Sinless Virgin Mary

[sculpturegirl]

Catholic doctrine teaches that the Virgin Mary was without sin. What does the Lutheran church teach?

[Qoheleth]

The statements below are from the BoC concerning Mary


Article XXII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Lutherans testify that



blessed Mary prays for the church The Apology goes on to state that Mary



is worthy of the highest honors and desires to have her example considered and followed


Part I of the Smalcald Articles, Jesus Christ is confessed to have been born of the pure, holy, and ever virgin Mary


Article VIII of the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration), Lutherans confess Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother's womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.






The Formula of Concord (Epitome) states in the clearest possible language the accession to the doctrine of Mary as the Theotokos: we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not only a plain, ordinary, mere man but the veritable Son of God; for this reason she is rightly called, and truly is, the mother of God.

[pastel]

Thank you for posting this. I learned something from it. There is much that continues to need to be studied on my part. I'll get there one day. :holy:

[sculpturegirl]

So is Mary pure and holy because God transformed her through the birth of His Son, or was she born sinless, as the Catholics believe?

I have a hard time believing that she was a perpetual virgin, but as Dr. Luther says, it has no bearing on one's salvation either way.

[theologia crucis]

This is one area where I believe Scripture trumps the BoC.

From Christian Dogmatics (I'm lazy tonight!):

Since Holy Scripture condemns all men as sinners, Rom. 3:4–23, the papistical doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary must be rejected...

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934. Page 215

Original corruption (corruptio hereditaria) is transmitted to all men through the ordinary mode of generation, Ps. 51:5; John 3:6. Since Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Luke 1:35, His nature was not corrupted by sin (immaculate conception). However, for Mary, His mother, no immaculate conception can be claimed, since she was born according to the ordinary mode of generation, Luke 1:27, and was therefore in need of a Savior herself, Luke 1:47.

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934. Page 218

However, Scripture not only establishes the fact and necessity of Christ’s sinlessness, but also explains how it was that He was conceived and born sinless. The cause was not a) that a holy seed (massa sancta) was preserved and propagated in Israel until the Savior was born (scholastic theologians), or b) that by way of evolution Mary developed into a holy person (modern rationalistic theologians, Olshausen), or c) the immaculate conception of Mary (immaculata conceptio, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854), but the astounding fact that Mary became the mother of Christ according to His human nature through the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1:18...

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934. Page 259

Whether our Savior was born clauso utero or not we may regard as an open question, though this is possible on account of the communication of attributes. (Cp. Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., VIII, 24; VII, 100.) The denial of the virgin birth of our Savior by rationalists and Modernists (Th. Kaftan: It is “worthless from a religious point of view,” “religioes wertlos”) is contrary to the express testimony of Scripture and is a result and proof of their unbelief.

The question whether Mary afterwards in her marriage with Joseph had children or not (semper virgo) the ancient Church as well as Luther and the older Lutheran dogmaticians have answered in the negative, while the opinions of more recent exegetes are divided on the matter. The question is a purely historical one and may be left open since Scripture does not answer it with sufficient clearness. Cp. Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Matt. 12:46 ff.; 13:55 ff.; John 2:12; 7:3 ff.; Gal. 1:19. (Cp. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, II, 366 ff.) Eusebius, III, 11, according to Hegesippus: “Alphaeus (Cleophas) was a brother of Joseph, who after the death of Alphaeus adopted his children, so that these (cousins of Jesus) became brothers of our Savior in the legal sense.” According to this view, James, the apostle and brother of the Lord, Gal. 1:19, and James, the son of Alphaeus, Matt. 10:3, are identical Chemnitz (Jerome): Mariam post partum (Matt. 1:25) aut cum Ioseph concubuisse aut filios ex ipso sustulisse non credimus, quia non legimus, sc. in Scriptura Sacra. The term first-born (Luke 2:7) does not prove that Mary had other sons.

