Mariology

The recent post on “The Pope on Luther” led to a discussion of Luther’s views of Mary, in which noted Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong weighed in.  (I am continually amazed at who all reads this blog.)  He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively “Catholic” view of Mary  early in his career, though after the Diet of Worms, in 1521.  (The source of that evidence was somewhat confused, though, which the discussion helped to sort out.)

One of the issues was the “immaculate conception,”  the Roman Catholic teaching that by a direct miracle of God the Virgin Mary was born without original sin.  This is an interesting example of the Roman Catholic theological method, as distinct from how virtually all Protestants “do” theology.  The teaching is not arbitrary dogma, or the exaltation of tradition, or an extension of Mary-worship, or “popish superstition.”  Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on reason, as practiced by scholastic theology.

The chain of reasoning goes like this:  In order to redeem the world, Jesus Christ had to be without sin.  He certainly lived a sinless life.  But he also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam.  Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father.  Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam’s fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin,  the accompanying curses of the Fall.  Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature.   She was conceived in the normal manner–not as another virgin birth, with which the doctrine is often confused–but, through a miracle, “immaculately.”

That Mary did not have original sin means that she also did not suffer under the curse of the Fall.  This explains the tradition that she did not feel the pains of labor.  It also explains the bookend Catholic dogma the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.

These notions sound strange to Protestant ears, but they grow out of the Roman Catholic approach to theology, which supports and extends revealed truth with flying buttresses of reason.

Now one might believe these things of Mary without  seeing her as a mediatrix between human beings and Christ, without praying to her, and without seeing her as a co-redemptrix.  One could believe Mary was free of original sin and that she was received bodily into Heaven while still being evangelical, as Luther evidently did in 1521.

But the Protestant theological method, which derived from Luther, uses not reason as the primary authority but the Word of God, which is held to be the only authority in theological issues.  The Bible does not mention any of this about Mary, which is presumably would, if, as Rome claims, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are fundamental and necessary dogmas of the Christian faith.  Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55, the Mother of our Lord praises God as her “savior,” which implies that she too is in need of salvation.  And she certainly suffered, which Eve in her pre-fallen state did not, as Simeon prophesied to her:  “And a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35).

Further, we could argue that Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature.  He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh.  Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse.  (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I recant.)

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • aletheist

    Just speculation here, but what if original sin is only transmitted to a child by his or her father? Jesus received His human nature from His mother, but since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that nature was not corrupted like it is for the rest of us, whose fathers are human descendants of Adam.

  • aletheist

    Just speculation here, but what if original sin is only transmitted to a child by his or her father? Jesus received His human nature from His mother, but since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that nature was not corrupted like it is for the rest of us, whose fathers are human descendants of Adam.

  • Joe

    One of the problems with the Roman reasoning is that is is not all that logical. Why wouldn’t Christ’s already miraculous birth include that little extra miracle of no original sin. The addition of an immaculate conception for Mary runs contrary to the principle commonly referred to as occam’s razor (when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions). We already know that Christ’s birth was miraculous, he was born of a women yet he was God. Thus, the addition of a miraculous birth for Mary adds unnecessary assumptions and should be rejected on a scholastic level.

    Of course the plain words of the Bible – the part where Mary calls Jesus her savior – also seems to dispute the notion that she was without sin.

  • Joe

    One of the problems with the Roman reasoning is that is is not all that logical. Why wouldn’t Christ’s already miraculous birth include that little extra miracle of no original sin. The addition of an immaculate conception for Mary runs contrary to the principle commonly referred to as occam’s razor (when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions). We already know that Christ’s birth was miraculous, he was born of a women yet he was God. Thus, the addition of a miraculous birth for Mary adds unnecessary assumptions and should be rejected on a scholastic level.

    Of course the plain words of the Bible – the part where Mary calls Jesus her savior – also seems to dispute the notion that she was without sin.

  • aletheist

    The Roman Catholic explanation for Mary calling Jesus her savior is that her own immaculate conception was only made possible by Christ’s (future) saving work.

  • aletheist

    The Roman Catholic explanation for Mary calling Jesus her savior is that her own immaculate conception was only made possible by Christ’s (future) saving work.

  • Jonathan

    OK if we have to go by reason/logic/deduction instead of relying on the Word, then why does it have to be the most reasonable deduction that Mary herself was without original sin in the process of the incarnation?

    Through the wonder and miracle of incarnation itself, does it not stand to reason that the Holy Spirit could have shielded Jesus from transmission/reception of original sin? Why is it more reasonable/logical to make Mary the exception to the rule, and not keep the focus where it belongs–on Jesus as the exception to the rule? Original sin was not transmitted to Jesus, period, dot.

    To fall back on the Word, though, the Angel came to Mary completely out of the blue, unexpected, and told her that the power of the HS would *overshadow* her and the thing to be born of her would be called the Son of the Most High. Thus, it seems most logical/reasonable that that is when and how the incarnation of a sinless Jesus happened. In other words, it was by the power of the HS at the Word announced by the Angel at that moment.

    To deduce otherwise in immaculate conception is to diminish the miracle and wonder of the Incarnation and take the focus off Christ.

  • Jonathan

    OK if we have to go by reason/logic/deduction instead of relying on the Word, then why does it have to be the most reasonable deduction that Mary herself was without original sin in the process of the incarnation?

    Through the wonder and miracle of incarnation itself, does it not stand to reason that the Holy Spirit could have shielded Jesus from transmission/reception of original sin? Why is it more reasonable/logical to make Mary the exception to the rule, and not keep the focus where it belongs–on Jesus as the exception to the rule? Original sin was not transmitted to Jesus, period, dot.

    To fall back on the Word, though, the Angel came to Mary completely out of the blue, unexpected, and told her that the power of the HS would *overshadow* her and the thing to be born of her would be called the Son of the Most High. Thus, it seems most logical/reasonable that that is when and how the incarnation of a sinless Jesus happened. In other words, it was by the power of the HS at the Word announced by the Angel at that moment.

    To deduce otherwise in immaculate conception is to diminish the miracle and wonder of the Incarnation and take the focus off Christ.

  • Cincinnatus

    While I understand general adoration for Mary–she is a fairly important figure in the Christian narrative, after all–I tend to regard debates about and dogged insistence upon her perpetual virginity, assumption, etc., as so much casuistry and logic-chopping. Case in point is aletheist’s questions @ 1: Is original sin only transmitted through the father? Who knows? Who cares? Any answer to such a question is purely speculative, and would have to be premised itself upon speculative claims (i.e., original sin must only be transmitted through the father because we dogmatically speculate that Mary conceived immaculately, etc.).

    An example of theology debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

  • Cincinnatus

    While I understand general adoration for Mary–she is a fairly important figure in the Christian narrative, after all–I tend to regard debates about and dogged insistence upon her perpetual virginity, assumption, etc., as so much casuistry and logic-chopping. Case in point is aletheist’s questions @ 1: Is original sin only transmitted through the father? Who knows? Who cares? Any answer to such a question is purely speculative, and would have to be premised itself upon speculative claims (i.e., original sin must only be transmitted through the father because we dogmatically speculate that Mary conceived immaculately, etc.).

    An example of theology debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

  • fws

    Dr Veith,

    Your discussion is good, but it misses a really important point in our Confessions to be a truly Lutheran discussion. That is to indentify what, exactly is “original sin”.

    The Book of Concord, in it’s Apology (defense ) to the Augsburg Confessions defines this for Lutherans in it’s article II titled “On Original Sin.

    There the point is made that to truly understand what Original Sin is, one must first understand what the Adamic Original Righteousness is that was the very Image of God.

    Our Confessions state that Original Sin then is about faith alone. But how?

    Original Sin consists of two things.

    First: It is the “loss” and “absence” of faith in the Works of Another . It is the loss of Faith alone in Christ Alone that is to say!

    Secondly: It is faith! But this faith is a “vicious” faith that is a faith that insists and persists in looking for Goodness and Mercy in ANYthing BUT the Works of Another. This faith insists on placing it’s trust and looking for it’s benefit in anything that is other than alone what is the work of God.

    Now the word used for this second part of Original Sin is the word “concupiscence”. In the Roman system that word is about the carnal or fleshly. Note that the Lutherans redefine that word to instead mean “covet.” It turns out that the NT Greek word translated as “lust” is the same word translated as “covet”. Why does that matter? Again it is the idea that we put our faith in something other than what God intends for us to have to receive goodness or mercy.

    So Original Sin is ALL about faith both in what it is the loss of and in what it actively seeks out as goodness.

    This was a radical departure from the Scholastics, and the basis for this departure was Romans 8. The Scholastics very reasonably saw the contrast of St Paul between “flesh/body” that will perish with the earth VERSUS “spirit”which will endure forever as being a movement from vice to virtue. This is the movement from the profane, mundane and everyday to the spiritual, transcendent and churchly things.

    And the Lutherans opposed this. Why? It is pagan philosophy. It is Aristotle baptized by St Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle said that man has “higher powers” that are the ability to reason and to love. And the task of becoming virtuous is to practice and exercise those powers in order to control man’s “natural appetites” that are driven by emotion. It is not hard to see here that many evangelicals, and even many Lutherans conceptualize “sanctification” as just such a process! It is in fact exactly how anyone needs to become virtuous. It is practice makes perfect, or practice doing what a virtuous person would do until it becomes a habit. And when doing virtuous things becomes a habit, one becomes what what one DOES. One truly becomes Virtue.

    But Luther and the Lutherans, even while acknowledging that God does indeed demand this process of becoming virtuous, insisted that this is not what Romans 8 is about.

    Instead Lutherans radically said that Romans 8 flesh vs spirit was about exactly a movement from Virtue to Faith Alone in Christ Alone!

    So now the entire point of Apology Art II should become clear. In Holy Baptism alone Original Sin is overcome by New Man having the Image of God and Original Righeousness restored. And that Original Righeousness and Image of God is ALONE Faith alone in Christ Alone.

    And yet the Original sin remains because also the Old Adam remains, which, visibly looks completely like Original Sin. And this is true even if a man succeeds in truly becoming virtuous inwardly by his right faith and emotions and love and outwardly in his actions! Why? The heart still seeks its good in other than the Works of Another! It seeks its good in its own faith efforts and love and emotional response to God and its outward works.

    I hope our Roman Catholic apologist is reading this and following what I am saying. All the rest he is arguing for are really insignificant quibbles.

    I would point out to our Roman Catholic Apologist that the Apology is Luther’s formal and public confessions of faith, and it then would certainly trump any or all private views of Luther you might dig up . Further, any other quotes would need to be harmonized with the internal logic of what I have just presented! it is obvious that what I have presented is a fundamental shift away from the Scholastic Theology that butresses Tridentine and subsequent roman theology.

  • fws

    Dr Veith,

    Your discussion is good, but it misses a really important point in our Confessions to be a truly Lutheran discussion. That is to indentify what, exactly is “original sin”.

    The Book of Concord, in it’s Apology (defense ) to the Augsburg Confessions defines this for Lutherans in it’s article II titled “On Original Sin.

    There the point is made that to truly understand what Original Sin is, one must first understand what the Adamic Original Righteousness is that was the very Image of God.

    Our Confessions state that Original Sin then is about faith alone. But how?

    Original Sin consists of two things.

    First: It is the “loss” and “absence” of faith in the Works of Another . It is the loss of Faith alone in Christ Alone that is to say!

    Secondly: It is faith! But this faith is a “vicious” faith that is a faith that insists and persists in looking for Goodness and Mercy in ANYthing BUT the Works of Another. This faith insists on placing it’s trust and looking for it’s benefit in anything that is other than alone what is the work of God.

    Now the word used for this second part of Original Sin is the word “concupiscence”. In the Roman system that word is about the carnal or fleshly. Note that the Lutherans redefine that word to instead mean “covet.” It turns out that the NT Greek word translated as “lust” is the same word translated as “covet”. Why does that matter? Again it is the idea that we put our faith in something other than what God intends for us to have to receive goodness or mercy.

    So Original Sin is ALL about faith both in what it is the loss of and in what it actively seeks out as goodness.

    This was a radical departure from the Scholastics, and the basis for this departure was Romans 8. The Scholastics very reasonably saw the contrast of St Paul between “flesh/body” that will perish with the earth VERSUS “spirit”which will endure forever as being a movement from vice to virtue. This is the movement from the profane, mundane and everyday to the spiritual, transcendent and churchly things.

    And the Lutherans opposed this. Why? It is pagan philosophy. It is Aristotle baptized by St Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle said that man has “higher powers” that are the ability to reason and to love. And the task of becoming virtuous is to practice and exercise those powers in order to control man’s “natural appetites” that are driven by emotion. It is not hard to see here that many evangelicals, and even many Lutherans conceptualize “sanctification” as just such a process! It is in fact exactly how anyone needs to become virtuous. It is practice makes perfect, or practice doing what a virtuous person would do until it becomes a habit. And when doing virtuous things becomes a habit, one becomes what what one DOES. One truly becomes Virtue.

    But Luther and the Lutherans, even while acknowledging that God does indeed demand this process of becoming virtuous, insisted that this is not what Romans 8 is about.

    Instead Lutherans radically said that Romans 8 flesh vs spirit was about exactly a movement from Virtue to Faith Alone in Christ Alone!

    So now the entire point of Apology Art II should become clear. In Holy Baptism alone Original Sin is overcome by New Man having the Image of God and Original Righeousness restored. And that Original Righeousness and Image of God is ALONE Faith alone in Christ Alone.

    And yet the Original sin remains because also the Old Adam remains, which, visibly looks completely like Original Sin. And this is true even if a man succeeds in truly becoming virtuous inwardly by his right faith and emotions and love and outwardly in his actions! Why? The heart still seeks its good in other than the Works of Another! It seeks its good in its own faith efforts and love and emotional response to God and its outward works.

    I hope our Roman Catholic apologist is reading this and following what I am saying. All the rest he is arguing for are really insignificant quibbles.

    I would point out to our Roman Catholic Apologist that the Apology is Luther’s formal and public confessions of faith, and it then would certainly trump any or all private views of Luther you might dig up . Further, any other quotes would need to be harmonized with the internal logic of what I have just presented! it is obvious that what I have presented is a fundamental shift away from the Scholastic Theology that butresses Tridentine and subsequent roman theology.

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, I think that the operative question here isn’t whether adoration of Mary constitutes idolatry (maybe it does, maybe not) but whether it actually matters at all. Adoration of Mary is extremely important in Catholicism. Why? What are the stakes if we jettison Maryology altogether? While I’m generally a traditionalist, superfluous doctrine is the truly idolatrous habit.

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, I think that the operative question here isn’t whether adoration of Mary constitutes idolatry (maybe it does, maybe not) but whether it actually matters at all. Adoration of Mary is extremely important in Catholicism. Why? What are the stakes if we jettison Maryology altogether? While I’m generally a traditionalist, superfluous doctrine is the truly idolatrous habit.

  • fws

    So the point of defining Original Sin in a Lutheran way as being alone about faith in the Works of Another + faith in what one can Do is this:

    Jesus did not lack this faith. He trusted completely in the Father in a way that Adam and each of our Old Adams will never ever be able to do.

    And it is also clear then that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary also could not do this either. Mary could not fear, love and trust in God above ALL things. It is ONLY this that can be the lack of Original Sin. To be able to do this is to be entirely without sin!

    So one must overlay what Dr Luther publicly and formally confesses in the Augsburg confession of 1530 and it’s Apology and contextualize what Dr Luther says about the Blessed Virgin in that way.

    I would point out that Roman Catholics also believe that Original Sin is removed from all men and women by Holy Baptism! So from this fact it should also be abundantly clear that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ have a very different definition of what that word “Original Sin” means.

    Comment directed to our Roman Catholic Apologist: Were you aware that the difference between we Lutheran catholics and you Roman Catholics starts with the definition of Original Sin and not with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone?

  • fws

    So the point of defining Original Sin in a Lutheran way as being alone about faith in the Works of Another + faith in what one can Do is this:

    Jesus did not lack this faith. He trusted completely in the Father in a way that Adam and each of our Old Adams will never ever be able to do.

    And it is also clear then that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary also could not do this either. Mary could not fear, love and trust in God above ALL things. It is ONLY this that can be the lack of Original Sin. To be able to do this is to be entirely without sin!

    So one must overlay what Dr Luther publicly and formally confesses in the Augsburg confession of 1530 and it’s Apology and contextualize what Dr Luther says about the Blessed Virgin in that way.

    I would point out that Roman Catholics also believe that Original Sin is removed from all men and women by Holy Baptism! So from this fact it should also be abundantly clear that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ have a very different definition of what that word “Original Sin” means.

    Comment directed to our Roman Catholic Apologist: Were you aware that the difference between we Lutheran catholics and you Roman Catholics starts with the definition of Original Sin and not with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone?

  • fws

    Cincinnatus @ 5

    +1 !

  • fws

    Cincinnatus @ 5

    +1 !

  • Jerry

    An additional insight from the Lutheran theology of the cross (vs the Roman Catholic and others theology of glory) is that Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.

  • Jerry

    An additional insight from the Lutheran theology of the cross (vs the Roman Catholic and others theology of glory) is that Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.

  • fws

    Further, we could argue that Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature. He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh. Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse. (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I recant.)

    Formula of Concord, art I Original Sin:

    STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
    The Principal Question in This Controversy.

    1] …[Is] original sin is properly and without distinction man’s corrupt [fallen] nature, substance, and essence, or…the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or ….,
    even after the Fall, is there a distinction between man’s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin.,
    [Is]… the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another?

    We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature… as … originally created by God … but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall. …and original sin… this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

    5] … the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother.

    6] Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work.

    But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.

    7] Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.

    8] 3. But, on the other hand,…original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.

    9] This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason , but only from God’s Word. 10] And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature , which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection

    Negative Theses.
    Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.

    11] 1. Therefore we reject … that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.

    12] 2. Also [we reject ] that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature….. [comment: this is the "it's only natural" argument to attenuate sin]

    13] 3. We reject the Pelagian error, that man’s nature even after the Fall …with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.

    14] 4. Also, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, dashed upon the nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its good powers even in spiritual things.

    15] 5. Also, that original sin is only an external impediment to the good spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, …or that this stain can be easily wiped away like a spot from the face or pigment from the wall. [comment: this is the "try harder!" argument on how to overcome original sin]

    16] 6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something [good].

    17] 7. … we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.

    18] 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.

    19] 9. We reject… that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.

    20] 10. Now, this original sin is called by Dr. Luther nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin, not because the nature, person, or essence of man is, without any distinction, itself original sin, but in order to indicate by such words the distinction between original sin, which inheres in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.

    21] 11. For original sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance, and essence of man, so that, though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, no idle word were spoken, no wicked deed were done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupted through original sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountainhead of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written Matt. 15:19: Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Also Gen. 6:5; 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.

    22] 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.

    23] 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.

    24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.

    25] For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.

  • fws

    Further, we could argue that Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature. He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh. Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse. (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I recant.)

    Formula of Concord, art I Original Sin:

    STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
    The Principal Question in This Controversy.

    1] …[Is] original sin is properly and without distinction man’s corrupt [fallen] nature, substance, and essence, or…the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or ….,
    even after the Fall, is there a distinction between man’s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin.,
    [Is]… the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another?

    We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature… as … originally created by God … but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall. …and original sin… this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

    5] … the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother.

    6] Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work.

    But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.

    7] Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.

    8] 3. But, on the other hand,…original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.

    9] This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason , but only from God’s Word. 10] And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature , which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection

    Negative Theses.
    Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.

    11] 1. Therefore we reject … that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.

    12] 2. Also [we reject ] that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature….. [comment: this is the "it's only natural" argument to attenuate sin]

    13] 3. We reject the Pelagian error, that man’s nature even after the Fall …with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.

    14] 4. Also, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, dashed upon the nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its good powers even in spiritual things.

    15] 5. Also, that original sin is only an external impediment to the good spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, …or that this stain can be easily wiped away like a spot from the face or pigment from the wall. [comment: this is the "try harder!" argument on how to overcome original sin]

    16] 6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something [good].

    17] 7. … we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.

    18] 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.

    19] 9. We reject… that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.

    20] 10. Now, this original sin is called by Dr. Luther nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin, not because the nature, person, or essence of man is, without any distinction, itself original sin, but in order to indicate by such words the distinction between original sin, which inheres in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.

    21] 11. For original sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance, and essence of man, so that, though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, no idle word were spoken, no wicked deed were done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupted through original sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountainhead of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written Matt. 15:19: Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Also Gen. 6:5; 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.

    22] 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.

    23] 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.

    24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.

    25] For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.

  • aletheist

    Cincinnatus@5: Just to be clear, I acknowledged that I was speculating, and I agree that it does not really matter. The point was simply to offer an alternative explanation that is just as reasonable and has just as much Biblical support (none!) as the notion of Mary’s immaculate conception. Christ was born sinless of a virgin, full stop.

  • aletheist

    Cincinnatus@5: Just to be clear, I acknowledged that I was speculating, and I agree that it does not really matter. The point was simply to offer an alternative explanation that is just as reasonable and has just as much Biblical support (none!) as the notion of Mary’s immaculate conception. Christ was born sinless of a virgin, full stop.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m going to repeat to some degree what others have already said, but I fail to see the logic here. Let’s look again at Dr. Veith’s summation (which I hope is fairly accurate):

    But [Jesus] also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam. Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father. Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam’s fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin, the accompanying curses of the Fall. Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature. She was conceived in the normal manner–not as another virgin birth, with which the doctrine is often confused–but, through a miracle, “immaculately.”

    Aletheist (@1) has already pointed out one flaw in this reasoning: we don’t know how original sin is propagated, if you will. How do we obtain it?

    Along with Joe’s argument (@2), one might notice that the only person the Bible ever points to as being “without sin” is also the only person the Bible (or history) ever points to as being without a human (genetic) father. Correlation isn’t causation, of course, but one must admit that those are rather singular exceptions! I wouldn’t hold anyone dogmatically to such an inference, but it seems superior to the inference that Catholics uphold as dogma.

    But that’s not all. Because the Catholic “logic” here creates the same issue for Mary! How, exactly, was she born without original sin, except that her mother, also, (and possibly her father, since she had one) was sinless. Therefore, Mary’s mother must also have had an “immaculate conception”. And on and on, all the way back to the beginning.

    Put differently, if it was possible for Mary to be born without original sin, though born of sinful parents, then why was it not also possible for Jesus?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m going to repeat to some degree what others have already said, but I fail to see the logic here. Let’s look again at Dr. Veith’s summation (which I hope is fairly accurate):

    But [Jesus] also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam. Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father. Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam’s fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin, the accompanying curses of the Fall. Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature. She was conceived in the normal manner–not as another virgin birth, with which the doctrine is often confused–but, through a miracle, “immaculately.”

    Aletheist (@1) has already pointed out one flaw in this reasoning: we don’t know how original sin is propagated, if you will. How do we obtain it?

    Along with Joe’s argument (@2), one might notice that the only person the Bible ever points to as being “without sin” is also the only person the Bible (or history) ever points to as being without a human (genetic) father. Correlation isn’t causation, of course, but one must admit that those are rather singular exceptions! I wouldn’t hold anyone dogmatically to such an inference, but it seems superior to the inference that Catholics uphold as dogma.

    But that’s not all. Because the Catholic “logic” here creates the same issue for Mary! How, exactly, was she born without original sin, except that her mother, also, (and possibly her father, since she had one) was sinless. Therefore, Mary’s mother must also have had an “immaculate conception”. And on and on, all the way back to the beginning.

    Put differently, if it was possible for Mary to be born without original sin, though born of sinful parents, then why was it not also possible for Jesus?

  • SKPeterson

    A few questions regarding Mary:

    1) What is the Roman view of Mary’s interaction with Jesus at the wedding in Cana? This could be viewed as a rebuke of Mary by Jesus. Can the sinless be rebuked?

    2) Christ commends his mother into the safekeeping of John at the Crucifixion. Why bother if she’s just going to be bodily assumed into Heaven?

  • SKPeterson

    A few questions regarding Mary:

    1) What is the Roman view of Mary’s interaction with Jesus at the wedding in Cana? This could be viewed as a rebuke of Mary by Jesus. Can the sinless be rebuked?

    2) Christ commends his mother into the safekeeping of John at the Crucifixion. Why bother if she’s just going to be bodily assumed into Heaven?

  • Gary

    Mary, for nine months, was uniquely the bearer of The Word. By the logic outlined here, in order that _traditional/orthodox_ dogma might be buttressed, Roman Catholic theologians were quite content to go beyond what was written to avoid what seemed then an inescapable snag. The logic of scholasticism acting upon the Church’s teaching on Original Sin apparently made it necessary to support the dogma of the Incarnation with extra-Biblical doctrine about Mary’s own birth, perpetual virginity, etc.

    Leave aside questions of Original Sin and Mariology, and consider this:

    Sons and daughters of the Reformation are equally serious about Sola Scriptura. We confess that these human writings also are bearing The Word. We automatically defend the Church’s dogma against all criticisms, and I submit we are happily doing our own version of Scholasticism, building our own versions of the flying buttresses. We are insisting on things about Scripture that must be believed, even when those things go beyond what the Scriptures actually say. And we reinforce those buttresses with proof-texts, often taken out of context, never letting doubters call into question our proof-texting.

    After all, it seems obvious to _us_ that our doctrine of Scripture MUST be inferred from the proof-texts we’ve cited. To call this foundation into question is not permitted, lest the whole house built upon it be shaken. How is this not similar to the Mariology that’s been discussed above?

    Can the Spirit cause that which is _merely_ human to bear The Word without having to fix up the human agency first?

  • Gary

    Mary, for nine months, was uniquely the bearer of The Word. By the logic outlined here, in order that _traditional/orthodox_ dogma might be buttressed, Roman Catholic theologians were quite content to go beyond what was written to avoid what seemed then an inescapable snag. The logic of scholasticism acting upon the Church’s teaching on Original Sin apparently made it necessary to support the dogma of the Incarnation with extra-Biblical doctrine about Mary’s own birth, perpetual virginity, etc.

    Leave aside questions of Original Sin and Mariology, and consider this:

    Sons and daughters of the Reformation are equally serious about Sola Scriptura. We confess that these human writings also are bearing The Word. We automatically defend the Church’s dogma against all criticisms, and I submit we are happily doing our own version of Scholasticism, building our own versions of the flying buttresses. We are insisting on things about Scripture that must be believed, even when those things go beyond what the Scriptures actually say. And we reinforce those buttresses with proof-texts, often taken out of context, never letting doubters call into question our proof-texting.

    After all, it seems obvious to _us_ that our doctrine of Scripture MUST be inferred from the proof-texts we’ve cited. To call this foundation into question is not permitted, lest the whole house built upon it be shaken. How is this not similar to the Mariology that’s been discussed above?

    Can the Spirit cause that which is _merely_ human to bear The Word without having to fix up the human agency first?

  • http://www.godandculture.com Paul Edwards

    Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus had a sin nature, but no sin:

    Romans 8:3 “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”

    Philippians 2:7,8 “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

    Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. “

  • http://www.godandculture.com Paul Edwards

    Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus had a sin nature, but no sin:

    Romans 8:3 “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”

    Philippians 2:7,8 “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

    Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. “

  • Shane A

    @Cincinnatus,

    The old trite “angels dancing on the head of a pin” example which you use is telling; Charles Williams encountered just such a flippant use of this cliche once in a lecture, which he found greatly insulting given that this phrase was used to debate the relationship between intelligence and spatial existence.

    By dismissing all such concerns about Mary as so much logic-chopping, you are missing the implications which this question poses for Christianity. Of special concern is the role of tradition, since none of these doctrines are contained in Scripture. What do we do, for instance, with the extra-canonical Gospel of James? If we accept the Gospel of James account of Mary’s perpetual virginity, does this elevate the status of virginity beyond the status of marriage? These are important questions which have deep consequences.

  • Shane A

    @Cincinnatus,

    The old trite “angels dancing on the head of a pin” example which you use is telling; Charles Williams encountered just such a flippant use of this cliche once in a lecture, which he found greatly insulting given that this phrase was used to debate the relationship between intelligence and spatial existence.

    By dismissing all such concerns about Mary as so much logic-chopping, you are missing the implications which this question poses for Christianity. Of special concern is the role of tradition, since none of these doctrines are contained in Scripture. What do we do, for instance, with the extra-canonical Gospel of James? If we accept the Gospel of James account of Mary’s perpetual virginity, does this elevate the status of virginity beyond the status of marriage? These are important questions which have deep consequences.

  • kerner

    Can the Spirit cause that which is _merely_ human to bear The Word without having to fix up the human agency first?

    Why not? Or perhaps better, why should the “fix[ing] up” be more or different than the ordinary justification/sanctification that “fix[es] up” any other Christian?

    The thing that makes me skeptical of Mariology in general is that it is superfluous to our entire theology of the cross. Given what we believe about Jesus and the cross, what part does Mary have in that? None that I can see. But if we accept the idea of Mary as mediatrix or intercessor or hearer of our prayers, doesn’t that do all kinds of violence to our theology of the cross?

    Because I agree with fws and Joe and SKP and tODD, and probably others, I can’t escape the implication that the scholastic process of deduction that gets the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virgo, etc., is just a rationalization for the desire to incorporate a female demigoddess into Christianity. I know that sounds harsh, but if Scripture doesn’t teach Mariology, and reason doesn’t mandate it, what else is left?

  • kerner

    Can the Spirit cause that which is _merely_ human to bear The Word without having to fix up the human agency first?

    Why not? Or perhaps better, why should the “fix[ing] up” be more or different than the ordinary justification/sanctification that “fix[es] up” any other Christian?

    The thing that makes me skeptical of Mariology in general is that it is superfluous to our entire theology of the cross. Given what we believe about Jesus and the cross, what part does Mary have in that? None that I can see. But if we accept the idea of Mary as mediatrix or intercessor or hearer of our prayers, doesn’t that do all kinds of violence to our theology of the cross?

    Because I agree with fws and Joe and SKP and tODD, and probably others, I can’t escape the implication that the scholastic process of deduction that gets the immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virgo, etc., is just a rationalization for the desire to incorporate a female demigoddess into Christianity. I know that sounds harsh, but if Scripture doesn’t teach Mariology, and reason doesn’t mandate it, what else is left?

  • SKPeterson

    I forgot. Working backward from the “Mary had to be assumed into Heaven because she was sinless; because she was assumed into Heaven she must be sinless” tautology, there are two other assumptions into Heaven to consider – Enoch and Elijah. Yet, I am unaware of any tradition which declares either of these men to be sinless and thus requiring bodily assumption. Granted, neither of them was designated to be the Mother of God but, in their favor, their assumptions are actually attested to in Scripture.

  • SKPeterson

    I forgot. Working backward from the “Mary had to be assumed into Heaven because she was sinless; because she was assumed into Heaven she must be sinless” tautology, there are two other assumptions into Heaven to consider – Enoch and Elijah. Yet, I am unaware of any tradition which declares either of these men to be sinless and thus requiring bodily assumption. Granted, neither of them was designated to be the Mother of God but, in their favor, their assumptions are actually attested to in Scripture.

  • Dust

    Gary….you raise good points.

    Here are some pages from a website that list some “food for thought” concerning some Lutheran/Protestant theology, that may or may not “dovetail” with some of your comments? If not, sorry…

    Note, am not saying that these critiques are correct, but they certainly make one think and challenge some beliefs in ways we normally don’t consider?

    Well, in my opinion, it can be a positive educational experience to walk in someone else’s “theological shoes” if just to see yourself in a different light, in a way others see you and your Church?

    So, here they are:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/25-short-counter-arguments-against.html

    there more similar critiques in the table of contents listed on this page:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/books-by-dave-armstrong-501-biblical.html

    Again, am not saying these are correct, for sure not for Lutherans, but it is food for thought…..or will they just produce a bad case of theological indigestion :)

  • Dust

    Gary….you raise good points.

    Here are some pages from a website that list some “food for thought” concerning some Lutheran/Protestant theology, that may or may not “dovetail” with some of your comments? If not, sorry…

    Note, am not saying that these critiques are correct, but they certainly make one think and challenge some beliefs in ways we normally don’t consider?

    Well, in my opinion, it can be a positive educational experience to walk in someone else’s “theological shoes” if just to see yourself in a different light, in a way others see you and your Church?

    So, here they are:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/25-short-counter-arguments-against.html

    there more similar critiques in the table of contents listed on this page:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/books-by-dave-armstrong-501-biblical.html

    Again, am not saying these are correct, for sure not for Lutherans, but it is food for thought…..or will they just produce a bad case of theological indigestion :)

  • Tom Hering

    Mary as an examplar is Law, accusing us of falling short in the humility and obedience departments. Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me, as she was chosen by grace alone: “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.” No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just “God’s favor” – unmerited grace.

  • Tom Hering

    Mary as an examplar is Law, accusing us of falling short in the humility and obedience departments. Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me, as she was chosen by grace alone: “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.” No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just “God’s favor” – unmerited grace.

  • ElementofGod

    On June 25th, 1530, Philip Melanchthon and other Lutheran laymen presented a confession of faith before the emperor and Roman Catholic Church:

    ‘The Cause of Sin. Our churches teach that although G-d creates and preserves nature, the cause of sin is located in the will of the wicked, that is, the devil and ungodly people. Without G-d’s help, this will turns itself away from G-d, as Christ says, “…When he lies, he speaks out of his own character…” (John 8:v44)’
    Article XIX, The Augsburg Confession,
    Concordia Publishing House, 2006

    Hence as catholic christians, should we believe the infallibility of papal authority? Do we bow to the idea of a ‘Co-redemtrix (Co-redeemer)’…a Mary born prior to Jesus by an immaculate conception? To be gentle, let’s at best consider this ‘Adiaphora’ (concepts not addressed in scripture).

    Martin Luther, a man of the Book, wrote:

    ‘Where, do you think, lies the reason we
    cannot believe the Word of God although
    everything up to the article of the resurrection
    of the dead has happened as scripture says?
    The reason is original sin.’
    Plass, Ewald M., comp. What Luther
    says. St. Louis: Concordia, 1959.

    So, let us too rely solely upon the word of God, the Bible…lest we deceive ourselves in sin. The Bible does not address Mary’s birth.

    Holy Scripture states:

    “Who can discern his errors?
    Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
    Keep back your servant also
    from presumptuous sins;
    let them not have dominion over me!
    Then I shall be blameless,
    and innocent of transgression.”
    (Psalm 19:v12-13)

    “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
    (Psalm 51:v5)

    “My people are bent on turning away from me,
    and though they call out to the Most High,
    he shall not raise them up at all.”
    (Hosea 11:v7)

    “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
    adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness,
    slander.”
    (Matthew 15:v19)

    “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through
    one man, and death through sin, and so death spread
    to all men because all sinned…”
    (Romans 5:v12)

    Biblically, Adam and Eve were originally created without sin. Their fall was not obeying the word of God, thereby making each and everyone of us from the time of their sinful act and subsequent departure from the Garden of Eden a sinner. We are broken, not formed righteous with God, but imperfect and with an inherent desire to follow our own will.

    Mary being no exception, fell into sin as well. Only Jesus was born without sin, via ‘an immaculate conception’ as this is what Holy Scripture declares and once we depart from scripture, we once again begin to rely upon our own human reason, which is flawed.

    So, how was Jesus born without sin, while his mother was broken and unrighteous? All I can conjure is, ‘God is God. I am not’. I therefore have no answer to this question. I must merely get over it with my limited human reasoning and accept that complexities may go beyond my own human understanding.

    Enough said,
    A repentant catholic christian who has been justified thru faith by God’s Grace

  • ElementofGod

    On June 25th, 1530, Philip Melanchthon and other Lutheran laymen presented a confession of faith before the emperor and Roman Catholic Church:

    ‘The Cause of Sin. Our churches teach that although G-d creates and preserves nature, the cause of sin is located in the will of the wicked, that is, the devil and ungodly people. Without G-d’s help, this will turns itself away from G-d, as Christ says, “…When he lies, he speaks out of his own character…” (John 8:v44)’
    Article XIX, The Augsburg Confession,
    Concordia Publishing House, 2006

    Hence as catholic christians, should we believe the infallibility of papal authority? Do we bow to the idea of a ‘Co-redemtrix (Co-redeemer)’…a Mary born prior to Jesus by an immaculate conception? To be gentle, let’s at best consider this ‘Adiaphora’ (concepts not addressed in scripture).

    Martin Luther, a man of the Book, wrote:

    ‘Where, do you think, lies the reason we
    cannot believe the Word of God although
    everything up to the article of the resurrection
    of the dead has happened as scripture says?
    The reason is original sin.’
    Plass, Ewald M., comp. What Luther
    says. St. Louis: Concordia, 1959.

    So, let us too rely solely upon the word of God, the Bible…lest we deceive ourselves in sin. The Bible does not address Mary’s birth.

    Holy Scripture states:

    “Who can discern his errors?
    Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
    Keep back your servant also
    from presumptuous sins;
    let them not have dominion over me!
    Then I shall be blameless,
    and innocent of transgression.”
    (Psalm 19:v12-13)

    “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
    (Psalm 51:v5)

    “My people are bent on turning away from me,
    and though they call out to the Most High,
    he shall not raise them up at all.”
    (Hosea 11:v7)

    “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder,
    adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness,
    slander.”
    (Matthew 15:v19)

    “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through
    one man, and death through sin, and so death spread
    to all men because all sinned…”
    (Romans 5:v12)

    Biblically, Adam and Eve were originally created without sin. Their fall was not obeying the word of God, thereby making each and everyone of us from the time of their sinful act and subsequent departure from the Garden of Eden a sinner. We are broken, not formed righteous with God, but imperfect and with an inherent desire to follow our own will.

    Mary being no exception, fell into sin as well. Only Jesus was born without sin, via ‘an immaculate conception’ as this is what Holy Scripture declares and once we depart from scripture, we once again begin to rely upon our own human reason, which is flawed.

    So, how was Jesus born without sin, while his mother was broken and unrighteous? All I can conjure is, ‘God is God. I am not’. I therefore have no answer to this question. I must merely get over it with my limited human reasoning and accept that complexities may go beyond my own human understanding.

    Enough said,
    A repentant catholic christian who has been justified thru faith by God’s Grace

  • Cincinnatus

    It seems to me that part of the problem is that we (or Catholics, at least) insist upon regarding “original sin” as a biological, congenital “disease” or condition. Thus, the logic goes, we must find a biological link or avenue of transmission. But, from my view, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of our fallenness.

  • Cincinnatus

    It seems to me that part of the problem is that we (or Catholics, at least) insist upon regarding “original sin” as a biological, congenital “disease” or condition. Thus, the logic goes, we must find a biological link or avenue of transmission. But, from my view, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of our fallenness.

  • Dust

    Tom..the angel also said “blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) And Elisabeth “filled with the Holy Ghost” (41) no less, said “blessed art thou among women” (42) and Mary herself said “from henceforth all generations shall called me blessed” (48). So, ok never mind the examplar lable, particularly if it makes you uncomfortable, but do call her “blessed” and show her some respect :)

  • Dust

    Tom..the angel also said “blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) And Elisabeth “filled with the Holy Ghost” (41) no less, said “blessed art thou among women” (42) and Mary herself said “from henceforth all generations shall called me blessed” (48). So, ok never mind the examplar lable, particularly if it makes you uncomfortable, but do call her “blessed” and show her some respect :)

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 23, I do call Mary “blessed among women,” but for the sole reason that she bore Our Savior. Yes, she received God’s favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 23, I do call Mary “blessed among women,” but for the sole reason that she bore Our Savior. Yes, she received God’s favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.

  • Joe

    Dust – One of the things I dislike most about the Roman dogma re: Mary is that it does in fact distort her real position as the blessed mother of Christ. Could she serve as an example? – Yes as an example of how God’s grace is poured out even on unworthy young women.

  • Joe

    Dust – One of the things I dislike most about the Roman dogma re: Mary is that it does in fact distort her real position as the blessed mother of Christ. Could she serve as an example? – Yes as an example of how God’s grace is poured out even on unworthy young women.

  • Tom Hering

    Gabriel had to tell Mary, “Do not be afraid.” What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord’s messenger? Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?

  • Tom Hering

    Gabriel had to tell Mary, “Do not be afraid.” What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord’s messenger? Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?

  • Grace

    Mary is blessed among women – however the passage below from Matthew, is thought provoking, as Jesus makes a statement about his mother, brethren, sisters and brothers.

    46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

    47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

    48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

    49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

    50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12

    Jesus is saying that the strongest relationship is the one between HE, (Jesus Christ) and those who are Believers. If we are Believers we are far, far more closely related to other Believers then those we are related to within our family, but more importantly we are HIS.

  • Grace

    Mary is blessed among women – however the passage below from Matthew, is thought provoking, as Jesus makes a statement about his mother, brethren, sisters and brothers.

    46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

    47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

    48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

    49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

    50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12

    Jesus is saying that the strongest relationship is the one between HE, (Jesus Christ) and those who are Believers. If we are Believers we are far, far more closely related to other Believers then those we are related to within our family, but more importantly we are HIS.

  • Dust

    Tom…that greeting is just an angels standard operating procedure upon addressing humans; you know, sort of like Miranda rights, just to be sure you cover your bases? It may be helpful to recall your own experiences with angels :)

    Anyway, in both the case of Zacharias and the shepherds, the angels were right to say this, and like Luke says they were all afraid, even sore afraid! But Luke doesn’t say Mary was afraid, only that she was “troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.”

    Thought this distinction would be important since it seems you want to connect the sinfulness of Mary to her fear of the angel?

  • Dust

    Tom…that greeting is just an angels standard operating procedure upon addressing humans; you know, sort of like Miranda rights, just to be sure you cover your bases? It may be helpful to recall your own experiences with angels :)

    Anyway, in both the case of Zacharias and the shepherds, the angels were right to say this, and like Luke says they were all afraid, even sore afraid! But Luke doesn’t say Mary was afraid, only that she was “troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.”

    Thought this distinction would be important since it seems you want to connect the sinfulness of Mary to her fear of the angel?

  • Ron

    In respect to the sinless Christ, I think we might realize that God (Apostles and Nicene Creed: “who was conceived/incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary) sanctifies whatever vessel he occupies. He did so with Mary’s sinful flesh which provided the true humanness of our Savior and He can do so substantially in our own flesh via the regeneration, renewal by the Holy Spirit and perfectly of course, in the resurrection of our flesh.

    The issue is not how the sin nature is communicated since both male and female and all that is in us is corrupted by sin. Neither male nor female can contribute anything that is without sin. Sinners produce only sinners.

    The Biblical teaching that all have sinned and that in particular Mary rejoiced in her Savior not only affirm that Mary was born in sin but that such sin is no obstacle to the salvation that is ours in Christ. God is greater than sin….our sin, Mary’s sin, anyone’s sin.

    I would suggest that the only immaculate part of Jesus’ birth is that which the Holy Spirit provided. In our salvation, the same is true. We can offer nothing but sin, corruption and a dead spirit. Jesus alone brings forgiveness, holiness and life to our souls. In this respect, Mary and each of us are the same. Like Mary in her Magnifcat (Luke 1:46-55) we can rejoice in response to the many great things God has done and take credit for none.

    I kind of liked the statement by aletheist earlier today: “Christ was born sinless of a virgin, full stop.” That’s what the Bible clearly teaches and it actually is enough to tell us exactly what Jesus can do for us!

  • Ron

    In respect to the sinless Christ, I think we might realize that God (Apostles and Nicene Creed: “who was conceived/incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary) sanctifies whatever vessel he occupies. He did so with Mary’s sinful flesh which provided the true humanness of our Savior and He can do so substantially in our own flesh via the regeneration, renewal by the Holy Spirit and perfectly of course, in the resurrection of our flesh.

    The issue is not how the sin nature is communicated since both male and female and all that is in us is corrupted by sin. Neither male nor female can contribute anything that is without sin. Sinners produce only sinners.

    The Biblical teaching that all have sinned and that in particular Mary rejoiced in her Savior not only affirm that Mary was born in sin but that such sin is no obstacle to the salvation that is ours in Christ. God is greater than sin….our sin, Mary’s sin, anyone’s sin.

    I would suggest that the only immaculate part of Jesus’ birth is that which the Holy Spirit provided. In our salvation, the same is true. We can offer nothing but sin, corruption and a dead spirit. Jesus alone brings forgiveness, holiness and life to our souls. In this respect, Mary and each of us are the same. Like Mary in her Magnifcat (Luke 1:46-55) we can rejoice in response to the many great things God has done and take credit for none.

    I kind of liked the statement by aletheist earlier today: “Christ was born sinless of a virgin, full stop.” That’s what the Bible clearly teaches and it actually is enough to tell us exactly what Jesus can do for us!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Gene (initial post),

    He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively “Catholic” view of Mary early in his career,

    Till his death, too, in many ways. As far as I know, he (along with virtually all early Protestant leaders) never ceased believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity, or the propriety of calling her Mother of God (Theotokos or Mater Dei/i>). He held even later in life a modified version of what Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was purged of original sin and was sinless at the birth of Christ and after. I have called this view, “Immaculate Purification.” It is like ours insofar as she was freed from original sin by God’s grace at some point; different in that it was not at her conception. The early Luther (as late as 1527 for sure and possibly later) even believed the latter.

    Luther wrote in 1540:

    “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.”

    And in 1543:

    “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .”

    And in 1543-1544:

    “But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .

    “But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .”

    Sources for the above in this paper, or other papers of mine listed at the top of it:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-immaculate-conception-4.html

    I don’t think he ever denied that Mary’s Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles. All of that is far more “Marian” that (I’d venture to guess) maybe 95% of Lutherans today. A lot closer in spirit to us than to y’all, I dare say . . .

    One of the issues was the “immaculate conception,” the Roman Catholic teaching that by a direct miracle of God the Virgin Mary was born without original sin.

    Well, conceived without original sin, to be precise. Hence the use of “conception.”

    This is an interesting example of the Roman Catholic theological method, as distinct from how virtually all Protestants “do” theology. The teaching is not arbitrary dogma, or the exaltation of tradition, or an extension of Mary-worship, or “popish superstition.”

    Fair and ecumenical statement. Thanks!

    Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on reason, as practiced by scholastic theology.

    It involves reason, yes (as virtually all theology that I know of, does), but not without biblical argumentation.

    The chain of reasoning goes like this: In order to redeem the world, Jesus Christ had to be without sin.

    He couldn’t have ever sinned, being God, and (even in His human nature) because of the Hypostatic Union. He was impeccable.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Gene (initial post),

    He cited evidence that Luther had a relatively “Catholic” view of Mary early in his career,

    Till his death, too, in many ways. As far as I know, he (along with virtually all early Protestant leaders) never ceased believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity, or the propriety of calling her Mother of God (Theotokos or Mater Dei/i>). He held even later in life a modified version of what Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception: that Mary was purged of original sin and was sinless at the birth of Christ and after. I have called this view, “Immaculate Purification.” It is like ours insofar as she was freed from original sin by God’s grace at some point; different in that it was not at her conception. The early Luther (as late as 1527 for sure and possibly later) even believed the latter.

    Luther wrote in 1540:

    “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.”

    And in 1543:

    “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .”

    And in 1543-1544:

    “But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .

    “But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .”

    Sources for the above in this paper, or other papers of mine listed at the top of it:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-immaculate-conception-4.html

    I don’t think he ever denied that Mary’s Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles. All of that is far more “Marian” that (I’d venture to guess) maybe 95% of Lutherans today. A lot closer in spirit to us than to y’all, I dare say . . .

    One of the issues was the “immaculate conception,” the Roman Catholic teaching that by a direct miracle of God the Virgin Mary was born without original sin.

    Well, conceived without original sin, to be precise. Hence the use of “conception.”

    This is an interesting example of the Roman Catholic theological method, as distinct from how virtually all Protestants “do” theology. The teaching is not arbitrary dogma, or the exaltation of tradition, or an extension of Mary-worship, or “popish superstition.”

    Fair and ecumenical statement. Thanks!

    Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on reason, as practiced by scholastic theology.

    It involves reason, yes (as virtually all theology that I know of, does), but not without biblical argumentation.

    The chain of reasoning goes like this: In order to redeem the world, Jesus Christ had to be without sin.

    He couldn’t have ever sinned, being God, and (even in His human nature) because of the Hypostatic Union. He was impeccable.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    He certainly lived a sinless life. But he also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam.

    He couldn’t possibly have had original sin, either, since that was from the fall and rebellion of created human beings, of whom He was not one.

    Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father. Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam’s fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin, the accompanying curses of the Fall. Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature.

    This is not Catholic reasoning (with all due respect). Theologian Ludwig Ott explains, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

    “As original sin is propagated by natural generation, and since Christ entered life in a supernatural manner through conception by the Holy Ghost (Mt. 1:18 et seq.; Luke 1:26 et seq.) it follows that He was not subject to the general law of original sin.

    “The Fathers and the theologians infer Christ’s freedom fro original sin from the Hypostatic Union, which being a most intimate connection with God, excludes the condition of separation from God implied by original sin.” (p. 168)

    This being the case, Mary’s state vis-a-vis original sin was irrelevant insofar as Jesus Christ was concerned. She didn’t have to necessarily be conceived immaculately, either for His sake or her own, as the Mother of God. Catholics believe that God performed this miracle because it was “fitting” or “appropriate”. Hence, if one reads the dogmatic proclamation of 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus), there is no trace of language about the Immaculate Conception being any kind of necessity in order for Christ to be sinless.

    Mary’s being immaculate had more to do with the analogy to Eve. Mary was the second Eve, who said yes to God rather than no. She was restored to the state that an unfallen Eve would have remained in. Hence the fathers had a prominent motif of “second Eve” or “the new Eve.” The immaculate Eve rebelled against God and fell. The immaculate Mary said yes to God at the Annunciation and thus helped bring about the incarnation, leading to Christ’s atonement and redemption: that reversed the curse of the fall.

    That Mary did not have original sin means that she also did not suffer under the curse of the Fall. This explains the tradition that she did not feel the pains of labor.

    That doesn’t follow, either. Jesus Christ certainly suffered bodily, and He was without original or actual sin, and not fallen. Mary’s not having pains in childbirth isn’t due to that, but because it was an entirely miraculous childbirth and in accord with all the physical aspects of perpetual virginity (non-violation of the hymen in any fashion whatever). In other words, it followed from the nature of the Virgin Birth.

    It also explains the bookend Catholic dogma the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.

    There is that connection, yes. But again, Jesus lacked original sin, and was God, and He died. Most Catholics believe that Mary also died, by analogy to Jesus. But it is not required belief. She may have died; maybe not. I personally believe she did, because the analogy makes perfect sense to me, and she always sought to be like her Son. The dogmatic declaration in 1950 doesn’t say whether she died. It says, “the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”.

    Nor would an Assumption to heaven (to be technical, but accurate, I think) necessarily follow from the absence of original sin, since if human beings hadn’t fallen, the result would have been immortality (no death), rather than Assumption.

    The Assumption signified Mary being the first or among the first human beings to receive her resurrection body, due to the finished work of her Son Jesus on the cross. What better or more appropriate person to obtain that honor?

    To be continued . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    He certainly lived a sinless life. But he also needed to be without original sin as inherited from Adam.

    He couldn’t possibly have had original sin, either, since that was from the fall and rebellion of created human beings, of whom He was not one.

    Jesus took His human nature from being born of the Virgin Mary, not having a human father. Somehow, though, He could not have inherited Adam’s fallen nature, with its inherent sinfulness, its genetic (we would say) disposition to sin, the accompanying curses of the Fall. Therefore, the mother of Jesus must not bear that fallen nature.

    This is not Catholic reasoning (with all due respect). Theologian Ludwig Ott explains, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

    “As original sin is propagated by natural generation, and since Christ entered life in a supernatural manner through conception by the Holy Ghost (Mt. 1:18 et seq.; Luke 1:26 et seq.) it follows that He was not subject to the general law of original sin.

    “The Fathers and the theologians infer Christ’s freedom fro original sin from the Hypostatic Union, which being a most intimate connection with God, excludes the condition of separation from God implied by original sin.” (p. 168)

    This being the case, Mary’s state vis-a-vis original sin was irrelevant insofar as Jesus Christ was concerned. She didn’t have to necessarily be conceived immaculately, either for His sake or her own, as the Mother of God. Catholics believe that God performed this miracle because it was “fitting” or “appropriate”. Hence, if one reads the dogmatic proclamation of 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus), there is no trace of language about the Immaculate Conception being any kind of necessity in order for Christ to be sinless.

    Mary’s being immaculate had more to do with the analogy to Eve. Mary was the second Eve, who said yes to God rather than no. She was restored to the state that an unfallen Eve would have remained in. Hence the fathers had a prominent motif of “second Eve” or “the new Eve.” The immaculate Eve rebelled against God and fell. The immaculate Mary said yes to God at the Annunciation and thus helped bring about the incarnation, leading to Christ’s atonement and redemption: that reversed the curse of the fall.

    That Mary did not have original sin means that she also did not suffer under the curse of the Fall. This explains the tradition that she did not feel the pains of labor.

    That doesn’t follow, either. Jesus Christ certainly suffered bodily, and He was without original or actual sin, and not fallen. Mary’s not having pains in childbirth isn’t due to that, but because it was an entirely miraculous childbirth and in accord with all the physical aspects of perpetual virginity (non-violation of the hymen in any fashion whatever). In other words, it followed from the nature of the Virgin Birth.

    It also explains the bookend Catholic dogma the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.

    There is that connection, yes. But again, Jesus lacked original sin, and was God, and He died. Most Catholics believe that Mary also died, by analogy to Jesus. But it is not required belief. She may have died; maybe not. I personally believe she did, because the analogy makes perfect sense to me, and she always sought to be like her Son. The dogmatic declaration in 1950 doesn’t say whether she died. It says, “the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”.

    Nor would an Assumption to heaven (to be technical, but accurate, I think) necessarily follow from the absence of original sin, since if human beings hadn’t fallen, the result would have been immortality (no death), rather than Assumption.

    The Assumption signified Mary being the first or among the first human beings to receive her resurrection body, due to the finished work of her Son Jesus on the cross. What better or more appropriate person to obtain that honor?

    To be continued . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I won’t be around for a few hours, if anyone replies to my two posts. I will respond to the rest of the initial post when I return. I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify often-misunderstood Catholic beliefs on this score.

    Sorry for all the italics in #30. I blew the “italics off” code. :-)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I won’t be around for a few hours, if anyone replies to my two posts. I will respond to the rest of the initial post when I return. I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify often-misunderstood Catholic beliefs on this score.

    Sorry for all the italics in #30. I blew the “italics off” code. :-)

  • Dust

    Have not had time to read either Dave, but thanks very much for your perspective…very much enjoy the scholarship of your faith, and am sure it is welcomed here in a spirit of understanding, respect and patience, as that is the best tradition of the Blog of Veith :)

  • Dust

    Have not had time to read either Dave, but thanks very much for your perspective…very much enjoy the scholarship of your faith, and am sure it is welcomed here in a spirit of understanding, respect and patience, as that is the best tradition of the Blog of Veith :)

  • Grace

    Mother of God? – no, Mary was Jesus mother – Jesus was God’s Son. Jesus Christ our LORD and Savior was from everlasting. He was not created, just before Mary concieved HIM.

    ” She didn’t have to necessarily be conceived immaculately, either for His sake or her own, as the Mother of God.

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Micah 5:2

    But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
    Jeremiah 10:10

  • Grace

    Mother of God? – no, Mary was Jesus mother – Jesus was God’s Son. Jesus Christ our LORD and Savior was from everlasting. He was not created, just before Mary concieved HIM.

    ” She didn’t have to necessarily be conceived immaculately, either for His sake or her own, as the Mother of God.

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Micah 5:2

    But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
    Jeremiah 10:10

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you seem to be confusing “mother of God” with
    “creator of God.” I’m not sure why you’d do that, as even a normal mother isn’t the creator of the life within her, but only a vessel for it.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you seem to be confusing “mother of God” with
    “creator of God.” I’m not sure why you’d do that, as even a normal mother isn’t the creator of the life within her, but only a vessel for it.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    No, I’m not confusing “mother of God” with creation. Read the post I made @28.

    Below, from the great prayer of the LORD Jesus Christ to God the Father:

    4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
    John 17

  • Grace

    Tom,

    No, I’m not confusing “mother of God” with creation. Read the post I made @28.

    Below, from the great prayer of the LORD Jesus Christ to God the Father:

    4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
    John 17

  • Tom Hering

    “No, I’m not confusing ‘mother of God’ with creation.”

    Okay, if you say so, but you’re still confusing me. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “No, I’m not confusing ‘mother of God’ with creation.”

    Okay, if you say so, but you’re still confusing me. :-D

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks for the Bible proof, Grace:

    But the LORD is the true God, . . . (Jeremiah 10:10)

    Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

    John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!”

    “Lord (kurios) God (theos)”: Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

    Therefore, “Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

    Jesus is called both in Jn 20:28.

    Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

    Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

    Case closed. Of course, if anyone denies the deity of Christ, this wouldn’t follow, but then there are some 300 Bible passages to show the error of that . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks for the Bible proof, Grace:

    But the LORD is the true God, . . . (Jeremiah 10:10)

    Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

    John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!”

    “Lord (kurios) God (theos)”: Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

    Therefore, “Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

    Jesus is called both in Jn 20:28.

    Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

    Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

    Case closed. Of course, if anyone denies the deity of Christ, this wouldn’t follow, but then there are some 300 Bible passages to show the error of that . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body

    That’s sheer nonsense, and the Nestorian heresy to boot. We don’t say of mothers that they are the mother of their child’s body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn’t create the soul; God did.

    Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It’s dumb to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body

    That’s sheer nonsense, and the Nestorian heresy to boot. We don’t say of mothers that they are the mother of their child’s body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn’t create the soul; God did.

    Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It’s dumb to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks, Dust. Are you a Lutheran yourself?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Thanks, Dust. Are you a Lutheran yourself?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave has already touched on this in his own way (@39, 40), but I also felt the need to reply to Grace (@35):

    Mother of God? – no, Mary was Jesus mother – Jesus was God’s Son.

    There must be some reason you’re objecting to the phrase “Mother of God”, but I can’t figure it out. You admit that “Mary was Jesus’ mother”. Which kind of prods the question: Who do you think Jesus is? If you admit that Jesus is God, then you must, necessarily, concede that Mary was the mother of God, even if you don’t like the implications of that particular phrasing.

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

    Right (to the second sentence). And Jesus is God. Your argument here comes dangerously close to appearing to deny that, though. Would you likewise deny that Mary is the mother of our Lord? This seems such a strange quibble for you to make.

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    You know, for someone who, all of the previous sentence was talking about “There is no Scripture” that (explicitly) says something, you appear to have made up doctrine out of whole cloth here — that is to say, not from Scripture. “Mary is the mother of Jesus’ flesh body”? Where in God’s Word does it say that?

    What is your real objection here, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave has already touched on this in his own way (@39, 40), but I also felt the need to reply to Grace (@35):

    Mother of God? – no, Mary was Jesus mother – Jesus was God’s Son.

    There must be some reason you’re objecting to the phrase “Mother of God”, but I can’t figure it out. You admit that “Mary was Jesus’ mother”. Which kind of prods the question: Who do you think Jesus is? If you admit that Jesus is God, then you must, necessarily, concede that Mary was the mother of God, even if you don’t like the implications of that particular phrasing.

