Theotokos: “God bearer” or sometimes “Mother of God”
Recently I came upon quite a heated debate among Calvinists on the term theotokos. Some on both sides declared each other to be heretics.
My understand is that when the term was originally used, all it really was saying is that seeing Jesus has two natures human and God; it is wrong to say that Mary just gave birth to the human nature. Yet some are saying that if Mary is theotokos, it makes her on equal footing as God.
I decided to find out from other Calvinists of note what they believed about the topic. I was rather surprised to learn that even among Calvinists I am quite familiar with; there is disagreement on the subject.
For example A.A. Hodge appears not believe in theotokos.
A.A. Hodge explains in his Outlines of Theology:
The Nestorian heresy charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, by his enemy, Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nestorius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then prominently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary the mother of God because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ

James White does not believe in theotokos; in fact he has stated that there is evidence that Nestorius who was declared to be a heretic, was probably justified in his concerns about theotokos.

RC Sproul however did believe in theotokos.

John Owen believed in the term theotokos.

Augustine did not believe in theotokos.
Augustine (354-430): And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee ?” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VIII, §9, John 2:1-4.

Augustine (354-430): At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.

It appears that the main problems seems to be what the term theotokos has come to mean in Roman Catholic circles. Many say that Mary was only the mother of human nature of God; like A.A. Hodge and Augustine said. Others while agreeing that you cannot separate the human and divine side of Jesus; never the less they reject the term theotokos because of its connotations.

Any thoughts?