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934. Page 293

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Lutheran Confessions, and I absolutely believe they are an incredibly accurate exposition of Scriptural doctrines, and will defend them to my death, but this is one place where I think Luther and the Concordists and early dogmaticians may have stayed a little to close to medieval Catholocism.

And I write this based on trying to study very early church history references to Mary, which I have found don't really start to come about for a few hundred years after Christ's death. Don't get me wrong, she was rightfully praised in the ancient church, but some of the current claims about her don't start surfacing until several centuries later.

I gotta quit beatin' this dead horse...

[pastel]

So is Mary pure and holy because God transformed her through the birth of His Son, or was she born sinless, as the Catholics believe?

I have a hard time believing that she was a perpetual virgin, but as Dr. Luther says, it has no bearing on one's salvation either way.

It is true Jesus had brothers & sisters - or half brothers and half-sisters. I've heard they were from Joseph's "previous marriage," but see no proof of that. I do not believe she was a "perpetual virgin" either, but it is interesting to see what Martin Luther believed, or said, about this subject. :idea:

[pastel]

This is one area where I believe Scripture trumps the BoC.

From Christian Dogmatics (I'm lazy tonight!):









Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Lutheran Confessions, and I absolutely believe they are an incredibly accurate exposition of Scriptural doctrines, and will defend them to my death, but this is one place where I think Luther and the Concordists and early dogmaticians may have stayed a little to close to medieval Catholocism.

And I write this based on trying to study very early church history references to Mary, which I have found don't really start to come about for a few hundred years after Christ's death. Don't get me wrong, she was rightfully praised in the ancient church, but some of the current claims about her don't start surfacing until several centuries later.

I gotta quit beatin' this dead horse...

I agree with you. Mary seems to be the complete opposite of Eve, yet she has descended from the same line as everyone of us. It is simply logical that Mary needed the same redemption we all need. Remember, Mary questioned the methods that Jesus was using at the beginning, and they wanted him to come home - and "behave" ?? Typical Jewish mother, perhaps. :)

[theologia crucis]

sculpturegirl,

I think Mary was pure and holy in God's sight because she was justified by grace through faith, just like we are. She believed God's promise, and she saved through faith. To me, it can't get more Lutheran than that. People in the OT were saved in the same way (through faith, Hebrews 11).

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, once I finally understood the Confessions and their implications with regard to Christ's Church...I was able to embrace the confessional position of semper virgo. This view is held by both the Eastern and Roman churches. Unfortunately, in the Roman church, semper virgo has become dogma, but in the Eastern church and the Lutheran church no such dogmatic position has been taken. Our salvation doesn not hinge on our understanding of Mary's perpetual virginity.

I am a little surprised that our confessions would say Mary is ever virgin and yet many confessional Lutherans choose not to accept this. To me this starts to smell of McLutheranism. But, I also understand that non-dogmatic position we hold on the subject and the related liberties. Of course, those liberties extend both ways.

Peace

Rose

[sculpturegirl]

Whether she were semper virgo or not, it matters nothing really. From what I can tell in my studies of medieval history, virginity was seen as a higher state of holiness than marriage. Martin Luther did a lot to correct this viewpoint, most notably in his bold move, as a monk, to marry. He declared that marriage is a holy state and no more or less holy than celibacy. I have taken the semper virgo of Mary to be a leftover position from the medieval church that praised virginity. God gave to her a husband, and Biblically it would have been wrong of her to withhold from him.

While in some sense she is just like us, on another we can look to her as an example of pure submission to God. I don't think that most protestants offer her enough recognition, while Catholics offer too much. Lutherans seem to have a nice balance. She is my favorite subject in art, after all, and I have spent many years creating sculptures in her image.


sculpturegirl,

I think Mary was pure and holy in God's sight because she was justified by grace through faith, just like we are. She believed God's promise, and she saved through faith. To me, it can't get more Lutheran than that. People in the OT were saved in the same way (through faith, Hebrews 11).