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

    Right (to the second sentence). And Jesus is God. Your argument here comes dangerously close to appearing to deny that, though. Would you likewise deny that Mary is the mother of our Lord? This seems such a strange quibble for you to make.

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    You know, for someone who, all of the previous sentence was talking about “There is no Scripture” that (explicitly) says something, you appear to have made up doctrine out of whole cloth here — that is to say, not from Scripture. “Mary is the mother of Jesus’ flesh body”? Where in God’s Word does it say that?

    What is your real objection here, Grace?

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE:

    “You know, for someone who, all of the previous sentence was talking about “There is no Scripture” that (explicitly) says something, you appear to have made up doctrine out of whole cloth here — that is to say, not from Scripture. “Mary is the mother of Jesus’ flesh body”? Where in God’s Word does it say that?”
    .

    “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
    John 1:14

    Think about it. The LORD Jesus was from Everlasting.

    As we read in John 1

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    ⟨ The Word was Christ, and the Word was God. Christ Jesus was again, from EVERLASTING ⟩

    2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    ⟨ Christ made all things, and nothing was made without HIM ⟩

    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    ⟨ In HIM was life, HE always was life. Did the Word (Christ) have life after HE was born? or before?

    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1

  • Grace

    tODD,

    YOU WROTE:

    “You know, for someone who, all of the previous sentence was talking about “There is no Scripture” that (explicitly) says something, you appear to have made up doctrine out of whole cloth here — that is to say, not from Scripture. “Mary is the mother of Jesus’ flesh body”? Where in God’s Word does it say that?”
    .

    “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
    John 1:14

    Think about it. The LORD Jesus was from Everlasting.

    As we read in John 1

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    ⟨ The Word was Christ, and the Word was God. Christ Jesus was again, from EVERLASTING ⟩

    2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    ⟨ Christ made all things, and nothing was made without HIM ⟩

    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    ⟨ In HIM was life, HE always was life. Did the Word (Christ) have life after HE was born? or before?

    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1

  • Grace

    Is Mary Queen of Heaven because she bore Jesus? If not, where in Scripture can we find Mary as being the Queen of Heaven or the Universe?

    Since Jesus, in John 1 makes it certain, that HE made everything. Did the Word meaning Christ, create Mary, and then create HIMSELF as her son, mother of God?

    I and my Father are one. John 10:30

    If Mary is the mother of God, then is she the mother of God the Father , and if so, then she would be over God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Mary would be the ‘first – and therefore the mother of the Trinity.

    After saying all this, it is obvious Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh.

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

  • Grace

    Is Mary Queen of Heaven because she bore Jesus? If not, where in Scripture can we find Mary as being the Queen of Heaven or the Universe?

    Since Jesus, in John 1 makes it certain, that HE made everything. Did the Word meaning Christ, create Mary, and then create HIMSELF as her son, mother of God?

    I and my Father are one. John 10:30

    If Mary is the mother of God, then is she the mother of God the Father , and if so, then she would be over God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Mary would be the ‘first – and therefore the mother of the Trinity.

    After saying all this, it is obvious Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh.

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@43), your Bible quotes do not affirm the statement you made (and the larger point you are trying to make). Again, you said (@35):

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body

    As such, you very much appear to deny that Mary gave birth to Jesus, both fully God and fully man.

    To put it more bluntly, God came out of Mary’s womb. God nursed at Mary’s breasts. God slept in Mary’s arms. Mary was, in a very real sense, the mother of God.

    Yes, I very much affirm John 1, but it does not contain the teaching that Mary was solely the “mother of Jesus flesh body”. You made that up. And Dave’s right (@40) — your argument smells like Nestorianism (I had to look it up, but having read a little bit on it, I see why he said that).

    You said to Tom (@37):

    I’m not confusing “mother of God” with creation.

    But I have to conclude that you, in fact, are confusing just that. Your issue seems to be with the idea that being the “mother of” someone means that you’re more important than them, or before them, or something. I don’t know.

    But whatever problems you have with this particular phrasing, the “logic” that proceeds from your objection is leading you down a very treacherous path.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@43), your Bible quotes do not affirm the statement you made (and the larger point you are trying to make). Again, you said (@35):

    Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body

    As such, you very much appear to deny that Mary gave birth to Jesus, both fully God and fully man.

    To put it more bluntly, God came out of Mary’s womb. God nursed at Mary’s breasts. God slept in Mary’s arms. Mary was, in a very real sense, the mother of God.

    Yes, I very much affirm John 1, but it does not contain the teaching that Mary was solely the “mother of Jesus flesh body”. You made that up. And Dave’s right (@40) — your argument smells like Nestorianism (I had to look it up, but having read a little bit on it, I see why he said that).

    You said to Tom (@37):

    I’m not confusing “mother of God” with creation.

    But I have to conclude that you, in fact, are confusing just that. Your issue seems to be with the idea that being the “mother of” someone means that you’re more important than them, or before them, or something. I don’t know.

    But whatever problems you have with this particular phrasing, the “logic” that proceeds from your objection is leading you down a very treacherous path.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@44), I suspected as much. You’re bringing all sorts of baggage into this discussion.

    Is Mary Queen of Heaven because she bore Jesus?

    See, nobody once mentioned “Queen of Heaven”. But you brought it up because you’re, what, worried that acceding to the notion of Mary being “Mother of God” necessarily means agreeing to all Catholic titles and dogma concerning Mary? That’s silly. The “Queen of Heaven” bit is irrelevant to this discussion.

    If Mary is the mother of God, then is she the mother of God the Father

    You’re only convincing me that modern Evangelicals have a poor grasp of the Trinity, Grace. The question above is foolish.

    “God” does not mean strictly “God the Father”. Or do you believe that God the Father died on the cross? No, Christians believe in the Trinity — one God, three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son. No one here is saying that Mary is the mother of the Father — it pains me to even write that. No, we are saying quite clearly that she is the mother of Jesus. And Jesus is God.

    Honestly, you really should read the Athanasian Creed.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@44), I suspected as much. You’re bringing all sorts of baggage into this discussion.

    Is Mary Queen of Heaven because she bore Jesus?

    See, nobody once mentioned “Queen of Heaven”. But you brought it up because you’re, what, worried that acceding to the notion of Mary being “Mother of God” necessarily means agreeing to all Catholic titles and dogma concerning Mary? That’s silly. The “Queen of Heaven” bit is irrelevant to this discussion.

    If Mary is the mother of God, then is she the mother of God the Father

    You’re only convincing me that modern Evangelicals have a poor grasp of the Trinity, Grace. The question above is foolish.

    “God” does not mean strictly “God the Father”. Or do you believe that God the Father died on the cross? No, Christians believe in the Trinity — one God, three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son. No one here is saying that Mary is the mother of the Father — it pains me to even write that. No, we are saying quite clearly that she is the mother of Jesus. And Jesus is God.

    Honestly, you really should read the Athanasian Creed.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Lutherans and Catholics (and Orthodox and traditional Anglicans and lots of individual evangelicals) agree on “Mother of God”. Grace, on the other hand, is up to her neck in Nestorian heresy and is butchering the Bible (as well as simple logic) to boot.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Lutherans and Catholics (and Orthodox and traditional Anglicans and lots of individual evangelicals) agree on “Mother of God”. Grace, on the other hand, is up to her neck in Nestorian heresy and is butchering the Bible (as well as simple logic) to boot.

  • fws

    dave @ 31

    to affirm that Mary IS the Mother of God is really essential to Lutheran theology Dave.

    You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. would you please do us the favor of giving us the references?

    Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.

    How do you define Original Sin Dave? You are talking alot about Original Sin without ever defining what you believe it is.

  • fws

    dave @ 31

    to affirm that Mary IS the Mother of God is really essential to Lutheran theology Dave.

    You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. would you please do us the favor of giving us the references?

    Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.

    How do you define Original Sin Dave? You are talking alot about Original Sin without ever defining what you believe it is.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, tODD, and grace,

    Perhaps it would help a bit to recognize that “mother of God” is an English rendering of the Greek word “theotokos.” The literal sense of this word is not “mother” of God, as in the role of mother. A mother is above her son, and so I understand Grace’s concern about the danger there. (Btw, is “Grace” your name, or just a screen name? I never know whether to capitalize.)

    “Theotokos” is the “mother of God” in the sense that she bore, gave birth, to God. A more literal rendering would be “the one who gave birth to God.” She does not “mother” God. She is not above Him (Wedding of Cana). But she did indeed bear Him who is true God and true Man.

    So let’s save the accusations of heresy (Nestorianism) until they are fully earned.

    And tODD, #45,

    It gives me some comfort to know there are SOME words I know that you must look up, since it is usually so the other way around.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, tODD, and grace,

    Perhaps it would help a bit to recognize that “mother of God” is an English rendering of the Greek word “theotokos.” The literal sense of this word is not “mother” of God, as in the role of mother. A mother is above her son, and so I understand Grace’s concern about the danger there. (Btw, is “Grace” your name, or just a screen name? I never know whether to capitalize.)

    “Theotokos” is the “mother of God” in the sense that she bore, gave birth, to God. A more literal rendering would be “the one who gave birth to God.” She does not “mother” God. She is not above Him (Wedding of Cana). But she did indeed bear Him who is true God and true Man.

    So let’s save the accusations of heresy (Nestorianism) until they are fully earned.

    And tODD, #45,

    It gives me some comfort to know there are SOME words I know that you must look up, since it is usually so the other way around.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #31,

    I’m throwing a flag here.

    First, echoing Fws above, please provide us with citations when you quote Luther. We are the kind of people who like to check for ourselves.

    More importantly, you need to re-read your own quotes. (I will credit you with hasty reading so that I am not tempted to accuse you of intentionally misleading.) The human nature that Luther is speaking of here being purified from sin is not Mary’s, but Christ’s.

    Unless you are contending Luther also believed that Mary’s nature was “united with the divine nature in one Person.” (#31, umm, third citation without a reference.)

    Upon re-reading you will find, in fact, that all of these quotes are Luther explaining how Christ could be sinless if He took His human nature from the sinful Mary.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #31,

    I’m throwing a flag here.

    First, echoing Fws above, please provide us with citations when you quote Luther. We are the kind of people who like to check for ourselves.

    More importantly, you need to re-read your own quotes. (I will credit you with hasty reading so that I am not tempted to accuse you of intentionally misleading.) The human nature that Luther is speaking of here being purified from sin is not Mary’s, but Christ’s.

    Unless you are contending Luther also believed that Mary’s nature was “united with the divine nature in one Person.” (#31, umm, third citation without a reference.)

    Upon re-reading you will find, in fact, that all of these quotes are Luther explaining how Christ could be sinless if He took His human nature from the sinful Mary.

  • Tom Hering

    “‘Theotokos’ is the ‘mother of God’ in the sense that she bore, gave birth, to God. A more literal rendering would be ‘the one who gave birth to God.’ She does not ‘mother’ God. She is not above Him (Wedding of Cana). But she did indeed bear Him who is true God and true Man.”

    Thanks, Dan, for saying well what I was trying to say @ 36.

  • Tom Hering

    “‘Theotokos’ is the ‘mother of God’ in the sense that she bore, gave birth, to God. A more literal rendering would be ‘the one who gave birth to God.’ She does not ‘mother’ God. She is not above Him (Wedding of Cana). But she did indeed bear Him who is true God and true Man.”

    Thanks, Dan, for saying well what I was trying to say @ 36.

  • fws

    Dave, I need clarification on something:

    Are you asserting that the Blessed Virgin Mary was completely without any sin at all? That she was sinless? is this the teaching of the Roman Church? Can you give me an official cite for that if so?

  • fws

    Dave, I need clarification on something:

    Are you asserting that the Blessed Virgin Mary was completely without any sin at all? That she was sinless? is this the teaching of the Roman Church? Can you give me an official cite for that if so?

  • fws

    Dave,

    I would like to make a couple of points to you here that will help you do apologetics with us Lutheran catholics.

    1) We recognize one another here AS Lutherans solely and only because we accept the Lutheran Confessions found in the Book of Concord as our personal confessions. If you were to ask any one of us what we personally believe on any point of doctrine, we would likely quote from there or paraphrase. This would also be the case if you asked us what the official position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is on anything. We are Lutheran and not Luther-an.

    2) I think you can see that we have no problem with the idea that the early Luther was more Roman Catholic than you probably are. I am quite certain that Luther did indeed continue to believe that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually so. You can even find a passage in our Confessions that refer to her in those terms. Since this is taught nowhere in the Holy Scriptures, Lutherans classify this as “pious speculation”.

    3) In case you aren’t picking up on this, the only real area we Lutheran catholics really are pushing back against you on is about the Blessed Virgin in connection with Original Sin.

    But here the problem is not with your speculations on the Virgin Mary. The problem is that you attenuate Original Sin and make it into some pagan and philosophical notion of Virtue and Righteousness that is utterly contrary to Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Apostles from the Holy Apostle Saint James to Saints Peter and Paul and John and of course your dear Lord Jesus.

    Here your view of Original Sin is from Aristotle by way of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Your view if Original sin (according to the Council of Trent) is just baptized pagan philosophy with an ever so thin veneer of christian piety covering it.

    I hope you realize that the point of departure from Roman Catholic Scholasticism/Baptized-paganism is not justification by faith alone, nor even Sola Scriptura.

    The point of departure is your pagan views on original sin.

  • fws

    Dave,

    I would like to make a couple of points to you here that will help you do apologetics with us Lutheran catholics.

    1) We recognize one another here AS Lutherans solely and only because we accept the Lutheran Confessions found in the Book of Concord as our personal confessions. If you were to ask any one of us what we personally believe on any point of doctrine, we would likely quote from there or paraphrase. This would also be the case if you asked us what the official position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is on anything. We are Lutheran and not Luther-an.

    2) I think you can see that we have no problem with the idea that the early Luther was more Roman Catholic than you probably are. I am quite certain that Luther did indeed continue to believe that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually so. You can even find a passage in our Confessions that refer to her in those terms. Since this is taught nowhere in the Holy Scriptures, Lutherans classify this as “pious speculation”.

    3) In case you aren’t picking up on this, the only real area we Lutheran catholics really are pushing back against you on is about the Blessed Virgin in connection with Original Sin.

    But here the problem is not with your speculations on the Virgin Mary. The problem is that you attenuate Original Sin and make it into some pagan and philosophical notion of Virtue and Righteousness that is utterly contrary to Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Apostles from the Holy Apostle Saint James to Saints Peter and Paul and John and of course your dear Lord Jesus.

    Here your view of Original Sin is from Aristotle by way of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Your view if Original sin (according to the Council of Trent) is just baptized pagan philosophy with an ever so thin veneer of christian piety covering it.

    I hope you realize that the point of departure from Roman Catholic Scholasticism/Baptized-paganism is not justification by faith alone, nor even Sola Scriptura.

    The point of departure is your pagan views on original sin.

  • fws

    Dave,

    One more really important point:

    We Lutheran catholics indeed claim that our doctrine is more truly catholic that your hyphenated roman-catholicism is.

    We claim to stand in our teachings alone with the Holy Tradition of Christ and the Holy Apostles and nothing but.

    You freely claim that the Holy Church continued to add to that Apostolic Tradition their own non-catholic and parochial Traditions.

    Further, we have NO problem at all even embracing those Holy Traditions that are in no conflict with the Apostolic Tradition. As just one of many examples, I could argue that we Lutheran Catholics treasure the Holy Liturgy in spite of the fact that no one is dictating to us that it must be used. We truly love it. We have no problem with sacred statuary. We love to make the sign of the Holy Cross, many of us bow at the consecration of the elements in the Blessed Sacrament.

    And I am not really bothered at your speculation at the assumption of Mary or her perpetual virginity. Meh. Go ahead and speculate brother! Why does the point matter? It doesnt really does it? Why should it matter?

    I am not stating this out as a point to debate, but rather I am suggesting that your apologetics, aimed at Lutherans , might focus in a somewhat more substantive way if you are aiming to invite us Lutherans to swim the Tiber as you have done. I am sorry that you previous christian faith was so very unApostolic and that you jumped over to the opposite of that error, which is really just the opposite error.

    come let us reason together.

    The Lord’s Peace be with you dear brother in Christ.

  • fws

    Dave,

    One more really important point:

    We Lutheran catholics indeed claim that our doctrine is more truly catholic that your hyphenated roman-catholicism is.

    We claim to stand in our teachings alone with the Holy Tradition of Christ and the Holy Apostles and nothing but.

    You freely claim that the Holy Church continued to add to that Apostolic Tradition their own non-catholic and parochial Traditions.

    Further, we have NO problem at all even embracing those Holy Traditions that are in no conflict with the Apostolic Tradition. As just one of many examples, I could argue that we Lutheran Catholics treasure the Holy Liturgy in spite of the fact that no one is dictating to us that it must be used. We truly love it. We have no problem with sacred statuary. We love to make the sign of the Holy Cross, many of us bow at the consecration of the elements in the Blessed Sacrament.

    And I am not really bothered at your speculation at the assumption of Mary or her perpetual virginity. Meh. Go ahead and speculate brother! Why does the point matter? It doesnt really does it? Why should it matter?

    I am not stating this out as a point to debate, but rather I am suggesting that your apologetics, aimed at Lutherans , might focus in a somewhat more substantive way if you are aiming to invite us Lutherans to swim the Tiber as you have done. I am sorry that you previous christian faith was so very unApostolic and that you jumped over to the opposite of that error, which is really just the opposite error.

    come let us reason together.

    The Lord’s Peace be with you dear brother in Christ.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    fws:

    “[Dave,] come let us reason together.”

    I’ve examined David’s views and they are truly interesting. He does insist that all RC doctrine is harmonious with Scripture, just not explicitly mentioned. I am not sure if that is a requirement for any point of RC doctrine though.

    Some of you may be interested in knowing that Dave has actually read the lion’s share of Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. 1 (great stuff), and has replied to it.

    I’ve replied to him, and am eager to get a counter-reply. Here it is in case anyone here is interested:

    http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/my-reply-to-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-regarding-his-examination-of-martin-chemnitzs-examination/

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    fws:

    “[Dave,] come let us reason together.”

    I’ve examined David’s views and they are truly interesting. He does insist that all RC doctrine is harmonious with Scripture, just not explicitly mentioned. I am not sure if that is a requirement for any point of RC doctrine though.

    Some of you may be interested in knowing that Dave has actually read the lion’s share of Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. 1 (great stuff), and has replied to it.

    I’ve replied to him, and am eager to get a counter-reply. Here it is in case anyone here is interested:

    http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/my-reply-to-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-regarding-his-examination-of-martin-chemnitzs-examination/

  • Tom Hering

    “I am quite certain that Luther did indeed continue to believe that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually so. You can even find a passage in our Confessions that refer to her in those terms.” – @ 53.

    Frank, by “perpetually so” do you mean “always without original sin”? And is this the passage you’re referring to?

    Augsburg Confession, Article IV: Justification (Kolb Wengert, emphases added):

    38.1 (German text), “Likewise, it is taught that God the Son became a human being, born of the pure Virgin Mary …”

    39.1-2, (Latin text), “Likewise, they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, took upon himself human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary …”

    If so, it seems to me that only the German text refers to Mary’s sinlessness, while the Latin text avoids the concept.

  • Tom Hering

    “I am quite certain that Luther did indeed continue to believe that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually so. You can even find a passage in our Confessions that refer to her in those terms.” – @ 53.

    Frank, by “perpetually so” do you mean “always without original sin”? And is this the passage you’re referring to?

    Augsburg Confession, Article IV: Justification (Kolb Wengert, emphases added):

    38.1 (German text), “Likewise, it is taught that God the Son became a human being, born of the pure Virgin Mary …”

    39.1-2, (Latin text), “Likewise, they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, took upon himself human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary …”

    If so, it seems to me that only the German text refers to Mary’s sinlessness, while the Latin text avoids the concept.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan
  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan
  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    copy and paste

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    copy and paste

  • fws

    Tom Hering @56

    I don’t believe that Luther, not even the Luther of 1521, believed that the Virgin Mary was without sin. Why not? This would have directly warred against the very foundation of his theology. And that theology was this: Only faith knows to be terrified at ALL its best and most virtuous works and so then only faith also knows that it needs to hide ALL those works in the Works of Another.

    And it is THIS faith that is Original Righeousness and the Image of God that Adam lost and is now restored in the New Man only through Holy Baptism. So I am certain that Mary had this faith. I am also certain that Luther had no illusion that Mary also lacked an Old Adam.

    I was meaning to say that Luther I do believe always held that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually a virgin.

    Blessing Tom.

    That coffee you sent me was awesssoooooome. I still owe you something by return mail. hugs.

  • fws

    Tom Hering @56

    I don’t believe that Luther, not even the Luther of 1521, believed that the Virgin Mary was without sin. Why not? This would have directly warred against the very foundation of his theology. And that theology was this: Only faith knows to be terrified at ALL its best and most virtuous works and so then only faith also knows that it needs to hide ALL those works in the Works of Another.

    And it is THIS faith that is Original Righeousness and the Image of God that Adam lost and is now restored in the New Man only through Holy Baptism. So I am certain that Mary had this faith. I am also certain that Luther had no illusion that Mary also lacked an Old Adam.

    I was meaning to say that Luther I do believe always held that the Blessed Virgin was perpetually a virgin.

    Blessing Tom.

    That coffee you sent me was awesssoooooome. I still owe you something by return mail. hugs.

  • fws

    Thanks Nathan, I will look into this! great stuff!

  • fws

    Thanks Nathan, I will look into this! great stuff!

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    By the way, Dave has told me that he is going to reply to my post online. He said that it might take a while though as he is currently involved here as well.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    By the way, Dave has told me that he is going to reply to my post online. He said that it might take a while though as he is currently involved here as well.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 59. So “pure” in 38.1 of the German text (KW) would refer to Mary’s perpetual virginity? Okay, sure – that makes the German and Latin texts line up better. “Blessed” (Latin) could refer (among other things) to the gift of celibacy (which is a blessing). But how does this square with what the Scriptures require of spouses – giving their bodies to one another? If this requirement didn’t apply to Mary and Joseph, how then can Mary be an exemplar for wives?

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 59. So “pure” in 38.1 of the German text (KW) would refer to Mary’s perpetual virginity? Okay, sure – that makes the German and Latin texts line up better. “Blessed” (Latin) could refer (among other things) to the gift of celibacy (which is a blessing). But how does this square with what the Scriptures require of spouses – giving their bodies to one another? If this requirement didn’t apply to Mary and Joseph, how then can Mary be an exemplar for wives?

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Tom,

    The answers are in here:

    http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2010/09/et-tamen-virgo-mansit.html

    Here is how an EO priest, a former LC-MS professor, reacted to this piece:

    http://frgregory.blogspot.com/2010/09/cracked-quia.html

    Interesting stuff.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Tom,

    The answers are in here:

    http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2010/09/et-tamen-virgo-mansit.html

    Here is how an EO priest, a former LC-MS professor, reacted to this piece:

    http://frgregory.blogspot.com/2010/09/cracked-quia.html

    Interesting stuff.

  • SKPeterson

    It’s nice that we’re recapitulating an 1,800 (give or take a century) conversation on the status of Mary and its relationship to the nature(s) of Christ and general Christology. Grace has already provided a nice example of how Nestorianism is alive and well in the vast domain of Christendom. Perhaps representatives of the mia- or monophysites will make their appeals to the single nature of Christ.

    To some extent the Roman emphasis on developing the dogma of Mary arises from over-rationalistic defenses of the duophysite position and the perceived need to harmonize the humanity and divinity of Jesus logically. So, to have a fully human and fully divine Jesus that can square up to original sin, we need to somehow alter Mary’s humanity so that in Jesus the fullness of the godhead might dwell bodily. This seems to be a limiting constraint on the creative power of God – God can only work the bodily manifestation of the Trinity (Christ) by creating a sinless woman to bear the flesh.

    Not only is that severely limiting of God’s power, but it begs the question – if God can create sinless humans, why send Christ bodily to reconcile Creation back to God in the first place? Why not have done it with Noah and his family? Or with Cain or Abel or Seth?

    Mary was blessed by God to carry the Son. Why? Because somebody had to. She was chosen to fill a role in the same manner God chose Jonah or Jeremiah or Isaiah – to bear the Word. Laudable. Admirable. Let’s leave it at that.

  • SKPeterson

    It’s nice that we’re recapitulating an 1,800 (give or take a century) conversation on the status of Mary and its relationship to the nature(s) of Christ and general Christology. Grace has already provided a nice example of how Nestorianism is alive and well in the vast domain of Christendom. Perhaps representatives of the mia- or monophysites will make their appeals to the single nature of Christ.

    To some extent the Roman emphasis on developing the dogma of Mary arises from over-rationalistic defenses of the duophysite position and the perceived need to harmonize the humanity and divinity of Jesus logically. So, to have a fully human and fully divine Jesus that can square up to original sin, we need to somehow alter Mary’s humanity so that in Jesus the fullness of the godhead might dwell bodily. This seems to be a limiting constraint on the creative power of God – God can only work the bodily manifestation of the Trinity (Christ) by creating a sinless woman to bear the flesh.

    Not only is that severely limiting of God’s power, but it begs the question – if God can create sinless humans, why send Christ bodily to reconcile Creation back to God in the first place? Why not have done it with Noah and his family? Or with Cain or Abel or Seth?

    Mary was blessed by God to carry the Son. Why? Because somebody had to. She was chosen to fill a role in the same manner God chose Jonah or Jeremiah or Isaiah – to bear the Word. Laudable. Admirable. Let’s leave it at that.

  • Dan Kempin

    SK, #64,

    “Grace has already provided a nice example of how Nestorianism is alive and well in the vast domain of Christendom. ”

    How so? I heard her grappling with Mary’s role in the incarnation, but I did not hear her say anything against the person of Christ. Perhaps you could show me more explicitly the basis for calling her a heretic.

  • Dan Kempin

    SK, #64,

    “Grace has already provided a nice example of how Nestorianism is alive and well in the vast domain of Christendom. ”

    How so? I heard her grappling with Mary’s role in the incarnation, but I did not hear her say anything against the person of Christ. Perhaps you could show me more explicitly the basis for calling her a heretic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@65), I appreciate your even-handedness and desire not to rush either to judgment or condemnation. I always have a lot to learn from you Lutheran pastors in your online behavior. As you must certainly know.

    That said, to at least address your comment:

    I heard her grappling with Mary’s role in the incarnation, but I did not hear her say anything against the person of Christ.

    I can’t speak for SK (@64), but the statement of Grace’s that most made my eyebrows arch was this one (@35, with my emphasis):

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    Regardless of whether you think this rises to heresy, much less the specific heresy of Nestorianism, I think you can agree that Grace here makes a claim about the two natures of Christ, and not solely about Mary’s role.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@65), I appreciate your even-handedness and desire not to rush either to judgment or condemnation. I always have a lot to learn from you Lutheran pastors in your online behavior. As you must certainly know.

    That said, to at least address your comment:

    I heard her grappling with Mary’s role in the incarnation, but I did not hear her say anything against the person of Christ.

    I can’t speak for SK (@64), but the statement of Grace’s that most made my eyebrows arch was this one (@35, with my emphasis):

    There is no Scripture that states Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is the mother of Jesus flesh body, .. He, Jesus pre-existed, from EVERLASTING.

    Regardless of whether you think this rises to heresy, much less the specific heresy of Nestorianism, I think you can agree that Grace here makes a claim about the two natures of Christ, and not solely about Mary’s role.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    In the first article I linked to above about Mary’s perpetual virginity (by Dr. John Stephenson), there was what I thought a very helpful comment from Pastor Will Weedon, who was commenting on what significance Mary’s perpetual virginity would have for the Church:

    “William Weedon said…

    Gerhard provides a clue. He sees Mary as a type of the Church – and thus the simultaneity of Church as “virgin, mother, bride.” From Sacred Meditation XXIII: She is mother because she daily bears spiritual sons to God. She is as a chaste virgin, because she keeps herself pure from all unholy alliances with the devil and the world. She is a bride, because Christ hath betrothed her to Himself by an eternal covenant.”

    Yet neither Gerhard nor Luther nor Chemnitz ever forgot the wise words of St. Basil on this:

    “But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the intervention of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. *That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery.* But since the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient.” PG 31, 1468B.

    Whatever value the perpetual virginity has in providing typology of the Church, it has NO value dogmatically; the Blessed Mother’s virginity was required for the birth. That explains why Pieper was not willing to consider heretic the person who denied it while otherwise orthodox in his christology.”

    Others in the comments bring up distinctions between dogmas (essential teachings) and other teachings that are important, and should be held, but are not essential (i.e. to our salvation)

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    In the first article I linked to above about Mary’s perpetual virginity (by Dr. John Stephenson), there was what I thought a very helpful comment from Pastor Will Weedon, who was commenting on what significance Mary’s perpetual virginity would have for the Church:

    “William Weedon said…

    Gerhard provides a clue. He sees Mary as a type of the Church – and thus the simultaneity of Church as “virgin, mother, bride.” From Sacred Meditation XXIII: She is mother because she daily bears spiritual sons to God. She is as a chaste virgin, because she keeps herself pure from all unholy alliances with the devil and the world. She is a bride, because Christ hath betrothed her to Himself by an eternal covenant.”

    Yet neither Gerhard nor Luther nor Chemnitz ever forgot the wise words of St. Basil on this:

    “But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the intervention of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. *That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery.* But since the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient.” PG 31, 1468B.

    Whatever value the perpetual virginity has in providing typology of the Church, it has NO value dogmatically; the Blessed Mother’s virginity was required for the birth. That explains why Pieper was not willing to consider heretic the person who denied it while otherwise orthodox in his christology.”

    Others in the comments bring up distinctions between dogmas (essential teachings) and other teachings that are important, and should be held, but are not essential (i.e. to our salvation)

  • fws

    Nathan @ 58

    I agree, david does a fine job of responding to Chemnitz, and at the same time he does oversimplify things. But then there are many Lutherans who also do the same thing.

    I would love to see dave armstrong address the Apology to the Augsburg Confessions! I think alot of what he discusses and you address in Chemnitz’ Examen are not getting at what the essential differences are between Rome and Augsburg.

    Dave often addresses Wittenburg when he needs to address Augsburg, that is IF he truly wants to do apologetics with Lutherans. And the path there is by first discussing Original Sin. Secondly it is to discuss the Law of God.

    Discussing Sola Scriptura or even Justification by Faith Alone simply will be wheel spinning without first addressing Original Sin and the Law of God.

  • fws

    Nathan @ 58

    I agree, david does a fine job of responding to Chemnitz, and at the same time he does oversimplify things. But then there are many Lutherans who also do the same thing.

    I would love to see dave armstrong address the Apology to the Augsburg Confessions! I think alot of what he discusses and you address in Chemnitz’ Examen are not getting at what the essential differences are between Rome and Augsburg.

    Dave often addresses Wittenburg when he needs to address Augsburg, that is IF he truly wants to do apologetics with Lutherans. And the path there is by first discussing Original Sin. Secondly it is to discuss the Law of God.

    Discussing Sola Scriptura or even Justification by Faith Alone simply will be wheel spinning without first addressing Original Sin and the Law of God.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    One thing at a time. Now there are 68 comments, and I seem to be the token, resident Catholic (and apologist), in a combox all about Catholic Mariology, and I intend to reply to anything where I think I can clarify the Catholic position or refute what I think is error. I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational. The more the merrier, in that sense. I absolutely love the debate. It motivates me more quickly to write than anything.

    So 10-to-one or 100-to-one doesn’t faze me a bit. My only limitation is the laws of physics: a thing called time. First I am gonna finish my response to the initial post by Gene Veith. Then I will give the source quotes I was asked for (thanks for the extra work, guys, in this present situation: all that was already in my paper that I linked to, or related papers that are linked there, as I stated). It is especially fun now because someone wants to deny that they are genuine. Well, be sure you are sitting down when I give the documentation . . . :-)

    After that I will probably reply to things in the order they were written. It could take days, weeks. But I won’t be “overcome” just because I am discussing stuff with ten or more people at once. If people are truly interested in what Catholicism teaches, rather than (far too often) a caricature of it, then I can provide that; more than happy to do so. Only so many hours in a day, though . . .

    And today is my anniversary. See how much I love you Lutherans, to spend all day and night with you on my anniversary, explaining my Catholic faith? LOL My wife and I will be having a date during the day tomorrow, just so you know if the comments are up to 274 by then (as always when Mary is being discussed).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    One thing at a time. Now there are 68 comments, and I seem to be the token, resident Catholic (and apologist), in a combox all about Catholic Mariology, and I intend to reply to anything where I think I can clarify the Catholic position or refute what I think is error. I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational. The more the merrier, in that sense. I absolutely love the debate. It motivates me more quickly to write than anything.

    So 10-to-one or 100-to-one doesn’t faze me a bit. My only limitation is the laws of physics: a thing called time. First I am gonna finish my response to the initial post by Gene Veith. Then I will give the source quotes I was asked for (thanks for the extra work, guys, in this present situation: all that was already in my paper that I linked to, or related papers that are linked there, as I stated). It is especially fun now because someone wants to deny that they are genuine. Well, be sure you are sitting down when I give the documentation . . . :-)

    After that I will probably reply to things in the order they were written. It could take days, weeks. But I won’t be “overcome” just because I am discussing stuff with ten or more people at once. If people are truly interested in what Catholicism teaches, rather than (far too often) a caricature of it, then I can provide that; more than happy to do so. Only so many hours in a day, though . . .

    And today is my anniversary. See how much I love you Lutherans, to spend all day and night with you on my anniversary, explaining my Catholic faith? LOL My wife and I will be having a date during the day tomorrow, just so you know if the comments are up to 274 by then (as always when Mary is being discussed).

  • SKPeterson

    Dan, I’ll confess I was just tweaking Grace a bit, but referring to the quote Todd cites at 66, the statement made by Grace is almost exactly analogous to that of Nestorius when he stated that Mary was not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ only. As Todd notes, this bears directly on trinitarian Christology – is Jesus as the Christ fully human and fully divine? If so, is he of one nature or two in his person? Is his person co-equal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit and do they share the same divine essence. If we believe Jesus when he states that he is one with the Father, then he is God, and the one in whom the godhead fully dwells bodily. Therefore he is God, and Mary, as Theotokos or God-bearer, is the mother of God and not just the bearer of Christ, the Christokos.

    Now, the couterargument might be that we would fall into Eutychianism – the notion of the divinity of Christ enveloping and overwhelming his humanity. Or we could adopt Cyril of Alexandria’s more moderate miaphysitism in which Christ is of one nature with two characters, a divine and a human.

    Here I’ll cite Oecumenius, arguing against Eutyches, but applicable to our conversation about Mary: “For the Virgin is consubstantial to us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which makes the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts…” therefore, Mary is just like the rest of us – a fallen, sinful creature in need of a savior.

    Now, what I believe Grace is actually trying to argue against is what was mentioned in other comments: the “motherhood” of Mary might imply that she has authority over Jesus as her son, and thence onward toward Co-Redemptrix of mankind heresy.

  • SKPeterson

    Dan, I’ll confess I was just tweaking Grace a bit, but referring to the quote Todd cites at 66, the statement made by Grace is almost exactly analogous to that of Nestorius when he stated that Mary was not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ only. As Todd notes, this bears directly on trinitarian Christology – is Jesus as the Christ fully human and fully divine? If so, is he of one nature or two in his person? Is his person co-equal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit and do they share the same divine essence. If we believe Jesus when he states that he is one with the Father, then he is God, and the one in whom the godhead fully dwells bodily. Therefore he is God, and Mary, as Theotokos or God-bearer, is the mother of God and not just the bearer of Christ, the Christokos.

    Now, the couterargument might be that we would fall into Eutychianism – the notion of the divinity of Christ enveloping and overwhelming his humanity. Or we could adopt Cyril of Alexandria’s more moderate miaphysitism in which Christ is of one nature with two characters, a divine and a human.

    Here I’ll cite Oecumenius, arguing against Eutyches, but applicable to our conversation about Mary: “For the Virgin is consubstantial to us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which makes the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts…” therefore, Mary is just like the rest of us – a fallen, sinful creature in need of a savior.

    Now, what I believe Grace is actually trying to argue against is what was mentioned in other comments: the “motherhood” of Mary might imply that she has authority over Jesus as her son, and thence onward toward Co-Redemptrix of mankind heresy.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Now I will continue my reply to the initial post by Gene Veith (and I gratefully thank him for his Christian hospitality and charity in allowing me to freely comment on this blog without being banned or run off on a rail).

    Please Note: whenever I do any public dialogue, I always post it on my blog, and always post both sides. And I almost always post all my opponents’ words. If not (rarely, or if so, just a little editing), then I provide a link where they can be read in their entirety. If you object to that, just let me know, and I won’t interact with you, and don’t bother dialoguing with me, because I want my readers to see both sides (being the socratic teacher that I am), and it is wearisome to take out one side of a dialogue because a person refuses to let it be somewhere else online. Let it be known now, lest I catch flak (because some people don’t like that and seem to lack the courage of their convictions, from where I sit).

    These notions sound strange to Protestant ears, but they grow out of the Roman Catholic approach to theology, which supports and extends revealed truth with flying buttresses of reason.

    This is a better description because it is saying that we are utilizing the Bible also in our theological thinking. All Christian traditions apply reason to theology, or else they don’t do theology, period. They would have to sit on a mountaintop and ponder their belly button or become a Quaker, with his “inner light” — if not. We’re no different from anyone else in that fundamental sense. It’s only relative: how much reason is applied or valued in the overall scheme of things.

    So you guys say we place it too high; we say you place it too low. Fundamentalist types place it way lower than you do. I happen to like reason, myself. I think it’s pretty cool. The Bible says that Paul reasoned and argued with Jews and Greeks alike. Jesus did it. Paul does it all through his letters. Melanchthon and Chemnitz and all the other great Lutheran theologians did. Even Luther occasionally lapsed and descended into reason (joke, folks!). We’re called to love God with our minds, etc. Reason cannot be separated.

    Now one might believe these things of Mary without seeing her as a mediatrix between human beings and Christ, without praying to her, and without seeing her as a co-redemptrix.

    That’s right. People manage to believe all kinds of things., in various and sundry combinations: consistently and inconsistently in varying degrees.

    One could believe Mary was free of original sin and that she was received bodily into Heaven while still being evangelical, as Luther evidently did in 1521.

    Yep. Heinrich Bullinger made a very explicit statement of belief in the Assumption, and he was Reformed.

    But the Protestant theological method, which derived from Luther, uses not reason as the primary authority but the Word of God, which is held to be the only authority in theological issues.

    The only infallible authority, according to classic sola Scriptura rule of faith . . . It is the authority for us, too, but we don’t pit it against authoritative tradition or Church, because the Bible itself doesn’t do that and upholds those things, too. Therefore, to do so would be to not accept scriptural authority in its fullness and widest scope.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Now I will continue my reply to the initial post by Gene Veith (and I gratefully thank him for his Christian hospitality and charity in allowing me to freely comment on this blog without being banned or run off on a rail).

    Please Note: whenever I do any public dialogue, I always post it on my blog, and always post both sides. And I almost always post all my opponents’ words. If not (rarely, or if so, just a little editing), then I provide a link where they can be read in their entirety. If you object to that, just let me know, and I won’t interact with you, and don’t bother dialoguing with me, because I want my readers to see both sides (being the socratic teacher that I am), and it is wearisome to take out one side of a dialogue because a person refuses to let it be somewhere else online. Let it be known now, lest I catch flak (because some people don’t like that and seem to lack the courage of their convictions, from where I sit).

    These notions sound strange to Protestant ears, but they grow out of the Roman Catholic approach to theology, which supports and extends revealed truth with flying buttresses of reason.

    This is a better description because it is saying that we are utilizing the Bible also in our theological thinking. All Christian traditions apply reason to theology, or else they don’t do theology, period. They would have to sit on a mountaintop and ponder their belly button or become a Quaker, with his “inner light” — if not. We’re no different from anyone else in that fundamental sense. It’s only relative: how much reason is applied or valued in the overall scheme of things.

    So you guys say we place it too high; we say you place it too low. Fundamentalist types place it way lower than you do. I happen to like reason, myself. I think it’s pretty cool. The Bible says that Paul reasoned and argued with Jews and Greeks alike. Jesus did it. Paul does it all through his letters. Melanchthon and Chemnitz and all the other great Lutheran theologians did. Even Luther occasionally lapsed and descended into reason (joke, folks!). We’re called to love God with our minds, etc. Reason cannot be separated.

    Now one might believe these things of Mary without seeing her as a mediatrix between human beings and Christ, without praying to her, and without seeing her as a co-redemptrix.

    That’s right. People manage to believe all kinds of things., in various and sundry combinations: consistently and inconsistently in varying degrees.

    One could believe Mary was free of original sin and that she was received bodily into Heaven while still being evangelical, as Luther evidently did in 1521.

    Yep. Heinrich Bullinger made a very explicit statement of belief in the Assumption, and he was Reformed.

    But the Protestant theological method, which derived from Luther, uses not reason as the primary authority but the Word of God, which is held to be the only authority in theological issues.

    The only infallible authority, according to classic sola Scriptura rule of faith . . . It is the authority for us, too, but we don’t pit it against authoritative tradition or Church, because the Bible itself doesn’t do that and upholds those things, too. Therefore, to do so would be to not accept scriptural authority in its fullness and widest scope.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@70), um …

    Showoff!
    ;)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@70), um …

    Showoff!
    ;)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Continued . . .

    The Bible does not mention any of this about Mary, which is presumably would, if, as Rome claims, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are fundamental and necessary dogmas of the Christian faith.

    We contend that all Catholic doctrines (including even the dreaded Marian ones) are present in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or clearly able to be deduced from either sort of evidence (material sufficiency).

    There are different levels of such evidence. The Virgin Birth has but a few support passages. Original sin also has only a few. Yet both are firmly believed by Christians of all stripes. Original sin isn’t even mentioned in the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that there was far more support for purgatory in the fathers than for original sin.

    Other things have to be (mostly or largely) deduced. Under this category would come things like the Two Natures of Christ. It’s in Scripture, assuredly, but has to be “teased” out of it by an examination of many passages together. Even the Holy Trinity is mostly of that nature. I have papers giving many hundreds of biblical proofs for the Trinity, but they are not always evident at first glance. As a result, Christology developed in the early Church for about 600 years: with orthodoxy having to deal with (and condemn) Arianism, Gnosticism, Sabellianism (or modal monarchianism), Monophysitism, Nestorianism, and Monotheletism, each in turn.

    Other things are totally absent in Scripture, yet believed by Protestants, who claim to be “Scripture Alone” (as infallible authority). The canon of the Bible is the best and most undeniable example of that. Protestants are forced to accept a “fallible list of infallible books” — as R. C. Sproul has candidly admitted. And they have to rely on the (Catholic) Church authority that proclaimed the canon (minus the deuterocanon).

    Sola Scriptura is another. It’s found nowhere in Scripture. I just finished a book about this: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (and it is to be published by Catholic Answers, so it’s not merely self-published). Nowhere does it say in Holy Scripture that the Bible only is the infallible guide and rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church or infallible apostolic tradition (which is precisely what the Protestant contention is). And the Bible contradicts it all over the place. But that doesn’t stop Protestants from believing it and basing their entire system of authority and method of theology on it: castles built on sand, like the old Jimi Hendrix song . . .

    Denominations are nowhere found in the NT, which everywhere refers to one Church with one solid set of beliefs, that are non-negotiable. This is beyond all dispute. Many Protestant thinkers readily concede this, and lament it. Yet all Protestants live with the tension of the very existence of denominations being dead-set against what the Bible teaches about ecclesiastical authority and belief-systems of theological truth. Doesn’t stop ‘em . . . There is no choice. Sola Scriptura and the enshrinement of a circular private judgment made all that inevitable, and there is no way to eliminate it by Protestant principles, which are severely flawed from the outset, and far too unbiblical.

    Now, all that was my roundabout way of addressing the criticism that our Marian doctrines are supposedly not “in” the Bible. They certainly are: just not (usually) explicitly, or sometimes (as in the Assumption) not implicitly, either, and able only to be deduced from other things. But this shouldn’t pose any problem for the Protestant (unless we adopt double standards) because, as I’ve shown, they believe many things that are only infrequently indicated in the Bible or not at all. The canon issue of the denominational scandal never seems to cause any Protestants to reject their own system in and of themselves.

    So that is one reply: we reject the double standard whereby you guys believe all that (and other things, too) with small or no biblical support, while at the same time demanding hyper-biblical-support for every one of our doctrines, as if we don’t have it and yo do for absolutely everything you believe and even make a “pillar” of your system.

    The second answer is that explicit support is not required anyway, because the Bible never teaches that: that every doctrine must be explicitly indicated in the Bible and nowhere else. If we are fully “biblical” that notion is completely absent. So why follow it? Well, because it is an entrenched, arbitrary tradition of man, is what it amounts to.

    That said, I contend that there is more than enough biblical support for every Marian doctrine, so that no one can accuse any of it of being “unbiblical” or “extrabiblical” or contradictory to what is in the Bible. I will demonstrate this as I proceed, because I have made biblical arguments for all of it. And I think they are pretty solid and can withstand scrutiny.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Continued . . .

    The Bible does not mention any of this about Mary, which is presumably would, if, as Rome claims, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are fundamental and necessary dogmas of the Christian faith.

    We contend that all Catholic doctrines (including even the dreaded Marian ones) are present in Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, or clearly able to be deduced from either sort of evidence (material sufficiency).

    There are different levels of such evidence. The Virgin Birth has but a few support passages. Original sin also has only a few. Yet both are firmly believed by Christians of all stripes. Original sin isn’t even mentioned in the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that there was far more support for purgatory in the fathers than for original sin.

    Other things have to be (mostly or largely) deduced. Under this category would come things like the Two Natures of Christ. It’s in Scripture, assuredly, but has to be “teased” out of it by an examination of many passages together. Even the Holy Trinity is mostly of that nature. I have papers giving many hundreds of biblical proofs for the Trinity, but they are not always evident at first glance. As a result, Christology developed in the early Church for about 600 years: with orthodoxy having to deal with (and condemn) Arianism, Gnosticism, Sabellianism (or modal monarchianism), Monophysitism, Nestorianism, and Monotheletism, each in turn.

    Other things are totally absent in Scripture, yet believed by Protestants, who claim to be “Scripture Alone” (as infallible authority). The canon of the Bible is the best and most undeniable example of that. Protestants are forced to accept a “fallible list of infallible books” — as R. C. Sproul has candidly admitted. And they have to rely on the (Catholic) Church authority that proclaimed the canon (minus the deuterocanon).

    Sola Scriptura is another. It’s found nowhere in Scripture. I just finished a book about this: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (and it is to be published by Catholic Answers, so it’s not merely self-published). Nowhere does it say in Holy Scripture that the Bible only is the infallible guide and rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church or infallible apostolic tradition (which is precisely what the Protestant contention is). And the Bible contradicts it all over the place. But that doesn’t stop Protestants from believing it and basing their entire system of authority and method of theology on it: castles built on sand, like the old Jimi Hendrix song . . .

    Denominations are nowhere found in the NT, which everywhere refers to one Church with one solid set of beliefs, that are non-negotiable. This is beyond all dispute. Many Protestant thinkers readily concede this, and lament it. Yet all Protestants live with the tension of the very existence of denominations being dead-set against what the Bible teaches about ecclesiastical authority and belief-systems of theological truth. Doesn’t stop ‘em . . . There is no choice. Sola Scriptura and the enshrinement of a circular private judgment made all that inevitable, and there is no way to eliminate it by Protestant principles, which are severely flawed from the outset, and far too unbiblical.

    Now, all that was my roundabout way of addressing the criticism that our Marian doctrines are supposedly not “in” the Bible. They certainly are: just not (usually) explicitly, or sometimes (as in the Assumption) not implicitly, either, and able only to be deduced from other things. But this shouldn’t pose any problem for the Protestant (unless we adopt double standards) because, as I’ve shown, they believe many things that are only infrequently indicated in the Bible or not at all. The canon issue of the denominational scandal never seems to cause any Protestants to reject their own system in and of themselves.

    So that is one reply: we reject the double standard whereby you guys believe all that (and other things, too) with small or no biblical support, while at the same time demanding hyper-biblical-support for every one of our doctrines, as if we don’t have it and yo do for absolutely everything you believe and even make a “pillar” of your system.

    The second answer is that explicit support is not required anyway, because the Bible never teaches that: that every doctrine must be explicitly indicated in the Bible and nowhere else. If we are fully “biblical” that notion is completely absent. So why follow it? Well, because it is an entrenched, arbitrary tradition of man, is what it amounts to.

    That said, I contend that there is more than enough biblical support for every Marian doctrine, so that no one can accuse any of it of being “unbiblical” or “extrabiblical” or contradictory to what is in the Bible. I will demonstrate this as I proceed, because I have made biblical arguments for all of it. And I think they are pretty solid and can withstand scrutiny.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Continuing reply to initial post . . .

    I (and other Catholics) have made four distinct biblical arguments for the Immaculate Conception (or at least fundamental aspects of it). The first launches off of Luke 1:28: “full of grace” or (less literally) “highly favored” (kecharitomene in Greek) and the implications of that in light of the fact that the Bible (esp. Paul) makes grace directly the antithesis and “overcomer” of sin. This argument supports Mary’s sinlessness, but not (directly or explicitly) her Immaculate Conception, which takes it a step further, and involved theological reasoning and speculation. Actual sinlessness is a key part of the belief, but not the entirety of it. Here are my papers where I delve into this biblical argument:

    A Straightforward Biblical Argument For the Sinlessness of Mary

    Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

    The second is an analogical and “plausibility” argument that is less strong but still worthy of serious consideration, I submit. This one shows that God has specifically graced or blessed certain of his saints and servants from conception or from the womb. This is only in my book about Mary, so I’ll summarize it:

    I wanna test to see if I did the link code right . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Continuing reply to initial post . . .

    I (and other Catholics) have made four distinct biblical arguments for the Immaculate Conception (or at least fundamental aspects of it). The first launches off of Luke 1:28: “full of grace” or (less literally) “highly favored” (kecharitomene in Greek) and the implications of that in light of the fact that the Bible (esp. Paul) makes grace directly the antithesis and “overcomer” of sin. This argument supports Mary’s sinlessness, but not (directly or explicitly) her Immaculate Conception, which takes it a step further, and involved theological reasoning and speculation. Actual sinlessness is a key part of the belief, but not the entirety of it. Here are my papers where I delve into this biblical argument:

    A Straightforward Biblical Argument For the Sinlessness of Mary

    Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

    The second is an analogical and “plausibility” argument that is less strong but still worthy of serious consideration, I submit. This one shows that God has specifically graced or blessed certain of his saints and servants from conception or from the womb. This is only in my book about Mary, so I’ll summarize it:

    I wanna test to see if I did the link code right . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    2nd biblical argument:

    Neither the notion nor the fact of a sinless created being is impossible. The angels (excepting the fallen ones, or demons) are sinless and always have been. They never sinned. They never rebelled against God. They’re creatures as we are, with a free will to sin or not sin. Adam and Eve were originally sinless and could have remained so had they not rebelled against God’s commands.

    We contend that the Immaculate Conception is a completely plausible act of God, and most fitting and proper and should not be at all “surprising,” in light of several analogous variables in Scripture.

    Another biblical argument can be made from the “proximity to God”: in other words, “the closer one gets to God, the more holy one must be.” I developed this at some length in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 178-185). The presence of God imparts holiness (Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:19; Jeremiah 2:3). The temple site was sacred and holy (Isaiah 11:9; 56:7; 64:10), and the Holy of Holies where God was specially present above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:22), was the holiest place of all within the temple. When we are ultimately with God in heaven, sin is abolished once and for all (1 John 3:3-9; Revelation 14:5; 21:27).

    Now, the challenge at this point is to show how and why one would posit the Immaculate Conception, based on the biblical data alone. Is it possible to do that? Can some semblance of an argument be made from the Bible: if not directly (as we grant), at least from analogy, plausibility, and indirect deduction? I think so.

    It’s fairly easy to find examples of holy people who have been sanctified or made righteous from the womb, and even (in terms of God’s foreordination or predestination) from before they were ever conceived. The Bible does refer to holiness being imparted even before birth; indeed, even before conception. Samson was one such person (Jud 16:17). So were Isaiah and Job:

    Isaiah 49:1, 5 (RSV) . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength –

    Job 31:15, 18 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? . . . (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother’s womb I guided him);

    We also observe in Sacred Scripture that God has plans for His servants from even before they were conceived (God being out of time in the first place): e.g., Psalm 139:13-16. Thus, the idea that a person is somehow spiritually formed and molded by God and called from the very time of their conception (and before) is an explicit biblical concept.

    But we can produce even more than that: having to do also with holiness. The prophet Jeremiah reported the Lord’s revelation to him:

    Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (KJV: “sanctified thee”)

    “Consecrated” or “sanctified” in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word quadash (Strong’s word #6942). According to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint, p. 725), in this instance it meant “to declare any one holy.”

    Jeremiah was thus consecrated or sanctified from the womb; possibly from conception (the text is somewhat vague as to the exact time). This is fairly analogous to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It approximates it. We know Jeremiah was a very holy man. Was he sinless, though? Perhaps he was. I don’t recall reading accounts of Jeremiah sinning.

    The retort at this point might be that there is a lack of such a notion in the New Testament. But that’s not true. We have the example of John the Baptist:

    Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

    Luke 1:41, 44 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. . . For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

    We know that John the Baptist was also a very holy man. Was he sinless? We can’t know that for sure from the biblical data. I don’t recall any mention of a sin from John the Baptist, in Scripture. Lastly, St. Paul refers to being called before he was born:

    Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

    Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, based on many biblical cross-references, we can and may conclude that it is “biblical” and reasonable to believe in faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. Nothing in the Bible contradicts this belief. And there is much that suggests various elements of it, as we have seen. It does require faith, of course, but based on the biblical data alone it is not an unreasonable or “unbiblical” belief at all.

    If God calls and predestines people for a specific purpose from all eternity, from before they were ever born, as David states and as Jeremiah strongly implies, then what inherent difficulty is there in His sanctifying a very important person in salvation history, centrally involved in the Incarnation, from conception?

    The possibility simply can’t be ruled out. And if God can call Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb and (possibly) from conception, why not Mary as well? The one case is no less plausible than the other, and so we believe it, by analogy.

    It’s not foreign to biblical thinking, and makes perfect sense. According to the Catholic Church, God restored to Mary the innocence of Eve before the Fall, and filled her with grace, in order to prepare her for her unspeakably sublime, sanctified task as the Mother of God the Son. Why should He not do so?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    2nd biblical argument:

    Neither the notion nor the fact of a sinless created being is impossible. The angels (excepting the fallen ones, or demons) are sinless and always have been. They never sinned. They never rebelled against God. They’re creatures as we are, with a free will to sin or not sin. Adam and Eve were originally sinless and could have remained so had they not rebelled against God’s commands.

    We contend that the Immaculate Conception is a completely plausible act of God, and most fitting and proper and should not be at all “surprising,” in light of several analogous variables in Scripture.

    Another biblical argument can be made from the “proximity to God”: in other words, “the closer one gets to God, the more holy one must be.” I developed this at some length in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 178-185). The presence of God imparts holiness (Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:19; Jeremiah 2:3). The temple site was sacred and holy (Isaiah 11:9; 56:7; 64:10), and the Holy of Holies where God was specially present above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:22), was the holiest place of all within the temple. When we are ultimately with God in heaven, sin is abolished once and for all (1 John 3:3-9; Revelation 14:5; 21:27).

    Now, the challenge at this point is to show how and why one would posit the Immaculate Conception, based on the biblical data alone. Is it possible to do that? Can some semblance of an argument be made from the Bible: if not directly (as we grant), at least from analogy, plausibility, and indirect deduction? I think so.

    It’s fairly easy to find examples of holy people who have been sanctified or made righteous from the womb, and even (in terms of God’s foreordination or predestination) from before they were ever conceived. The Bible does refer to holiness being imparted even before birth; indeed, even before conception. Samson was one such person (Jud 16:17). So were Isaiah and Job:

    Isaiah 49:1, 5 (RSV) . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength –

    Job 31:15, 18 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? . . . (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother’s womb I guided him);

    We also observe in Sacred Scripture that God has plans for His servants from even before they were conceived (God being out of time in the first place): e.g., Psalm 139:13-16. Thus, the idea that a person is somehow spiritually formed and molded by God and called from the very time of their conception (and before) is an explicit biblical concept.

    But we can produce even more than that: having to do also with holiness. The prophet Jeremiah reported the Lord’s revelation to him:

    Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (KJV: “sanctified thee”)

    “Consecrated” or “sanctified” in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word quadash (Strong’s word #6942). According to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979 reprint, p. 725), in this instance it meant “to declare any one holy.”

    Jeremiah was thus consecrated or sanctified from the womb; possibly from conception (the text is somewhat vague as to the exact time). This is fairly analogous to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It approximates it. We know Jeremiah was a very holy man. Was he sinless, though? Perhaps he was. I don’t recall reading accounts of Jeremiah sinning.

    The retort at this point might be that there is a lack of such a notion in the New Testament. But that’s not true. We have the example of John the Baptist:

    Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

    Luke 1:41, 44 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. . . For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

    We know that John the Baptist was also a very holy man. Was he sinless? We can’t know that for sure from the biblical data. I don’t recall any mention of a sin from John the Baptist, in Scripture. Lastly, St. Paul refers to being called before he was born:

    Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

    Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, based on many biblical cross-references, we can and may conclude that it is “biblical” and reasonable to believe in faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. Nothing in the Bible contradicts this belief. And there is much that suggests various elements of it, as we have seen. It does require faith, of course, but based on the biblical data alone it is not an unreasonable or “unbiblical” belief at all.

    If God calls and predestines people for a specific purpose from all eternity, from before they were ever born, as David states and as Jeremiah strongly implies, then what inherent difficulty is there in His sanctifying a very important person in salvation history, centrally involved in the Incarnation, from conception?

    The possibility simply can’t be ruled out. And if God can call Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb and (possibly) from conception, why not Mary as well? The one case is no less plausible than the other, and so we believe it, by analogy.

    It’s not foreign to biblical thinking, and makes perfect sense. According to the Catholic Church, God restored to Mary the innocence of Eve before the Fall, and filled her with grace, in order to prepare her for her unspeakably sublime, sanctified task as the Mother of God the Son. Why should He not do so?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #66,

    I’m not exactly rushing to defend Grace’s Christology, but her concern was clearly the elevation of Mary to the “queen of heaven.” While her phrase “Jesus’ flesh body” is awkward and unconventional (no offense, Grace), I’m pretty sure she was referring to the human nature of Christ. I’m not saying that her Christology is entirely together (again, no offense), but she did not seem to be driving at a separation of the two natures in the personhood to me.

    My larger point, though, was something like, “Let’s go ahead and discuss theology and Christology without casually ascribing heresy to each other.” I consider that a very serious matter.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #66,

    I’m not exactly rushing to defend Grace’s Christology, but her concern was clearly the elevation of Mary to the “queen of heaven.” While her phrase “Jesus’ flesh body” is awkward and unconventional (no offense, Grace), I’m pretty sure she was referring to the human nature of Christ. I’m not saying that her Christology is entirely together (again, no offense), but she did not seem to be driving at a separation of the two natures in the personhood to me.

