My Attitude, My position

[Qoheleth]

On the other hand, we have someone attacking SemStudent08, insulting him in many personal ways.

My forceful and aggressive statements directed toward Semstudent may indeed be seen as insulting. I did not insult his person, I assaulted his misinformation and position.

If I have done otherwise, I ask forgiveness.

Many throughout the centuries have dismissed, changed and altered the teachings of the BoC in many areas as unecessary or outdated or confused and even relegated them to being mistakes at times. They pit one Lutheran father against the other.

Other heterodox teachings have woefully misintepreted the Confessions to fit their own understanding of doctrine or worse to destroy it.


The list of errors is long in many areas, they include:


That Lutherans believe in Con-substantiation--this is false

That Blessed Mary is not Semper Virgo--this is false

That Private Absolution is not a Sacrament--this is false

That the term Mass and the Mass itself is not to be used as such--this is false

That Lutherans believe (especially from Luther) in Double predestination--this is false

That in no way way does man retain any free will--this is false

That man is totally and completely depraved--this is false

That Lutherans believe Adams' descendants inherited his "guilt"--this is false

And the list may grow...


I will not in good conscience decide on my own part, what and what not to accept from the church. It is either right or it is wrong. I will protect the validity of each teaching as it is presented in the Confessions against all misinformed teaching and purposeful maligning of the same.

I offer no apologies in this regard.

Q

[SPALATIN]

My forceful and aggressive statements directed toward Semstudent may indeed be seen as insulting. I did not insult his person, I assaulted his misinformation and position.

If I have done otherwise, I ask for forgiveness.

Many throughout the centuries have dismissed, changed and altered the teachings of the BoC in many areas as unecessary or outdated or confused and even relegated them to being mistakes at times. They pit one Lutheran father against the other.

Other heterodox teachings have woefully misintepreted the Confessions to fit their own understanding of doctrine or worse to destroy it.


The list is long in many areas, they include:

That Lutherans believe in Con-substantiation--this is false

That Blessed Mary is not Semper Virgo--this is false

That Private Absolution is not a Sacrament--this is false

That the term Mass and the Mass itself is not to be used as such--this is false

That Lutherans believe (especially from Luther) in Double predestination--this is false

That in no way way does man retain any free will--this is false

That man is totally and completely depraved--this is false

And the list may grow...


I will not in good conscience decide on my own part, what and what not to accept from the church. It is either right or it is wrong. I will protect the validity of each teaching as it is presented in the Confessions against all misinformed teaching and purposeful maligning of the same.

I offer no apologies in this regard.

Q

I am right there with you.

[Protoevangel]

Qoheleth,

I respect both your position and the fact that you make it so clear.

My concern (and I am be just as guilty of this as anyone) is that sometimes a misunderstanding is just that, a misunderstanding. Force and aggression is an important tool, especially when the truth is being maligned and attacked. When a person is genuinely misinformed, though, that same force can have unintended consequences, both with the person you are attacking, and with bystanders who only see the aggression, and not the grace.

Thank you for your unwavering commitment to the truth.

[Qoheleth]

Qoheleth,

I respect both your position and the fact that you make it so clear.

My concern (and I am be just as guilty of this as anyone) is that sometimes a misunderstanding is just that, a misunderstanding. Force and aggression is an important tool, especially when the truth is being maligned and attacked. When a person is genuinely misinformed, though, that same force can have unintended consequences, both with the person you are attacking, and with bystanders who only see the aggression, and not the grace.

Thank you for your unwavering commitment to the truth.


I agree. Mercy and grace must be uncompromised and shown to all.

Q

[ChiRho]

My forceful and aggressive statements directed toward Semstudent may indeed be seen as insulting. I did not insult his person, I assaulted his misinformation and position.

If I have done otherwise, I ask for forgiveness.

Many throughout the centuries have dismissed, changed and altered the teachings of the BoC in many areas as unecessary or outdated or confused and even relegated them to being mistakes at times. They pit one Lutheran father against the other.

Other heterodox teachings have woefully misintepreted the Confessions to fit their own understanding of doctrine or worse to destroy it.


The list of errors is long in many areas, they include:


That Lutherans believe in Con-substantiation--this is false

That Blessed Mary is not Semper Virgo--this is false

That Private Absolution is not a Sacrament--this is false

That the term Mass and the Mass itself is not to be used as such--this is false

That Lutherans believe (especially from Luther) in Double predestination--this is false

That in no way way does man retain any free will--this is false

That man is totally and completely depraved--this is false

That Lutherans believe Adams' descendants inherited his "guilt"--this is false

And the list may grow...


I will not in good conscience decide on my own part, what and what not to accept from the church. It is either right or it is wrong. I will protect the validity of each teaching as it is presented in the Confessions against all misinformed teaching and purposeful maligning of the same.

I offer no apologies in this regard.

Q


Fine list. I understand your frustration, but you may do more harm than good if you are[n't] clear.

Man has retained "free will." Ok, most who read that statement believe that we choose Jesus. Could ya just elaborate a little bit. Oh, and regarding "Semper Virgo," could you demonstrate why the original German does not contain this and the Latin translation does? Also, accepting that Luther and Chemnitz and others held to "Semper Virgo" does not necessarily mean that Luther believed it was necessary to believe. Could you also show, using the Confessions, where this belief is insisted upon? I have yet to see a convincing argument.

Pax

[Qoheleth]

Man has retained "free will." Ok, most who read that statement believe that we choose Jesus. Could ya just elaborate a little bit

70] Nor, indeed, do we deny liberty to the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the bands from murder, from adultery, from theft.


What Im saying is, many believe that we hold to a Calvinist idea of total depravity, we do not and No, we do not of our own power without the grace of God enabling, "choose" Him.