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[pastel]

I play "Ave Maria" on keyboard. ;) I do believe Mary should be given the utmost respect.

[Qoheleth]

So is Mary pure and holy because God transformed her through the birth of His Son, or was she born sinless, as the Catholics believe?

Scripture at least points away from the latter. The former is possible. Either way, it is not dogma. And if it were true, it would not be binding upon our consciences as it pertains to salvation, except that it would give greater "fullness" to the faith we have in Christ.

This is one area where I believe Scripture trumps the BoC.

Well, this is really an unfortunate means of expression. You make it sound as if they are in a contest with each other.

but this is one place where I think Luther and the Concordists and early dogmaticians may have stayed a little to close to medieval Catholocism.

It would appear to me they left it open ended for serious consideration only as it applies to Christ and not focusing on Mary alone. TC, would you offer this same statement concerning the "real presence"?

[Qoheleth]

He declared that marriage is a holy state and no more or less holy than celibacy

The Confessions call Matrimony a sacrament by definition

[Qoheleth]

The question whether Mary afterwards in her marriage with Joseph had children or not (semper virgo) the ancient Church as well as Luther and the older Lutheran dogmaticians have answered in the negative, while the opinions of more recent exegetes are divided on the matter. The question is a purely historical one and may be left open since Scripture does not answer it with sufficient clearness. Cp. Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Matt. 12:46 ff.; 13:55 ff.; John 2:12; 7:3 ff.; Gal. 1:19. (Cp. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, II, 366 ff.) Eusebius, III, 11, according to Hegesippus: “Alphaeus (Cleophas) was a brother of Joseph, who after the death of Alphaeus adopted his children, so that these (cousins of Jesus) became brothers of our Savior in the legal sense.” According to this view, James, the apostle and brother of the Lord, Gal. 1:19, and James, the son of Alphaeus, Matt. 10:3, are identical Chemnitz (Jerome): Mariam post partum (Matt. 1:25) aut cum Ioseph concubuisse aut filios ex ipso sustulisse non credimus, quia non legimus, sc. in Scriptura Sacra. The term first-born (Luke 2:7) does not prove that Mary had other sons.

Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934. Page 293


"It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that Our Lady had an older sister whose name was also Mary: "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: "There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome." Who is this "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?" Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the "mother of Jesus," as Our Lady is never mentioned by any other title in the New Testament except as "mother of Jesus."

Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and Our Lady’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: "James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James" (Acts 1, 13 ). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.

One can safely state then that the "brothers" of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54-57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. It would be forcing credibility to believe that Our Lady and Her older "sister" both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died Our Lady would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older "sister," explaining why She was traveling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word "brother" being used to refer to a first or second cousin.

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord’s life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving Our Lady to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to pious tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when each of these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.

Finally, the early Protestant leaders - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Beza - likewise accepted that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no other children besides Christ."

[Jim47]

It is true Jesus had brothers & sisters - or half brothers and half-sisters. I've heard they were from Joseph's "previous marriage," but see no proof of that. I do not believe she was a "perpetual virgin" either, but it is interesting to see what Martin Luther believed, or said, about this subject. :idea:

I have no access to Martin Luthers writings,but scripture tells us the following in reference to Jesus having brothers:

Mk 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.


Lk 8:19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

Lk 8:20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

Lk 8:21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice."

[ByzantineDixie]

It is my understanding the Greek word for brother doesn't necessarily mean brother as we know the word. This term could have referred to cousins as Q's post suggests. Or it could refer to children of Joseph in a prior marriage.

For me...one interesting point to note is Jesus telling John that Mary was now his mother and Mary that John was now her son while He hung on the cross. I have always thought that if Mary had other sons Jesus would not have commended her to John's care.

Peace

Rose

[night2day]

For me...one interesting point to note is Jesus telling John that Mary was now his mother and Mary that John was now her son while He hung on the cross. I have always thought that if Mary had other sons Jesus would not have commended her to John's care.

