Why some Lutheran's disagree with Luther on the EV of Mary -Please let's discuss...

[AHJE]

Hi there AHJE,

I think you are working from a false premise when on the one hand you talk about the Holy Catholic Church and then contrast it with Protestants, unless by calling it the Holy Catholic Church you mean the One Body world-wide...the entity you are describing is not one that Scripture recognises. It is pretty basic stuff really, because there is one Body to which all Believers belong irrespective of their different emphases or traditions. I have certainly never referred to myself as either a Protestant or a Catholic, but as a Believer or a Christian if you like.

I absolutely recognise the contributions made by all Believers down through the centuries irrespective of denominational affiliations....but there has also been a great deal of bad amongst us, and many times we have repeated some of the same sins of pride and religiosity found amongst certain groups of people within Scripture.





Again I don't recognise the unnatural division, but for the sake of the argument I find it hard to believe that Catholics uphold the authority of Sacred Scripture, because if they did they would never have made an idol our of our L-rds mother...the two just don't match up.

I can't really comment on the Characters of the Bishops within the Catholic Church...I dare say there are good, bad and indifferent, just as there are within leadership roles other than Catholic.

The Anglican Church has a similar set up to the Catholic Church, and an Archbishop who is placed at the same level as the Pope...as does the Eastern Orthodox and several other organized Christian movements.
Even the Free Churches have a hierarchy of authority to which congregants submit...so I can't really see any differences.

I have read plenty of what is commonly referred to as 'Church history' believe it or not. I do not subscribe to the authority of the 'Ancient Church' or 'Roman Catholic Church' I don't believe it is modelled around the original Apostolic ekklesia initiated by the Spirit through the Apostles but has morphed into a man-made institution containing a mixture of good and bad, and some of the bad has been very very bad if you read up on your history.




Lk 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”
​

But someone like myself in no way rejects Jesus or His words, I just don't accept the Roman Catholic version of events, and therefore cannot submit to the Bishop of Rome..I believe the whole idea of Peter being the one whom Jesus chose to build His ekklesia on just doesn't hold water, and like many others I believe He builds His ekklesia on the faith that Peter declared...in other words 'revelation of the Spirit'...something that is initiated by G-d and birthed in man.

​

You wrote:

Protestant: "I interpret the Bible for myself, therefore no External Authority such as the Pope can correct me, teach me, or guide me in matters of faith or morals. It's me and Jesus, ... no inbetweens."

I don't believe the Bible needs to be interpreted as such...it means what it says...we just have to understand it within its historical framework and Jewish context...I think we should all be humble enough to receive correction, whether from the Pope or a child. I have been taught, corrected and guided by all sorts of men and some women in whom I recognised a gift and aptitude to teach, and in whom was a maturity and insight that I submitted myself to. On a number of occasions my trust was misplaced and I took a few knocks.

So to say 'its me and Jesus no inbetweens' doesn't give a fair indication at all...just because the structure of authority varies from some established Christian organizations.




Amen...His Sheepfold.




Thanks, and may the L-rd instruct and guide you in His truths on a daily basis, encourage you and give you His peace and His Joy through all the ups and downs in life.

Kind regards. Zazal
​

Hey Zazal,

Thank you for replying,

I will only post on what concerns Peter and what Rock Jesus chose to build His Church upon, since this is most important I believe. We must be careful to not allow personal prejudices get in the way of receiving the words of Jesus.

(1) First, Jesus changes the name of only ONE of the Twelve disciples... That of Simon ... to Rock ... Kephas in Aramaic. So, in Aramaic, it sounds like this: You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church. (knowing that all the other Apostles are listening.)

(2) All of the other Apostles deferred to Peter and recognized his Primacy among them. St. John 20:3-8 shows that even St. John the Beloved ran to the tomb first but did not go in until St. Peter inspected things. When the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost who stood up and said "listen to my words!"? When it came time to choose a successor for Judas Iscariot who stood up and led the meeting? ... It was Peter. Peter was not the first Apostle chosen by Jesus (in chronological order) and yet when you read almost all of the listings of the Twelve in the Gospels, whose name is listed FIRST? ... Peter's. I could go on and on and on. It is obvious that the Lord singled Peter out and that it was of him that He said that the Church would be built upon.

(3) In the Lord's supper (according to St. Luke) who did Jesus say He would pray for and gave the command to strengthen and confirm his brethren? Peter.

(4) In St. John, who did the Resurrected Lord command to Pastor and feed his sheep? Peter.

(5) In Matthew 16, to whom did Jesus give the power and authority of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Peter. He gave him the fullness of Ecclesiastical Authority.

(6) Where was Peter martyred and crucified (up side down)? In Rome.

(7) Who was the first bishop of Rome? Peter.

(8) Your claim that Jesus meant "revelation of the Spirit" as the Rock is not in harmony with this verse: ... that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cheif cornerstone:" (Eph. 2:20, DRB) nor with Rev. 21:14. The Church is built upon Peter (and the Apostles in communion with him) even as the Universal Church is led and governed by the Successor of Peter (the Pope) and by the Bishops in communion with him.

Be not deceived, ... the Lord loves you and desires that you come to the fullness of the truth and redemption.

God bless you.

 

[Zeek]

Hey Zazal,

Thank you for replying,

I will only post on what concerns Peter and what Rock Jesus chose to build His Church upon, since this is most important I believe. We must be careful to not allow personal prejudices get in the way of receiving the words of Jesus.

Good idea.

(1) First, Jesus changes the name of only ONE of the Twelve disciples... That of Simon ... to Rock ... Kephas in Aramaic. So, in Aramaic, it sounds like this: You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church. (knowing that all the other Apostles are listening.)

However if we look at the context of what is being said and why, the emphasis is somewhat different...(I recognise that this has been done to death on this Forum, so I will attempt to explain it exactly as I see it, then see where that leads).


Matt 16: 13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

The ekklesia/Church being referred to is not some religious organization...it is all those that believe in Jesus, and recognise who He is, just as Peter confessed who Jesus is.


The foundation of every persons faith...the Rock upon which we are to build...is recognition of whom Jesus is...those that make up the ekklesia/Church, are those that exhibit the same faith that Peter has displayed...thus it is upon this Rock that the ekklesia/Church is built, not upon Peter or any other individual.


To test whether this is really the case, we need to see how things develop through the rest of Scripture, rather than argue over the meaning and context of the word 'Rock'.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ ...

1Cor 3:10According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

SORRY BEEN CALLED AWAY...BACK LATER.

 

[Zeek]

(2) All of the other Apostles deferred to Peter and recognized his Primacy among them. St. John 20:3-8 shows that even St. John the Beloved ran to the tomb first but did not go in until St. Peter inspected things. When the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost who stood up and said "listen to my words!"? When it came time to choose a successor for Judas Iscariot who stood up and led the meeting? ... It was Peter. Peter was not the first Apostle chosen by Jesus (in chronological order) and yet when you read almost all of the listings of the Twelve in the Gospels, whose name is listed FIRST? ... Peter's. I could go on and on and on. It is obvious that the Lord singled Peter out and that it was of him that He said that the Church would be built upon.

Peter was a robust larger than life Galiliean fisherman, always ready to open his mouth (and sometimes put his foot in it) and say what he thought. John I believe was very young, perhaps 14 or 15, so I can see him holding back and letting Peter his elder go first.

I mostly agree with what you say, and the L-rd paid special attention to Peter, as He saw in him the capacity to be a leader or to be led astray...I think it is significant that we see in Peter an inclination to do some things without thinking...and if he is leading from the front, then it is important he gets things right....Jesus said regarding Peter that Satan wanted to sift him, but that Jesus had prayed for him.

Paul recognised some of Peter's weaknesses, and was not afraid to call him out when necessary, despite any elevated position he might have held...I think it is also interesting to see a bit of a 'fear factor' that still surrounded Peter in regard to the opinions of the Jews...and he wasn't as clear in his understanding as Paul, again this character trait is bourne out in the accounts of him in the Gospels...he is apt to be hasty, and self-willed.

However, it is not Peter upon whom the ekklesia/Church is built upon...it is Jesus, He alone is our foundation.

(3) In the Lord's supper (according to St. Luke) who did Jesus say He would pray for and gave the command to strengthen and confirm his brethren? Peter.

Yes.

(4) In St. John, who did the Resurrected Lord command to Pastor and feed his sheep? Peter.

Yes.

(5) In Matthew 16, to whom did Jesus give the power and authority of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Peter. He gave him the fullness of Ecclesiastical Authority.

You would need to elaborate on what you understand by this...and as far as I can see, Jesus is now addressing all the disciples, and not just Peter....but it isn't quite clear at first glance.

(6) Where was Peter martyred and crucified (up side down)? In Rome.

I believe that is historical conjecture, and some doubt Peter even went to Rome

(7) Who was the first bishop of Rome? Peter.

Er....according to what information?

(8) Your claim that Jesus meant "revelation of the Spirit" as the Rock is not in harmony with this verse: ... that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cheif cornerstone:" (Eph. 2:20, DRB) nor with Rev. 21:14. The Church is built upon Peter (and the Apostles in communion with him) even as the Universal Church is led and governed by the Successor of Peter (the Pope) and by the Bishops in communion with him.

I think you are drifting into regurgitating the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and getting away from what Scripture says:

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

There are no Scriptures any where that say we must devote ourselves to the doctrines and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or obey the Pope.

Be not deceived, ... the Lord loves you and desires that you come to the fullness of the truth and redemption.

I am redeemed, and I truly recognise Jesus as my L-rd and Saviour...but thank you for your concern.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let's re-read the OP and stay on topic here, please.

BTW, the topic is Lutheran Adiaphora.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let's re-read the OP and stay on topic here, please.

BTW, the topic is Lutheran Adiaphora.

If you want to discuss other things such as RC vs. Reformed Protestant Doctrine and Dogmatics, find a thread that is already open... or start a new one.

Thanks.

 

[Standing Up]

It seems to be pretty well documented and universally accepted from the 5th Century on...at least until recently. Before that there nothing strong either way - it just wasn't an issue before that and it really wasn't an issue even then, which circumstantially seems to indicate that it was not new - especially when you consider the tumult caused be things like the title Theotokos.

Not really. The issue was debated pre Nicea. Back then there were only two choices about who the brothers of Jesus were (Mary/Joseph OR Joseph/former wife). The latter idea sources from the docetic Protoevangelim of James. The other from scripture. People like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, and others believed Mary/Joseph had children.

So, to the OP, if certain Lutherans believe the EV whose source is PoJ, while others don't, then, we can only hope more come to understand the issue.

 

[Philothei]

Please SU stay with the OP. Lutherans do believe both..Please stay on topic and do not put words or make up stories about Lutherans who do...The sciripture in Greek is in support of EV that has been already discussed and no reason to being this back in the discussion. Some Lutherans do not some do Mark already has answered the difference.

 

[Philothei]

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."

\
That is innacurate. Most traditions are scripture based to say one is not is falsehood....It is an accusation to say that the RC or EO do not have scriptural authrority while all are biblically based...

Also to say that P ONLY adhere to the scripture and not in their respective P tradition is also false... For they do not some adhere to Luther others to Calvin and so forth...I have not heard of a P not using "commentaries" on the Bible...on the contrary..thus we all use "traditions" so making these kind of classifications IMHO is useless

 

[bach90]

I'm jumping back into the frying pan here, having just discussed this over on the Lutheran thread.

The Book of Concord teaches Semper Virgo, all the early Christians taught Semper Virgo, all the Reformers (even that madman Zwingli) taught Semper Virgo. It was taught by 20th century Lutheran theologians such as Herman Sasse. The Scriptures make a case implicitly with apparently no siblings either at the temple in Luke 2 or the Crucifixion. Semper Virgo, looking at only the Scriptures, is an argument from silence. However it is one of those few teachings that wasn't invented by the pope or some charlatan in the middle ages. There is rock solid evidence for it, and Lutherans need to realize it is taught in the BoC, at least twice.

I hold to the SV teaching. I think it's important. At the same time I don't think denying it makes one a heretic. Essentially, I give people a mulligan on this issue (if this is the only Christological issue your contesting, it doesn't make you a heretic). It's not in the historical or the Lutheran faith though, it's a teaching straight out of American Protestantism.

 

[Philothei]

I'm jumping back into the frying pan here, having just discussed this over on the Lutheran thread.

The Book of Concord teaches Semper Virgo, all the early Christians taught Semper Virgo, all the Reformers (even that madman Zwingli) taught Semper Virgo. It was taught by 20th century Lutheran theologians such as Herman Sasse. The Scriptures make a case implicitly with apparently no siblings either at the temple in Luke 2 or the Crucifixion. Semper Virgo, looking at only the Scriptures, is an argument from silence. However it is one of those few teachings that wasn't invented by the pope or some charlatan in the middle ages. There is rock solid evidence for it, and Lutherans need to realize it is taught in the BoC, at least twice.

I hold to the SV teaching. I think it's important. At the same time I don't think denying it makes one a heretic. Essentially, I give people a mulligan on this issue (if this is the only Christological issue your contesting, it doesn't make you a heretic). It's not in the historical or the Lutheran faith though, it's a teaching straight out of American Protestantism.

Thanks for the well rounded and sound view on the Lutheran stand
It seems to me that it is along the lines of some who already discussed it and I am happy to see how clearer the view now is of what EV means for the Lutherans and how they reconcile both views.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal

Or you could say....

Catholic Church: " I place myself into the hands of this Body and submit to everything they teach as if from YHWH Himself...I will believe what they tell me despite much of their history, both past and present, and lack of clear Scriptural authority.

Protestant: "I read and believe what the Bible says, and am careful to only submit to the authority of those YHWH has placed over me from within the Body whose doctrine is pure and whose character has been refined by the Spirit."
​

\
That is innacurate. Most traditions are scripture based to say one is not is falsehood....It is an accusation to say that the RC or EO do not have scriptural authrority while all are biblically based...

Also to say that P ONLY adhere to the scripture and not in their respective P tradition is also false... For they do not some adhere to Luther others to Calvin and so forth...I have not heard of a P not using "commentaries" on the Bible...on the contrary..thus we all use "traditions" so making these kind of classifications IMHO is useless

Er....it would have been good if you actually understood why I wrote what I wrote here...I did explain it, but you obviously did not read it.
I don't necessarily nold with what I wrote...it was in response to AHJE whose summary of Protestants was just as inaccurate. (eg I was being deliberately inaccurate/provocative to prove a point)

Anyway as Mark points out I have strayed from the OP and will duck out...
apologies for drifting into another subject.

Kind regards. Zazal

 

[Standing Up]

I'm jumping back into the frying pan here, having just discussed this over on the Lutheran thread.

The Book of Concord teaches Semper Virgo, all the early Christians taught Semper Virgo, all the Reformers (even that madman Zwingli) taught Semper Virgo. It was taught by 20th century Lutheran theologians such as Herman Sasse. The Scriptures make a case implicitly with apparently no siblings either at the temple in Luke 2 or the Crucifixion. Semper Virgo, looking at only the Scriptures, is an argument from silence. However it is one of those few teachings that wasn't invented by the pope or some charlatan in the middle ages. There is rock solid evidence for it, and Lutherans need to realize it is taught in the BoC, at least twice.

I hold to the SV teaching. I think it's important. At the same time I don't think denying it makes one a heretic. Essentially, I give people a mulligan on this issue (if this is the only Christological issue your contesting, it doesn't make you a heretic). It's not in the historical or the Lutheran faith though, it's a teaching straight out of American Protestantism.

There's a number of early Christians who taught Mary/Joseph had children.

None of the siblings believed, prior to the resurrection.

This is probably why some Lutherans disagree with Luther on ever-virgin idea.

 

[bach90]

There's a number of early Christians who taught Mary/Joseph had children.

I've never seen any. Could you please provide a source?

 

[narnia59]

I'm jumping back into the frying pan here, having just discussed this over on the Lutheran thread.

The Book of Concord teaches Semper Virgo, all the early Christians taught Semper Virgo, all the Reformers (even that madman Zwingli) taught Semper Virgo. It was taught by 20th century Lutheran theologians such as Herman Sasse. The Scriptures make a case implicitly with apparently no siblings either at the temple in Luke 2 or the Crucifixion. Semper Virgo, looking at only the Scriptures, is an argument from silence. However it is one of those few teachings that wasn't invented by the pope or some charlatan in the middle ages. There is rock solid evidence for it, and Lutherans need to realize it is taught in the BoC, at least twice.

I hold to the SV teaching. I think it's important. At the same time I don't think denying it makes one a heretic. Essentially, I give people a mulligan on this issue (if this is the only Christological issue your contesting, it doesn't make you a heretic). It's not in the historical or the Lutheran faith though, it's a teaching straight out of American Protestantism.

Could you (or someone) please explain how one differentiates teachings found in the Book of Concord between doctrine (and therefore essential)and 'pious opinions'?

 

[bach90]

Could you (or someone) please explain how one differentiates teachings found in the Book of Concord between doctrine (and therefore essential)and 'pious opinions'?

The Book of Concord is authoritative, but not infallible. It's obvious to see how denying something like the Trinity for example leads one away from God. For someone to deny Mary's perpetual virginity however does not per se mean someone is holding a false Christological opinion. The tendency in denying the SV can lead to denying Mary as the Mother of God which is Nestorianism (and I believe most (Ana)Baptists hold the position that Christ did not take his human nature from Mary, but brought it with him from heaven). And if Christ doesn't have a true human body that leads to a whole bunch of problems (which I don't think most do the follow through with this logic, I'm saying denying the SV is equivalent to Nestorianism).

