1. THE "MOTHER OF GOD" & AN IGNORED PROPHET:

The theological title theotokos, literally "God-bearer" (i.e., "mother of God"), was applied to the Virgin Mary at Ephesus in 431 AD and again at Chalcedon in 451 AD. This was done in response to both the adoptionist heresy of Paul of Samosota and to the alleged error of Nestorius (d. 451). The term had been previously used at Antioch in 325 AD. In all of these cases theotokos was intended as a Christological term stressing the true and actual Deity of Christ, and having little to do with the person of Mary per se. The point was that Jesus Christ was truly Deity even in conception - i.e., the One whom Mary bore was in fact God - thus, "the mother of God."

That this was true is evident in the doctrinal statement which was approved at Ephesus in the fourth century:

"In virtue of this conception of a union without confusion we confess the holy Virgin as Theotokos because the divine Word became flesh and was made man and from the very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her."

Likewise the Chalcedonian Definition described Christ as "begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood ..."

The title "Mother of God," then, had a legitimate theological meaning and was set forth for a reason - that is, in response to certain heresies. Furthermore, the title is not entirely without Biblical merit: "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?," Elizabeth asked of Mary in Luke 1:43. The title is still recognized today in its legitimate context by many in Protestant seminaries. Unfortunately, the title almost immediately lent itself to abuse. Enter Nestorius (d. 451 AD), the very 'heretic' condemned in Ephesus. As Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius was known for his passionate defense of orthodoxy. I believe he did this until his death, but the price was high.

Nestorius' (I believe, prophetically) objected to the widespread use of the title theotokos in reference to Mary, preaching the first of his sermons against the title in 428-429. Why? Nestorius had already witnessed groups of believers who were treating Mary "as in some kind of way divine, like God." He witnessed the abuse of such a title firsthand, and prophetically foresaw that it would become a widespread problem. His prophetic pleadings are summed up in his own words, "Beware, lest you make the Virgin a goddess." To combat this abuse, Nestorius emphasized the two natures of Christ - human and Divine. Unfortunately, Nestorius was ignored - chiefly because he was railroaded by jealous priests, exaggerated denunciations from the pen of John Cassian of Marseilles, and an angry Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (c. 375-444 AD). Simplified, the heresy that there were "two persons" in Christ (one human and one Deity) was called "Nestorianism." This notion, however, was *not* what Nestorius taught at all. We know this today because he answered Cyril's false charges in his The Bazaar of Heracleides, discovered in 1910. We have the facts of history now testifying to the ironic twist that Nestorius was no "Nestorian"!

Yet Cyril rushed the Council to condemn Nestorius before the Antochian Bishops even arrived. Refusing to acknowledge what he considered illegal proceedings, Nestorius was "blackballed" and banished to upper Egypt for "heresy." To this day, some Assyrian Christians call Nestorius "the unbloody martyr."

Even the modern Roman-Catholic Church has set forth, in light of the 1910 discovery, that Nestorius "repented of his heresy later on." But I submit that there was no "heresy" to repent of in the first place, and many unbiased scholars agree. The Roman-Catholic must maintain that Nestorius was at some time guilty of the heresy he was charged with. This is simply because Cyril of Alexandria was by and large repeating the verdict of Pope Sixtus III himself.

The Bazaar of Heracleides is in fact the written defense of Nestorius. In it, he defends his own orthodoxy, and charges that he was the victim of rivalries and prejudicial judgment.

His warnings were entirely disregarded and today we can see that he was correct. Millions of Roman-Catholics worldwide are "devoted" to the Virgin Mary in ways that Protestants can only view as Nestorius did: as if she were "divine, like God."

Although this is true, we still must not give in to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." The truth that theotokos was originally meant to convey is still truth. This title is not the first thing to be wrongly applied and misunderstood by God's people. The brass serpent of Numbers 21:8-9 was ordained of God, but is later the object of idolatrous worship (2 Kings 18:4). In the New Testament, Peter wanted to build temples for Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration (Matt. 17:4). The fact that something is abused or misinterpreted does not negate valid usage of that thing.