One point to make. The Scriptures don't say Mary was forever a virgin within the New Testament, or the old Testament prophecies. Certainly she was when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born. It was a sign of the Messiah prophesied by the prophet Isaiah. However, from there it simply doesn't list how many brothers and sisters he had afterward.

To speculate siblings, if any, were from Joseph's previous marriage, or even if he had a previous marriage, is just that - speculation. Where the Bible remains silent, there's little option but to allow it to remain as is, and to take in on where it does not remain silent.

There's also a question regarding why the importance of the teaching of "perpetual virginity" held by some. Once Jesus was conceived and born the sign that he was the prophesied Messiah had already been given. Mary herself was not the sign. It was the act of a virgin conceiving and bearing a son.

So, I'm confused behind the reasoning of the teaching behind a perpetual virginity as well as the purpose. Mary was conceived and corrupted by sin as we all are. Hence, she needed a Savior as we all do from sin, death, and Hell. As all Christians, she was saint and sinner at the same time. Not because of sexual relations with her husband or lack therof, but because of faith in Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

[Qoheleth]

It was a sign of the Messiah prophesied by the prophet Isaiah.

In fact, Genesis begins the prophesy

V.15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.

[Dr. Martin Luther]

So what is the trouble with thinking the virgin Mary to be sinless? Is this not the way God sees us with the salvation and cleansing placed upon us by the work of his Son on the cross?

[CEV]

I agree with you. Mary seems to be the complete opposite of Eve, yet she has descended from the same line as everyone of us. It is simply logical that Mary needed the same redemption we all need. Remember, Mary questioned the methods that Jesus was using at the beginning, and they wanted him to come home - and "behave" ?? Typical Jewish mother, perhaps. :)

To make things even more complicated, there was no literal Eve. ;)

[SPALATIN]

To make things even more complicated, there was no literal Eve. ;)

Who says?

[pastel]

To make things even more complicated, there was no literal Eve. ;)

If there were no Eve, then there would be no Jesus, because he (as we all do) descends from her. I do not agree with that theory. :sigh:

[CrossWiseMag]

Who says?

Why, the same people who brought us the Theory of the Symbolic Resurrection, Scott! And the same people who brought us the Theory of the Miracle-less Jesus! It's all about what we can understand, Scott. And if we can't understand a literal Eve, we must disregard God's word on that point. C'mon, get with the program.

[night2day]

In fact, Genesis begins the prophesy

V.15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.

Yes. Tis true, this was the first Gospel promise. However the verse in Isaiah proclaims: "...this will be a sign unto you; a virgin will conceive and bear a son..."

And for those who challenge the term "virgin" and claim it means "young maiden"...all I can say is, according to Hebrew law young maidens (unmarred girls) were meant to be virgins. And a virgin to conceive was...quite simply put...the historical event mankind had been waiting for. When "God became flesh and dwelt among us".

[night2day]

So what is the trouble with thinking the virgin Mary to be sinless? Is this not the way God sees us with the salvation and cleansing placed upon us by the work of his Son on the cross?

There's a slight difference between someone being completely without sin and someone who's completely forgiven of all sin because of Christ's shed blood being applied by grace, through in Him.

The former is something only Jesus can claim. The latter is what describes us on the account of what Christ has done for us. :)

[ByzantineDixie]

To speculate siblings, if any, were from Joseph's previous marriage, or even if he had a previous marriage, is just that - speculation. Where the Bible remains silent, there's little option but to allow it to remain as is, and to take in on where it does not remain silent.

Is this really the only option? Or do we allow those who choose to embrace the teachings of the catholic church to do so, so long as those teachings are not in conflict with the Scriptures?

So, I'm confused behind the reasoning of the teaching behind a perpetual virginity as well as the purpose.

I can appreciate this. Actually I am confused about the reason behind several things we believe as a church but usually there is an authority in the matter, Scripture or, in this case, the Confessions.