"Semper Virgo," could you demonstrate why the original German does not contain this and the Latin translation does? Also, accepting that Luther and Chemnitz and others held to "Semper Virgo" does not necessarily mean that Luther believed it was necessary to believe. Could you also show, using the Confessions, where this belief is insisted upon? I have yet to see a convincing argument.

I have been shown the German and given it to a German speaking Lutheran (only in part) and He said, "this says that Mary was forever a Virgin, We Lutherans do not believe this" Then he was shown that it was part of the Confession. He translated for himself

Yes, in the German translation it means exactly that. Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Sasse and others all accepted this Semper Virgo. Now how does this effect the ecclesiology of the church, I dont know. But it is an accepted belief that should not be dismissed. Did Luther understansd this belief to be necessary to salvation, NO. But it is and should be part of our Tradition, its there in black and white.

So when you say insisted upon, how do you mean that?

Q

[ChiRho]

70] Nor, indeed, do we deny liberty to the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the bands from murder, from adultery, from theft.


What Im saying is, many believe that we hold to a Calvinist idea of total depravity, we do not and No, we do not of our own power without the grace of God enabling, "choose" Him.

1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6] pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and
through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching “the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.


Augsburg Confession

If the Calvinists claim that "Total Depravity" leaves man without the ability to make friends, labor, choose a wife, complete acts of philanthropy according to man's retained reason, well then, they are absolute idiots. If this is what they claim, then observable history and our current world proves them insane. If, by "total depravity" one believes that according to spritual matters, man is incapable of attaining anything, then we may declare ourselves totally depraved. For the "acts of kindess" carried out by the ungodly are no good works in the eyes of God.

And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost.

I have been shown the German and given it to a German speaking Lutheran (only in part) and He said, "this says that Mary was forever a Virgin, We Lutherans do not believe this" Then he was shown that it was part of the Confession. He translated for himself

Come on, Q. And I knew a guy who held to "Semper Virgo" but when confronted with the original German, he exclaimed, "Alas, I have been fooled!"...

Yes, in the German translation it means exactly that. Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Sasse and others all accepted this Semper Virgo. Now how does this effect the ecclesiology of the church, I dont know. But it is an accepted belief that should not be dismissed. Did Luther understansd this belief to be necessary to salvation, NO. But it is and should be part of our Tradition, its there in black and white.

Convince me. But not by a dogmatic yelling contest.

So when you say insisted upon, how do you mean that?

Is it an adiaphoron or not? You will say absolutely not, but I have yet to see it demonstrated.

[Jim47]

I have been shown the German and given it to a German speaking Lutheran (only in part) and He said, "this says that Mary was forever a Virgin, We Lutherans do not believe this" Then he was shown that it was part of the Confession. He translated for himself

Yes, in the German translation it means exactly that. Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Sasse and others all accepted this Semper Virgo. Now how does this effect the ecclesiology of the church, I dont know. But it is an accepted belief that should not be dismissed. Did Luther understansd this belief to be necessary to salvation, NO. But it is and should be part of our Tradition, its there in black and white.


Q


Can you explain to me how my Pastor who has studied from Hewbrew manuscripts and knows German as well, besides recieving a full Lutheran Pastoral education says that Mary was did have children?

I have always considered myself to be as Lutheran as anyone, although I have no formal education or even in depth personal studies of Luther, but shouldn't we believe the Bible which is God's Word as truth rather than what a mere man wrote and his own personal opinions? If you answer that with a yes, then please show me one verse from the Bible which verifies that Mary was forever a virgin. I know of none, but I know of several that say just the opposite.

[ByzantineDixie]

Actually Jim, Scriptures are not sufficiently clear on either position, that Mary was ever-virgin or that she had addtional children.

I think a lot of how one looks at this depends on their view of the Church. Either we get new revelation after 1600+ years of church history or we believe how the Church has instructed us by the Scriptures since her beginnings.

The church has always, everywhere and by all believed that Mary was ever-virgin. It was only some time after the Reformation that the ever-virgin position was seriously challenged by the sects....probably by those who held to the "reformed" understanding of sola scriptura. "Only what is contained in scriptures" as opposed to the Lutheran Reformers position "that which does not conflict with scripture".

Ask yourself this, Jim. If scriptures clearly stated Jesus had biological brothers from Mary, don't you think Luther would have figured this out? Instead....here is what he says

Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew , where he says, "Before they came together she was found to be with child." They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, "Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph," etc. Again, when he says, "And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son" [ Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius 22 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftn1) which was refuted by Jerome. 23 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftn2)

Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25 ] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, "Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea." Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [ 1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [ 1:18] says, "She was found to be with child before they came together," it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.

Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, "God says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.' " Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], "I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you." Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], "He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, 24 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftn3) till he has established justice in the earth." There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

22 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftnref1)Helvidius, disciple of the Arian bishop of Milan, Auxentius, was living in Rome at the time of Jeromes second sojourn there in 382–385. As a laymen he wrote a treatise against the generally accepted view of Mary's perpetual virginity, in which he attacked primarily the practical consequences drawn from the doctrine in terms of monasticism as a higher kind of Christian life. Realencyklopädie, VII, 654–655. His followers are included as No. 84 in Augustine's a.d. 428 list of 88 heresies (De Haeresibus I, lxxxiv). MPL 42, 46.
23 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftnref2)The treatise of Helvidius is known only through its rebuttal by Jerome, who did not know him personally but who took up the debate at the urging of friends in order to promote and defend monasticism. Realencyklopädie, VII, 655. See the text of Jerome's De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae, adversus Helvidium in MPL 23, 183–206, and references to it by the author himself in Epistola XXII ad Eustochium, 22 ( MPL 22, 409), Epistola XLVIII ad Pammachium , 18 (MPL 22, 508), and Adversus Jovinianum I, 13 (MPL 23, 230).
24 (http://gmail.google.com/gmail?&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&zx=g7rkmirul9gr#_ftnref3)Douay version.
Luther, M. (1999, c1962). Vol. 45: Luther's works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


And I'll just point out some interesting information from Mueller:

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, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

One point to make regarding the Mueller text...if Scripture is not clear, what do we do? I say we believe what the Church has always taught. (See how Luther himself defended infant baptism.) I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't. Our confessions don't say "toss it if its not in Scripture"...they read that we receive the teachings of the Church so long as they are not in conflict with the Scriptures.