    My larger point, though, was something like, “Let’s go ahead and discuss theology and Christology without casually ascribing heresy to each other.” I consider that a very serious matter.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    The third biblical argument is the answer to the objection of the passage “all have sinned . . .” This is simply a matter of the nature of biblical language, and is easily disposed of:

    “All Have Sinned . . . ” (Mary?)

    The fourth is the patristic and biblical analogy of Mary and the ark of the covenant, based on several parallels (typology):

    Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]

    Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant

    I gave a concise biblical argument for Mary’s Assumption in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 114-115). Here is the bulk of it:

    Adam and Eve were created without sin. They never had to sin, but they chose to rebel against God’s commands and authority, so consequently the human race fell and all human beings are ordinarily subject to death and decay as a result. (Gen.3:19; Ps.16:10) Mary, on the other had, was given the great gift of being conceived without the taint of Adam and Eve’s sin, so that she never committed actual sin. She received this gift because she was to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and God thought it was fitting to prepare a pure and unspoiled vessel for Him. Her condition represented what all human beings could and would have been, and what saved persons one day will be: without sin.

    Since she was without sin, and thus didn’t have to die or undergo the decay of death, at the time of God’s choosing she was assumed bodily into heaven (which is different from ascending to heaven under one’s own power, as Jesus did). Jesus’ Resurrection made possible the eventual bodily resurrection of all of his followers, (1 Cor.15:13–16 ) and Mary was the first to enjoy the reward made available to all who would believe in Him. After all, what is more appropriate than that Jesus’ own mother should be blessed in such a way? She brought Him into this world, and so He brought her in a special way into the next world, body and soul. She represents the coming of the Kingdom, including new bodies and the end of death and sin. (1 Cor.15:26)

    The early biblical figure Enoch was a particularly righteous man. It is written that he “walked with God” and that “he was not, for God took him.” (Gen.5:24) This description is somewhat mysterious, but New Testament revelation further explains it:

    Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.”

    Nor is this the only such instance. The Apostle Paul writes about being “caught up to the third heaven” before he died, (2 Cor.12:2–4) possibly bodily (“whether in the body or out of the body I do not know”). In 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Paul teaches that those who are alive when Jesus comes again to earth, will (apparently) not experience death: “We who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”

    Of course, the most extraordinary biblical example of an “entrance into the next life” is that of the great prophet Elijah:

    2 Kings 2:11: “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

    Protestant leader Heinrich Bullinger wrote the following extraordinary devotional statement:

    “Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was
    not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to
    heaven, so that…we might know what immortality and recompense
    God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding
    and incomparable creatures…It is for this reason, we believe, that
    the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the
    Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her
    saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.”

    Source material for this quotation, see:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/04/yet-another-dumb-dispute-with-james.html

    Even Mary as Mediatrix is easily supported by strong and repeated biblical analogy of God using vessels to distribute his grace and salvation (Paul talks about this a lot). See:

    Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an “Unbiblical” Notion After All?

    I collect a host of such passages in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: Rom 11:13-14 “thus save some of them,” 1 Cor 7:16 “you will save your husband . . . save your wife,” 1 Cor 9:22 “that I might by all means save some,” 2 Cor 1:6 “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation,” Eph 3:2 “the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,” Eph 4:29 “that it may impart grace to those who hear,” 1 Tim 4:16 “you will save both yourself and your hearers,” 2 Tim 2:10 “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation,” Jas 5:20 “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death,” 1 Peter 4:8-10 “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.”

    God uses His creatures to spread His grace and salvation. We simply extend that to Mary being involved in all the grace, as God’s chosen vessel.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    The third biblical argument is the answer to the objection of the passage “all have sinned . . .” This is simply a matter of the nature of biblical language, and is easily disposed of:

    “All Have Sinned . . . ” (Mary?)

    The fourth is the patristic and biblical analogy of Mary and the ark of the covenant, based on several parallels (typology):

    Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]

    Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant

    I gave a concise biblical argument for Mary’s Assumption in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 114-115). Here is the bulk of it:

    Adam and Eve were created without sin. They never had to sin, but they chose to rebel against God’s commands and authority, so consequently the human race fell and all human beings are ordinarily subject to death and decay as a result. (Gen.3:19; Ps.16:10) Mary, on the other had, was given the great gift of being conceived without the taint of Adam and Eve’s sin, so that she never committed actual sin. She received this gift because she was to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and God thought it was fitting to prepare a pure and unspoiled vessel for Him. Her condition represented what all human beings could and would have been, and what saved persons one day will be: without sin.

    Since she was without sin, and thus didn’t have to die or undergo the decay of death, at the time of God’s choosing she was assumed bodily into heaven (which is different from ascending to heaven under one’s own power, as Jesus did). Jesus’ Resurrection made possible the eventual bodily resurrection of all of his followers, (1 Cor.15:13–16 ) and Mary was the first to enjoy the reward made available to all who would believe in Him. After all, what is more appropriate than that Jesus’ own mother should be blessed in such a way? She brought Him into this world, and so He brought her in a special way into the next world, body and soul. She represents the coming of the Kingdom, including new bodies and the end of death and sin. (1 Cor.15:26)

    The early biblical figure Enoch was a particularly righteous man. It is written that he “walked with God” and that “he was not, for God took him.” (Gen.5:24) This description is somewhat mysterious, but New Testament revelation further explains it:

    Hebrews 11:5: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.”

    Nor is this the only such instance. The Apostle Paul writes about being “caught up to the third heaven” before he died, (2 Cor.12:2–4) possibly bodily (“whether in the body or out of the body I do not know”). In 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Paul teaches that those who are alive when Jesus comes again to earth, will (apparently) not experience death: “We who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”

    Of course, the most extraordinary biblical example of an “entrance into the next life” is that of the great prophet Elijah:

    2 Kings 2:11: “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

    Protestant leader Heinrich Bullinger wrote the following extraordinary devotional statement:

    “Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was
    not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to
    heaven, so that…we might know what immortality and recompense
    God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding
    and incomparable creatures…It is for this reason, we believe, that
    the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the
    Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her
    saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.”

    Source material for this quotation, see:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/04/yet-another-dumb-dispute-with-james.html

    Even Mary as Mediatrix is easily supported by strong and repeated biblical analogy of God using vessels to distribute his grace and salvation (Paul talks about this a lot). See:

    Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an “Unbiblical” Notion After All?

    I collect a host of such passages in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: Rom 11:13-14 “thus save some of them,” 1 Cor 7:16 “you will save your husband . . . save your wife,” 1 Cor 9:22 “that I might by all means save some,” 2 Cor 1:6 “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation,” Eph 3:2 “the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,” Eph 4:29 “that it may impart grace to those who hear,” 1 Tim 4:16 “you will save both yourself and your hearers,” 2 Tim 2:10 “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation,” Jas 5:20 “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death,” 1 Peter 4:8-10 “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.”

    God uses His creatures to spread His grace and salvation. We simply extend that to Mary being involved in all the grace, as God’s chosen vessel.

  • fws

    dave:

    question: why not understand “full of grace” as being about the fact that when the Blessed Virgin was pregnant she litterally was full of that Grace which is Jesus Christ?

  • fws

    dave:

    question: why not understand “full of grace” as being about the fact that when the Blessed Virgin was pregnant she litterally was full of that Grace which is Jesus Christ?

  • SKPeterson

    To your last question Dave – why should He not do so for everyone? Why bother with Jesus and the Incarnation if he can create sinless saints in the womb? It shouldn’t be too taxing for God to whip up 6 billion Mary’s, John’s and Jeremiah’s. Why it would be Heaven on Earth! Now, I suppose God can do anything He wants to, but what your talking about is quite close to the Calvinist sovereignty of God – God is sovereign and deigns to provide His grace or withhold it as He pleases, which makes the certain promises in Scripture into qualified likelihoods. Moreover, while Paul indicates that he was set aside before his birth to be an apostle, he was also a rank sinner, by his own admission and the testimony of Luke and John. David acknowledges that God knew him before he was born and knit him together in his mother’s womb. Yet, David was both a sinner and a man after God’s own heart. So despite the parts of Scripture that say things like “all have sinned” or “none does what is right, no, not one” you argue from silence that God might have acted in a particular way. Yes, He might have, but dogma and doctrine shouldn’t rest on maybe’s, might’s, and could have’s, but on the clear Word. The dogma surrounding Mary is adiaphora and nothing more.

  • SKPeterson

    To your last question Dave – why should He not do so for everyone? Why bother with Jesus and the Incarnation if he can create sinless saints in the womb? It shouldn’t be too taxing for God to whip up 6 billion Mary’s, John’s and Jeremiah’s. Why it would be Heaven on Earth! Now, I suppose God can do anything He wants to, but what your talking about is quite close to the Calvinist sovereignty of God – God is sovereign and deigns to provide His grace or withhold it as He pleases, which makes the certain promises in Scripture into qualified likelihoods. Moreover, while Paul indicates that he was set aside before his birth to be an apostle, he was also a rank sinner, by his own admission and the testimony of Luke and John. David acknowledges that God knew him before he was born and knit him together in his mother’s womb. Yet, David was both a sinner and a man after God’s own heart. So despite the parts of Scripture that say things like “all have sinned” or “none does what is right, no, not one” you argue from silence that God might have acted in a particular way. Yes, He might have, but dogma and doctrine shouldn’t rest on maybe’s, might’s, and could have’s, but on the clear Word. The dogma surrounding Mary is adiaphora and nothing more.

  • fws

    dave, I hope you realize that you and we lutherans are working with differing definitions of words like grace, sin and original sin.

    so dont spend alot of time and let it go to waste.

    start by defining what you mean by grace, sin and original sin.

  • fws

    dave, I hope you realize that you and we lutherans are working with differing definitions of words like grace, sin and original sin.

    so dont spend alot of time and let it go to waste.

    start by defining what you mean by grace, sin and original sin.

  • fws

    dave,

    please be clear that for us Lutherans the assumption of Mary and the her perpetual virginity are not contrary to holy scripture. so we dont really need to argue those points ok?

    You are sort of wasting your time by insisting on making a case for those. We Lutherans really don’t care about those. And I am happy to call Mary the Mother of God as well. So you can probably be cool with giving that a rest as well.

    So what is left?

    Mary being sinless. No. you are saying she is without ORIGINAL sin. That technically is different for roman catholics isnt it? You also are without original sin according to roman dogma because of your baptism . Or do I have that wrong dear brother dave?

  • fws

    dave,

    please be clear that for us Lutherans the assumption of Mary and the her perpetual virginity are not contrary to holy scripture. so we dont really need to argue those points ok?

    You are sort of wasting your time by insisting on making a case for those. We Lutherans really don’t care about those. And I am happy to call Mary the Mother of God as well. So you can probably be cool with giving that a rest as well.

    So what is left?

    Mary being sinless. No. you are saying she is without ORIGINAL sin. That technically is different for roman catholics isnt it? You also are without original sin according to roman dogma because of your baptism . Or do I have that wrong dear brother dave?

  • fws

    Dave,

    now IF you insist that my eternal soul is imperilled by NOT believing in the assumption of Mary or her perpetual virginity, then now that is a whole other proposition isnt it? Is that what the Roman Church teaches?

  • fws

    Dave,

    now IF you insist that my eternal soul is imperilled by NOT believing in the assumption of Mary or her perpetual virginity, then now that is a whole other proposition isnt it? Is that what the Roman Church teaches?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Last part of my reply to the initial post:

    Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55, the Mother of our Lord praises God as her “savior,” which implies that she too is in need of salvation.

    Of course she is. God simply saved her by prevention rather than rescuing. By giving her the grace of the Immaculate Conception, before she knew anything (pure grace: all God), He saved her. She had to be saved from original sin like anyone else. This is the whole point of the grace! The Immaculate Conception presupposes it! So she can call God her savior. Whoever thinks Catholics believe any human being since the fall didn’t need a savior, and purely by grace, simply doesn’t understand Catholic theology, and must not have read Trent on justification, for starters.

    And she certainly suffered, which Eve in her pre-fallen state did not, as Simeon prophesied to her: “And a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35).

    This proves nothing as to her being sinless or not, because Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross, and often in His life, in the non-physical fashion. He was sinless; He was God. If He can suffer, so can Mary or anyone else, and still be without sin.

    Remember, Adam and Eve were in a “pre-fallen” world in Eden when they didn’t yet have to suffer. Mary, though brought back to the original sinless state, pre-fall, still exists in a fallen world, so the analogy there doesn’t hold. Jesus suffers for the same reason: because sin exists and causes suffering. It doesn’t follow that either Jesus or Mary had to partake of the sin themselves in order to suffer.

    Further, we could argue that Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature. He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh.

    No we cannot say that. It is an impossible scenario. God cannot have a “fallen human nature” by definition, because that comes from the rebellion of the whole (created) human race against God; so that by so doing, He would be a hopelessly divided soul. How can God rebel against Himself? This is pure Nestorianism, and arguably (though I do not assert it myself) blasphemy.

    Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse. (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I recant.)

    I think I just did. :-) This particular notion is thoroughly opposed to Chalcedonian Christological orthodoxy.

    The early Luther thought that Jesus went into the literal hell of fire (not just Hades) and was tormented there, but as far as I know, such blasphemy didn’t enter into the Lutheran Confessions. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

    END

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Last part of my reply to the initial post:

    Indeed, in the Magnificat, Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55, the Mother of our Lord praises God as her “savior,” which implies that she too is in need of salvation.

    Of course she is. God simply saved her by prevention rather than rescuing. By giving her the grace of the Immaculate Conception, before she knew anything (pure grace: all God), He saved her. She had to be saved from original sin like anyone else. This is the whole point of the grace! The Immaculate Conception presupposes it! So she can call God her savior. Whoever thinks Catholics believe any human being since the fall didn’t need a savior, and purely by grace, simply doesn’t understand Catholic theology, and must not have read Trent on justification, for starters.

    And she certainly suffered, which Eve in her pre-fallen state did not, as Simeon prophesied to her: “And a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35).

    This proves nothing as to her being sinless or not, because Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross, and often in His life, in the non-physical fashion. He was sinless; He was God. If He can suffer, so can Mary or anyone else, and still be without sin.

    Remember, Adam and Eve were in a “pre-fallen” world in Eden when they didn’t yet have to suffer. Mary, though brought back to the original sinless state, pre-fall, still exists in a fallen world, so the analogy there doesn’t hold. Jesus suffers for the same reason: because sin exists and causes suffering. It doesn’t follow that either Jesus or Mary had to partake of the sin themselves in order to suffer.

    Further, we could argue that Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work requires that He take upon Himself our fallen nature. He never sinned even though He shared our fallen flesh.

    No we cannot say that. It is an impossible scenario. God cannot have a “fallen human nature” by definition, because that comes from the rebellion of the whole (created) human race against God; so that by so doing, He would be a hopelessly divided soul. How can God rebel against Himself? This is pure Nestorianism, and arguably (though I do not assert it myself) blasphemy.

    Thus he became the Second Adam who freed us from the curse. (I know talking about the two natures of Christ can easily get heretical. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I recant.)

    I think I just did. :-) This particular notion is thoroughly opposed to Chalcedonian Christological orthodoxy.

    The early Luther thought that Jesus went into the literal hell of fire (not just Hades) and was tormented there, but as far as I know, such blasphemy didn’t enter into the Lutheran Confessions. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

    END

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws,

    Do you believe that Catholicism is a form of Christianity? Can I be saved by believing in every tenet of Catholicism, and rejecting none? Or must I reject some in order to possibly be saved (be a “bad catholic in order to be a good Christian”), in which case, we must conclude that Catholicism is neither a Christian system, nor offers saving theology and grace within its ranks.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws,

    Do you believe that Catholicism is a form of Christianity? Can I be saved by believing in every tenet of Catholicism, and rejecting none? Or must I reject some in order to possibly be saved (be a “bad catholic in order to be a good Christian”), in which case, we must conclude that Catholicism is neither a Christian system, nor offers saving theology and grace within its ranks.

  • Grace

    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    ~
    “All” means “all” – there is no point in talking about what God might have done, it is what HE did do, and what the Word of God states. That is the determinng factor regarding each and every one of us. We are “ALL” sinners, including Mary.

    Mary knew she needed a Savior, she stated it plainly in Luke 1:47”

    And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

  • Grace

    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    ~
    “All” means “all” – there is no point in talking about what God might have done, it is what HE did do, and what the Word of God states. That is the determinng factor regarding each and every one of us. We are “ALL” sinners, including Mary.

    Mary knew she needed a Savior, she stated it plainly in Luke 1:47”

    And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I can’t answer a thousand questions at once, often in 101 directions. That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    I don’t play that game. I will do exactly what I said I would do, and won’t be sidetracked from it. I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes. I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it. That dynamic applies no matter who is arguing for what. It’s a silly technique and should cease.

    I’m interested in calm, rational discussion, not some manic frenzy and exhaustion, trying to please everyone and their uncle’s third cousin all at once, as if I am outside of time like God is.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I can’t answer a thousand questions at once, often in 101 directions. That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    I don’t play that game. I will do exactly what I said I would do, and won’t be sidetracked from it. I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes. I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it. That dynamic applies no matter who is arguing for what. It’s a silly technique and should cease.

    I’m interested in calm, rational discussion, not some manic frenzy and exhaustion, trying to please everyone and their uncle’s third cousin all at once, as if I am outside of time like God is.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    What is IDOLOTRY, does it have any meaning to you?

    Definition – idolotry

    1. Worship of idols.
    2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    What is IDOLOTRY, does it have any meaning to you?

    Definition – idolotry

    1. Worship of idols.
    2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    “All” means “all”

    If it always does, with absolutely no exceptions, then the Bible teaches (in several places) that all will be saved. I didn’t know you denied hellfire and that you were a universalist, Grace. Truth is stranger than fiction . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    “All” means “all”

    If it always does, with absolutely no exceptions, then the Bible teaches (in several places) that all will be saved. I didn’t know you denied hellfire and that you were a universalist, Grace. Truth is stranger than fiction . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    And that is my last reply ever to Grace (lest anyone think I am rude when I don’t reply) . . . be well, dear sister, I wish you all God’s blessings.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    And that is my last reply ever to Grace (lest anyone think I am rude when I don’t reply) . . . be well, dear sister, I wish you all God’s blessings.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    You can copy post an entire book on this blog, but that doesn’t negate the fact that most everyone here does NOT believe the ‘traditions of men’ which the RCC aligns itself along side the Word of God.

    There are many pastors on this blog, who have studied for a long time, and that means there are some who ‘trump thirty plus years easily. Your length of time spent as a so called apologist, has little bearing on what is true, and what is false.

    I don’t agree with everything Lutheran, but there is far more to agree with them, then there ever was with the Roman Church.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    You can copy post an entire book on this blog, but that doesn’t negate the fact that most everyone here does NOT believe the ‘traditions of men’ which the RCC aligns itself along side the Word of God.

    There are many pastors on this blog, who have studied for a long time, and that means there are some who ‘trump thirty plus years easily. Your length of time spent as a so called apologist, has little bearing on what is true, and what is false.

    I don’t agree with everything Lutheran, but there is far more to agree with them, then there ever was with the Roman Church.

  • fws

    tom @ 62

    in the german version of the smalcald articles , Luther calls says the ever virgin Mary. that is what makes me believe that he believed to the end that Mary remained a virgin.

    I just read from what Nathan posted, that Franz Pieper made an elaborate argument showing that it would not be unscriptural for a Lutheran to share this view, and at the same time he did not insist that this was a confessional point of subscription.

    Like I posted earlier, I , as a Lutheran , dont really have a problem with pious speculation. If roman christians want to believe that mary was assumed into heaven or insist that they saw her manifestation in a tortilla chip it is sort of what it is and I will politely sort of ignore it.

    Now if Dave or his sect are insisting that my soul is imperilled for now believing something that is not in scriptures then well… that is another matter.

    I am thinking that Luther believed in the perpetual virginity precisely because it seems to be the near universal view of the fathers, secondly it is not contrary to scriptures. so… why not?

    As for those who argue that to not accept the perpetual virginity of Mary is to not hold to a quia subscription to our confessions. Ahem.

    The confessions also believed that the Carthisian monks were having sex with each other because the church would not allow them to get married. I think I can disagree with this assessment and still claim a quia subscription to our Confessions. See where I am going with this? To focus on the point of the passage as being a doctrinal assertion that Mary was always virgin is to miss the real point of the passage.

    This is the same problem as people saying that romans 1:28 us about homosexuality. It eviscerates the point of the entire chapter that is precisely what st paul says in romans 2:1.

  • fws

    tom @ 62

    in the german version of the smalcald articles , Luther calls says the ever virgin Mary. that is what makes me believe that he believed to the end that Mary remained a virgin.

    I just read from what Nathan posted, that Franz Pieper made an elaborate argument showing that it would not be unscriptural for a Lutheran to share this view, and at the same time he did not insist that this was a confessional point of subscription.

    Like I posted earlier, I , as a Lutheran , dont really have a problem with pious speculation. If roman christians want to believe that mary was assumed into heaven or insist that they saw her manifestation in a tortilla chip it is sort of what it is and I will politely sort of ignore it.

    Now if Dave or his sect are insisting that my soul is imperilled for now believing something that is not in scriptures then well… that is another matter.

    I am thinking that Luther believed in the perpetual virginity precisely because it seems to be the near universal view of the fathers, secondly it is not contrary to scriptures. so… why not?

    As for those who argue that to not accept the perpetual virginity of Mary is to not hold to a quia subscription to our confessions. Ahem.

    The confessions also believed that the Carthisian monks were having sex with each other because the church would not allow them to get married. I think I can disagree with this assessment and still claim a quia subscription to our Confessions. See where I am going with this? To focus on the point of the passage as being a doctrinal assertion that Mary was always virgin is to miss the real point of the passage.

    This is the same problem as people saying that romans 1:28 us about homosexuality. It eviscerates the point of the entire chapter that is precisely what st paul says in romans 2:1.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 87

    If you believe that “ALL” in the passage I quoted can be manipulated, then prove it, with Scripture and reason ….. Oh, I forgot, you aren’t posting to me anymore.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 87

    If you believe that “ALL” in the passage I quoted can be manipulated, then prove it, with Scripture and reason ….. Oh, I forgot, you aren’t posting to me anymore.

  • Grace

    9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

    10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
    Romans 3

    Is this portion of Scripture not to include of all of us, including Mary?

  • Grace

    9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

    10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
    Romans 3

    Is this portion of Scripture not to include of all of us, including Mary?

  • Dust

    Dave please keep going! The whole point here is that Dr. Veith specifically wanted input from the Catholic perspective. Folks who disagree should not take advantage of it and expect to challenge every point. Of course, Lutherans and Protestants are going to disagree and have different definition on major concepts. That might be how all these different denominations came about? Duh!

    From my perspective am greatly enjoying the information from Dave as have never heard these things explained from the Catholic perspective. And wow, they seem to be pretty good at Theology, almost like Lutherans on steroids :)

    The best thing that can happen is your faith in what you believe will grow stronger and you will appreciate the uniqueness of your particular faith. Perhaps you will also better appreciate and/or understand why others believe differently and perhaps at least respect their faith a bit more? Hope so!

    Dave, thanks very much and please hang in there brother :)

  • Dust

    Dave please keep going! The whole point here is that Dr. Veith specifically wanted input from the Catholic perspective. Folks who disagree should not take advantage of it and expect to challenge every point. Of course, Lutherans and Protestants are going to disagree and have different definition on major concepts. That might be how all these different denominations came about? Duh!

    From my perspective am greatly enjoying the information from Dave as have never heard these things explained from the Catholic perspective. And wow, they seem to be pretty good at Theology, almost like Lutherans on steroids :)

    The best thing that can happen is your faith in what you believe will grow stronger and you will appreciate the uniqueness of your particular faith. Perhaps you will also better appreciate and/or understand why others believe differently and perhaps at least respect their faith a bit more? Hope so!

    Dave, thanks very much and please hang in there brother :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@82), you’ve made this point several times now (whether on this thread or the other), and I find it a bit odd:

    This proves nothing as to her being sinless or not, because Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross, and often in His life, in the non-physical fashion. He was sinless; He was God. If He can suffer, so can Mary or anyone else, and still be without sin.

    But surely you understand that Jesus suffered because he took on our sins! He died because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”, because “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”.

    This rather undercuts your argument about how Jesus, though sinless, could suffer and die. Unless, of course, you’re also arguing that Mary, too, took our sins upon her…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@82), you’ve made this point several times now (whether on this thread or the other), and I find it a bit odd:

    This proves nothing as to her being sinless or not, because Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the cross, and often in His life, in the non-physical fashion. He was sinless; He was God. If He can suffer, so can Mary or anyone else, and still be without sin.

    But surely you understand that Jesus suffered because he took on our sins! He died because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”, because “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”.

    This rather undercuts your argument about how Jesus, though sinless, could suffer and die. Unless, of course, you’re also arguing that Mary, too, took our sins upon her…

  • Grace

    Dust @ 94

    Hi Dust,

    YOU WROTE: “From my perspective am greatly enjoying the information from Dave as have never heard these things explained from the Catholic perspective. And wow, they seem to be pretty good at Theology, almost like Lutherans on steroids”

    I’ve heard and read all of these arguments before, explained, excused, tossing away many parts of Scripture in favor of ‘tradition’ — It’s a standard argument, using ‘tradition of men, when trying to make a point, which DOES NOT LINE UP WITH SCRIPTURE!

  • Grace

    Dust @ 94

    Hi Dust,

    YOU WROTE: “From my perspective am greatly enjoying the information from Dave as have never heard these things explained from the Catholic perspective. And wow, they seem to be pretty good at Theology, almost like Lutherans on steroids”

    I’ve heard and read all of these arguments before, explained, excused, tossing away many parts of Scripture in favor of ‘tradition’ — It’s a standard argument, using ‘tradition of men, when trying to make a point, which DOES NOT LINE UP WITH SCRIPTURE!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@86) said:

    I can’t answer a thousand questions at once, often in 101 directions.

    Oh good grief. Was this the same guy who wrote, all of a few hours earlier (@69):

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

    Well that didn’t last long, did it? You do realize you’re bringing this on yourself, don’t you? You willingly wandered onto this site, with something of a “bring it on” swagger.

    And not only that, but you did so with several lengthy, discursive comments — which often introduced new topics with asides. Okay fine, that’s your style or whatever, but it does invite the kind of responses you now appear to be complaining about. Maybe try fewer, more succinct replies? With links to clarifying blog posts of yours, if they already exist?

    That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    Ugh. Please ditch the persecution complex, Dave. Post-haste. For someone who all of yesterday (this morning?) was complaining about baseless attacks, here you are now, what, insinuating that this is all a coordinated attack on you? To “create illusions”? Seriously? Criminy.

    We’re all free agents here, Dave. We say what we want. If you post something provocative, you may hear from all of us. If you can’t handle it, then, well, you know.

    I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes.

    What’s funny is how often you pepper your comments with statements like these — and how, just as often, you deny that you make it about yourself.

    I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it.

    What’s that cliche? Oh yeah: “The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks.” You kind of sound riled.

    Again:

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave (@86) said:

    I can’t answer a thousand questions at once, often in 101 directions.

    Oh good grief. Was this the same guy who wrote, all of a few hours earlier (@69):

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

    Well that didn’t last long, did it? You do realize you’re bringing this on yourself, don’t you? You willingly wandered onto this site, with something of a “bring it on” swagger.

    And not only that, but you did so with several lengthy, discursive comments — which often introduced new topics with asides. Okay fine, that’s your style or whatever, but it does invite the kind of responses you now appear to be complaining about. Maybe try fewer, more succinct replies? With links to clarifying blog posts of yours, if they already exist?

    That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    Ugh. Please ditch the persecution complex, Dave. Post-haste. For someone who all of yesterday (this morning?) was complaining about baseless attacks, here you are now, what, insinuating that this is all a coordinated attack on you? To “create illusions”? Seriously? Criminy.

    We’re all free agents here, Dave. We say what we want. If you post something provocative, you may hear from all of us. If you can’t handle it, then, well, you know.

    I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes.

    What’s funny is how often you pepper your comments with statements like these — and how, just as often, you deny that you make it about yourself.

    I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it.

    What’s that cliche? Oh yeah: “The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks.” You kind of sound riled.

    Again:

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    fws,

    I have the Triglotta on my lap. The German says: “von der reinen, heiligen Jungfrau Maria geboren sei” (born of the pure, holy virgin Mary). It is the Latin which has: “ex Maria, pura, sancta sempervirgine nasceretur.” (born of the pure, holy ever-virgin Mary.)

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    fws,

    I have the Triglotta on my lap. The German says: “von der reinen, heiligen Jungfrau Maria geboren sei” (born of the pure, holy virgin Mary). It is the Latin which has: “ex Maria, pura, sancta sempervirgine nasceretur.” (born of the pure, holy ever-virgin Mary.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Brigitte, #98,

    Kudos for the original language references!

  • Dan Kempin

    Brigitte, #98,

    Kudos for the original language references!

  • Grace

    Dave you mention “tradition” many, many times in your posts, however the passage below WARNS of such “tradition of men”

    8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    Colossians 2

    This most likely, is one of the most profound statements by Paul, directly pointing to Christ and no other, including Mary.

    This would include the ‘traditions’ within the RCC. Mary is not mentioned in the passage above, CHRIST is, HE is the one to be followed, HE is part of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, God the HOLY Spirit. We are complete in HIM, there is no other, there is but one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus.

  • Grace

    Dave you mention “tradition” many, many times in your posts, however the passage below WARNS of such “tradition of men”

    8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    Colossians 2

    This most likely, is one of the most profound statements by Paul, directly pointing to Christ and no other, including Mary.

    This would include the ‘traditions’ within the RCC. Mary is not mentioned in the passage above, CHRIST is, HE is the one to be followed, HE is part of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, God the HOLY Spirit. We are complete in HIM, there is no other, there is but one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@48):

    You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. would you please do us the favor of giving us the references? Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical [sic] contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations [sic] or bogus Dave.

    They are legitimate quotations . We already went through a big textual discussion where I thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that I introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s. But you are foolish enough to think I can’t document this, too, when I already gave links where I did so. Granted, it is work to find them, though, so I’m happy to do all the work.

    Example One:

    “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.” (1540)

    This is the translation of Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator involved in Luther’s Works, including, for example, the lengthy treatise, Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil (vol. 41, 263-376). It comes from the following book:

    The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992.

    From Gritsch’s chapter 8, “The Views of Luther and Lutheranism on the Veneration of Mary” (pp. 235-238), but it is in a footnote on p. 381. Here is the fuller context:

    ============
    As Luther put it in 1540: “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. Thus Isaiah is correct in saying, ‘There was no deceit in his mouth’ [53:9]. Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary.”

    [footnote 23; p. 381: "Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, February 28, 1540. WA 39/2:107.8-13."]
    ============

    The primary source is available in its entirety online, translated from the Latin (WA) by Christopher B. Brown:

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    In that rendering, the same portion is as follows (my bolding and caps):

    “in conception the flesh and blood OF MARY were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, ‘There was no guile found in his mouth’; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.”

    Gritsch further observes:

    “Luther’s views on Mary after 1521 are not substantially different from those he presented in the Magnificat.” (p. 237)

    “In 1527 Luther dealt with the Immaculate Conception of Mary, advocating a middle position favored by a majority of theologians. Following Augustine, Luther told his congregation that Mary had been conceived in sin but had been purified by the infusion of her soul after conception. Her purification was complete due to a special intervention of the Holy Spirit, who preserved her from the taint of original sin in anticipation of the birth of Christ.” (Ibid., p. 238)

    “Two scholars doubt whether Luther affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: Preuss (n. 11 above came to the conclusion that Luther rejected the doctrine after 1528; O’Meara states that “it is likely, but not certain” that Luther rejected the doctrine (118 [n. 11 above]). But Tappolet (32 [n. 1 above]) demonstrated with the use of texts that Luther did not change his mind. The literary evidence from Luther’s works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine, but did not consider it necessary to impose it.” (Ibid., footnote 43; p. 382)

    Example Two:

    “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .” (1543)

    From Gerhard Falk, in his book, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther’s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras (McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217). This can be viewed online:

    http://books.google.com/books?ei=4mmmTLitK5CMnQfPyMmPAQ&ct=result&id=L-fYAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+Jew+In+Christian+Theology+by+Gerhard+Falk&q=holy+ghost#search_anchor

    See also, Beth Kreitzer, Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century (Oxford University Press: 2004):

    “In a later writing Luther insists that Mary was ‘saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit’ at some point before Christ’s incarnation, although he does not specify when this happened.” [99] (p. 124)

    [99] Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, 1543, WA 53, 640: “[Maria ist] ein heilige Jungfraw, die, von der Erbsunde erloset und gereiniget, durch den heiligen Geist.” Ebtener thinks that because this statement falls in the context of a defense of the incarnation, Luther means that Mary was purified at that point. Others (e.g., Schimmelpfennig) believe that this phrase still supports the immaculate conception. See Ebneter, “Martin Luthers Marienbild,” 78-79.

    View online:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=WFPNqmKflGQC&pg=PA8&dq=luther+%22immaculate+conception%22&hl=en&ei=L8ekTPixDZTtngfV6pGRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=immaculate%20conception&f=false

    See also Bridget Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety, 1500-1648 (Cambridge University Press: 2007):

    “Yet he still, in 1543, felt able to write that Mary was ‘a holy virgin, who was saved and purified from Original Sin by the Holy Ghost’, although he no longer specified at what point this purification took place.” [157] (pp. 58-59)

    [157] WA, vol. 53, p. 640.

    View online:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=lDSuvJtjrBcC&pg=PA58&dq=luther+%22immaculate+conception%22&hl=en&ei=LyylTOLTGt-RnAeA4L2QAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22immaculate%20conception%22&f=false

    Example Three:

    “But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .

    “But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .” (1543-1544)

    This is from LW, vol. 7, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44 (translated by Paul D. Pahl), excerpts from pp. 12-13 and p. 31. I have this volume (hardcover) in my library (I have some but not all of LW). To see a great deal more context, go to James Swan’s page, “1544: Luther’s Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ”:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/1544-luther-explains-about-mary-and.html

    Dan Kempin wrote (#50 above):

    More importantly, you need to re-read your own quotes. (I will credit you with hasty reading so that I am not tempted to accuse you of intentionally misleading.) The human nature that Luther is speaking of here being purified from sin is not Mary’s, but Christ’s.

    This is incorrect, as can be seen in context (though it does take some careful reading). Swan on his web page above agrees with me, in his interpretation of the same passages:

    “I’ve been presenting evidence that Luther’s later view appears to be that at Christ’s conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.”

    This is seen, e.g., in Luther’s reference above to Lk 1:35. The “overshadowing” referred to Mary, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus’ flesh cannot be purged from sin because no sin was ever in it to begin with, based on the Hypostatic Union and His deity. To deny that is again Nestorian heresy and (insofar as Christ is said to be sinful in any sense), I submit, blasphemous. This is the kind of Christological error that filled the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Heaven forbid that Lutherans fall into that. You can’t, according top your own confessions. E.g., Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I: Original Sin (43-44):

    43] Secondly, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God’s Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that He was in all things, sin excepted, made like unto us, His brethren, Heb. 2:14. [omit Latin] That is: Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, His brethren; for He has assumed His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes; and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy.

    44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished.

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php

    Unless you are contending Luther also believed that Mary’s nature was “united with the divine nature in one Person.” (#31, umm, third citation without a reference.)

    Luther was referring to Mary’s flesh (not her “nature”) that Jesus then received, so that He had a human nature. You need to read it more closely, not I. Even Swan, the Great Luther-Defender, agrees with me here. And what we see in this work can be understood as in line with other similar utterances of Luther’s.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@48):

    You listed a series of Luther quotes in post 31. would you please do us the favor of giving us the references? Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical [sic] contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations [sic] or bogus Dave.

    They are legitimate quotations . We already went through a big textual discussion where I thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that I introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s. But you are foolish enough to think I can’t document this, too, when I already gave links where I did so. Granted, it is work to find them, though, so I’m happy to do all the work.

    Example One:

    “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.” (1540)

    This is the translation of Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator involved in Luther’s Works, including, for example, the lengthy treatise, Against the Roman Papacy: An Institution of the Devil (vol. 41, 263-376). It comes from the following book:

    The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992.

    From Gritsch’s chapter 8, “The Views of Luther and Lutheranism on the Veneration of Mary” (pp. 235-238), but it is in a footnote on p. 381. Here is the fuller context:

    ============
    As Luther put it in 1540: “In his conception all of Mary’s flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained. Thus Isaiah is correct in saying, ‘There was no deceit in his mouth’ [53:9]. Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary.”

    [footnote 23; p. 381: "Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, February 28, 1540. WA 39/2:107.8-13."]
    ============

    The primary source is available in its entirety online, translated from the Latin (WA) by Christopher B. Brown:

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    In that rendering, the same portion is as follows (my bolding and caps):

    “in conception the flesh and blood OF MARY were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, ‘There was no guile found in his mouth’; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.”

    Gritsch further observes:

    “Luther’s views on Mary after 1521 are not substantially different from those he presented in the Magnificat.” (p. 237)

    “In 1527 Luther dealt with the Immaculate Conception of Mary, advocating a middle position favored by a majority of theologians. Following Augustine, Luther told his congregation that Mary had been conceived in sin but had been purified by the infusion of her soul after conception. Her purification was complete due to a special intervention of the Holy Spirit, who preserved her from the taint of original sin in anticipation of the birth of Christ.” (Ibid., p. 238)

    “Two scholars doubt whether Luther affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: Preuss (n. 11 above came to the conclusion that Luther rejected the doctrine after 1528; O’Meara states that “it is likely, but not certain” that Luther rejected the doctrine (118 [n. 11 above]). But Tappolet (32 [n. 1 above]) demonstrated with the use of texts that Luther did not change his mind. The literary evidence from Luther’s works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine, but did not consider it necessary to impose it.” (Ibid., footnote 43; p. 382)

    Example Two:

    “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .” (1543)

    From Gerhard Falk, in his book, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther’s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras (McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217). This can be viewed online:

    http://books.google.com/books?ei=4mmmTLitK5CMnQfPyMmPAQ&ct=result&id=L-fYAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+Jew+In+Christian+Theology+by+Gerhard+Falk&q=holy+ghost#search_anchor

    See also, Beth Kreitzer, Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century (Oxford University Press: 2004):

    “In a later writing Luther insists that Mary was ‘saved and purified from original sin through the Holy Spirit’ at some point before Christ’s incarnation, although he does not specify when this happened.” [99] (p. 124)

    [99] Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, 1543, WA 53, 640: “[Maria ist] ein heilige Jungfraw, die, von der Erbsunde erloset und gereiniget, durch den heiligen Geist.” Ebtener thinks that because this statement falls in the context of a defense of the incarnation, Luther means that Mary was purified at that point. Others (e.g., Schimmelpfennig) believe that this phrase still supports the immaculate conception. See Ebneter, “Martin Luthers Marienbild,” 78-79.

    View online:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=WFPNqmKflGQC&pg=PA8&dq=luther+%22immaculate+conception%22&hl=en&ei=L8ekTPixDZTtngfV6pGRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=immaculate%20conception&f=false

    See also Bridget Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety, 1500-1648 (Cambridge University Press: 2007):

    “Yet he still, in 1543, felt able to write that Mary was ‘a holy virgin, who was saved and purified from Original Sin by the Holy Ghost’, although he no longer specified at what point this purification took place.” [157] (pp. 58-59)

    [157] WA, vol. 53, p. 640.

    View online:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=lDSuvJtjrBcC&pg=PA58&dq=luther+%22immaculate+conception%22&hl=en&ei=LyylTOLTGt-RnAeA4L2QAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22immaculate%20conception%22&f=false

    Example Three:

    “But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. . . . with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception . . .

    “But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” . . . this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, . . .” (1543-1544)

    This is from LW, vol. 7, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44 (translated by Paul D. Pahl), excerpts from pp. 12-13 and p. 31. I have this volume (hardcover) in my library (I have some but not all of LW). To see a great deal more context, go to James Swan’s page, “1544: Luther’s Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ”:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/1544-luther-explains-about-mary-and.html

    Dan Kempin wrote (#50 above):

    More importantly, you need to re-read your own quotes. (I will credit you with hasty reading so that I am not tempted to accuse you of intentionally misleading.) The human nature that Luther is speaking of here being purified from sin is not Mary’s, but Christ’s.

    This is incorrect, as can be seen in context (though it does take some careful reading). Swan on his web page above agrees with me, in his interpretation of the same passages:

    “I’ve been presenting evidence that Luther’s later view appears to be that at Christ’s conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.”

    This is seen, e.g., in Luther’s reference above to Lk 1:35. The “overshadowing” referred to Mary, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus’ flesh cannot be purged from sin because no sin was ever in it to begin with, based on the Hypostatic Union and His deity. To deny that is again Nestorian heresy and (insofar as Christ is said to be sinful in any sense), I submit, blasphemous. This is the kind of Christological error that filled the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Heaven forbid that Lutherans fall into that. You can’t, according top your own confessions. E.g., Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article I: Original Sin (43-44):

    43] Secondly, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcibly that God’s Son assumed our human nature without sin, so that He was in all things, sin excepted, made like unto us, His brethren, Heb. 2:14. [omit Latin] That is: Hence all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His assumed humanity, is of one essence with us, His brethren; for He has assumed His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excepted) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes; and they have condemned the contrary doctrine as manifest heresy.

    44] Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished.

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php

    Unless you are contending Luther also believed that Mary’s nature was “united with the divine nature in one Person.” (#31, umm, third citation without a reference.)

    Luther was referring to Mary’s flesh (not her “nature”) that Jesus then received, so that He had a human nature. You need to read it more closely, not I. Even Swan, the Great Luther-Defender, agrees with me here. And what we see in this work can be understood as in line with other similar utterances of Luther’s.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @97 (Todd)

    Dave (@86) said:

    I can’t answer a thousand questions AT ONCE, often in 101 directions.

    Oh good grief. Was this the same guy who wrote, all of a few hours earlier (@69):

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

    Well that didn’t last long, did it?

    This is a simple logical distinction (that I am convinced even you could grasp). In the first statement I said I was a mortal creature, limited to time. I can’t do everything all at once. Or do you deny that many people are now firing out questions rapidfire that I am expected to answer? I’ve been here all day today, patiently answering. I also objected to off-topic diversions.

    In the second I didn’t tie it to time, and said I would answer (i.e., in due course, provided it was on-topic). There is no contradiction.

    My objection was perfectly rational. I am answering. I can’t do everything at once. But I will start ignoring you soon, too (along with Grace), if you can’t cease with all this personal garbage, trying to prove I am a hypocrite at every turn.

    I just spent about two hours painstakingly documenting text sources that no one else was willing to look up for themselves, since I provided links (I have to do everything) — they are all rock solid: one from Gritsch, another right from LW, vol. 7), after someone denied their authenticity, so I’m in no mood at the moment to hear another of your pompous, obnoxious lectures about my willingness (or lack thereof) to answer (this is now about the fifth one).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @97 (Todd)

    Dave (@86) said:

    I can’t answer a thousand questions AT ONCE, often in 101 directions.

    Oh good grief. Was this the same guy who wrote, all of a few hours earlier (@69):

    I’m not daunted by numbers. There could be a hundred people arguing against something I wrote and I will patiently reply to everything, as long as it is on-topic and rational.

    Well that didn’t last long, did it?

    This is a simple logical distinction (that I am convinced even you could grasp). In the first statement I said I was a mortal creature, limited to time. I can’t do everything all at once. Or do you deny that many people are now firing out questions rapidfire that I am expected to answer? I’ve been here all day today, patiently answering. I also objected to off-topic diversions.

    In the second I didn’t tie it to time, and said I would answer (i.e., in due course, provided it was on-topic). There is no contradiction.

    My objection was perfectly rational. I am answering. I can’t do everything at once. But I will start ignoring you soon, too (along with Grace), if you can’t cease with all this personal garbage, trying to prove I am a hypocrite at every turn.

    I just spent about two hours painstakingly documenting text sources that no one else was willing to look up for themselves, since I provided links (I have to do everything) — they are all rock solid: one from Gritsch, another right from LW, vol. 7), after someone denied their authenticity, so I’m in no mood at the moment to hear another of your pompous, obnoxious lectures about my willingness (or lack thereof) to answer (this is now about the fifth one).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd @95

    But surely you understand that Jesus suffered because he took on our sins! He died because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”, because “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”.

    That’s not the whole of His suffering. In my words that you cite, I mentioned Gethsemane. That was before the cross. The betrayal by Judas was before the cross. Is that not suffering? He lamented over the sinfulness of Jerusalem; wept over the dead Lazarus, even though He was about to raise Him, was misunderstood by Pharisees and scribes, etc. How you can miss all that is what is “odd” here.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd @95

    But surely you understand that Jesus suffered because he took on our sins! He died because “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”, because “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”.

    That’s not the whole of His suffering. In my words that you cite, I mentioned Gethsemane. That was before the cross. The betrayal by Judas was before the cross. Is that not suffering? He lamented over the sinfulness of Jerusalem; wept over the dead Lazarus, even though He was about to raise Him, was misunderstood by Pharisees and scribes, etc. How you can miss all that is what is “odd” here.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    My post at #101 where I documented the three Luther quotes in great detail, keeps saying “awaiting moderation”. I suspect that it is because of several URLs that I needed to include in order to document (Google Reader and so forth). But I have completed that work. Hopefully it will appear soon. I can see it, but I guess no one else can if it states that on the post.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    My post at #101 where I documented the three Luther quotes in great detail, keeps saying “awaiting moderation”. I suspect that it is because of several URLs that I needed to include in order to document (Google Reader and so forth). But I have completed that work. Hopefully it will appear soon. I can see it, but I guess no one else can if it states that on the post.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    It’s up now. The blogging software here puts comments with more than two links into moderation as a spam safeguard.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    It’s up now. The blogging software here puts comments with more than two links into moderation as a spam safeguard.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@81)

    please be clear that for us Lutherans the assumption of Mary and the her perpetual virginity are not contrary to holy scripture. so we dont really need to argue those points ok?

    Assumption: I was merely providing an example (besides the IC) of the biblical argument we make for it, since the initial post stated (or implied) that Catholic Mariology has little or no support in the Bible.

    I mentioned perpetual virginity only once in passing, I think. I forget what the issue at the time was. I have hardly written about that.

    You are sort of wasting your time by insisting on making a case for those. We Lutherans really don’t care about those.

    I see.

    And I am happy to call Mary the Mother of God as well. So you can probably be cool with giving that a rest as well.

    That was solely because of Grace’s objection to it. I understood that Lutherans agree, which is why I alluded to that very fact.

    Now, is Catholicism Christian or not? I asked you above, some very specific questions (#84).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@81)

    please be clear that for us Lutherans the assumption of Mary and the her perpetual virginity are not contrary to holy scripture. so we dont really need to argue those points ok?

    Assumption: I was merely providing an example (besides the IC) of the biblical argument we make for it, since the initial post stated (or implied) that Catholic Mariology has little or no support in the Bible.

    I mentioned perpetual virginity only once in passing, I think. I forget what the issue at the time was. I have hardly written about that.

    You are sort of wasting your time by insisting on making a case for those. We Lutherans really don’t care about those.

    I see.

    And I am happy to call Mary the Mother of God as well. So you can probably be cool with giving that a rest as well.

    That was solely because of Grace’s objection to it. I understood that Lutherans agree, which is why I alluded to that very fact.

    Now, is Catholicism Christian or not? I asked you above, some very specific questions (#84).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Gene (@105),

    Thanks for the info. and clarification. I suspected that it was the links causing that. God bless!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Gene (@105),

    Thanks for the info. and clarification. I suspected that it was the links causing that. God bless!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave said (@101),

    We already went through a big textual discussion where I thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that I introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s.

    Um, that is not what happened. You were, in fact, discovered propagating an erroneous “quote” that was, instead of being from the single source you said it was, actually a summary of Luther’s thoughts pieced together from multiple works.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this error was unintentional (if sloppy), but it is hardly the case that you “thoroughly disproved all the contentions” made about the (spurious, I thought we all now agreed) quotes you introduced to the Internet.

    As to your next comment (@102):

    My objection was perfectly rational. I am answering. I can’t do everything at once.

    No, it was not rational. It verged on the paranoiac, alleging that we were playing “tricks”, employing “silly techniques” and intentionally “overwhelming” you in order to “create the illusion” of “‘superiority’ of viewpoint” or the “appearance of strength” through “sheer volume”.

    You also may notice that no one was asking you to “do everything at once”.

    But I will start ignoring you soon, too (along with Grace), if you can’t cease with all this personal garbage, trying to prove I am a hypocrite at every turn.

    It’s your choice, of course. But I’m not trying to “prove you’re a hypocrite at every turn” — do you think hysterical slander is the best reply to what you perceive to be hysterical slander? I am insinuating that you’re coming across as whiny — as my mom used to say, throwing a pity party.

    I just spent about two hours painstakingly documenting text sources that no one else was willing to look up for themselves, since I provided links (I have to do everything).

    Yes, poor you, having to provide documentation for the claims you make, especially after initial, extended requests for you to do the same for a previous quote you bragged about popularizing resulted in your admitting to a fairly serious error.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dave said (@101),

    We already went through a big textual discussion where I thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that I introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s.

    Um, that is not what happened. You were, in fact, discovered propagating an erroneous “quote” that was, instead of being from the single source you said it was, actually a summary of Luther’s thoughts pieced together from multiple works.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this error was unintentional (if sloppy), but it is hardly the case that you “thoroughly disproved all the contentions” made about the (spurious, I thought we all now agreed) quotes you introduced to the Internet.

    As to your next comment (@102):

    My objection was perfectly rational. I am answering. I can’t do everything at once.

    No, it was not rational. It verged on the paranoiac, alleging that we were playing “tricks”, employing “silly techniques” and intentionally “overwhelming” you in order to “create the illusion” of “‘superiority’ of viewpoint” or the “appearance of strength” through “sheer volume”.

    You also may notice that no one was asking you to “do everything at once”.

    But I will start ignoring you soon, too (along with Grace), if you can’t cease with all this personal garbage, trying to prove I am a hypocrite at every turn.

    It’s your choice, of course. But I’m not trying to “prove you’re a hypocrite at every turn” — do you think hysterical slander is the best reply to what you perceive to be hysterical slander? I am insinuating that you’re coming across as whiny — as my mom used to say, throwing a pity party.

    I just spent about two hours painstakingly documenting text sources that no one else was willing to look up for themselves, since I provided links (I have to do everything).

    Yes, poor you, having to provide documentation for the claims you make, especially after initial, extended requests for you to do the same for a previous quote you bragged about popularizing resulted in your admitting to a fairly serious error.

  • fws

    hi dave @ 84

    Is catholicism christian? Of course it is. What else would it be. But I understand your question to be slightly different than you worded it to be. I understand your question to be this: “Is Roman christianity catholic and christian?

    To the extent that Roman theology is about the life, death and resurrection of Christ for the redemption of the world Roman theology is truly christian and catholic.

    Ditto goes for my own sect known as Evangelical Lutheranism.

    I would encourage you to find my more detailed answer in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession that talks about the Visible Holy Catholic Church that is not divided by sectarian, cultural, political or other boundaries but is scattered everywhere on earth, and also says that that visible Church has in it both hypocrites and true believers.

    That church is called Holy by virtue of the fact that only there can be found that invisible fellowship that consists of all true believers who are ‘in with and under’ that visible church by way of their baptism and alone faith in the works of Another as what can alone appease the wrath of God over sin.

    You can read it here:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php

    Dave if any of us were saved alone by anything we could do or refrain from doing, which would include having pure doctrine, we would all most certainly need to be very uncertain of our salvation.

    Aren’t you glad that you were Baptized into Christ and can be certain from that fact, that God has promised you that you are his?

    I am so glad that Christ Crucified is taught in your roman sect as well as in my own lutheran sect. And I am glad to count you as a fellow believer in Christ by virtue of the fact that you have been baptized.

  • fws

    hi dave @ 84

    Is catholicism christian? Of course it is. What else would it be. But I understand your question to be slightly different than you worded it to be. I understand your question to be this: “Is Roman christianity catholic and christian?

    To the extent that Roman theology is about the life, death and resurrection of Christ for the redemption of the world Roman theology is truly christian and catholic.

    Ditto goes for my own sect known as Evangelical Lutheranism.

    I would encourage you to find my more detailed answer in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession that talks about the Visible Holy Catholic Church that is not divided by sectarian, cultural, political or other boundaries but is scattered everywhere on earth, and also says that that visible Church has in it both hypocrites and true believers.

    That church is called Holy by virtue of the fact that only there can be found that invisible fellowship that consists of all true believers who are ‘in with and under’ that visible church by way of their baptism and alone faith in the works of Another as what can alone appease the wrath of God over sin.

    You can read it here:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php

    Dave if any of us were saved alone by anything we could do or refrain from doing, which would include having pure doctrine, we would all most certainly need to be very uncertain of our salvation.

    Aren’t you glad that you were Baptized into Christ and can be certain from that fact, that God has promised you that you are his?

    I am so glad that Christ Crucified is taught in your roman sect as well as in my own lutheran sect. And I am glad to count you as a fellow believer in Christ by virtue of the fact that you have been baptized.

  • fws

    dave @ 84

    I hope that answered your questions to me. if not feel free to redirect!

    What I have said is spoken on behalf of the other Lutherans here , since I have merely repeated what our Lutheran Confessions say.

  • fws

    dave @ 84

    I hope that answered your questions to me. if not feel free to redirect!

    What I have said is spoken on behalf of the other Lutherans here , since I have merely repeated what our Lutheran Confessions say.

  • fws

    dave @ 101

    what todd says at 108 seems fair doesnt it?

  • fws

    dave @ 101

    what todd says at 108 seems fair doesnt it?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@108),

    Alright. I will ignore your replies henceforth, too. I don’t have time anymore for your sanctimonious, smarter-than-thou lectures. Let’s just acknowledge that we rub each other the wrong way and leave it at that. It happens. God bless and be well.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Todd (@108),

    Alright. I will ignore your replies henceforth, too. I don’t have time anymore for your sanctimonious, smarter-than-thou lectures. Let’s just acknowledge that we rub each other the wrong way and leave it at that. It happens. God bless and be well.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #101,

    “Swan on his web page above agrees with me, in his interpretation . . .”

    Ok, this is getting surreal. So now you are quoting James Swan as a source for your . . . never mind. I don’t want to know. It takes a lot to put me off, but I’m starting to feel that I’ve been suckered.

    Look, Dave, your quotes above speak against you for anyone who can read. Luther was not talking about the purification of Mary herself, but about the incarnation of Christ. I challenge anyone here to read the full context and say otherwise. If you decide to cite the source, that is.

    But don’t expect to hear back from me on it.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave, #101,

    “Swan on his web page above agrees with me, in his interpretation . . .”

    Ok, this is getting surreal. So now you are quoting James Swan as a source for your . . . never mind. I don’t want to know. It takes a lot to put me off, but I’m starting to feel that I’ve been suckered.

    Look, Dave, your quotes above speak against you for anyone who can read. Luther was not talking about the purification of Mary herself, but about the incarnation of Christ. I challenge anyone here to read the full context and say otherwise. If you decide to cite the source, that is.

    But don’t expect to hear back from me on it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (109-110),

    Yes, quite satisfactory answers; glad to hear them. Thanks!

    108 was “fair”? Not at all. I simply complained about having a bunch of questions fired at me. It’s not the end of western civilization. It’s not paranoia, let alone “hysterical,” etc. (whoever thinks this has not the slightest idea of what my temperament is like). It’s not anything other than a . . . good old-fashioned complaint: spouting off a bit about one of my pet peeves, I would say. I can’t do everything at once. Period. I ain’t outside of time, I’d love to learn the trick. Meanwhile, I gotta go through 24-hour days. LOL

    But I have managed to document the three quotes that you said maybe weren’t authentic and possibly “bogus Dave.” They’re all rock solid, from scholars and scholarly sources.

    One last response to yet another insufferable Todd rant (in that same post):

    Yes, poor you, having to provide documentation for the claims you make,

    I already DID. Past tense: D——I——D. It was all in my papers that I linked to (as I plainly stated). Why am I required to do all that work when I already did it? I’m not. We have search capacities now (Ctrl-f). Things can be located in one second. I have no such obligation to produce what I already have, online, for the record. I don’t have unlimited time.

    But I did it anyway, so we can be rid of silly complaints. It’s one thing to note that the source documentation is not listed, and ask for it, like the Cole controversy. That was valid. I had no problem with that request. I found it, and that was that. It was from 1994 research that wasn’t even listed anymore on my Luther page.

    But in this case it was all thoroughly done already: documented to the nth degree, in existing papers. If anyone is able to read, they can find them, if they are so concerned about it and want to question their validity.

    Links are wonderful. We can link now and say: “the sources are over there if you wanna see ‘em.” It’s like a high-tech footnote. But the Luther quotes ARE THERE! They exist! I pulled them out in a more convenient manner and now anyone can see for themselves (#101). If they wanna pick a fight with LW, Gritsch (one of the guys in LW) et al, questioning their translation and understanding of same (now Gritsch is in the business of offering “bogus” Luther quotes?), I would enjoy watching that.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (109-110),

    Yes, quite satisfactory answers; glad to hear them. Thanks!

    108 was “fair”? Not at all. I simply complained about having a bunch of questions fired at me. It’s not the end of western civilization. It’s not paranoia, let alone “hysterical,” etc. (whoever thinks this has not the slightest idea of what my temperament is like). It’s not anything other than a . . . good old-fashioned complaint: spouting off a bit about one of my pet peeves, I would say. I can’t do everything at once. Period. I ain’t outside of time, I’d love to learn the trick. Meanwhile, I gotta go through 24-hour days. LOL

    But I have managed to document the three quotes that you said maybe weren’t authentic and possibly “bogus Dave.” They’re all rock solid, from scholars and scholarly sources.

    One last response to yet another insufferable Todd rant (in that same post):

    Yes, poor you, having to provide documentation for the claims you make,

    I already DID. Past tense: D——I——D. It was all in my papers that I linked to (as I plainly stated). Why am I required to do all that work when I already did it? I’m not. We have search capacities now (Ctrl-f). Things can be located in one second. I have no such obligation to produce what I already have, online, for the record. I don’t have unlimited time.

    But I did it anyway, so we can be rid of silly complaints. It’s one thing to note that the source documentation is not listed, and ask for it, like the Cole controversy. That was valid. I had no problem with that request. I found it, and that was that. It was from 1994 research that wasn’t even listed anymore on my Luther page.

    But in this case it was all thoroughly done already: documented to the nth degree, in existing papers. If anyone is able to read, they can find them, if they are so concerned about it and want to question their validity.

    Links are wonderful. We can link now and say: “the sources are over there if you wanna see ‘em.” It’s like a high-tech footnote. But the Luther quotes ARE THERE! They exist! I pulled them out in a more convenient manner and now anyone can see for themselves (#101). If they wanna pick a fight with LW, Gritsch (one of the guys in LW) et al, questioning their translation and understanding of same (now Gritsch is in the business of offering “bogus” Luther quotes?), I would enjoy watching that.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 101

    Your post at 101 is a perfect example of ‘playing professor, while ‘WE, are to read and link to all your material – all the while ignoring questions, because ‘you are just to busy –

    Dave, much of the material you are using has been rehashed numerous times. That isn’t bad enough, you actually ‘play professor, with the majority of those on this blog, as nothing more than students, reading with baited breath for your next installment. Then you ‘pout when others challenge you, playing the wounded professor.