I think the Confessions give us greater latitude to embrace tradition than many modern day Lutherans are normally comfortable accepting.

From the above it is manifest that nothing is taught in our churches concerning articles of faith that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures or what is common to the Christian church.
Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is 1) not contrary to Scripture and 2) common to the Christian church.

I don't mean to spend too much time on this...I know it frustrates some because they believe when we do have these discussions on Mary our focus is taken from Christ. And I also fully agree we are not talking about articles of faith which impact our salvation. But I have a relatively newfound appreciation for tradition so I tend to favor retaining those things of the catholic church not in conflict with Scripture.

Peace

Rose

[Qoheleth]

And I also fully agree we are not talking about articles of faith which impact our salvation. But I have a relatively newfound appreciation for tradition so I tend to favor retaining those things of the catholic church not in conflict with Scripture.


From the above it is manifest that nothing is taught in our churches concerning articles of faith that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures or what is common to the Christian church.
Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Rose, I think the quote below is an accurate reflection of your sentiment (which by the way, I agree with)


"the evangelical church in none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain heresies and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council which renounced evangelical truth when it rejected the Reformation. For the orthodox evangelical church is really identical with the orthodox Catholic Church of all times."
-- Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, p. 110

[theologia crucis]

Well, this is really an unfortunate means of expression. You make it sound as if they are in a contest with each other.

I could have phrased it better, I agree. I apologize. They are not in contention with each other. However, one is clearly above the other, according to the Confessions.

And when I study the Scriptures (the only judge of doctrine), the only humans the Word of God presents as ever being without sin are Adam and Eve before the fall, and Jesus. Every other human born is born in sin. And Jesus gives no exceptions. The Word cannot and does not lie.

To be clear, I have absolutely NO issue with calling Mary Theotokos, I completely understand and agree with the clear Scriptural reasoning for this. I have absolutely no problem with "pure and holy Virgin Mary", because I understand this in terms of justification through faith, where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and He sees us as sinless, pure and holy.

The problem for me is how the "ever" is used. If it is understood as she was conceived and born without sin, I believe that this contradicts Scripture. She is not "excepted" as being sinless.

If it is understood as she is a saint, where she died in the faith of her Son, she is absolutely forgiven of all sins and will be raised up with the rest of us sinners in a glorified and purified body at the Resurrection, I've got absolutely NO problem with that!!! She HAS been pure and sinless in God's eyes ever since the moment the Holy Spirit gave her the gift of faith, and will be long after the destruction of this world!

In short, I believe making Mary out to be a ever sinless, ever virgin woman goes against God's Word. I have yet to see any Scriptural presentation that convinces me. And I have seen plenty! And I promise you, I try to be open minded about it! Saying Scripture supports this looks more like eisegesis [sic?] to me.

As best as the poor, miserable, pathetic, evil sinner can tell, Mary was a miserable sinner like us (look at Jesus' lineage in Matthew and Luke, prostitutes and murderers!!!), but she was absolutely, incredibly blessed not only with faith, but with the incredible responsibility of carrying and raising Our Savior!!!

She is perhaps the greatest example of faith in all of Christendom, and for that, I will ALWAYS extol her! And she was probably the most blessed person that ever walked this broken and dying earth! Can any of us fathom what she went through while her flesh and blood was beaten, mocked, and crucified?!

And it looks like that to some of you I look un-Confessional, but I don't really care. Not to be mean or stubborn or rude, but I take the intros to the Formula of Concord explaining the roles and relationships of the Holy Scriptures to the Confessions very seriously. And therefore, I cannot find Scriptural support for a sinless virgin Mary. I don't care if Luther or the Concordists believe it. I will judge their writings with God's Holy Word. Luckily, they don't err that much!

