Why Christians Call Mary Theotokos (Part 1)

by on May 12, 2025 | 6 Comments

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Deity and also perfect in humanity; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Deity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Deity, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the theotokos(θεοτόκος), according to the humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ….

So begins the Definition of Chalcedon (AD 451), adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in the autumn of 451. The council was called by the Emperor Marcian (not to be confused with the heretic Marcion, from the second century) with the assistance of Leo I, bishop of Rome.1 It met for about a month (from October to November).2

One phrase in particular has troubled some American evangelicals and even some contemporary Reformed people. I remember a conversation some years ago with a Reformed minister who was uncomfortable with the Definition of Chalcedon because in it the church confesses that the blessed Virgin Mary is “God Bearer” or “Mother of God.”

As we will see (in part 2) this hesitation is not new and is due to at least a couple of factors: 1) Many American Protestants are rightly sensitive to the undue elevation of the Virgin Mary by the Roman communion. They should be. In Lumen Gentium, Rome declares,

This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation …. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (emphasis added).3

In Luke 1:42 there is clear biblical warrant for acknowledging the Virgin Mary to be blessed in the conception of the humanity of our Lord. After all, Elizabeth said to Mary. “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (ESV). There is, however, absolutely no biblical warrant for speaking of her as “advocate, helper, benefactress, or mediatrix.”

However much Rome may say that she intends in no way to obscure or diminish the uniqueness of Christ’s mediatorial office,4 to speak of her as Rome does unavoidably diminishes the uniqueness of Christ’s office in contravention of 1 Timothy 2:5 (which the Roman Catechism cites and then ignores). The Book of Hebrews alone clearly and repeatedly (e.g., Heb 2:17, 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:1–10; 6:20; 7:27; 8:1; 9:11–12, 26; 10:10, etc) says that only Jesus is our High Priest and he alone has made satisfaction for our sins. There is no warrant in holy Scripture for the Roman doctrine that the putative eucharistic sacrifice is an extension of Christ’s one sacrifice or that ministers are priests making memorial, propitiatory sacrifices under the new covenant.

2) Those who are troubled by the expression Mother of God are concerned that the title “Mother of God” seems to imply that Christ’s deity was begotten in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

If we understand a bit about the errors that the Council of Chalcedon was addressing and why they chose this language, we should be able to put to rest the concerns about the word theotokos and the usual translation, Mother of God.

The Emperor Theodosius I proclaimed Christianity as the religion of the empire in AD 380, henceforth entangling the secular civil magistrate in the life, ministry, and order of the visible church. The ancient Christian historian Socrates (not the Greek philosopher, who lived about 800 years prior) explained how the controversy arose in Constantinople, in AD 428:

After the death of Sisinnius, on account of the spirit of ambitious rivalry displayed by the ecclesiastics of Constantinople, the Emperors resolved that none of that Church should fill the vacant bishopric, notwithstanding the fact that many eagerly desired to have Philip ordained, and no less a number were in favour of the election of Proclus. They therefore wished to call in a stranger from Antioch; there was a man there named Nestorius, a native of Germanicia, distinguished for his excellent voice and fluency of speech; they decided to send for him, as eminently suited to give instruction.5

Nestorius (AD c. 351–c. 451) brought with him a co-worker, a presbyter, Anastasius. In a sermon given after they had arrived, Anastasius said, “Let no one call Mary Theotokos: for Mary was but a human being; and it is impossible that God should be born of a human being.”6 This is the very concern that many American evangelicals (and some Reformed) share.7 Both laity and the clergy were offended by Anastasius’ sermon, but Nestorius eagerly defended his colleague.8

Next time: Gregory of Nazianzus, Leo I, Turretin, and Bavinck on Mary as the Mother of God.

notes

  1. Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. Edward Hayes Plumptre, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1883), 285–86.
  2. According to Hefele, ibid., 3.287–308, the Emperor was present for one session, in which the “Decree Concerning the Faith” was read and he even proposed some canons for the Council to adopt. Indeed, one of the major topics of the Council was the entanglement of the church with the state with each state making appeals to the imperial commissioners to side with them against the others. Contemporary Theocrats and Christian Nationalists who think that they are more enlightened and skilled than theocrats of the past and that such a thing would never happen in their imagined theocracy should take note.
  3. Lumen Gentium 62 quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church §969.
  4. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §970.
  5. James Stevenson and B. J. Kidd, eds., Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337-461 (New York: Seabury Press, 1966), 287.
  6. James Stevenson and B. J. Kidd, eds., Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337-461 (New York: Seabury Press, 1966), 288.
  7. That so many seem to find themselves in agreement with the Nestorians should give them pause.
  8. Ibid., 288.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Part Two

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


6 comments

  1. “Born of the virgin Mary, Theotokos, as to the manhood” is the wording of the definition, and we should invite Romanists and EO to affirm this wording as often as they invoke the term so as to guard against confusion of Christ’s dual natures by attributing the quality of being born in some way to his divine nature.

    Reply ↓

  2. Dr. Clark, the catholic Roman church bases her mariolatry to tradition and they
    affirm that sola scriptura is something Protestants invent to defend their doctrines. My question is where can I find Sola Scripura in the Bible?