    This is but a blog, when posts become too loong, with too many links, etc., it loses the flavor, which makes a blog interesting, something everyone can take part in. Believe it or not, most people don’t have the time to read endless links.

    I hope you take my remarks in the spirit in which they are given, it’s not to hurt you, but help you understand, perhaps more what blogs are, and what they aren’t.

    It also doesn’t give cause for respect when you make fun of another’s name as you did on “The Pope on Luther” post 191 ol’ Jimbo, who is (he never tires of pointing out) the font of all knowledge where Luther is concerned?”

    You made a post to tODD @103 and then ended it by using “odd” even using quotation marks, “How you can miss all that is what is “odd” here.”

    I saw it as another flip remark at anothers name, perhaps I’m wrong, … I would like to believe the latter, but after the “ol’ Jimbo” remark, I not so sure.

  • Grace

    Dave @ 101

    Your post at 101 is a perfect example of ‘playing professor, while ‘WE, are to read and link to all your material – all the while ignoring questions, because ‘you are just to busy –

    Dave, much of the material you are using has been rehashed numerous times. That isn’t bad enough, you actually ‘play professor, with the majority of those on this blog, as nothing more than students, reading with baited breath for your next installment. Then you ‘pout when others challenge you, playing the wounded professor.

    This is but a blog, when posts become too loong, with too many links, etc., it loses the flavor, which makes a blog interesting, something everyone can take part in. Believe it or not, most people don’t have the time to read endless links.

    I hope you take my remarks in the spirit in which they are given, it’s not to hurt you, but help you understand, perhaps more what blogs are, and what they aren’t.

    It also doesn’t give cause for respect when you make fun of another’s name as you did on “The Pope on Luther” post 191 ol’ Jimbo, who is (he never tires of pointing out) the font of all knowledge where Luther is concerned?”

    You made a post to tODD @103 and then ended it by using “odd” even using quotation marks, “How you can miss all that is what is “odd” here.”

    I saw it as another flip remark at anothers name, perhaps I’m wrong, … I would like to believe the latter, but after the “ol’ Jimbo” remark, I not so sure.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    It takes a lot to put me off, but I’m starting to feel that I’ve been suckered.

    Naw; you just can’t bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, as I did when I made a mistake with the other quotation. I ate my humble pie. It’s no big deal. We all fail and stumble all the time. You’re a human being like me. You’ll survive the trauma of being wrong. I’m confident of that.

    I know it’s difficult to be corrected by the likes of me: not even being Lutheran and all. But the truth is what it is. It’s there to be found: even by a nitwit like me. Read the Lutheran scholars: those who have treated Luther’s Mariology, if you don’t wanna believe me. I list dozens of their opinions at length in my four papers on the topic.

    Folks in here are getting awful angry. Why? It’s just a theological discussion. No biggie. Should be fun . . . I’m having fun, aside from the felt time-pressure that I complained about.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    It takes a lot to put me off, but I’m starting to feel that I’ve been suckered.

    Naw; you just can’t bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, as I did when I made a mistake with the other quotation. I ate my humble pie. It’s no big deal. We all fail and stumble all the time. You’re a human being like me. You’ll survive the trauma of being wrong. I’m confident of that.

    I know it’s difficult to be corrected by the likes of me: not even being Lutheran and all. But the truth is what it is. It’s there to be found: even by a nitwit like me. Read the Lutheran scholars: those who have treated Luther’s Mariology, if you don’t wanna believe me. I list dozens of their opinions at length in my four papers on the topic.

    Folks in here are getting awful angry. Why? It’s just a theological discussion. No biggie. Should be fun . . . I’m having fun, aside from the felt time-pressure that I complained about.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Dave (@114), you have the strange habit of directing rejoinders at the people you claim to be “ignoring” (who, apparently, are not small in number). You repeatedly do the same thing with your arch-nemesis, Swan.

    I’m also a foolish, stubborn ass who enjoys a pointless tête-à-tête, likely also to the consternation of many of my fellow commenters (though I may be the only one of us who realizes it about himself). Which is why, even though you’re “ignoring” me, I offer the following reply:

    It’s not anything other than a . . . good old-fashioned complaint: spouting off a bit about one of my pet peeves, I would say. I can’t do everything at once.

    You do realize, don’t you, that the comment you’ve now re-characterized in such pleasant terms is, in fact, available for us all to read above (@86), don’t you? Let’s take a trip down Memory Lane, hmm?

    That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    I don’t play that game. I will do exactly what I said I would do, and won’t be sidetracked from it. I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes. I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it. That dynamic applies no matter who is arguing for what. It’s a silly technique and should cease.

    Ah, yes. Such a “good old-fashioned complaint”, that.

    Oh, and hey, remember when you (@108) “thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that [you] introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s”? I.e. admitted to your own sloppy error which has now been copied across dozens, if not hundreds, of websites? Good times. Good times. Anyhow, I can see you’ve learned humility from that mistake, so let’s move on.

    I’m having fun, aside from the felt time-pressure that I complained about.

    It’s odd that you keep bringing that up — especially since you’re the only one bringing it up.

    Also, do you routinely accuse people of “insufferable rants” when you’re “having fun”? Do you accuse them of playing “tricks”? Perhaps the problem is that, when you’re having a jolly old time, you sound like you’re accusing most people around you and feeling persecuted?

    But no. No, no. Don’t reply. I know you’re ignoring me.

    In all seriousness, it’s your anniversary, Dave. Spend it with your wife. Don’t waste it on some blog you weren’t even aware of a few days ago.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Dave (@114), you have the strange habit of directing rejoinders at the people you claim to be “ignoring” (who, apparently, are not small in number). You repeatedly do the same thing with your arch-nemesis, Swan.

    I’m also a foolish, stubborn ass who enjoys a pointless tête-à-tête, likely also to the consternation of many of my fellow commenters (though I may be the only one of us who realizes it about himself). Which is why, even though you’re “ignoring” me, I offer the following reply:

    It’s not anything other than a . . . good old-fashioned complaint: spouting off a bit about one of my pet peeves, I would say. I can’t do everything at once.

    You do realize, don’t you, that the comment you’ve now re-characterized in such pleasant terms is, in fact, available for us all to read above (@86), don’t you? Let’s take a trip down Memory Lane, hmm?

    That doesn’t “win” the argument, by overwhelming one person with all kinds of questions, to create the illusion (stupid, if anyone actually believes it) of “superiority” of viewpoint because of sheer volume and variety, and how many different ways different folks can express the same thing.

    I don’t play that game. I will do exactly what I said I would do, and won’t be sidetracked from it. I’ve been doing apologetics for thirty years; have engaged in innumerable dialogues with countless people of all stripes. I know how this works: all the “tricks” used to create an appearance of strength. I’m never taken in by that. It doesn’t rile me. I simply ignore it. That dynamic applies no matter who is arguing for what. It’s a silly technique and should cease.

    Ah, yes. Such a “good old-fashioned complaint”, that.

    Oh, and hey, remember when you (@108) “thoroughly disproved all the contentions made about Luther quotations that [you] introduced to the Internet in the late 1990s”? I.e. admitted to your own sloppy error which has now been copied across dozens, if not hundreds, of websites? Good times. Good times. Anyhow, I can see you’ve learned humility from that mistake, so let’s move on.

    I’m having fun, aside from the felt time-pressure that I complained about.

    It’s odd that you keep bringing that up — especially since you’re the only one bringing it up.

    Also, do you routinely accuse people of “insufferable rants” when you’re “having fun”? Do you accuse them of playing “tricks”? Perhaps the problem is that, when you’re having a jolly old time, you sound like you’re accusing most people around you and feeling persecuted?

    But no. No, no. Don’t reply. I know you’re ignoring me.

    In all seriousness, it’s your anniversary, Dave. Spend it with your wife. Don’t waste it on some blog you weren’t even aware of a few days ago.

  • Dust

    Dave…for what’s it’s worth have really enjoyed your comments, especially as you addressed the introduction of this topic by Veith. Am going to continue to visit your website and perhaps purchase a book or two…or more?

    Said in an earlier comment that, from my amateurish perspective, that the Catholic way of doing their theology seems to me to be very similar to the Lutheran way, you take it just one step further, like as if on steroids! Not saying that’s bad, it just seems that way to me.

    As an example, let’s take absolution, infant baptism and the Lord’s supper. They are folks who comment on this blog that don’t get any of those. The good Lutherans here offer plenty of good bible verses to “prove” their point, but it’s hopeless. The people just don’t interpret those scriptures in the same way to come to the same conclusions. They repeat the same verses and it goes round and round. Then folks get angry, someone insults someone, and so on and so on :(

    It seems to me to be somewhat the same case here, in my opinion and from my perspective. You offer bible verses to explain your position, but the folks who don’t share that position don’t interpret the verses the same way. Or they have different definitions of the same terms being used by everyone, or they have a different method of doing theology, or something…anything! So then, as when the shoe is on the other foot, people get angry (or they perceive folks to be angry), folks get sensitive and soon things are being labelled as insults. Yadda, yadda, yadda…like you say, apologetics can be like politics :(

    So to me, what’s going on here between you and the good defenders of the Lutheran position, is pretty much the same type of thing that goes on against those who question Lutheran positions but from another perspective. Too bad…maybe it’s all a result of original sin? Depends on what that means though, ha!

    In any case, there is tons more could say, but will just end it for now by saying it has been very educational and also fun for me too…thanks and God Bless :)

  • Dust

    Dave…for what’s it’s worth have really enjoyed your comments, especially as you addressed the introduction of this topic by Veith. Am going to continue to visit your website and perhaps purchase a book or two…or more?

    Said in an earlier comment that, from my amateurish perspective, that the Catholic way of doing their theology seems to me to be very similar to the Lutheran way, you take it just one step further, like as if on steroids! Not saying that’s bad, it just seems that way to me.

    As an example, let’s take absolution, infant baptism and the Lord’s supper. They are folks who comment on this blog that don’t get any of those. The good Lutherans here offer plenty of good bible verses to “prove” their point, but it’s hopeless. The people just don’t interpret those scriptures in the same way to come to the same conclusions. They repeat the same verses and it goes round and round. Then folks get angry, someone insults someone, and so on and so on :(

    It seems to me to be somewhat the same case here, in my opinion and from my perspective. You offer bible verses to explain your position, but the folks who don’t share that position don’t interpret the verses the same way. Or they have different definitions of the same terms being used by everyone, or they have a different method of doing theology, or something…anything! So then, as when the shoe is on the other foot, people get angry (or they perceive folks to be angry), folks get sensitive and soon things are being labelled as insults. Yadda, yadda, yadda…like you say, apologetics can be like politics :(

    So to me, what’s going on here between you and the good defenders of the Lutheran position, is pretty much the same type of thing that goes on against those who question Lutheran positions but from another perspective. Too bad…maybe it’s all a result of original sin? Depends on what that means though, ha!

    In any case, there is tons more could say, but will just end it for now by saying it has been very educational and also fun for me too…thanks and God Bless :)

  • Tom Hering

    “… people get angry (or they perceive folks to be angry), folks get sensitive and soon things are being labelled as insults.”

    Dust, you’ve described some of Mr. Armstrong’s comments perfectly!

  • Tom Hering

    “… people get angry (or they perceive folks to be angry), folks get sensitive and soon things are being labelled as insults.”

    Dust, you’ve described some of Mr. Armstrong’s comments perfectly!

  • Grace

    Tom @109

    I most certainly agree with you on this one!

  • Grace

    Tom @109

    I most certainly agree with you on this one!

  • Grace

    Sorry, it should be .. Tom @119

  • Grace

    Sorry, it should be .. Tom @119

  • Tom Hering

    Oh Grace! Who would’ve thunk it was possible! Group hug everybody! :-D

    Seriously, I don’t see Mr Armstrong’s apologetics leading anywhere but an impasse – after a whole lot of citations on both sides from theologians and church fathers. Personally, I’m gonna spare myself the journey.

  • Tom Hering

    Oh Grace! Who would’ve thunk it was possible! Group hug everybody! :-D

    Seriously, I don’t see Mr Armstrong’s apologetics leading anywhere but an impasse – after a whole lot of citations on both sides from theologians and church fathers. Personally, I’m gonna spare myself the journey.

  • Grace

    Giving Tom a huge hug…… ;) yep, on October 6th 2011 big group hug for all! Mark it on your calendar!

    Whoo-hhoo –

    However, if things turn the other way, don’t remind me, I don’t want to hear about it. I’ll send :mrgreen: out tout suite!

  • Grace

    Giving Tom a huge hug…… ;) yep, on October 6th 2011 big group hug for all! Mark it on your calendar!

    Whoo-hhoo –

    However, if things turn the other way, don’t remind me, I don’t want to hear about it. I’ll send :mrgreen: out tout suite!

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    I find this all a bit surreal.

    This whole Luther / Immaculate Conception issue has been a battle for many years. Originally, Mr. Armstrong argued Luther held a lifelong belief that Mary herself was free from sin since her birth. That view he held and fought for for many years. We’d spar back and forth over it from time to time. One of his primary arguments was “x” amount of scholars held his position, and well, Swan is simply not holding the majority view, therefore, he’s wrong. I arrived at my view by simply reading Luther. See this link for the details: http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm

    Some time last year we re-did the same battle on this topic. I presented the same exact position I had since the beginning of our disagreement. Somehow, I appear to have presented enough evidence for him to change his mind. Now of course, he’s saying that I agree with him. That’s surreal indeed, but OK, whatever.

    On my blog, I probably have quite a number of articles on this subject.

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/1544-luther-explains-about-mary-and.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-god-has-formed-soul-and-body-of.html

    And so on. There’s probably many more. Read them, or don’t. It can get rather tedious.

    I assume everything I’ve just written here will be thoroughly documented, refuted, and scorned. But that’s how nightmares go.

    Regards,

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    I find this all a bit surreal.

    This whole Luther / Immaculate Conception issue has been a battle for many years. Originally, Mr. Armstrong argued Luther held a lifelong belief that Mary herself was free from sin since her birth. That view he held and fought for for many years. We’d spar back and forth over it from time to time. One of his primary arguments was “x” amount of scholars held his position, and well, Swan is simply not holding the majority view, therefore, he’s wrong. I arrived at my view by simply reading Luther. See this link for the details: http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm

    Some time last year we re-did the same battle on this topic. I presented the same exact position I had since the beginning of our disagreement. Somehow, I appear to have presented enough evidence for him to change his mind. Now of course, he’s saying that I agree with him. That’s surreal indeed, but OK, whatever.

    On my blog, I probably have quite a number of articles on this subject.

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/1544-luther-explains-about-mary-and.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-god-has-formed-soul-and-body-of.html

    And so on. There’s probably many more. Read them, or don’t. It can get rather tedious.

    I assume everything I’ve just written here will be thoroughly documented, refuted, and scorned. But that’s how nightmares go.

    Regards,

    James

  • Dust

    Tom at 119…honestly was thinking it applies to you and a lot of other folks here, even if you can’t see it yourself…perhaps Christ’s words about removing something from your own eye might be helpful?

    Am especially surprised from Grace….you have been so mistreated here over and over, perhaps you are rejoicing in the fact that you were not the object of scorn this time?

    Or, perhaps it’s just group/mob behavior and no one is responsible for their actions? Protestants of all stripes ganging up on the lone Catholic who was generous, if not brave enough to respond to Dr. Veith’s invitation for Catholic input?

  • Dust

    Tom at 119…honestly was thinking it applies to you and a lot of other folks here, even if you can’t see it yourself…perhaps Christ’s words about removing something from your own eye might be helpful?

    Am especially surprised from Grace….you have been so mistreated here over and over, perhaps you are rejoicing in the fact that you were not the object of scorn this time?

    Or, perhaps it’s just group/mob behavior and no one is responsible for their actions? Protestants of all stripes ganging up on the lone Catholic who was generous, if not brave enough to respond to Dr. Veith’s invitation for Catholic input?

  • Dust

    swan at 124..if you call your website “beggars all” perhaps you will be magnanimous enough admit you don’t know much more about x or y than the next guy…that is, in the final analysis. as luther said, on or near his deathbed, it is true we are all beggars….why not act with some humility then, and allow others a certain latitude in their beliefs? and when they disagree, even if less than cordial, in your eyes, turn the other cheek? of course, you’re all trying to sell something nowadays and that spoils the purity of your enterprise :(

  • Dust

    swan at 124..if you call your website “beggars all” perhaps you will be magnanimous enough admit you don’t know much more about x or y than the next guy…that is, in the final analysis. as luther said, on or near his deathbed, it is true we are all beggars….why not act with some humility then, and allow others a certain latitude in their beliefs? and when they disagree, even if less than cordial, in your eyes, turn the other cheek? of course, you’re all trying to sell something nowadays and that spoils the purity of your enterprise :(

  • fws

    dave @ 101

    First I appreciate the courtesy you show by grouping your prooftexts as example 1… example 2… etc. This makes the task of responding with clarity much easier.

    Your example 1 : gives me the full text from iclnet. This is useful Dave. Here is the full text:

    X. Argument: Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

    Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, “There was no guile found in his
    mouth”; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    This clearly says that it was the conception of Christ that was immaculate and actually proves that Luther includes St Mary’s flesh as being corrupted. How? This phrase: “Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence”

    In this section you label example one you also quote gritsch commenting on this very text. Now that I can read the entire text for my own self, Gritsch’s opinion is not really necessary.

    Since this text clearly actually refutes your position, I have my doubts that Gritsch supports your view either Dave. Can you give us the quotes from Gritch in the context of including a few paragraphs before and after your snippets from Gritsch? I dont have access to his book. If you don’t have time to do that, it doesnt matter does it? Like I said, here you have provided the full text, so I can draw my own conclusions. I am grateful to see you are wrong about this text being in support of your theory. It is clear that the very opposite is true.

    EXAMPLE 2

    In this section you link to various Google Book quotes that unfortunately contain 1) snippets of Luther quotes without even the immediate contexts., 2) are embedded in comments on the text that are themselves snippets that are pulled out of their contexts.

    This , in fairness, allows me to make no independent judgement on the actual Luther text you claim as proof.

    Fortunately James Swan on his site, which you helpfully link us to, does provide the entire context. And that context again says Luther was talking about the Immaculate Conception of Christ and not of Mary. And again Luthers words actually militate against the idea of a marian immaculate conception.

    EXAMPLE 3:

    You say that James Swan agrees with your understanding of the text. 1) the exact opposite is true. 2) He would agree that it doesnt matter what he thinks. he presents the text in its full context and it is so painfully obvious that Luther was referrring to the immaculate conception of Christ and not the Blessed Virgin.

    Then you say this :

    I’ve been presenting evidence that Luther’s later view appears to be that at Christ’s conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.”

    This is seen, e.g., in Luther’s reference above to Lk 1:35. The “overshadowing” referred to Mary, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus’ flesh cannot be purged from sin because no sin was ever in it to begin with, based on the Hypostatic Union and His deity. To deny that is again Nestorian heresy and (insofar as Christ is said to be sinful in any sense), I submit, blasphemous.

    but Luther said this:

    Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption. According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature. In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ.

    This is from the James Swan blog you linked us to where Swan provides the full text. Again this text simply does not say what you assert it says. It says actually the exact contrary!

    Whereever we have been provided with full text and context the actual Luther quotations appear to always be proof against your thesis David. What is with that?

    And this is so very self evident that it doesnt matter what anyones opinion on the text is. not mine, gritschs or swans or yours. the plain meaning of the text is just so very painfully self evident.

    Let me know when you post this current exchange we are having onto your site as you say you do in the interest of honesty. I would be most interested now to see the 1521 luther quotes in their full context. If you have already posted those, then please just give me the link to your site where I can find that. I dont expect you to retype everything. thanks!

  • fws

    dave @ 101

    First I appreciate the courtesy you show by grouping your prooftexts as example 1… example 2… etc. This makes the task of responding with clarity much easier.

    Your example 1 : gives me the full text from iclnet. This is useful Dave. Here is the full text:

    X. Argument: Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

    Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, “There was no guile found in his
    mouth”; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    This clearly says that it was the conception of Christ that was immaculate and actually proves that Luther includes St Mary’s flesh as being corrupted. How? This phrase: “Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence”

    In this section you label example one you also quote gritsch commenting on this very text. Now that I can read the entire text for my own self, Gritsch’s opinion is not really necessary.

    Since this text clearly actually refutes your position, I have my doubts that Gritsch supports your view either Dave. Can you give us the quotes from Gritch in the context of including a few paragraphs before and after your snippets from Gritsch? I dont have access to his book. If you don’t have time to do that, it doesnt matter does it? Like I said, here you have provided the full text, so I can draw my own conclusions. I am grateful to see you are wrong about this text being in support of your theory. It is clear that the very opposite is true.

    EXAMPLE 2

    In this section you link to various Google Book quotes that unfortunately contain 1) snippets of Luther quotes without even the immediate contexts., 2) are embedded in comments on the text that are themselves snippets that are pulled out of their contexts.

    This , in fairness, allows me to make no independent judgement on the actual Luther text you claim as proof.

    Fortunately James Swan on his site, which you helpfully link us to, does provide the entire context. And that context again says Luther was talking about the Immaculate Conception of Christ and not of Mary. And again Luthers words actually militate against the idea of a marian immaculate conception.

    EXAMPLE 3:

    You say that James Swan agrees with your understanding of the text. 1) the exact opposite is true. 2) He would agree that it doesnt matter what he thinks. he presents the text in its full context and it is so painfully obvious that Luther was referrring to the immaculate conception of Christ and not the Blessed Virgin.

    Then you say this :

    I’ve been presenting evidence that Luther’s later view appears to be that at Christ’s conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.”

    This is seen, e.g., in Luther’s reference above to Lk 1:35. The “overshadowing” referred to Mary, not Christ (this is the Annunciation); and Luther tied that in to her flesh being purged and purified. Jesus’ flesh cannot be purged from sin because no sin was ever in it to begin with, based on the Hypostatic Union and His deity. To deny that is again Nestorian heresy and (insofar as Christ is said to be sinful in any sense), I submit, blasphemous.

    but Luther said this:

    Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption. According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature. In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ.

    This is from the James Swan blog you linked us to where Swan provides the full text. Again this text simply does not say what you assert it says. It says actually the exact contrary!

    Whereever we have been provided with full text and context the actual Luther quotations appear to always be proof against your thesis David. What is with that?

    And this is so very self evident that it doesnt matter what anyones opinion on the text is. not mine, gritschs or swans or yours. the plain meaning of the text is just so very painfully self evident.

    Let me know when you post this current exchange we are having onto your site as you say you do in the interest of honesty. I would be most interested now to see the 1521 luther quotes in their full context. If you have already posted those, then please just give me the link to your site where I can find that. I dont expect you to retype everything. thanks!

  • Grace

    James Swan @ 124

    I have tried in vain to find an email address for you. If you could give me a hint, I would be grateful.

    I do appreciate your contribution,

    Grace

  • Grace

    James Swan @ 124

    I have tried in vain to find an email address for you. If you could give me a hint, I would be grateful.

    I do appreciate your contribution,

    Grace

  • Grace

    Dust @ 125

    YOU WROTE:

    “Am especially surprised from Grace….you have been so mistreated here over and over, perhaps you are rejoicing in the fact that you were not the object of scorn this time?

    That is not true Dust, …. look back over these posts, and those from the previous blog here, you will see that Dave, had not answered my questions, and then when I reminded him, he had a snarky answer which I had not expected from him. All because I disagreed, and used Scripture.

    There are people who play games, and then wait like a bob cat for their prey…. I’m well acquainted with such tactics. Scorn? … read the other thread, and then this one again, you might change your mind, and then…….who knows ….

    YOU WROTE:

    “Or, perhaps it’s just group/mob behavior and no one is responsible for their actions? Protestants of all stripes ganging up on the lone Catholic who was generous, if not brave enough to respond to Dr. Veith’s invitation for Catholic input?”

    “Lone Catholic” ? – There is nothing brave about writing half a book, and then whining about a problem with “TIME” to answer all the questions. As for “Catholic input” – anyone who has studied, researched is not ignorant as to the RCC input, and doctrinal stance which is taken in such debates, in fact they are most attuned to the usual ‘traditions’ which are arranged just for the occasion.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 125

    YOU WROTE:

    “Am especially surprised from Grace….you have been so mistreated here over and over, perhaps you are rejoicing in the fact that you were not the object of scorn this time?

    That is not true Dust, …. look back over these posts, and those from the previous blog here, you will see that Dave, had not answered my questions, and then when I reminded him, he had a snarky answer which I had not expected from him. All because I disagreed, and used Scripture.

    There are people who play games, and then wait like a bob cat for their prey…. I’m well acquainted with such tactics. Scorn? … read the other thread, and then this one again, you might change your mind, and then…….who knows ….

    YOU WROTE:

    “Or, perhaps it’s just group/mob behavior and no one is responsible for their actions? Protestants of all stripes ganging up on the lone Catholic who was generous, if not brave enough to respond to Dr. Veith’s invitation for Catholic input?”

    “Lone Catholic” ? – There is nothing brave about writing half a book, and then whining about a problem with “TIME” to answer all the questions. As for “Catholic input” – anyone who has studied, researched is not ignorant as to the RCC input, and doctrinal stance which is taken in such debates, in fact they are most attuned to the usual ‘traditions’ which are arranged just for the occasion.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 126

    YOU WROTE:

    swan at 124.. if you call your website “beggars all” perhaps you will be magnanimous enough admit you don’t know much more about x or y than the next guy…that is, in the final analysis. as luther said, on or near his deathbed, it is true we are all beggars….why not act with some humility then, and allow others a certain latitude in their beliefs? and when they disagree, even if less than cordial, in your eyes, turn the other cheek? of course, you’re all trying to sell something nowadays and that spoils the purity of your enterprise

    “Other Cheek” ? – is that just James job, or does that apply to Dave as well?

    Why not apply that to Dave, or is he someone who should be coddled, …. he sells books, or didn’t you know that?

  • Grace

    Dust @ 126

    YOU WROTE:

    swan at 124.. if you call your website “beggars all” perhaps you will be magnanimous enough admit you don’t know much more about x or y than the next guy…that is, in the final analysis. as luther said, on or near his deathbed, it is true we are all beggars….why not act with some humility then, and allow others a certain latitude in their beliefs? and when they disagree, even if less than cordial, in your eyes, turn the other cheek? of course, you’re all trying to sell something nowadays and that spoils the purity of your enterprise

    “Other Cheek” ? – is that just James job, or does that apply to Dave as well?

    Why not apply that to Dave, or is he someone who should be coddled, …. he sells books, or didn’t you know that?

  • Grace

    How many on this blog have written a book and put it out there for others to buy or not to buy. Let’s not get caught up with who is selling a book and who isn’t.

    Does selling a book “spoils the purity of your enterprise” ? – I hope not, what should an author do? .. give their books away, ship them for no cost?

  • Grace

    How many on this blog have written a book and put it out there for others to buy or not to buy. Let’s not get caught up with who is selling a book and who isn’t.

    Does selling a book “spoils the purity of your enterprise” ? – I hope not, what should an author do? .. give their books away, ship them for no cost?

  • Dust

    Grace at 129….would agree with you that Dave’s replies to you were not very kind, and was going to write something to him in that regard. But still that could just be one more reason why you are enjoying bashing him right now? He dissed you, so now you can get him back?

    Sorry but this is a truly pathetic human weakness and it comes out in all of us. Just shocked that you would hug and high five or whatever the same folks who have treated you, at least in my eyes, so shamelessly and disrespectfully over the past few years, if it has indeed it been that long? Sorry, but it comes across in a less than graceful way, can we say?

    Again, am just guessing as to motives, but would go with my gut instinct and in addition to Dave’s dismissal of your inquiries, just the fact that he is a RC apologist and equivalent to the anti-christ, is reason alone for some of the strange bedfellows here to gang up on him? Isn’t there a saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    Grace, have stuck up for you in the past when others were putting you down for your stance on absolution and infant baptism and the real presence. Didn’t agree with your positions, but could see how it’s possible that you could come to your conclusions. None of the good Lutherans you now hug and high five allowed you that, but rather scorned you and insulted you and labeled your opinion as such and such heresy, etc. Do you remember those joyful times?

    Right now, it seems they are doing the same thing to Dave. He has his way of doing theology, but it doesn’t agree with the status quo here, and who thought it w0uld, duh? So they get all excited and sensitive and begin to treat him in a way similar to you…or don’t you see it that way?

    In any case, my point was to defend his right to speak his point of view, especially when the host was asking for input from that perspective. Honestly, he did a great job and it seemed like he was in the same position as the Lutherans trying to explain their position to you. Almost the same arguments you made to them, it seems they made to him. It seems as though the way Catholics do theology is very similar to Lutherans, just on steroids…perhaps we are witnessing some of the side effects of the use of those :)

  • Dust

    Grace at 129….would agree with you that Dave’s replies to you were not very kind, and was going to write something to him in that regard. But still that could just be one more reason why you are enjoying bashing him right now? He dissed you, so now you can get him back?

    Sorry but this is a truly pathetic human weakness and it comes out in all of us. Just shocked that you would hug and high five or whatever the same folks who have treated you, at least in my eyes, so shamelessly and disrespectfully over the past few years, if it has indeed it been that long? Sorry, but it comes across in a less than graceful way, can we say?

    Again, am just guessing as to motives, but would go with my gut instinct and in addition to Dave’s dismissal of your inquiries, just the fact that he is a RC apologist and equivalent to the anti-christ, is reason alone for some of the strange bedfellows here to gang up on him? Isn’t there a saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    Grace, have stuck up for you in the past when others were putting you down for your stance on absolution and infant baptism and the real presence. Didn’t agree with your positions, but could see how it’s possible that you could come to your conclusions. None of the good Lutherans you now hug and high five allowed you that, but rather scorned you and insulted you and labeled your opinion as such and such heresy, etc. Do you remember those joyful times?

    Right now, it seems they are doing the same thing to Dave. He has his way of doing theology, but it doesn’t agree with the status quo here, and who thought it w0uld, duh? So they get all excited and sensitive and begin to treat him in a way similar to you…or don’t you see it that way?

    In any case, my point was to defend his right to speak his point of view, especially when the host was asking for input from that perspective. Honestly, he did a great job and it seemed like he was in the same position as the Lutherans trying to explain their position to you. Almost the same arguments you made to them, it seems they made to him. It seems as though the way Catholics do theology is very similar to Lutherans, just on steroids…perhaps we are witnessing some of the side effects of the use of those :)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@127)

    Wherever we have been provided with full text and context the actual Luther quotations appear to always be proof against your thesis David.

    What is it that you believe to be the thesis that I am defending with regard to these Luther quotes? I think there may be some confusion on your part as to my position. If it’s wrong, then all your premises are wrong, and the conclusions flip and I would be right every time with the three quotations rather than wrong, as you claim. :-)

    What you say especially under example 3 leads me to believe that you don’t comprehend what my position is in the first place. I am not denying that these texts are about the conception of Christ: at which time Mary was purged of sin, according to Luther. This is the late Luther position, sometime after 1527 (or some say, 1532 or so). All my quotes, as I gave more information about this, were quite clear on that (just as you say): my lengthy papers on the topic, even more so. So you actually think I am defending the exact opposite position? :-)

    I’ve even given an original (?) name to his late position: “immaculate purification” (the title of my 4th paper on the topic) because he no longer believed that Mary’s purification occurred at her conception, but rather, at Christ’s (thus, “Immaculate Conception” of Mary no longer actually describes his view). For the later Luther, original sin was purged from Mary (as in our view) but it was not at her conception (unlike our view). His early position was different and closer to the present Catholic view, as to when this miracle occurred. But even his later position was closer to ours than to the average Lutheran today.

    Yes, I did change my position on this, and Swan played some role in that (we knew he would have to show up here, too: it’s as inevitable as the sun rising; he loves to “encounter” me where it is 40 people on one side with him and me on the other; while he bans me from his site.). Truth can come from any quarter (even from those who are usually wrong on things).

    What I despise is his obnoxious public attitude towards the event of my changing my mind (see #124 where he clearly displays it). He seems to think that this should be some kind of an embarrassment or momentous occasion (as if I were infallible, or claimed to be), and goes around bragging, “I made Armstrong change his mind! I made Armstrong changed his mind!” — as if I should go hide in some hole in the ground, for the shame of it, or kiss his feet in rapt admiration for his superiority over me.

    That’s silly and juvenile enough, but actually in a weird way it is a compliment to me, since he is so excited that he drools all over himself in giddy jollity because he helped convince me of something. Obviously he sees that as a triumph. Why should he care at all, seeing that he always says he doesn’t take my apologetics seriously? It’s a big farce.

    Why would anyone care if they convinced someone of anything, whom they regarded as an imbecile with the IQ of a pencil eraser? Why would they go around engaging in flatulent polemics about that in public places? “I convinced the village idiot that the sea is blue!” Who cares??!! LOL But this is what Swan does where I am concerned.

    My approach is completely different from his. I say that any serious thinker will have to be willing to change his mind if it comes down to following truth wherever it leads. I did that on this particular Luther Marian issue. I sincerely believed that Luther held one view, and then was presented with evidence otherwise, thus forcing me to change my mind.

    I follow truth wherever it leads me. This is why I converted from nominal Methodism and practical atheism to evangelicalism (in 1977) and to Catholicism (1990); from “pro-choice” to pro-life (in 1982), from political liberal to conservative (around the same time), and from sexual liberalism to traditional Christian moral values (early 80s). As an evangelical, I used to believe at one time, early on, in the rapture, then saw it was a falsehood and late-arriving belief. I came very close to becoming a Calvinist at one point. I didn’t, but certainly if I had become convinced I would have done so in a heartbeat.

    So I modified my opinion about Luther on one particular point. Big wow. Thinkers do that. Pompous polemicists, on the other hand, try to capitalize on such intellectual growth as cynical opportunities to try to trumpet their own vastly exaggerated brilliance and to make out that such a change of mind (where required by evidence) signifies intellectual weakness rather than strength.

    I’m never ashamed to change my mind if it is necessary, and I couldn’t care less who played some part in it, or what they happen to think of me. Truth is truth. If Swan says “2+2=4″ he’s right! Nor am I ashamed to admit I made a mistake, as in the quotation controversy in the other recent thread on this site.

    I do think, however, that there is a clear distinction between an honest, understandable mistake, and an inexcusable one, where someone has been informed of some fact over and over, yet continues to deny or distort it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws (@127)

    Wherever we have been provided with full text and context the actual Luther quotations appear to always be proof against your thesis David.

    What is it that you believe to be the thesis that I am defending with regard to these Luther quotes? I think there may be some confusion on your part as to my position. If it’s wrong, then all your premises are wrong, and the conclusions flip and I would be right every time with the three quotations rather than wrong, as you claim. :-)

    What you say especially under example 3 leads me to believe that you don’t comprehend what my position is in the first place. I am not denying that these texts are about the conception of Christ: at which time Mary was purged of sin, according to Luther. This is the late Luther position, sometime after 1527 (or some say, 1532 or so). All my quotes, as I gave more information about this, were quite clear on that (just as you say): my lengthy papers on the topic, even more so. So you actually think I am defending the exact opposite position? :-)

    I’ve even given an original (?) name to his late position: “immaculate purification” (the title of my 4th paper on the topic) because he no longer believed that Mary’s purification occurred at her conception, but rather, at Christ’s (thus, “Immaculate Conception” of Mary no longer actually describes his view). For the later Luther, original sin was purged from Mary (as in our view) but it was not at her conception (unlike our view). His early position was different and closer to the present Catholic view, as to when this miracle occurred. But even his later position was closer to ours than to the average Lutheran today.

    Yes, I did change my position on this, and Swan played some role in that (we knew he would have to show up here, too: it’s as inevitable as the sun rising; he loves to “encounter” me where it is 40 people on one side with him and me on the other; while he bans me from his site.). Truth can come from any quarter (even from those who are usually wrong on things).

    What I despise is his obnoxious public attitude towards the event of my changing my mind (see #124 where he clearly displays it). He seems to think that this should be some kind of an embarrassment or momentous occasion (as if I were infallible, or claimed to be), and goes around bragging, “I made Armstrong change his mind! I made Armstrong changed his mind!” — as if I should go hide in some hole in the ground, for the shame of it, or kiss his feet in rapt admiration for his superiority over me.

    That’s silly and juvenile enough, but actually in a weird way it is a compliment to me, since he is so excited that he drools all over himself in giddy jollity because he helped convince me of something. Obviously he sees that as a triumph. Why should he care at all, seeing that he always says he doesn’t take my apologetics seriously? It’s a big farce.

    Why would anyone care if they convinced someone of anything, whom they regarded as an imbecile with the IQ of a pencil eraser? Why would they go around engaging in flatulent polemics about that in public places? “I convinced the village idiot that the sea is blue!” Who cares??!! LOL But this is what Swan does where I am concerned.

    My approach is completely different from his. I say that any serious thinker will have to be willing to change his mind if it comes down to following truth wherever it leads. I did that on this particular Luther Marian issue. I sincerely believed that Luther held one view, and then was presented with evidence otherwise, thus forcing me to change my mind.

    I follow truth wherever it leads me. This is why I converted from nominal Methodism and practical atheism to evangelicalism (in 1977) and to Catholicism (1990); from “pro-choice” to pro-life (in 1982), from political liberal to conservative (around the same time), and from sexual liberalism to traditional Christian moral values (early 80s). As an evangelical, I used to believe at one time, early on, in the rapture, then saw it was a falsehood and late-arriving belief. I came very close to becoming a Calvinist at one point. I didn’t, but certainly if I had become convinced I would have done so in a heartbeat.

    So I modified my opinion about Luther on one particular point. Big wow. Thinkers do that. Pompous polemicists, on the other hand, try to capitalize on such intellectual growth as cynical opportunities to try to trumpet their own vastly exaggerated brilliance and to make out that such a change of mind (where required by evidence) signifies intellectual weakness rather than strength.

    I’m never ashamed to change my mind if it is necessary, and I couldn’t care less who played some part in it, or what they happen to think of me. Truth is truth. If Swan says “2+2=4″ he’s right! Nor am I ashamed to admit I made a mistake, as in the quotation controversy in the other recent thread on this site.

    I do think, however, that there is a clear distinction between an honest, understandable mistake, and an inexcusable one, where someone has been informed of some fact over and over, yet continues to deny or distort it.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Dust,

    Thanks for your great charity and fair-mindedness. I admire it very much. It’s a rare trait in forums (which are three-ring circuses for the most part), and so refreshing to witness. I will keep replying as long as amiable and constructive discussion is to be had with anyone. I’ll simply pass over the ones who have now assumed a hostile stance and can only insult or huff and puff.

    So far that is two people, and a third seems to have “dissed” me. God bless ‘em. I don’t wish them any ill. But I am responsible as a steward to not waste time in vain discussions and foolish controversies, so I am selective in that way.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Dust,

    Thanks for your great charity and fair-mindedness. I admire it very much. It’s a rare trait in forums (which are three-ring circuses for the most part), and so refreshing to witness. I will keep replying as long as amiable and constructive discussion is to be had with anyone. I’ll simply pass over the ones who have now assumed a hostile stance and can only insult or huff and puff.

    So far that is two people, and a third seems to have “dissed” me. God bless ‘em. I don’t wish them any ill. But I am responsible as a steward to not waste time in vain discussions and foolish controversies, so I am selective in that way.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    YOU WROTE:

    “Grace at 129….would agree with you that Dave’s replies to you were not very kind, and was going to write something to him in that regard. But still that could just be one more reason why you are enjoying bashing him right now? He dissed you, so now you can get him back?

    Not so fast Dust,.. what I have bolded above is your preconcieved idea of my heart, but that is not my heart, it is your heart judging mine, which is wrong. You have no right to decide my thoughts or motivations. I am strongly against Roman Catholic beliefs when it comes to Mary worship, prayer to she or saints – bowing before idols – the Pope deciding what is and isn’t right, and changing things at his will.

    And then there is this one:

    The Roman Catholic Church contradicts Scripture – their “traditions” in many cases are contrary to the Word of GOD, hence, they are false.

    “Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven, we entrust the young people of the world … the whole world to YOU”
    August 1993, Denver, Colorado, Pope John Paul II

    Pope John Paul intrusts the young people of the whole world to Mary – - – - Why not GOD, since it is GOD’s to begine with.
    The Pope prefers Mary? –
    The Pope believed Mary to be more capable? –

    I have studied Roman Catholic beliefs for a long time,… they are wrong, they haven’t a chance when aligned to Scripture – forget ‘tradition’ it doesn’t hold up.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    YOU WROTE:

    “Grace at 129….would agree with you that Dave’s replies to you were not very kind, and was going to write something to him in that regard. But still that could just be one more reason why you are enjoying bashing him right now? He dissed you, so now you can get him back?

    Not so fast Dust,.. what I have bolded above is your preconcieved idea of my heart, but that is not my heart, it is your heart judging mine, which is wrong. You have no right to decide my thoughts or motivations. I am strongly against Roman Catholic beliefs when it comes to Mary worship, prayer to she or saints – bowing before idols – the Pope deciding what is and isn’t right, and changing things at his will.

    And then there is this one:

    The Roman Catholic Church contradicts Scripture – their “traditions” in many cases are contrary to the Word of GOD, hence, they are false.

    “Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven, we entrust the young people of the world … the whole world to YOU”
    August 1993, Denver, Colorado, Pope John Paul II

    Pope John Paul intrusts the young people of the whole world to Mary – - – - Why not GOD, since it is GOD’s to begine with.
    The Pope prefers Mary? –
    The Pope believed Mary to be more capable? –

    I have studied Roman Catholic beliefs for a long time,… they are wrong, they haven’t a chance when aligned to Scripture – forget ‘tradition’ it doesn’t hold up.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 132

    YOU WROTE:

    “Again, am just guessing as to motives, but would go with my gut instinct and in addition to Dave’s dismissal of your inquiries, just the fact that he is a RC apologist and equivalent to the anti-christ, is reason alone for some of the strange bedfellows here to gang up on him? Isn’t there a saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

    Don’t plant your poison in my pot, …. I have NEVER mentioned anti-christ in referrence to Dave. You might think of an apology. I haven’t read anyone on this blog calling Dave the anti-christ.

    What is your reason for such outrageous comments?

  • Grace

    Dust @ 132

    YOU WROTE:

    “Again, am just guessing as to motives, but would go with my gut instinct and in addition to Dave’s dismissal of your inquiries, just the fact that he is a RC apologist and equivalent to the anti-christ, is reason alone for some of the strange bedfellows here to gang up on him? Isn’t there a saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

    Don’t plant your poison in my pot, …. I have NEVER mentioned anti-christ in referrence to Dave. You might think of an apology. I haven’t read anyone on this blog calling Dave the anti-christ.

    What is your reason for such outrageous comments?

  • Dust

    Grace at 136…ok will retract my comment about the anti-christ, am not sure where it came from and would not want Dave to think we think that of him or his church. Thanks for taking issue with it, that was not my purpose at all, thanks again!

    But wasn’t there some topic a while back with regard to that topic?

  • Dust

    Grace at 136…ok will retract my comment about the anti-christ, am not sure where it came from and would not want Dave to think we think that of him or his church. Thanks for taking issue with it, that was not my purpose at all, thanks again!

    But wasn’t there some topic a while back with regard to that topic?

  • Grace

    Dust,

    Anyone on this blog can say what they like, if I agree, I will say that I agree with them, but if I DISAGREE, if their doctrine does not line up with Scripture, which the RCC in many areas does not, I will speak up. It has nothing to do with friendship with you, or anyone else, my allegiance is to my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, not to anyone else, under any circumstances!

  • Grace

    Dust,

    Anyone on this blog can say what they like, if I agree, I will say that I agree with them, but if I DISAGREE, if their doctrine does not line up with Scripture, which the RCC in many areas does not, I will speak up. It has nothing to do with friendship with you, or anyone else, my allegiance is to my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, not to anyone else, under any circumstances!

  • Dust

    Grace at 135…sorry, just thought your posts at 120 and 123 were sort of piling on, if not sanctioning, the mocking or ridicule of someone who was trying to provide honest answers to difficult questions, ones most folks on this combox would not agree and find very uncomfortable even to discuss, especially when they disagree with how they believe, and how they do theology.

    Just was wondering how it was and why it was that someone who had in the past been treated so ungraciously and unfairly, in my opinion, could suddenly befriend, hug and high five the very ones who had in the past been so unkind to her? Was just looking for some explanation for that and that was the best ones in my mind….and it was wrong of me, sorry :(

    Trying to look into my own heart, maybe am just jealous you never wanted a group hug or to high five from me :)

  • Dust

    Grace at 135…sorry, just thought your posts at 120 and 123 were sort of piling on, if not sanctioning, the mocking or ridicule of someone who was trying to provide honest answers to difficult questions, ones most folks on this combox would not agree and find very uncomfortable even to discuss, especially when they disagree with how they believe, and how they do theology.

    Just was wondering how it was and why it was that someone who had in the past been treated so ungraciously and unfairly, in my opinion, could suddenly befriend, hug and high five the very ones who had in the past been so unkind to her? Was just looking for some explanation for that and that was the best ones in my mind….and it was wrong of me, sorry :(

    Trying to look into my own heart, maybe am just jealous you never wanted a group hug or to high five from me :)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    . . . would not want Dave to think we think that of him or his church. [antichrist]

    I appreciate the thought, but I’m afraid that the Lutheran confessions already took care of that little detail. No need for anyone here to do so. :-) They also (my favorite!) characterize the Catholic Mass as akin to “Baal-worship”.

    But how many Lutherans know about the latter? –which gets into a discussion of how well any given denomination knows its own creedal , confessional statements, and how closely they are followed (when ostensibly they ought to be). But I digress . . .

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    . . . would not want Dave to think we think that of him or his church. [antichrist]

    I appreciate the thought, but I’m afraid that the Lutheran confessions already took care of that little detail. No need for anyone here to do so. :-) They also (my favorite!) characterize the Catholic Mass as akin to “Baal-worship”.

    But how many Lutherans know about the latter? –which gets into a discussion of how well any given denomination knows its own creedal , confessional statements, and how closely they are followed (when ostensibly they ought to be). But I digress . . .

  • Grace

    Dust @ 139

    YOU WROTE:

    “Just was wondering how it was and why it was that someone who had in the past been treated so ungraciously and unfairly, in my opinion, could suddenly befriend, hug and high five the very ones who had in the past been so unkind to her? Was just looking for some explanation for that and that was the best ones in my mind….and it was wrong of me, sorry

    Trying to look into my own heart, maybe am just jealous you never wanted a group hug or to high five from me”

    I have been treated this way for a long time – remember Dust, I’m a pastor’s daughter, I attended public school, except for a short time. I was very blessed to have my parents – my father was very careful to drive me back and forth to school as I grew older – I was chased after school, threatened, and many wanted to beat me up. I could take it, I had my father’s spirit, but I wasn’t strong enough to stand against so many jealous girls. They were kids who came from homes where parents were divorced, or there was extreme drinking. At that time in my life I didn’t know it, … it wasn’t until I was in charge of arranging reunions, and then there were some unexpected deaths, that many confided in me. I was heartbroken at the lives they lived. Through this experience and others, I learned a valuable lesson – if need be, STAND ALONE, but don’t waiver when the going gets rough.

    I am well aware of those who don’t care for me on this blog, but I do care for them..

    As for you Dust, I’m sorry that I didn’t show more thankfulness for your kind response to my situation – You have been more than kind, as I have pointed out on more than one occasion when you’ve FINALLY come back to post – how happy I am to see you. Please forgive me for not showing more thoughtful kindness to you… you have been a friend, what can I say, except I’M SORRY, really SORRY for hurting you.

    My husband has read most all your posts, we have always considered you a friend, and now as well.

    God bless you Dust, there are not to many like you, who are so open about the feelings within their heart. You are one in a million. :)

  • Grace

    Dust @ 139

    YOU WROTE:

    “Just was wondering how it was and why it was that someone who had in the past been treated so ungraciously and unfairly, in my opinion, could suddenly befriend, hug and high five the very ones who had in the past been so unkind to her? Was just looking for some explanation for that and that was the best ones in my mind….and it was wrong of me, sorry

    Trying to look into my own heart, maybe am just jealous you never wanted a group hug or to high five from me”

    I have been treated this way for a long time – remember Dust, I’m a pastor’s daughter, I attended public school, except for a short time. I was very blessed to have my parents – my father was very careful to drive me back and forth to school as I grew older – I was chased after school, threatened, and many wanted to beat me up. I could take it, I had my father’s spirit, but I wasn’t strong enough to stand against so many jealous girls. They were kids who came from homes where parents were divorced, or there was extreme drinking. At that time in my life I didn’t know it, … it wasn’t until I was in charge of arranging reunions, and then there were some unexpected deaths, that many confided in me. I was heartbroken at the lives they lived. Through this experience and others, I learned a valuable lesson – if need be, STAND ALONE, but don’t waiver when the going gets rough.

    I am well aware of those who don’t care for me on this blog, but I do care for them..

    As for you Dust, I’m sorry that I didn’t show more thankfulness for your kind response to my situation – You have been more than kind, as I have pointed out on more than one occasion when you’ve FINALLY come back to post – how happy I am to see you. Please forgive me for not showing more thoughtful kindness to you… you have been a friend, what can I say, except I’M SORRY, really SORRY for hurting you.

    My husband has read most all your posts, we have always considered you a friend, and now as well.

    God bless you Dust, there are not to many like you, who are so open about the feelings within their heart. You are one in a million. :)

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    As to Mr. Armstrong’s change of opinion, and my “obnoxious public attitude” here’s some choice tidbit’s about my view of this topic from Mr. Armstrong from 9/30/10. Yes, I am wonderfully referred to as “John Q. Doe”.

    By the way, the following are only a small handful of comments from a much larger pool.

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/luthers-belief-in-marys-immaculate.html

    “It gets very wearisome. The anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist John Q. Doe has been playing games with this topic for seven or eight years now: ignoring much scholarly opinion that goes against his pet view, or what he wishes were the historical truth, and hugely emphasizing a few tidbits that back up his opinion.”

    “Doe is currently regurgitating his opinion that this is only so much “Romanist” hooey. Here are some of his fact-challenged remarks from his latest paper on the topic (dated 9-30-10, and revised without noting it, after he saw this;”

    “This is classic Doe: presenting a highly jaded, cynical, extremely selective, rather flimsy and poorly researched treatment: long since refuted with facts.”

    “That’s only the tip of the iceberg of the many scholars’ views that I detailed seven years ago and presented to Doe. Nevertheless, here he is in 2010 playing games and ring-around-the-rosey with scholarship (he’s just a guy with a blog and no scholarly credentials whatever; no published works) and pretending that this information doesn’t exist. He knows better than actual Luther scholars (more than half, non-Catholic); accuses a major Lutheran scholar (Piepkorn) of a bias towards Catholics that clouded his judgment on the matter, and says foolish things like…”

    “Doe is obviously far more interested in anti-Catholic polemics than in the actual facts of the matter, as determined by several prominent non-Catholic Luther scholars. He has given no indication that he will get past his highly inaccurate polemics anytime soon.”

    “Yeah; he got it from a deal on the back of a cereal box: General Mills brand, of course. LOL

    Can you imagine an exchange between Swan and someone like Gritsch on this issue? I’d give my right (typing!) arm to see something like that.

    It would make eight years of wearisome nonsense with Swan and all of his insults and myths and delusions of self-importance well worth it . . . :-)

    “He’s tried to make an entire online “career” out of lying about my Luther research and pretending that his is so infinitely superior to mine (what a joke: as his present hogwash illustrates yet again), so this is very high stakes for him.”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    As to Mr. Armstrong’s change of opinion, and my “obnoxious public attitude” here’s some choice tidbit’s about my view of this topic from Mr. Armstrong from 9/30/10. Yes, I am wonderfully referred to as “John Q. Doe”.

    By the way, the following are only a small handful of comments from a much larger pool.

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/luthers-belief-in-marys-immaculate.html

    “It gets very wearisome. The anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist John Q. Doe has been playing games with this topic for seven or eight years now: ignoring much scholarly opinion that goes against his pet view, or what he wishes were the historical truth, and hugely emphasizing a few tidbits that back up his opinion.”

    “Doe is currently regurgitating his opinion that this is only so much “Romanist” hooey. Here are some of his fact-challenged remarks from his latest paper on the topic (dated 9-30-10, and revised without noting it, after he saw this;”

    “This is classic Doe: presenting a highly jaded, cynical, extremely selective, rather flimsy and poorly researched treatment: long since refuted with facts.”

    “That’s only the tip of the iceberg of the many scholars’ views that I detailed seven years ago and presented to Doe. Nevertheless, here he is in 2010 playing games and ring-around-the-rosey with scholarship (he’s just a guy with a blog and no scholarly credentials whatever; no published works) and pretending that this information doesn’t exist. He knows better than actual Luther scholars (more than half, non-Catholic); accuses a major Lutheran scholar (Piepkorn) of a bias towards Catholics that clouded his judgment on the matter, and says foolish things like…”

    “Doe is obviously far more interested in anti-Catholic polemics than in the actual facts of the matter, as determined by several prominent non-Catholic Luther scholars. He has given no indication that he will get past his highly inaccurate polemics anytime soon.”

    “Yeah; he got it from a deal on the back of a cereal box: General Mills brand, of course. LOL

    Can you imagine an exchange between Swan and someone like Gritsch on this issue? I’d give my right (typing!) arm to see something like that.

    It would make eight years of wearisome nonsense with Swan and all of his insults and myths and delusions of self-importance well worth it . . . :-)

    “He’s tried to make an entire online “career” out of lying about my Luther research and pretending that his is so infinitely superior to mine (what a joke: as his present hogwash illustrates yet again), so this is very high stakes for him.”

  • fws

    Hi David!

    At 133 you say that it seems that I do not understand what your thesis is. You helpfully then give us a very clear summary of your current view, and and then further, you very helpfully contrast what you say is Luther’s view from the official 1800′s Roman dogma.

    Thanks!

    This is what you offer us:

    I’ve even given an original (?) name to his [Luther's] late position: “immaculate purification” (the title of my 4th paper on the topic) because he no longer believed that Mary’s purification occurred at her conception, but rather, at Christ’s (thus, “Immaculate Conception” of Mary no longer actually describes his view).

    For the later Luther, original sin was purged from Mary (as in our view) but it was not at her conception (unlike our view).

    His early position was different and closer to the present Catholic view, as to when this miracle occurred. But even his later position was closer to ours than to the average Lutheran today.

    But Luther actually says this doesn’t he?:

    <blockquote. Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption.

    According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified …..

    the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature.

    In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. (this is from the James Swan link you provided us that has this quote that is well footnoted.)

    I am failing to see where Luther is focused on any purification of the Virgin. Rather it does seem rather painfully obvious that he is focussed rather laser-like, upon the flesh of Christ being sinless at the point of his conception.

    Further, it seems obvious that he is rather intent on making the point that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin is tainted by the incest of Jacob and Tamara etc. His point is that our Lord’s physical and Marian bloodline is extraordinarily full of the most depraved forms of sin, and then he says that yet “the mass of flesh He received from the Blessed Virgin ” was that flesh that was purified.

    Do you agree with this assessment dear brother David? Why or why not?

  • fws

    Hi David!

    At 133 you say that it seems that I do not understand what your thesis is. You helpfully then give us a very clear summary of your current view, and and then further, you very helpfully contrast what you say is Luther’s view from the official 1800′s Roman dogma.

    Thanks!

    This is what you offer us:

    I’ve even given an original (?) name to his [Luther's] late position: “immaculate purification” (the title of my 4th paper on the topic) because he no longer believed that Mary’s purification occurred at her conception, but rather, at Christ’s (thus, “Immaculate Conception” of Mary no longer actually describes his view).

    For the later Luther, original sin was purged from Mary (as in our view) but it was not at her conception (unlike our view).

    His early position was different and closer to the present Catholic view, as to when this miracle occurred. But even his later position was closer to ours than to the average Lutheran today.

    But Luther actually says this doesn’t he?:

    <blockquote. Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption.

    According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have; but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified …..

    the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature.

    In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. (this is from the James Swan link you provided us that has this quote that is well footnoted.)

    I am failing to see where Luther is focused on any purification of the Virgin. Rather it does seem rather painfully obvious that he is focussed rather laser-like, upon the flesh of Christ being sinless at the point of his conception.

    Further, it seems obvious that he is rather intent on making the point that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin is tainted by the incest of Jacob and Tamara etc. His point is that our Lord’s physical and Marian bloodline is extraordinarily full of the most depraved forms of sin, and then he says that yet “the mass of flesh He received from the Blessed Virgin ” was that flesh that was purified.

    Do you agree with this assessment dear brother David? Why or why not?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi fws,

    Discussing Luther’s fine points on this matter is a huge discussion, involving all sorts of intricacies. I’m afraid (for lack of time and desire: I still have lots of questions directed towards me to answer in this thread, and I’m leaving shortly for a big bike ride), I’ll have to refer you back to my four papers on the topic. Scroll to “Luther and the Blessed Virgin Mary” on my Luther and Lutheranism web page:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html

    There you will find the most excruciatingly detailed explanations (and debates). As with the quotes I was asked to produce, my thoughts on this are in those papers. And you can see the opinions of many Lutheran scholars on the matter.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi fws,

    Discussing Luther’s fine points on this matter is a huge discussion, involving all sorts of intricacies. I’m afraid (for lack of time and desire: I still have lots of questions directed towards me to answer in this thread, and I’m leaving shortly for a big bike ride), I’ll have to refer you back to my four papers on the topic. Scroll to “Luther and the Blessed Virgin Mary” on my Luther and Lutheranism web page:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html

    There you will find the most excruciatingly detailed explanations (and debates). As with the quotes I was asked to produce, my thoughts on this are in those papers. And you can see the opinions of many Lutheran scholars on the matter.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I see that Swan now wants to provoke me into quote wars. My comments about him (removed from context) sound terrible, don’t they? But it’s amazing how a little background clarifies things wonderfully. Swan literally thinks I am a psychotic, and so troubled that he pondered leaving me alone because I was so seriously disturbed (of course he didn’t).

    He has insulted me publicly in 10,00 different ways for eight years and running. Some of you saw how he accused me of being a bald-faced liar on this website a few days ago. That leads one to respond in not so nicey-nicey ways. Try it sometime: be subject to every kind of lie and slander, in public, for eight years, and see how you react. I have documented this, because if I didn’t, people wouldn’t believe it, for sheer volume, variety, and ludicrosity of it. First, his contention that I am loony, nuts, mentally ill:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/04/am-i-psychotic-madman-and-evil.html

    And here are all sorts of other insults, and documentation of my perfectly sincere attempt (in open letters) to ask him to be willing to remove all material about me, with my reciprocation, so that no one would have to be burdened or bored with the ugly conflict (as you all are now):

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-anti-catholic-reformed.html

    I have explained the Doe thing and my readers know all about it. At one point I removed his name completely from my blog: a unilateral effort, since he was unwilling to cooperate in a mutual removal. At first, I wanted to keep some of the debate because I had worked so hard on it, so I used “John Q. Doe” rather than his name. The nickname stuck.

