WELS creating their own Bible (and one other question)?

[twin.spin]

It would have been rather scandalous for Mary to have been a single mother in first century Judea.

Would you say being a single mother in the first century was more scandalous than being a prostitute ... because it sure seems not to have curbed that scandal

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It would have been rather scandalous for Mary to have been a single mother in first century Judea.

Joseph wanted to basically divorce her before they were even married before he knew God was involved in the whole thing. That to me seems a bit more scandalous.

I've still not seen any argument worth considering as to why God would want Joseph to marry Mary and yet not enjoy the benefits of that marriage.

And since when is sex within the confines of marriage considered something "unholy"? It's just weird to think that there are still people out there who think sex is something yucky and not a blessing of marriage and a gift from God. It is that kind of narrow-minded thinking that leads into legalism.

My husband and I have a very healthy sex life and I've never once considered that what was "going into my womb" was somehow impure.

 

[bach90]

Would you say being a single mother in the first century was more scandalous than being a prostitute ... because it sure seems not to have curbed that scandal

I assume you mean Mary Magdalene right? Can you show me where in Scripture she is identified as a prostitute? That's a tradition from the Middle Ages.

I never said sex was unholy. I said that virginity is the preferred state of being for Christians. Supported by Scripture (1 Cor 7) and the Apology.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am not saying that it is sinful, but it is a new belief (even the radical Zwinglians held this belief). It's not until the enlightenment that Christians began saying that Mary wasn't a virgin for her entire life. The ancient belief is that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life, and this is what the Lutheran confessions and what the Scriptures teach.

AP XI 37 also teaches that virginity is the preferred state. I can't believe that the womb that bore my God and Redeemer could ever hold anything else. Would a holy man such as Our Lord's stepfather even approach such a vessel?

(I totally reject the nonsense about her Immaculate Conception though...nothing in that but papistic balderdash).

so then what exactly are you trying to say with regards to the bolded part??

and I disagree with your analysis that virginity is the preferred state of Christians. Whatever happened to be fruitful and multiply?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Joseph wanted to basically divorce her before they were even married before he knew God was involved in the whole thing. That to me seems a bit more scandalous.

<snip>

Unless I'm mistaken, Scripture speaks of the betrothal, but I believe it is silent regarding the marriage of Mary and Joseph; as silent as it is about Semper Virago.

 

[bach90]

so then what exactly are you trying to say with regards to the bolded part??

and I disagree with your analysis that virginity is the preferred state of Christians. Whatever happened to be fruitful and multiply?

I was trying to say, that just as the Ark of the First covenant was considered holy (and actually punishable by death 2 Sam 6:6-7), Mary, as Ark of the New Covenant, has a typological significance. It wouldn't be that farfetched, especially given Luke's constant reference to the OT.

Again, I'm not saying that the Semper Virgo issue is one which is necessary for salvation. Nor is there sin committed. However, there is Scriptural, Confessional, and historical basis for this doctrine, and it was held by nearly every Christian theologian, including Luther, Gerhard, and Chemnitz (like Sasse, he said it was not one that Christians should force as a dogma). Even those rascals; Calvin, and and Zwingli believed it. (Tertullian is the only notable exception.) Until the enlightenment. I believe that God created the universe from nothing and that he makes his true body and blood present every Sunday...it isn't that difficult for me to believe that his mother was a virgin.

I have heard it said that Sasse did not hold this doctrine, I can only find that he argued it cannot be a dogma of the Lutheran Church. In the same sentence though he points out that it is taught explicitly in the confessions (SD VIII #24) so I'm not sure what the great theologian was trying to point out with that statement.

As regarding the Virginity issue, your free to have your own opinion. You are in disagreement with the Scriptural (1 Cor 7:7,32-35) and the Lutheran Confessions (Apology XI, 36-39) on the matter.

 

[bach90]

Unless I'm mistaken, Scripture speaks of the betrothal, but I believe it is silent regarding the marriage of Mary and Joseph; as silent as it is about Semper Virago.

Luke 2 sure makes it seem like Mary and Joseph were married. Also seems unlikely Jesus would charge John with the care of his mother if he had brothers, who would have been required by the fourth commandment to do so. Yes the words ever virgin are not in the Scripture, neither are the words "Trinity" or "Sacraments" or "Means of Grace" or the phrase "Law and Gospel."

 

[twin.spin]

I assume you mean Mary Magdalene right? Can you show me where in Scripture she is identified as a prostitute? That's a tradition from the Middle Ages.

I never said sex was unholy. I said that virginity is the preferred state of being for Christians. Supported by Scripture (1 Cor 7) and the Apology.

Actually I didn't mean Mary Magdalene. I was thinking of was

• one of Jesus' blood relation Tamar .. She sold herself as a prostitute [Genesis 38]
• and the woman whom the teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery [John 8:3]
• And it is also thought that "a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town" [Luke 7:37]was also a prostitute

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I was trying to say, that just as the Ark of the First covenant was considered holy (and actually punishable by death 2 Sam 6:6-7), Mary, as Ark of the New Covenant, has a typological significance. It wouldn't be that farfetched, especially given Luke's constant reference to the OT.