As an aside...my pastor also believes Mary had other children, Jesus had brothers, etc. I can't tell you how difficult it is to sit through those sermons where he talks about Jesus' brother James when I don't believe that Jesus had any brothers. Just another straw.... (Which tugs a bit at ChiRho's question re: adiaphora.)

[ChiRho]

"But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman. For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin. (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” [1523], Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962], pp. 205-06)"

"Then he [Luther] questioned whether Mary knew [i.e., had sexual relations with] Joseph even after the birth of Christ, as Matthew calls him “the firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]. He answered, “The church has left this alone and has not determined this. But nevertheless the same consequence is firmly demonstrated because she remained a virgin, but on the other hand she was viewed as the mother of the Son of God. She was not judged to be the mother of human sons and remained in that state.” (Table Talk #4435 [1539], in Luther on Women, p. 56)"

"Then he [Luther] was asked whether Mary also had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ, for Matthew says that he “knew her not until she had borne a son” [Matt. 1:25]. He replied, “The church leaves this [to us] and has not decided. Nevertheless, what happened afterward shows quite strongly that Mary remained a virgin. For after she had perceived that she was the mother of the Son of God, she didn’t think she should become the mother of a human child and adhered to this vow.” (Table Talk #4435 [same as above], in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], p. 341)"

As for me, I dont know. I am not convinced that the Confessions claim that orthodox Lutheran belief is "Semper Virgo." I am waiting to be convinced. Interesting wording by Luther in the last two paragraphs.

Pax

[Jim47]

I thank you for taking the time to find these writing and let me see them myself. I haven't time right now to read it all, but will this weekend.

It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, because the only part Mary has in my salvation is in bearing Our Precious God/Child Jesus.

[Qoheleth]

Come on, Q. And I knew a guy who held to "Semper Virgo" but when confronted with the original German, he exclaimed, "Alas, I have been fooled!"...


Okay, of the Article that we are referencing in Latin and German, there appears to remain discord over the corrected German to English translation. You and I will disagee as others have in the past. I do not support my position for any personal piety but that the church for over 1600 years has believed this and so also the Reformers.

The additional reference below shows forceful commitment in the belief and the German translation guided the article. There is a third reference, yet I cant recall its location.


24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. (BoC SD VIII)








And Im sure all have seen these additional comments by Luther:"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }



Can you explain to me how my Pastor who has studied from Hewbrew manuscripts and knows German as well, besides recieving a full Lutheran Pastoral education says that Mary was did have children?





For you Jim, there are others:"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .


As for me, I dont know. I am not convinced that the Confessions claim that orthodox Lutheran belief is "Semper Virgo." I am waiting to be convinced. Interesting wording by Luther in the last two paragraphs.

I am satisfied that they certainly hold it as a belief of the church, but as to its necessity concerning salvation, thats a different story. I think though it is important to consider Semper Virgo in how it affects the ecclesiology of the church.


Q

[ByzantineDixie]

"Then he [Luther] questioned whether Mary knew [i.e., had sexual relations with] Joseph even after the birth of Christ, as Matthew calls him “the firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]. He answered, “The church has left this alone and has not determined this. But nevertheless the same consequence is firmly demonstrated because she remained a virgin, but on the other hand she was viewed as the mother of the Son of God. She was not judged to be the mother of human sons and remained in that state.” (Table Talk #4435 [1539], in Luther on Women, p. 56)"

"Then he [Luther] was asked whether Mary also had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ, for Matthew says that he “knew her not until she had borne a son” [Matt. 1:25]. He replied, “The church leaves this [to us] and has not decided. Nevertheless, what happened afterward shows quite strongly that Mary remained a virgin. For after she had perceived that she was the mother of the Son of God, she didn’t think she should become the mother of a human child and adhered to this vow.” (Table Talk #4435 [same as above], in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], p. 341)"

I would really like to see this Table Talk reference in the original German. At first glance it would appear the second translation takes some liberties obvious by the [to us] in brackets. The notion that "the church" has not decided is interesting as well because this counters everything we know about what the church taught (as well as what the early reformers believed). Now...substitute the word "church" in the above with "the Scriptures"...well, yes, that is a different kettle of fish and makes sense. Although to me there remains a huge difference between has not determined this and leaves this to us to decide!

All in all, though ChiRho, I suspect you will admit that a "Table Talk" reference is one of lesser import than others...I mean...this post is being written after a couple of glasses of wine and it suffers from the same lack of quality due to other influences as well. ;)


As for me, I dont know. I am not convinced that the Confessions claim that orthodox Lutheran belief is "Semper Virgo." I am waiting to be convinced. Interesting wording by Luther in the last two paragraphs.

Pax

Ah yes...this is crux of the matter, isn't it? What would an orthodox Lutheran believe? I guess it comes down to how one defines an orthodox Lutheran. Is an orthodox Lutheran one who holds to the orthodox Lutheran understandings in matters of salvation only? or to the orthodox Lutheran understandings and underlying catholic principles over all? (It does seem so Lutheran to try to find the absolute minimum one must do or believe to....)

