of itself, but it's sanctioned under Rome. I encounter many Catholics who get upset because I don't venerate Mary the way they do. They call it disrespecting or dishonouring her. My honour and devotion is foremost to Christ. W/ any saint, living or dead, a distant second. This would seem to be what the bible teaches.
I was at a mass not too long ago and in his homily/sermon, the priest talked about how Mary should be respected and honored but that she was a human like us and she was an instrument the Lord used for bringing Jesus into the world but that she does not save us. I could sense the discomfort and probably anger building up in many people.
@@EJ-gx9hl I don't think you were imagining discomfort and anger in many Catholics at that teaching. Me and other Christians have said the same things to Catholics and many of them get very upset.
I find such imbalance on both sides of Christianity. Some protestants will downgrade Mother Mary to a mere incubator for Christ. Which I don't think the bible backs that either. She was definitely blessed and honoured for her role in delivering and raising our savior into the world. But the RCC has made her near to divine, w/ increasing dogmas that you must believe about her, to be or become Catholic.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 and while I understand RCC says in its dogmas that certain things must be believed and adhered to in order to be saved, I am of the belief that while I may believe them just because I feel as if they’re true, I don’t believe that a catholic or anyone who doesn’t believe them isn’t saved.
@@EJ-gx9hl I think we do a poor job of catechizing our children and the laity. And that’s a serious shame when the Church then requires certain dogmas to be believed in order to remain within the church and to receive communion. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the teachings are wrong or that they shouldn’t be believed.
The implementation of V2 was, in part, supposed to help with that; masses having mandated homilies and more use of the common language. But instead, I feel that gave a lot of parents the green light to transfer their obligations to the Church to teach our children rather than them teaching the faith.
I think there’s nuance within talking about Mary. Most Catholics who hold their faith at all hear constant attacks on Mary. So in defense they probably get frustrated and feel a need to constantly defend. So when a priest says something not praising her as co-redemtrix, but not fully understanding what that term even means, they probably feel the priest is just another Protestant dismissing Mary as trash. And feel frustration that they would have to hear this same stuff from another Catholic, a priest no less. Is that a right thing to do? No. They should be actively listening to what the other person says and if they’re in agreement, even if not using same words as you, probably should accept the agreement.
But problem is a lot don’t exactly know what the words mean (Protestant or Catholic) and so misconstrue the doctrines to where both camps think the words mean the same incorrect thing. So Protestants disagree, but actually think a lot of what the RCC ACTUALLY teaches is correct, but don’t use the words because they think it means something else. Whereas Catholics think the RCC teaches something different than what they should believe and what a lot of Protestants actually believe already.
So it ends up kinda funny in a sad sort of way that a lot of Protestant believe what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary but hate the Church for it. And Catholics don’t believe what the church teaches, but think they’re defending the church for it.
2:00 YES THANK YOU! Its really just a game of connect the dots!
Mariolotry is idolotry. Plain and simple. Calling her the “mother of God” is blasphemous. Jesus never told anyone to pray to her for anything, ever. All glory goes to our God, and not to any vessel who carried His physical form for nine months. We can show respect for her, of course - but not worship, as so many misguided people do. Roman Catholicism is a false religious cult. Read your Bibles, people, and learn the truth.
@tommyapocalypse6096 - if YOU read your bible you will see that Holy Spirit guided Elizabeth to call Mary Mother of God (Luke 1:43)!
Gary, Elizabeth called Mary, "....the mother of my Lord." Jesus, as her Messiah and as the incarnate God the Son, was Elizabeth's Lord. Don't misrepresent the holy text by making an interpretive leap that you want to make.@@garyr.8116
She didn't just carry "His physical form." She carried Him. She is His mother.
"Calling her the “mother of God” is blasphemous."
Read your bible. Scripture: _43 And why is this granted me, that _*_the mother of my Lord_*_ should come to me?_ (Lk 1)
"but not worship"
Don't be misguided. Don't be duped. No Catholic worships any creature, only God alone. Attend a Catholic Mass and this will be clear.
"Jesus never told anyone to pray to her for anything, ever."'
Jesus told us to pray for each other. When we do, we ask, petition, interceded for each other. Rev 5:8 and 8:3 show those in heaven praying for the saints (us) on earth. It only stands to reason that they know our prayers, made known to them by an all powerful God. Glory to HIM. And we want their prayers as _the prayers of a righteous man availth much_ (Ja 5).
Questions :
- Who was the Queen in the Old Testament Kings (almost always)?
- What role did she have on behalf of the people?
- How did the king greet her?
- Where did she sit?
Keep in mind, Jesus is the King of Kings.
It is you that is following a false religion. This is more about the divinity of Jesus than Mary. Jesus founded His One True Church Matt 16 18-19. We do not worship Mary, only God, so the love of her is not idolatry. It is you who blasphemes by refusing to believe that Mary is the mother of God ie saying that Jesus who was born of her is not divine
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on Barth! On the other hand, I always appreciate your thoroughness and quality over speed and quantity.
This actually clarified the problem for me. I never understood this issue--even being a Protestant myself. The problem within the meaning surrounding the relationship of Mary and Jesus never illuded me. Thanks for this video and God bless!
Sou do Brazil e estou aprendendo muito pastor .
Jesus!!! Tem brasileiro nesse bueiro!!!
The Trinitarian God existed from eternity past. Then "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ". Therefore the birth of Jesus is unique.
Enjoying all these videos. I still have a couple of issues with using the phrase "mother of God" though.1. In an increasingly ignorant culture about Christianity , there are those who jump to the conclusion that Mary created God (I have met such people) and therefore just not helpful. 2. because the term "mother" carries so much more meaning than merely a birthgiver. Also includes familial closeness, authority, maternal responsibilities etc. That's why we can say adopted mothers are real mothers because they fulfill that role. In this sense is Mary still the mother of God? I would argue no. She was and always will be God-bearer but she doesn't fulfill a motherly role in heaven where we will be like the angels (Luke 20:26) and when Jesus distances Himself from Mary as in the role of His mother (Matt 12:49)(John 19:27).
@SchottischeSchotte - per scripture, she is the Gebirah - read your scripture to see what all that entails!
Jesus didn't 'distance Himself from Mary' but rather **pulled us closer to HIM** by making Her our Mother (John 19:27, Rev12:17)!
@@garyr.8116 Only God can draw a man to Himself. Never an earthen vessel.
It's a valid concern, and perhaps this is where the early church fathers can shed some light.
Very helpful. Thanks Gavin!
"if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." Even honoring Mary brings honor to Jesus.
Mary is a part of what exactly, the godhead?
The Body of Christ. The Godhead isn’t made of parts period.
It can but his point is that it’s not a hard and fast rule. Honoring the big toe is good but if that’s all you do, your approach to the body will be severely skewed because the head became an afterthought.
@@alpinefool8814 I also belong to the body of Christ. Do I need to be honored too or it's only Marry. Let's not pretend that Marian devotion is not a big deal. Every justification people give come across to me as gaslighting
@@randatatang9222 we can call Mary, the mother of God though, can we not? Right.
Very justified concerns, thank you Dr. Ortlund!
the problem with using that label is that there's absolutely no value in it, unless you are trying to elevate her as somehow being worthy of worship, or someone to pray to, which is of course contrary to God's word and used by the enemy to lead people astray, and if it were possible, even the elect.
so while you might make a technical case for using the label, which is purely one of semantics and has no substance, this seems a fairly harmful thing to acknowledge without a strong disclaimer, or a 12 minute explanation of why that doesn't include any of the accompanying heresies that are asserted along with it, like you've tried to do here. that's just not practical for meaningful conversations.
@Taterstiltskin - What you find 'no value in' the Holy Spirit saw fit to guide Elizabeth to shout Mary as 'Mother of God '(Luke 1:43)!
Who elevated her but God - "The Mighty One has done great things for me" !(Luke 1:49)
"Henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)!
Seems you really don't like Gods plan!
👏💯 agree
@Taterstiltskin I would argue that there is value (Protestant here, btw). If you deny “Mother of God” then you in a sense are denying that God became Incarnate as a true Man. That is the point he’s making and that’s why it is important. God did not just put on a human suit, but He was made flesh and dwelt among us as a man.
That is the core truth, and just because certain doctrines take that title in a direction that was never intended doesn’t detract from the core truth of the title “Mother of God”.
Thank you pastor Gavin for this excellent video. In my humble opinion the crux of the matter in Catholic - Evangelical Mariology's dialogue is the relation between veneration and worship of The Mother of God.
The Catholic apologists try to justify the practice of veneration of The Mother of God as a sound biblical doctrine that is strongly supported by apostolic tradition, whilst for many Evangelicals that practice it is often within the category of worship that is due to God alone. The Catholic language of the veneration of The Mother of God is at least confusing if not crossing the line that is unacceptable for sincere and loving God's revelation Evangelicals. Let's lovingly pray and study together to find God's light in all of it.
We all love our beloved Mother of God, but in practice we express it differently. Glory to God alone.
From the U. of Dayton. An excellent writeup, consistent with Gavin's Christological comment.
Meaning of Theotokos
Q: What is the meaning of Mary's title: Theotokos?