You're putting far too much emphasis on Mary here. Yes, she had Jesus in her womb, but that doesn't mean her womb was something special. Jesus was special - he needed no special "container".

Do you believe Jesus ever urinated or pooped?

Again, I'm not saying that the Semper Virgo issue is one which is necessary for salvation. Nor is there sin committed. However, there is Scriptural, Confessional, and historical basis for this doctrine, and it was held by nearly every Christian theologian, including Luther, Gerhard, and Chemnitz (like Sasse, he said it was not one that Christians should force as a dogma). Even those rascals; Calvin, and and Zwingli believed it. (Tertullian is the only notable exception.) Until the enlightenment. I believe that God created the universe from nothing and that he makes his true body and blood present every Sunday...it isn't that difficult for me to believe that his mother was a virgin.

It's an opinion, not a doctrine. There is biblical support for God's creation and there is biblical support for Real Presence. However, the bible is very vague on Mary's virginity. When you read too much into what little there is, that's when you start falling into where you're at now.

I have heard it said that Sasse did not hold this doctrine, I can only find that he argued it cannot be a dogma of the Lutheran Church. In the same sentence though he points out that it is taught explicitly in the confessions (SD VIII #24) so I'm not sure what the great theologian was trying to point out with that statement.

I don't really care what Sasse believed. I don't really care what the ECFs believed. I know, horrors, but I kinda go based on what the bible says. There was no reason for her to remain a virgin. NONE.

As regarding the Virginity issue, your free to have your own opinion. You are in disagreement with the Scriptural (1 Cor 7:7,32-35) and the Lutheran Confessions (Apology XI, 36-39) on the matter.

I can pull far more scriptures that support marriage to your one little verse where Paul explains why it's better to not be married. Sure, my husband could probably focus better on his ministry if he wasn't married and didn't have kids, but his life is far richer for being married.

You also pull a few sentences from the Apology, but then you ignore what the rest of it says. How about these sentences, from the same section you speak of:

And nevertheless, just as an orator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence than an architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does not merit justification by virginity more than a married person merits it by conjugal duties, but each one ought faithfully to serve in his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives the remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.
​

and

These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and Christian] thing. If therefore purity signifies that which is allowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they have been approved by the Word of God. [34] And Paul says of lawful things, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i.e., to those who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore, as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage is pure on account of the Word of God and faith.
​

I think perhaps you may have misunderstood the entire purpose of that section. I am certainly not in disagreement with scripture, nor the Apology. I am in disagreement with you and your specific interpretation.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Luke 2 sure makes it seem like Mary and Joseph were married. Also seems unlikely Jesus would charge John with the care of his mother if he had brothers, who would have been required by the fourth commandment to do so. Yes the words ever virgin are not in the Scripture, neither are the words "Trinity" or "Sacraments" or "Means of Grace" or the phrase "Law and Gospel."

We know for a fact that John was his most beloved, so it's not far-fetched that he would charge John with her care.

There are several passages that speak to the Trinity, that talk about sacraments and means of grace and there are several that speak of law and gospel without using those terms.

Exactly what in the bible alludes to Mary's virginity? We know that she was a virgin when she conceived. That's it. We know that there's a vague reference to Jesus' brothers, which could be familial, or it could be just a reference to his disciples.

 

[bach90]

You're putting far too much emphasis on Mary here. Yes, she had Jesus in her womb, but that doesn't mean her womb was something special. Jesus was special - he needed no special "container".

Do you believe Jesus ever urinated or pooped?



It's an opinion, not a doctrine. There is biblical support for God's creation and there is biblical support for Real Presence. However, the bible is very vague on Mary's virginity. When you read too much into what little there is, that's when you start falling into where you're at now.



I don't really care what Sasse believed. I don't really care what the ECFs believed. I know, horrors, but I kinda go based on what the bible says. There was no reason for her to remain a virgin. NONE.



I can pull far more scriptures that support marriage to your one little verse where Paul explains why it's better to not be married. Sure, my husband could probably focus better on his ministry if he wasn't married and didn't have kids, but his life is far richer for being married.

You also pull a few sentences from the Apology, but then you ignore what the rest of it says. How about these sentences, from the same section you speak of:

And nevertheless, just as an orator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence than an architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does not merit justification by virginity more than a married person merits it by conjugal duties, but each one ought faithfully to serve in his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives the remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.
​

and

These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and Christian] thing. If therefore purity signifies that which is allowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they have been approved by the Word of God. [34] And Paul says of lawful things, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i.e., to those who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore, as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage is pure on account of the Word of God and faith.
​

I think perhaps you may have misunderstood the entire purpose of that section. I am certainly not in disagreement with scripture, nor the Apology. I am in disagreement with you and your specific interpretation.

Where did I say that virginity merits justification? Obviously it doesn't, that's a lie begotten by the pope and his minions. I said that virginity is preferable, and the Scriptures and Apology support it. Many verses...from the Old Testament, support marriage and indeed it was very uncommon for anyone in the OT to be unmarried (Jeremiah being the exception). In the NT though, virginity is important and Paul only allows marriage as a concession in 1 Cor (he has a different attitude in the Pastorals; that's an entirely different subject) Marriage is a holy & beautiful ordinance, created and blessed by God. Virginity is an even greater gift, bestowed only by the Holy Spirit, and no one should be compelled into it. Neither virginity or marriage merit salvation or make one holier.


Sola Scriptura is not me and my Bible in the corner (that's what the evangelicals do). It's reading the Bible with the Book of Concord...which cites the ECFs hundreds of times and uses phrases such as "it has always been taught that..." I have to go with what Irenaeus, Augustine, Luther, Eusebius, Chemnitz, Walther, and Melancthon...along with the Scriptures and the Solid Declaration, say on the matter. Although, there have been Lutheran theologians who did not hold this opinion (Dr. Robert Preus, for example [to my best knowledge]). It's not a church dividing issue.

 

[bach90]

BTW, here's an excellent article from Logia on the subject: http://www.logia.org/features/feature193.pdf I especially like how he is unbiased and notes that it is an argument more from theological arguments and that Scripture is silent on the issue. We'll just have to leave it as an open question where good arguments can be made for both sides.

 

[DaRev]

Luke 2 sure makes it seem like Mary and Joseph were married. Also seems unlikely Jesus would charge John with the care of his mother if he had brothers, who would have been required by the fourth commandment to do so.

First, Scripture strongly supports that John (and James) was Jesus' first cousin. The mother of James and John, sons of Zebedee, was Salome who is most likely Mary's sister (Mark 15:41; 16:1; John 19:25). This would account for the request made of Jesus for James and John to sit on His right and left in His kingdom. So it would be certainly appropriate for Jesus to give the care of His mother to His first cousin.

Second, it is also supported in Scripture that Jesus' siblings were not true believers until after His ascension (Acts 1). Jesus would have wanted His mother cared for by a close family member who was also a believer.

 

[cerette]

The Bible says Jesus was Mary's firstborn. Now, if she didn't have more, why would the term 'firstborn' be used rather than 'one and only'?

 

[twin.spin]

The Bible says Jesus was Mary's firstborn. Now, if she didn't have more, why would the term 'firstborn' be used rather than 'one and only'?

That's a good observation

 

[bach90]

Col 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Are we to deduce that Jesus was created? Of course not, that's the Arian heresy. Firstborn, especially in a Hebrew culture, is used to emphasize something which is the greatest, par excellence, without implying that there needs to come something after.

The same with the fact that Joseph did not know Mary "until" she had given birth. The word until is used in Scripture without necessarily implying an event coming after, as in Psalm 110.

Ps 110:1
The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”


Are we to suppose that Jesus will at some point no longer sit at the right hand of God?


I agree that John and James were probably the first cousins of Jesus.

 

[cerette]

Col 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Are we to deduce that Jesus was created? Of course not, that's the Arian heresy. Firstborn, especially in a Hebrew culture, is used to emphasize something which is the greatest, par excellence, without implying that there needs to come something after.

The same with the fact that Joseph did not know Mary "until" she had given birth. The word until is used in Scripture without necessarily implying an event coming after, as in Psalm 110.

Ps 110:1
The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”




Are we to suppose that Jesus will at some point no longer sit at the right hand of God?


I agree that John and James were probably the first cousins of Jesus.

Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son....

 

[bach90]

Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son....

Did you read what I posted about the use of firstborn? It can be used in a way to imply "most excellent" without necessitating that a secondborn son exists. (Ex 22:29, Ps. 105:36). an only child for example is still a firstborn son. The text says firstborn, not eldest, which would be a huge difference.

Again, it's adiaphora...I'm just shocked at the level of resistance to a doctrine which has been taught in the Lutheran Church. It's as if Semper Virgo is the newer position on the issue.

SD VIII 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, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

 

[DaRev]

Did you read what I posted about the use of firstborn? It can be used in a way to imply "most excellent" without necessitating that a secondborn son exists. (Ex 22:29, Ps. 105:36). an only child for example is still a firstborn son. The text says firstborn, not eldest, which would be a huge difference.

Again, it's adiaphora...I'm just shocked at the level of resistance to a doctrine which has been taught in the Lutheran Church. It's as if Semper Virgo is the newer position on the issue.

SD VIII 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, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

There is nothing either in Scripture or in the Confessions that suggests that Mary remained virgin for her entire life. She remained virgin throughout the birth process of Jesus, but there is nothing that claims anything beyond that. In fact, the Scriptures strongly support the opposite, that Mary was the mother of several younger siblings of Jesus, at least 6.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And again it's NOT a DOCTRINE.

It's an opinion. And it's not resistance. What shocks me is how hardcore you are about defending it.

We just tend to not see evidence where there is none.

Did you read what I posted about the use of firstborn? It can be used in a way to imply "most excellent" without necessitating that a secondborn son exists. (Ex 22:29, Ps. 105:36). an only child for example is still a firstborn son. The text says firstborn, not eldest, which would be a huge difference.

Again, it's adiaphora...I'm just shocked at the level of resistance to a doctrine which has been taught in the Lutheran Church. It's as if Semper Virgo is the newer position on the issue.

SD VIII 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, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.