Like I said, if one is denying (yes denying, it's in the BoC) this article, but holds all the other Christological dogma intact, there's no heresy. It's also not worth tearing the Church apart over an issue like this.

The BoC is also not really concerned about this issue. It's mentioned in passing. Far more important in the BoC is Justification by Faith Alone, there's the first four Articles of the Augsburg Confession...everything else is commentary on those four articles.

 

[narnia59]

The Book of Concord is authoritative, but not infallible. It's obvious to see how denying something like the Trinity for example leads one away from God. For someone to deny Mary's perpetual virginity however does not per se mean someone is holding a false Christological opinion. The tendency in denying the SV can lead to denying Mary as the Mother of God which is Nestorianism (and I believe most (Ana)Baptists hold the position that Christ did not take his human nature from Mary, but brought it with him from heaven). And if Christ doesn't have a true human body that leads to a whole bunch of problems (which I don't think most do the follow through with this logic, I'm saying denying the SV is equivalent to Nestorianism).

Like I said, if one is denying (yes denying, it's in the BoC) this article, but holds all the other Christological dogma intact, there's no heresy. It's also not worth tearing the Church apart over an issue like this.

The BoC is also not really concerned about this issue. It's mentioned in passing. Far more important in the BoC is Justification by Faith Alone, there's the first four Articles of the Augsburg Confession...everything else is commentary on those four articles.

Thank you for your reply.

I don't disagree with you in terms of relative importance of doctrines. I would disagree that just because something is mentioned 'in passing' as you state, by default the author sees it as an issue to not be concerned with. It can also mean that there's no dissent and therefore it is simply accepted without need to defend. Let's face it -- Justification by Faith Alone was in huge contention with the Catholic church. Of course Luther would spend an enormous amount of time and effort defending and justifying his views on that topic. If anyone disagreed with him in the ever-virginity of Mary he may well have fleshed it out in a more doctrinal way.

But say however there was a Lutheran who disagreed with you and believed that denying the ever-virginity was indeed heresy because it is contained in the Book of Concord and is therefore binding Lutheran doctrine -- does the BoC itself give you any way to deny their position?

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

There's a number of early Christians who taught Mary/Joseph had children.
​

I've never seen any. Could you please provide a source?

I would certainly like to see those as well. I think the claim has been made before and sources requested with no response, but I could also be quite mistaken about that as I am often infrequent on these boards.

 

[bach90]

Thank you for your reply.

I don't disagree with you in terms of relative importance of doctrines. I would disagree that just because something is mentioned 'in passing' as you state, by default the author sees it as an issue to not be concerned with. It can also mean that there's no dissent and therefore it is simply accepted without need to defend. Let's face it -- Justification by Faith Alone was in huge contention with the Catholic church. Of course Luther would spend an enormous amount of time and effort defending and justifying his views on that topic. If anyone disagreed with him in the ever-virginity of Mary he may well have fleshed it out in a more doctrinal way.

But say however there was a Lutheran who disagreed with you and believed that denying the ever-virginity was indeed heresy because it is contained in the Book of Concord and is therefore binding Lutheran doctrine -- does the BoC itself give you any way to deny their position?

You know, I couldn't. I think it's very difficult to. You would have to ask a Lutheran who doesn't agree with the SV. Like I said, they are completely orthodox on the issue, they just happen to veer of the course on this particular issue. Mariology (which is really supposed to point to Christology) isn't very important in the Lutheran Church to begin with, we are certainly not going to divide the Church over it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Frankly, I come from the position that the blessed mother of God's sex life or lack thereof is none of my darned business. I wouldn't be interested in my biological mother's sex life (or lack thereof), why should it be an issue for me concerning the holy mother of our Lord Christ?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jackmt]

I think the premise of the thread is valid as there are oposing views and I would like to know the root to these views
EV is NOT politics it is a Christian belief your "paradigm" is failing and is just a straw man...

I don't think it is the straw man you believe it is. Liturgical churches such as the EOC and RCC teach that faith is to be placed indirectly in God through the doctrines and traditions of the church; i.e., they trust in man's interpretations of Scripture and doctrines over Scripture itself. The Israelites rejected God's plan that every man be a priest after first agreeing to it (Ex. 19:5-8) but later feared to follow God and demanded that Moses be their mediator (Ex. 20:18-21).

We are restored to God's original plan under the new covenant (I Pet.2:9), but you insist that you must go to God through men whom we believe to be of dubious authority. Thus your belief that we of non-liturgical churches likewise heed our founders' doctrines.

Every man is directly accountable to God.