I suspect you could make a case for the first but I fear you would share that position with a number of folks whom you yourself would deem far from orthodox.

Again...I think it all comes back to how you envision the Lutheran church. Is she the continuation of the church catholic in the West or is she something new? If she is the continuation of the church catholic then I would propose the orthodox Lutheran embraces the catholic faith in all aspects rejecting only those abuses that are new.

You bring up the Luther quote regarding "a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended." Let's understand the real concern here. No one is saying this belief is required for Salvation. Only Rome has crossed that line. Even the East, which continues to show great honor to the Theotokos, does not see "ever-virgin" as dogmatic.

What is being said is the church has always believed Mary remained ever-virgin, the original reformers believed this, the Scriptures do not contradict this so, the church catholic continues in this belief. The understanding the Mary was not ever-virgin and that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters is an innovation...and we all know what the confessions have to say about innovation.

Surely...no one's conscience must be tormented by this teaching--no one should be taught there is no salvation apart from embracing this belief. But shouldn't the teaching in the Lutheran church be consistent with the church catholic or are we at the point where we know better and innovation is now OK?

But hey, you are more than welcome come to my church and hear all about how tough it must have been to be one of Jesus' siblings...we'll have plenty of room for you...because the next time this is preached there will be one quickly vacated pew seat. And if you do come...careful at that communion rail...sometimes the Baptists don't know what to do.

[BigNorsk]

[/i]

You bring up the Luther quote regarding "a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended." Let's understand the real concern here. No one is saying this belief is required for Salvation. Only Rome has crossed that line. Even the East, which continues to show great honor to the Theotokos, does not see "ever-virgin" as dogmatic.

Surely...no one's conscience must be tormented by this teaching--no one should be taught there is no salvation apart from embracing this belief. But shouldn't the teaching in the Lutheran church be consistent with the church catholic or are we at the point where we know better and innovation is now OK?

But hey, you are more than welcome come to my church and hear all about how tough it must have been to be one of Jesus' siblings...we'll have plenty of room for you...because the next time this is preached there will be one quickly vacated pew seat. And if you do come...careful at that communion rail...sometimes the Baptists don't know what to do.

Rose,

You aren't very consistent, you say the eternal virginity of Mary isn't important, and then you say you are going to leave if someone preaches something that isn't consistent with it.

You and others who say communion must be closed do make it a matter of great importance. You would willingly withold God's grace from another for no other reason than that they don't believe Mary was eternally a virgin. Because your understanding of the Book of Concord is that she is.

This is a big problem, you aren't distinguishing between matters in the faith of great importance, say, Jesus is true God and true man, and matters of little importance, how long Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth.

You and other's here would deny God's grace and call for the synod to discipline any minister who would allow someone to commune who differs on minor matters that happen to be spoken of in the Book of Concord. In the area of Mary's eternal virginity, there is even dispute as to what the Book of Concord should say, disagreements between the German and Latin writings and yet you say you would leave a church because the pastor doesn't believe as you do in this area. So you are making it a matter of great importance.

Remember, this too is in the BoC:
1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.

Now that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth is clearly scriptural and can be proven from scripture. As to her being an eternal virgin, well, even those of you that believe it admit you can't prove it from scripture. So if you believe you have a correct Book of Concord that contains the eternal virginity of Mary and that says all dogma must be judged by the Scriptures, you have a conflict on your hands. I would like to hear how you intend to fix it. Just from this obvious conflict, I tend to believe those who say the German Book of Concord has Mary as a virgin, but not an eternal virgin because then there would be no conflict. Does anyone have Kolb's Book of Concord, how does it treat the passages in question?

If the Book of Concord contains things that cannot be proven from Scripture, and if you are going to use the Book of Concord as the rule of who is to receive Communion, then everything that cannot be proven from Scripture needs to be removed. It would be of much less importance if Communion was permitted to those who held to essentials of the faith (which is not really open communion but I believe is what most congregations are doing that are "accussed" of open communion).

Marv

[Jim47]

I have two problems with this whole concept of Mary being forever virgin.
1. There is "no" scripture that states that. I don't care what the BOC says, I base my faith and belief on scripture which is God's Word, not on the BIC which is mans inter[retation of what the Bible says.

2. The fact that people hold this belief to be so impiortant to them brings up great fears in me. Why? Is Mary being used as an idol? Sorry, but thats the way I see it.

Rose, I hope you will forgive me for saying that. I am not saying this out of anger or hatred or jealousy, but fear, fear that Mary is being used in an idolitruss manner.

I am very sorry to even have to say things like this, but I just don't share in any way anything with Catholic beliefs.

[Qoheleth]

You and others who say communion must be closed do make it a matter of great importance

It is more than opinion which drives Closed Communion. May be you should study this.


Those who partake unworthily bring judgment on themselves, leading to illness or even death, 1 Cor. 11:29-30

When we come together to celebrate the Lord's Supper "in the church," it is important that we do so in a spirit of unity, 1 Cor. 11:18

We may be unwittingly admitting those who carry with them the leaven of malice and wickedness, whose presence at the Lord's Table is forbidden by Paul in 1 Cor. 5:8.



there is even dispute as to what the Book of Concord should say, disagreements between the German and Latin writings and yet you say you would leave a church because the pastor doesn't believe as you do in this area. So you are making it a matter of great importance.


Remember, this too is in the BoC:


And once again, here is an individual by his own personal authority and no regard for the church, decides what should or should not be part of the faith. Pick and choose as you will, the faithful doctrines will never disappear.


then everything that cannot be proven from Scripture needs to be removed

Marv, write your own book and keep the name Lutheran off of it. To add it would be akin to libel.