A: Theotokos derives from the Greek terms: Theos / 'God'; and tiktein / 'to give birth'. Mary is the Theotokos, the one who gave birth to God. This single word sums up the meaning of Luke's phrase: 'Mother of the Lord' (Lk 1: 43) and represents a counterpoint to John's teaching that the 'Word was made flesh' (Jn 1:14). Usually the term is translated into English as 'Mother of God'. However, Greek-speaking Christians also used the equivalent Meter Theiou. The latter form offers a more comprehensive vision of Mary's motherhood in line with a personalist point of view.
The title, Mother of God, seems to have first been used in liturgical and devotional practice by Christians in Egypt. It appears in an ancient prayer, Sub Tuum Praesidium which dates back to the third century. There was some controversy about the use of this title since the pagan goddess, Isis, was referred to as Mother of God. However, there are radical differences between the myths about divine births to pagan goddesses (e.g. Isis, mother of Horus) and the gospel accounts of Jesus' incarnation in Mary. For example, the Gospels portray Jesus as conceived by Mary in Spirit while pagan myths portray the conception of gods in passion and removed from the mysterious destiny of the Incarnation.
Nevertheless, the title, Mother of God, was used in an Alexandrian creedal formula. When challenged in 322, Patriarch Peter of Alexandria defended its legitimacy. Use of the title, Theotokos was formally sanctioned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Church declared that both Divine and human natures were united in the person of Jesus, the son of Mary. Hence, Mary may be called Theotokos, since the son she bore according to the flesh, Jesus, is truly one of the Divine persons of the Trinity. *This Marian title is really a Christological statement, which affirms that the second person of the Trinity, who was born into history as fully human, is really 'God with us'.*
Note ... NO Catholic worships ANY creature, Mary included. We follow her words, DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU. Mary always leads us to her Son. We go to her as a means for going to her Son. It's all about her Son. If one attend a Catholic Mass, one would see, it's all about our Lord God.
Matthew 12:48 “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Perhaps we are all theotokos and a Christotokos and should honour and love one another as such.
To some extent, yes. But none of us, apart from the BVM, are the human vessels in which the Incarnation, a critical part of the Christian story, took place.
@@marksmale827That was only for a short time, when Jesus lived on earth. To call her his mother NOW or to think that he even calls her so is blasphemy.
Jesus response was "More blessed are those who do the will of my Father". God's will was that the word will come down and made flesh through the womb of Mary. Mary accepted this willingly by declaring " Let it be done to me according to your words".
Jesus is saying his mother is even more blessed with that response
I was JUST talking to my mom about this. That us Protestants should not have a problem with "mother of God" because it's a statement about Jesus not her. Then I see you upload this 3 hours ago. Nice.
How is it a statement about Jesus and not her?
@johnmark Because it emphasises that Jesus has a unified divine/human nature rather than being two persons at once, which is an echo of Nestorianism. If Jesus was only God putting on a human suit rather than truly becoming man, then the Word was not made flesh, and Jesus did not become man, could not be tempted or suffer or become our High Priest.
Mary being the Mother of God in this lens declares that Jesus was truly Incarnated and became human, and not that Jesus put on a human suit or was split in His very nature, if that makes sense.
Now, people do go overboard with Mary sometimes as a result, but this declaration regarding Jesus’ Incarnation was the original intent of the title.
@@samueljennings4809 well put
@@samueljennings4809 But there's a huge difference in saying she bore Jesus as the Incarnation, and in saying she bore God Himself in Infinity. Father God is Uncreated and Unbegotten. Would you be comfortable in saying Mary is the Mother of the Father? I would not and am not. She is the mother of Jesus, the Incarnation of the Father on Earth.
@@samueljennings4809 I think you have to also take into account what it means FOR MARY to be Mother of God, Gavin talked about going overboard but that's unwarranted.
If a woman can call God her child, that woman is in a position no other human being will ever be in.
The amount of condescendance God shows in favor of that woman is beyond anything we can imagine, and that completely warrants a seperate yet connected field of theological study, mariology.
Love this brother
Thank you so much. This was really a helpful video
Dr Ortlund, I appreciate your work immensely. Although I disagree with you on many points, I appreciate the irenic tone with which you make your videos and your love for and desire to be faithful to Christ is evident and laudable. Especially in the world we live in, where we are tempted by the twin problems of either relativism, which denies that there is such a thing as truth, or else an angry, sarcastic, combative spirit, which believes in truth, but thinks that it is best defended by mocking and shouting, work like yours is important. We must be faithful to Christ, who is the Truth, but we must do so *as Christians*, cultivating the fruits of the Spirit, and being charitable.
As an Orthodox Christian, I can certainly acknowledge that there can be danger in venerating Mary in the wrong way, in a way that could detract from the worship which we owe to God alone. At the same time, I think it's also worth acknowledging that the opposite is dangerous as well. As you say in your video, the point of what we believe about Mary is what it teaches us about Christ. By not honoring Mary, but actively minimizing her, I often see well-meaning Protestants fall into serious Christological and Trinitarian heresies, dividing the Persons of the Trinity in a way that becomes tritheism, denying the full truth of the Incarnation or the deity of Christ, etc. Understanding Mary is important to understanding Christ correctly. For example, I often see Protestants speak of Jesus in a way that treats Him as either not being fully God or not one Person. Speaking as if Christ was capable of sinning (misunderstanding the meaning of temptation and denying the hypostatic union of His divine and human wills in His one Person).
Confessing Mary to be the Mother of God is an important Christological litmus test that protects us from falling into serious error that denies the core of the Christian faith.
I've never seen a protestant Christian speak of Christ as anything but divine and sinless. We don't deny his human side, from Mary, or his divine nature, as part of the eternal Godhead. This is why Mary being the mother of God is tricky statement. It could be seen as eternal God having a mother and therefore an origin in humanity. It could also elevate Mary above her status as a created and not a divine being.
This what I’ve thought for so long. No one on the other side has addressed it. The reality is, this infallible doctrine has led to worship of Mary in many parts of the world and communities within the west as well. It’s not taught well, it is blurring lines and leading to error. Literally praying to her. I don’t think she’d ever want that.
Not all prayer is divine worship. We don't offer the Mass to her, meaning we don't eat her body and blood, adoring her in such a way as part of that act. Therefore, Catholics ///at the very least/// don't worship Mary the way they worship Christ, and we would further say that they do not worship her at all, at least in the sense that worship refers to divine worship, the honor due God alone.
Prayers and devotionals relying on older language will use older meanings of worship---which means honor, as you would address a judge "your honor" or "your worship"---and on older meanings of prayer----which means ask, as in the phrase "I pray tell."
I think it's the protestant concept of worship that's been skewed, particularly in low church sects, due to the lack of sacrificial liturgy.
You literally do not get it.
@@benabaxter "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5
If these vices, which are not offered to any specific party save for the self, constitute idolatry, then one cannot say that only Christian Sacramental worship offered to someone other than God would be idolatry. The category is clearly much broader.
"Prayers and devotionals relying on older language will use older meanings of worship---which means honor, as you would address a judge 'your honor' or 'your worship'---and on older meanings of prayer----which means ask, as in the phrase 'I pray tell.'"
The querying of an entity is not the issue. The implications about the queried party based on what the query is asking are the issue. If I solicited St. Mary to pass me the salt from the table, I would be asking something dumb, but not idolatrous. On the other hand, if I were asking her to placate Christ's wrath on my behalf (per the prayer often used by Dr. Ortlund as an example of abuse of Marian devotion), that would be idolatrous, as Christ wishes us to seek the things of salvation and sanctification only from Him.
@@benabaxterA lot of catholics do worship Mary like Christ
@@relajado-fx5rf
if that were true, they would be excommunicated.
Hello, Dr. Ortlund. I am a Roman Catholic Christian, and I appreciate you defending the Virgin Mary's Divine Motherhood. I would, however, say that the other Marian Dogmas that the Church has defined are also Christological. Additionally, to really understand why we give her the highest veneration of any saint is based upon the proper understanding of grace that the Church teaches. Lastly, the Church, even though we exalt her very highly, still call her a mere creature and that she cannot be compared to God, including God the Son, her Son. Thank you for being fair toward us Catholics and polite. God bless...
When one goes to a Catholic Mass, one realizes it is ALWAYS about the creator, not a creature.
great explanation! I honestly really get irritating whenever Catholics exalt Mary to the same position with God. I see many Catholics pastors prayer on social media and the prayer don't even address to God, it's directly to Mary, asking for piece, healing etc, that's crazy! Their Instagram profile is full of image of Mary, some even call themselves Man of Mary, just like some Christians claim themselves Man of God. This is just so wrong, God is next to none. Mary is earthly mother of Jesus, God used her to bear Jesus in her womb. Jesus was there together with father and Holy Spirit creating the world and everything. Jesus created Mary. "Truly truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM"
"Catholics exalt Mary to the same position with God."
Don't be duped into believing this. No Catholic worships any creature. We worship God alone. Go to a Catholic Mass and see for yourself. Mary points us to her Son. We follow her words, _do whatever he tells you._ True this: we honor her for saying yes, for bringing our Lord and Savior into the world. Scripture says of her, "all generations shall call me blessed." Do you do so as scripture says??
