Nielsen’s Nook

My wife has been reading Richard Muller on Calvin and his relationship to the Scholastic traditions, both the Medieval Scholastics (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus) and the later Protestant Scholastics (e.g., Francis Turretin). Consequently, I have been learning a lot from her as she shares with me her insights and we get to discuss. For those who would like a more in depth treatment of Muller’s thesis, please visit my wife’s blog: Per Caritatem.

What I wanted to do here on my blog was ask a question regarding the relationship of form to substance in another way by sharing with you a little video that Mike and Rachel Vendsel shared with us. While it is very funny, it presents the question at hand in a creative way, I think. So watch the video (1:05) and then ask yourself, does the form in which the content of Mary Poppins is being presented to me change the substance of the film? What kinds of affects does form have on substance? Do spoofs like this film help us to answer this question or does this frame the question in a way that is flawed?

I have been enjoying how marvelous some of the Reformed writers of the late 19th century have articulated thoughts on the Uberdisciple (my term), Mary the mother of Jesus:

Mary enjoyed a high honor, an honor greater than the prophets and apostles ever had. She is the blessed, the favored, among women, and the mother of the Lord.

Bavinck, Herman. Our Reasonable Faith. p 336.

The person born of the Virgin Mary was a divine person. He was the Son of God. It is, therefore, correct to say that Mary was the mother of God. For, as we have seen, the person of Christ is in Scripture often designated from the divine nature, when the predicate is true only of the human nature. On this particular form of expression,
which, from its abuse, is generally offensive to Protestant ears, Turrettin remarks:

“Maria potest dici vere θεοτόκος seu Mater Dei, Deipara, si vox Dei sumatur concrete pro toto personali Christi, quod constat ex persona Λόγου et natura humana, quo sensu vocatur Mater Domini Luc. i. 43, sed non precise et abstracte ratione Deitatis.”

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology.
Vol 2, p 393.