Q

[Qoheleth]

I have two problems with this whole concept of Mary being forever virgin.
1. There is "no" scripture that states that. I don't care what the BOC says, I base my faith and belief on scripture which is God's Word, not on the BIC which is mans inter[retation of what the Bible says.

2. The fact that people hold this belief to be so impiortant to them brings up great fears in me. Why? Is Mary being used as an idol? Sorry, but thats the way I see it.

Rose, I hope you will forgive me for saying that. I am not saying this out of anger or hatred or jealousy, but fear, fear that Mary is being used in an idolitruss manner.

I am very sorry to even have to say things like this, but I just don't share in any way anything with Catholic beliefs.

Jim, first, careful in using or implying the word Idolater to someone. Next, demonstrate the Idolatry of believing Mary was Semper Virgo. Next, let me know if you think statues or Icons of Christ, Mary and any Saint is Idolatrous when praying in the presence of said Icon or statue.

Is any of this prohibited in the BoC? Is the Invocation of Saints prohibited entirely?

What is your fear, really?

Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Marv, I don't have much time left this afternoon...I'll address a couple of your concerns and maybe get back to this tomorrow evening.

Rose,

You aren't very consistent, you say the eternal virginity of Mary isn't important, and then you say you are going to leave if someone preaches something that isn't consistent with it.

Come on...give me a little credit. You obviously are not considering my recent posting at CF in totality (or even the entire context of this thread). The issue of ever-virgin is not a one issue make or break deal. We already established that by indicating such a belief was not dogma. However, the loss of this belief along with other losses is symptomatic of a far greater issue in the Lutheran church. Q's first post is reflective of the situation.

So if you believe you have a correct Book of Concord that contains the eternal virginity of Mary and that says all dogma must be judged by the Scriptures, you have a conflict on your hands. I would like to hear how you intend to fix it. Just from this obvious conflict, I tend to believe those who say the German Book of Concord has Mary as a virgin, but not an eternal virgin because then there would be no conflict.

Sorry Marv, I am not seeing a conflict at all! Our confessions talk about correcting abuses. Things of the church catholic in conflict with Scripture. Ever-virgin is not in conflict with Scripture because Scripture is not specific on this matter, nor is it in conflict with the church catholic because the church has always taught this. Jesus having biological brothers and sisters is also not in conflict with Scripture (again Scripture is not clear on this matter) but it is in conflict with the church catholic. That's the point I am trying to make. If you deny the catholic principle then my whole line of reasoning will carry little weight with you and frankly you are still left with no resolution if you look at the issue your way, ignoring the catholic principle, because neither position can be fully supported from Scripture.

Wish I had more time but duty calls.

[Jim47]

Jim, first, careful in using or implying the word Idolater to someone. Next, demonstrate the Idolatry of believing Mary was Semper Virgo. Next, let me know if you think statues or Icons of Christ, Mary and any Saint is Idolatrous when praying in the presence of said Icon or statue.

Is any of this prohibited in the BoC? Is the Invocation of Saints prohibited entirely?

What is your fear, really?

Q


I am most humbly sorry if what I said was interpreted as saying "anyone" was guilty if idolatry, yes I can see where you might think that is what I said.

What I said was I had fears. I love Rose like a Sister and as well all ladies here, and all men as Brothers. Is it wrong for me to want to look on these people with Christian love and concerns?

The one thing that bothers me very deeply about many members of this forum is their higher than needed view of Mary. If Mary were still alive, I would also call her "my Sister in Christ". But do I owe her special honors for bearing The Christ? No. She was simply a chosen vesssel by God because she was found to have pure faith in God and a good heart. She is now asleep in Jesus as so many others are.

There is just way too much attention given to Mary on "this forum". We are not Catholics and there is no instruction in the Bible that we are to view Mary as being anything more than the chosen vessel to bare Christ.

One other thing I have noticed, it "appears" (notice I said appears )that many hold the BOC to be more important as guidance in our faith than The Holy Bible. Am I wrong on this too?


Next, let me know if you think statues or Icons of Christ, Mary and any Saint is Idolatrous when praying in the presence of said Icon or statue.





All I can say is that there are no statues of Mary or any saints in my church (WELS) we also have no statues of Christ, though we certianly have several beautiful paintings of Him. Why should we want or need statues of saints or Mary? Are they part of our worship? If you answer this affirmatively, please show me from scripture.

[Qoheleth]

There is just way too much attention given to Mary on "this forum". We are not Catholics and there is no instruction in the Bible that we are to view Mary as being anything more than the chosen vessel to bare Christ.


My only response to this is, is this "attention" you describe forbidden in the BoC or scripture? Remember, I nor anyone else, is claiming Mary to be a "co-redeemer" or worthy of worship.

The Confessions never confessed agains an abuse of venerating Mary, nor did they prohibit statues or Icons.

One other thing I have noticed, it "appears" (notice I said appears )that many hold the BOC to be more important as guidance in our faith than The Holy Bible. Am I wrong on this too?

I'll state the position again, for Lutherans:

Holy Scripture is the norma normans-- the ruling rule, and the
Confessions are the norma normata-- the ruled rule. The latter decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other.

Our Lutheran Confessions are a clear exposition of the Word of God and the ruled rule, the ruling rule being Holy Scripture

So, concerning this, what do you disagree with?


All I can say is that there are no statues of Mary or any saints in my church (WELS) we also have no statues of Christ, though we certianly have several beautiful paintings of Him. Why should we want or need statues of saints or Mary? Are they part of our worship? If you answer this affirmatively, please show me from scripture.

What do you mean part of worship??

Are pictures somehow more acceptable than statues?

Q

[Jim47]

My only response to this is, is this "attention" you describe forbidden in the BoC or scripture? Remember, I nor anyone else, is claiming Mary to be a "co-redeemer" or worthy of worship.

The Confessions never confessed agains an abuse of venerating Mary, nor did they prohibit statues or Icons.



Lets see what scripture says.

Ex 20:1 And God spoke all these words:

Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Ex 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand└ generations┘ of those who love me and keep my commandments.



I'll state the position again, for Lutherans:

Holy Scripture is the norma normans-- the ruling rule, and the
Confessions are the norma normata-- the ruled rule. The latter decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other.

Our Lutheran Confessions are a clear exposition of the Word of God and the ruled rule, the ruling rule being Holy Scripture

So, concerning this, what do you disagree with?




I do not deny the usefulness of the BoC, it is indeed a wonderful teaching aid, but as you said, scripture must be our final guidance as scripture is God's Word where the BoC is only what we percieve it to be, therefore scripture prevails.




[QUOTE]
What do you mean part of worship??
Are pictures somehow more acceptable than statues?

Q



I don't see anything wrong with statues of Jesus.

[ByzantineDixie]

There is just way too much attention given to Mary on "this forum". We are not Catholics and there is no instruction in the Bible that we are to view Mary as being anything more than the chosen vessel to bare Christ.



Well Jim, the thread didn't start out as one talking about Mary...the tread started out discussing the distance the Lutheran church has traveled from her origins. Mary is just one example of many.

But for whatever reason...anytime a thread starts talking about Mary, the focus tends to end up there. I don't quite understand why these discussions bring out such vehement opposiiton but I do note the difference in how the Lutheran reformers saw the Theotokos and this discussion which only confirms again for me how far we traveled from the faith of our fathers. What I fear is that we have moved from the beliefs, understandings and practices of the church catholic to taking on the innovative reformed views which have evolved over the last 400 years. And Jim...my faith will not let me go there.

Do you not see this movement? How are you able to reconcile the overriding intent of the BoC to demonstrate that our faith was not innovative to where the Lutheran church is today? Those are the things that hang in the balance for me.

[Jim47]

Well Jim, the thread didn't start out as one talking about Mary...the tread started out discussing the distance the Lutheran church has traveled from her origins. Mary is just one example of many.

But for whatever reason...anytime a thread starts talking about Mary, the focus tends to end up there. I don't quite understand why these discussions bring out such vehement opposiiton but I do note the difference in how the Lutheran reformers saw the Theotokos and this discussion which only confirms again for me how far we traveled from the faith of our fathers. What I fear is that we have moved from the beliefs, understandings and practices of the church catholic to taking on the innovative reformed views which have evolved over the last 400 years. And Jim...my faith will not let me go there.

Do you not see this movement? How are you able to reconcile the overriding intent of the BoC to demonstrate that our faith was not innovative to where the Lutheran church is today? Those are the things that hang in the balance for me.


Perhaps this is a good place for me to end my input here concerning Mary.

I will offer this simple explaination as to why I differ in some ways.

I do not have a formal edcuation nor have I ever (yet) made an in depth study of Luther, the BoC or our heritage.

Although I consider myself as Lutheran as anyone, the only book that I hold dear is The Bible, and I am not saying that others don't also. Possibly because of this, I don't have the same values on things other than scripture.

As God said in scripture, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY Word will never pass away. Because of those words from God I have complete trust that The Holy Bible is still The Word of God just He instructed it to be. This for me is the hardest thing there is to understand, why everyone doesn't share that belief.

With that I will ask for everyones forgiveness and try a little harder to keep my fly trap shut and stay out of trouble. :thumbsup:

[Qoheleth]

Lets see what scripture says.

Ex 20:1 And God spoke all these words:

Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Ex 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand└ generations┘ of those who love me and keep my commandments


Jim, the key is that this is one inclusive commandment, in two parts. The God who commanded this also ordered his people to make graven images of cherubim (things in heaven!) on either side of the mercy seat; and He commanded them to make a bronze snake (things on earth!) and attached a promise of mercy to all who looked up to it in faith.

Whatever the prohibition was entailing then, couldn't have been simply
making and using art in worship, for God Himself went on to mandate
that! It was specifically that we were not to look at such things AS their
gods (like the heathen do). Note that when Israel confused the snake
for divinity itself, it was destroyed - and rightly so!

The Lutheran position has never been that statues or Icons are prohibited, never. Which leads us to your next concern about the relationship of the BoC and scripture...


I do not deny the usefulness of the BoC, it is indeed a wonderful teaching aid, but as you said, scripture must be our final guidance as scripture is God's Word where the BoC is only what we percieve it to be, therefore scripture prevails

This, Jim, is a regrettable statement due to the fact the BoC defines your faith as a Lutheran. I'll say it yet again...

"The latter (the Confessions) decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other".
At this point, Jim, you have to ask whether you believe the BoC to be a correct exposition of the Lutheran faith.


How much of the BoC do you disagree with?

I don't see anything wrong with statues of Jesus.

But do you see anything wrong with Icons or statues of the Apostles or saints or Mary??

And by the way, isnt being okay with a statue violate your first point of not making any idol (graven image), if that was indeed your direction?

Q

[Jim47]

Jim, the key is that this is one inclusive commandment, in two parts. The God who commanded this also ordered his people to make graven images of cherubim (things in heaven!) on either side of the mercy seat; and He commanded them to make a bronze snake (things on earth!) and attached a promise of mercy to all who looked up to it in faith.


O/k, show me where God commanded us to put statues of Mary and other saints in our places of worship. There is none in scripture.

The Lutheran position has never been that statues or Icons are prohibited, never. Which leads us to your next concern about the relationship of the BoC and scripture...

O/k, you go to "MY" churches web site and show me where I am wrong. Here is the address and the page that will open up is our "site map". Per my Pastor, you are wrong, so now I am giving you the chance to prove me wrong.
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?



This, Jim, is a regrettable statement due to the fact the BoC defines your faith as a Lutheran. I'll say it yet again...

"The latter (the Confessions) decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other".
At this point, Jim, you have to ask whether you believe the BoC to be a correct exposition of the Lutheran faith.


How much of the BoC do you disagree with?




Q



As I stated in the previous post, I have not made a complete study of the BoC. I have read quite a bit and have not found anything I disagree with. If you doubt that I am true to Lutheran beliefs please tell me where I have errored. I have never stated anything to my knowledge that is unscriptural. Can everyone here say that?


But do you see anything wrong with Icons or statues of the Apostles or saints or Mary??


Yes! As I said above.

[QUOTE]
And by the way, isnt being okay with a statue violate your first point of not making any idol (graven image), if that was indeed your direction?




I never said that, you assumed it. Yes, I do understand the differance. What I don't understand is why people insist on statues of anyone other than God. Isn't He the One we are worshipping? Why do we need other statues? Aren't they just a distraction and a tempation?

Perhaps at a latter time I won't mind answering more questions, but that is enough for me now if you don't mind. Normally I wouldn't mind at all, but I am just plain worn out.

Peace. :wave: :thumbsup:

[Qoheleth]

O/k, show me where God commanded us to put statues of Mary and other saints in our places of worship. There is none in scripture.

Where is it prohibited in scripture or the BoC, tell me that. Tell me why it is sinful and what command of God does it break?


If you doubt that I am true to Lutheran beliefs please tell me where I have errored

If anything, you are not completely informed or instructed per the BoC.


O/k, you go to "MY" churches web site and show me where I am wrong. Here is the address and the page that will open up is our "site map". Per my Pastor, you are wrong, so now I am giving you the chance to prove me wrong.


Jim, show me where to go specifically and I will gladly take a look. If the address is saying it is sinful and against Lutheran teaching, then yes he is wrong. I'll wait for you to direct me.



As I stated in the previous post, I have not made a complete study of the BoC

Then how can you in its totality, agree with or dispute the faith that we call Lutheran??


I never said that, you assumed it

No, I asked you, not stating a fact or assumption.


What I don't understand is why people insist on statues of anyone other than God. Isn't He the One we are worshipping?

No one is worshipping any statue Jim. And No one is insisting on having a statue or Icon as being necessary to salvation or anything like that. But, you seem to be suggesting that we cant have these as aids to prayer or worship.

Is this your point?


Aren't they just a distraction and a tempation?


Maybe they are to you, but not to me and many others including the Orthodox, Anglican, RCC and others.

[Jim47]

My question>Aren't they just a distraction and a tempation?


Your answer>

Maybe they are to you, but not to me and many others including the Orthodox, Anglican, RCC and others.


I have been waiting for you to confess that. It would give all apprearances that you are leaning to Orthodox and RCC.

Sorry, I'm staying with WELS and I'm not doing your home work either, I just don't have the time.

[Jim47]

I just remembered this link will lead you right to

"This we believe" Its a PDF File

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2601&collectionID=783

[Qoheleth]

I have been waiting for you to confess that. It would give all apprearances that you are leaning to Orthodox and RCC.

Lets not forget that Im leaning toward Confessional, Orthodox, Historic 16th century Lutheranism. SO, the appearance would be that Im trying to hold unto what Lutheranism is/was intended to be.

You still have not answered several of my questions.

Q

[Qoheleth]

I just remembered this link will lead you right to

"This we believe" Its a PDF File

Im sorry Jim, unless I missed it, I see nothing here that refutes or argues contrary to my position, at least concerning the BoC. WELS seems to take a very high view of the Confessions, which is not expressed (high-view) in your posts.

Q

[Jim47]

Im sorry Jim, unless I missed it, I see nothing here that refutes or argues contrary to my position, at least concerning the BoC. WELS seems to take a very high view of the Confessions, which is not expressed (high-view) in your posts.

Q


I do not come here to argue, I come here for fellowship, to learn a few things and the occasional opportunity to help someone.

I am sorry you have a low view of me simply because I don't believe in icons, and statues and also because I place a higher value on God's Word than I do the BoC. As I said earlier I think the BoC is an excellant teaching tool and I have found nothing that I disagree with, so unless you can show me my sin you are charging me with, my conversation with you is over.

[ChiRho]

[/i]
But hey, you are more than welcome come to my church and hear all about how tough it must have been to be one of Jesus' siblings...we'll have plenty of room for you...because the next time this is preached there will be one quickly vacated pew seat. And if you do come...careful at that communion rail...sometimes the Baptists don't know what to do.


Wow, Rose! This is so morbidly funny! I want to cry and laugh at the same time. We should start a thread dedicated to great one liners. I nominate this, twice!

But, I still am not completely sold. When you say, "this is what the church catholic has always taught" what do you mean? To whom do I look? An individual, a collection of individuals, only the Fathers that have concurred with "Semper Virgo"? Is this a "majority rules" situation? Do you see what I am saying?

Also, aside from the disputed line of the S.A.'s, is there any more substantial evidence in the BoC? I agree that the Table Talk quotes are not at par with some of Luther's other writings, but the original German would be interesting to look at.

I will admit that the "We and the church catholic say..." is getting a little tiresome. Are any that disagree, considered outside of the communion of saints?