@@TruthHasSpokenAs someone who tried to convert to Catholicism twice, sadly I can confirm this is not true for all Catholics. I had a good many Catholics tell me point blank to pray to Mary for her intercession to change Jesus mind on a petition I had made since a king always listens to his mother. Then there were the masses where yes the actual mass was about Christ, but everything around it including the 30 minutes of the Rosary and the Litany to Mary and consecration to Mary made me wonder if I was there to praise Mary or God.
@@Theescapist_87 "since a king always listens to his mother."
Jesus hears our prayers but doesn't always answer them as WE wish, and sometimes not in the timeline we wish. So too, scripture is clear that persistence in prayer is at times necessary. There's nothing wrong with Mary on your side, interceding for you. It's not either our but both. Pray to Jesus AND have his mother (not to exclude other Saints in heaven), petition her Son for you are as well.
" everything around it including the 30 minutes of the Rosary"
Keep in mind, when we say the Rosary, we are reflecting on the life of her Son. Mary always point us to her Son; we listen and follow her words, _do whatever he tells you._
My spouse went through RCIA twice. Decades later, they are a terrific Catholic. They have always felt that they were not "leaving" their religion, just adding to it in a richer way.
@@TruthHasSpoken Thanks but I am very happy being a Lutheran now. As a fellow Christian, I wish you and your husband the best in your Catholic faith as you strive to follow Christ.
@@Theescapist_87 " I am very happy being a Lutheran now."
Missouri Synod?
@TruthUnites Gavin, the reason I do not accept the conclusions of the council of Ephesus is that I've heard the perspective of the church of the East. The council was convened on Pentecost of the year 431 before the bishops that supported Nestorius even arrived. Nestorius refused to participate until his supporting bishops arrived, but the council was convened anyway, and he was condemned in absentia for a heresy he didn't actually teach. Nestorius and the bishops who supported him never got to defend his case before the council. They then counter-excommunicated the council, and this resulted in the first major schism in the church. The church of the east rightly calls this out as a shambolic council that was more of a power play on the part of Cyril of Alexandria rather than a thoughtful gathering guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify doctrine, and as far as I'm concerned, the Council of Ephesus is no better than Nicaea II, that council you have repeatedly pointed out which anathematizes those who do not venerate icons.
According to the book "Know the Councils" by Justin Holcomb, the Council of Ephesus was deliberately moved to Ephesus under the influence of Pulcharia, the sister of the emperor Theodosius, who was an enemy of Nestorius, because Ephesus was the site of a thriving Marian shrine. (Ephesus was also the site of the Temple of Artemis, a virgin mother goddess, and it appears that this is where Marian idolatry really entered the church via syncretism with Greco-Roman paganism.) She hoped their influence would be brought to bear against Nestorius, and in fact, the council was under their influence at Ephesus to declare Mary the "Mother of God". The Bible never refers to her as anything other than the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus derived his humanity from her, not his divinity. If we want to make statements about Jesus, we should make them about Jesus and not heap exalted titles upon Mary. All the idolatrous doctrines around Mary minted by St. Alphonsus Liguori (the author of "The Glories of Mary") and St. Louis de Monfort (the author of "True Devotion to Mary") are down-stream of the granting of the title "mother of God" to Mary at the council of Ephesus.
Just from the facts that have emerged about this council, I have no confidence in its conclusions, as it appeared to be a thoroughly corrupt council set up to condemn an innocent man and to shoe-horn an inappropriate title into the church, which resulted in the idolatry of Mary spreading like leaven through the church.
Thank you, Dr. Gavin. You must have read my mind, because I was hoping just yesterday you would do one on this, as well as why you believe Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve. (A lot of Protestants do not believe in those titles as well.)
A fellow Protestant who is close to me (and also very learned) does not believe Mary should have ever been called Theotokos, because it was what ushered in all the abuses.
I would love a more in depth coverage of the implications of what calling her Christotokos would have meant beyond affirming the heresy that was being promulgated at the time.
Thank you for those last two videos you have done on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception.
Your work on this channel is so appreciated and gives me a lot to think about!
May God bless you and your family!
Well Mary is not the Ark of the New Covenant because the New Covenant doesn't have an Ark nor is there a need for a new Eve becaise it was Eve's son who was the promised Son and she is the mother of all living.
Gavin doesn't believe that Mary is the Ark of the covenant. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't believe Mary is the new Eve either. I can't wait to see what form of glorification Catholics will give to Mary next. She's already Queen of Heaven, the Ark, sinless, born w/out sin, and sigh, it just goes on and on and on and on w/ divine Mary.
Finally, Gavin is right about something! 🙂
I'm glad to see that you are bringing up an issue that is of great concern to Catholic Theologians and the Magisterium, even if you overlook Catholic teaching and focus only on the attacks and misrepresentations. First I'd point out the bias you have shown in questioning what an accurate translation of the German phrase used by Luther would be in English, but Gloss over that when Pope Francis spoke on Marian Devotion it was a translation into English of his statements in (most probably) Italian or Spanish. Example of this bias (not one I've heard Dr. O bring up, so it's just an example of some Protestants and their bias) are those Protestants who post videos of the Holy Week Rites from Rome where the Deacon is chanting about Lucifer coming to us being proof that the Catholic Church worships Satan. The reality is Lucifer is the Latin for one who bears or brings light. In this case it refers to Christ Jesus. Or the often used quote of one of the Pius' who near the end of his life says (In Italian) "The comedy is over." to show that the Pope saw the teachings of the Catholic Church as a farse, rather than what an Italian would understand as Comedia is something that expresses not just a comical farse but any saga or play. He was expressing that his role in history was coming to an end.
As to the concerns by the Catholic Church about the excessive or potential excessive positioning of our Blessed Mother above Her Son Jesus. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church you see what Dr. O has seemingly overlooked. The definition of Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia being the first example. Recently Pope John Paul II his resistance to proclaiming Mary Co-Redemptrix was not that She is not, but that many would misunderstand that by using that title the Church means she participated in our Salvation, by giving herself totally to God, just as Paul calling himself Co-Worker with Christ does not mean that he is equal to Christ, Mary is and always has been a creature subordinate to Him. The Assumption, while contested by Dr. O shows that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not equal to Christ, as he was Assumed by the power of God, not of Her own power. There are among the hundreds of cautions against false teachings and excesses taught by both heretics and folks who have gone overboard and beyond what the Church teaches, the example of the Church condemning a heretical Gnostic sect that offered Sacrifice to Mary.
The assertion of Dr. O that the Catholic Church does not guard against this or does not do a good enough job of it, is based on a dive into the shallow end of the pool. Since converting to the Catholic Faith almost 50 years ago I have read Catholic theology and history, My library consists of books I bought from Seminary Libraries (Both Catholic and Protestant) and I still each day discover deeper and more intimate the Love God has for us in Christ. I consider myself after those near 50 years just scratching the surface of the Teachings and History of the Catholic Church, and history in general. So I will not fault Dr. O too much for a shallow understanding.
Thank you for adding some much-needed context to this discussion.
Time and time again, I find that there is a seemingly impassable cultural barrier at play where modern, American Protestants are demanding that the Church, which is an ancient, old-world organism, change its language to assuage *their* particular cultural prejudices and biases rather than truly trying to understand *how* Catholics live and understand the world.
It's also amazing how many Protestants in online comments sections claim to have seen overwhelming evidence of "Mariolatry," especially in countries with cultural ties to Spain, but in my 33 years living as a Catholic in Texas, where Hispanic influence is strong and Hispanics actually represent a slight majority as a demographic, I have yet to meet a Catholic-- European, Lebanese, Mexican, Vietnamese, etc.-- who worships Mary.
As usual, those who are properly formed and understand the faith would recoil at the suggestion and are very likely to be regular mass attendees with a mature spirituality. The online examples of "Mary worship" that cause Protestants to wring their hands are almost universally misunderstandings of what is actually going on or fringe examples of ignorant (often badly-educated) individuals who are Catholic-adjacent due to quirks of history but would more rightly be understood as syncretists in dire need of a proper catechism.
@edwardcarlin6397 since we are playing the anecdote game, I lived in Portugal for 5 years and can attest that most people couldn't tell me the first thing about Jesus but were on their knees praying to statues of Mary daily, anointing cows and ritually eating them to receive the Holy Spirit and building shrines to various saints and of course Mary. Unfortunately there is no biblical defense for any of these actions and study of early church history reveals such practices were condemned as unthinkable. It is only far more recent catholic teaching that did an about face and anathematized the refusal of icon veneration and prayer to saints, and catholics ever since have been trying to defend the practice with frankly incoherent arguments and even try to use scripture, when we all know this decision was made by a magesterial council. If you want to take part in practices that are so close to idolatry that you have to redefine the words worship and idolatry to try and justify it, it's your soul so have at it I suppose, but stop trying to gaslight everyone like these practices are common sense derivations from the scripture and early church history
Mais M. Gavin, vous devriez préciser comment vous comprenez la mariologie des catholiques! Il ne faut pas tout mêler, on ne vous comprend plus ! Faites attention ! Marc 7; 22 :C.est du dedans, c’est du coeur des hommes, M Gavin, que sortent les mauvaises pensées… les calomnies, l’orgueil 12:04 12:04 , et les dérèglement de l’esprit … elles souillent l’homme. Ces bonnes paroles sentent les mauvaises pensées !
I would be interested in a video from you in which you explain - in light of the quote you read from Luther - the extent of the honor you feel is allowable. What is she honored for? How does the honor we give to Mary not take away from Christ? And most importantly, how does this honor look in a communal setting? (I.e. how does the community, when gather together, honor her?)
concise and honoring--thank yo
Thanks for the video Gavin. Helpful. Nestorians had a problem with saying Mother of God if I understand right. Have you ever thought about doing a video about them? Especially their missions east. Kind of like your video about Scandinavian. That probably wouldn’t be high on the popularity list, but I feel like it is an important part of Christian history. How did they did get so far east and how did the vast majority of them disappear?
All my Mexican roman catholic relatives hold Mary above Jesus
In all fairness, there are many ignorant Christians in all denominations--Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox--whose individual practices are against their own denomination's official teaching. For example, I am a charismatic, evangelical Christian, and there are many uneducated charismatics who do or teach things that are against Scriptures, which is why I no longer attend my local iglesia pentecostal. Official Catholic teaching is that Jesus is the one and only mediator who is worthy of worship. We should be comparing the best of one church with the best of another church.
@romanse.j.6958 "All my Mexican roman catholic relatives hold Mary above Jesus" - do any of them offer Eucharist to Mary ?
@ubespam5477 that's why I'm not catholic or prodestant, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, catholics are idolaters with images and prodestants ar idolaters with Greed and gluttony
I highly doubt that. I wouldn't accuse you of lying, but it's possible that your perspective is more of a caricature of their beliefs. However, if it turns out to be true, then they’re just wrong - plain and simple - and they hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such a fundamental error suggests they may be Catholics in name only.
@garyr.8116 no the just have big shines of Mary and have pictures and bracelets of Mary and always ask her for protection or healing , is that good enough to assume they love Mary more than Christ?
Mother of Jesus, who is God in the flesh. But God is a spirit, spirits are not born.
No matter where people are in this subject, one thing is very clear. Mary didn't die for our sins, she can't forgive sins, she is no co redemptrix, she is not a goddess, she deserves no worship at all, only respect.
@JesusProtects - the respect and honor due The Gebirah?
What human played a greater role in bringing a Redeemer to you than Mary?
@@garyr.8116 still not enough to be worshipped and to be called mediator. She just isn't.
We only worship Mary, not God.
A clear explanation that every RCC brerhren should hear and understand, Yeshua/Jesus is the main focus of the entire bible🙏
According to Catholicism, Mary will soon be displacing Jesus. Hey, she's already said to be the ark of the covenant, the new eve, co-redemptrix, the queen of heaven, and probably seated at the right hand of Jesus, like a queen would be. Can't wait to see how they displace Jesus w/ her next.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 sadly that is what they teach and yet they deny that they worship her
@@saintejeannedarc9460you have it wrong. A greater understanding of Mary, adds to Christology. It has been & still, through Mary to Jesus, with which you will no doubt deny
@@geoffjs I know Catholics definitely believe that. I don't see how it adds to, when so much emphasis on Mary takes away, and certainly divides the Christians attention from Christ. Protestants don't have that distraction. it's not I don't think the Catholic emphasis on Mary doesn't have some benefit. It extols motherhood as a virtue, much better than the protestant faith does. I'll grant you all that.
Due to the imprecision of language, "Mother of God" is not an unproblematic expression. Substitute "the Trinity" for "God" in that phrase (which is not far-fetched for a trinitarian) and you end up with a phrase which is clearly false.
You will know them by their fruits.
Even if the catholic church claims it dont worship saints or idols they still have problems with both among their congregation.
Heads up, the podcast version has the wrong audio.
thank you, will fix
@@TruthUnites now that you’ve done videos on the dogmas of the bodily assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and now the mother of God, are you planning on doing one on the perpetual virginity of Mary? I know it’s a belief that is much older, and even many protestants embrace it. However, for those who don’t, I was wondering if you would make a video showing both for the support, as well as arguments against, the dogma. Coming from a Roman Catholic background, this is the one I tackled first, because it’s less controversial. Yet, it was the first one I rejected when I began to really study scripture, because I couldn’t find it there, and felt there was more evidence against it from scripture. Once that happened, the later two controversial dogmas were a lot easier to reject, both from scripture and from the early church. And later, when I began to read the anti-Nicene fathers, I was surprised to see the lack of support for it, as well as evidence against it, even though there’s not a whole lot, but still more against it than for it. Great video by the way. Excellent material as always!
Mary birthed and mothered Jesus, but she did not create Him. He allowed her that distinction in His providence and plan for His incarnation.
@Wild-Olive - wasn't one of Mary's ovum conceived by the Holy Spirit to become Jesus' body ?
@@garyr.8116 maybe but it isn't a necessity
@@garyr.8116 conceived? Was it purely a human type conception? That's something Mormons believe it's the same as human conception ?
The Holy Spirit brought the power of God Most High upon Mary so I would say it's a totally unique conception that physically we don't know how God accomplished it.
How is Jesus Divine nature as God and human nature as Man present in one individual ? We can speculate and create doctrines but we don't know how this mystery is actually carried out.
@patriceagulu8315 Mary is functionally Jesus’ mother. That doesn’t mean she “created” God. Every human being that descended from Adam and Eve is a creation, including Mary. No one but God (which includes Jesus) is the supreme Creator. God is the ultimate source of creative power can do anything and everything, regardless of our ability to understand how (or why). A human can only create what God enables him to create using His materials, machinery and design.
@patriceagulu8315 Honestly, I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but God bless you! 🌺
So great to have Gavin tell all Protestants what they should and should not be concerned about all in the name of "historic Protestantism" which deserves every bit as much deference as "historic Pelagianism" and "historic Donatism".
Buzz off
That was stated in the imperative. Was it a command or more of a suggestion? If the former: we should, of course, "obey our leaders" but it is not clear to me why you think you have authority to issue commands. Delusions of grandeur perhaps? I think this same sickness infects Gavin making him think he speaks for "historic Protestantism." If you wish to follow the teachings of Scripture, you need to stop fawning over self appointed guardians and ask yourself: how was Christ's authority given to the Apostles in the early Church and how did everyone know who the legitimate (not self appointed) authorities were? And you might ask: what is schism and how do I avoid this sin? Food for thought. If you think of me as buzzing, you can think of such food as honey.
@@AnselmInstitute zzzzzzz boring. Vatican 2 changed all that.
Why do you still live in the spirit of Trent and Vatican 1?? Ahhhhhh you must hate the new Vatican 2 church !!!!!
So looking forward to Synod of Synodality next year!!! Any changes coming you think?
@@ntlearning You are just the cutest little thing. You should read more Pope Benedict on the hermeneutic of continuity. Vatican 2 reversed NOTHING the Church taught at Trent or Vatican 1, which is why you quoted nothing from those councils and instead resorted to banal platitudes you have been spoon fed. You are just as cute as can be.
I noticed you like the "z" sound to imitate animals and sleeping. I wonder do you like the letter "z" in words too. What do you think of the z in the phrase "zeal for the Truth"? Or is it only z's in animal sounds and sleeping that you like?
In the first year of his ministry, at the occasion of his first miracle of changing the water into wine, the last recorded words of Mary are given:
“Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you.” (John 2:5)
Right at the getgo of Jesus ministry when she could have shared the limelight, Mary fades into the shadows in deference to her son, and is never heard from again.
Great Video!
YES - it's in Scripture (Luke 1:43).
***Luke 1:43
But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
.
.
Mother of My Lord referring to Jesus. The man. The mother of the man that God took the form of. Not of God.
@@thejohnmarkproject She gave birth to the person of Jesus, who is truly man truly God, you're separating Christ's natures as if it were 2 persons, congrats now you are a Nestorian
@@thejohnmarkproject Nestorian heresy - denounced by Council of Ephesus in 431. try lookup μήτηρ (mētēr) τοῦ (tou) μου (mou) Κυρίου (Kyriou)
@@thejohnmarkproject I wouldn't call you a Nestorian, but I'm w/ gondor on this one. I'm not Catholic, but Lord was meant as God in that scripture. When Mother Mary extolled, "My savior and my God", she meant God, as understood in Judaism as well. The same way Elizabeth, John the Baptist's mother would have. I'd go a bit further too, because Elizabeth was proclaiming a prophecy, that she likely didn't understand yet. The Jews had no concept of the trinity, or any idea of a triune nature of God then. It wasn't until after Jesus, and it was a tough sell. If you've ever heard of a Mezuzah, you'll know why. It carries the scripture, "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one". They took that very seriously, which is why it caused such a kaffufle, that the Jews in Jesus own hometown wanted to stone him when he claimed oneness w/ his father.
@@saintejeannedarc9460the word kurios doesn't imply Divinity. Elizabeth may have just meant Jesus was the king Messiah. There seems to be no scriptural mandate for calling Mary "mother of God" and citing councils gets us nowhere.
Yes, it is good not to be a heretical Nestorian. Mary is the Theotokos. Thanks for this video, it is much needed.
I don’t like the statement because it smacks of pagan thought. Anything to avoid the potential error down the road is worth disagreeing about.
facts
funny, since the exact opposite is true and it's in affirming the virgin Mary is the mother of God that we affirm the incarnation which requires the orthodoxy view of the Holy Trinity.
That anyone would talk about "pagan thought" about this is frankly terrible. The sheer arrogance in it is grotesque.
The problem with this approach is that attempts to prevent error down the road in one direction usually make it easier to fall into an error down the road in the opposite direction. If there's an over-emphasis on something in one generation attempting to correct it usually means that there will be an under-emphasis on it in the next.
It's actually hate for the Catholic Church. Just admit it.
@@AbetTorontoAdventure "hate". You must be a woke 20s something who categories anyone who disagrees with you as a "hater." So lazy.
5:44, why I don’t like it when people say “you can never love Mary too much”
As a Catholic, thank you for this video. I recommend reading the book House of Gold by Mary Kloska on Our Lady's titles.
Nicely and well done. But, I will disagree with you, having seen the errors in person. The problem lies in even bringing Mary into the discussion. Such was not done in Scripture and it as led to far too many grievous errors, especially within Catholic circles where there the focus is Mary and not Jesus. The theological truth of the Christological discussion need not ever to include Mary, especially as such was not done in the NT.
Thank you. I’ve never understood the Protestant objection against calling Mary the mother of God.
It's not just a protestant thing. It's a Christian thing.
@@thejohnmarkprojectMost Protestants are fine calling Mary the mother of God.
Denying that she's the mother of God is a denial of Christianity, since it either denies the Divinity of Christ or His Incarnation.
The only reason I can think of would be out of caution, that perhaps someone might be concerned that speaking of her this way might inadvertently communicate to someone unfamiliar with Christendom that we believe Mary is the *source* of God by virtue of having mothered Jesus who is God
@@anne.ominous Yes, it makes it sound like Mary is the Mother of the Unbegotten, Uncreated Eternal One who could have had no mother in Infinity. Otherwise, it's a contradiction in terms.
It must be specified that she is the Mother of the "Incarnation of" God on Earth as Jesus Christ.
@@doriesse824 The Son of God is not "Unbegotten". He is the "only begotten" or "uniquely begotten". He was begotten, but not created.
Also -- and I think you are saying the same thing -- Mary is the mother of Jesus' humanity, not of his divinity. She bore him, who is divine, but contributed nothing to his divinity. Thus, she is "Theotokos" (the bearer of divinity), not "Mētēr tou Theou" (Mother of God).
I merely point out that if the Bible is the infallible Word of God and scripture was written thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit didn't give us titles for Mary like, the mother of God, the new ark, the queen of heaven, that maybe, just maybe there is a reason.
In Matthew 12 when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were outside He pointed to the believers in front of Him and said, "Here is My mother and brothers", only to add that anyone who does the will of God is His brother, His sister, His mother...
To create what isn't in scripture, such as Mary was without sin, remained a virgin her whole life, was taken to heaven, that we are to avoid the intercession of the Holy Spirit when we pray to God and do an end around and pray to Mary, that we are to have statues and images of Mary everywhere... One would think God saw this coming and that's why Mary is only mentioned by name 19 times.
The Scriptures do teach the ever virginity of Mary. It's in the story of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg verse please
Luke 1:26-35.
It says that the Angel Gabriel came to a young maiden who was betrothed to be married and told her that she *will* conceive and bring forth a son. She responds by asking how that is possible since "I do not know a man."
People often misread that as if Gabriel told her that she had already conceived and she objected that that was impossible since she was still currently a virgin.
But that isn't what the Gospel says. He tells her that she will conceive, in the future tense and she objects, not by saying that she hadn't yet known a man, but that she does not know them, as a blanket statement.
If she had not already pledged herself to a life of virginity, and was about to enter a normal marriage, there would be nothing strange about what Gabriel said. It would be entirely natural to assume that he meant that she would conceive with her husband in the natural way.
All the other times like this in the Scriptures, with Abraham and Sarah, Zachariah and Elizabeth, etc the objection is one of age. The women are too old to conceive. But Mary isn't too old. And she's betrothed. And yet, she still objects, saying that she does not know a man.
@@AmericanwrCymraegYou spoke truth, she was not yet married, had not yet been with a man! Back them if one wasn't a virgin at the time of marriage one risked suffering huge consequences. She at no time said she took a vow of celibacy, she at no time stated she would never be with Joseph.
There is a reason Mary is only mentioned by name 19 times in scripture. Luke is the only one to tell you the virgin story from Mary's point of view. He is also the one to tell us he knew the difference between relative and brother. He said Elizabeth was Mary's relative and the brothers of Jesus were His brothers. He mentioned Mary 12 times here and the last time she is ever mentioned in Acts 1 when he said, "Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers"!
Matthew told the virgin story from Joseph's point of view. In scripture God/angel only spoke to Mary once and after that all future communication went thru Joseph. Matthew mentioned her by name 5 times. Mark never mentioned the virgin story and only mentioned Mary by name one time. That was when he told us of the siblings of Jesus in Chapter 7. John, caretaker of Mary never mentioned her by name. Obviously there was nothing about her that was required for our salvation. He also told us that the brothers of Jesus didn't believe in Him.
Jesus even said John the Baptist was greater!
@@glennherron9499 None of that answers the point at all. It just repeats random word counts from other places in the Scriptures.
The point is this: If Mary was betrothed and was going to have a normal marriage, when the Archangel Gabriel told her that she would conceive (ie in the future), there was nothing strange about that.
He didn't tell her that she *had* conceived, in which case it would make sense for her to object by pointing to her current virginity. He told her that she would conceive in the future. Being young and engaged, that would be a very normal, natural thing, for her to conceive in the future. But she objected by saying that she **does not** know man ("επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.")
If at your engagement party, your grandmother came up to your fiancée and told her that she would end up having children, you might wonder why she was that certain, but you wouldn't wonder how it would happen. You would assume that it would happen in the normal way.
As a response to the "both-and" section-- I do actually agree with you, Gavin, even with myself being a Catholic with a strong Marian devotion (I had a particularly powerful encounter on a pilgrimage to Lourdes, France).
While in my case, and the vast majority of fellow Catholics' cases in my life at least, strong Marian piety have only increased love for and adoration of Christ, I have witnessed a bit of an unhealthy elevation of Mary among the more cultural or not as practicing/well-catechised Catholics. This is the important distinction, though-- Catholics or other Christians who elevate Mary to a "more important" role than our Lord are usually doing so because they often lack the proper catechesis or have been taught incorrectly.
That being said, I cannot emphasize enough the role in which the Blessed Mother has brought me into deeper relationship with our Lord. Nevertheless, I understand that this is difficult and confusing for many of my Protestant brothers and sisters. I try to be as open to listening and dialoguing as I can.
I am glad we can agree on this Marian dogma, though. I earnestly pray every day that there will be an end to the division among the baptized. God bless you, brother.
Totally agree! Our King comes first, and therefore our Queen is honoured simultaneously.
I dare to say, converts who wrestle the most are / will be the best witnesses when they come home. Praying for the you, guys!
Your "Both-And" section should be required listening for all Catholics. Period.
Mary is not an extension of the grace of Christ, nor do we derive additional "saving grace" from praying to her. She was an honorable, obedient servant of the living God of the Bible, but not a demi-deity to whom we need pray/venerate/"hyper-dulia"-ize.
I'm done with my rant, and apologies if my tone is too confrontative. Gavin, as always, many prayers for you/yours/your church.
well the good thing is that the Church has never taught that saving Grace is attributed to the virgin Mary. As far as the cautionary tale of venerating the saints or Jesus' mother too much, it's an informal complaint and nothing more. It's akin to demanding people should never use fire to cook because if they're not careful they can burn down their house.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Yet many Catholics, including my nan when she was alive, build shrines to Mary and visit the sites of Marian apparations (Lourdes, Medjugorje, etc), seeking grace/indulgences from these activities.
If the Church has "never" taught that grace (in any of the forms that are taught by the Church) isn't dispensed via Marian veneration, then why do so many Catholics do it? Why have the past 3 popes dedicated their papacies to her? Again, don't want to be confrontative, but the demonstrated behavior of my Catholic family (and what I was taught growing up in a Catholic family) isn't consistent with your statement.
@@brianetheredge7323
Building a shrine to the virgin Mary is a pious and excellent act. God bless your grandmother.
So, is habitual Grace in your sect attributed to whoever your formal leader dedicates their ministry to? where does the Catholic Church teach that Grace is obtained through veneration _at all?_ Does your experience of having a bad catechesis modify the formal teachings of the Church?
This wouldn't bother me if by now it weren't tripling down on the idea that "marian idolatry" must exist because you want it to exist.
I swear these people just make up some fictional idea of catholicism in their head and then attack it to avoid facing an existential crisis when they realize how novel and not in accordance with history, scripture or reality their doctrines are.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj What do you mean by "habitual Grace?"
And...sorry if it seems I'm overselling grace as if received from Mary herself or that that is taught as dogma by the RCC. I was simply pointing out that the demonstrated behavior of the Catholics I know (I was raised Catholic, I know many) is inconsistent with your attitude toward how Catholics venerate Mary today.