    Reply ↓

    • Hi Xavier,

      This is a challenge that Romanist apologists make to the Reformation. Implied in the question is that we can’t show a passages that teach sola Scriptura explicitly, therefore they have a right to place tradition beside or even above Scripture.

      The objection fails in a few ways.

      1) Sola scriptura is an inference from Scripture. We’ve never claimed that any passage teaches it explicitly.

      2) Pre-Reformation figures such as Wycliffe and the Reformation churches drew the inference in response to trends that developed first in the 4th century (e.g., Basil) and increasingly in the medieval period whereby the church came increasingly to appeal to unwritten and written church tradition to set aside the clear teaching of Scripture. E.g., Rome openly acknowledged that at the institution of holy communion, Jesus gave both the bread and the cup (communion in two species) to the apostles but appealed nakedly to church tradition to deny the cup to the laity.

      3) In response, some medieval critics of these trends as well the Protestant Reformers appealed to the nature of Scripture itself as the first ground for sola scriptura. After all, Scripture itself begins with God speaking: “And God said….” Throughout the history of redemption God’s Word is definitive. Jesus argued with the pharisees on the basis of God’s Word. He refuted the devil by using God’s Word. The apostles appealed to God’s Word against the heretics. Paul corrected the church by appealing to God’s Word. The Word is said to be beyond revision:

      I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (Rev 22:18&nash;19; ESV).

      No other source of authority (e.g., church) is spoken about this way. E.g., Peter is the rock (Matt 16) when he confesses Christ but he is the devil when he tries to prevent him from going to the cross (Matt 16). Scripture is unique in its infallibility and authority. That’s what the sola in sola scriptura means. It doesn’t mean that we ignore all other authorities. It’s that we subordinate them to Scripture.

      Scripture alone is God’s inerrant and infallible written Word. Whatever the church says is necessarily subordinate to the Word. There is no passage that says this explicitly just as there is no passage that says, “Arius is wrong. God the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father” and just as there is no passage that uses the word Trinity or no passage that says Christ is one person with two natures. These are all inferences from Scripture.

      You can see how the Reformed churches do this e.g., in the Belgic Confession:

      We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of men, but that holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as Peter says. Afterwards our God— because of the special care he has for us and our salvation— commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing. He himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures (art. 3).

      We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them—not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen (art. 5).

      We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of worship which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one—even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says2—ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us.

      For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God, this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore we must not consider human writings—no matter how holy their authors may have been—equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else. For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

      Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are of God,” and also, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house” (art. 7)

      …Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way… (art. 32).

      The Westminster Confession says:

      4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

      5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

      6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (WCF ch.1).

      9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly..

      10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

      It would take a book to make the case completely (and those books have been written, e.g. William Whitaker, A Disputation On Holy Scripture (1588) and Keith Mathison, Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001). I do not ordinarily recommend books by this publisher but I know that Keith does not agree with their errors. He published this with them a long time ago before most of us knew about their errors. See also W. Robert Godfrey, “What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?” in Don Kistler, Don ed., Sola Scriptura!: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995) and Sinclair Ferguson, “Scripture and Tradition,” in Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura!.

      This is really a debate about what is canon (the rule of the Christian faith and the Christian life). The Roman communion regards the church as canon and the Scripture as the product of the church. We regard the Scripture as canon and the church as the product of the Word of God. For a biblical treatment of canon start with Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). I have also been helped by the work of Herman Ridderbos, e.g., The Authority of the Scriptures (1963).

      On the history of the NT canon see: Michael Kruger, Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012) and F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988).

      The very short version of the historical story is that the early church received, with a few exceptions, the canonical New Testament books by the middle of the 2nd century. There were some questions, in the West, about Hebrews, which were largely resolved fairly early. There were some questions about 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse/Revelation, which were also resolved relatively early. The early church consistently appealed to the Old and New Testaments as the infallible rule of the Christian faith and the Christian life. The summary of the faith, the regula fidei, which became the Apostles’ Creed, was derived from Scripture. Throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Scripture was the final rule for doctrine and life. By the late 4th century, however, the persistent challenges posed by the Gnostics, the Marcionites, Montanists, and other heretics tempted some, e.g., Basil, to appeal to unwritten tradition to compete with the claims by the heretics of secret, extra-biblical knowledge. It was a trap and over time, the appeals to that alleged tradition grew.

      As I mentioned, Wycliffe et al. saw the danger of this move and began criticized it and it’s not too difficult to find medieval writers appealing to Scripture as the final authority. The language of the Reformation did not drop out of the sky. The Reformation sided with the earliest post-apostolic church and those in the medieval church that continued to prioritize Scripture over all other authorities. At Trent, once and for all, the Roman communion chose the other side.

      There is a section on sola scriptura here: Resources On The Reformation Solas

      Reply ↓

  3. Very timely as the Romanists celebrate the appearance of Mary at Fatima on May 13 1917. I recently read an article by the Bishop of Charleston, SC about how Mary appeared to three children and told them to promote peace. my son used to profess to have a bear that talked to him in the woods behind our house. 🤷‍♂️

    Reply ↓

    • I live in Wyoming. If you’re close enough to a bear that it talks to you, then you’re doing something wrong. Very wrong.

      Reply ↓

Leave a Reply to R. Scott Clark Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.