    For a while I had nothing about him on my site, but it became clear that he wouldn’t remove his mountain of insults, and then he charged me on a Lutheran blog of being a psychotic, so I started putting up a few posts about him. I now have about 19 papers about him that deal with him at all. He has over 100 about me, even though he “doesn’t take [me] seriously.”

    He calls me a madman; I call him John Q. “Deadhead” Doe “deadhead” being a take-off on the logo of James White and his associates: that reminds me of a picture of the Grateful Dead). Which is worse? His charge is dead serious; mine is simply jokingly tweaking. Now, he won’t mention my name at all on his site, and does anonymous book reviews, and comments on something I wrote by saying, “a Romanist apologist contended . . .” He won’t link to my stuff so someone can read the other side. I always link to whatever he writes that I am critiquing. I’m banned from his site; he is welcome to comment on mine. You can see the big difference there.

    The offer to totally remove all of our interactions remains. He has never been willing. I hope some of you here will urge him to reconsider his stubborn refusal.

    I would love to see that. As it is, I am put in the very awkward and no-win position of having him slander and distort my work and engage in slander on an ongoing basis, and I have to decide whether I sit and do nothing, or oppose it and fight back. I usually choose the latter (in which case I invariably get accused of doing the same thing he does, in merely defending myself against slander). So I lose either way. And he loses because he is lying and slandering a fellow Christian in public, and that is serious sin.

    But as I said, I also proposed that we remove ALL of it on both sides, for the sake of normal Christian relations (of course, his not thinking that neither I nor any obedient Catholic are Christians doesn’t help any, and is the root of the problem in the first place).

    Which direction do you think is the more Christian behavior? Mutual removal or continuance of this kind of ugliness? One can oppose the exchanges without even figuring out who is wrong or more wrong, etc. If someone wants to think I am as wrong as he is because I defend my name and work against lies, so be it. I say get rid of all of it. I did it unilaterally once, then I was called a lunatic.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I see that Swan now wants to provoke me into quote wars. My comments about him (removed from context) sound terrible, don’t they? But it’s amazing how a little background clarifies things wonderfully. Swan literally thinks I am a psychotic, and so troubled that he pondered leaving me alone because I was so seriously disturbed (of course he didn’t).

    He has insulted me publicly in 10,00 different ways for eight years and running. Some of you saw how he accused me of being a bald-faced liar on this website a few days ago. That leads one to respond in not so nicey-nicey ways. Try it sometime: be subject to every kind of lie and slander, in public, for eight years, and see how you react. I have documented this, because if I didn’t, people wouldn’t believe it, for sheer volume, variety, and ludicrosity of it. First, his contention that I am loony, nuts, mentally ill:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/04/am-i-psychotic-madman-and-evil.html

    And here are all sorts of other insults, and documentation of my perfectly sincere attempt (in open letters) to ask him to be willing to remove all material about me, with my reciprocation, so that no one would have to be burdened or bored with the ugly conflict (as you all are now):

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-anti-catholic-reformed.html

    I have explained the Doe thing and my readers know all about it. At one point I removed his name completely from my blog: a unilateral effort, since he was unwilling to cooperate in a mutual removal. At first, I wanted to keep some of the debate because I had worked so hard on it, so I used “John Q. Doe” rather than his name. The nickname stuck.

    For a while I had nothing about him on my site, but it became clear that he wouldn’t remove his mountain of insults, and then he charged me on a Lutheran blog of being a psychotic, so I started putting up a few posts about him. I now have about 19 papers about him that deal with him at all. He has over 100 about me, even though he “doesn’t take [me] seriously.”

    He calls me a madman; I call him John Q. “Deadhead” Doe “deadhead” being a take-off on the logo of James White and his associates: that reminds me of a picture of the Grateful Dead). Which is worse? His charge is dead serious; mine is simply jokingly tweaking. Now, he won’t mention my name at all on his site, and does anonymous book reviews, and comments on something I wrote by saying, “a Romanist apologist contended . . .” He won’t link to my stuff so someone can read the other side. I always link to whatever he writes that I am critiquing. I’m banned from his site; he is welcome to comment on mine. You can see the big difference there.

    The offer to totally remove all of our interactions remains. He has never been willing. I hope some of you here will urge him to reconsider his stubborn refusal.

    I would love to see that. As it is, I am put in the very awkward and no-win position of having him slander and distort my work and engage in slander on an ongoing basis, and I have to decide whether I sit and do nothing, or oppose it and fight back. I usually choose the latter (in which case I invariably get accused of doing the same thing he does, in merely defending myself against slander). So I lose either way. And he loses because he is lying and slandering a fellow Christian in public, and that is serious sin.

    But as I said, I also proposed that we remove ALL of it on both sides, for the sake of normal Christian relations (of course, his not thinking that neither I nor any obedient Catholic are Christians doesn’t help any, and is the root of the problem in the first place).

    Which direction do you think is the more Christian behavior? Mutual removal or continuance of this kind of ugliness? One can oppose the exchanges without even figuring out who is wrong or more wrong, etc. If someone wants to think I am as wrong as he is because I defend my name and work against lies, so be it. I say get rid of all of it. I did it unilaterally once, then I was called a lunatic.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Weren’t you going on a big bike ride.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Weren’t you going on a big bike ride.

  • Tom Hering

    Mr. Armstrong, why not do what you can to make sure we’re not “bored” or “burdened”? Simply say nothing more about it here, regardless of what Mr. Swan might say. Because yea, verily, I for one am very bored by it all.

  • Tom Hering

    Mr. Armstrong, why not do what you can to make sure we’re not “bored” or “burdened”? Simply say nothing more about it here, regardless of what Mr. Swan might say. Because yea, verily, I for one am very bored by it all.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Didn’t Dave once tell us

    I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics

    So then why is he apparently quite literally incapable of not talking about James Swan? Is Veith’s blog being taken over as yet another Internet repository of this boring, tawdry dispute?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Didn’t Dave once tell us

    I have followed a policy for over four years now, of not wasting my time trying to debate anti-Catholics

    So then why is he apparently quite literally incapable of not talking about James Swan? Is Veith’s blog being taken over as yet another Internet repository of this boring, tawdry dispute?

  • Grace

    Brigitte,

    Yesterday was his Anniversary, so he said – with no time to answer questions, but time for extended long posts – also stating he was celebrating today with a date with his wife – now he lingers, so as to DIRECT any and all to his blog, as his ‘bike awaits him – but alas, he continues to bemoan James Swan, and the trials and tribulations that have befallen him.

    What a pity!

  • Grace

    Brigitte,

    Yesterday was his Anniversary, so he said – with no time to answer questions, but time for extended long posts – also stating he was celebrating today with a date with his wife – now he lingers, so as to DIRECT any and all to his blog, as his ‘bike awaits him – but alas, he continues to bemoan James Swan, and the trials and tribulations that have befallen him.

    What a pity!

  • Grace

    Tom,

    It is boring, but he’s not so anxious to leave, and attend to his bike, and peddles, but instead trying to move the commenters to his blog.

    Advertising perhaps? No, it can’t be….

  • Grace

    Tom,

    It is boring, but he’s not so anxious to leave, and attend to his bike, and peddles, but instead trying to move the commenters to his blog.

    Advertising perhaps? No, it can’t be….

  • fws

    david @ 144

    I disagree that this is complicated. Luther’s 1540′s quotes are really very clear.

    And you seem to persist even after finding those quote that Luther talks about some purification of the flesh or person of the Blessed Virgin herself.

    Luther is clearly talking about the “mass of flesh ” our dear Lord Jesus received from the most holy Virgin as being what was purified dear Dave.

    Why is there a need to consult a long list of quotes of the opinions of others when we have a really very clear quote from Luther that is well footnoted right in front of us.

    I want to apologize for the emotions and frustrations you are communicating to us that you are feeling here. It is painfully clear that Luther thought that Mary was a sinner full of original and actual sins and concupiscence as are all the rest of us, save, alone, the flesh of our dear and most blessed Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

    I am glad dear Dave that you trust in this Savior, as I do, and his works alone and that you hide even your best and most sanctified piety in the Works of that Other who is your dear Jesus.

    We are right to be terrified at our best works. Only faith can accept the judgement of God about our works. And that judgement is that ALL of our righteousness is the moral equivalent of a used tampon. That is just precisely how crassly the blessed prophet Isaiah describes our desperate situation were it not for our Christ,.

    And I am glad to know that you seek to follow the wonderful example of the Blessed Virgin in also seeking to hide your best works in the Works of her Most Blessed Son who alone is holy, without original sin or any sin at all.

    God bless you dear brother!

  • fws

    david @ 144

    I disagree that this is complicated. Luther’s 1540′s quotes are really very clear.

    And you seem to persist even after finding those quote that Luther talks about some purification of the flesh or person of the Blessed Virgin herself.

    Luther is clearly talking about the “mass of flesh ” our dear Lord Jesus received from the most holy Virgin as being what was purified dear Dave.

    Why is there a need to consult a long list of quotes of the opinions of others when we have a really very clear quote from Luther that is well footnoted right in front of us.

    I want to apologize for the emotions and frustrations you are communicating to us that you are feeling here. It is painfully clear that Luther thought that Mary was a sinner full of original and actual sins and concupiscence as are all the rest of us, save, alone, the flesh of our dear and most blessed Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

    I am glad dear Dave that you trust in this Savior, as I do, and his works alone and that you hide even your best and most sanctified piety in the Works of that Other who is your dear Jesus.

    We are right to be terrified at our best works. Only faith can accept the judgement of God about our works. And that judgement is that ALL of our righteousness is the moral equivalent of a used tampon. That is just precisely how crassly the blessed prophet Isaiah describes our desperate situation were it not for our Christ,.

    And I am glad to know that you seek to follow the wonderful example of the Blessed Virgin in also seeking to hide your best works in the Works of her Most Blessed Son who alone is holy, without original sin or any sin at all.

    God bless you dear brother!

  • fws

    Grace, Bridgett Todd Tom…

    Let’s be really kind to our brother Dave. I really want Dave to feel good about his interactions with all of us and that he feels that he is being dealt with in the most kindly and fair way.

    I am sure you all want that too. Yeah he is expressing frustration and annoyance by saying he is feeling ganged up upon and that he is only one person against a gang etc.

    On the other hand, I get the feeling that he really wants to be fair and to be taken seriously. I see as evidence of that earnestness the fact that he DOES return even though he has other pressing things to do or would rather relax with his bike or family. I appreciate that kindness.

    Our dear Lord is daily so very patient with all of us. I know all of you for a good while now. We all sometimes let our emotions get the best of us and say things we would rather not. And we react to feeling wounded by others often in the wrong way.

    Lets all decide to be generous with Dave and give him a group hug. That is my suggestion here. He has been at this for a long while now. I am sure he is as tired of this anyone.

    love,
    frank william

  • fws

    Grace, Bridgett Todd Tom…

    Let’s be really kind to our brother Dave. I really want Dave to feel good about his interactions with all of us and that he feels that he is being dealt with in the most kindly and fair way.

    I am sure you all want that too. Yeah he is expressing frustration and annoyance by saying he is feeling ganged up upon and that he is only one person against a gang etc.

    On the other hand, I get the feeling that he really wants to be fair and to be taken seriously. I see as evidence of that earnestness the fact that he DOES return even though he has other pressing things to do or would rather relax with his bike or family. I appreciate that kindness.

    Our dear Lord is daily so very patient with all of us. I know all of you for a good while now. We all sometimes let our emotions get the best of us and say things we would rather not. And we react to feeling wounded by others often in the wrong way.

    Lets all decide to be generous with Dave and give him a group hug. That is my suggestion here. He has been at this for a long while now. I am sure he is as tired of this anyone.

    love,
    frank william

  • fws

    Dave,

    we dont have alot of roman christians on here. I would really like you to stick around and when we offer opinions of rome you can correct us where we get it wrong. That would be a valuable service to all of us, and you can then focus on the positive sides of your own faith.

    I think that we are all pretty certain that even the quotations you have presented to us war against any idea that Luther believed in any purification of Mary of sin after the end of the 1520′s. They seem to be so very clear on this Dave.

    I can’t see how pointing us to the opinions of other scholars on this point that you have lined up on your site are going to overcome the extreme clarity of those Luther quotes. I just can’t imagine how that would be possible.

    My medieval german is rusty but still pretty passable. If you want to run any quote from the WA by me in the german I would be happy to double check what it says. I studied medieval german for 4 years pretty intensively. And my classical latin is good. So if I can help here let me know! :)

    But short of some really super gross mistransation I simply dont see how anything you could further present could overcome the clear meaning of those Luther quotes.

  • fws

    Dave,

    we dont have alot of roman christians on here. I would really like you to stick around and when we offer opinions of rome you can correct us where we get it wrong. That would be a valuable service to all of us, and you can then focus on the positive sides of your own faith.

    I think that we are all pretty certain that even the quotations you have presented to us war against any idea that Luther believed in any purification of Mary of sin after the end of the 1520′s. They seem to be so very clear on this Dave.

    I can’t see how pointing us to the opinions of other scholars on this point that you have lined up on your site are going to overcome the extreme clarity of those Luther quotes. I just can’t imagine how that would be possible.

    My medieval german is rusty but still pretty passable. If you want to run any quote from the WA by me in the german I would be happy to double check what it says. I studied medieval german for 4 years pretty intensively. And my classical latin is good. So if I can help here let me know! :)

    But short of some really super gross mistransation I simply dont see how anything you could further present could overcome the clear meaning of those Luther quotes.

  • Grace

    fws @ 152

    YOU WROTE:

    “I would really like you to stick around and when we offer opinions of rome you can correct us where we get it wrong. That would be a valuable service to all of us, and you can then focus on the positive sides of your own faith.”

    There is no value when ‘tradition of men’ and idolatry are the focus of ones religion. There is no such “correction” involved, unless of course you yearn and seek the ecumenical religion of ‘UNITY, that’s a different road.

    I don’t consider anyone a brother or sister when they practice idolatry, praying to anyone other than God through Jesus Christ, bowing down before idols. This has been the division for centuries, it’s not going to change, there is no unity between the Roman church and that of Bible believing Christians, who do not engage in ‘traditions of men, to guide their path.

    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
    Colossians 2:8

    It’s one thing to have a discussion, as this started out to be, it’s another to embrace, coddle and of all things ask for ‘correction, believing it to be ‘valuable when it’s not Scriptural.

    9 wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral-

    10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that.

    12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren’t you?

    13 God will judge out­siders “Expell that wicked man.”
    1 Corinthians 5

  • Grace

    fws @ 152

    YOU WROTE:

    “I would really like you to stick around and when we offer opinions of rome you can correct us where we get it wrong. That would be a valuable service to all of us, and you can then focus on the positive sides of your own faith.”

    There is no value when ‘tradition of men’ and idolatry are the focus of ones religion. There is no such “correction” involved, unless of course you yearn and seek the ecumenical religion of ‘UNITY, that’s a different road.

    I don’t consider anyone a brother or sister when they practice idolatry, praying to anyone other than God through Jesus Christ, bowing down before idols. This has been the division for centuries, it’s not going to change, there is no unity between the Roman church and that of Bible believing Christians, who do not engage in ‘traditions of men, to guide their path.

    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
    Colossians 2:8

    It’s one thing to have a discussion, as this started out to be, it’s another to embrace, coddle and of all things ask for ‘correction, believing it to be ‘valuable when it’s not Scriptural.

    9 wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral-

    10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that.

    12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren’t you?

    13 God will judge out­siders “Expell that wicked man.”
    1 Corinthians 5

  • Grace

    Does anyone believe Paul had it wrong when he penned 1 Corinthians 5, directed and guided by the HOLY Spirit?

    This is where the division often begins, and the church, and or Believers turn a blind eye, for the sake of UNITY. If – UNITY is all important, than much of Scripture can be discarded, as is the case with many today, including the Emergent Church, it’s no different.

  • Grace

    Does anyone believe Paul had it wrong when he penned 1 Corinthians 5, directed and guided by the HOLY Spirit?

    This is where the division often begins, and the church, and or Believers turn a blind eye, for the sake of UNITY. If – UNITY is all important, than much of Scripture can be discarded, as is the case with many today, including the Emergent Church, it’s no different.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, Frank wasn’t asking Mr. Armstrong to correct us as Christians, but only to correct us when we’re wrong about some Roman Catholic belief. Which raises the question: do we automatically accept what Mr. Armstrong says about the RC beliefs? Or do we check his statements against official RC teachings?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, Frank wasn’t asking Mr. Armstrong to correct us as Christians, but only to correct us when we’re wrong about some Roman Catholic belief. Which raises the question: do we automatically accept what Mr. Armstrong says about the RC beliefs? Or do we check his statements against official RC teachings?

  • Grace

    Tom @156

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear – I don’t believe Roman Catholics always give a true picture of the Roman stance. I have studied their beliefs for a long time. Not just a book, or sweep across the page, but in-depth study. When confronted with a discussion, it is usually met with excuses regarding ‘tradition, that which doesn’t align with Scripture. The one thing RC’s believe, albeit wrong, is that those outside the RCC don’t really know what it is, or what they believe. When they find that their arguments don’t stand, based on Scripture, which they don’t hold as being the ONLY proof, but instead base ‘tradition’ as a tool to undergird their beliefs, they often become angry, just as we have witnessed.

    About 20 years ago, my husband and I were involved in a business, semi-social evening. A RC priest was there as well, he made it clear from the beginning that he had left the Roman church. It appeared that wanted to marry, or at least date. The conversation wandered about, and then the questions began, and I was involved (as usual) asking questions, and giving answers. The strange part was this – the priest became edgy, as he stated “you Protestants know your Bible” ….. he wasn’t very thoughtful but irritated because those of us who have studied the Bible cannot be swayed -

  • Grace

    Tom @156

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear – I don’t believe Roman Catholics always give a true picture of the Roman stance. I have studied their beliefs for a long time. Not just a book, or sweep across the page, but in-depth study. When confronted with a discussion, it is usually met with excuses regarding ‘tradition, that which doesn’t align with Scripture. The one thing RC’s believe, albeit wrong, is that those outside the RCC don’t really know what it is, or what they believe. When they find that their arguments don’t stand, based on Scripture, which they don’t hold as being the ONLY proof, but instead base ‘tradition’ as a tool to undergird their beliefs, they often become angry, just as we have witnessed.

    About 20 years ago, my husband and I were involved in a business, semi-social evening. A RC priest was there as well, he made it clear from the beginning that he had left the Roman church. It appeared that wanted to marry, or at least date. The conversation wandered about, and then the questions began, and I was involved (as usual) asking questions, and giving answers. The strange part was this – the priest became edgy, as he stated “you Protestants know your Bible” ….. he wasn’t very thoughtful but irritated because those of us who have studied the Bible cannot be swayed -

  • fws

    Tom Herring @ 156

    At this point Tom , I would say it would be, um, wholesome, to ask Dave to always give us a footnote so we can go read for our own self.

    I am sure that he would have no problem with doing that.

    And yes, Grace, I am not a big fan of the Church of Rome, so what Tom says I mean is what I meant. Sorry if I was not clear.

  • fws

    Tom Herring @ 156

    At this point Tom , I would say it would be, um, wholesome, to ask Dave to always give us a footnote so we can go read for our own self.

    I am sure that he would have no problem with doing that.

    And yes, Grace, I am not a big fan of the Church of Rome, so what Tom says I mean is what I meant. Sorry if I was not clear.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    How about this suggestion:

    Tom, Grace, Todd, Dust, others and I, try to stay out of this discussion and let mostly Frank and David speak to each other reasonably since Frank has volunteered for this, in a way, and has done a good job explaining things (much appreciated).

    In return we need not hear any more about how David Armstrong and James Swan feel or don’t feel about each other and what they think of each other’s work. This is not appropriate and simply extraneous. Just desists.

    And David Armstrong understands that we need to have everything properly documented from original sources and not from discussions.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    How about this suggestion:

    Tom, Grace, Todd, Dust, others and I, try to stay out of this discussion and let mostly Frank and David speak to each other reasonably since Frank has volunteered for this, in a way, and has done a good job explaining things (much appreciated).

    In return we need not hear any more about how David Armstrong and James Swan feel or don’t feel about each other and what they think of each other’s work. This is not appropriate and simply extraneous. Just desists.

    And David Armstrong understands that we need to have everything properly documented from original sources and not from discussions.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    the quotes I posted from Mr. Armstrong were in regard to my take on Luther’s view of the Immaculate Conception. I have no desire to engage in a personal cyber-battle here to determine which of us is the worse. On my own blog, I’ve been referring to our interactions with a “Spy vs. Spy” cartoon, because it’s all that silly.

    While it indeed warms my heart that the position I argued for (Luther / Immaculate conception) and was maligned for for so many years is now deemed acceptable by a magisterium of one, I’d like to offer a few clarifications in distinguishing my view on this from Mr. Armstrong’s on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. He argues Luther held “Mary was purged of original sin and was sinless at the birth of Christ and after.” I have never suggested this- that Luther believed Mary went on to live a sinless life after the birth of Christ. I’ve never seen anything from Luther to suggest this. If there’s any proof Luther believed this, I’d certainly like to see it.

    Nor have I argued that Mary was “purged of original sin.” My view has consistently been Luther shifted the emphasis from the mother to the Messiah. Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther insisted Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception. During Christ’s conception, the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. Luther explains in a sermon from 1537 that the angel announced the forthcoming “immaculate Conception” at the Annunciation:“[The angel said to Mary]: God is powerful enough; therefore He is able to effect this even though it is contrary to nature. He will find the best and purest drops of blood in your heart; these He will set aside, purify, and cause not to be corrupted by sin as ours are so that thence may be made His Son and yours without sin.” In a 1538 Sermon Luther states, “But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God. This is why it is said that “He was conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.” I’m sure you’re all weary from Luther quotes on this, so I’m going to cease and desist.

    On another front, Mr Armstrong states, “I don’t think he ever denied that Mary’s Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles.” I’ve gone through Luther and the assumption, what little information there is:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/martin-luther-and-marys-assumption.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/luther-celebrated-feast-of-assumption.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-will-be-assimilated.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact-part.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact-part_24.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact.html

    On the other Luther blog post here, it was asserted that “Luther preached eighty sermons on Mary, so it was not a complete non-issue for him.” I covered that issue here:

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#Appen1

    When one actually reads Luther’s Marian sermons, one finds that Mary is usually not the main subject, Christ is. Hence, Luther generally emphasized Mary far less than Roman Catholics do (both then and now).

    Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    the quotes I posted from Mr. Armstrong were in regard to my take on Luther’s view of the Immaculate Conception. I have no desire to engage in a personal cyber-battle here to determine which of us is the worse. On my own blog, I’ve been referring to our interactions with a “Spy vs. Spy” cartoon, because it’s all that silly.

    While it indeed warms my heart that the position I argued for (Luther / Immaculate conception) and was maligned for for so many years is now deemed acceptable by a magisterium of one, I’d like to offer a few clarifications in distinguishing my view on this from Mr. Armstrong’s on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. He argues Luther held “Mary was purged of original sin and was sinless at the birth of Christ and after.” I have never suggested this- that Luther believed Mary went on to live a sinless life after the birth of Christ. I’ve never seen anything from Luther to suggest this. If there’s any proof Luther believed this, I’d certainly like to see it.

    Nor have I argued that Mary was “purged of original sin.” My view has consistently been Luther shifted the emphasis from the mother to the Messiah. Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther insisted Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception. During Christ’s conception, the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. Luther explains in a sermon from 1537 that the angel announced the forthcoming “immaculate Conception” at the Annunciation:“[The angel said to Mary]: God is powerful enough; therefore He is able to effect this even though it is contrary to nature. He will find the best and purest drops of blood in your heart; these He will set aside, purify, and cause not to be corrupted by sin as ours are so that thence may be made His Son and yours without sin.” In a 1538 Sermon Luther states, “But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God. This is why it is said that “He was conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.” I’m sure you’re all weary from Luther quotes on this, so I’m going to cease and desist.

    On another front, Mr Armstrong states, “I don’t think he ever denied that Mary’s Assumption was a perfectly permissible belief, either, though never required in his circles.” I’ve gone through Luther and the assumption, what little information there is:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/12/martin-luther-and-marys-assumption.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/luther-celebrated-feast-of-assumption.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-will-be-assimilated.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact-part.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact-part_24.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/09/luther-assumption-was-settled-fact.html

    On the other Luther blog post here, it was asserted that “Luther preached eighty sermons on Mary, so it was not a complete non-issue for him.” I covered that issue here:

    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#Appen1

    When one actually reads Luther’s Marian sermons, one finds that Mary is usually not the main subject, Christ is. Hence, Luther generally emphasized Mary far less than Roman Catholics do (both then and now).

    Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Grace,

    As to contacting me, there is a link on my blog side bar, towards the bottom, that says “contact information.”

    Regards, James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Grace,

    As to contacting me, there is a link on my blog side bar, towards the bottom, that says “contact information.”

    Regards, James

  • Grace

    James,

    Thank you –

    Sincerely, Grace

  • Grace

    James,

    Thank you –

    Sincerely, Grace

  • fws

    Bridgitte,

    I agree Bridgitte that both Dave and James are entitled to have us request that they don’t carry their personal stuff here.

    It is not wholesome to have this happening. It accomplishes nothing that is good or merciful.

    Dave, the last round you started by informing us that James was in agreement with one of your assertions. He was within his rights to reenter this blog and deny that this was so.

    At the same time Dave you pointed us to a critical post on Jame’s blog that contained two really essential Luther quotes in their full context. Being able to see these texts really settled the entire matter for me and I am pretty certain for at least the other Lutherans here.

    I am really comfortable now with asserting that after 1527 or so, Luther considered the Blessed and most Holy Virgin to be fully as sinful in every way as anyone else is.

    I was actually pretty certain before that this was so. Why? Luther’s teaching on Original Sin is pivotal to his entire theology. Our Apology/Defense of the Augsburg Confessions actually starts with this doctrine as it’s very foundation, and then, only from there goes on to discuss first Good Works, then Faith and then finally our Justification in Christ before God.

    It would be really difficult to read this public confession of Luther and then imagine that he would think that even the most Blessed Virgin could be exempted from Original Sin. That would turn Luther’s entire theology on it’s head.

    I am appreciative Dave that you were interested in honesty and integrity and so pointed us all to that import most of James. You get major points for that.

    Again, I asked you a question Dave that you never answered. Isn’t it true that the Romans teach that Baptism removes original sin in some way of speaking? Could you please define what Rome means by the term “original sin”, how it contrasts to concupiscence and actual sin, and what Rome thinks happens in Baptism with all this?

    That would really be some good apologetics for us Lutherans here to ponder and digest. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration Dave!

  • fws

    Bridgitte,

    I agree Bridgitte that both Dave and James are entitled to have us request that they don’t carry their personal stuff here.

    It is not wholesome to have this happening. It accomplishes nothing that is good or merciful.

    Dave, the last round you started by informing us that James was in agreement with one of your assertions. He was within his rights to reenter this blog and deny that this was so.

    At the same time Dave you pointed us to a critical post on Jame’s blog that contained two really essential Luther quotes in their full context. Being able to see these texts really settled the entire matter for me and I am pretty certain for at least the other Lutherans here.

    I am really comfortable now with asserting that after 1527 or so, Luther considered the Blessed and most Holy Virgin to be fully as sinful in every way as anyone else is.

    I was actually pretty certain before that this was so. Why? Luther’s teaching on Original Sin is pivotal to his entire theology. Our Apology/Defense of the Augsburg Confessions actually starts with this doctrine as it’s very foundation, and then, only from there goes on to discuss first Good Works, then Faith and then finally our Justification in Christ before God.

    It would be really difficult to read this public confession of Luther and then imagine that he would think that even the most Blessed Virgin could be exempted from Original Sin. That would turn Luther’s entire theology on it’s head.

    I am appreciative Dave that you were interested in honesty and integrity and so pointed us all to that import most of James. You get major points for that.

    Again, I asked you a question Dave that you never answered. Isn’t it true that the Romans teach that Baptism removes original sin in some way of speaking? Could you please define what Rome means by the term “original sin”, how it contrasts to concupiscence and actual sin, and what Rome thinks happens in Baptism with all this?

    That would really be some good apologetics for us Lutherans here to ponder and digest. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration Dave!

  • Tom Hering

    You go Frank! I’ll make popcorn for the rest of us. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    You go Frank! I’ll make popcorn for the rest of us. :-D

  • Grace

    Brigitte @ 159

    I don’t believe staying out of the discussion is a good idea. My reason • • I don’t think Frank or anyone else should be designated to answers anyone’s question, to the exclusion of others.

    James Swan, Tom, tODD, Dust, you and myself, and others have much to contribute. I don’t believe Frank has anymore to contribute than anyone else.

  • Grace

    Brigitte @ 159

    I don’t believe staying out of the discussion is a good idea. My reason • • I don’t think Frank or anyone else should be designated to answers anyone’s question, to the exclusion of others.

    James Swan, Tom, tODD, Dust, you and myself, and others have much to contribute. I don’t believe Frank has anymore to contribute than anyone else.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Grace, I suggest being content with waiting a turn, sometimes. It is a good exercise for us. God can work things out without us. One day we will be quiet for good and the world still turns. A time to speak and a time to be silent. We can’t all speak at once.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Grace, I suggest being content with waiting a turn, sometimes. It is a good exercise for us. God can work things out without us. One day we will be quiet for good and the world still turns. A time to speak and a time to be silent. We can’t all speak at once.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    By the way, I have no problem if whoever moderates this blog wishes to delete any of my entries. If by some chance, they are deemed to not be at all useful, please delete!

    Regards, James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    By the way, I have no problem if whoever moderates this blog wishes to delete any of my entries. If by some chance, they are deemed to not be at all useful, please delete!

    Regards, James

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@152), I always have a lot to learn from you — especially from your graciousness and love.

    I, too, was looking forward to hearing from an informed Catholic viewpoint. To the degree that my reactions here have precluded or prevented that, I am sorry. And I apologize especially to Dave for my attitude — as well as to others (e.g. Grace) towards whom my comments have been less than loving.

    That’s probably all I should say at this point.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@152), I always have a lot to learn from you — especially from your graciousness and love.

    I, too, was looking forward to hearing from an informed Catholic viewpoint. To the degree that my reactions here have precluded or prevented that, I am sorry. And I apologize especially to Dave for my attitude — as well as to others (e.g. Grace) towards whom my comments have been less than loving.

    That’s probably all I should say at this point.

  • fws

    James @ 167

    I am really impressed with all the work you put into all this again, and again and again, and the guy Turretin that contributed to your blog is a sharp guy eh? It all makes me wonder why you aren’t a Lutheran … um… yet.. James. ;)

    One has to be impressed with the sheer volume too of Dave Armstrong’s site. Dang. That guy seems to have read alot more than I have from alot of Lutheran authors.

    It’s been very educational to sit in on the back and forth between you two men. Thanks for hanging around James.

  • fws

    James @ 167

    I am really impressed with all the work you put into all this again, and again and again, and the guy Turretin that contributed to your blog is a sharp guy eh? It all makes me wonder why you aren’t a Lutheran … um… yet.. James. ;)

    One has to be impressed with the sheer volume too of Dave Armstrong’s site. Dang. That guy seems to have read alot more than I have from alot of Lutheran authors.

    It’s been very educational to sit in on the back and forth between you two men. Thanks for hanging around James.

  • fws

    Todd @ 168

    we all are learning how to do this stuff eh? It’s a real credit to our host Dr Veith that here we have a Grace who represents her group that is (i hope you thing this is fair Grace) calvary chapel or antidenominational christians, and we Lutherans , and reformed and anglicans and now a very able Roman apologist and … heck… some atheists and gays and liberals and conservatives and lots of other riff raff.

    For the most part the conversations are civil , and it is actually cool that at times a thread goes way off point. Ha! I think this is the first time I can remember here that we all stayed on topic. Dave Armstrong probably gets the credit for that eh?

  • fws

    Todd @ 168

    we all are learning how to do this stuff eh? It’s a real credit to our host Dr Veith that here we have a Grace who represents her group that is (i hope you thing this is fair Grace) calvary chapel or antidenominational christians, and we Lutherans , and reformed and anglicans and now a very able Roman apologist and … heck… some atheists and gays and liberals and conservatives and lots of other riff raff.

    For the most part the conversations are civil , and it is actually cool that at times a thread goes way off point. Ha! I think this is the first time I can remember here that we all stayed on topic. Dave Armstrong probably gets the credit for that eh?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@170), and I wrote that (@168) a few hours before Yom Kippur starts, too. How timely!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@170), and I wrote that (@168) a few hours before Yom Kippur starts, too. How timely!

  • Grace

    fws @170

    “I think this is the first time I can remember here that we all stayed on topic. Dave Armstrong probably gets the credit for that eh?

    With all due respect, I disagree, James Swan stayed on topic just as much, if not more than Dave. This is one of the reasons I believe everyone should take part in this discussion, with NO ONE being an intermediator. Your last comment above serves as a good example.

  • Grace

    fws @170

    “I think this is the first time I can remember here that we all stayed on topic. Dave Armstrong probably gets the credit for that eh?

    With all due respect, I disagree, James Swan stayed on topic just as much, if not more than Dave. This is one of the reasons I believe everyone should take part in this discussion, with NO ONE being an intermediator. Your last comment above serves as a good example.

  • Grace

    tODD

    My comments to you have not always been exemplary, I’m sorry. Yes it is a few hours before Yom Kippur – Blessing to you tODD.

  • Grace

    tODD

    My comments to you have not always been exemplary, I’m sorry. Yes it is a few hours before Yom Kippur – Blessing to you tODD.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I forgive you, Grace (@173).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I forgive you, Grace (@173).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Simply say nothing more about it here

    Gladly (I hope you’ll give him the same advice). It’ll be tough to sit here and take further smears and insults (I see that some more are already here), but I’ll try my best. Please pray for me, and for Mr. Swan.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Simply say nothing more about it here

    Gladly (I hope you’ll give him the same advice). It’ll be tough to sit here and take further smears and insults (I see that some more are already here), but I’ll try my best. Please pray for me, and for Mr. Swan.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave,

    P.s. (whispered): How ’bout those Tigers?

  • Dan Kempin

    Dave,

    P.s. (whispered): How ’bout those Tigers?

  • Grace

    Dan, you ole sneak .. “Tigers” ? — laughing softly!

  • Grace

    Dan, you ole sneak .. “Tigers” ? — laughing softly!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Again, I asked you a question Dave that you never answered.

    Because of time limitations. I still have many questions from the beginning that I intend to try to give some answer to.

    Isn’t it true that the Romans teach that Baptism removes original sin in some way of speaking? Could you please define what Rome means by the term “original sin”, how it contrasts to concupiscence and actual sin, and what Rome thinks happens in Baptism with all this?

    I will paste entries from the Modern Catholic Dictionary, from Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., my mentor and the one who received me into the Catholic Church. It’s available online, if you ever want to look something up. I’ll give the URL below.

    ORIGINAL SIN. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

    BAPTISMAL GRACES. The supernatural effects of the sacrament of baptism. They are: 1. removal of all guilt of sin, original and personal; 2. removal of all punishment due to sin, temporal and eternal; 3. infusion of sanctifying grace along with the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; 4. incorporation into Christ; and 5, entrance into the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church; 6. imprinting of the baptismal character, which enables a person to receive the other sacraments, to participate in the priesthood of Christ through the sacred liturgy, and to grow in the likeness of Christ through personal sanctification. Baptism does not remove two effects of original sin, namely concupiscence and bodily mortality. However, it does enable a Christian to be sanctified by his struggle with concupiscence and gives him the title to rising in a glorified body on the last day.

    CONCUPISCENCE. Insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + cupere, to desire: concupiscentia, desire, greed, cupidity.)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Again, I asked you a question Dave that you never answered.

    Because of time limitations. I still have many questions from the beginning that I intend to try to give some answer to.

    Isn’t it true that the Romans teach that Baptism removes original sin in some way of speaking? Could you please define what Rome means by the term “original sin”, how it contrasts to concupiscence and actual sin, and what Rome thinks happens in Baptism with all this?

    I will paste entries from the Modern Catholic Dictionary, from Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., my mentor and the one who received me into the Catholic Church. It’s available online, if you ever want to look something up. I’ll give the URL below.

    ORIGINAL SIN. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

    BAPTISMAL GRACES. The supernatural effects of the sacrament of baptism. They are: 1. removal of all guilt of sin, original and personal; 2. removal of all punishment due to sin, temporal and eternal; 3. infusion of sanctifying grace along with the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; 4. incorporation into Christ; and 5, entrance into the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church; 6. imprinting of the baptismal character, which enables a person to receive the other sacraments, to participate in the priesthood of Christ through the sacred liturgy, and to grow in the likeness of Christ through personal sanctification. Baptism does not remove two effects of original sin, namely concupiscence and bodily mortality. However, it does enable a Christian to be sanctified by his struggle with concupiscence and gives him the title to rising in a glorified body on the last day.

    CONCUPISCENCE. Insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + cupere, to desire: concupiscentia, desire, greed, cupidity.)

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I forgot the URL, so here is one more definition and the website:

    SIN. “A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” (St. Augustine). Sin is a deliberate transgression of a law of God, which identifies the four essentials of every sin. A law is involved, implying that there are physical laws that operate with necessity, and moral laws that can be disregarded by human beings. God is offended, so that the divine dimension is never absent from any sin. Sin is a transgression, since Catholicism holds that grace is resistible and the divine will can be disobeyed. And the transgression is deliberate, which means that a sin is committed whenever a person knows that something is contrary to the law of God and then freely does the action anyway. (Etym. Old English synn, syn, sin; Old High German sunta, suntea, perhaps to Latin sons, guilty.)

    http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I forgot the URL, so here is one more definition and the website:

    SIN. “A word, deed or desire in opposition to the eternal law” (St. Augustine). Sin is a deliberate transgression of a law of God, which identifies the four essentials of every sin. A law is involved, implying that there are physical laws that operate with necessity, and moral laws that can be disregarded by human beings. God is offended, so that the divine dimension is never absent from any sin. Sin is a transgression, since Catholicism holds that grace is resistible and the divine will can be disobeyed. And the transgression is deliberate, which means that a sin is committed whenever a person knows that something is contrary to the law of God and then freely does the action anyway. (Etym. Old English synn, syn, sin; Old High German sunta, suntea, perhaps to Latin sons, guilty.)

    http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @7:

    Adoration of Mary is extremely important in Catholicism. Why?

    [We use the term "veneration" ("adoration" is only used in reference to God) ]

    Because she was the Mother of God, and therefore we honor her as a prime example of how mightily God uses human beings to accomplish His sovereign will. The painter’s masterpiece does not exist in and of itself. It is a creation. To praise a Rembrandt painting is obviously to praise Rembrandt, not canvas and oil and a nice composition.

    Veneration and honor of human beings are biblical concepts (2 Chron 16:14; 32:33; Heb 11:32-38; Mt 13:57; Rom 13:7; 1 Cor 12:23-26; 1 Pet 2:17 (“honor all men”).
    Veneration is also, I think, suggested in the motif (esp. ion Paul) of urging others to imitate him (in other words, people are looking to a human being rather than God, as a model to emulate: because the person reflects God:

    Romans 11:13-14 (KJV) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: [14] If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

    (RSV: “make my fellow Jews jealous”; NEB: “I try to stir emulation in the men of my own race”; i.e., by emulation of the Gentiles and/or Paul, the Jews could be saved, so that they are being saved in part by means of an example to imitate)

    1 Corinthians 4:15-16 (RSV, as throughout, unless indicated otherwise) For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

    1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

    Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.

    Philippians 4:8-9 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. [9] What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

    1 Thessalonians 1:6-7 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; [7] so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedo’nia and in Acha’ia.

    1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

    2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

    1 Timothy 4:12 Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @7:

    Adoration of Mary is extremely important in Catholicism. Why?

    [We use the term "veneration" ("adoration" is only used in reference to God) ]

    Because she was the Mother of God, and therefore we honor her as a prime example of how mightily God uses human beings to accomplish His sovereign will. The painter’s masterpiece does not exist in and of itself. It is a creation. To praise a Rembrandt painting is obviously to praise Rembrandt, not canvas and oil and a nice composition.

    Veneration and honor of human beings are biblical concepts (2 Chron 16:14; 32:33; Heb 11:32-38; Mt 13:57; Rom 13:7; 1 Cor 12:23-26; 1 Pet 2:17 (“honor all men”).
    Veneration is also, I think, suggested in the motif (esp. ion Paul) of urging others to imitate him (in other words, people are looking to a human being rather than God, as a model to emulate: because the person reflects God:

    Romans 11:13-14 (KJV) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: [14] If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

    (RSV: “make my fellow Jews jealous”; NEB: “I try to stir emulation in the men of my own race”; i.e., by emulation of the Gentiles and/or Paul, the Jews could be saved, so that they are being saved in part by means of an example to imitate)

    1 Corinthians 4:15-16 (RSV, as throughout, unless indicated otherwise) For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

    1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

    Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.

    Philippians 4:8-9 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. [9] What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

    1 Thessalonians 1:6-7 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; [7] so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedo’nia and in Acha’ia.

    1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

    2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

    1 Timothy 4:12 Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws@8:

    Jesus did not lack this faith.

    Jesus can’t possibly have faith, since He was God and omniscient in His Divine Nature. Faith is an attribute of created human beings; not God. To assert it of God is semi-Nestorian heresy (nothing personal). Jesus can’t be part of a notion that has to do with “things not seen” (Heb 11:1) because in His deity He sees all.

    Comment directed to our Roman Catholic Apologist: Were you aware that the difference between we Lutheran catholics and you Roman Catholics starts with the definition of Original Sin and not with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone?

    I was aware that most Protestants hold to a more consequential fall, with human nature supposedly becoming totally evil. The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity takes it to the extreme. Luther pretty much followed that, but with the adoption of free will in Lutheranism, the fall was not as great as Luther and the Calvinists viewed it. I don’t know all the details of that without looking something up.

    I’d be interested in hearing from you what you think the difference is on this score, after having looked over the Catholic definitions I provided you.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws@8:

    Jesus did not lack this faith.

    Jesus can’t possibly have faith, since He was God and omniscient in His Divine Nature. Faith is an attribute of created human beings; not God. To assert it of God is semi-Nestorian heresy (nothing personal). Jesus can’t be part of a notion that has to do with “things not seen” (Heb 11:1) because in His deity He sees all.

    Comment directed to our Roman Catholic Apologist: Were you aware that the difference between we Lutheran catholics and you Roman Catholics starts with the definition of Original Sin and not with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone?

    I was aware that most Protestants hold to a more consequential fall, with human nature supposedly becoming totally evil. The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity takes it to the extreme. Luther pretty much followed that, but with the adoption of free will in Lutheranism, the fall was not as great as Luther and the Calvinists viewed it. I don’t know all the details of that without looking something up.

    I’d be interested in hearing from you what you think the difference is on this score, after having looked over the Catholic definitions I provided you.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @168

    And I apologize especially to Dave for my attitude

    Thank you. I appreciate it. God bless you.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @168

    And I apologize especially to Dave for my attitude

    Thank you. I appreciate it. God bless you.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @10

    Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.

    That’s interesting. Why in the world, then, does an angel say to Mary, “Hail, O favored one . . .” (Lk 1:28)? Since when does an angel “hail” a human being?

    Why does Mary say “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48)? You certainly don’t do that. So is Mary a liar, writing inspired Scripture about how she shall be regarded by posterity? in addition to being a “big nobody” (only bearing God the Son, after all, a trifle if ever there was one . . . ).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @10

    Jesus in His complete humility was born to a big nobody. There is and was nothing in Mary to be adored, not even humility.

    That’s interesting. Why in the world, then, does an angel say to Mary, “Hail, O favored one . . .” (Lk 1:28)? Since when does an angel “hail” a human being?

    Why does Mary say “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48)? You certainly don’t do that. So is Mary a liar, writing inspired Scripture about how she shall be regarded by posterity? in addition to being a “big nobody” (only bearing God the Son, after all, a trifle if ever there was one . . . ).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @14:

    A few questions regarding Mary:

    1) What is the Roman view of Mary’s interaction with Jesus at the wedding in Cana? This could be viewed as a rebuke of Mary by Jesus. Can the sinless be rebuked?

    The Catholic Encyclopedia (“The Blessed Virgin Mary”) comments on this:

    The evangelists connect Mary’s name with three different events in Our Lord’s public life: with the miracle in Cana, with His preaching, and with His passion. The first of these incidents is related in John 2:1-10.

    There was a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. . .and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

    One naturally supposes that one of the contracting parties was related to Mary, and that Jesus had been invited on account of his mother’s relationship. The couple must have been rather poor, since the wine was actually failing. Mary wishes to save her friends from the shame of not being able to provide properly for the guests, and has recourse to her Divine Son. She merely states their need, without adding any further petition. In addressing women, Jesus uniformly employs the word “woman” (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15), an expression used by classical writers as a respectful and honourable address. The above cited passages show that in the language of Jesus the address “woman” has a most respectful meaning. The clause “what is that to me and to thee” renders the Greek ti emoi kai soi, which in its turn corresponds to the Hebrew phrase mah li walakh. This latter occurs in Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 19:23; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 9:18; 2 Chronicles 35:21.

    The New Testament shows equivalent expressions in Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; 8:28; Matthew 27:19. The meaning of the phrase varies according to the character of the speakers, ranging from a most pronounced opposition to a courteous compliance. Such a variable meaning makes it hard for the translator to find an equally variable equivalent. “What have I to do with thee”, “this is neither your nor my business”, “why art thou troublesome to me”, “allow me to attend to this”, are some of the renderings suggested. In general, the words seem to refer to well or ill-meant importunity which they endeavour to remove. The last part of Our Lord’s answer presents less difficulty to the interpreter: “my hour is not yet come”, cannot refer to the precise moment at which the need of wine will require the miraculous intervention of Jesus; for in the language of St. John “my hour” or “the hour” denotes the time preordained for some important event (John 4:21-23; 5:25-28; 7:30; 8:29; 12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1).

    Hence the meaning of Our Lord’s answer is: “Why are you troubling me by asking me for such an intervention? The divinely appointed time for such a manifestation has not yet come”; or, “why are you worrying? has not the time of manifesting my power come?” The former of these meanings implies that on account of the intercession of Mary Jesus anticipated the time set for the manifestation of His miraculous power; the second meaning is obtained by understanding the last part of Our Lord’s words as a question, as was done by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and by the Arabic version of Tatian’s “Diatessaron” (Rome, 1888). Mary understood her Son’s words in their proper sense; she merely warned the waiters, “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (John 2:5). There can be no question of explaining Jesus’ answer in the sense of a refusal.

    2) Christ commends his mother into the safekeeping of John at the Crucifixion. Why bother if she’s just going to be bodily assumed into Heaven?

    Presumably because there was a gap in time between the two events. The real question is: why would Jesus do that if in fact He had blood brothers, as has been believed by many Protestants since the advent of theological liberalism, but very few before that time.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @14:

    A few questions regarding Mary:

    1) What is the Roman view of Mary’s interaction with Jesus at the wedding in Cana? This could be viewed as a rebuke of Mary by Jesus. Can the sinless be rebuked?

    The Catholic Encyclopedia (“The Blessed Virgin Mary”) comments on this:

    The evangelists connect Mary’s name with three different events in Our Lord’s public life: with the miracle in Cana, with His preaching, and with His passion. The first of these incidents is related in John 2:1-10.

    There was a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. . .and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

    One naturally supposes that one of the contracting parties was related to Mary, and that Jesus had been invited on account of his mother’s relationship. The couple must have been rather poor, since the wine was actually failing. Mary wishes to save her friends from the shame of not being able to provide properly for the guests, and has recourse to her Divine Son. She merely states their need, without adding any further petition. In addressing women, Jesus uniformly employs the word “woman” (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15), an expression used by classical writers as a respectful and honourable address. The above cited passages show that in the language of Jesus the address “woman” has a most respectful meaning. The clause “what is that to me and to thee” renders the Greek ti emoi kai soi, which in its turn corresponds to the Hebrew phrase mah li walakh. This latter occurs in Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 19:23; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 9:18; 2 Chronicles 35:21.

    The New Testament shows equivalent expressions in Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; 8:28; Matthew 27:19. The meaning of the phrase varies according to the character of the speakers, ranging from a most pronounced opposition to a courteous compliance. Such a variable meaning makes it hard for the translator to find an equally variable equivalent. “What have I to do with thee”, “this is neither your nor my business”, “why art thou troublesome to me”, “allow me to attend to this”, are some of the renderings suggested. In general, the words seem to refer to well or ill-meant importunity which they endeavour to remove. The last part of Our Lord’s answer presents less difficulty to the interpreter: “my hour is not yet come”, cannot refer to the precise moment at which the need of wine will require the miraculous intervention of Jesus; for in the language of St. John “my hour” or “the hour” denotes the time preordained for some important event (John 4:21-23; 5:25-28; 7:30; 8:29; 12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1).

    Hence the meaning of Our Lord’s answer is: “Why are you troubling me by asking me for such an intervention? The divinely appointed time for such a manifestation has not yet come”; or, “why are you worrying? has not the time of manifesting my power come?” The former of these meanings implies that on account of the intercession of Mary Jesus anticipated the time set for the manifestation of His miraculous power; the second meaning is obtained by understanding the last part of Our Lord’s words as a question, as was done by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and by the Arabic version of Tatian’s “Diatessaron” (Rome, 1888). Mary understood her Son’s words in their proper sense; she merely warned the waiters, “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (John 2:5). There can be no question of explaining Jesus’ answer in the sense of a refusal.

    2) Christ commends his mother into the safekeeping of John at the Crucifixion. Why bother if she’s just going to be bodily assumed into Heaven?

    Presumably because there was a gap in time between the two events. The real question is: why would Jesus do that if in fact He had blood brothers, as has been believed by many Protestants since the advent of theological liberalism, but very few before that time.

  • Dust

    Dave at 183…LOL, really enjoy this response! If I was a Catholic, the statement about Mary being a “big nobody” would have really pushed my buttons :(

    But jolly good for you! You stayed cool and made your points, at least in my opinion, in a gentle, straight forward, and modest manner…daresay, perhaps even a bit Luther-esqe, if you don’t mind :)

    Am sure this is much appreciated and respected by all the good folks who want to have a respectful exchange on this topic….great job Dave, thank you!

  • Dust

    Dave at 183…LOL, really enjoy this response! If I was a Catholic, the statement about Mary being a “big nobody” would have really pushed my buttons :(

    But jolly good for you! You stayed cool and made your points, at least in my opinion, in a gentle, straight forward, and modest manner…daresay, perhaps even a bit Luther-esqe, if you don’t mind :)

    Am sure this is much appreciated and respected by all the good folks who want to have a respectful exchange on this topic….great job Dave, thank you!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @21 Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me,

    Why should the Apostle Paul be an exemplar: also being chosen by Grace alone as every Christian is? But he urged his followers to imitate him and follow his example (as I documented in 180 above).

    as she was chosen by grace alone: “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.” No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just “God’s favor” – unmerited grace.

    Exactly! Where’s the beef? You actually think that Catholics would deny this?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @21 Though why she should be made an examplar is beyond me,

    Why should the Apostle Paul be an exemplar: also being chosen by Grace alone as every Christian is? But he urged his followers to imitate him and follow his example (as I documented in 180 above).

    as she was chosen by grace alone: “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you … Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.” No reason for this is given in the Annunciation, no deserving qualities in Mary are mentioned, just “God’s favor” – unmerited grace.

    Exactly! Where’s the beef? You actually think that Catholics would deny this?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @25

    Yes, she received God’s favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.

    I don’t know anyone else who has been “hailed” by an angel. Do you?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @25

    Yes, she received God’s favor, but so have all of the elect – and they, too, because of grace alone.

    I don’t know anyone else who has been “hailed” by an angel. Do you?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @27

    Gabriel had to tell Mary, “Do not be afraid.” What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord’s messenger?

    Angels were universally feared, because they are extraordinary creatures, and out of the ordinary. I don’t see that Mary’s reaction would be any different fro anyone else’s, whether she is sinless or not. One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. That’s not sin. It’s being a human being, responding to the extraordinary.

    Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?

    That doesn’t follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. Didn’t stop them from being disobedient, did it? You underestimate the strength of human (and demonic / angelic) free will by quite a wide margin.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    @27

    Gabriel had to tell Mary, “Do not be afraid.” What sinless person would fear the Lord, much less the Lord’s messenger?

    Angels were universally feared, because they are extraordinary creatures, and out of the ordinary. I don’t see that Mary’s reaction would be any different fro anyone else’s, whether she is sinless or not. One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. That’s not sin. It’s being a human being, responding to the extraordinary.

    Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?

    That doesn’t follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. Didn’t stop them from being disobedient, did it? You underestimate the strength of human (and demonic / angelic) free will by quite a wide margin.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dust (@185)

    If I was a Catholic, the statement about Mary being a “big nobody” would have really pushed my buttons :(

    It should push your buttons as a Lutheran, because it is an unbiblical and ridiculous sentiment. I think I demonstrated that it was by the Bible (as I always try to do): and we all accept that Word.

    But jolly good for you! You stayed cool

    I always stay cool (it’s my temperament), but people often seem to think I’m not because I write so passionately at times. I (and those who know me personally) get the biggest kick out of that!

    and made your points, at least in my opinion, in a gentle, straight forward, and modest manner…daresay, perhaps even a bit Luther-esqe, if you don’t mind :)

    I take that as a compliment. I think it is closer to Erasmus in spirit, tho. :-)

    Am sure this is much appreciated and respected by all the good folks who want to have a respectful exchange on this topic….great job Dave, thank you!

    Glad you like it. What others would think of it, I dunno. Now that all the insults seem to have died down, I still think good dialogue is possible. In any event, I am answering at my own pace, as I promised I would do.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Hi Dust (@185)

    If I was a Catholic, the statement about Mary being a “big nobody” would have really pushed my buttons :(

    It should push your buttons as a Lutheran, because it is an unbiblical and ridiculous sentiment. I think I demonstrated that it was by the Bible (as I always try to do): and we all accept that Word.

    But jolly good for you! You stayed cool

    I always stay cool (it’s my temperament), but people often seem to think I’m not because I write so passionately at times. I (and those who know me personally) get the biggest kick out of that!

    and made your points, at least in my opinion, in a gentle, straight forward, and modest manner…daresay, perhaps even a bit Luther-esqe, if you don’t mind :)

    I take that as a compliment. I think it is closer to Erasmus in spirit, tho. :-)

    Am sure this is much appreciated and respected by all the good folks who want to have a respectful exchange on this topic….great job Dave, thank you!

    Glad you like it. What others would think of it, I dunno. Now that all the insults seem to have died down, I still think good dialogue is possible. In any event, I am answering at my own pace, as I promised I would do.

  • Tom Hering

    I don’t know anyone else who has been ‘hailed’ by an angel. Do you? (@ 187)

    The Greek word is chairo, “greetings, rejoice, be glad.” I definitely see how this greeting indicates God has favored Mary above all women, but I don’t see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.

    One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. (@ 188)

    Nice generalization, but the verse doesn’t say, “Don’t be afraid. I know I’m an extraordinary visitor, but I’m a heck of a nice guy.” No, Gabriel tells Mary to be unafraid for a specific reason: “‘You have found favor with God.’” Which clearly indicates Gabriel knew that Mary, like any other sinful human, would be afraid she wasn’t in good standing with God. And rightly so. (Don’t you see how God’s grace toward Mary was amazing?)

    That doesn’t follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. Didn’t stop them from being disobedient, did it? (@ 188)

    What I carefully said @ 27 was (note the emphasis this time), “Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?”

  • Tom Hering

    I don’t know anyone else who has been ‘hailed’ by an angel. Do you? (@ 187)

    The Greek word is chairo, “greetings, rejoice, be glad.” I definitely see how this greeting indicates God has favored Mary above all women, but I don’t see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.

    One can be sinless, but still if one had no previous encounter with an angel, then they would tremble and fear. (@ 188)

    Nice generalization, but the verse doesn’t say, “Don’t be afraid. I know I’m an extraordinary visitor, but I’m a heck of a nice guy.” No, Gabriel tells Mary to be unafraid for a specific reason: “‘You have found favor with God.’” Which clearly indicates Gabriel knew that Mary, like any other sinful human, would be afraid she wasn’t in good standing with God. And rightly so. (Don’t you see how God’s grace toward Mary was amazing?)

    That doesn’t follow, either, since Satan and all the fallen angels were in the presence of God. Didn’t stop them from being disobedient, did it? (@ 188)

    What I carefully said @ 27 was (note the emphasis this time), “Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?”

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190

    I don’t see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.

    Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson writes about Luke 1:28:

    “‘Highly favoured’” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena ‘is right, if it means “full of grace which thou hast received“; wrong, if it means “full of grace which thou hast to bestow“‘ (Plummer).”

    (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. II, 13)

    Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons], Vol. I, 259).

    Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940., Vol. II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201).

    Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

    Thus, the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace, and being in that state was due to a special act of God. She had the special qualities; they came from God.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190

    I don’t see how it indicates He has favored her on account of special qualities.

    Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson writes about Luke 1:28:

    “‘Highly favoured’” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena ‘is right, if it means “full of grace which thou hast received“; wrong, if it means “full of grace which thou hast to bestow“‘ (Plummer).”

    (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. II, 13)

    Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons], Vol. I, 259).

    Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940., Vol. II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201).

    Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

    Thus, the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace, and being in that state was due to a special act of God. She had the special qualities; they came from God.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190

    “Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?”

    The thrust of this seems to be, “big wow: Mary was obedient. Who [of believers] wouldn’t be after an angelic visit?” But this is wrongheaded. We have free will. It is not a foregone conclusion at all that human beings will be obedient simply because an angel (or God) visits them.

    For example, look at Jonah. The Bible says that “the Word of the Lord came to Jonah” (Jonah 1:1). He disobeyed: “But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3; cf. 1:10). Then when he finally did what God told him to do, he was “displeased” and “angry” at the good result (Jonah 4:1).

    Adam and Eve had direct contact with God in Eden. Nevertheless they rebelled. So being with God (more more fabulous and wondrous than being with an angel) didn’t preclude the negative result and the rebellion. The first Eve said no to God; the second Eve said yes. What the Church fathers en masse marveled at and rejoiced over, you (and indeed many Protestants, for inexplicable reasons) regard as a ho-hum.

    Thus, Mary is to be given credit for saying “yes” to God. That is the credit that can go to her, just as we are credited with all good and righteous acts, even though they are all ultimately due to God and His grace. As St. Augustine said (paraphrase), “merit is God rewarding His own gifts.”

    I mentioned Satan’s rebellion, even though he had been in God’s presence. Satan was a “believer” at one point. How could he not be? He was with God, as his greatest angel! He was in a state even higher than we will be if we get to heaven. But he decided to rebel. How can someone rebel if they haven’t been in the camp from which they are rebelling? Therefore, your reiteration of your talking about a “believer” is irrelevant, since Satan was (just as Judas was). He used to be like the good angels now are.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190

    “Was Mary exceptionally humble and obedient? Sure. But what believer wouldn’t be in response to a supernatural visitation like that?”

    The thrust of this seems to be, “big wow: Mary was obedient. Who [of believers] wouldn’t be after an angelic visit?” But this is wrongheaded. We have free will. It is not a foregone conclusion at all that human beings will be obedient simply because an angel (or God) visits them.

    For example, look at Jonah. The Bible says that “the Word of the Lord came to Jonah” (Jonah 1:1). He disobeyed: “But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3; cf. 1:10). Then when he finally did what God told him to do, he was “displeased” and “angry” at the good result (Jonah 4:1).

    Adam and Eve had direct contact with God in Eden. Nevertheless they rebelled. So being with God (more more fabulous and wondrous than being with an angel) didn’t preclude the negative result and the rebellion. The first Eve said no to God; the second Eve said yes. What the Church fathers en masse marveled at and rejoiced over, you (and indeed many Protestants, for inexplicable reasons) regard as a ho-hum.

    Thus, Mary is to be given credit for saying “yes” to God. That is the credit that can go to her, just as we are credited with all good and righteous acts, even though they are all ultimately due to God and His grace. As St. Augustine said (paraphrase), “merit is God rewarding His own gifts.”

    I mentioned Satan’s rebellion, even though he had been in God’s presence. Satan was a “believer” at one point. How could he not be? He was with God, as his greatest angel! He was in a state even higher than we will be if we get to heaven. But he decided to rebel. How can someone rebel if they haven’t been in the camp from which they are rebelling? Therefore, your reiteration of your talking about a “believer” is irrelevant, since Satan was (just as Judas was). He used to be like the good angels now are.

  • Tom Hering

    … the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace … (@ 191)

    Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.

    … being in that state was due to a special act of God. (@ 191)

    Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.

    She had the special qualities; they came from God. (@ 191)

    Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation. You can’t. So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities. Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.

    Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.

  • Tom Hering

    … the angel favored Mary because she was full of grace … (@ 191)

    Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.

    … being in that state was due to a special act of God. (@ 191)

    Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.

    She had the special qualities; they came from God. (@ 191)

    Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation. You can’t. So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities. Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.

    Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.

  • Tom Hering

    “Big wow”? No, I consider it quite amazing that God puts a new heart into a believer, i.e., one who has received the gift of faith in Christ alone (the Christ that Mary looked forward to). And that this new heart responds spontaneously in humility and obedience. Amazing – full of grace indeed!

    Satan and Judas were believers at one point? When did Satan or Judas ever trust in Christ for forgiveness?

  • Tom Hering

    “Big wow”? No, I consider it quite amazing that God puts a new heart into a believer, i.e., one who has received the gift of faith in Christ alone (the Christ that Mary looked forward to). And that this new heart responds spontaneously in humility and obedience. Amazing – full of grace indeed!

    Satan and Judas were believers at one point? When did Satan or Judas ever trust in Christ for forgiveness?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    When did Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel ever trust in Christ for forgiveness? Were they not “believers”?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    When did Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel ever trust in Christ for forgiveness? Were they not “believers”?

  • Tom Hering

    We’re talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?

  • Tom Hering

    We’re talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?

  • Tom Hering

    Courtesy note: I’ll be away for the rest of the day, but will check back this evening.

  • Tom Hering

    Courtesy note: I’ll be away for the rest of the day, but will check back this evening.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @193

    Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.

    Luke 1:28. Because she is already in this state (“O favored one” — RSV), the angel hails her as such.

    Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.

    It follows logically from Luke 1:28 and (especially) from what kecharitomene means:

    “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

    (Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, 166)

    Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a “completed action with permanent result” (Smyth), and denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Harvard Univ Press, 1968, pp. 108-109, section 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

    Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation.

    Just did.

    You can’t.

    I not only can, but did. What can’t be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) is the foolish notion of sola Scriptura: that only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church.

    So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities.

    Duly noted. Mary really threatens you, doesn’t she? The humble handmaiden of the Lord . . . We must flee from her in terror, lest our faith in God be imperiled!!! You must have a very weak faith, if you are so scared of losing it merely from venerating God’s greatest created human being, just as Scripture says we should honor the heroes of the faith (Hebrews 11), precisely because they reflect the work and glory of God.

    Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.

    Mary’s humility is exhibited throughout the biblical accounts where she appears. Many Protestants who deny every Catholic and traditional (patristic, apostolic, biblical) doctrine about her wouldn’t dream of denying that, of all things. But you will have no talk of any extraordinary qualities of Mary! She only bore God in her own womb. Nothing to write home about . . .

    Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.

    I have several arguments from Scripture. It takes faith to believe, like all Christian doctrines. The Christian (and Catholic) faith is not merely philosophy and epistemology, but a religious faith: a spiritual thing. It can’t be reduced to logic (though it is never inconsistent with that). Faith is a supernatural gift granted by God’s grace. God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities.

    I can’t “prove” the Immaculate Conception in some airtight sense, but there are a lot of things that can’t be proven in that sense. I think the catholic can show enough to make the doctrine plausible and not opposed to Scripture or reason at all.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @193

    Show me the Scripture that says she was full of grace before the annunciation.

    Luke 1:28. Because she is already in this state (“O favored one” — RSV), the angel hails her as such.

    Show me this special pre-annunciation act of God in Scripture.

    It follows logically from Luke 1:28 and (especially) from what kecharitomene means:

    “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

    (Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, 166)

    Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a “completed action with permanent result” (Smyth), and denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Harvard Univ Press, 1968, pp. 108-109, section 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

    Show me the Scripture that says she received these before the annunciation.

    Just did.

    You can’t.

    I not only can, but did. What can’t be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) is the foolish notion of sola Scriptura: that only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith, to the exclusion of an infallible Church.

    So I would go further and argue her humility and obedience were not, in fact, special qualities.

    Duly noted. Mary really threatens you, doesn’t she? The humble handmaiden of the Lord . . . We must flee from her in terror, lest our faith in God be imperiled!!! You must have a very weak faith, if you are so scared of losing it merely from venerating God’s greatest created human being, just as Scripture says we should honor the heroes of the faith (Hebrews 11), precisely because they reflect the work and glory of God.

    Rather, they were the normal response of a believer – a saint and sinner who looked forward to the coming of her Savior – when (A.) faced with an angel and (B.) fear of condemnation was allayed.

    Mary’s humility is exhibited throughout the biblical accounts where she appears. Many Protestants who deny every Catholic and traditional (patristic, apostolic, biblical) doctrine about her wouldn’t dream of denying that, of all things. But you will have no talk of any extraordinary qualities of Mary! She only bore God in her own womb. Nothing to write home about . . .

    Seems to me you have to imagine an awful lot to support the idea of Mary’s immaculate conception.

    I have several arguments from Scripture. It takes faith to believe, like all Christian doctrines. The Christian (and Catholic) faith is not merely philosophy and epistemology, but a religious faith: a spiritual thing. It can’t be reduced to logic (though it is never inconsistent with that). Faith is a supernatural gift granted by God’s grace. God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities.

    I can’t “prove” the Immaculate Conception in some airtight sense, but there are a lot of things that can’t be proven in that sense. I think the catholic can show enough to make the doctrine plausible and not opposed to Scripture or reason at all.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @196

    We’re talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?

    I did so, and am continuing to do so. My reply in #195 was exactly on-topic; dead on topic. It was a rhetorical question, based on the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum: not changing the subject at all. You just didn’t grasp the logic of it (and so ignored the burden of answering).

    In this case, the logic was that you would be required to deny that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were believers, by your definition of the term. Since that is patently absurd, and proves too much, your initial premise and definition collapse; hence you declined to answer, having been stewed in your own juice, so to speak, and chose rather to pretend that I was off-topic, rather than that you were off-logic and off-Scripture.

    It’s literally a textbook example of illogical and non sequitur thinking: fit for a textbook in logic (I took that course in college).

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @196

    We’re talking about Mary. Are you going to address my questions and statements @193-194 directly, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?

    I did so, and am continuing to do so. My reply in #195 was exactly on-topic; dead on topic. It was a rhetorical question, based on the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum: not changing the subject at all. You just didn’t grasp the logic of it (and so ignored the burden of answering).

    In this case, the logic was that you would be required to deny that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were believers, by your definition of the term. Since that is patently absurd, and proves too much, your initial premise and definition collapse; hence you declined to answer, having been stewed in your own juice, so to speak, and chose rather to pretend that I was off-topic, rather than that you were off-logic and off-Scripture.

    It’s literally a textbook example of illogical and non sequitur thinking: fit for a textbook in logic (I took that course in college).

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Is there some reason why you avoid, OR do not use quote marks, ( ” ) when quoting another commentor OR anyone else? You can also use blockquote, but doing nothing? Using italics is helpful, however quote marks are still needed.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Is there some reason why you avoid, OR do not use quote marks, ( ” ) when quoting another commentor OR anyone else? You can also use blockquote, but doing nothing? Using italics is helpful, however quote marks are still needed.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190:

    Don’t you see how God’s grace toward Mary was amazing?

    Yes, it is. All grace is amazing, but the grace He gave to the Blessed Virgin Mary is more amazing, arguably, than any other instance, since He made her full of grace. God is so good! Isn’t God amazing, to use a human being in such an incredible way to bring about the incarnation of our savior and redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ? God didn’t necessarily have to become man or even (theologians and spiritual masters have speculated) choose the cross and all the agony involved in Jesus’ passion. He could have simply proclaimed that we were all saved, or that those who accepted His free grace were saved. But He didn’t do that. He chose to suffer and die for us, and He chose to use a created human being, Mary, to bear God Himself in her womb and to be the Mother of God. It is sublime beyond all words, how God does things like this. This is why we venerate Mary so highly: because she is a witness to and example of God’s grace and love for His creatures like no other human being.

    Many millions of Protestants put out statues of Mary at Christmastime, because they can’t deny that the birth of Jesus was such an incredible event. And every birth I know of entails a mother, who is not exactly an insignificant player . . . We honor every mother of a baby, for all that she has done, and gone through. Yet when it comes to honoring the mother of Jesus Christ: a created human being who had God Himself in her womb for nine months, and who lived with Jesus for about thirty years before He was known to the world, the Protestant balks, on the ridiculous grounds that this must be idolatry, or, at the very least, that it must somehow detract from our adoration and worship of God. This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Tom @190:

    Don’t you see how God’s grace toward Mary was amazing?

    Yes, it is. All grace is amazing, but the grace He gave to the Blessed Virgin Mary is more amazing, arguably, than any other instance, since He made her full of grace. God is so good! Isn’t God amazing, to use a human being in such an incredible way to bring about the incarnation of our savior and redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ? God didn’t necessarily have to become man or even (theologians and spiritual masters have speculated) choose the cross and all the agony involved in Jesus’ passion. He could have simply proclaimed that we were all saved, or that those who accepted His free grace were saved. But He didn’t do that. He chose to suffer and die for us, and He chose to use a created human being, Mary, to bear God Himself in her womb and to be the Mother of God. It is sublime beyond all words, how God does things like this. This is why we venerate Mary so highly: because she is a witness to and example of God’s grace and love for His creatures like no other human being.

    Many millions of Protestants put out statues of Mary at Christmastime, because they can’t deny that the birth of Jesus was such an incredible event. And every birth I know of entails a mother, who is not exactly an insignificant player . . . We honor every mother of a baby, for all that she has done, and gone through. Yet when it comes to honoring the mother of Jesus Christ: a created human being who had God Himself in her womb for nine months, and who lived with Jesus for about thirty years before He was known to the world, the Protestant balks, on the ridiculous grounds that this must be idolatry, or, at the very least, that it must somehow detract from our adoration and worship of God. This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well.

  • Grace

    The quote below can be chalked up to ‘tradition’ – that is always the excuse for something that is not Scriptural.

    Is it ‘tradition’ ?

    Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself “in the middle,” that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she “has the right” to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary “intercedes” for mankind. And that is not all. As a mother she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested, that salvific power of his which is meant to help man in his misfortunes, to free him from the evil which in various forms and degrees weighs heavily upon his life. Precisely as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold about the Messiah in the famous passage which Jesus quoted before his fellow townsfolk in Nazareth: “To preach good news to the poor…to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind…” (cf. Lk. 4:18).
    Pope John Paul II, in Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church), Encyclical promulgated on March 25, 1987

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

    Notice “mediatrix” is used in BOLDED text –

    mediatrix - a woman who is a mediator
    go-between, intercessor, intermediary, intermediator, mediator – a negotiator who acts as a link between parties

  • Grace

    The quote below can be chalked up to ‘tradition’ – that is always the excuse for something that is not Scriptural.

    Is it ‘tradition’ ?

    Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself “in the middle,” that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she “has the right” to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary “intercedes” for mankind. And that is not all. As a mother she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested, that salvific power of his which is meant to help man in his misfortunes, to free him from the evil which in various forms and degrees weighs heavily upon his life. Precisely as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold about the Messiah in the famous passage which Jesus quoted before his fellow townsfolk in Nazareth: “To preach good news to the poor…to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind…” (cf. Lk. 4:18).
    Pope John Paul II, in Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church), Encyclical promulgated on March 25, 1987

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

    Notice “mediatrix” is used in BOLDED text –

    mediatrix - a woman who is a mediator
    go-between, intercessor, intermediary, intermediator, mediator – a negotiator who acts as a link between parties

  • Tom Hering

    “What can’t be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) …” (@ 198)

    Asking you to convince me of RC teachings from Scripture alone is not a “game” – not for a Lutheran. Besides, having looked at your website, and seeing that you present yourself as a biblical RC apologist, you should have no problem at all making your arguments from Scripture – at least primarily. I’m waiting.

    Mary really threatens you, doesn’t she? (@ 198)

    Threatened? Not in the least. I am, however, amused by the number of times you’ve claimed or suggested that Lutherans (or Protestants or Evangelicals) are afraid, or weak in faith.

    God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities. (@ 198)

    I considered them more than possibilities back when I was RC myself. The only thing about Mariology that God opened my eyes to was the absurdity of it. :-)

    This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well. (@ 199)

    You have yet to convince me from Scripture that Lutheranism (or Protestantism in general) is “insufficiently biblical.” Show me the verses and passages I asked you for. The ones that prove your not just adding your imaginings to God’s Word. As I said, I’m waiting.

  • Tom Hering

    “What can’t be shown in Scripture (if you want to play that game) …” (@ 198)

    Asking you to convince me of RC teachings from Scripture alone is not a “game” – not for a Lutheran. Besides, having looked at your website, and seeing that you present yourself as a biblical RC apologist, you should have no problem at all making your arguments from Scripture – at least primarily. I’m waiting.

    Mary really threatens you, doesn’t she? (@ 198)

    Threatened? Not in the least. I am, however, amused by the number of times you’ve claimed or suggested that Lutherans (or Protestants or Evangelicals) are afraid, or weak in faith.

    God will grant anyone the eyes to see the truths of Mariology, if they are willing to grant them at least as possibilities. (@ 198)

    I considered them more than possibilities back when I was RC myself. The only thing about Mariology that God opened my eyes to was the absurdity of it. :-)

    This is an insufficient spirituality and insufficiently biblical as well. (@ 199)

    You have yet to convince me from Scripture that Lutheranism (or Protestantism in general) is “insufficiently biblical.” Show me the verses and passages I asked you for. The ones that prove your not just adding your imaginings to God’s Word. As I said, I’m waiting.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (203)

    I don’t think you’re going to get the response you want. The reason is the person you’re interacting with holds the following:

    “Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily anti-biblical or unbiblical.. . ”

    Be prepared that the counter response offered will be along the lines of “Protestants accept doctrines not found in the Bible as well.” Don’t be sidetracked by this, as it’s actually a rabbit trail rather than a response. Push to have a Roman Catholic explain how and why Bible verse establish doctrine.

    Also keep in mind different Roman Catholic apologists explain all this differently. For instance, one of the most popular Catholic works is Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. In analyzing the charge that Roman Catholics logically believe in continuing revelation because some of her dogmas find no evidence in the Bible, Keating explains this false argument is based on a misunderstanding of Tradition. Keating states: “It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the New Testament. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing- the part that is outside the New Testament and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition- that part of revelation Catholics also accept …” Here, the partim-partim view of Tradition allows Roman Catholics a basis for their distinctive views. One need not seek proof for every Christian belief in the Bible, for Tradition is the second part that completes the whole of God’s revealed truth.

    Contrary to Keating, another leading Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, affirms “It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call, the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they’re all there.”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (203)

    I don’t think you’re going to get the response you want. The reason is the person you’re interacting with holds the following:

    “Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily anti-biblical or unbiblical.. . ”

    Be prepared that the counter response offered will be along the lines of “Protestants accept doctrines not found in the Bible as well.” Don’t be sidetracked by this, as it’s actually a rabbit trail rather than a response. Push to have a Roman Catholic explain how and why Bible verse establish doctrine.

    Also keep in mind different Roman Catholic apologists explain all this differently. For instance, one of the most popular Catholic works is Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. In analyzing the charge that Roman Catholics logically believe in continuing revelation because some of her dogmas find no evidence in the Bible, Keating explains this false argument is based on a misunderstanding of Tradition. Keating states: “It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the New Testament. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing- the part that is outside the New Testament and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition- that part of revelation Catholics also accept …” Here, the partim-partim view of Tradition allows Roman Catholics a basis for their distinctive views. One need not seek proof for every Christian belief in the Bible, for Tradition is the second part that completes the whole of God’s revealed truth.

    Contrary to Keating, another leading Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, affirms “It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call, the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they’re all there.”

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Where in Scripture does it state Mary can be prayed to, OR that she has any power, or superior to angels, it isn’t there.

    The Scriptures do not line up with anything stated below by Pope Leo XIII on September 8th 1892

    Jesus didn’t tell us to pray to anyone but God.

    Another ‘tradition’ ? handed down from the Popes?

    When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse to the Mother of mercy, who is so well disposed toward us that, whatever the necessity that presses upon us especially in attaining eternal life, she is instantly at our side of her own accord, even though she has not been invoked. She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother of God. By the fullness of grace which confers on her the most illustrious of her many titles, the Blessed Virgin is infinitely superior to all the hierarchies of men and angels, the one creature who is closest of all to Christ. “It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world. is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin.”

    On the Rosary – MAGNAE DEI MATRIS

    Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1892.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro2.htm

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Where in Scripture does it state Mary can be prayed to, OR that she has any power, or superior to angels, it isn’t there.

    The Scriptures do not line up with anything stated below by Pope Leo XIII on September 8th 1892

    Jesus didn’t tell us to pray to anyone but God.

    Another ‘tradition’ ? handed down from the Popes?

    When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse to the Mother of mercy, who is so well disposed toward us that, whatever the necessity that presses upon us especially in attaining eternal life, she is instantly at our side of her own accord, even though she has not been invoked. She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother of God. By the fullness of grace which confers on her the most illustrious of her many titles, the Blessed Virgin is infinitely superior to all the hierarchies of men and angels, the one creature who is closest of all to Christ. “It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world. is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin.”

    On the Rosary – MAGNAE DEI MATRIS

    Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1892.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro2.htm

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 204, I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong believes “Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture.” But that’s not going to cut it with me – not from an apostle to the Protestants ( ;-) ) who wants me to believe he’s truly biblical. More biblical than any non-Catholic. I know full well that anything – anything – can be “harmonized” with Scripture if you’re clever enough.

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 204, I have no doubt that Mr. Armstrong believes “Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture.” But that’s not going to cut it with me – not from an apostle to the Protestants ( ;-) ) who wants me to believe he’s truly biblical. More biblical than any non-Catholic. I know full well that anything – anything – can be “harmonized” with Scripture if you’re clever enough.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “anything – can be “harmonized” with Scripture if you’re clever enough.”

    Well stated Tom!

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “anything – can be “harmonized” with Scripture if you’re clever enough.”

    Well stated Tom!

  • Grace

    James @ 204

    “HARMONY” the magic word!

    The quote below is key as it is handed down, generation after generation as to what the Roman Catholic’s are to believe – you can call it ‘tradition, but it’s from the Pope, it’s his call – it doesn’t need to be in Scripture according to the Roman church. It’s all about “harmony” -

    SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE
    ON CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS

    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JANUARY 10, 1890

    “Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.”

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm

  • Grace

    James @ 204

    “HARMONY” the magic word!

    The quote below is key as it is handed down, generation after generation as to what the Roman Catholic’s are to believe – you can call it ‘tradition, but it’s from the Pope, it’s his call – it doesn’t need to be in Scripture according to the Roman church. It’s all about “harmony” -

    SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE
    ON CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS

    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JANUARY 10, 1890

    “Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.”

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws @48

    Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.

    What is your opinion now, after I thoroughly documented all three citations?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws @48

    Those quotes from Luther dated in the 1540s are really radical contradictory to Luther’s definition of Original Sin. Because of that fact, I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.

    What is your opinion now, after I thoroughly documented all three citations?

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    test.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    test.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    trying to get rid of italics.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    trying to get rid of italics.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Just use quote marks (“) that should be easier for you, and for everyone else as well!

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Just use quote marks (“) that should be easier for you, and for everyone else as well!

  • Tom Hering

    … what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 1890)

    Ridiculous. What is necessary for eternal salvation is clear as a bell in Scripture. We don’t need no stinkin’ Popes. The Ten Commandments aren’t rocket science. Christ even condensed them down to two commandments to help our understanding. And Paul makes it clear we’re to trust in Christ alone, who took the punishment for our disobedience upon himself, and credited us with his perfect obedience. There’s nothing more to be done – by us. Further, we live as we should, and we do this spontaneously, because we’ve been given a new heart. The Holy Spirit dwells in us. Christ lives in us. Neither Satan who attacks us, nor the Old Adam we’re saddled with, will win in the end. Christ promises it.

    Now, what was it again that Mary, the truly blessed mother of Christ, has to do with all this? Beyond bearing our Savior – and hers? I forget. On purpose. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    … what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 1890)

    Ridiculous. What is necessary for eternal salvation is clear as a bell in Scripture. We don’t need no stinkin’ Popes. The Ten Commandments aren’t rocket science. Christ even condensed them down to two commandments to help our understanding. And Paul makes it clear we’re to trust in Christ alone, who took the punishment for our disobedience upon himself, and credited us with his perfect obedience. There’s nothing more to be done – by us. Further, we live as we should, and we do this spontaneously, because we’ve been given a new heart. The Holy Spirit dwells in us. Christ lives in us. Neither Satan who attacks us, nor the Old Adam we’re saddled with, will win in the end. Christ promises it.

    Now, what was it again that Mary, the truly blessed mother of Christ, has to do with all this? Beyond bearing our Savior – and hers? I forget. On purpose. :-D

  • fws

    Dave @ 209.

    Well now. Let’s review those citations and see together ok? That way we are not arguing back and forth and creating more heat than light.

    Again I give you BIG points for producing those cites. Dave. you have demonstrated to me here again and again that you are an honest and honorable man who seeks the Truth. If that were not true you would not have provided quotes that seem to go against your own position. Only an honest and honorable man would do this.

    So let’s review from your post @101
    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/05/mariology/#comment-128919

    POINT 1 @101

    The first citation is from ICLNET.org. It is long but excellent! I believe the cite you want us to home in on is found at argument X.

    Here is the link to the full text you kindly provided to us:
    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    And here is the cite that pertains to the “Mary’s Flesh:”

    X. Argument: Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

    Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.

    Therefore Isaiah says rightly, “There was no guile found in his mouth”; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.

    Now then. Taken completely out of context, the phrase that I assume you take as proof that Luther believed here that Mary herself was purified is what I have bolded.

    I agree Dave that the phrase says exactly that! And it says exactly that ONLY if you rip it out of it’s context.

    IN context, I would argue that it says rather that it was the seed of Mary, or the mass of flesh that was in her that became conceived, was alone what Luther is saying was purified. And yes Dave, the flesh of Christ was indeed of the flesh of the Blessed and Holy Virgin Mother, but this is in the same sense that your own flesh comes from the flesh of your own mother. Yet in an important way, YOUR flesh is NOT your mother’s flesh. That is precisely why abortion is murder. You are a separate being from that of your mother and your flesh, even though it is “her flesh” , is a separate flesh.

    Now I don’t mean to start an argument on this philosophical point. Rather I merely intend to indicate that this was indeed how Luther meant the phrase that ‘Mary’s flesh was purified.”

    And I think you can agree that this is at the very least one very plausable understanding of this phrase in context. Now then. From that immediate context, I would invite you to expand the context to the intent of the entire discourse here of Dr Luther.

    What what the point and focus of the entire argument Luther is having here? What is Luther trying to prove overall? Then the question becomes: how does his phrase about the Blessed Virgin fit into his principle argument Dave?

    So let me ask you this: do you even understand Luther’s points about Original Sin and Concupiscence and Sin? How do you see that Luther’s definitions of these things differ from that of Roman Catholics?

    Then … how would the differences on these 3 things inform Lutherans as to whether or not Mary was a sinner in some form, or sinless?

    What would be most wonderful for all us Lutherans here, would be for you to copy this entire discourse, and where you disagree as a Catholic with what Luther says , to paste in your disagreeing comments.

    I suggest that you need to have a discussion with us Lutherans on Original Sin and Concupiscence before we can even begin to talk about Scriptural Authority or Mary or even Justification by Faith.

    That is my humble request to you here dear brother. We Lutherans would be very very interested in just such a discussion. It would engage us. You would have our full and rapt attention!

    Luther is employing various points, including the flesh of the Blessed Virgin in order to make this point:

    May you preserve this article in its simplicity, that in Christ there is a divine and a human nature, and these two natures in one person, so that they are joined together like no other thing, and yet so that the humanity is not divinity, nor the divinity humanity, because that distinction in no way hinders but rather
    confirms the union! That article of faith shall remain, that Christ is true God and true man, and thus you shall be safe from all heretics…
    Schwenkfeld is to be refuted thus: Humanity is a creature.
    Therefore Christ is a man and a creature. And then he says that the redeemer of the human race cannot be a creature, sit at the right hand of the Father, etc., be the seed of Abraham; but the consequence is to be denied.

    Now a major point in this precise context is this: how the flesh and blood of Christ, which was Mary’s flesh and blood, could be without Original Sin and Concupisicence.

    POINT 2 @101

    Here you provided us with various links to Google Books. I need to ignore every one of those links unfortunately. I am sorry for that. But I am certain that you can understand my honorable reasons for their recusal. There are two reasons:

    1) They are snippets that provide NO context. So I can’t verify, for my own self, what they mean, in their context. And, being in Brasil, I can’t purchase or otherwise obtain the full quote. If you could provide the full context that would help. But where it is really just a matter of producing “a scholarly opinion”, it would not really sway me. I want to see the Luther quote and I will make up my own mind from that. That is how we Lutherans are. I am certain you understand that way of doing things. You are a scholar after all. So this brings me to my second reason for recusal:

    2) They are for the most part not Luther cites, but rather the opinion of others about what Luther said.

    Why should this interest me? I can read. I can decide for my own self what Luther said if I am presented with a text that is in a full context.

    POINT 3 @101

    Now this point was really, along with POINT 1, the most helpful. Why? It allowed me to let Luther speak for himself because it gave me his own words in full context. So what were those words?

    Here you pointed us to the site of James Swan. And there Swan quoted the full text that the snippet you quoted was a part of. Again I give you high points for honesty and integrity for providing this quote. I will omit parts of this text with elipsis, because it is very very long. But what will remain will show what Luther meant.

    Here is Swan’s preamble…

    This selection is from Luther’s lectures on Genesis. The editors of LW hold the majority of material pertaining to Luther’s exposition of Genesis 38-44 dates from 1544, it is possible though some of the material may have been presented in November 1543.

    Luther is commenting on Genesis 38 and the account of Judah and Tamar. He expounds on the reasons the Bible includes such scandalous accounts. One of the reasons he states as follows:

    And here is the actual Luther Text:

    …it was necessary [that]… Judah,…, a father of Christ, committed this unspeakable act of incest in order that Christ might be born from a flesh [of the Virgin Mary] outstandingly sinful and contaminated by a most disgraceful sin. For he begets twins by an incestuous harlot, his own daughter-in-law, and from this source the line of the Savior [that is the flesh of the Virgin Mary] is later derived.

    Here Christ must become a sinner in His flesh [that flesh that is the flesh of Mary], as disgraceful as He ever can become. The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh [of the Blessed and most Holy Virgin] that was contaminated and horribly polluted.

    The scholastic doctors [Roman Catholics...] argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born.

    I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood [that was the flesh of the Blessed and Most Holy Virgin Mary] which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it [that is, the flesh that came FROM Mary and became Christ] could be healed.

    Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils.

    Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35).

    To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.”

    Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin.

    Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit ….

    Now Dave, please note what is said next:

    and united with the divine nature in one Person.
    Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us.

    And then this about that ‘overshadowing’. Note that here it is the Flesh of Adam and not adam being overshadowed… same as with Mary I would suggest…

    And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. [LW 7:12]

    Now note that Luther says that we too are purged and freed from sin by this purged flesh.

    The name of the wife was Tamar… it is necessary to mention her, and this chapter is written for her sake alone; for she is a mother of the Savior, God’s Son, for whose sake all Holy Scripture has been given, in order that He might become known and be celebrated. From this Tamar, then, the Messiah was descended, even though through an incestuous defilement. Him we must seek and acknowledge in this book…Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh. Concerning all the rest the statement “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh” (cf. John 1:13) remains immovable.[LW 7:17]

    But Judah begs…. to have intercourse with her… which is the most shameful incest. And there she was made pregnant by the most shameful act of incest, and the flesh from which Christ was to be born was poured from the loins of Judah and was propagated, carried about, and contaminated with sin right up to the conception of Christ.

    That is how our Lord God treats our Savior. God allows Him to be conceived in most disgraceful incest, in order that He may assume the truest flesh, just as our flesh is poured forth, conceived, and nourished in sins.

    But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it [namely , that flesh of Adam, and Judah and Tamar, and Mary] was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” Nevertheless, it was truly flesh polluted from Judah and Tamar.

    Therefore all these things have been described for Christ’s sake, in order that it might be certain that He really had to be born from sinful flesh, but without sin. Accordingly, David says this of himself in Ps. 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.”

    This is said correctly also of the flesh of Christ as it was in the womb of Tamar, before it was assumed and purged. But this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, in order that He might be able to bear the punishment for sin in His own body.[LW 7:31]

    Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption.

    According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have;

    Now here Dave, in the full context of what was written so far, is what tells me that Luther was NOT saying that it was the Blessed Virgin herself that was purified of sin:

    but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature.

    In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. [LW 7:36]

    Now in addition, there is another blogger who posted the complete contexts for other quotations of Luther from 1540.
    The complete contexts rather clearly confirm that Luther is talking not about Mary’s Immaculate Conception but is rather talking about the Immaculate Conception of Christ .

    http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/immaculate-conception-in-later-luther.html

    I hope dear Brother Dave that this answers your question to me.

    The more interesting discussion for us Lutherans here is not the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary. It is not even the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which one can be a Lutheran and accept as scriptural.

    What would interest us Lutherans here, is for a Roman apologist to discuss the Roman views on Original Sin and Concupiscence.

    Why? We Lutherans assert that Rome here baptizes the pagan philosophy of Aristotle and so departs from the catholic dogma. Your teachings on Natural Law we assert are really just a baptising of pagan Telos,.

    And further, we Lutherans would suggest that this is the topic from which every other difference must be discussed in order to achieve any agreement.

  • fws

    Dave @ 209.

    Well now. Let’s review those citations and see together ok? That way we are not arguing back and forth and creating more heat than light.

    Again I give you BIG points for producing those cites. Dave. you have demonstrated to me here again and again that you are an honest and honorable man who seeks the Truth. If that were not true you would not have provided quotes that seem to go against your own position. Only an honest and honorable man would do this.

    So let’s review from your post @101
    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/05/mariology/#comment-128919

    POINT 1 @101

    The first citation is from ICLNET.org. It is long but excellent! I believe the cite you want us to home in on is found at argument X.

    Here is the link to the full text you kindly provided to us:
    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt

    And here is the cite that pertains to the “Mary’s Flesh:”

    X. Argument: Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

    Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.

    Therefore Isaiah says rightly, “There was no guile found in his mouth”; otherwise, every seed except for Mary’s was corrupted.

    Now then. Taken completely out of context, the phrase that I assume you take as proof that Luther believed here that Mary herself was purified is what I have bolded.

    I agree Dave that the phrase says exactly that! And it says exactly that ONLY if you rip it out of it’s context.

    IN context, I would argue that it says rather that it was the seed of Mary, or the mass of flesh that was in her that became conceived, was alone what Luther is saying was purified. And yes Dave, the flesh of Christ was indeed of the flesh of the Blessed and Holy Virgin Mother, but this is in the same sense that your own flesh comes from the flesh of your own mother. Yet in an important way, YOUR flesh is NOT your mother’s flesh. That is precisely why abortion is murder. You are a separate being from that of your mother and your flesh, even though it is “her flesh” , is a separate flesh.

    Now I don’t mean to start an argument on this philosophical point. Rather I merely intend to indicate that this was indeed how Luther meant the phrase that ‘Mary’s flesh was purified.”

    And I think you can agree that this is at the very least one very plausable understanding of this phrase in context. Now then. From that immediate context, I would invite you to expand the context to the intent of the entire discourse here of Dr Luther.

    What what the point and focus of the entire argument Luther is having here? What is Luther trying to prove overall? Then the question becomes: how does his phrase about the Blessed Virgin fit into his principle argument Dave?

    So let me ask you this: do you even understand Luther’s points about Original Sin and Concupiscence and Sin? How do you see that Luther’s definitions of these things differ from that of Roman Catholics?

    Then … how would the differences on these 3 things inform Lutherans as to whether or not Mary was a sinner in some form, or sinless?

    What would be most wonderful for all us Lutherans here, would be for you to copy this entire discourse, and where you disagree as a Catholic with what Luther says , to paste in your disagreeing comments.

    I suggest that you need to have a discussion with us Lutherans on Original Sin and Concupiscence before we can even begin to talk about Scriptural Authority or Mary or even Justification by Faith.

    That is my humble request to you here dear brother. We Lutherans would be very very interested in just such a discussion. It would engage us. You would have our full and rapt attention!

    Luther is employing various points, including the flesh of the Blessed Virgin in order to make this point:

    May you preserve this article in its simplicity, that in Christ there is a divine and a human nature, and these two natures in one person, so that they are joined together like no other thing, and yet so that the humanity is not divinity, nor the divinity humanity, because that distinction in no way hinders but rather
    confirms the union! That article of faith shall remain, that Christ is true God and true man, and thus you shall be safe from all heretics…
    Schwenkfeld is to be refuted thus: Humanity is a creature.
    Therefore Christ is a man and a creature. And then he says that the redeemer of the human race cannot be a creature, sit at the right hand of the Father, etc., be the seed of Abraham; but the consequence is to be denied.

    Now a major point in this precise context is this: how the flesh and blood of Christ, which was Mary’s flesh and blood, could be without Original Sin and Concupisicence.

    POINT 2 @101

    Here you provided us with various links to Google Books. I need to ignore every one of those links unfortunately. I am sorry for that. But I am certain that you can understand my honorable reasons for their recusal. There are two reasons:

    1) They are snippets that provide NO context. So I can’t verify, for my own self, what they mean, in their context. And, being in Brasil, I can’t purchase or otherwise obtain the full quote. If you could provide the full context that would help. But where it is really just a matter of producing “a scholarly opinion”, it would not really sway me. I want to see the Luther quote and I will make up my own mind from that. That is how we Lutherans are. I am certain you understand that way of doing things. You are a scholar after all. So this brings me to my second reason for recusal:

    2) They are for the most part not Luther cites, but rather the opinion of others about what Luther said.

    Why should this interest me? I can read. I can decide for my own self what Luther said if I am presented with a text that is in a full context.

    POINT 3 @101

    Now this point was really, along with POINT 1, the most helpful. Why? It allowed me to let Luther speak for himself because it gave me his own words in full context. So what were those words?

    Here you pointed us to the site of James Swan. And there Swan quoted the full text that the snippet you quoted was a part of. Again I give you high points for honesty and integrity for providing this quote. I will omit parts of this text with elipsis, because it is very very long. But what will remain will show what Luther meant.

    Here is Swan’s preamble…

    This selection is from Luther’s lectures on Genesis. The editors of LW hold the majority of material pertaining to Luther’s exposition of Genesis 38-44 dates from 1544, it is possible though some of the material may have been presented in November 1543.

    Luther is commenting on Genesis 38 and the account of Judah and Tamar. He expounds on the reasons the Bible includes such scandalous accounts. One of the reasons he states as follows:

    And here is the actual Luther Text:

    …it was necessary [that]… Judah,…, a father of Christ, committed this unspeakable act of incest in order that Christ might be born from a flesh [of the Virgin Mary] outstandingly sinful and contaminated by a most disgraceful sin. For he begets twins by an incestuous harlot, his own daughter-in-law, and from this source the line of the Savior [that is the flesh of the Virgin Mary] is later derived.

    Here Christ must become a sinner in His flesh [that flesh that is the flesh of Mary], as disgraceful as He ever can become. The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh [of the Blessed and most Holy Virgin] that was contaminated and horribly polluted.

    The scholastic doctors [Roman Catholics...] argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born.

    I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood [that was the flesh of the Blessed and Most Holy Virgin Mary] which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it [that is, the flesh that came FROM Mary and became Christ] could be healed.

    Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils.

    Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35).

    To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.”

    Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin.

    Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit ….

    Now Dave, please note what is said next:

    and united with the divine nature in one Person.
    Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us.

    And then this about that ‘overshadowing’. Note that here it is the Flesh of Adam and not adam being overshadowed… same as with Mary I would suggest…

    And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. [LW 7:12]

    Now note that Luther says that we too are purged and freed from sin by this purged flesh.

    The name of the wife was Tamar… it is necessary to mention her, and this chapter is written for her sake alone; for she is a mother of the Savior, God’s Son, for whose sake all Holy Scripture has been given, in order that He might become known and be celebrated. From this Tamar, then, the Messiah was descended, even though through an incestuous defilement. Him we must seek and acknowledge in this book…Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh. Concerning all the rest the statement “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh” (cf. John 1:13) remains immovable.[LW 7:17]

    But Judah begs…. to have intercourse with her… which is the most shameful incest. And there she was made pregnant by the most shameful act of incest, and the flesh from which Christ was to be born was poured from the loins of Judah and was propagated, carried about, and contaminated with sin right up to the conception of Christ.

    That is how our Lord God treats our Savior. God allows Him to be conceived in most disgraceful incest, in order that He may assume the truest flesh, just as our flesh is poured forth, conceived, and nourished in sins.

    But later, when the time for assuming the flesh in the womb of the Virgin came, it [namely , that flesh of Adam, and Judah and Tamar, and Mary] was purified and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and will overshadow you.” Nevertheless, it was truly flesh polluted from Judah and Tamar.

    Therefore all these things have been described for Christ’s sake, in order that it might be certain that He really had to be born from sinful flesh, but without sin. Accordingly, David says this of himself in Ps. 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity.”

    This is said correctly also of the flesh of Christ as it was in the womb of Tamar, before it was assumed and purged. But this flesh He assumed later, after it had been purged, in order that He might be able to bear the punishment for sin in His own body.[LW 7:31]

    Here, therefore, the Blessed Seed is described. It is descended from the accursed, lost, and condemned seed and flesh. Nevertheless, It Itself is without sin and corruption.

    According to nature, Christ has the same flesh that we have;

    Now here Dave, in the full context of what was written so far, is what tells me that Luther was NOT saying that it was the Blessed Virgin herself that was purified of sin:

    but in His conception the Holy Spirit came and overshadowed and purified the mass which He received from the Virgin that He might be united with the divine nature.

    In Christ, therefore, there is the holiest, purest, and cleanest flesh; but in us and in all human beings it is altogether corrupt, except insofar as it is restored in Christ. [LW 7:36]

    Now in addition, there is another blogger who posted the complete contexts for other quotations of Luther from 1540.
    The complete contexts rather clearly confirm that Luther is talking not about Mary’s Immaculate Conception but is rather talking about the Immaculate Conception of Christ .

    http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/immaculate-conception-in-later-luther.html

    I hope dear Brother Dave that this answers your question to me.

    The more interesting discussion for us Lutherans here is not the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary. It is not even the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which one can be a Lutheran and accept as scriptural.

    What would interest us Lutherans here, is for a Roman apologist to discuss the Roman views on Original Sin and Concupiscence.

    Why? We Lutherans assert that Rome here baptizes the pagan philosophy of Aristotle and so departs from the catholic dogma. Your teachings on Natural Law we assert are really just a baptising of pagan Telos,.

    And further, we Lutherans would suggest that this is the topic from which every other difference must be discussed in order to achieve any agreement.

  • fws

    Dave @101

    So I conclude from all of these texts the following:

    1) Luther IS talking about the purification or purging of the flesh of Mary.

    2) Luther is NOT talking about the purification of Mary in her person by this, but rather about the purification or purging of sin of that “mass of flesh” that was of Mary that became the conception of Christ.

    3) So the ENTIRE focus here is on the Immaculate Conception and not on the Purification of Mary. It is about the Immaculate Conception of Christ our dear Lord.

    How would you disagree with this dear brother? It seems very clear from the very texts you have presented to us.

  • fws

    Dave @101

    So I conclude from all of these texts the following:

    1) Luther IS talking about the purification or purging of the flesh of Mary.

    2) Luther is NOT talking about the purification of Mary in her person by this, but rather about the purification or purging of sin of that “mass of flesh” that was of Mary that became the conception of Christ.

    3) So the ENTIRE focus here is on the Immaculate Conception and not on the Purification of Mary. It is about the Immaculate Conception of Christ our dear Lord.

    How would you disagree with this dear brother? It seems very clear from the very texts you have presented to us.

  • fws

    Dave,

    Now can we discuss those differences we Lutherans seem to have with Rome and the Scholastics such as Saint Thomas on Original Sin and Concupiscence?

    By the way , I am a HUGE fan of the blessed St Thomas. I always point to him as the preeminent scholar on understanding the works of Aristotle. I think he is sometimes misunderstood especially by Roman Catholics.

  • fws

    Dave,

    Now can we discuss those differences we Lutherans seem to have with Rome and the Scholastics such as Saint Thomas on Original Sin and Concupiscence?

    By the way , I am a HUGE fan of the blessed St Thomas. I always point to him as the preeminent scholar on understanding the works of Aristotle. I think he is sometimes misunderstood especially by Roman Catholics.

  • fws

    Maybe our gracious host Dr Veith could open another thread about Original Sin, Natural Law , Concupiscence and the difference on these between Lutherans and Rome.

  • fws

    Maybe our gracious host Dr Veith could open another thread about Original Sin, Natural Law , Concupiscence and the difference on these between Lutherans and Rome.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 113

    YOU WROTE: “What is necessary for eternal salvation is clear as a bell in Scripture.”

    I agree – The reasson I posted @208 was to illustrate the point, below .. the Pope chooses what will and will not be considered, and made doctrine of the Roman Church, and that very much includes Mary, the ‘topic of this thread.

    … … … Excerpt from post 208

    “Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them;

  • Grace

    Tom @ 113

    YOU WROTE: “What is necessary for eternal salvation is clear as a bell in Scripture.”

    I agree – The reasson I posted @208 was to illustrate the point, below .. the Pope chooses what will and will not be considered, and made doctrine of the Roman Church, and that very much includes Mary, the ‘topic of this thread.

    … … … Excerpt from post 208

    “Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them;

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It occurred to me at some point today that Catholics — or, at least, Dave Armstrong — are in a somewhat tenuous position, logically.

    If you listen to him (particularly over on his blog — I followed one of his many links over there once), he will tell you that sola scriptura isn’t valid, because it isn’t explicitly in the Bible. Thus, we may look to tradition as also being authoritative, with the usual caveat that it cannot contradict Scripture, and so on (even if it is obviously the Protestant contention that Catholic tradition does contradict Scripture — at least, from time to time).

    And thus we come to these positions on Mary, which, as James Swan points out (@204), need only be in “harmony” with Scripture to be true.

    But here’s the thing. By that same logic, we could establish that sola scriptura is, in fact, biblical!

    After all, sola scriptura could certainly be shown to be in harmony with what the Bible says. What was it James quoted Dave as saying?

    It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible.

    Right. So the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention sola scriptura as a principle, but it’s clearly in there (you know, 2 Tim. 3:16, Jer. 1:9, Deut. 4:2, 2 Pet. 1:21, etc.)

    Thus, we can assert sola scriptura as being as true as is any extra- or not-quite-biblical doctrine about Mary.

    Ah, but if we can do that (assert sola scriptura), then we can also rule out, by that very same argument, any extra- or not-quite-biblical doctrine about Mary!

    More fun with logic than some sort of ironclad proof, but it does appear to me that the logical position that Dave asserts is on shaky ground.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It occurred to me at some point today that Catholics — or, at least, Dave Armstrong — are in a somewhat tenuous position, logically.

    If you listen to him (particularly over on his blog — I followed one of his many links over there once), he will tell you that sola scriptura isn’t valid, because it isn’t explicitly in the Bible. Thus, we may look to tradition as also being authoritative, with the usual caveat that it cannot contradict Scripture, and so on (even if it is obviously the Protestant contention that Catholic tradition does contradict Scripture — at least, from time to time).

    And thus we come to these positions on Mary, which, as James Swan points out (@204), need only be in “harmony” with Scripture to be true.

    But here’s the thing. By that same logic, we could establish that sola scriptura is, in fact, biblical!

    After all, sola scriptura could certainly be shown to be in harmony with what the Bible says. What was it James quoted Dave as saying?

    It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible.

    Right. So the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention sola scriptura as a principle, but it’s clearly in there (you know, 2 Tim. 3:16, Jer. 1:9, Deut. 4:2, 2 Pet. 1:21, etc.)

    Thus, we can assert sola scriptura as being as true as is any extra- or not-quite-biblical doctrine about Mary.

    Ah, but if we can do that (assert sola scriptura), then we can also rule out, by that very same argument, any extra- or not-quite-biblical doctrine about Mary!

    More fun with logic than some sort of ironclad proof, but it does appear to me that the logical position that Dave asserts is on shaky ground.

  • Shelly Faber

    “If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.”

    Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven. (“…she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”–see Vatican source below)

    Sources:

    http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

  • Shelly Faber

    “If she did not have original sin, she could not die, so must have been taken up bodily into Heaven.”

    Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven. (“…she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”–see Vatican source below)

    Sources:

    http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

  • fws

    shelley @ 22o

    good catch! very helpful

  • fws

    shelley @ 22o

    good catch! very helpful

  • fws

    shelley @220

    So if Mary did in fact die, isn’t that proof that she was a sinner? Does the church of Rome agree that Mary then was a sinner?

  • fws

    shelley @220

    So if Mary did in fact die, isn’t that proof that she was a sinner? Does the church of Rome agree that Mary then was a sinner?

  • fws

    dave, you still there brother?

  • fws

    dave, you still there brother?

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven.”(220)

    As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either. This is some of what Roman Catholics are required to believe about Mary’s assumption:

    “…We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

    Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” [decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII]

    It seems to me that early church history didn’t know what to do about the death of Mary. For instance, the words of Epiphanius contradict the idea of a long held belief in the Assumption. Epiphanius notes another “tradition” that no one knows what happened to Mary. His is the earliest non-heretical voice that comments on the subject of Mary’s bodily assumption, around 377:

    “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent (on the end of Mary) … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

    Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 85 states:

    “Actually the good Epiphanius made a superfluous display of hypotheses. If in his time no tradition existed about the end of Mary’s life, that is simply due to the fact that her death happened in a time when the practice of venerating the memory of martyrs or of persons eminent in the Church had not yet arisen, and it passed unobserved.” (page 85)

    On first glance, I thought Miegge’s point was silly. People are so prone to worship the creation rather than the creator- could there possibly have been a time when Christians did not violate the first two commandments? Miegge also notes that “The growth of the cult of Mary was not rapid, not as rapid, at least, as appeared possible, in view of the very great possibilities of development in the title theotokos.” (p.83)

    But yet, as I read through the earliest speculations about Mary’s end- including the apocryphal literature, I grant he may have point.
    On the other hand, if pressed- I would be forced to conclude there is no “one” tradition of the assumption- there doesn’t appear to be any one unified theme or tradition. The only certain thing that tradition appears to point to in this matter, is that no one knows what happened to Mary.

    Second, Mary’s role in the New Testament diminishes- what I mean is this- The gospel accounts contain material about Mary- Acts and the rest of the New Testament do not record her “doings” in the early church. In other words, in the Bible she fades from the scene, as well as in history. God is in providential control of both, and I find their unity in this matter to be something to consider.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven.”(220)

    As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either. This is some of what Roman Catholics are required to believe about Mary’s assumption:

    “…We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

    Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” [decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII]

    It seems to me that early church history didn’t know what to do about the death of Mary. For instance, the words of Epiphanius contradict the idea of a long held belief in the Assumption. Epiphanius notes another “tradition” that no one knows what happened to Mary. His is the earliest non-heretical voice that comments on the subject of Mary’s bodily assumption, around 377:

    “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent (on the end of Mary) … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

    Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 85 states:

    “Actually the good Epiphanius made a superfluous display of hypotheses. If in his time no tradition existed about the end of Mary’s life, that is simply due to the fact that her death happened in a time when the practice of venerating the memory of martyrs or of persons eminent in the Church had not yet arisen, and it passed unobserved.” (page 85)

    On first glance, I thought Miegge’s point was silly. People are so prone to worship the creation rather than the creator- could there possibly have been a time when Christians did not violate the first two commandments? Miegge also notes that “The growth of the cult of Mary was not rapid, not as rapid, at least, as appeared possible, in view of the very great possibilities of development in the title theotokos.” (p.83)

    But yet, as I read through the earliest speculations about Mary’s end- including the apocryphal literature, I grant he may have point.
    On the other hand, if pressed- I would be forced to conclude there is no “one” tradition of the assumption- there doesn’t appear to be any one unified theme or tradition. The only certain thing that tradition appears to point to in this matter, is that no one knows what happened to Mary.

    Second, Mary’s role in the New Testament diminishes- what I mean is this- The gospel accounts contain material about Mary- Acts and the rest of the New Testament do not record her “doings” in the early church. In other words, in the Bible she fades from the scene, as well as in history. God is in providential control of both, and I find their unity in this matter to be something to consider.

  • Tom Hering

    “dave, you still there brother?” – @ 223.

    Frank, Mr. Armstrong is busy debating us over on his own blog. And guess what? I’m not who I always thought I was!

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0LY_IA6TPrIYzVmZjhmM2EtMTIwZC00ZGY5LWJiNGUtZGU3NzJiYThhZTQy&hl=en_US

    The WELS ain’t gonna be happy about this. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “dave, you still there brother?” – @ 223.

    Frank, Mr. Armstrong is busy debating us over on his own blog. And guess what? I’m not who I always thought I was!

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0LY_IA6TPrIYzVmZjhmM2EtMTIwZC00ZGY5LWJiNGUtZGU3NzJiYThhZTQy&hl=en_US

    The WELS ain’t gonna be happy about this. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and look at the disclaimer above my name. When the discussion has been “arranged … in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue” it isn’t the same discussion with the same progression of arguments anymore. Which can only help Mr. Armstrong’s case, I’m sure. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and look at the disclaimer above my name. When the discussion has been “arranged … in order to make it a coherent, flowing, back-and-forth dialogue” it isn’t the same discussion with the same progression of arguments anymore. Which can only help Mr. Armstrong’s case, I’m sure. :-D

  • Shelly Faber

    “As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either.”

    Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven. A Catholic blogger (source below) nicely puts it that “… it is at least a sententia certa (a certain teaching) that our Lady died before being raised and assumed into heaven. This is the clear and explicit tradition of the West and is maintained in a slightly less-clear (and more metaphorical) manner also in the East.”

    “Sententia certa” means that the particular teaching being declared is a high-level-of-certitude teaching upon which the Catholic is obliged to accept and believe.

    This certitude that Mary in fact died and was believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have died before her bodily assumption is nicely addressed by Pope Pius XII when he states in section 17 of Munificantissimu Deus (MD–see link in my original posting above) in quoting an historical source that
    “…Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

    The requirements of Catholics to be obliged to believe the content stated within MD, including that Mary died (“…the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death…” before being taken up into Heaven is stated in various places by Pius XII within MD.

    Source (Catholic blogger):

    http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html

  • Shelly Faber

    “As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either.”

    Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven. A Catholic blogger (source below) nicely puts it that “… it is at least a sententia certa (a certain teaching) that our Lady died before being raised and assumed into heaven. This is the clear and explicit tradition of the West and is maintained in a slightly less-clear (and more metaphorical) manner also in the East.”

    “Sententia certa” means that the particular teaching being declared is a high-level-of-certitude teaching upon which the Catholic is obliged to accept and believe.

    This certitude that Mary in fact died and was believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have died before her bodily assumption is nicely addressed by Pope Pius XII when he states in section 17 of Munificantissimu Deus (MD–see link in my original posting above) in quoting an historical source that
    “…Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

    The requirements of Catholics to be obliged to believe the content stated within MD, including that Mary died (“…the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death…” before being taken up into Heaven is stated in various places by Pius XII within MD.

    Source (Catholic blogger):

    http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html

  • Shelly Faber

    “So if Mary did in fact die, isn’t that proof that she was a sinner? Does the church of Rome agree that Mary then was a sinner?” (FWS @ 222)

    The Roman Catholic Church neither teaches nor agrees with the statement that the [Virgin] “Mary then was a sinner”.

    This excerpt regarding the “sinlessness of Mary” (original and actual) states it concisely, and if you visit this website source, much more thoroughly than I can do justice in the limited space and time available:

    “In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary ‘in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.’”

    So, Mary being the highest of God’s creation, and given the exception to escape the taint of original and actual sin, that she died, is not proof that “Mary was then a sinner” (as you put it).

    Source:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

  • Shelly Faber

    “So if Mary did in fact die, isn’t that proof that she was a sinner? Does the church of Rome agree that Mary then was a sinner?” (FWS @ 222)

    The Roman Catholic Church neither teaches nor agrees with the statement that the [Virgin] “Mary then was a sinner”.

    This excerpt regarding the “sinlessness of Mary” (original and actual) states it concisely, and if you visit this website source, much more thoroughly than I can do justice in the limited space and time available:

    “In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary ‘in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.’”

    So, Mary being the highest of God’s creation, and given the exception to escape the taint of original and actual sin, that she died, is not proof that “Mary was then a sinner” (as you put it).

    Source:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven.” (228)

    Hi Shelly,

    Well, we’ll have to let a professional Roman Catholic apologist solve this riddle. I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died. Here are a few sources:

    James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 52.

    Patrick Madrid, Where is That in the Bible? (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001), pp. 71-72.

    Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 272-273.

    Stanley Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants (New York: Association Press, 1953), p. 100.

    The New Catholic Answer Bible (insert F2) “If indeed she was free from sin, then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin.”

    I could multiply these sources as well. These were only a few. Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.

    Regards,

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven.” (228)

    Hi Shelly,

    Well, we’ll have to let a professional Roman Catholic apologist solve this riddle. I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died. Here are a few sources:

    James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 52.

    Patrick Madrid, Where is That in the Bible? (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001), pp. 71-72.

    Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 272-273.

    Stanley Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants (New York: Association Press, 1953), p. 100.

    The New Catholic Answer Bible (insert F2) “If indeed she was free from sin, then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin.”

    I could multiply these sources as well. These were only a few. Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.

    Regards,

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Luther is NOT talking about the purification of Mary in her person by this, but rather about the purification or purging of sin of that “mass of flesh” that was of Mary that became the conception of Christ.” (215)

    fws, I think you raise an interesting point.

    The problem, as I see it, is Luther’s comments can be rather ambiguous on this topic. Some of his statements could fall one way or the other. It may be due to the fact that more often than not, Luther’s comments on this subject are from sermons, and often it was someone else who wrote down the sermon for us. However the person (or persons) taking down the sermon heard it, that’s the record we now have.

    Even with some Luther’s statements on this topic from his actual pen, they are simply passing comments that one shouldn’t read a lot into. For instance “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .” (1543) found in “Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther’s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras (McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217)” is one such example. Falk provides the complete German text of this treatise, and his own English translation, and yes, I do have it. It is just what is, a passing comment, not any sort of detailed exegesis.

    I’ve gone through quite a number of these statements from Luther on his alleged belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. This to me is the most interesting one:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    The Luther quote I worked through in this blog entry has been bouncing around cyber-space for years (and also scholarly sources). It is probably the quote that got me interested in Luther’s Mariology.

    While it’s true Luther wrote some nice things about Mary, it bothers me when Roman Catholic apologists try to seize any such positive statements and use them as an ecumenical apologetic. Sometimes, as in the case with the link above, it completely backfires.

    I appreciate you looking at this issue. It’s always refreshing to see a fresh set of eyes looking at the same stuff I’ve poured over for quite a few years now.

    Regards, James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Luther is NOT talking about the purification of Mary in her person by this, but rather about the purification or purging of sin of that “mass of flesh” that was of Mary that became the conception of Christ.” (215)

    fws, I think you raise an interesting point.

    The problem, as I see it, is Luther’s comments can be rather ambiguous on this topic. Some of his statements could fall one way or the other. It may be due to the fact that more often than not, Luther’s comments on this subject are from sermons, and often it was someone else who wrote down the sermon for us. However the person (or persons) taking down the sermon heard it, that’s the record we now have.

    Even with some Luther’s statements on this topic from his actual pen, they are simply passing comments that one shouldn’t read a lot into. For instance “. . . a holy virgin . . . freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost . . .” (1543) found in “Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther’s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamphoras (McFarland & Co.: 1992, p. 217)” is one such example. Falk provides the complete German text of this treatise, and his own English translation, and yes, I do have it. It is just what is, a passing comment, not any sort of detailed exegesis.

    I’ve gone through quite a number of these statements from Luther on his alleged belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. This to me is the most interesting one:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

    The Luther quote I worked through in this blog entry has been bouncing around cyber-space for years (and also scholarly sources). It is probably the quote that got me interested in Luther’s Mariology.

    While it’s true Luther wrote some nice things about Mary, it bothers me when Roman Catholic apologists try to seize any such positive statements and use them as an ecumenical apologetic. Sometimes, as in the case with the link above, it completely backfires.

    I appreciate you looking at this issue. It’s always refreshing to see a fresh set of eyes looking at the same stuff I’ve poured over for quite a few years now.

    Regards, James

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@231), sorry, but every single one of those posts on Dave’s blog links back to Veith’s blog. Jumped the gun there, pardner.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@231), sorry, but every single one of those posts on Dave’s blog links back to Veith’s blog. Jumped the gun there, pardner.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 231, the interesting thing is, I was never informed by Mr. Armstrong that he’d be posting my name and comments on his blog. Don’t know if anyone else (you, Dr. Veith, Dan Kempin) received that courtesy. I remember this comment (#108) by Mr. Armstrong in the “Pope on Luther” thread:

    My name was brought up (in a venue that was public) and associated with atrocious research. If my name hadn’t been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly). As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn’t have the courtesy to let me know about what they were saying. This is precisely why I do such searches, because critics rarely let one know they are being criticized. The unwillingness to make such a communication is usually directly proportionate to the ignorance and cluelessness of the criticism …

    :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 231, the interesting thing is, I was never informed by Mr. Armstrong that he’d be posting my name and comments on his blog. Don’t know if anyone else (you, Dr. Veith, Dan Kempin) received that courtesy. I remember this comment (#108) by Mr. Armstrong in the “Pope on Luther” thread:

    My name was brought up (in a venue that was public) and associated with atrocious research. If my name hadn’t been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly). As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn’t have the courtesy to let me know about what they were saying. This is precisely why I do such searches, because critics rarely let one know they are being criticized. The unwillingness to make such a communication is usually directly proportionate to the ignorance and cluelessness of the criticism …

    :-D

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (233)

    The Internet is the current wild west, so there’s very little (if any) protocol on taking material and posting it elsewhere. As a blogger, I myself do it, and I try to do so as fairly as possible. For me, it serves as a record so I can remember what I said and where.

    It appears some of you were not all that familiar with the typical methodology of Roman Catholic apologetics. I myself remember asking the same sort of questions many years ago when I found my discussions from the CARM boards with a Roman Catholic apologist plastered on a web page, re-edited, without being informed. At first I was very perturbed by it, now I’m quite used to it. I can understand though, when all of a sudden you find your full name, place of employment, or other tidbits of personal information plastered all over another web site, all proving you’ve been “refuted.”

    fws (231)
    I would strongly advise you to have that comment deleted by a moderator of this forum, if at all possible, as soon as possible.

    Regards,
    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (233)

    The Internet is the current wild west, so there’s very little (if any) protocol on taking material and posting it elsewhere. As a blogger, I myself do it, and I try to do so as fairly as possible. For me, it serves as a record so I can remember what I said and where.

    It appears some of you were not all that familiar with the typical methodology of Roman Catholic apologetics. I myself remember asking the same sort of questions many years ago when I found my discussions from the CARM boards with a Roman Catholic apologist plastered on a web page, re-edited, without being informed. At first I was very perturbed by it, now I’m quite used to it. I can understand though, when all of a sudden you find your full name, place of employment, or other tidbits of personal information plastered all over another web site, all proving you’ve been “refuted.”

    fws (231)
    I would strongly advise you to have that comment deleted by a moderator of this forum, if at all possible, as soon as possible.

    Regards,
    James

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 234, I understand the wild west nature of the internet. I just found it interesting that Mr. Armstrong doesn’t follow the protocol he himself said was the right one to follow. I was also very amused that I, a nobody – with no standing in either the Church or the world – just had to be someone like a “staff minister” at a Lutheran school. I guess it’s a compliment when RC apologists go to some trouble to try and figure out who you are. :-D (Still amused.)

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 234, I understand the wild west nature of the internet. I just found it interesting that Mr. Armstrong doesn’t follow the protocol he himself said was the right one to follow. I was also very amused that I, a nobody – with no standing in either the Church or the world – just had to be someone like a “staff minister” at a Lutheran school. I guess it’s a compliment when RC apologists go to some trouble to try and figure out who you are. :-D (Still amused.)

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “…doesn’t follow the protocol he himself said was the right one to follow.” (235)

    Ah, OK.

    Here’s a not-related-to-Mary question: How do I add an avatar picture to my comments in the right corner?

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “…doesn’t follow the protocol he himself said was the right one to follow.” (235)

    Ah, OK.

    Here’s a not-related-to-Mary question: How do I add an avatar picture to my comments in the right corner?

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Tom,

    In comment #71 Dave had said:

    “Please Note: whenever I do any public dialogue, I always post it on my blog, and always post both sides. And I almost always post all my opponents’ words. If not (rarely, or if so, just a little editing), then I provide a link where they can be read in their entirety. If you object to that, just let me know, and I won’t interact with you, and don’t bother dialoguing with me, because I want my readers to see both sides (being the socratic teacher that I am), and it is wearisome to take out one side of a dialogue because a person refuses to let it be somewhere else online. Let it be known now, lest I catch flak (because some people don’t like that and seem to lack the courage of their convictions, from where I sit).”

    fws, re: your comments in 231, I’m a bit surprised you’d say what you did…. : in the graphic that Tom provided in post 225, it shows that David had linked back to this discussion even at that point. You can go there now and see he has done this with all of the posts that he has created as a result of this discussion, as he warned he would do.

    Tom, regarding your comments in 226, I am sure that Dave Armstrong, while totally admitting his RC bias, would say that he has arranged the discussion as best he can – trying to be as “objective” as a human being can be.

    I actually appreciate his approach. I understand if others do not. Its definitely not for everyone. That said, I think that he needs to get back here and answer everyone’s questions. : )

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Tom,

    In comment #71 Dave had said:

    “Please Note: whenever I do any public dialogue, I always post it on my blog, and always post both sides. And I almost always post all my opponents’ words. If not (rarely, or if so, just a little editing), then I provide a link where they can be read in their entirety. If you object to that, just let me know, and I won’t interact with you, and don’t bother dialoguing with me, because I want my readers to see both sides (being the socratic teacher that I am), and it is wearisome to take out one side of a dialogue because a person refuses to let it be somewhere else online. Let it be known now, lest I catch flak (because some people don’t like that and seem to lack the courage of their convictions, from where I sit).”

    fws, re: your comments in 231, I’m a bit surprised you’d say what you did…. : in the graphic that Tom provided in post 225, it shows that David had linked back to this discussion even at that point. You can go there now and see he has done this with all of the posts that he has created as a result of this discussion, as he warned he would do.

    Tom, regarding your comments in 226, I am sure that Dave Armstrong, while totally admitting his RC bias, would say that he has arranged the discussion as best he can – trying to be as “objective” as a human being can be.

    I actually appreciate his approach. I understand if others do not. Its definitely not for everyone. That said, I think that he needs to get back here and answer everyone’s questions. : )

  • Shelly Faber

    “….I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died…Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.” (James Swan @ 230)

    Hello James,

    Thank you for the sources provided on both the Protestant and Catholic Christian side of this matter. I’ll review them as time allows me. You certainly have given something to think about.

    In the meantime I’ll simply say Catholics who debate amongst themselves and not reach a uniform consensus on a particular issue does not represent a fatal flaw of Catholicism any more than to say that because scientists debate about the meaning of certain experimental results and have not reached a uniform consensus on a scientific matter represents a fatal flaw of the scientific method.

    The early Church Fathers, on many theological/doctrinal issues, did not reach 100% consensus on all cases. That’s why we have Popes, after due research on various issues, especially those in dispute, to pronounce on those issues.

    Regards,
    Shelly

  • Shelly Faber

    “….I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died…Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.” (James Swan @ 230)

    Hello James,

    Thank you for the sources provided on both the Protestant and Catholic Christian side of this matter. I’ll review them as time allows me. You certainly have given something to think about.

    In the meantime I’ll simply say Catholics who debate amongst themselves and not reach a uniform consensus on a particular issue does not represent a fatal flaw of Catholicism any more than to say that because scientists debate about the meaning of certain experimental results and have not reached a uniform consensus on a scientific matter represents a fatal flaw of the scientific method.

    The early Church Fathers, on many theological/doctrinal issues, did not reach 100% consensus on all cases. That’s why we have Popes, after due research on various issues, especially those in dispute, to pronounce on those issues.

    Regards,
    Shelly

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 236, here you go:

    http://en.gravatar.com/

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 236, here you go:

    http://en.gravatar.com/

  • Tom Hering

    Nathan @ 236, good enough. Though it’s still not the personal notification Mr. Armstrong thinks he deserves. (If you have time to try and figure out who I am, you have time to drop me a note in the discussion here.)

  • Tom Hering

    Nathan @ 236, good enough. Though it’s still not the personal notification Mr. Armstrong thinks he deserves. (If you have time to try and figure out who I am, you have time to drop me a note in the discussion here.)

  • Tom Hering

    Woopsies. That should be “Nathan @ 237.”

  • Tom Hering

    Woopsies. That should be “Nathan @ 237.”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “You certainly have given something to think about.” (238)

    Hi Shelly,

    Likewise!

    “I’ll simply say Catholics who debate amongst themselves and not reach a uniform consensus on a particular issue does not represent a fatal flaw of Catholicism any more than to say that because scientists debate about the meaning of certain experimental results and have not reached a uniform consensus on a scientific matter represents a fatal flaw of the scientific method.” (238)

    Good point. It’s the same sort of argument I’ve used in defense of sola scriptura: that some people misinterpret or misunderstand the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. This same principle applies to Roman Catholcism. That some Roman Catholics misuse, abuse, or misunderstand their source of authority doesn’t negate that infallible source of authority. What this means as well is that those who use the argument that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy fails as well. If the argument one is using works just as well against your own position, it’s an invalid argument.

    But here’s where I would differ with you. Infallible pronouncements from the Roman Catholic magisterium are supposed to be a benefit of being a Roman Catholic. As I’ve witnessed the argument, Roman Catholics say that if one lacks an infallible interpreter, one is left with private interpretation (as Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid call it, “a blueprint for anarchy”). But what this assumes is that the actual infallible pronouncements don’t need to be interpreted… but they do! This is why I find Roman Catholic claims of doctrinal unity and certainty an example of “it sounds good on paper, but doesn’t actually work out in reality.” Mary’s assumption and her death is (as we’ve briefly discussed it) is an example of exactly what I’m talking about. If I have good authorities saying that Roman Catholics are free to believe Mary did not die, and other good authorities that Roman Catholics must believe Mary did die, I’m back to using private interpretation to try and determine the truth of the matter with the paradigm of Roman Catholicism. This is why I referred to a “fatal flaw”: the infallible interpreter still needs to be interpreted!This is only one example of what I’m talking about.

    Thanks again for such an interesting exchange.

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “You certainly have given something to think about.” (238)

    Hi Shelly,

    Likewise!

    “I’ll simply say Catholics who debate amongst themselves and not reach a uniform consensus on a particular issue does not represent a fatal flaw of Catholicism any more than to say that because scientists debate about the meaning of certain experimental results and have not reached a uniform consensus on a scientific matter represents a fatal flaw of the scientific method.” (238)

    Good point. It’s the same sort of argument I’ve used in defense of sola scriptura: that some people misinterpret or misunderstand the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. This same principle applies to Roman Catholcism. That some Roman Catholics misuse, abuse, or misunderstand their source of authority doesn’t negate that infallible source of authority. What this means as well is that those who use the argument that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy fails as well. If the argument one is using works just as well against your own position, it’s an invalid argument.

    But here’s where I would differ with you. Infallible pronouncements from the Roman Catholic magisterium are supposed to be a benefit of being a Roman Catholic. As I’ve witnessed the argument, Roman Catholics say that if one lacks an infallible interpreter, one is left with private interpretation (as Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid call it, “a blueprint for anarchy”). But what this assumes is that the actual infallible pronouncements don’t need to be interpreted… but they do! This is why I find Roman Catholic claims of doctrinal unity and certainty an example of “it sounds good on paper, but doesn’t actually work out in reality.” Mary’s assumption and her death is (as we’ve briefly discussed it) is an example of exactly what I’m talking about. If I have good authorities saying that Roman Catholics are free to believe Mary did not die, and other good authorities that Roman Catholics must believe Mary did die, I’m back to using private interpretation to try and determine the truth of the matter with the paradigm of Roman Catholicism. This is why I referred to a “fatal flaw”: the infallible interpreter still needs to be interpreted!This is only one example of what I’m talking about.

    Thanks again for such an interesting exchange.

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (239)

    Thank you! I added my siamese cat picture. Your cat picture inspired me to be a “copycat”.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Tom (239)

    Thank you! I added my siamese cat picture. Your cat picture inspired me to be a “copycat”.

  • Dust

    Nathan….agree with everything you say, EXCEPT that Dave should come back here. Have enjoyed his comments, and will miss them and him…wish it could be otherwise :(

    Swan at 234….your advice to fws…given how Dave has done such a great job so far of docmenting everything in this combox so far, what makes you think he hasn’t already captured that comment? Wiser advice: think BEFORE you click :)

  • Dust

    Nathan….agree with everything you say, EXCEPT that Dave should come back here. Have enjoyed his comments, and will miss them and him…wish it could be otherwise :(

    Swan at 234….your advice to fws…given how Dave has done such a great job so far of docmenting everything in this combox so far, what makes you think he hasn’t already captured that comment? Wiser advice: think BEFORE you click :)

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Dust (244)

    The ironic truth is everyone here, including myself, has been refuted. How could it be otherwise? Everything has been documented, and complete unanswerable refutations have been given to every correct or incorekkt word put down. I’ve been refuted and re-refuted for years now. In fact, I’m sure even this very comment will be refuted.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    Dust (244)

    The ironic truth is everyone here, including myself, has been refuted. How could it be otherwise? Everything has been documented, and complete unanswerable refutations have been given to every correct or incorekkt word put down. I’ve been refuted and re-refuted for years now. In fact, I’m sure even this very comment will be refuted.

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Dust,

    Dave hardly has a moral obligation to continue the discussion any longer than he wishes (especially to answer *everyone’s* questions – here “all” does not really mean “all” : ) ) Still, given his comments in 209, he really has not properly closed the discussion with fws… (who I humbly suggest might consider apologizing when he gets back…) so I think he really should come back and will.

    + Nathan

  • http://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Dust,

    Dave hardly has a moral obligation to continue the discussion any longer than he wishes (especially to answer *everyone’s* questions – here “all” does not really mean “all” : ) ) Still, given his comments in 209, he really has not properly closed the discussion with fws… (who I humbly suggest might consider apologizing when he gets back…) so I think he really should come back and will.

    + Nathan

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 243, you’re welcome. Handsome kitty! Apparently, we both know who has earthly authority over us. (And if the Pope had paws, we’d both be Catholic.) :-D

  • Tom Hering

    James @ 243, you’re welcome. Handsome kitty! Apparently, we both know who has earthly authority over us. (And if the Pope had paws, we’d both be Catholic.) :-D

  • Dust

    To Swan above….how could it be otherwise that Lutheran positions and other Protestant positions (what are you anyway? Lutheran?) would be refuted by a Catholic apologist? Did you expect something else? Did you think that after 1000′s of years of developing their theology and defending it throughout history, that all of a sudden here on the blog of veith the system would come crashing down?

    From my perspective (and opinion) was enjoying learning about what the Catholics teach and confess, and never in a 1000 years did I ever think we would change Dave’s mind, or be able to have any kind of debate. Am sure much smarter and better educated representatives of the Lutheran Church and Protestant Churches have had plenty of dialogues with Catholic theologians, not to mention all the books that have been written on both sides. So what makes anyone here, think they are going to say something that Dave or an Catholic apologist has not heard before and doesn’t have a rebuttal? Not me! The really unique opportunity here was to ask questions and then learn something about their faith, not to be converted but to grow perhaps and see why other Christians have other beliefs?

    It was very interesting to hear how they defend their faith, and, in my amateurish way, it did to my surprise it sound very much how Lutherans defend some of their positions that other Protestants find so offensive. Absolution, infant baptism, Real Presence and Lord’s Supper as a means of Grace. If you are not Lutheran, you should try discussing those with the good folks here! You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill?

    Anyway, still hope Dave does not return here…in my opinion, the conversation collapsed and, like humpty dumpty (spelling?) it can not be put back together again :(

  • Dust

    To Swan above….how could it be otherwise that Lutheran positions and other Protestant positions (what are you anyway? Lutheran?) would be refuted by a Catholic apologist? Did you expect something else? Did you think that after 1000′s of years of developing their theology and defending it throughout history, that all of a sudden here on the blog of veith the system would come crashing down?

    From my perspective (and opinion) was enjoying learning about what the Catholics teach and confess, and never in a 1000 years did I ever think we would change Dave’s mind, or be able to have any kind of debate. Am sure much smarter and better educated representatives of the Lutheran Church and Protestant Churches have had plenty of dialogues with Catholic theologians, not to mention all the books that have been written on both sides. So what makes anyone here, think they are going to say something that Dave or an Catholic apologist has not heard before and doesn’t have a rebuttal? Not me! The really unique opportunity here was to ask questions and then learn something about their faith, not to be converted but to grow perhaps and see why other Christians have other beliefs?

    It was very interesting to hear how they defend their faith, and, in my amateurish way, it did to my surprise it sound very much how Lutherans defend some of their positions that other Protestants find so offensive. Absolution, infant baptism, Real Presence and Lord’s Supper as a means of Grace. If you are not Lutheran, you should try discussing those with the good folks here! You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill?

    Anyway, still hope Dave does not return here…in my opinion, the conversation collapsed and, like humpty dumpty (spelling?) it can not be put back together again :(

  • Tom Hering

    “You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill …” – Dust @ 248.

    The difference would be you’d have a no-holds-barred fight between opponents who both put their trust in the merits of Christ alone.

  • Tom Hering

    “You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill …” – Dust @ 248.

    The difference would be you’d have a no-holds-barred fight between opponents who both put their trust in the merits of Christ alone.

  • Dust

    Tom…are you serious, “both” put their trusts in the merits of Christ alone? What about all the criticism of those verses in James about showing me your works?

    Besides, it still wouldn’t change the fact that in my opinion, some of the “ways” Lutheran defend the positions above, are very similar to some of the ways in which Catholics do their theology. Just an opinion, but could be true….even Luther (or at least have been told he said this) would choose the Catholic church over Calvin, if he had to choose.

    Perhaps, like Catholics, Lutherans take a little pride in thinking they alone have the pure Gospel, and if we can just get a chance to explain it to our Protestant friends, they would see our point of view. Sounds very similar, to me, as to something Swan had complained about what he saw as Dave’s, and the general Catholic approach? Upon reading that, made me think perhaps part of what is going on here, is some simple human jealously at others who take the same position? Seems you had a comment about all this being too human?

    In any case, to quote John McEnroe “you can’t be serious?”

  • Dust

    Tom…are you serious, “both” put their trusts in the merits of Christ alone? What about all the criticism of those verses in James about showing me your works?

    Besides, it still wouldn’t change the fact that in my opinion, some of the “ways” Lutheran defend the positions above, are very similar to some of the ways in which Catholics do their theology. Just an opinion, but could be true….even Luther (or at least have been told he said this) would choose the Catholic church over Calvin, if he had to choose.

    Perhaps, like Catholics, Lutherans take a little pride in thinking they alone have the pure Gospel, and if we can just get a chance to explain it to our Protestant friends, they would see our point of view. Sounds very similar, to me, as to something Swan had complained about what he saw as Dave’s, and the general Catholic approach? Upon reading that, made me think perhaps part of what is going on here, is some simple human jealously at others who take the same position? Seems you had a comment about all this being too human?

    In any case, to quote John McEnroe “you can’t be serious?”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Did you expect something else? Did you think that after 1000′s of years of developing their theology and defending it throughout history, that all of a sudden here on the blog of veith the system would come crashing down? ” (248)

    That’s what I meant as well. I was being sarcastic.

    “If you are not Lutheran, you should try discussing those with the good folks here! You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill?” (248)

    No, I’m not a Lutheran. I’m Reformed, and yes, that would indeed be the case. The thing is, I probably won’t be a regular here (I have a day off today). I happen to have an interest in Luther’s Mariology and Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther. I know, a strange hobby, but that’s me. Given that Dr. Veith writes for Table Talk, I’m assuming that at least the owner of the website doesn’t mind having someone like me here from time to time. I’m not out to proselytize- you’ll notice that by the subjects I talk about. I enjoy digging into 16th century history and texts, probably more than almost anything. You’ll notice that on my blog as well.

    That said, if anyone knows of any specific Internet sites in which Luther and the Reformation are the exclusive topic of discussion, please let me know!

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Did you expect something else? Did you think that after 1000′s of years of developing their theology and defending it throughout history, that all of a sudden here on the blog of veith the system would come crashing down? ” (248)

    That’s what I meant as well. I was being sarcastic.

    “If you are not Lutheran, you should try discussing those with the good folks here! You might find yourself very quickly butting heads and the warm fellowship you now enjoy attacking your common enemy, may develop a similar chill?” (248)

    No, I’m not a Lutheran. I’m Reformed, and yes, that would indeed be the case. The thing is, I probably won’t be a regular here (I have a day off today). I happen to have an interest in Luther’s Mariology and Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther. I know, a strange hobby, but that’s me. Given that Dr. Veith writes for Table Talk, I’m assuming that at least the owner of the website doesn’t mind having someone like me here from time to time. I’m not out to proselytize- you’ll notice that by the subjects I talk about. I enjoy digging into 16th century history and texts, probably more than almost anything. You’ll notice that on my blog as well.

    That said, if anyone knows of any specific Internet sites in which Luther and the Reformation are the exclusive topic of discussion, please let me know!

  • Dust

    Swan…that makes sense, sort of, thanks! So why come in here and begin to refute and debate with Dave? Especially given the history of bad blood between you? What did you hope to accomplish?

    It was my hope to have a few days with a very well informed Catholic apologist and ask reasonable questions and learn what it truly is they believe, rather than hear it second hand or the unflattering stereotypes we all heard within the walls of our denominations?

    It started out that way, and in my opinion, they way Dave went thru Veith’s article was pretty darn good, and in a refreshingly kind spirit. The same with how he went thru others questions, including my own. It just seemed to fall apart when the tone got somewhat hostile and disrespectful to the purpose of Dave’s comments. It also got out of hand when folks couldn’t follow some of his comments and/or asked questions that were important to them, but a bit off topic, in my opinion.

    As per sites of interest to you, you can try visiting the website for the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod…can’t think of the names of their research and historical efforts, but a little surfing there may get you some big waves :)

  • Dust

    Swan…that makes sense, sort of, thanks! So why come in here and begin to refute and debate with Dave? Especially given the history of bad blood between you? What did you hope to accomplish?

    It was my hope to have a few days with a very well informed Catholic apologist and ask reasonable questions and learn what it truly is they believe, rather than hear it second hand or the unflattering stereotypes we all heard within the walls of our denominations?

    It started out that way, and in my opinion, they way Dave went thru Veith’s article was pretty darn good, and in a refreshingly kind spirit. The same with how he went thru others questions, including my own. It just seemed to fall apart when the tone got somewhat hostile and disrespectful to the purpose of Dave’s comments. It also got out of hand when folks couldn’t follow some of his comments and/or asked questions that were important to them, but a bit off topic, in my opinion.

    As per sites of interest to you, you can try visiting the website for the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod…can’t think of the names of their research and historical efforts, but a little surfing there may get you some big waves :)

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Swan had complained about what he saw as Dave’s, and the general Catholic approach?” (250)

    If you mean my comments at 245, you and I are both on the same page (your comments at 248).

    Yes, I do think one can learn from watching the way someone else argues for their case. It’s all a matter of presuppositions- we all place facts in our own worldview (be it Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Reformed, etc.). Such interactions as I see it, comes down to this: which worldview best makes sense of the facts?

    To keep on one of the subjects here, Luther’s Mariology, I would argue Roman Catholicism does not fit the facts together cogently. What I see from those putting forth Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther’s Mariology is often simply an attempt to use such information for proselytizing. That is: “Look here folks- Luther’s Mariology is like ours… look what we share in common… If Luther grips stuff we grip, why can’t you?” That’s why you’ll find Roman Catholics arguing Luther was “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary” and Luther “venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety” and “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther’s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.”

    I say, if someone wants argue that, let’s look at the facts. Let’s open up the texts from Luther and see what they say. I’ve been doing that for years. More often than not, I’ve found a lot of poorly exegeted texts put forth by Roman Catholic apologists.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Swan had complained about what he saw as Dave’s, and the general Catholic approach?” (250)

    If you mean my comments at 245, you and I are both on the same page (your comments at 248).

    Yes, I do think one can learn from watching the way someone else argues for their case. It’s all a matter of presuppositions- we all place facts in our own worldview (be it Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Reformed, etc.). Such interactions as I see it, comes down to this: which worldview best makes sense of the facts?

    To keep on one of the subjects here, Luther’s Mariology, I would argue Roman Catholicism does not fit the facts together cogently. What I see from those putting forth Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther’s Mariology is often simply an attempt to use such information for proselytizing. That is: “Look here folks- Luther’s Mariology is like ours… look what we share in common… If Luther grips stuff we grip, why can’t you?” That’s why you’ll find Roman Catholics arguing Luther was “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary” and Luther “venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety” and “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther’s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.”

    I say, if someone wants argue that, let’s look at the facts. Let’s open up the texts from Luther and see what they say. I’ve been doing that for years. More often than not, I’ve found a lot of poorly exegeted texts put forth by Roman Catholic apologists.

  • fws

    james @ 234 done. thanks for the suggestion.

  • fws

    james @ 234 done. thanks for the suggestion.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “So why come in here and begin to refute and debate with Dave? Especially given the history of bad blood between you? What did you hope to accomplish?” (252)

    I really haven’t been debating. You’ll notice in the other thread, I was intrigued by the search for a source for that bogus Luther quote. Once again, as odd as it is, I love looking up Luther quotes. If someone wants to stop me from whatever I’m doing, simply send me an e-mail with some obscure Luther quote and ask me to find it. I’ll typically drop everything, and search it out.

    With this blog post I wasn’t at all pleased that my name was brought up to substantiate Dave’s arguments against… all of you on Luther and the immaculate conception. I then posted a comment distinguishing my view from his, as well as correcting some Luther / Mary facts that I think got overlooked. Since then, I’ve commented on a few comments by fws and Shelly. Both of those folks made some great points.

    Perhaps though, I shouldn’t comment on Dave’s methodology, but simply let you all experience it for yourselves. So perhaps Dust, you are right on this score and I should simply not post certain of my opinions so as not to provoke him.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “So why come in here and begin to refute and debate with Dave? Especially given the history of bad blood between you? What did you hope to accomplish?” (252)

    I really haven’t been debating. You’ll notice in the other thread, I was intrigued by the search for a source for that bogus Luther quote. Once again, as odd as it is, I love looking up Luther quotes. If someone wants to stop me from whatever I’m doing, simply send me an e-mail with some obscure Luther quote and ask me to find it. I’ll typically drop everything, and search it out.

    With this blog post I wasn’t at all pleased that my name was brought up to substantiate Dave’s arguments against… all of you on Luther and the immaculate conception. I then posted a comment distinguishing my view from his, as well as correcting some Luther / Mary facts that I think got overlooked. Since then, I’ve commented on a few comments by fws and Shelly. Both of those folks made some great points.

    Perhaps though, I shouldn’t comment on Dave’s methodology, but simply let you all experience it for yourselves. So perhaps Dust, you are right on this score and I should simply not post certain of my opinions so as not to provoke him.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 250, of course I’m serious. Doesn’t mean I’m not fooling myself. :-D

    “It was my hope to have a few days with a very well informed Catholic apologist and ask reasonable questions and learn what it truly is they believe …”

    If that’s what you want, isn’t that what Armstrong’s own site is for? I’ve always thought Cranach was a place for lively discussion, and the livelier, the better.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 250, of course I’m serious. Doesn’t mean I’m not fooling myself. :-D

    “It was my hope to have a few days with a very well informed Catholic apologist and ask reasonable questions and learn what it truly is they believe …”

    If that’s what you want, isn’t that what Armstrong’s own site is for? I’ve always thought Cranach was a place for lively discussion, and the livelier, the better.

  • fws

    dust @ 248

    we were not really debating whether or not Roman dogma is true.

    A Roman here was claiming that the older Luther held to the Roman Dogma That Mary was without sin. THAT is what was being debated.

    that is not 1000 year old roman dogma.

  • fws

    dust @ 248

    we were not really debating whether or not Roman dogma is true.

    A Roman here was claiming that the older Luther held to the Roman Dogma That Mary was without sin. THAT is what was being debated.

    that is not 1000 year old roman dogma.

  • Dust

    Yes, perhaps you are right….but the approach was disastrous to the small progress that had been made on the blog :(

    Another point, in my opinion, even if Luther’s view on Mary would in reality come very close to the Catholics, am not sure sure if would have had ZERO impact on how the good Lutherans here see their Church. It may be called the Lutheran Church, but as tODD says very well, it’s beliefs are not based on the Works of Luther, or Luthers’s Words, Luther Smuther sermon this or sermon that, but the BOC and other types of works.

    In my opinion, the entire enterprise of trying to figure out what Luther thought about Mary has very little value in regard to doctrines or theology. It may give you a little insight into Luther as a politician, how he may have held a personal view of something that wasn’t exactly in line with what the Reformation was all about, and how he never let that influence or dominate the doctrines and teaching they were developing after leaving the Catholic church.

    What the Catholic Church thinks and teaches about Mary is just very interesting and valuable, in my opinion. Furthermore, to see how another church does their theology and how they defend their doctrines, and to hear all that first hand was fun for a while.

    Let’s face it, whatever you believe could be torn to shreds by someone who doesn’t believe it. It happens all the time, and as you say, it all comes down to which worldview makes the best sense. But how do you decide that? Don’t you have to start with some preconceived concepts? Is it by inspiration and/or revelation? Doesn’t every religion think their world view is the best and then goes about defending it, sometimes to the death, sadly?

    As Tom says….all too human :(

  • Dust

    Yes, perhaps you are right….but the approach was disastrous to the small progress that had been made on the blog :(

    Another point, in my opinion, even if Luther’s view on Mary would in reality come very close to the Catholics, am not sure sure if would have had ZERO impact on how the good Lutherans here see their Church. It may be called the Lutheran Church, but as tODD says very well, it’s beliefs are not based on the Works of Luther, or Luthers’s Words, Luther Smuther sermon this or sermon that, but the BOC and other types of works.

    In my opinion, the entire enterprise of trying to figure out what Luther thought about Mary has very little value in regard to doctrines or theology. It may give you a little insight into Luther as a politician, how he may have held a personal view of something that wasn’t exactly in line with what the Reformation was all about, and how he never let that influence or dominate the doctrines and teaching they were developing after leaving the Catholic church.

    What the Catholic Church thinks and teaches about Mary is just very interesting and valuable, in my opinion. Furthermore, to see how another church does their theology and how they defend their doctrines, and to hear all that first hand was fun for a while.

    Let’s face it, whatever you believe could be torn to shreds by someone who doesn’t believe it. It happens all the time, and as you say, it all comes down to which worldview makes the best sense. But how do you decide that? Don’t you have to start with some preconceived concepts? Is it by inspiration and/or revelation? Doesn’t every religion think their world view is the best and then goes about defending it, sometimes to the death, sadly?

    As Tom says….all too human :(

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I get the feeling you hoped a discussion with Mr. Armstrong would teach us all something we needed to learn.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I get the feeling you hoped a discussion with Mr. Armstrong would teach us all something we needed to learn.

  • Dust

    258 continued….or as Luther says, “it is true, we are all beggars!”

  • Dust

    258 continued….or as Luther says, “it is true, we are all beggars!”

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Let’s face it, whatever you believe could be torn to shreds by someone who doesn’t believe it. It happens all the time, and as you say, it all comes down to which worldview makes the best sense. But how do you decide that? Don’t you have to start with some preconceived concepts? Is it by inspiration and/or revelation? Doesn’t every religion think their world view is the best and then goes about defending it, sometimes to the death, sadly?” (258)

    You made a lot of great points, but I’m almost done for the evening. I’ll simply stick the subject that interests me (yes, that’s called selfishness). Yes, each of us has preconceived unproven concepts we begin with. With this subject, we have texts by which to try those pre-conceived concepts out (Luther’s Works) and see if they make sense of the facts. I posit, more often than not, a Roman Catholic seeking to prove Luther was “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary” and Luther “venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety” and “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther’s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism” can not properly exegete Luther’s texts and account for all the facts.

    Goodnight!

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Let’s face it, whatever you believe could be torn to shreds by someone who doesn’t believe it. It happens all the time, and as you say, it all comes down to which worldview makes the best sense. But how do you decide that? Don’t you have to start with some preconceived concepts? Is it by inspiration and/or revelation? Doesn’t every religion think their world view is the best and then goes about defending it, sometimes to the death, sadly?” (258)

    You made a lot of great points, but I’m almost done for the evening. I’ll simply stick the subject that interests me (yes, that’s called selfishness). Yes, each of us has preconceived unproven concepts we begin with. With this subject, we have texts by which to try those pre-conceived concepts out (Luther’s Works) and see if they make sense of the facts. I posit, more often than not, a Roman Catholic seeking to prove Luther was “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary” and Luther “venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety” and “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther’s Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism” can not properly exegete Luther’s texts and account for all the facts.

    Goodnight!

  • fws

    james @ 230

    I think that Luther prior to 1528 probably did hold to some sort of imaculate conception of mary.

    But I am looking towards the Augsburg Confession of 1530 in my comments James. And in that formal and public confession of Luther and also in the Apology to that Confessions, Luther has some very specific things to say about original sin and concupiscence that are the very foundation and starting point for the entire theological foundation of those Confessions.

    So what guides my understanding is Luthers understanding of Original Sin James. And that understanding I hope you know is quite different from the Reformed understanding.

    I would urge you to study that difference so that you can better understand precisely what Luther is saying.

    The main section on the Lutheran understanding of Original Sin, Concupiscence , Actual Sin, and faith will be found in the Apology art II and then art III and IV launch direct off article II.

    So what is said there that differs even from the Reformed?

    Apology Art II argues in this way,.

    1) To understand original sin one must first understand what Adamic Original Righeousness was.
    2) Adamic Original Righeousness was alone faith in Jesus Christ.
    3) Further, that faith in Christ also constituted fully the Adamic Image of God.
    4) so then original sin consists of two things: the lack/absence of faith in Christ + “concupiscience”
    5) the lutherans redefine “concupiscence to mean this: Concupiscence is coveting/lusting that is really a faith that is a faith placed ‘viciously’ in ANYTHING BUT faith alone in Christ alone.
    6) So Adamic Original Righeousness + the Image of God are fully restored alone by baptismal regeneration, which is faith alone in Christ alone.
    7) and this is why original sin cannot be cured by the Law. Original Sin can only be done away with by faith in Christ alone.

    Now then James, try to overlay this official and formal confession of Luther that was and is the very identity of Lutheranism onto any sort of idea of an immaculate conception of Mary. To do that would do violence to the very heart of Lutheran doctrine that Luther subscribed to until the day he died.

    And yes James, one could pull snippets from the entire texts you presented from 1540 and have them say that mary was purified, but it is a perfectly good reading of the text to say that Jesus was talking about the Immaculate conception of Christ alone there. And that is the only understanding that would agree with Luther’s formal and public confession of faith. I think that a formal and public confession of faith reaffirmed before death means something .

  • fws

    james @ 230

    I think that Luther prior to 1528 probably did hold to some sort of imaculate conception of mary.

    But I am looking towards the Augsburg Confession of 1530 in my comments James. And in that formal and public confession of Luther and also in the Apology to that Confessions, Luther has some very specific things to say about original sin and concupiscence that are the very foundation and starting point for the entire theological foundation of those Confessions.

    So what guides my understanding is Luthers understanding of Original Sin James. And that understanding I hope you know is quite different from the Reformed understanding.

    I would urge you to study that difference so that you can better understand precisely what Luther is saying.

    The main section on the Lutheran understanding of Original Sin, Concupiscence , Actual Sin, and faith will be found in the Apology art II and then art III and IV launch direct off article II.

    So what is said there that differs even from the Reformed?

    Apology Art II argues in this way,.

    1) To understand original sin one must first understand what Adamic Original Righeousness was.
    2) Adamic Original Righeousness was alone faith in Jesus Christ.
    3) Further, that faith in Christ also constituted fully the Adamic Image of God.
    4) so then original sin consists of two things: the lack/absence of faith in Christ + “concupiscience”
    5) the lutherans redefine “concupiscence to mean this: Concupiscence is coveting/lusting that is really a faith that is a faith placed ‘viciously’ in ANYTHING BUT faith alone in Christ alone.
    6) So Adamic Original Righeousness + the Image of God are fully restored alone by baptismal regeneration, which is faith alone in Christ alone.
    7) and this is why original sin cannot be cured by the Law. Original Sin can only be done away with by faith in Christ alone.

    Now then James, try to overlay this official and formal confession of Luther that was and is the very identity of Lutheranism onto any sort of idea of an immaculate conception of Mary. To do that would do violence to the very heart of Lutheran doctrine that Luther subscribed to until the day he died.

    And yes James, one could pull snippets from the entire texts you presented from 1540 and have them say that mary was purified, but it is a perfectly good reading of the text to say that Jesus was talking about the Immaculate conception of Christ alone there. And that is the only understanding that would agree with Luther’s formal and public confession of faith. I think that a formal and public confession of faith reaffirmed before death means something .

  • Dust

    Tom…yes, we are not all on the same page on this blog. Did not know you had an RC background. Gee, did that have any influence on how much respect you may have had for Dave? Or your level of interest in learning any more Mariology? Duh?

    So from my perspective, it was wonderful and thought Dave did a wonderful and polite job of trying to answer various misconceptions or opinions, or questions…to repeat, thought he did a decent and respectful job of going thru the comments or article from Dr. Veith, point by point, and some of the other early questions. Then it fell apart…too many questions, too many off topic questions. Sort of reminded me of grad school where some of the students in the class clearly had not taken the pre-requisites and would ask such basic questions or want to go over material that was not appropriate. Oh well, that’s enough of a rant from me, sorry!

    So Tom, it depends on what you mean by something we needed to learn…what do we really “need” to learn? Am sure each person would answer that in a different way…perhaps that is the point that Bridgette was trying to make?

    It does pay on a blog like this that is not scholarly, nor on just one topic, nor by invitation or membership to perhaps be a bit more respectful of everyone….perhaps some cat nip would help :)

  • Dust

    Tom…yes, we are not all on the same page on this blog. Did not know you had an RC background. Gee, did that have any influence on how much respect you may have had for Dave? Or your level of interest in learning any more Mariology? Duh?

    So from my perspective, it was wonderful and thought Dave did a wonderful and polite job of trying to answer various misconceptions or opinions, or questions…to repeat, thought he did a decent and respectful job of going thru the comments or article from Dr. Veith, point by point, and some of the other early questions. Then it fell apart…too many questions, too many off topic questions. Sort of reminded me of grad school where some of the students in the class clearly had not taken the pre-requisites and would ask such basic questions or want to go over material that was not appropriate. Oh well, that’s enough of a rant from me, sorry!

    So Tom, it depends on what you mean by something we needed to learn…what do we really “need” to learn? Am sure each person would answer that in a different way…perhaps that is the point that Bridgette was trying to make?

    It does pay on a blog like this that is not scholarly, nor on just one topic, nor by invitation or membership to perhaps be a bit more respectful of everyone….perhaps some cat nip would help :)

  • fws

    nathan @ 246

    Dave Armstrong used my byline without my permission and pulled my comments out of their context.

    I do appologize for the factual error that says he did not link back to here. But I do not appologize for being offended at the way he used my comments. So who owes an apology to whom Nathan?

    How he used the dialog here over at his sight is dishonorable Nathan. I was extremely disappointed to see that, and I actually expected a far higher standard from brother Dave.

  • fws

    nathan @ 246

    Dave Armstrong used my byline without my permission and pulled my comments out of their context.

    I do appologize for the factual error that says he did not link back to here. But I do not appologize for being offended at the way he used my comments. So who owes an apology to whom Nathan?

    How he used the dialog here over at his sight is dishonorable Nathan. I was extremely disappointed to see that, and I actually expected a far higher standard from brother Dave.

  • fws

    james @ 251

    “That said, if anyone knows of any specific Internet sites in which Luther and the Reformation are the exclusive topic of discussion, please let me know!”

    I am planning to launch a site soon that goes through the early lutheran confessions very methodically.

    it would be great at times to get your input. i will keep you posted.

  • fws

    james @ 251

    “That said, if anyone knows of any specific Internet sites in which Luther and the Reformation are the exclusive topic of discussion, please let me know!”

    I am planning to launch a site soon that goes through the early lutheran confessions very methodically.

    it would be great at times to get your input. i will keep you posted.

  • Dust

    fws at 262….do you think it was possible that Luther as he was getting older and closer to dying began to wax nostalgic for things of his youth and innocence? Could it be as a God fearing man, he began to grow weary of the political and worldy affects of his reformation? Am not asking this to be a smarty pants or disrespectful, and have never in my life thought about something like that until now, that is why it’s so interesting to read other’s perspectives on history, etc.

    Anyway, it could be, as it would only be human as he approached death….it would also be quite human to disguise some of his attitudes from his fellow reformers, since he knew they looked up to him so much?

    Sorry to play amateurish history sleuth…but anything is possible, especially if it fits in nicely with your worldview :)

  • Dust

    fws at 262….do you think it was possible that Luther as he was getting older and closer to dying began to wax nostalgic for things of his youth and innocence? Could it be as a God fearing man, he began to grow weary of the political and worldy affects of his reformation? Am not asking this to be a smarty pants or disrespectful, and have never in my life thought about something like that until now, that is why it’s so interesting to read other’s perspectives on history, etc.

    Anyway, it could be, as it would only be human as he approached death….it would also be quite human to disguise some of his attitudes from his fellow reformers, since he knew they looked up to him so much?

    Sorry to play amateurish history sleuth…but anything is possible, especially if it fits in nicely with your worldview :)

  • Shelly Faber

    “…that some people misinterpret or misunderstand the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura…
    The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source…Infallible pronouncements from the Roman Catholic magisterium are supposed to be a benefit of being a Roman Catholic. As I’ve witnessed the argument, Roman Catholics say that if one lacks an infallible interpreter, one is left with private interpretation…This is why I referred to a “fatal flaw”: the infallible interpreter still needs to be interpreted!” (James Swan @ 242)

    James,

    This is good for me to get a “Protestant view” on things directly from a Protestant. As a Roman Catholic (one who attends the Tridentine Latin Rite, no less), I’m used to thinking in a Catholic way with Catholic terminology. So in my brief comments below I’ll try my best to make my remarks more generic.

    Admittedly, I sure wish the Blessed Trinity would come down and send us mega-terabyte drives of information containing God’s pronouncements on all the doctrinal differences that Catholics and Protestants debate upon. But, people have been fighting over the ramifications of the Ten Commandments–less than a kilobyte of information. With the 100 megabytes of the New Testament, you would really think there would in fact be enough clarity to stop the debates on belief and doctrinal differences. But that hasn’t happened because the decision becomes who do you trust to make the decisions about Bible meanings when disputes arise, especially when there isn’t sufficient clarity on complicated matters?

    Disputes will come, it is only human that they do. It is when they come, how do you handle it? Who is the deciding authority? What is being decided? What is mandatory to believe? What is optional?

    My take is that Sola Scriptura lacks a specific Biblical text proving that it is the final, trumping authority. So you need an extra Biblical source to settle disputes when conflicts arise over the meaning of Biblical passages, especially the complicated ones, such as those touching upon the Trinity. That extra-Biblical source is the Church–the Bible tells me so about the Church being the pillar, bulwark, and foundation for the truth. That Church is an historic and living Church, currently residing in Rome, one that was formed by the Savior while he was personally here in on Earth and handed the authority keys to Peter, the first Pope. You know how Catholics think, so I’ll not expand upon the usual Catholic apologist narrative that you are so familiar.

    When I was considering becoming a Roman Catholic, I noticed that Protestants seem to argue amongst themselves about the meaning of the Bible and divide accordingly, and Catholics seem to argue amongst themselves more about the meaning of Papal encyclicals and other pronouncements from the Pope than about the Bible. After my conversion, this pattern seems to hold for Catholics dividing into obedient groups and disobedient groups. For example, I have personally met enough Catholics who dispute on the particulars of Humanae Vitae, and in some (well, many) cases are sadly disobedient to the clear teachings contained therein.

    So I agree with you to some extent that “private interpretation” by Catholics of Papal pronouncements occurs, and is a flaw to the extent that the sheep are either are not obedient as they should be in consenting to their Shepard when the doctrine should be comprehensible (but they don’t want to believe it because it interferes with their desired lifestyle, etc.), or not smart enough because the particular Papal pronouncement wasn’t concisely clear–at least on a cursory first read in a standalone fashion.

    I wouldn’t say, however, that a given (character) flaw is necessarily fatal, because the penitent have resource to God’s mercy. When the flaw is truly due to an insufficiency of intelligence, then God’s mercy and understanding are available to the Christian whenever a particular concept was/is truly difficult to comprehend (you know, something a little more complicated than did Mary die of did she not, for example, the Holy Trinity).

    Generally, I find Papal documents/pronouncements beneficial to me as a Roman Catholic, but as with the Holy Trinity, some pronouncements still difficult to understand with my very limited cranial capacity. As I truly can’t totally understand the Trinity from the Bible alone, I plead guilty to believing this Papal-declared doctrine.

    Regards,
    Shelly

  • Shelly Faber

    “…that some people misinterpret or misunderstand the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura…
    The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source…Infallible pronouncements from the Roman Catholic magisterium are supposed to be a benefit of being a Roman Catholic. As I’ve witnessed the argument, Roman Catholics say that if one lacks an infallible interpreter, one is left with private interpretation…This is why I referred to a “fatal flaw”: the infallible interpreter still needs to be interpreted!” (James Swan @ 242)

    James,

    This is good for me to get a “Protestant view” on things directly from a Protestant. As a Roman Catholic (one who attends the Tridentine Latin Rite, no less), I’m used to thinking in a Catholic way with Catholic terminology. So in my brief comments below I’ll try my best to make my remarks more generic.

    Admittedly, I sure wish the Blessed Trinity would come down and send us mega-terabyte drives of information containing God’s pronouncements on all the doctrinal differences that Catholics and Protestants debate upon. But, people have been fighting over the ramifications of the Ten Commandments–less than a kilobyte of information. With the 100 megabytes of the New Testament, you would really think there would in fact be enough clarity to stop the debates on belief and doctrinal differences. But that hasn’t happened because the decision becomes who do you trust to make the decisions about Bible meanings when disputes arise, especially when there isn’t sufficient clarity on complicated matters?

    Disputes will come, it is only human that they do. It is when they come, how do you handle it? Who is the deciding authority? What is being decided? What is mandatory to believe? What is optional?

    My take is that Sola Scriptura lacks a specific Biblical text proving that it is the final, trumping authority. So you need an extra Biblical source to settle disputes when conflicts arise over the meaning of Biblical passages, especially the complicated ones, such as those touching upon the Trinity. That extra-Biblical source is the Church–the Bible tells me so about the Church being the pillar, bulwark, and foundation for the truth. That Church is an historic and living Church, currently residing in Rome, one that was formed by the Savior while he was personally here in on Earth and handed the authority keys to Peter, the first Pope. You know how Catholics think, so I’ll not expand upon the usual Catholic apologist narrative that you are so familiar.

    When I was considering becoming a Roman Catholic, I noticed that Protestants seem to argue amongst themselves about the meaning of the Bible and divide accordingly, and Catholics seem to argue amongst themselves more about the meaning of Papal encyclicals and other pronouncements from the Pope than about the Bible. After my conversion, this pattern seems to hold for Catholics dividing into obedient groups and disobedient groups. For example, I have personally met enough Catholics who dispute on the particulars of Humanae Vitae, and in some (well, many) cases are sadly disobedient to the clear teachings contained therein.

    So I agree with you to some extent that “private interpretation” by Catholics of Papal pronouncements occurs, and is a flaw to the extent that the sheep are either are not obedient as they should be in consenting to their Shepard when the doctrine should be comprehensible (but they don’t want to believe it because it interferes with their desired lifestyle, etc.), or not smart enough because the particular Papal pronouncement wasn’t concisely clear–at least on a cursory first read in a standalone fashion.

    I wouldn’t say, however, that a given (character) flaw is necessarily fatal, because the penitent have resource to God’s mercy. When the flaw is truly due to an insufficiency of intelligence, then God’s mercy and understanding are available to the Christian whenever a particular concept was/is truly difficult to comprehend (you know, something a little more complicated than did Mary die of did she not, for example, the Holy Trinity).

    Generally, I find Papal documents/pronouncements beneficial to me as a Roman Catholic, but as with the Holy Trinity, some pronouncements still difficult to understand with my very limited cranial capacity. As I truly can’t totally understand the Trinity from the Bible alone, I plead guilty to believing this Papal-declared doctrine.

    Regards,
    Shelly

  • Dust

    so how would be better at some bible interpretation…..well, all humans are fallen and therefore not perfect….but statistically, someone who just picked up a bible, or only uses a bible, or perhaps someone educated and schooled in the doctrines and beliefs of a given Church and proved themselves over time as faithful and steadfast….someone like the Pope? or Martin Luther :)

  • Dust

    so how would be better at some bible interpretation…..well, all humans are fallen and therefore not perfect….but statistically, someone who just picked up a bible, or only uses a bible, or perhaps someone educated and schooled in the doctrines and beliefs of a given Church and proved themselves over time as faithful and steadfast….someone like the Pope? or Martin Luther :)

  • Grace

    Dust @ 266

    “do you think it was possible that Luther as he was getting older and closer to dying began to wax nostalgic for things of his youth and innocence? Could it be as a God fearing man, he began to grow weary of the political and worldy affects of his reformation?”

    I don’t believe this is the case at all. I have known many, who were strong Christians, those who loved the LORD, had grown as Believers. If anything they become more tender to God’s Word, as they aged, their hearts were not seeking to recapture, that which was false teaching from their youth, or before they came to Christ, ….. but that which they learned and understood as they grew in the knowledge of our Savior, through HIS Word.

    Growing older doesn’t mean one goes back to false teaching, it isn’t “nostalgic” …. it isn’t innocence any longer, but accepting that which is false over that which is true, according to God’s Word.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 266

    “do you think it was possible that Luther as he was getting older and closer to dying began to wax nostalgic for things of his youth and innocence? Could it be as a God fearing man, he began to grow weary of the political and worldy affects of his reformation?”

    I don’t believe this is the case at all. I have known many, who were strong Christians, those who loved the LORD, had grown as Believers. If anything they become more tender to God’s Word, as they aged, their hearts were not seeking to recapture, that which was false teaching from their youth, or before they came to Christ, ….. but that which they learned and understood as they grew in the knowledge of our Savior, through HIS Word.

    Growing older doesn’t mean one goes back to false teaching, it isn’t “nostalgic” …. it isn’t innocence any longer, but accepting that which is false over that which is true, according to God’s Word.

  • Dust

    Grace…in general, that is probably true, and in the case of Martin Luther, most likely also true.

    But (and am not a Luther scholar, as if you can’t tell, ha) because of the reformation (being a major leader and all) he did see a lot of social, economic, cultural changes and perhaps worse, come into contact with a lot of very powerful and “worldly” people, that were much different than the kind of pure souls (ahem), or at least idealistic and altruistic souls who went into the Church as scholars or professors, priests or monks, etc.

    It could be the contact with those folks and their methods over time brought about his depression? On top of that, wasn’t there some kind of war (Peasant War? sorry not a scholar) on which they asked his advice and his answers led to the deaths of many hundreds or thousands of souls?

    Who knows…he would not be the first or last person who led some kind of movement that brought about radical change, to regret it?

    To top it off, he probably anticipated that he would be misquoted and mischaracterized throughout history, but especially upset that it happened on this blog :)

  • Dust

    Grace…in general, that is probably true, and in the case of Martin Luther, most likely also true.

    But (and am not a Luther scholar, as if you can’t tell, ha) because of the reformation (being a major leader and all) he did see a lot of social, economic, cultural changes and perhaps worse, come into contact with a lot of very powerful and “worldly” people, that were much different than the kind of pure souls (ahem), or at least idealistic and altruistic souls who went into the Church as scholars or professors, priests or monks, etc.

    It could be the contact with those folks and their methods over time brought about his depression? On top of that, wasn’t there some kind of war (Peasant War? sorry not a scholar) on which they asked his advice and his answers led to the deaths of many hundreds or thousands of souls?

    Who knows…he would not be the first or last person who led some kind of movement that brought about radical change, to regret it?

    To top it off, he probably anticipated that he would be misquoted and mischaracterized throughout history, but especially upset that it happened on this blog :)

  • Tom Hering

    “Did not know you had an RC background. Gee, did that have any influence on how much respect you may have had for Dave? Or your level of interest in learning any more Mariology? Duh?” – @ 263.

    RC was just one of my stops along the way, Dust. No, it didn’t leave me feeling touchy about all things RC. I feel thankful for something toward every church I’ve ever attended. Even more (much more), it was after my first attendance at a Catholic Charismatic prayer group that I received the gift of faith. (That very evening, reading a chapter in a book by an Episcopalian Charismatic. It contained Scripture verses about Christ and the Cross.) God works in mysterious ways, eh? (I bet Mr. Armstrong could have a field day with my testimony. :-D )

    In my discussions with Roman Catholics, now, my attitude toward them depends on how loyal they are to the seat of the Antichrist. But what else would you expect from a Lutheran who takes the whole of his Confessions seriously? (You could check out the subject index in the Kolb Wengert edition of the BOC. One-and-a-half, fine print pages of references to statements on the Pope, and on those loyal to the Pope’s authority. They ain’t pretty. :-D )

  • Tom Hering

    “Did not know you had an RC background. Gee, did that have any influence on how much respect you may have had for Dave? Or your level of interest in learning any more Mariology? Duh?” – @ 263.

    RC was just one of my stops along the way, Dust. No, it didn’t leave me feeling touchy about all things RC. I feel thankful for something toward every church I’ve ever attended. Even more (much more), it was after my first attendance at a Catholic Charismatic prayer group that I received the gift of faith. (That very evening, reading a chapter in a book by an Episcopalian Charismatic. It contained Scripture verses about Christ and the Cross.) God works in mysterious ways, eh? (I bet Mr. Armstrong could have a field day with my testimony. :-D )

    In my discussions with Roman Catholics, now, my attitude toward them depends on how loyal they are to the seat of the Antichrist. But what else would you expect from a Lutheran who takes the whole of his Confessions seriously? (You could check out the subject index in the Kolb Wengert edition of the BOC. One-and-a-half, fine print pages of references to statements on the Pope, and on those loyal to the Pope’s authority. They ain’t pretty. :-D )

  • Grace

    The Pope has always ruled the Roman Church, changing whatever he decides. The manuscripts almost 6,000, prevented the Roman Church in keeping them silent, those who translated the Bible, and those who studied it. This however, didn’t stop the Roman Church to continue it’s demands, that RC’s were not to read the Bible.

    A friend of mine, told me this story some time ago, – she was a medical doctor who was going through a divorce, went to see her priest (this was supposedly, about 1973) She was very troubled about her divorce, … the priest gave her a Bible, much to her surprise – she had been instructed not to read the HOLY Bible.

    I sent many of my cousins who are Roman Catholic, for Christmas, Bibles. They had never had one before, this was only about 12 years ago.

    Roman Catholics are made to agree with their so called ‘traditions’ which are nothing more than degrees, made by the Popes down through history, which have no Scriptural basis, than to the Word of God. That is evident in the discussions here on the blog. What the Pope states is fact to a RC, even though it is contrary to Scripture. You can most assuredly include Mary, praying to she, and the saints, idolatory, etc.

    UBI PRIMUM (On His Assuming the Pontificate)
    Pope Leo XII
    ——————————————————————————–

    Encyclical of Pope Leo XII promulgated on 5 May 1824

    17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,16 it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!17

    18. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.

    19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L12UBIPR.HTM

  • Grace

    The Pope has always ruled the Roman Church, changing whatever he decides. The manuscripts almost 6,000, prevented the Roman Church in keeping them silent, those who translated the Bible, and those who studied it. This however, didn’t stop the Roman Church to continue it’s demands, that RC’s were not to read the Bible.

    A friend of mine, told me this story some time ago, – she was a medical doctor who was going through a divorce, went to see her priest (this was supposedly, about 1973) She was very troubled about her divorce, … the priest gave her a Bible, much to her surprise – she had been instructed not to read the HOLY Bible.

    I sent many of my cousins who are Roman Catholic, for Christmas, Bibles. They had never had one before, this was only about 12 years ago.

    Roman Catholics are made to agree with their so called ‘traditions’ which are nothing more than degrees, made by the Popes down through history, which have no Scriptural basis, than to the Word of God. That is evident in the discussions here on the blog. What the Pope states is fact to a RC, even though it is contrary to Scripture. You can most assuredly include Mary, praying to she, and the saints, idolatory, etc.

    UBI PRIMUM (On His Assuming the Pontificate)
    Pope Leo XII
    ——————————————————————————–

    Encyclical of Pope Leo XII promulgated on 5 May 1824

    17. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,16 it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!17

    18. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.

    19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L12UBIPR.HTM

  • Grace

    Dust @ 279

    YOU WROTE: “It could be the contact with those folks and their methods over time brought about his depression?

    Dust, I don’t agree. There isn’t a pastor who hasn’t come into constant contact with those who don’t believe.

    Look at the Apostles, and Paul – did they become weak regarding their beliefs towards the end of their life? Was life easier for those who were Christ’s chosen? They were all murdered, except for John. They stood fast to the faith, not adding to God’s Word.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 279

    YOU WROTE: “It could be the contact with those folks and their methods over time brought about his depression?

    Dust, I don’t agree. There isn’t a pastor who hasn’t come into constant contact with those who don’t believe.

    Look at the Apostles, and Paul – did they become weak regarding their beliefs towards the end of their life? Was life easier for those who were Christ’s chosen? They were all murdered, except for John. They stood fast to the faith, not adding to God’s Word.

  • Grace

    Dust, it should have read @ 270 – not 279

  • Grace

    Dust, it should have read @ 270 – not 279

  • Dust

    Tom at 271….ok, so you received the gift of faith, that’s great! Does that mean you would add faith to your statement in 249: those who “put their trust in the merits of Christ alone.”

    Not to be picky, or question your beliefs, but just askin’ :)

  • Dust

    Tom at 271….ok, so you received the gift of faith, that’s great! Does that mean you would add faith to your statement in 249: those who “put their trust in the merits of Christ alone.”

    Not to be picky, or question your beliefs, but just askin’ :)

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, could you rephrase your question? I don’t understand what you’re asking.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, could you rephrase your question? I don’t understand what you’re asking.

  • Dust

    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. Am not as good as tODD on this, but could try and do a search on this blog (although the search machine here never works for me) to find examples.

    It’s very similar to another critique that some folks have towards folks that insist on “living the Christian life” or something similar, as a witness or evidence of your faith. Seems to me, in my opinion that that is not what good Lutherans would say is important. They say it is “Christ alone” and “not of works” and the other group would quote James verses about “faith without works is dead.”

    Hope that clarifies my earlier comment :)

  • Dust

    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. Am not as good as tODD on this, but could try and do a search on this blog (although the search machine here never works for me) to find examples.

    It’s very similar to another critique that some folks have towards folks that insist on “living the Christian life” or something similar, as a witness or evidence of your faith. Seems to me, in my opinion that that is not what good Lutherans would say is important. They say it is “Christ alone” and “not of works” and the other group would quote James verses about “faith without works is dead.”

    Hope that clarifies my earlier comment :)

  • Dust

    To Tom at 276…my reply to you is in 277, thanks!

  • Dust

    To Tom at 276…my reply to you is in 277, thanks!

  • Grace

    Dust @ 277

    “good Lutherans “

    Is it “good Lutherans” or is it, ‘Believers in Christ? – - is the ‘title “Lutheran,” the TITLE that directs one to Christ, or is it Christ’s Words, the Gospels that DIRECT us to Christ the Saviour?

    What do we have without the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What do we have without the direction the LORD Jesus gave us? The Roman Catholics don’t have it, they travel after their Popes, disguised as ‘tradition’ making rules and regulations that don’t align to Scripture, yet some continue to follow that which isn’t Scriptural.

    This isn’t really about Luther, although the RC would like to make that point, and perhaps the Lutherans as well. I take the Bible as the end all to the argument!

  • Grace

    Dust @ 277

    “good Lutherans “

    Is it “good Lutherans” or is it, ‘Believers in Christ? – - is the ‘title “Lutheran,” the TITLE that directs one to Christ, or is it Christ’s Words, the Gospels that DIRECT us to Christ the Saviour?

    What do we have without the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What do we have without the direction the LORD Jesus gave us? The Roman Catholics don’t have it, they travel after their Popes, disguised as ‘tradition’ making rules and regulations that don’t align to Scripture, yet some continue to follow that which isn’t Scriptural.

    This isn’t really about Luther, although the RC would like to make that point, and perhaps the Lutherans as well. I take the Bible as the end all to the argument!

  • Tom Hering

    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. (@ 277)

    Dust, I can’t imagine a Lutheran responding negatively with “you have faith in your faith” when someone says they’ve received “the gift of faith.” We would only say that if someone claims their faith is their own doing, and their (supposed) special ability to work up faith in themselves makes them right with God.

  • Tom Hering

    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. (@ 277)

    Dust, I can’t imagine a Lutheran responding negatively with “you have faith in your faith” when someone says they’ve received “the gift of faith.” We would only say that if someone claims their faith is their own doing, and their (supposed) special ability to work up faith in themselves makes them right with God.

  • Tom Hering

    Or, maybe they’re not so arrogant. Maybe they just wrongly view faith as their own doing, and feel they must continually work it up within themselves in order to be right with God. Then we’d not only say they’re putting their faith in their faith, but their “faith” isn’t faith at all. It’s works. So relax. Trust what Christ has done for you. It’s all you need.

  • Tom Hering

    Or, maybe they’re not so arrogant. Maybe they just wrongly view faith as their own doing, and feel they must continually work it up within themselves in order to be right with God. Then we’d not only say they’re putting their faith in their faith, but their “faith” isn’t faith at all. It’s works. So relax. Trust what Christ has done for you. It’s all you need.

  • fws

    dust @ 265

    Nope. Why not? We have the actual Luther text to look at. We can all read that text and decide for our own selves what Luther meant.

    And I would certainly want someone to read ANYTHING I wrote and not understand it in any way that could contradict the bedrock things I believe about our faith Dust. Those are these:

    1) Faith alone can look at ALL we can see and do in our bodies, our very best and most sanctified works, and be terrified at what it sees. Only Faith can accept the judgement of God over ALL our best righeousness and agree with Isaiah that they are the moral equivalent of a used Tampon for which we deserve temporal and eternal punishment from God.

    So faith alone does not flee this judgement by working harder or trying to do more.

    2) Only faith then can know to HIDE ALL its works inside of the Works of Another in order to be holy before a Holy God.

    3) and then only Faith can then do good works for the death of self for the goodness and mercy of others rather than try to find some sort of spiritual Life in that God demanded life of good works we live here in earth to do. Faith knows with certainty that there is only Life in Christ and our being hidden in His Works. Apart from Christ there is only death that we deserve.

    Luther believed these 3 things. I hope that our Roman friends believe these things to because they are such a comfort to a troubled conscience. And so I can be quite certain that Luther would have included fully the works of the Blessed Virgin as also needing to be covered by the Works of Another Who was her dear Son.

  • fws

    dust @ 265

    Nope. Why not? We have the actual Luther text to look at. We can all read that text and decide for our own selves what Luther meant.

    And I would certainly want someone to read ANYTHING I wrote and not understand it in any way that could contradict the bedrock things I believe about our faith Dust. Those are these:

    1) Faith alone can look at ALL we can see and do in our bodies, our very best and most sanctified works, and be terrified at what it sees. Only Faith can accept the judgement of God over ALL our best righeousness and agree with Isaiah that they are the moral equivalent of a used Tampon for which we deserve temporal and eternal punishment from God.

    So faith alone does not flee this judgement by working harder or trying to do more.

    2) Only faith then can know to HIDE ALL its works inside of the Works of Another in order to be holy before a Holy God.

    3) and then only Faith can then do good works for the death of self for the goodness and mercy of others rather than try to find some sort of spiritual Life in that God demanded life of good works we live here in earth to do. Faith knows with certainty that there is only Life in Christ and our being hidden in His Works. Apart from Christ there is only death that we deserve.

    Luther believed these 3 things. I hope that our Roman friends believe these things to because they are such a comfort to a troubled conscience. And so I can be quite certain that Luther would have included fully the works of the Blessed Virgin as also needing to be covered by the Works of Another Who was her dear Son.

  • fws

    tom @279 and dust @ 277

    Dust, it will not save anyone to believe that the Word of GOd is completely true or infallible, or that it is the final authority, or even that Jesus rose from the dead or even that he died for the sins of the world on the Cross.

    God does indeed demand that we believe all of these things, but I would like to point out that even the devil believes all these things.

    Faith in the Word of God has two meanings Dust I would ask you to consider. Faith can be described as a work and as something we do are are commanded to do by God. And this doing cannot save us.

    Then there is another faith that is described in Gods Word as a pure gift. Think if it sort of like the trust a new born infant has in his mother. It is not something we can reason our way into . This faith is what Jesus calls being born from above. This is about having new heart movements . This is about being born again not as flesh can give birth to flesh.

    This will help you make sense of what brother Tom is getting at I hope. I am not presenting this as argument but rather to explain what we Lutherans mean by the term “saving faith”.

  • fws

    tom @279 and dust @ 277

    Dust, it will not save anyone to believe that the Word of GOd is completely true or infallible, or that it is the final authority, or even that Jesus rose from the dead or even that he died for the sins of the world on the Cross.

    God does indeed demand that we believe all of these things, but I would like to point out that even the devil believes all these things.

    Faith in the Word of God has two meanings Dust I would ask you to consider. Faith can be described as a work and as something we do are are commanded to do by God. And this doing cannot save us.

    Then there is another faith that is described in Gods Word as a pure gift. Think if it sort of like the trust a new born infant has in his mother. It is not something we can reason our way into . This faith is what Jesus calls being born from above. This is about having new heart movements . This is about being born again not as flesh can give birth to flesh.

    This will help you make sense of what brother Tom is getting at I hope. I am not presenting this as argument but rather to explain what we Lutherans mean by the term “saving faith”.

  • fws

    shelly @ 266

    My take is that Sola Scriptura lacks a specific Biblical text proving that it is the final, trumping authority.

    So you need an extra Biblical source to settle disputes when conflicts arise over the meaning of Biblical passages, especially the complicated ones, such as those touching upon the Trinity.

    I would suggest Shelley that you are oversimplifying the argument.
    I agree that there are many protestant christians who have the exact view you have presented. And I see you agree that this is just as there are many Romanists who would articulate the Roman position in a way that would not do it justice.

    Shelly, I would note for you that Lutherans consciously claim to hold to the same catholic faith that was handed down from Christ to the Holy Apostles as his unique witnesses.

    And we are liturgical. This means that we Lutherans do not believe in a flat Bible that is of equal authority everywhere. This is precisely why we stand in the Holy Liturgy and sing aleluiah when the Gospel reading that are the Words of our Lord are read.

    We Lutherans see the Words of Christ as the lense through which we are to understand and interpret the rest of Scriptures. The Words of Christ then are the 1st level of Holy Tradition for us Lutherans. Then we note that Christ uniquely sent his Holy Apostles. So they are the second lense, through which, we feel that we can alone understand the rest of Holy Scriptures. So then there are , for Lutherans , these two points of Authority. And we Lutherans draw a straight line through those two points. Shelley, whatever falls along that line that is spoken by the Fathers, the Pope or even a Lutheran we receive and accept with joy as the very words of Christ Himself. Whatever does not fall along that Apostolic Line of Tradition, we cover up with modesty just like Noah’s good sons covered up the failing of their father to honor him.

    The best one to read to more fully understand our Lutheran acceptance of Holy Tradition would be one Martin Chemnitz, who prepared a masterful examination of the Council of Trent. I would encourage you to go and see what he has to say about Holy Tradition. We see Holy Tradition in 8 concentric circles around that Holy Tradition that are the Words of Christ. And we reject only the 8th circle as being unnecessary and redundant.

    Here are some links for you on this Shelley. Please do not lump us lutherans with other protestants or reduce our arguments to something less complex than they are.

    I would note, as is well noted below, that Lutherans reject only ONE kind of Holy Tradition out of 8 that we fully embrace.

    Here you go:
    Here is a response from Nathan Rine to Dave Armstrong on the issue of Biblical Authority and Chemnitz’s critique of the Council of Trent. I consider it a good effort. You can read it here:

    http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/my-reply-to-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-regarding-his-examination-of-martin-chemnitzs-examination/

    Here is a Lutheran Critique on pre vatican II understandings of the Magisterium . I would urge you to read this Shelley. Your current Pope Ratzinger, is close to we Lutherans than he is to you Tridentine Romanists might I suggest? Here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_1_38/ai_n57120477/?tag=content;col1

  • fws

    shelly @ 266

    My take is that Sola Scriptura lacks a specific Biblical text proving that it is the final, trumping authority.

    So you need an extra Biblical source to settle disputes when conflicts arise over the meaning of Biblical passages, especially the complicated ones, such as those touching upon the Trinity.

    I would suggest Shelley that you are oversimplifying the argument.
    I agree that there are many protestant christians who have the exact view you have presented. And I see you agree that this is just as there are many Romanists who would articulate the Roman position in a way that would not do it justice.

    Shelly, I would note for you that Lutherans consciously claim to hold to the same catholic faith that was handed down from Christ to the Holy Apostles as his unique witnesses.

    And we are liturgical. This means that we Lutherans do not believe in a flat Bible that is of equal authority everywhere. This is precisely why we stand in the Holy Liturgy and sing aleluiah when the Gospel reading that are the Words of our Lord are read.

    We Lutherans see the Words of Christ as the lense through which we are to understand and interpret the rest of Scriptures. The Words of Christ then are the 1st level of Holy Tradition for us Lutherans. Then we note that Christ uniquely sent his Holy Apostles. So they are the second lense, through which, we feel that we can alone understand the rest of Holy Scriptures. So then there are , for Lutherans , these two points of Authority. And we Lutherans draw a straight line through those two points. Shelley, whatever falls along that line that is spoken by the Fathers, the Pope or even a Lutheran we receive and accept with joy as the very words of Christ Himself. Whatever does not fall along that Apostolic Line of Tradition, we cover up with modesty just like Noah’s good sons covered up the failing of their father to honor him.

    The best one to read to more fully understand our Lutheran acceptance of Holy Tradition would be one Martin Chemnitz, who prepared a masterful examination of the Council of Trent. I would encourage you to go and see what he has to say about Holy Tradition. We see Holy Tradition in 8 concentric circles around that Holy Tradition that are the Words of Christ. And we reject only the 8th circle as being unnecessary and redundant.

    Here are some links for you on this Shelley. Please do not lump us lutherans with other protestants or reduce our arguments to something less complex than they are.

    I would note, as is well noted below, that Lutherans reject only ONE kind of Holy Tradition out of 8 that we fully embrace.

    Here you go:
    Here is a response from Nathan Rine to Dave Armstrong on the issue of Biblical Authority and Chemnitz’s critique of the Council of Trent. I consider it a good effort. You can read it here:

    http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/my-reply-to-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-regarding-his-examination-of-martin-chemnitzs-examination/

    Here is a Lutheran Critique on pre vatican II understandings of the Magisterium . I would urge you to read this Shelley. Your current Pope Ratzinger, is close to we Lutherans than he is to you Tridentine Romanists might I suggest? Here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_1_38/ai_n57120477/?tag=content;col1

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws had the original comment #231 removed, because he described me in three (shall we say) “negative” ways. He has since (on my blog; dunno if he also did here; I think not) retracted one allegedly factual charge, after being shown repeatedly that it wasn’t so. The other two things he has not retracted, and in fact, repeated one of them on my blog just a few minutes ago. I won’t repeat it, in deference to the blogmaster’s decision to have this disgraceful material removed here.

    This post (the original #231) was removed on the advice of James Swan, who also is on record in another Lutheran site and on his own (quite seriously), saying that I suffer from “psychosis,” etc. (and he removed his, too, minus any retraction, save one qualified one). fws’s rant was removed with (regarding two of the three charges) neither retraction nor apology. Swan wrote in the present #233 (formerly #234), which still remains up:

    fws (231), I would strongly advise you to have that comment deleted by a moderator of this forum, if at all possible, as soon as possible.

    fws replied in (current) #253:

    james @ 234 done. thanks for the suggestion.

    Note that all we have is the recommendation of removal, to cover up what was said, rather than a Christian recognition that it is slander and a disgrace to discourse. The slander was quite public; the removal was (almost) secret, minus retraction or apology. It reminds me of how the New York Times will say something stupid on the front page, then (if forced) retract it two weeks later on page C34 or something . . .

    As I was writing this, fws (aka Frank Sonnek, in his comments on my blog), wrote in one of my comboxes, reiterating one of the charges that he removed here. This proves that he hasn’t changed his views in the slightest, but he removed the post to cover his you-know-what.

    This is what pagans worldly-wise sorts do; it’s certainly not Christian ethics: calling a man [censored] and [censored] because there is an honest disagreement, then removing it so no one will see, then (like a fool) stating it again on the person’s blog, so that it can’t be removed.

    I want to publicly thank and express my admiration for “Dust” — for his integrity and fairness in speaking up repeatedly against the hogwash and personal nonsense that ruined what could have been (and even was, in isolated instances) a constructive (and fun) discussion; also thanks to Nathan Rinne: a Lutheran who is able to talk to a Catholic rationally and pleasantly, minus any hint of insult or hostility (he spoke up, too, against some of the slander). My next project will be to reply to his critique of my critiques of Chemnitz. I look forward to it.

    Many thanks again to the host, Dr. Gene Veith, for allowing me to speak freely on his site, and to present what Catholics believe. I wish him many blessings in his important work.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    fws had the original comment #231 removed, because he described me in three (shall we say) “negative” ways. He has since (on my blog; dunno if he also did here; I think not) retracted one allegedly factual charge, after being shown repeatedly that it wasn’t so. The other two things he has not retracted, and in fact, repeated one of them on my blog just a few minutes ago. I won’t repeat it, in deference to the blogmaster’s decision to have this disgraceful material removed here.

    This post (the original #231) was removed on the advice of James Swan, who also is on record in another Lutheran site and on his own (quite seriously), saying that I suffer from “psychosis,” etc. (and he removed his, too, minus any retraction, save one qualified one). fws’s rant was removed with (regarding two of the three charges) neither retraction nor apology. Swan wrote in the present #233 (formerly #234), which still remains up:

    fws (231), I would strongly advise you to have that comment deleted by a moderator of this forum, if at all possible, as soon as possible.

    fws replied in (current) #253:

    james @ 234 done. thanks for the suggestion.

    Note that all we have is the recommendation of removal, to cover up what was said, rather than a Christian recognition that it is slander and a disgrace to discourse. The slander was quite public; the removal was (almost) secret, minus retraction or apology. It reminds me of how the New York Times will say something stupid on the front page, then (if forced) retract it two weeks later on page C34 or something . . .

    As I was writing this, fws (aka Frank Sonnek, in his comments on my blog), wrote in one of my comboxes, reiterating one of the charges that he removed here. This proves that he hasn’t changed his views in the slightest, but he removed the post to cover his you-know-what.

    This is what pagans worldly-wise sorts do; it’s certainly not Christian ethics: calling a man [censored] and [censored] because there is an honest disagreement, then removing it so no one will see, then (like a fool) stating it again on the person’s blog, so that it can’t be removed.

    I want to publicly thank and express my admiration for “Dust” — for his integrity and fairness in speaking up repeatedly against the hogwash and personal nonsense that ruined what could have been (and even was, in isolated instances) a constructive (and fun) discussion; also thanks to Nathan Rinne: a Lutheran who is able to talk to a Catholic rationally and pleasantly, minus any hint of insult or hostility (he spoke up, too, against some of the slander). My next project will be to reply to his critique of my critiques of Chemnitz. I look forward to it.

    Many thanks again to the host, Dr. Gene Veith, for allowing me to speak freely on his site, and to present what Catholics believe. I wish him many blessings in his important work.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Oh, cool. When I went back to my blog, I now see that fws has finally seen fit (under pressure) to apologize for the additional two slanders. Great! Thank you, fws; that was the right thing to do. Again, I won’t repeat that here, but if someone wants to see it, here is the link:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/10/annunciation-does-it-indicate-that.html?showComment=1318350365114#c3101403415238639419

    He goes on, of course, in the same comment and others, to blast me over and over, but whatever . . .

    We must accept and love people at the spiritual level they are at. He could bring himself to apologize on my blog, but not here. That is something, anyway. I am glad to see it. I wish fws abundant blessings.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Oh, cool. When I went back to my blog, I now see that fws has finally seen fit (under pressure) to apologize for the additional two slanders. Great! Thank you, fws; that was the right thing to do. Again, I won’t repeat that here, but if someone wants to see it, here is the link:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/10/annunciation-does-it-indicate-that.html?showComment=1318350365114#c3101403415238639419

    He goes on, of course, in the same comment and others, to blast me over and over, but whatever . . .

    We must accept and love people at the spiritual level they are at. He could bring himself to apologize on my blog, but not here. That is something, anyway. I am glad to see it. I wish fws abundant blessings.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I do find it just a wee bit odd that fws stated at 12:01 PM (just 53 minutes ago) on my blog, that one behavior of mine “does appear in fact to be [x].” Then all of 25 minutes later on my blog, he wrote, “I agree and appologize that it is wrong to use words like [y] and [x] directed at anyone dave. it is hurtful and serves no useful purpose.”

    It may change again in another 25 minutes. Who knows? But I accept the apology! We gotta forgive 70×7 after all, right? If he does it 68 more times, I’ll forgive him 68 times.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    I do find it just a wee bit odd that fws stated at 12:01 PM (just 53 minutes ago) on my blog, that one behavior of mine “does appear in fact to be [x].” Then all of 25 minutes later on my blog, he wrote, “I agree and appologize that it is wrong to use words like [y] and [x] directed at anyone dave. it is hurtful and serves no useful purpose.”

    It may change again in another 25 minutes. Who knows? But I accept the apology! We gotta forgive 70×7 after all, right? If he does it 68 more times, I’ll forgive him 68 times.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Actually it gets even weirder (by the minute). In the same post (on my blog) where fws apologized for calling me x, he left open the distinct possibility that I may still be x. Some apology, huh?:

    “In that case you know what you did was wrong. And if you dont know that, then the other alternative is that you are [x].”

    So I’m either a deliberate liar or something else (x). This is considered by fws to be Christian charity, I suppose. It couldn’t possibly be that A) he misunderstood, and/or B) that it was an honest disagreement. They do happen at times!

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Actually it gets even weirder (by the minute). In the same post (on my blog) where fws apologized for calling me x, he left open the distinct possibility that I may still be x. Some apology, huh?:

    “In that case you know what you did was wrong. And if you dont know that, then the other alternative is that you are [x].”

    So I’m either a deliberate liar or something else (x). This is considered by fws to be Christian charity, I suppose. It couldn’t possibly be that A) he misunderstood, and/or B) that it was an honest disagreement. They do happen at times!

  • fws

    dave @ 285

    “Oh, cool. When I went back to my blog, I now see that fws has finally seen fit (under pressure) to apologize for the additional two slanders. Great! Thank you, fws; that was the right thing to do.”

    “We must accept and love people at the spiritual level they are at. He could bring himself to apologize on my blog, but not here.”

    For the record: I felt no pressure whatsoever to apologize to you beyond a guilty conscience. I will note the following:

    1) you did not come here and ask for an apology from me. Instead you chose to “document” my error on your own site. What was the Godly goodness and mercy were you hoping to accomplish by that form of reaction Dave?
    2) your intent seemed to be to trumpet my moral lapse to reflect badly upon my character before others. When a brother sins, are we to take some sort of glee in catching him in that error Dave? So again, what Godly thing are you hoping to achieve here?
    3) The form in which you “accepted” my apology would seem to be an exercise in the opposite of humility. Is this how you would want to be dealt with in those cases, where you offended someone with your words Dave? Again, what kind of reaction are you seeking from me and others by your behavior?
    4) What the point of your work Dave? Is it to win some battle or points for Rome vs the Protestants? In that case you need to quit so that you do not lose your own soul.

    When we lack love, we are a clanging symbol Dave according to the Holy Apostle St Paul. Go and read what he says there. That is our standard. It is an impossible one to meet, and that is why we need to hide ourselves in the Works of Another named Jesus who is alone our Righteousness. You can read this here: http://www.biblebible.com/text-bible/Catholic-Bible/1_corinthians_13.html .

    My inappropriate comments towards you are a great object lesson that this is true.

    May I suggest that your subsequent behavior also is found lacking in love goodness and mercy that God demands that we do for each other?

    If what we do or say does not make others feel like they are receiving the goodness and mercy we long to receive for our own selves then we are deluding ourselve if we think we are doing God’s Will Dave. I am sad that I have failed you in this. And you are failing me now as well dear brother!

    Saint James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I extend that as an apostolic invitation to you dear brother.

    Rather than focus on the visceral reaction you often provoke in others and then document those, I am inviting you to consider your part in that sin and evil. I suggest that you do have a part with your methods and words that often seem to lack charity and mercy and love.

  • fws

    dave @ 285

    “Oh, cool. When I went back to my blog, I now see that fws has finally seen fit (under pressure) to apologize for the additional two slanders. Great! Thank you, fws; that was the right thing to do.”

    “We must accept and love people at the spiritual level they are at. He could bring himself to apologize on my blog, but not here.”

    For the record: I felt no pressure whatsoever to apologize to you beyond a guilty conscience. I will note the following:

    1) you did not come here and ask for an apology from me. Instead you chose to “document” my error on your own site. What was the Godly goodness and mercy were you hoping to accomplish by that form of reaction Dave?
    2) your intent seemed to be to trumpet my moral lapse to reflect badly upon my character before others. When a brother sins, are we to take some sort of glee in catching him in that error Dave? So again, what Godly thing are you hoping to achieve here?
    3) The form in which you “accepted” my apology would seem to be an exercise in the opposite of humility. Is this how you would want to be dealt with in those cases, where you offended someone with your words Dave? Again, what kind of reaction are you seeking from me and others by your behavior?
    4) What the point of your work Dave? Is it to win some battle or points for Rome vs the Protestants? In that case you need to quit so that you do not lose your own soul.

    When we lack love, we are a clanging symbol Dave according to the Holy Apostle St Paul. Go and read what he says there. That is our standard. It is an impossible one to meet, and that is why we need to hide ourselves in the Works of Another named Jesus who is alone our Righteousness. You can read this here: http://www.biblebible.com/text-bible/Catholic-Bible/1_corinthians_13.html .

    My inappropriate comments towards you are a great object lesson that this is true.

    May I suggest that your subsequent behavior also is found lacking in love goodness and mercy that God demands that we do for each other?

    If what we do or say does not make others feel like they are receiving the goodness and mercy we long to receive for our own selves then we are deluding ourselve if we think we are doing God’s Will Dave. I am sad that I have failed you in this. And you are failing me now as well dear brother!

    Saint James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I extend that as an apostolic invitation to you dear brother.

    Rather than focus on the visceral reaction you often provoke in others and then document those, I am inviting you to consider your part in that sin and evil. I suggest that you do have a part with your methods and words that often seem to lack charity and mercy and love.

  • fws

    Dave @ 287

    I pointed out that at one point in the discussion here , you claimed that James Swan agreed with and supported one of your points.

    he quickly entered the discussion to deny that this was so. And it was most apparent that this was true even from what you linked.

    What is one to make of that Dave? As I said on your other site, you tell me!

    And Dave, can’t you understand, really, why others would react negatively to you from some of the ways you chose to interact with them?

    This exchange now about my unkind words towards you is an excellent example. I was wrong. And then how did you react to that wrong? You responded to sin and error by sinning and committing your own errors dear brother.

    So now we get to go back and forth self justifying and accusing, and trumpeting the errors of others. what good is that going to do Dave?

    Am I any less of a sinner by painting you also to be a sinner? nope. And I hope it is no news flash to you that you ARE a sinner. you are a christian after all! . But only as mutual sinners can we find that reconciliation that alone is in our dear Lord Jesus.

    This is not the first case where you reacted to this sort of error in this same way is it Dave. Why not make it the LAST time you chose to respond in such a way?

  • fws

    Dave @ 287

    I pointed out that at one point in the discussion here , you claimed that James Swan agreed with and supported one of your points.

    he quickly entered the discussion to deny that this was so. And it was most apparent that this was true even from what you linked.

    What is one to make of that Dave? As I said on your other site, you tell me!

    And Dave, can’t you understand, really, why others would react negatively to you from some of the ways you chose to interact with them?

    This exchange now about my unkind words towards you is an excellent example. I was wrong. And then how did you react to that wrong? You responded to sin and error by sinning and committing your own errors dear brother.

    So now we get to go back and forth self justifying and accusing, and trumpeting the errors of others. what good is that going to do Dave?

    Am I any less of a sinner by painting you also to be a sinner? nope. And I hope it is no news flash to you that you ARE a sinner. you are a christian after all! . But only as mutual sinners can we find that reconciliation that alone is in our dear Lord Jesus.

    This is not the first case where you reacted to this sort of error in this same way is it Dave. Why not make it the LAST time you chose to respond in such a way?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. So three days and 70+ comments go by, and what does it take for Dave to come back to this thread and post four (!) comments in quick succession?

    His reputation.

    He rather long ago finished actually discussing anything with us, but he’s not done obsessively cataloging everything that’s said about him. He just had to come back here and tell us what others are saying about him, causing me to once again fear that he believes Veith’s site is just another Internet repository for evidence of issues he has with other people.

    Does Dave think this is interesting? Can Dave not just record on his own blog the things he is worried that others may delete from the Internet (because, you know, people who are out to get him are like that)?

    And, perhaps most importantly, does Dave actually want us to believe it’s not all about him? Because if so, man, is he going about it the wrong way!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. So three days and 70+ comments go by, and what does it take for Dave to come back to this thread and post four (!) comments in quick succession?

    His reputation.

    He rather long ago finished actually discussing anything with us, but he’s not done obsessively cataloging everything that’s said about him. He just had to come back here and tell us what others are saying about him, causing me to once again fear that he believes Veith’s site is just another Internet repository for evidence of issues he has with other people.

    Does Dave think this is interesting? Can Dave not just record on his own blog the things he is worried that others may delete from the Internet (because, you know, people who are out to get him are like that)?

    And, perhaps most importantly, does Dave actually want us to believe it’s not all about him? Because if so, man, is he going about it the wrong way!

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Is there some reason you come here to give us ‘up to the minute boring reports, on what is stated on your blog, by whom, to whom, what has been deleated, etc. It’s not interesting, nor does it serve any purpose.

    B O R I N G -

  • Grace

    Dave,

    Is there some reason you come here to give us ‘up to the minute boring reports, on what is stated on your blog, by whom, to whom, what has been deleated, etc. It’s not interesting, nor does it serve any purpose.

    B O R I N G -

  • fws

    Dave @ 284

    lets be done with this brother. What is it that I have not retracted where you feel I am wrong? Dont plead deference to the site owner. you repeated it all over at your own site after all.

    And lets keep things on one blog. I would be happy to resolve this here or over at your blog.

    Let’s be clear: I am leveling an accusation at you and it is this:

    you are the creator of your own misery.

    You react to others in a way that is almost certain to make the other party feel that they are not being given Fatherly Goodness or Mercy by you. And then they react to you in a negative way. Which is also wrong. And so what results is pot calling kettle black. And you hope to accomplish what in this way? I am sure it does not make you feel good.

    You hold onto wrongs against you. You do not let go of them, which really means that you have not truly forgiven others have you. So what does that say about you? And how does it make you feel?

    resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.

  • fws

    Dave @ 284

    lets be done with this brother. What is it that I have not retracted where you feel I am wrong? Dont plead deference to the site owner. you repeated it all over at your own site after all.

    And lets keep things on one blog. I would be happy to resolve this here or over at your blog.

    Let’s be clear: I am leveling an accusation at you and it is this:

    you are the creator of your own misery.

    You react to others in a way that is almost certain to make the other party feel that they are not being given Fatherly Goodness or Mercy by you. And then they react to you in a negative way. Which is also wrong. And so what results is pot calling kettle black. And you hope to accomplish what in this way? I am sure it does not make you feel good.

    You hold onto wrongs against you. You do not let go of them, which really means that you have not truly forgiven others have you. So what does that say about you? And how does it make you feel?

    resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die

    There is also an addictive quality. We do it again and again to feel good about our own “righteousness.” But this feeling only lasts for a moment and we have to do it again.

    We know this is how it works, because we also are those people. “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die

    There is also an addictive quality. We do it again and again to feel good about our own “righteousness.” But this feeling only lasts for a moment and we have to do it again.

    We know this is how it works, because we also are those people. “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

  • fws

    Dave.

    The regulars on this site know I can be and often am an A**.
    At one time or another it is safe to say that I have managed to offend or at the very least be unkind, unloving, unmerciful or worse to about everyone on here.

    And what do these people here give me in return for all my bad behavior? They give me forgiveness Dave. And if you hang 0ut here for a bit, you will see that it is forgiveness that looks like love.

    Dave that really feels good. It looks like Mercy. And by definition Mercy is always undeserved. It is the opposite of what justice demands us to be given.

    I sincerely wish that you receive that same Mercy and Goodness in your own life dear brother.

  • fws

    Dave.

    The regulars on this site know I can be and often am an A**.
    At one time or another it is safe to say that I have managed to offend or at the very least be unkind, unloving, unmerciful or worse to about everyone on here.

    And what do these people here give me in return for all my bad behavior? They give me forgiveness Dave. And if you hang 0ut here for a bit, you will see that it is forgiveness that looks like love.

    Dave that really feels good. It looks like Mercy. And by definition Mercy is always undeserved. It is the opposite of what justice demands us to be given.

    I sincerely wish that you receive that same Mercy and Goodness in your own life dear brother.

  • fws

    Dave,

    what I mean to say is that I truly am grieved if I wounded you emotionally or in any other way. This is not about me posturing because people who know me know I am a flawed human being. So what good would it be to try to cover that up?

    Ask Grace here. Ask Todd. ask dr Veith. or anyone else here. It is better to be loved and forgiven Dave than to be righteously right.

  • fws

    Dave,

    what I mean to say is that I truly am grieved if I wounded you emotionally or in any other way. This is not about me posturing because people who know me know I am a flawed human being. So what good would it be to try to cover that up?

    Ask Grace here. Ask Todd. ask dr Veith. or anyone else here. It is better to be loved and forgiven Dave than to be righteously right.

  • Dust

    You two should just stop now, pretty please!

    This could go on forever…but not here, am sure Dr. Veith will “pull the plug” (perhaps with a back channel suggestion from someone?) as happened with things got out of hand with Grace and her comments on Luther a few months or a year or so ago! There was another time when there was talk of how to censor or prevent certain folks from making comments on this blog…again that was because of Grace and her “attacks” on Luther.

    Am not taking sides, but am sympathetic with Dave. Have seen so many times on this blog how a group of certain people sort of gang up on a particular commenter (think of Grace) and it gets down to very personal insults like we see here. Can’t count how many times Grace has been called crazy and other similar things.

    The difference here is Dave has his own blog and can go over and defend himself there. Also, Dave is pretty articulate (not that Grace is not!) and has lots of practice going toe to toe on these kind of issues. Furthermore in my opinion, he knows how to dish it out Luther style even.

    It was funny to read some comments from folks here on Dave’s blog how Dave twisted people’s words around and make them look bad or to expose holes in their arguments. Hmm, sounds like Luther versus Erasmus in Bondage of the Will to me. Seems like a debate style that every Lutheran would think is pretty clever, given that that seems like something to me that Luther did very well himself.

    Also the fact that Dave can just pound out page after page of material, is sort of like fws does here. Am suggesting that maybe there is some sort of rivalry, if not jealously that someone is beating you all at your own game? Or at least matching you, page by page, and making good points too, or at least good enough points to send you all into a tizzy. Just sayin’…..

    Whatever, but this kind of back and forth on things that have nothing to do with Mariology is not a good idea and not productive or saluatory (sp?). Best to leave it alone and stop now! Let’s all heed one of my favorite Murphy’s Rules: what ever begins badly, ends worse :(

    So this should stop…and hopefully never happen again on the Blog of Veith to anyone! It’s just not consistent with the spirit and values of our kind and gracious host, or our big boss upstairs!

  • Dust

    You two should just stop now, pretty please!

    This could go on forever…but not here, am sure Dr. Veith will “pull the plug” (perhaps with a back channel suggestion from someone?) as happened with things got out of hand with Grace and her comments on Luther a few months or a year or so ago! There was another time when there was talk of how to censor or prevent certain folks from making comments on this blog…again that was because of Grace and her “attacks” on Luther.

    Am not taking sides, but am sympathetic with Dave. Have seen so many times on this blog how a group of certain people sort of gang up on a particular commenter (think of Grace) and it gets down to very personal insults like we see here. Can’t count how many times Grace has been called crazy and other similar things.

    The difference here is Dave has his own blog and can go over and defend himself there. Also, Dave is pretty articulate (not that Grace is not!) and has lots of practice going toe to toe on these kind of issues. Furthermore in my opinion, he knows how to dish it out Luther style even.

    It was funny to read some comments from folks here on Dave’s blog how Dave twisted people’s words around and make them look bad or to expose holes in their arguments. Hmm, sounds like Luther versus Erasmus in Bondage of the Will to me. Seems like a debate style that every Lutheran would think is pretty clever, given that that seems like something to me that Luther did very well himself.

    Also the fact that Dave can just pound out page after page of material, is sort of like fws does here. Am suggesting that maybe there is some sort of rivalry, if not jealously that someone is beating you all at your own game? Or at least matching you, page by page, and making good points too, or at least good enough points to send you all into a tizzy. Just sayin’…..

    Whatever, but this kind of back and forth on things that have nothing to do with Mariology is not a good idea and not productive or saluatory (sp?). Best to leave it alone and stop now! Let’s all heed one of my favorite Murphy’s Rules: what ever begins badly, ends worse :(

    So this should stop…and hopefully never happen again on the Blog of Veith to anyone! It’s just not consistent with the spirit and values of our kind and gracious host, or our big boss upstairs!

  • Grace

    Dave,

    This is an unending ritual coming here, going back to another blog, showing up here, with new grumbles, adding to your pile of old complaints. This has become a place to pitch all your grievances, it STINKS!

    @ 145 you wrote: “Swan literally thinks I am a psychotic, and so troubled that he pondered leaving me alone because I was so seriously disturbed (of course he didn’t).
    He has insulted me publicly in 10,00 different ways for eight years and running.”

    This appears to have all the earmarks of an ad campaign for your blog, and your name.

    I hope Dr. Veith closes this blog thread. He gave you an opportunity to state your beliefs, and for others to agree or disagree, … what you have done is throw several blogs together in a ‘school yard, pre-adolescent mud fight, siting your blog site over and over and over again.

  • Grace

    Dave,

    This is an unending ritual coming here, going back to another blog, showing up here, with new grumbles, adding to your pile of old complaints. This has become a place to pitch all your grievances, it STINKS!

    @ 145 you wrote: “Swan literally thinks I am a psychotic, and so troubled that he pondered leaving me alone because I was so seriously disturbed (of course he didn’t).
    He has insulted me publicly in 10,00 different ways for eight years and running.”

    This appears to have all the earmarks of an ad campaign for your blog, and your name.

    I hope Dr. Veith closes this blog thread. He gave you an opportunity to state your beliefs, and for others to agree or disagree, … what you have done is throw several blogs together in a ‘school yard, pre-adolescent mud fight, siting your blog site over and over and over again.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Now then James, try to overlay this official and formal confession of Luther that was and is the very identity of Lutheranism onto any sort of idea of an immaculate conception of Mary. To do that would do violence to the very heart of Lutheran doctrine that Luther subscribed to until the day he died.” (230)

    fws, Thanks for your input on this. I’ll certainly follow up via this method of analyzing Luther’s position. I have to admit, in my 30 or so blog posts (guessing?) on Luther’s Mariology, I don’t think I ever pursued the topic via a formal confession Luther would’ve been familiar with.

    “I am planning to launch a site soon that goes through the early lutheran confessions very methodically.” (264)

    Thanks for such an effort, let me know when you’ve got it going. I have yet to find any particular discussion forum in which the emphasis is on Luther’s actual writings. Even I get wearied by always presenting a defense for Luther. I’d be interested in some sort of discussion group in which Luther’s times and writings (or all the writings from the Reformation period) are the hot topic. One time I found such a forum, but I’ve since lost it. I recall it being hosted by a college. The discussions were quite technical, and at least a few of the participants were familiar with the WA corpus.

    By the way, I had posted this under the other blog post in which Luther’s Mariology was one of the topics : for what it’s worth, I attempted to track down all of William Cole’s references for the bogus Luther quote brought up in the earlier discussion. Of the twenty or so references, I wasn’t able to check the contexts for one of them (it was three, but with the help of Brigitte, I was able to get it down to one). The results of this can be found here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come_08.html

    I have never claimed to be any sort of expert on Luther, ever. I’m simply a guy with a blog. I make no money, nor do I sell any products.

    What I do claim though is that Roman Catholicism has a lengthy history of misquoting and misinterpreting Luther. Now with so much available on the Internet, anyone can do what I do. It’s not a special talent. All it takes is a willingness to look up quotes and read them in their context, and try to understand the historical framework in which they were written in.

    By the way, there are actually really good works by Roman Catholics on Luther. Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset.I reviewed it here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/04/book-review-real-luther-by-franz-posset.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-review-real-luther-by-franz-posset.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/bernard-of-clairvaux-and-luther-on.html

    Posset’s book is probably one of the most interesting books I’ve read on Luther in quite a while. Kudos to Concordia Publishing for putting this book out!

    James

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Now then James, try to overlay this official and formal confession of Luther that was and is the very identity of Lutheranism onto any sort of idea of an immaculate conception of Mary. To do that would do violence to the very heart of Lutheran doctrine that Luther subscribed to until the day he died.” (230)

    fws, Thanks for your input on this. I’ll certainly follow up via this method of analyzing Luther’s position. I have to admit, in my 30 or so blog posts (guessing?) on Luther’s Mariology, I don’t think I ever pursued the topic via a formal confession Luther would’ve been familiar with.

    “I am planning to launch a site soon that goes through the early lutheran confessions very methodically.” (264)

    Thanks for such an effort, let me know when you’ve got it going. I have yet to find any particular discussion forum in which the emphasis is on Luther’s actual writings. Even I get wearied by always presenting a defense for Luther. I’d be interested in some sort of discussion group in which Luther’s times and writings (or all the writings from the Reformation period) are the hot topic. One time I found such a forum, but I’ve since lost it. I recall it being hosted by a college. The discussions were quite technical, and at least a few of the participants were familiar with the WA corpus.

    By the way, I had posted this under the other blog post in which Luther’s Mariology was one of the topics : for what it’s worth, I attempted to track down all of William Cole’s references for the bogus Luther quote brought up in the earlier discussion. Of the twenty or so references, I wasn’t able to check the contexts for one of them (it was three, but with the help of Brigitte, I was able to get it down to one). The results of this can be found here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-mary-does-not-wish-that-we-come_08.html

    I have never claimed to be any sort of expert on Luther, ever. I’m simply a guy with a blog. I make no money, nor do I sell any products.

    What I do claim though is that Roman Catholicism has a lengthy history of misquoting and misinterpreting Luther. Now with so much available on the Internet, anyone can do what I do. It’s not a special talent. All it takes is a willingness to look up quotes and read them in their context, and try to understand the historical framework in which they were written in.

    By the way, there are actually really good works by Roman Catholics on Luther. Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset.I reviewed it here:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/04/book-review-real-luther-by-franz-posset.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/book-review-real-luther-by-franz-posset.html

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/bernard-of-clairvaux-and-luther-on.html

    Posset’s book is probably one of the most interesting books I’ve read on Luther in quite a while. Kudos to Concordia Publishing for putting this book out!

    James

  • Dust

    How about this….Dr. Veith should close the thread ONLY IF AND WHEN Dave closes his?

    Hopefully neither will happen….do hope too this back and forth stops here and the Cranach bloggers should stop it on his blog!

  • Dust

    How about this….Dr. Veith should close the thread ONLY IF AND WHEN Dave closes his?

    Hopefully neither will happen….do hope too this back and forth stops here and the Cranach bloggers should stop it on his blog!

  • Grace

    Dust,

    What Dr. Veith chooses to do is not predicated upon what Dave does over on his blog. Dr. Veith is his own person, there is no reason why Dr. Veith should make such a ‘deal with anyone – it most likely wouldn’t last very long in this persons case anyway – just look at the history.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    What Dr. Veith chooses to do is not predicated upon what Dave does over on his blog. Dr. Veith is his own person, there is no reason why Dr. Veith should make such a ‘deal with anyone – it most likely wouldn’t last very long in this persons case anyway – just look at the history.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    The comments, posts, and quotes regarding my beliefs about Martin Luther, are not personal attacks on commenters. If they were taken that way, I am sorry. My beliefs regarding Martin Luther still stand, but I must add, there is an undercurrent between the RCC and Lutherans, that still holds hands, but clenches their teeth at the same time. To me, as a non-Lutheran this has been educational. I see more than those on the blog might surmise.

    Roman Catholicism is another story. It is dependent upon all the previous Popes, the current Pope, and any ways he chooses to change policy from the top of Rome, sliding ‘tradition’ in the middle. Mariology is no different, the RCC makes Mary the mediator between man and Christ, then making the statement that it’s all ‘tradition….. on and on.

    I see this as a struggle between the HOLY Scriptures and that of the Roman Church, (false teaching) ONCE AGAIN, trying to silence the truth of the Gospel. Isn’t that what the Roman Church did for centuries, even to the extent of denying their members the opportunity to read the Scriptures for themselves? This is KEY to the problem of any Church, when any book, dogma becomes the center, and the Word of God sits on the side lines.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    The comments, posts, and quotes regarding my beliefs about Martin Luther, are not personal attacks on commenters. If they were taken that way, I am sorry. My beliefs regarding Martin Luther still stand, but I must add, there is an undercurrent between the RCC and Lutherans, that still holds hands, but clenches their teeth at the same time. To me, as a non-Lutheran this has been educational. I see more than those on the blog might surmise.

    Roman Catholicism is another story. It is dependent upon all the previous Popes, the current Pope, and any ways he chooses to change policy from the top of Rome, sliding ‘tradition’ in the middle. Mariology is no different, the RCC makes Mary the mediator between man and Christ, then making the statement that it’s all ‘tradition….. on and on.

    I see this as a struggle between the HOLY Scriptures and that of the Roman Church, (false teaching) ONCE AGAIN, trying to silence the truth of the Gospel. Isn’t that what the Roman Church did for centuries, even to the extent of denying their members the opportunity to read the Scriptures for themselves? This is KEY to the problem of any Church, when any book, dogma becomes the center, and the Word of God sits on the side lines.

  • Grace

    Can you imagine even Luther making such a blasphemous statement as Pope Paul made in Colorado, 1993?

    “Mary of the New Advent, we implore your protection on the preparations that will now begin for the next meeting [World Youth Day]. Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven, we entrust the young people of the world … the whole world to YOU

    August 1993, Denver, Colorado, Pope John Paul II

    Pope Paul obviously didn’t understand who God is, and who everything is entrusted to, who we should pray to, who is our mediator – it isn’t Mary. All the tradition in a million books, will never change who we pray to, or Christ as the mediator between man and God. No one hears us but the LORD!

  • Grace

    Can you imagine even Luther making such a blasphemous statement as Pope Paul made in Colorado, 1993?

    “Mary of the New Advent, we implore your protection on the preparations that will now begin for the next meeting [World Youth Day]. Mary, full of grace, we entrust the next World Youth Day to you. Mary, assumed into heaven, we entrust the young people of the world … the whole world to YOU

    August 1993, Denver, Colorado, Pope John Paul II

    Pope Paul obviously didn’t understand who God is, and who everything is entrusted to, who we should pray to, who is our mediator – it isn’t Mary. All the tradition in a million books, will never change who we pray to, or Christ as the mediator between man and God. No one hears us but the LORD!

  • Dust

    Grace at 300….yes of course, your comment/attacks on Luther are not meant to be personal attacks on people on the blog or Lutherans, I get that. My reference is to the response to you in regard to those, such as you are crazy, or obsessed, or unintelligent, am not sure if these are exact quotes, and really, don’t want to nor know how to go back and look these things up. Am just saying, it’s a one way some folks do business here, to insult folks, and chase them away, such as one of my favorites, and yours, Porcell…remember him?

    Just sayin, when some of the non-regulars, or some of the non-golden ones on this blog, say things that offend some of the regulars, they are accused of twisting words, or they get bombarded with a 100 questions off topic usually, and if they don’t relent or concede, then come the insults, and the threat of censorship or the threat of pulling the plug, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    My point is that this is what seems to me to be happening with Dave. They don’t like what he is saying, they don’t like his style, they ask 100 questions and expect immediate replies, they bombard with pages and pages of replies, they try and control his conversation, then when he responds in ways that are interpreted by them to be mean-spirited or whatever, and in my opinion are not mean spirited, then the level gets personal and insults such as crazy or delusional, yadda, yadda, yadda…it’s happened to you and that is my point of similarity with this situation with Dave.

    Of course Dr. Veith can do what ever, am just saying it would only seem fair to me to do it that way. My hope is that everyone just stops with this and take a few days off ON THEIR OWN, without their Mom and Dad putting them on restriction and locked in their bedrooms :)

  • Dust

    Grace at 300….yes of course, your comment/attacks on Luther are not meant to be personal attacks on people on the blog or Lutherans, I get that. My reference is to the response to you in regard to those, such as you are crazy, or obsessed, or unintelligent, am not sure if these are exact quotes, and really, don’t want to nor know how to go back and look these things up. Am just saying, it’s a one way some folks do business here, to insult folks, and chase them away, such as one of my favorites, and yours, Porcell…remember him?

    Just sayin, when some of the non-regulars, or some of the non-golden ones on this blog, say things that offend some of the regulars, they are accused of twisting words, or they get bombarded with a 100 questions off topic usually, and if they don’t relent or concede, then come the insults, and the threat of censorship or the threat of pulling the plug, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    My point is that this is what seems to me to be happening with Dave. They don’t like what he is saying, they don’t like his style, they ask 100 questions and expect immediate replies, they bombard with pages and pages of replies, they try and control his conversation, then when he responds in ways that are interpreted by them to be mean-spirited or whatever, and in my opinion are not mean spirited, then the level gets personal and insults such as crazy or delusional, yadda, yadda, yadda…it’s happened to you and that is my point of similarity with this situation with Dave.

    Of course Dr. Veith can do what ever, am just saying it would only seem fair to me to do it that way. My hope is that everyone just stops with this and take a few days off ON THEIR OWN, without their Mom and Dad putting them on restriction and locked in their bedrooms :)

  • Grace

    Dust,

    What people say about me doesn’t have much effect, especially when the ‘name calling begins… that’s when their argument becomes juvenile –

    I really see no merit in bringing up the past,… which you believe compares with this particular thread. Bringing up Porcell has nothing to do with this thread as well.

    The individual in question, writes long tomes (not scholarly) of which very few are going to read, as he drones on, and then directs others to his blog, to answer other questions. It’s disjointed, and self serving.

    There is no reason for anyone to take a day off, unless of course Dr. Veith closes the thread, in which case there is nothing to post to.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    What people say about me doesn’t have much effect, especially when the ‘name calling begins… that’s when their argument becomes juvenile –

    I really see no merit in bringing up the past,… which you believe compares with this particular thread. Bringing up Porcell has nothing to do with this thread as well.

    The individual in question, writes long tomes (not scholarly) of which very few are going to read, as he drones on, and then directs others to his blog, to answer other questions. It’s disjointed, and self serving.

    There is no reason for anyone to take a day off, unless of course Dr. Veith closes the thread, in which case there is nothing to post to.

  • Dust

    Grace at 297:

    “I hope Dr. Veith closes this blog thread.”

    Grace at 204:

    “There is no reason for anyone to take a day off”

    Blog threads are closed when the level of perceived vitriol is too caustic and productive discussion shuts down….that is not a good thing, and sometimes taking a day or two off, taking a deep breath, or whatever, helps things cool down so the drastic measure of closing the thread is no longer necessary.

    But if you want Dr. Veith to shut the thread down, as you say, then taking a day off would be a bad idea, yes indeed!

  • Dust

    Grace at 297:

    “I hope Dr. Veith closes this blog thread.”

    Grace at 204:

    “There is no reason for anyone to take a day off”

    Blog threads are closed when the level of perceived vitriol is too caustic and productive discussion shuts down….that is not a good thing, and sometimes taking a day or two off, taking a deep breath, or whatever, helps things cool down so the drastic measure of closing the thread is no longer necessary.

    But if you want Dr. Veith to shut the thread down, as you say, then taking a day off would be a bad idea, yes indeed!

  • Dust

    Grace at 304….

    “unless of course Dr. Veith closes the thread, in which case there is nothing to post to.”

    Of course, a closed thread has not stopped folks from continuing to post comments on another thread?

    It actually has happened on this blog…perhaps bringing up the past in this case has merit?

    So to me, it works best when folks decide to stop the madness ON THEIR OWN without the need for adult intervention :)

  • Dust

    Grace at 304….

    “unless of course Dr. Veith closes the thread, in which case there is nothing to post to.”

    Of course, a closed thread has not stopped folks from continuing to post comments on another thread?

    It actually has happened on this blog…perhaps bringing up the past in this case has merit?

    So to me, it works best when folks decide to stop the madness ON THEIR OWN without the need for adult intervention :)

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    There has been no madness, here. I don’t see a particular reason to close this thread.

    What Dust has been saying and dredging up from the past has not made that much sense. Frank’s questions and responses and those of others have been reasonable.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    There has been no madness, here. I don’t see a particular reason to close this thread.

    What Dust has been saying and dredging up from the past has not made that much sense. Frank’s questions and responses and those of others have been reasonable.

  • Dust

    Those who don’t know history (the past) are doomed to repeat it :(

  • Dust

    Those who don’t know history (the past) are doomed to repeat it :(

  • Dan Kempin

    Couldn’t help but notice that Dave’s wounded (and very verbose) response to Fws’s frustration led him to overlook Fws’s very clear and civil questions on #214 and #215. How tragic that the emotional trauma prevented him from responding. And how convenient. Especially since FWS laid out very clearly there that, quite contrary to Dave’s assertion, Luther was talking about the immaculate conception OF JESUS, not Mary.

  • Dan Kempin

    Couldn’t help but notice that Dave’s wounded (and very verbose) response to Fws’s frustration led him to overlook Fws’s very clear and civil questions on #214 and #215. How tragic that the emotional trauma prevented him from responding. And how convenient. Especially since FWS laid out very clearly there that, quite contrary to Dave’s assertion, Luther was talking about the immaculate conception OF JESUS, not Mary.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    What “wound”? What “emotional trauma”? LOL I do hugely enjoy the quack psychoanalysis though.

    Are you, too, incapable of reading past comments? fws asked me a bunch of questions along similar lines in #143. I politely declined to answer in #144:

    “Discussing Luther’s fine points on this matter is a huge discussion, involving all sorts of intricacies. I’m afraid (for lack of time and desire: I still have lots of questions directed towards me to answer in this thread, and I’m leaving shortly for a big bike ride), I’ll have to refer you back to my four papers on the topic. Scroll to ‘Luther and the Blessed Virgin Mary’ on my Luther and Lutheranism web page [gave link]. There you will find the most excruciatingly detailed explanations (and debates). As with the quotes I was asked to produce, my thoughts on this are in those papers. And you can see the opinions of many Lutheran scholars on the matter.”

    fws had stated in #48: “I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.”

    I asked, in #209 (qu0ting the above): “What is your opinion now, after I thoroughly documented all three citations?”

    Since it was embarrassing that the quotes turned out to be quite authentic, fws didn’t want to touch that, so he switched the discussion in his “reply” in #214-215 back to the controversy over what Luther meant, that I had already politely declined to delve into in #144. I’m under no obligation to engage in discussions that I have neither desire nor time for, and which I have dealt with at great length in the past, in any event. So I provided the link to access the four papers I have written.

    You in turn, scoff at that perfectly reasonable scenario and cynically conclude that I am unable to answer. That’s fine. Believe whatever you wish. I declined long before fws took an ugly turn and started throwing out epithets (joining veterans Grace, Brigitte, yourself, Tom Hering, and Todd in the insult and factually-challenged accusation sweepstakes), so it had nothing to do with that. It was simply a “time-management” and “been there done that” issue.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    What “wound”? What “emotional trauma”? LOL I do hugely enjoy the quack psychoanalysis though.

    Are you, too, incapable of reading past comments? fws asked me a bunch of questions along similar lines in #143. I politely declined to answer in #144:

    “Discussing Luther’s fine points on this matter is a huge discussion, involving all sorts of intricacies. I’m afraid (for lack of time and desire: I still have lots of questions directed towards me to answer in this thread, and I’m leaving shortly for a big bike ride), I’ll have to refer you back to my four papers on the topic. Scroll to ‘Luther and the Blessed Virgin Mary’ on my Luther and Lutheranism web page [gave link]. There you will find the most excruciatingly detailed explanations (and debates). As with the quotes I was asked to produce, my thoughts on this are in those papers. And you can see the opinions of many Lutheran scholars on the matter.”

    fws had stated in #48: “I simply don’t believe they are valid quotes. they are either mis translations or bogus Dave.”

    I asked, in #209 (qu0ting the above): “What is your opinion now, after I thoroughly documented all three citations?”

    Since it was embarrassing that the quotes turned out to be quite authentic, fws didn’t want to touch that, so he switched the discussion in his “reply” in #214-215 back to the controversy over what Luther meant, that I had already politely declined to delve into in #144. I’m under no obligation to engage in discussions that I have neither desire nor time for, and which I have dealt with at great length in the past, in any event. So I provided the link to access the four papers I have written.

    You in turn, scoff at that perfectly reasonable scenario and cynically conclude that I am unable to answer. That’s fine. Believe whatever you wish. I declined long before fws took an ugly turn and started throwing out epithets (joining veterans Grace, Brigitte, yourself, Tom Hering, and Todd in the insult and factually-challenged accusation sweepstakes), so it had nothing to do with that. It was simply a “time-management” and “been there done that” issue.

  • Dust

    Dan at 309….it could be that from a Lutheran perspective, they make the point you all would like them to make, and from a Catholic perspective they don’t make it?

    Perhaps like the bible verses tODD keeps bringing up to Grace concerning absolution and a Lutheran Pastor’s ability to forgive sins? To a Lutheran perspective and their way of doing theology, it makes perfectly good sense, but to another denomination’s perspective it doesn’t prove anything like that?

    And to repeat the verses over and over doesn’t make it any clearer to one who doesn’t see it…maybe some day it will be different? Am guessing that Dave has seen just about everything, but maybe not, and if so, then fws’s comments are nothing new and with the bad blood already brooding between them, what’s the purpose of Dave responding to them? Like fws is going to listen to more comments showing either how he has mistaken something, or how he is not reading closely enough, or the same kind of comments that folks make to Grace, when she doesn’t get this or that particular verse.

    It’s just the way these things go and have for years, since the reformation, since someone argued something about “it all depends on what you mean by ‘is’” and am not talking about Bill Clinton. Didn’t Zwingli or someone from that period, have a different meaning of the word “is” and that little word alone had a huge impact on their understanding of the real presence?

    Perhaps that is why they should leave these debates to the professional theologians….simply because they don’t wear their emotions on their sleeves and can better handle it when other folks don’t immediately see the wisdom and logic of their point of view, and have the patience and maturity and well, professional attitude to deal with a little push back?

    So it all boils down to what side your on in the first place and that influences everything from there. It’s not rocket science if one is honest about it….

  • Dust

    Dan at 309….it could be that from a Lutheran perspective, they make the point you all would like them to make, and from a Catholic perspective they don’t make it?

    Perhaps like the bible verses tODD keeps bringing up to Grace concerning absolution and a Lutheran Pastor’s ability to forgive sins? To a Lutheran perspective and their way of doing theology, it makes perfectly good sense, but to another denomination’s perspective it doesn’t prove anything like that?

    And to repeat the verses over and over doesn’t make it any clearer to one who doesn’t see it…maybe some day it will be different? Am guessing that Dave has seen just about everything, but maybe not, and if so, then fws’s comments are nothing new and with the bad blood already brooding between them, what’s the purpose of Dave responding to them? Like fws is going to listen to more comments showing either how he has mistaken something, or how he is not reading closely enough, or the same kind of comments that folks make to Grace, when she doesn’t get this or that particular verse.

    It’s just the way these things go and have for years, since the reformation, since someone argued something about “it all depends on what you mean by ‘is’” and am not talking about Bill Clinton. Didn’t Zwingli or someone from that period, have a different meaning of the word “is” and that little word alone had a huge impact on their understanding of the real presence?

    Perhaps that is why they should leave these debates to the professional theologians….simply because they don’t wear their emotions on their sleeves and can better handle it when other folks don’t immediately see the wisdom and logic of their point of view, and have the patience and maturity and well, professional attitude to deal with a little push back?

    So it all boils down to what side your on in the first place and that influences everything from there. It’s not rocket science if one is honest about it….

  • Tom Hering

    I find the personal comments here to be quite restrained. No one has said “you ****ing moron” (which is not uncommon on some non-Christian blogs). In fact, I’d like to see things get a little more colorful, along the lines of “Tom, you retarded follower of the Devil’s wild boar” and “Dave, you ring-kissing slave of the Antichrist.” Now that would be fun! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    I find the personal comments here to be quite restrained. No one has said “you ****ing moron” (which is not uncommon on some non-Christian blogs). In fact, I’d like to see things get a little more colorful, along the lines of “Tom, you retarded follower of the Devil’s wild boar” and “Dave, you ring-kissing slave of the Antichrist.” Now that would be fun! :-D

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Fws’s very clear and civil questions on #214 and #215.” (309)

    Those were great questions and comments from fws. I appreciate
    them, and think he makes very good points. I plan on revisitng some of Luther’s statements and applying the paradigm put forth by fws.

  • http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/ James Swan

    “Fws’s very clear and civil questions on #214 and #215.” (309)

    Those were great questions and comments from fws. I appreciate
    them, and think he makes very good points. I plan on revisitng some of Luther’s statements and applying the paradigm put forth by fws.

  • http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ Dave Armstrong

    Dust @#311,

    It’s even more complicated than natural bias, Dust. There are some Lutheran scholars who think Luther’s views were closer to Catholic on that score than I do myself. Others think he did for a while, then changed his mind. Others hold my present position: that he changed his mind sometime after 1527. Scholars on both sides differ as to Luther’s exact definition, and about when he may have modified it. There are all sorts of positions.

    So it isn’t just Catholics interpreting one way and Lutherans an opposite way. There are Lutherans who hold what one might predict (at first glance) would be the Catholic interpretation, and Catholics who are closer to what one might expect to be a Lutheran interpretation. Reasonable men can and do differ.

    The reason is that it is a very complex issue, with all kinds of intricacy and