Ever Virgin?

[St_Worm2]

I was told that Lutherans believe that Mary was Ever Virgin, and that her perpetual virginity is taught as being true in several of your confessions. I realize Martin Luther believed the doctrine, but what about most Lutherans today?

Is it an official doctrine in the denomination you belong to (or perhaps in a different Lutheran church)?

Does anyone one here believe it?

Also, which Lutheran Confessions teach the Ever Virgin doctrine?

Thanks for your help (I'm not Lutheran, so I hope it was ok to post these questions here .. please let me know if it was not!)

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

Is that what Lutherans believe?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is that what Lutherans believe?

I can't speak for all, but the LCMS does not support perpetual virginity: http://www.lcms.org/faqs/thebible

 

[St_Worm2]

BoC

24]
 On
 account
 of
 this
 personal
 union 
and
 communion
 of 
the
 natures,
 Mary,
 the
most
 blessed Virgin,
 bore
 not 
a
 mere man,
 but, 
as
 the
 angel 
[Gabriel] 
testifies, 
such
 a
 man
 as
 is
 truly
 the
 Son of
 the
 most
 high
 God,
 who
 showed
 His
 divine
 majesty
 even
 in
 His 
mother's
 womb,
 in as much
 as He
 was
 born
 of
 a
 virgin,
 with
 her
 virginity
 in violate.
 Therefore
 she 
is
 truly 
the
 mother
 of 
God, 
and never the less 
remained 
a
 virgin.
​

This is the principle passage that my Lutheran friend and the article he cites claims as the reason the that Lutheran Church, historically, held to Mary as, "Ever Virgin".

Here is the link to the article he offered.

To me, BoC article 24 articulates several very important truths about Mary, and especially about the Lord's miraculous birth, but as far as her being "ever virgin", I'm not seeing it (cf Matthew 1:23-25).

What am I missing

Thanks!

--David

​

 

[Resha Caner]

Agreed. That passage only confirms she was a virgin after she gave birth to Christ but does not address her virginity after conceiving her other children.

Right. Further, theology doesn't happen instantly. Luther continued with the idea of her perpetual virginity for some time - maybe to his death - maybe see-sawing back and forth. It's hard to say.

People want these things to be more black-and-white than they were, but when you read the history you see a whole host of complicating issues. The early Lutherans were plagued with constant questions - Is this OK? Is that OK? It would have been bewildering and overwhelming in a way we probably can't appreciate. Some continued with practices we would reject just because they took it for granted and didn't think about it. Some were so shaken by Luther that they didn't know what to believe anymore.

One of the more peculiarly interesting occurrences to me is that many Jews supported Luther because they thought he was trying to lead Christians back to Judaism.

 

[SalusaSecundus]

I hold to the Perpetual Virginity like Luther and Chemnitz did. I see no need to make it an article of faith though.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thanks everyone. Salusa, you're the second Lutheran that I've run into now who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Before you two I thought only RC, EO, and OO held to that belief.

Yours and His,
David

 

[LizaMarie]

I hold to the Perpetual Virginity like Luther and Chemnitz did. I see no need to make it an article of faith though.

I do, too, as well. I also agree with what you said about the article of faith.
This is partly obvious to me as Jesus gave his mother to John on the cross. Had Mary had other (living) children, they would have been obliged to take her in and care for her per Jewish Law.
by the way, where in Scripture does it ever say Mary had other children?
I know it talks about the "brothers" of the Lord, but that could be cousins, or even stepbrothers as some traditions say Joseph was a widower with children.
Just sayin'.
I do not accept some of the exagerated RC views of her but I have no problem with ever-virgin. She is after all the Mother of God as accepted in the first seven ecumenical councils.

 

[LizaMarie]

Thanks everyone. Salusa, you're the second Lutheran that I've run into now who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Before you two I thought only RC, EO, and OO held to that belief.

Yours and His,
David

There's me, too

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi LizaMarie, thanks There do seem to be valid arguments for both sides. You mentioned one (why did Jesus turn his mom over to the care of St. John). It has been speculated (by those who believe that Mary did give birth to other children) that the Lord picked St. John because He wanted one of the Apostles (interestingly, St. John was apparently the one He was closest to and the first one who "believed" .. John 20:8), to look out for His Christian mother in His stead, especially spiritually, rather than one of His blood brothers who was not, or was not yet, a Christian.

Outside of the Lord giving Mary over to St. John however, the rest of the accounts in the Bible seem to indicate that she did have more children (since the Greek words for "brother" and "sister" were used, not the Greek words for "cousins" or "kinsmen", which are used elsewhere by these same NT authors), or that she at least had normal sexual relations with her husband Joseph, who kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to her firstborn Son .. Matthew 1:25.

I think what bothers me about the many "Mary" doctrines which are neither mentioned in the Bible nor can they be proven by it, is the fact that they cause us to focus far too much attention on Mary, instead of on her Son. I know there are statues of Mary which are purported to cry (I actually saw on of them up close after a service at the newly named Basilica in St. Louis a few years ago), and as I watched in amazement at the onlookers praying to this particularly famous statue of her through their tears of joy at seeing it (the statue did not cry this time, BTW), I could not help but wonder if when it did cry, it did so because Mary herself was so saddened to see the very thing that I was seeing, IOW, throngs of people focused on her instead of on her Son.

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

<Staff Edit>

While I agree with you, there are some (not the least of which is John Calvin himself), who insist that, ἕως [heos] "until" speaks to the time period from Mary's betrothal until the moment of Jesus' birth, and says nothing about what happened afterwards.

Yours and His,
David

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There's me, too

Me too. It is in our confessions, and since the LCMS and LCC fully subscribe to the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord, it is considered "pious opinion" but not necessary for one's salvation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

This thread has undergone a cleanup, as some posts have been reported for Congregational rule and Statement of Purpose violations. Keep in mind that non members are free to ask questions and post in fellowship, but are not allowed to debate or teach according to our rules.

Please keep this in mind when posting in Congregational and faith group forums.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was once quite active at CF and in this forum.....

This topic came up occasionally (more in GT and other forums).

MY position on this very question caused ENORMOUS anger and hatred toward me here at CF some time ago. An Admin ended up banning me (She refused to give me a reason but I suspected the anger my position on this caused was the reason; she wouldn't confirm that however).

MY position was (and I suspect some Admin will delete this)...

1. It cannot be dogmatically determined from the words of Scripture whether Mary did or did not remain a virgin. There are HINTS that both "sides" point to but upon examination, all such fail to offer definitive support. Each view is possible but neither definitive. Ultimately, Scripture is silent on this.

2. The earliest Tradition appears to be silence.

3. Although the earliest date is a matter of great debate, eventually a discussion of this topic happened. Some supported her perpetual virginity, some did not. I quoted a number of these on both sides, which resulted in MUCH anger.

4. Eventually (albeit centuries after the absence of Mary from this Earth), the ever-virgin view prevailed. So much so, that it became a firm and universal view. In the 7th Century, an Ecumenical Council referred to Mary as the "ever-virgin" (just a title.... ) and eventually, the use of the title at this Council came to be embraced as a proclamation of the view as doctrine (and perhaps dogma and perhaps even de fide dogma). In any case, and at whatever level or status, it was the universal view, in both the East and West.

5. For Luther (and likely Calvin), this was never an issue of the Reformation. Both (especially Luther) had a fairly lively Mariology at the beginning of the Reformation, although for both, this markedly faded. However, it's significant that personal beliefs of the Reformers is not to be confused with doctrinal positions for either Lutheran or Reformed Christians, denominations and/or churches.

6. The title "ever virgin" is found is the Lutheran Confessions (at least the Latin translations). However, it is debatable whether the use of the title is a formal embrace and teaching of the Dogma. While most Lutherans think not, there have been through the centuries and continuing today Lutheran voices that insist that it does mean an official, Confessional embrace. As recently as the 1940's, it was common in Lutheran circles to teach it - albeit as "pious opinion" (a PERMITTED but not REQUIRED view). In the second half of the 20th Century, it tended to fade from Lutheran books and teachings, so that today, most Lutherans are silence: neither affirming or denying it.

7. My own position - taken from # 1-6 above - is that I do NOT affirm the view OR deny it. I can (and do) welcome it as "pious opinion" but am uncomfortable with it being proclaimed as EITHER dogma or heresy. And IMO, those who do declare it as DOGMA thus have the "burden of proof" to support such to that level, as do those who declare it as HERESY. But OPINIONS - both as true or not true - are equally welcomed as such.

This position caused SO much anger that I was forced to leave. I was not the only one. I now post at a different site (I'm not permitted to say where). Lutherans can have a difficult time in the passion between Catholics/Orthodox vs. modern "Evangelicals." As one staffer at CF told me, "the worse place to be in any war is in the no-man's land: neither side will defend you and both sides will shoot at you." I'm one of HUNDREDS of former CF posters who are victims of that. Many of those who shot at me eventually got shot themselves (interesting how that tends to happen) - more than a few (including the Admin referenced above) have since apologized to me but of course, they're now "victims" of CF too.


Advent and Christmas blessings to all my friends here....


- Josiah

 

[Celestial Warrior]

I was told that Lutherans believe that Mary was Ever Virgin, and that her perpetual virginity is taught as being true in several of your confessions. I realize Martin Luther believed the doctrine, but what about most Lutherans today?

Is it an official doctrine in the denomination you belong to (or perhaps in a different Lutheran church)?

Does anyone one here believe it?

Also, which Lutheran Confessions teach the Ever Virgin doctrine?

Thanks for your help (I'm not Lutheran, so I hope it was ok to post these questions here .. please let me know if it was not!)

Yours and His,
David

Our Lord had genetic Brothers, so that doctrine cannot be true

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Our Lord had genetic Brothers, so that doctrine cannot be true

You saw, or conducted the sequencing in person? We now have an authoritative and definitive source!!

Thanks CW, I am so glad that you can trump tradition and Scripture! Bless you for your omniscience!!!

 

[Celestial Warrior]

You saw, or conducted the sequencing in person? We now have an authoritative and definitive source!!

Thanks CW, I am so glad that you can trump tradition and Scripture! Bless you for your omniscience!!!

Please forgive me if I have offended you. I'm sorry and don't know what I did against you. Please don't be so condescending with me, what did I do to you to make you so angry with me. I'm sorry.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Please forgive me if I have offended you. I'm sorry and don't know what I did against you. Please don't be so condescending with me, what did I do to you to make you so angry with me. I'm sorry.

Nothing; I tend to get a bit sarcastic at times. The point I'm trying to make is that your claims of knowing the genetic make up of supposed siblings of Christ is as firmly grounded in Scripture and Fact as the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary; neither can be verified by fact; both are a matter of pious opinion, and neither make any difference on one's salvation; believing in one or the other will neither include you in paradise, nor exclude you.

It is that simple; so please don't try to insult the intelligence of those of us whose belief is based on things no less sound than you own.

 

[Celestial Warrior]

Nothing; I tend to get a bit sarcastic at times. The point I'm trying to make is that your claims of knowing the genetic make up of supposed siblings of Christ is as firmly grounded in Scripture and Fact as the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary; neither can be verified by fact; both are a matter of pious opinion, and neither make any difference on one's salvation; believing in one or the other will neither include you in paradise, nor exclude you.

It is that simple; so please don't try to insult the intelligence of those of us whose belief is based on things no less sound than you own.

I agree with you and see your point. I didn't realize that what I said was insulting or hurtful to anyone. I'm very sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Tangible]

Thanks everyone. Salusa, you're the second Lutheran that I've run into now who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Before you two I thought only RC, EO, and OO held to that belief.

Yours and His,
David

I also confess PV. To me, it's an issue that does not impinge on the Gospel which can be demonstrated to have been present in the tradition of the ancient Church. I believe that no overwhelming case can be made either for or against PV from scripture, therefore I see no need to challenge this belief on the basis of scripture, but it is not a belief to which consciences should be bound.

Personally, I see objections to PV rooted more in Rationalism and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment than in legitimate objections based on scripture or theology.