The title theotokos did not contribute to Mariolatry, the abuse of the title did. The early Church missed its chance to stop this error cold by failing to heed Nestorius, the banished prophet. <The sources for my historical opinion expressed here are listed in the online BIBLIOGRAPHY>

2. "SALVATION BY CORRECT DOCTRINE":

It has become a common Evangelical 'tradition' (an oxymoron?) to routinely insist on adherence to a set of 'fundamentals' if one is to be considered "saved." I have attacked this idea before, but wanted to get some of you thinking on it again.

The concept of "the fundamentals" comes from a set of books put out in 1909. The multi-volume set of books defended "fundamental" Christian doctrines, and were written by many outstanding ministers and theologians of the day. The goal of the project was to combat the rising tide of modernism, which questioned key doctrines like the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, and so forth. The "fundamental" doctrines included the following: inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, Deity and miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, the blood atonement, Christ's bodily resurrection, a literal second coming, and salvation by grace through faith.

Make no mistake - such doctrines are indeed essential to orthodox Christianity. I believe these doctrines, and I will defend them with all my heart. However, I am here concerned with a more technical question: Can one be a true born-again Christian and still be in error on one of these 'fundamentals'?

Many modern believers would say "No." But let us think about this a moment. Are we to believe that true believers cannot be in error, even serious error? Can there be such a thing as a heterodox Christian? I believe that the answer here must be "Yes."

First of all, Christian history witnesses to the fact that the Church often had to decide between two parties in controversies. Sometimes, the doctrine did indeed testify to a lack of true salvation on the part of the "heretic." But often, the theological question under consideration - while perhaps "fundamental" to orthodoxy - was not, Biblically speaking, a matter of salvation.

Secondly, our own experience should teach us better than to think that there are no true believers outside the pale of orthodoxy. Think about it. Did you accept the Nicene Creed at the time you were freely justified before God? Did you understand the Trinity, or even the full Deity of Christ? Were you concerned about whether the Bible was *verbally* inspired or just inspired in concept? How many times have you explained the Virgin Birth when witnessing to someone?

Jim Harrison, a Baptist pastor, posted the following on a discussion list concerning this very thing:

"My old Church history professor, Bruce Shelly, told the story about listening to a preacher talking about the necessity of believing in the Virgin Birth. He went on and on with the subject and at some point got off on the subject of how he came to trust Christ at the age of four. When he was finished speaking he came down and sat in the pew right in front of Shelly, who leaned over and asked, 'Did you really know what a virgin was when you were four?' He never did get an answer."

Further, it is certainly not hard to imagine scenarios where a new believer is led into some sect like the Christadelphians or Jehovah's Witnesses or the Word of Faith Movement. Even the late Walter Martin acknowledged that there was no doubt some true Christians among the cults, there because of bad teaching at the wrong time, and their own ignorance as new believers.

So how should we apply this? Fellowship with the cults? No. What we should do is not make the Gospel message any more complicated than Scripture does. Any Evangelical would recoil in horror at the thought of adding works to the Gospel, yet we run about adding doctrines! The Gospel is amazingly simple. What we should do is defend the faith, rescuing ignorant believers from the deceptive heresies to which they have been ensnared. We should also actually disciple those converted to Christ - you know, actually teach them the Faith. It seems that this is seldom done anymore. Instead, our modern Evangelical "ministries" churn out converts by the thousands, assuring us that they know exactly how many they've "made." I say forget the QUANTITY - God can handle that. We better start worrying about the QUALITY!

What we should not do is assume that anyone who denies the Trinity is of necessity unregenerate, that anyone who has been fooled into embracing the modernist concept of Scripture is of necessity lost. Have they believed the Gospel and trusted Christ alone for their salvation? If the answer is 'yes,' then we must take them at their profession and proceed to get them 'on track' in the fundamentals.

Personally, I like this statement from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

"We believe that everyone who has faith in Christ as his or her Savior from sin is a member of the Holy Christian church and will be saved. If churches mix error with the true teachings of Scripture, that error is a danger to faith. If the departure from the faith is too great, that error may kill faith. We warn against the seriousness of any departure from God's Word, but whether or not people are saved is dependent on whether or not they have faith in Christ as the Savior from sin."

Let us not cheapen orthodoxy, to be sure. But neither let us imbibe a list of requirements into the Gospel that Scripture gives us no warrant for.

3. DR. ROLLER'S THESIS ON IMMORTALITY AVAILABLE:

In THINKMAIL #16, I mentioned plans to eventually get another website going that will attempt to be an online reference site concerning conditional immortality. Dr. John H. Roller sent the following notice for those interested: "My Ph.D. thesis, 'The Doctrine of Immortality in the Early Church' (Bethany Theological Seminary, 1990), is now in print in a 'popularized' form with the same title. It's available to your subscribers for $10.00 plus postage from Venture Bookstore, PO Box 23152, Charlotte, NC 28227-0272 (phone 1-704-545-6161, FAX 1-704-573-0712)."

* C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Paperback - 346 pages; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1994) - A collection of 48 essays and several letters written by Lewis covering various subjects in theology and ethics. The content is excellent - this is easily my favorite Lewis book. The essays deal with such subjects as the problem of evil, apologetics, the laws of nature, women in ministry, science and faith, old books, modernism, revival, Christmas, and many more. Two essays in particular have made a great impression on my beliefs: "We Have No 'Right to Happiness'" and "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment." The latter will forever cause you to question the supposed wisdom of 'rehabilitation' over 'deserved punishment'. One of the best things about this book is that all of the essays are fairly quick reads, and can be read separately. In fact, each one should be read seperately for contemplation. You haven't read Lewis at his best until you read this collection!

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." ------ REVELATION 3:20 (KJV)

Most believers know this verse! This is Jesus standing at our hearts, pleading with us to 'let Him come in,' right? I mean, this verses appears in scores of Gospel tracts, sometimes tacked on to the "Romans road" series of Scripture verses used to witness by some. It is often repeated at altar calls as soft hymns are played in the background.

This verse is also one of the most-often misused verses in the modern Church! The passage has nothing to do with the salvation of the lost. Let's examine the context.

Verses 13-14 define the ones addressed in terms of a church which is (1) alloted an 'angel'; (2) specifically addressed by the Lord Himself in the vision; (3) spoken of in terms of the illunmination possessed by the elect ('he that has ears ... what the Spirit says ...'). Verses 15-17 identify the sin of the Laodicean church, verses 18-19 stress the remedy. Note esp. verse 19, where God's chastisement is applied to them as objects of His love - in light of Hebrews 12, this further demonstrates that He is speaking not to lost sinners, but to believers.

Verse 20, then, has Jesus standing outside a local assembly of believers promising fellowship if they will but repent. Then follows a promise to 'overcomers', and verse 22, which again emphasizes that the preceding verses were spoken to churches.

Our passage contains not a witnessing tool, but rather a word for believers. The great tragedy in the way in which this passage is commonly misused is the false impression it gives of salvation. Natural mankind is in rebellion to Almighty God. Nowhere is Jesus represented as standing pitifully out in the cold waiting for lost sinners to "open the door" and "let Him in." If this were the case, then no one would ever get saved - we'd take one look out the 'peephole' and double bolt the door!

Natural man is depraved and wants nothing to do with Jesus apart from God's activity in their heart. Remember last issue, where we looked at the Song of Soloman 1:4, discussing how God must first *draw* us to Himself? It is God who must open our hearts - "Lydia ... whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14).

God loved us enough to send Jesus to make atonement for His sheep, but He "commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). We are responsible to "obey the Gospel." We cannot do this unless God acts first - it's just that simple. Augustine wisely prayed (echoing many of the Psalms, in particular Psalm 119 throughout):

"Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt."

By continually misapplying Rev. 3:20, we also miss out on an important message for us as Christians. How many local churches sit among us that fit the description of the Laodicean church! Inside the believers sit, neither hot nor cold - smug in their self-righteousness! Jesus says He will have no part of it!

"Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them," Jesus promised (Matt. 18:20). But the lukewarm church has ceased to be gathered in His Name - and though they don't know it, Jesus stands without while the believers are chastised by God. To restore that fellowship, represented here in terms of a shared meal, we must open the door. How? Jesus tells us in verse 19:

"Be zealous, therefore, and repent."

Selah.