Thank you for this Mariology series; I've found it to be very helpful. I agree that calling Mary the Mother of God should not be a point of division. I was wondering though about another title I often hear Roman Catholics use for Mary, "Queen of Heaven". I really don't know much about the history of this term or the theological convictions that underly it, but the term seems more problematic to me than Mother of God. If you could address this topic in a future video I would appreciate it. Thanks and God bless.
would you deny that God is the king of heaven?
revelation 12 makes a solid case.
The "Queen of Heaven" is perversion. Jeremiah 7:18,Jeremiah 44:18,Ezekiel 20:28. The queen of heaven requires child sacrifice, which is anti-Christ.
I appreciate your explanation about the historical context of this phrase and how it's properly understood!
However, I still have concerns about it that this video didn't completely alleviate.
1) In response to your claim that historical Protestants were fine with it - that might be more convincing to me if I, like Catholics, believed in the infallible authority of some church body. However, the whole point that you have made in these videos about Protestantism is that it can continually reform. Therefore, as a Protestant I'm not obligated to agree with something just because Luther, Calvin, or other Reformers believed it, and it's completely acceptable to look back and note areas in which they may not have gone far enough.
2) You mentioned but did not consider carefully enough the fact that the statement "Mary is the Mother of God" is technically correct but can be misleading. In my view, it can be fatally misleading. As a child I used to think it meant that Catholics believed Mary eternally pre-existed God! And while you can dismiss that as a child's confusion, it's not actually all that crazy when you think about how this language sounds to those outside of Christianity. Colloquially, when we say "mother of _" we are usually referring to someone who pre-exists and originates whatever that thing was. We are using language that can drastically confuse the uninformed about what our true beliefs are.
3) Couple the previous concern with the fact that the language is not found in Scripture. I'm all for using language not found in Scripture to describe Christian beliefs, if that language is accurate and likely to help people properly understand Christianity. But when language carries such a deep danger of misleading others and is ALSO not found in Scripture, it should be treated very carefully! At least we should not name church buildings after it (a church in my town is called "Mother of God of _" which is even worse because it implies that God has a mother and also is only God of a particular place/thing!)
Those are my concerns, and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Thanks again for helping us all come to more clarity in these discussions.
I understand why hearing that Mary is the Mother of God would sound alarming to a lot of Christians. It is more accurate to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I like to call her Mother Mary. I know she is the virgin Mary, but that's like calling Jesus, the baby Jesus all the time. Jesus is our resurrected savior and Lord. Mary is the very blessed woman that God chose to bless and give the incredible responsibility of birthing and raising our savior. The attributes the Catholic church gives to Mary are really uncomfortable. I respect Mary more as a mortal woman, born in sin like the rest of us. Not this sinless, perfect saint and co-redemptrix that the RCC had turned her into. There is no real sacrifice or difficulty in a perfect person birthing the savior. My mind can't quite grasp how she is still mortal w/ the attributes given to her by the RCC as well.
Nevertheless, I can understand that the title of Mary being the mother of God points to Christ's deity, as a member of the trinity. It's a concession I can make w/ Catholics as fellow Christians. Even if for reasons you stated, and my own, the language is still uncomfortable for me. It's more the least of my differences w/ Catholics and their doctrines.
Per 1, good point.
Per 2, it really just means that we need to be more careful about inquiring after things we don't understand. Mother does have other meanings and contexts, like the "Mother of all Storms". That just means a whomping big storm, not some weird progenitor hurricane that predated all other cyclonic weather systems.
Per 3, Abusus non tollit usum. We should be careful when teach anything to make sure we get it right, but just because something can be misunderstood does not mean it can only be misunderstood. One can still understand it properly, and therefore, the title still has a use in doctrine and teaching.
"Twaddle" pretty much sums it up.
Absolutely, the term "Mother of God" is not about Mary but about the Incarnation, a critical event in salvation history.
All of the Catholic Marian dogmas are about Jesus and salvation history.
Than why do they still call her mother of God, when it only was about the incarnation? Is Jesus still in his mortal body?
@@glueckseligehoffnung3058 Of course He's not. But your mother is always your mother, even when you've departed this life.
Full disclosure I’m a Protestant but inquiring into EO. One point that has begun to stick with me is the idea Mary is at Jesus’s right hand similar to how a kings mother would stand at his right hand (the place of honor) in ancient Israel. Any concerns from you as a Protestant on this view point? I have to admit my evangelical background really doesn’t honor Mary much at all compared to EO and RC but it will come as a shock to many evangelicals who feel the same way if Mary has the place of honor next to Jesus.
We can honor Mary without over-elevating her as the RCC do and as many EO tend to. No need to go East nor to incorporate what is entirely a speculative presupposition (that the relationship of the Trinity and Jesus as the Second Person of same with Mary is analogous to kingship relations in ancient Israel) without Scriptural merit into your view of the Church. And if you want the view of Tradition on the matter, I would argue you could do no better than looking at the three Ecumenical Creeds which define orthodox belief, the Apostle's, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. None of them discuss Mary beyond pointing out that Jesus was born of the Virgin. Nothing about her being a co-redemptrix (heresy) nor anything about her being at the right hand of Jesus, who is described in Scripture as being at the right hand of the Father.
@steadydividends571 - correct my friend - Jesus being The King makes Mary the defacto Gebirah - the Queen Mother!
Scripture shows us the Gbirah interceded to the King for the lowly - you 'sola scriptura' types take note!
@@garyr.8116 How often we try to fit our human reason into something that seems logical and reasonable forgetting as scripture says "
My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways"
If I may say your statement about Mary being Queen and and even Queen mother I believe are of this sort.
There is nothing in scripture that even suggests that Mary is or should be recognised as the Queen of Heaven and or the Queen Mother.
God uses many figures of speech to describe his people collectively:-
"a chosen people, a royal priesthood a holy nation"
(1 Peter 2 vs. 9)
Collectively the people are the "bride" of Christ the "wife of the Lamb".
2 Corinthians11 vs 2
See also 2 Corinthians 11 vs. 2
Ephesians 5 vs. 32
Matthew 19 vs 15
Ephesians 5 vs 26 and on and on.
According to scripture we the people of God collectively are called to be the bride of Christ we are called in this life to make ourselvelves ready for the bridegroom. Revelation 19 vs. 7.
Mary indeed was a very blessed woman and to be called such ( "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" Luke 1 vs. 48).
Blessed she was but not the Queen of Heaven as an undividual.
She like all believers will with all believers, be the Bride of Christ
@@sarahlaslett3279 Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus is King - do you deny that? If Jesus is King then by definition (not YOURS, but scriptures) Gebirah, that is Queen Mother! Perhaps you don't understand the Davidic Kingdom? It's right there in SCRIPtURE!
To me your concerns are based in part that some people MAY commit idolatry by asking Mary to intercede on our behalf to God. I’ve never seen any practicing Catholic give prayers to Mary that are reserved for God alone. Prayers for a Saints intercession is dulia while to adoration and worship of God alone is latria.
Now if a teaching is difficult to understand it must be explained more clearly but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught. One of the most difficult theological positions for someone to understand is the Trinity yet that is taught and there are many I’d say both Catholic, Protestant, & Orthodox who do not really understand the Trinity and this confusion led to breakaway groups such as the JW, and the LDS church. But I’m sure you’d say it IS important to teach the Trinity.
Lastly a rejection of Sacred Tradition is probably the big reason for the stumbling block to more fully understand Marián dogmas which due point us to Christ.
If someone is worried about Mary the Mother of God interceding for you to Jesus then one in my view should be logically consistent and not ask someone else to pray for them. How this is missed by many Protestants I find mind boggling.
I enjoy your work even when we disagree 😊
By the way no Catholic is told that THEY MUST pray to a Saint including Mary to ask for her intercession never has been. However it is proper to ask for intercession from them as it is to ask a member of my family to say a prayer to Jesus on my behalf. So Luther’s concerns there seem unwarranted that one is Required, he knows full well that was not the case is his time.
The biggest problem I think is the elevation of tradition as the lens to interpret Scripture which includes ex cathidra statements made as recently as the 1950s.
@@RealCaptainAwesome The Bible comes from Sacred Tradition. The highest level of authority IS Scripture then Sacred (Oral) tradition working with the Scriptures and then the teaching office of the CC the magisterium through which the interpretive lens for us to more fully understand Gods Word is there for us to understand.
Sacred Tradition is not above the written Word
The Church and their teaching orally existed before the Scriptures were written and what they didn’t place into writing those oral teachings have been passed down through the Church. This was perfectly normal for the Church as all the Apostles were Jewish and that’s how it was done in that faith as well. Back then the oral word carried more weight than the written word especially as about 90% of people couldn’t read. They were taught the faith orally, using art, smells, music, prayers to be memorized etcetera so the laity carried the gospel within themselves and was always with them. The expense of a Bible was astronomical before the printing press.
If an oral tradition is contradicting the written word the oral tradition is what would be that’s wrong. The measure is the written word. The church though does not just discard the oral teachings that have been kept and preserved for 2000 years.
And there is small “t” traditions that can change like with the liturgy and other things so it’s also more nuanced than I think most Protestants understand
Well that's just a lie.
@@thejohnmarkproject what part?
@@catholicguy1073
The teachings of the church were taught orally for about the first century, but they also had the OT as well as the writings of the apostles and some of the gospel accounts. Yes, I know RCC likes to claim that they made the Canon and evil "Protestants" just changed it randomly but they isn't true as the Canon was pretty consistently established in the second century well before the claim about the seat of Peter was added to "sacred tradition"
Well said !
Interesting!
I usually really agree with you about a lot but I don't think mariology or catholic theology was accurately represented in this video. The church affirms that all mariology has at its center Christ. No marian dogmas in the church are about Mary to an end of Mary's own sake. Just like how Theotokos is a christological affirmation, so are all of the Marian dogmas are. Protestants are actually the ones who tend to object to mariology because they themselves treat mariology as Mary as its end when Catholics don't do that. So by affirming that theotokos is christological you are actually correctly affirming the Catholic position on not only theotokos but all other marian dogmas.
No it’s not. If you were right, you need to explain why then, the Orthodox Church rejects Roman Marion dogmas.
@@ntlearning depends on which Orthodox you ask, tbh.
@@brianaalece5314 Well, tbh..... I can't disagree with that. 😬
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus. Likewise, Joseph would have been Jesus' earthly father. Mary was not the mother of Jesus the same way that our mothers are to all of us. The same would be said of Joseph as the "father." This is why the phrase "the mother of God" is misleading and inaccurate. Jesus is eternal and descended from heaven.
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 3:13
The term "God bearer" for Mary is more accurate. An uncreated God cannot have a "mother" in the normal use of the word.
Mary was also the mother of Jesus, the God.
Sure, calling Mary the mother of God does have some unfortunate implications, but you can’t separate the two natures of Jesus. If so, then who died at the cross? The humanity of Jesus or the divinity of Jesus? If you say humanity, then a mere finite human died on the cross, thus His blood did not affect us and we are still in our sins.
@ChristIsKing-eh3hj For the most part, I agree with you. Where I differ is simply on terminology. The term "God bearer" for Mary would be more accurate. Likewise, I would agree that Mary would be Jesus' earthly mother. In the same way, Joseph would have been Jesus' earthly father. The problem I have with mother of God is in the way that the term mother is typically used or thought of by people. Mary would not fit that description because an uncreated God cannot have a "mother." I hope that made sense.
@@clayw70The uncreated God doesn't have a mother, doesn't nurse, doesn't grow, doesn't suffer, doesn't die... Except, out of love for us, He does all of that. He becomes fully man, shares completely in our humanity. That's the scandal and the wonder of the Incarnation.
@@clayw70 Yea I can definitely see what you’re saying, and the term “mother of God” does have some unfortunate complications.
The title "Mother of God" might sound a bit weird to modern ears, but properly understood, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Might be a good situation to apply the "weaker brother" scenario described by St. Paul.
Agreed 100%.
Ambiguous terms should be abandoned. That’s my position.
@@geoffrobinson Ambiguous terms should be clarified when used in front of people who don't understand the ambiguity. Saying they should be abandoned altogether is problematic. What do you do in the thousands of cases where a Biblical term is ambiguous?
@@geoffrobinson
What's ambiguous about the term?
@@stephengray1344Ambiguous terms in scripture translations isn’t a good comparison. Mother of God, at face value, misleads.
Mary was not mother of the Creator’s divine Person; God the Son did not begin with Jesus’s conception.
Jesus does not represent the whole of God. To say “mother of God” is to say Mary was mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Theotokos had a context, refutation of Gnosticism, that gave it one meaning. Without that context, the meaning changes.
Is it really that hard to say “mother of Jesus’s human nature” or “mother of Jesus?” Only a desire to elevate Mary above her actual station could motivate clinging to the archaic, obsolete, misleading, unscriptural title.
Thanks!
Luther’s extended quote reveals that he got it exactly right regarding the appropriate honor to be given to Mary. (In a limited context - high honor, but not to rival Christ!)
"not to rival Christ!"
A red herring. Catholics worship God alone, never a creature, Mary included.
@@TruthHasSpoken If only…
@@chaddonal4331"If only…"
No if. Don't follow the teaching of anti-Catholic men. Don't be duped. The Church explicitly teaches that one worships God alone. I wouldn't be Catholic IF ONLY were true !
@@TruthHasSpoken But in practice, millions of Catholics worship Mary and put her first. If you deny this, you are simply unaware. Spend some time in the Philippines, for example, or South America or Mexico. Regardless of the small distinctions that official RCC teaching makes between “worship” and “veneration”, those distinctions are lost among the popular masses who learn not from official treatises but from local and family modeling.
@@chaddonal4331 No Catholic worship Mary despite what you THINK you see. Don't follow the anti-Catholic talk of some protestants. Don't be duped. Attend a Catholic Mass. The WHOLE Catholic Mass is ALL about the worship of God ALONE. From the writing _Lumen Gentium_ :
“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it. …
“Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.
“For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”
Note, a great video here on what is and is not, WORSHIP.
ruclips.net/video/lg4S1VYac-Y/видео.htmlsi=HQMeNGjV6SGXG4-M
That is NOT whatsoever the case. Mary is the mother of the seed of the woman, of the flesh that the word became, the human Jesus.
God never had at any time whatsoever a 'mother'.
@Morewecanthink - and Mary was carrying that seed (ovum/egg) from before Her own birth! (scientific fact - a woman is born already carrying all the eggs she'll ever have!)! Halleluiah!
(Just as your own mother was born already carrying the ovum/egg - her contribution to your incarnation - BEFORE she herself was born, and even before it became fertilized (conceived) to become YOU! )
You just denied the incarnation if you don't think that the human Jesus is also fully God.
Found the Nestorian heretic
@@AmericanwrCymraeg - That is not the case. To deny that the human Mary gives only birth to what's human is blasphemy and heresy: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3, 5-8
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1, 18-25
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1, 26-38
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3, 31-36
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10, 1-10
The God the Holy Spirit implanted in Mary what was necessary to prepare the eternal God a human body. To this human body, the human nature of the Lord Jesus was Mary blessed to give birth.
She only contributed as God's human creature her gift of procreation to the LORD Jesus' human nature that is unaffected by the adamic sin-Nature of Adam's descendants which is inherited only by the male contribution to the genetic information necessary to build a human being.
@@garyr.8116 - The intelligent information to built, develop, sustain and reproduce human bodies is created, coded and stored intelligently by the Originator and Owner of the universe in DNA / RNA but brings nothing forth than what is layed into it: human life reproduces human life.
And as the human adamitic sin-Nature is reproduced through the human genetic information of a male God's way to create HIMSELF HIS doorway into humanity, to prepare HIMSELF a human body by HIMSELF, HIS holy Spirit who, the creator, originated the human male genetic information directly to fertilise this one of the human creature Mary's eggs to prepare HIMSELF the eternal uncreated God, the body with which the eternal Word that was in the beginning, was God and there is NOTHING that was NOT created by HIM, should become flesh (1 Tim. 3, 16).
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15, 21-22, 45-50
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
That as sin hath reigned unto death,
even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5, 12-21
Matthew 12:48-50 NKJV
But Jesus answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
and who did the will of the Father
Mary as the first Person To say Yes to Gods plan for redemption
Mary Was the First person to say thy will Be done
Mary thru who the WORD was made Flesh
All generations will call her blessed for she is blessed among women. Of all women, our Lord chose her holy womb, full of grace, as His own dwelling. The power of the Most High overshadowed the mother of our Redeemer and she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord Himself honoured her as His own mother and we must honour whom the Lord honours. Blessed be her name, Mary, and blessed be the name of the fruit of her womb, Jesus.
The Lord will honour His own mother, blessed Mary, for all eternity & we cannot but follow His example and honour her as He does: hail, Mary, the Lord is with thee! He is flesh of her flesh & bone of her bone. We are born of Him & He is born of Her and of the Father. The blood which was poured out for us was blood of her blood. A spear pierced His side & a sword pierced her heart. Unless we eat His flesh, which is of her flesh, we have no life within us.
Hail Mary, who gave birth to incarnate Love and Salvation and who raised for us sinners the Hope of Israel. The Lord is with her. With her is Redemption, with her is Forgiveness for all iniquities. Blessed be her name by all generations!
“If you’re ever worried about loving the blessed Virgin Mary too much don’t be, you can never love her more than Jesus does.” - St Maximilian Kolbe
Mary does not take away from the redemptive work of Christ nor does she add to it. If you want proof that Christ's redemptive work is perfect look to exhibit A- The blessed virgin Mary.😎😎
The Error of the Protestant Lie: "But as for the cowardly and unbelieving, and abominable and murderers, and fornicators and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their portion shall be in the pool that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8, ignored by all liars. See Rev 21:27 also. It is a foregone conclusion that Jesus Christ founded only one Church.💋💋
1) Why then, do Protestants ignore this fact and continue to splinter the Body of Christ?
2) There is no Protestant who can trace his or her church back any farther than the Protestant revolt of the early 16th century. Where is the verse which authorized them to break from the true Church in the first place?
3) No Protestant can show that their church was founded by Jesus Christ, yet Scripture says there is only one Church, the one founded by GOD (Psalms 127:1, Matthew 16:18).
4) They deny that the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ founded, yet they cannot name the Church which He did found in its stead. Isn't it strange that Scripture has said that GOD's Church will last forever (Isaiah 2:2,59:21, Matthew 28:20, Ephesians 3:21), and yet Protestants refuse to name it? If Scripture can be believed at all, why then do they refuse to name GOD's one and only Church?