However, I do find incredible Scriptural support, and I absolutely agree with the Lutheran doctrines presented in the Confessions for (and I'm being somewhat general in the listing):

1.) the Trinity
2.) original sin
3.) free will
4.) repentence
5.) divine monergism in conversion
6.) Christ's vicarious atonement
7.) Law and Gospel and the three uses of the law
8.) the church
9.) justification sola gratia, sola fide, propter Christum as found sola scriptura
10.) private and public confession (and I don't mind listing it as a sacrament, knowing that "sacrament" is a human term, the doctrine behind it is not)
11.) the means of grace (Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper, especially the real presence, it's absolutely Scriptural)
12.) the relation between faith and works
13.) the abuses listed at the end of the CA
14.) the Papacy
15.) the end times
16.) election
17.) other factions
18.) adiaphora, etc.

Didn't Luther say something famous after eating some worms? ;) Wait that ain't right! But it goes something like "unless I am convinced by Scripture and clear reason..."?

Anyway. May we always remember Mary as a most wonderful example of faith in our crucified and risen Lord until the end of the world!!!

Off to bed now. I'll be waiting for my bull of excommunication...

P.S. I just read Q's latest quote, and I whole heartedly agree with it, too. I'm absolutely convinced of it!

P.P.S. And don't any of you think for one instance that I don't love tradition!

P.P.P.S. Rose, if you become a mod on this thread, ban me from posting anymore on Mary threads. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

P.P.P.P.S. Lastly, to me, it is far more edifying to think of Mary as a sinner.

[ByzantineDixie]

"the evangelical church in none other than the medieval Catholic Church purged of certain heresies and abuses. The Lutheran theologian acknowledges that he belongs to the same visible church to which Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine and Tertullian, Athanasius and Ireneaus once belonged. The orthodox evangelical church is the legitimate continuation of the medieval Catholic Church, not the church of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council which renounced evangelical truth when it rejected the Reformation. For the orthodox evangelical church is really identical with the orthodox Catholic Church of all times." -- Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand, p. 110


:clap: Worth repeating.....R

[night2day]

Is this the only option? Or do we allow those who choose to embrace the teachings of the catholic church to do so, so long as those teachings are not in conflict with the Scriptures?

Big (C)atholic or little (c)atholic? Once's a denomination. The other simply means "universal". If the former, for example, there are deep differences within the Lutheran and Catholic denominations. Much of the terminology used for certain wording is different as well. However, whether either/or, the same applies since many churches today feel there can be an umbrella of various beliefs regarding the Scriptures.

I won't speak much more on the particular doctrine concerning Mary. Since others have already. As for speculation itself:

Speculation on what the Scriptures haven't said or reading into what they do not state runs the high risk of falling into false doctrine. Traditions are also prone to contradicting the Scriptures and can also lead into false teaching. Something God's word warns about since false doctrine leads to confusion and ultimately may lead one away from faith in Christ.

2 Timothy 4: 1-4
"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables....

This has less to do with what churches may or may not do with God's word. Moreso it deals with the authority of God's word.

[Dr. Martin Luther]

There's a slight difference between someone being completely without sin and someone who's completely forgiven of all sin because of Christ's shed blood being applied by grace, through in Him.

The former is something only Jesus can claim. The latter is what describes us on the account of what Christ has done for us. :)

You missed the point of my post entirely.

Hebrews 8:12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

As if the sin never existed before. THIS is my point. This is for all of us, even the virgin Mary.

[night2day]

You missed the point of my post entirely.

Hebrews 8:12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

As if the sin never existed before. THIS is my point. This is for all of us, even the virgin Mary.

I fear my point was missed as well.

While I was acknowledging your point, I also feel there needs to be a distinction between stating one is accounted sinless based on Christ's work on the cross...and stating one such as Mary has always been sinless.

[Dr. Martin Luther]

I fear my point was missed as well.

While I was acknowledging your point, I also feel there needs to be a distinction between stating one is accounted sinless based on Christ's work on the cross...and stating one such as Mary has always been sinless.

Point taken, Dear One.

:preach: