Neo-Nestorianism in Modern Protestant thought?

[Christos Anesti]

The Virgin Mary gave birth to a Person . That Person (the child Jesus) was both God and man. She is thus birth giver of God or Theotokos. He took His flesh from her and while His divinity obviously didn't originate from her she is still the mother of God because God the Son dwelt in her womb and she gave birth to him. This is basic Christology 101 and most Protestants traditionally accepted this**. Now a days some of them are so opposed to anything that honors the Virgin Mary that they often fall into Nestorianism to combat it. They bring back that old argument of Nestorius that the Virgin Mary is merely mother of His humanity. As if only the human nature existed in her womb (separated from His divinity) and not the Person of Christ who is BOTH man and God.

The ironic thing is even the so called "Nestorian Church" (The Assyrian Church of the East) has come to an agreement with the Catholic Church that Mary can be called "Theotokos" and that the term is accurate! So these Protestants are even more Nestorian than the "Nestorian Church" !


** Look what the Protestant reformers themselves said about her:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."

Martin Luther


"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

John Calvin


"It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin."

John Wycliffe

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

Ulrich Zwingli

 

[Rhamiel]

good post brother

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, I must say that I have been called far worse things in my life than Neo-Nestorian.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I'm not trying to imply that all (or even most) Protestants are Nestorian. Many of the Protestant denominations understand that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos just as most of the well known Protestant reformers themselves did. The rejection of the term seems to only be prevelant in certain streams of modern evangelical thought. It seems in some instances to have less to do with a well thought out theological understanding and more to do with a knee jerk reaction against anything that is too 'catholic' sounding. Rejecting the term has major negative Christological implications though.

 

[boswd]

The Virgin Mary gave birth to a Person . That Person (the child Jesus) was both God and man. She is thus birth giver of God or Theotokos. He took His flesh from her and while His divinity obviously didn't originate from her she is still the mother of God because God the Son dwelt in her womb and she gave birth to him. This is basic Christology 101 and most Protestants traditionally accepted this**. Now a days some of them are so opposed to anything that honors the Virgin Mary that they often fall into Nestorianism to combat it. They bring back that old argument of Nestorius that the Virgin Mary is merely mother of His humanity. As if only the human nature existed in her womb (separated from His divinity) and not the Person of Christ who is BOTH man and God.

The ironic thing is even the so called "Nestorian Church" (The Assyrian Church of the East) has come to an agreement with the Catholic Church that Mary can be called "Theotokos" and that the term is accurate! So these Protestants are even more Nestorian than the "Nestorian Church" !


** Look what the Protestant reformers themselves said about her:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."

Martin Luther


"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."

John Calvin


"It seems to me impossible that we should obtain the reward of Heaven without the help of Mary. There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin."

John Wycliffe

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."

Ulrich Zwingli

The Irony is if you didn't post who is quoted the same Evangelicals who follow the above's theology would be considered Mary Worshiper's

 

[Dorothea]

The Irony is if you didn't post who is quoted the same Evangelicals who follow the above's theology would be considered Mary Worshiper's

Yeah, the sad thing is you'd probably be right.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is a real pity.

Hail Mary! Full of Grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women and Blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[MamaZ]

How Does Mary Help?>

 

[PaladinValer]

How Does Mary Help?>

Her yes allowed Salvation to be born into the world?

But that is beyond the scope of the topic. The topic isn't whether St. Mary the Theotokos helps but whether certain branches of Protestantism (note: NOT ALL) teach a "Neo-Nestorian" theology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not trying to imply that all (or even most) Protestants are Nestorian. Many of the Protestant denominations understand that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos just as most of the well known Protestant reformers themselves did. The rejection of the term seems to only be prevelant in certain streams of modern evangelical thought. It seems in some instances to have less to do with a well thought out theological understanding and more to do with a knee jerk reaction against anything that is too 'catholic' sounding. Rejecting the term has major negative Christological implications though.

I am unsure which group of Protestants you are addressing and what you mean by the word "modern". Assuredly this form of Protestant belief has been around since at least the seventeenth century, so unless one takes a very liberal view toward modernism it is impossible to view it as a recent development within Protestantism. This belief has been less prominent in Protestant church in the past several decades than in earlier times, so one might conclude that "modern" is a historical reference point and not the contemporary scene.

Modern, or liberal, Protestant theology has its roots in late nineteenth century Germany in the development of higher criticism. This theology came to fruition in the twentieth century and evolved into various branches including neo-orthodoxy. None of these addressed this particular doctrine and were, on the whole, absolutely neutral about it. Thus, if one looks at it through the lens of Modern theology, one is quite perplexed to see how one can reach the conclusion that Modern theologians such as Karl Barth (neo-orthodox) or Paul Tillich (late Modern) can be accurately termed to be neo-Nestorian.

 

[Rhamiel]

I am unsure which group of Protestants you are addressing and what you mean by the word "modern". Assuredly this form of Protestant belief has been around since at least the seventeenth century, so unless one takes a very liberal view toward modernism it is impossible to view it as a recent development within Protestantism. This belief has been less prominent in Protestant church in the past several decades than in earlier times, so one might conclude that "modern" is a historical reference point and not the contemporary scene.

Modern, or liberal, Protestant theology has its roots in late nineteenth century Germany in the development of higher criticism. This theology came to fruition in the twentieth century and evolved into various branches including neo-orthodoxy. None of these addressed this particular doctrine and were, on the whole, absolutely neutral about it. Thus, if one looks at it through the lens of Modern theology, one is quite perplexed to see how one can reach the conclusion that Modern theologians such as Karl Barth (neo-orthodox) or Paul Tillich (late Modern) can be accurately termed to be neo-Nestorian.

i took a class in university titled "the history of early modern europe" it was about the we learned about 1600-1750's
in the history of the Christian faith, 400 years is kinda modern

 

[Christos Anesti]

Regarding the use of the word modern. I said "modern" because now a days some Protestants who belong to the denominations founded by people who did call her Theotokos are no longer willing to call her such and use Nestorian arguments to explain why. These Nestorian arguments were not originally that prevelant among the early Protestant reformers.

 

[LST 1154]

So what? Is God going to condemn anyone who says that Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ the Son of man? If He does I will be condemned.

When the angel told Mary she was to become with child by the Holy Spirit what was her response? "Luke 1:38, "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." She was simply being obediant to God like we all should be.

Are we to bow down or worship or serve Mary? No according to Exodus 20:4 and 5. These are reserved for God alone.

LST

 

[Christos Anesti]

So what? Is God going to condemn anyone who says that Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ the Son of man? If He does I will be condemned.

I wasn't looking at the subject in terms of "will God condemn person 'x' ". Who God will condemn is up to Him and I wont make that decision for Him. I'm talking about what is right , proper, and true vs what is at best dangerously vague or at worst downright heretical.

When the angel told Mary she was to become with child by the Holy Spirit what was her response? "Luke 1:38, "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." She was simply being obediant to God like we all should be.

I agree. We should all be as obedient to God as the Theotokos.

Are we to bow down or worship or serve Mary? No according to Exodus 20:4 and 5. These are reserved for God alone.

I never asked anyone to give Mary the worship due only to God. Thats another subject though. This thread is specifically about the rejection of the title Theotokos or birth giver of God , and the negative Christological implications of this rejection.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Christos Anesti,

An interesting thread.

I wonder why some immediately rush in and talk about worshipping St. Mary? What does that have to do with this thread?

peace,

Anglian

 

[LST 1154]

This thread is specifically about the rejection of the title Theotokos or birth giver of God , and the negative Christological implications of this rejection.

So what scripturally are "the negative Christological implications of the rejection [of the title theotokos?] Jesus Christ was God "in the beginning" He was "God with us" and "He shall reign forever and ever" none of which has anything at all to do with Mary. EVERY time Mary and Jesus are mentioned together in the scriptures Jesus is ALWAYS mentioned first, therefore Mary plays second fiddle to her Son.

LST

 

[Christos Anesti]

The Christological implications of the rejection of the term are this.

1. The person rejects the divinity of Christ. i.e. She isn't birth giver of God because Jesus isn't God. That would be an Arian, Jehovahs Witness...etc. complaint about the term.

or

2. They are undermining the hypostatic union in the manner of Nestorius. i.e. she only gave birth to the man Jesus. Basically splitting up what God has united to himself and saying that she only gave birth to His human nature.

 

[LST 1154]

The Christological implications of the rejection of the term are this.

1. The person rejects the divinity of Christ. i.e. She isn't birth giver of God because Jesus isn't God. That would be an Arian, Jehovahs Witness...etc. complaint about the term.

or

2. They are undermining the hypostatic union in the manner of Nestorius. i.e. she only gave birth to the man Jesus. Basically splitting up what God has united to himself and saying that she only gave birth to His human nature.

I don't reject the divinity of Christ. I reject the worship, adoration, veneration and glorification of His mother Mary. At least two churches that I know of twist scripture to make Mary out to be more than what she is. Jesus is not only the Son of God but also the offspring of the nation of Israel, God's chosen race.

LST

 

[Christos Anesti]

The term Theotokos states something about Christ and not just the Virigin Mary. It states that Jesus is God and that the Divine and human natures are united in one Person. By throwing out the term one isn't just de-elevating the Virign Mary (the term wasn't used simply to elevate her to begin with but rather to state a Christological fact) they are also making a Christological statement.

 

[LST 1154]

The term Theotokos states something about Christ and not just the Virigin Mary. It states that Jesus is God and that the Divine and human natures are united in one Person. By throwing out the term one isn't just de-elevating the Virign Mary (the term wasn't used simply to elevate her to begin with but rather to state a Christological fact) they are also making a Christological statement.

I looked up "Theotokos" and found the following:

Definition: "The Theotokos is the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Theotokos refers to the person who gave birth to God and Christotokos means the woman who gave birth to Jesus." You may want to adjust your definition a bit.

LST