5) They cannot name the person who founded the Catholic Church while at the same time they deny that it was Jesus Christ. That is strange also, since every Church on earth was founded by a person with a name. Every single one of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects can be traced back to a human person with a name, as its founder. Why is it that Protestants refuse to name the founder of the Catholic Church? Isn't that the epitome of arrogance as I touched upon in a previous segment?
6) Why do Protestants spread the lie that the Catholic Church apostatized soon after the last Apostle died, and therefore the Church of today is not the one that Jesus Christ founded? This lie flies in the face of Matthew 16:18, as Protestants must then have to admit that the 'gates of hell' did indeed prevail, that the Bible was in error, and that all of the verses I have previously listed that promise the perpetualty of Christ's Church must be in error as well. This so-called "great apostasy" lie is then magnified a hundredfold since no Protestant can produce genuine historical documents which record such a "monumental, universe shaking event". Every writer who was alive at the time had to have witnessed that supposed "profound event", and those who have lived ever since (up until the time that the lie was invented by Protestantism), did not write about it either. What with the "greatest event since the crucifixion" at hand, why didn't they? It is because it never happened, that's why. Simply put, "No lie is of the truth", 1John 2:21, so therefore no lie can be proven. Scripture does say that people within Christ's Church will apostatize, but not the Church itself. For you see, it is impossible, since Christ is the Head, and the Church is His Body. How could the Body of Christ rebel against, and leave His Head? They are inseparable forever. "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." Ephesians 5:22-23 Okay Protestants, explain those verses? Is Christ really the Savior of His Body, or did He desert it as Protestantism would have us believe? Is Holy Scripture in error yet again according to Protestant false charges? Are we to believe the Protestant lie, or the truth of the Word of GOD? Do you recall the story of the wheat and the chaff, where the weeds will co-exist with the righteous up until the very end, and then they will be separated out and burned (Matthew 13:24-30)? "For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." 1Corinthians 11:18-19. From those two verses we have a perfect example of the apostasy of individuals within the Church, those who cause divisions and factions. Now from what I have shown in many places in this writing, just who is the cause of divisions and factions? It is none other than Protestantism. Protestantism has already created over 36,000 divisions and factions, and which number is still increasing unceasingly every week to this very day. Who are the 'genuine among you'? They are the faithful of the one and only Church that Jesus Christ founded and which is still with us after almost 2000 years of persecution. Read Acts 5:38-39 for the reason why this longevity. For those who continue to spread the lie of the so-called, and non-existent, "great apostasy", please re-read Revelation 21:8, and endeavor to explain Ephesians 5:23-24?
7) How many verses have I shown in this writing that Protestants ignore? Isn't it a lie to say that you follow Scripture literally to the word, and yet ignore so many Scriptural verses?
8) Why do Protestants take the whole Bible literally except for John chapter 6, which they call symbolic? One chapter in the whole Bible is symbolic? How can that be true?
9) How can Protestants say that Sola Scriptura has been in use from day one, when for over 1400 years almost no one had a Bible, and even if they did, the great majority of the masses were illiterate anyhow?
10) Since Protestants believe that "all Scripture is inspired (2Tim 3:16)", then why aren't the gospels of Peter, Philip, Nicodemus, Bartholomew, Andrew, Thomas, etc, in their Bible?
11) Where in Holy Scripture did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith is to be solely based on a book? How about the same question except for using the Apostles instead of Jesus?
12) Why do Protestants say it is the Bible which is the pillar and foundation of truth when the Bible clearly says it is the Church (1Tim 3:15)? Please give me the name of that Church?
13) Why do Protestants reject Apostolic Tradition when the Bible clearly says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours." 2Thessalonians 2:15, yet another verse ignored, and taught against by Protestantism.
14) Why do Protestants deny that the Bible came from the Catholic Church when they cannot name a truthful and provable alternate source, and where there are literally hundreds of genuine historical documents which prove them to be wrong in their denial?
15) Protestants deny that Peter was given primacy in Matthew 16:18. Nothing in Scripture is done without a purpose. For what purpose then, did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter?
16) Why do Protestants deny that the Papacy is Scriptural, when in fact, it is very Scriptural?
17) Why is it that Protestants can never supply genuine historical documents to "prove" their false charges? Is it because the lie can never be proven, but the truth can be? It is simple, if you have no truth, then you have no proof. Catholics can, and do, supply genuine historical documents to prove what they teach. Why then do Protestants refuse to read them? Romans 1:18, 2:8
18) Why do Protestants deny the unbroken line of succession of Popes down through the centuries from St. Peter to the present Pope, when the Catholic Church has given free access for anyone to research genuine historical documents to prove it to be true, but Protestants refuse to read them? Anyone can go to a secular encyclopedia and see the same succession of Popes.
19) Why do Protestants deny that the Catholic Church has existed from the first century, when hundreds of genuine historical documents, written by scores of Holy men and women, are freely available to prove them wrong in their denial? However, Protestants simply refuse to read them. As explained earlier, Protestants teach that history ended with Acts 28:30 and did not begin again until Luther came along.
20) I saved the worst Protestant lie as the last one on this list. When asked who founded the Catholic Church, there are some who answer correctly that it is Jesus Christ who founded it, but they quickly add that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy and is not the same Church today as the one founded by Jesus. Of course they have no documented proof of this world shaking event as to the who caused it and when and where it happened. By making this false charge they may have condemned themselves because they have just called Jesus Christ a liar. You see there are verses in Holy Scripture which they either choose to ignore or do not understand, and the verses show that Jesus in fact did promise that His Church would last for all time and so did St Paul:
@bibleman8010 God chose Israel and the Davidic line to produce Mary and the Messiah Jesus and yet Israel, David and his descendants hold no intercessary significance or preeminent position.Stop diluting the Christ centered message of the Bible with this bizarre Trinity + 1 culture.
Yes yes yes. Why did he not mentioned that in his video?
Thank you for the Barth and Luther quotes which articulate what I cannot.
Frankly I still will not use the term "Mother of God" because it is too loaded but will prefer Theotokos.
I affirm the proper Christology and am not Nestorian, but will avoid using that term.
God Bless.
I agree. "Mother of God" suggests something different from Theotokos. The technical term is "Theotokos" and not "Matér tou Theou". Mary is Theotokos (bearer of divinity) in that she bore a divine being, the Son of God. But, she has never been mother in the sense of imparting some of her own substance to Jesus' divinity. She imparted his humanity.
I, too, will not use the expression "Mother of God". But I do acknowledge Mary to have borne the Son of God. She is Theotokos.
@@musar03580 That's why I don't understand how Catholics will say they don't worship Mary or see her as divine. They say they understand that she was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus as part of the trinity makes her mother of God. That would all be ok, except in practice, the Marion dogmas increasingly make her pretty close to divine. She's sinless, born w/out sin, Immaculate, full of grace, like no other person, assumed into heaven like Jesus, and even co-redemptrix. So where is Jesus' humanity w/ a mother like that. It's near to cancelled out. If we have another century or so, she won't be human anymore. And truly, if they were able to look at all their dogmas and hyperveneration of her objectively, then she's already superhuman now.
The problem is in the nuance. Rome takes the title and uses it to allow the excesses that we see.
Theotokos was used in response to a specific heresy. Outside that context (e.g., the English-speaking world 1500 years later), the meaning defaults to face value.
The prima face meaning denies that Christ pre-existed and that He had authority over Mary, even though He submitted to her authority at times. It also obscured the Trinity. Obviously, Mary did not give birth to the Father and Holy Spirit.
Such confusion could be cleared up by saying mother of Jesus. It’s no harder to say than mother of God.
Good point. I think that's something many protestants (myself included before I read Georg Koepgen) are unaware that many (most) dogmas were put up in reaction to a heresy. And they often therefore border on "saying what can't be said", forging mysteries of faith into walls against the tides of heresy.
there is no confusion. You're applying effort in order to be confused.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj There is confusion to be had, unless you want to state that Mary is eternal, and therefore somehow gave birth to the eternal God Almighty, in his full Godhead. Which we do understand is not the case. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who was both God and man. Born of a woman, and born of the Holy Spirit. I don't see how it needs to be contentious. We can recognize Mary as the mother of God, only if we have those caveats. So why not just state that Mary is the mother of Jesus, as both God and man.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
The only way the title could be confusing is if you're planning to deny the Holy Trinity.
Mother of God is a perfect filter to screen out would be heretics.
You've gotten so many compliments from Catholics, Gavin. 🚩 The REAL TRUTH DIVIDES. "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4) As a TRUE CHRISTIAN, I fix my eyes on Jesus--the author and perfecter of my faith 👉 Hebrews 12:2. I very rarely think about Mary--she's neither my savior nor my mother.
probably true. Mary is only the mother of the body of Christ.
@@flyswatter6470No, she is NOT. 🤷🏼♀️
@@glueckseligehoffnung3058 He has no mother?
Indeed, false teachers litter RUclips and social media as a whole. Wolves in sheep's clothing
@@LayDownAndRot no brainer. The folks that can't call Mary the mother of God are those that confuse "mother" with "creator." No person who calls Mary the mother of God, claims that she created HIm. Another case of a confused person blaming their misunderstanding on someone else.