Pax

[Qoheleth]

I do not come here to argue, I come here for fellowship, to learn a few things and the occasional opportunity to help someone

I dont see our dialogue as an arguement. We havew differing points of view, so we discussed them to gain clarification by any and all means.


I am sorry you have a low view of me simply because I don't believe in icons, and statues and also because I place a higher value on God's Word than I do the BoC

Jim, I think it is unfair that you put words into my mouth. I dont know you except by what you communicate here. Your wrong in what you believe about what I think of you.

Its not whether you believe in statues or Icons, its that you are implying, maybe even being explicit in your belief that Icons and statues are wrong to have and sinful by referencing the 1st Commandment.

In this, I believe that you have misinterpreted both Scripture and the BoC and have judged several of us here in regard to it.


As I said earlier I think the BoC is an excellant teaching tool and I have found nothing that I disagree with, so unless you can show me my sin you are charging me with

What sin have I accused you of. I have not and I resent your implication. Jim, First, you questioned Roses' and My beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary and the use of statues or Icons.

We did not assail your beliefs but asked for clarification from the Scriptures and the BoC. You have provided none. I feel you are not thoroughly reading our posts and then making unfair assumptions.

Concerning the BoC, the link you provoded, "This We Believe", says this

13. We believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles', the Nicene, and theAthanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life.
Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be inharmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.

Jim, you say that the BoC is simply an "aid". It would appear that WELS defines them as being much, much more


my conversation with you is over.

In all seriousness, how have I been so offensive? How have I judged you and why have you taken an uncharitable attitude in this?

Q

[Qoheleth]

When you say, "this is what the church catholic has always taught" what do you mean? To whom do I look? An individual, a collection of individuals, only the Fathers that have concurred with "Semper Virgo"? Is this a "majority rules" situation? Do you see what I am saying?

Well, your not suggesting that over 1600 years of witness of the church is inferior to each and every individuals, personal interpretation and authority, are you?

Q

[ChiRho]

Well, your not suggesting that over 1600 years of witness of the church is inferior to each and every individuals, personal interpretation and authority, are you?

Q


I think you are missing my point. Or maybe I am missing yours. Is the church not comprised of individuals? Is it not the communion of saints? Outside of Holy Scripture, is there a "common authoritative voice"? If so, where do I find it? If you say "you knuckle-dragger, it is the Holy Spirit," I will respond, apart from Holy Scripture, I do not recognize Him. If Popes and Councils contradict (and saints as well) how am I to be sure?

[SPALATIN]

Ok boys (Q and Jim) go to your respective corners and come out fighting when the bell rings. NO TKO's

[Qoheleth]

Ok boys (Q and Jim) go to your respective corners and come out fighting when the bell rings. NO TKO's

I'll ask of you all. Have I made a claim in anyway that Jim has sinned? Have I been offensive with my comments and remarks to Jim in anyway?


What is strange here is that when I defend the Orthodox, original, authentic, historic, Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran faith...Im always questioned and belittled as a Romanizer or something similar.

I am defending the Confessions (in their totality) to the bone in their intent, word, design and so forth. I am somewhat condemned here for doing so. Does this make sense to anyone???

Q

[ChiRho]

I'll ask of you all. Have I made a claim in anyway that Jim has sinned? Have I been offensive with my comments and remarks to Jim in anyway?


What is strange here is that when I defend the Orthodox, original, authentic, historic, Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran faith...Im always questioned and belittled as a Romanizer or something similar.

I am defending the Confessions (in their totality) to the bone in their intent, word, design and so forth. I am somewhat condemned here for doing so. Does this make sense to anyone???

Q

Q, you might be takin' this a bit too personal. Teach, my man! If you are defending what is right, it will come out in the end. But, dont play the victim role, it doesnt suite you well. :P

About answerin' those questions of mine...

[Qoheleth]

About answerin' those questions of mine...

Yep, I'd like to give this more attention than I can right now. So, hang tight Mr. Demanding :>)

Q

[ChiRho]

Yep, I'd like to give this more attention than I can right now. So, hang tight Mr. Demanding :>)

Q

Sucks being the teacher, huh?

[Protoevangel]

RE: Icons
I think the point is we have the freedom to have icons and statues, provided that they are not abused (prayed to, adored, worshiped, etc.). After all, most Idols are good things, which are simply abused by being given ultimate importance in our lives.


RE: Semper Virgo
If I were to err, I would rather be wrong in calling blessed Mary, Semper Virgo, and giving the glory for that to God, than to reject the grace that was given her, if it were. Does that make sense? Semper Virgo is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. In a way, I wish the question had never been thought up in the first place. Regardless of our thoughts on whether Semper Virgo is true or not, we just don't need to be sticking our heads into the bedchambers of Theotokos. :sigh: :( :cry:

[ByzantineDixie]

Wow, Rose! This is so morbidly funny! I want to cry and laugh at the same time. We should start a thread dedicated to great one liners. I nominate this, twice!

Ya...wish it was in me to laugh about it.

But, I still am not completely sold. When you say, "this is what the church catholic has always taught" what do you mean? To whom do I look? An individual, a collection of individuals, only the Fathers that have concurred with "Semper Virgo"? Is this a "majority rules" situation? Do you see what I am saying?

I know EXACTLY what you are saying but I don't know that I have a satisfactory answer for you. For example, if you were an Eastern Christian during the Arian controversy the majority of your fellow Christians would have believed something that was in error...so majority rule at a slice in time is surely out. But...frankly this particular teaching (semper virgo) is pretty easy to see throughout the church's history. Do you have to "buy it"? ...no you don't. We already established that. But I have a concern that as we cast off teachings of the church not in conflict with Scripture we end up with a stripped down version of faith...and frankly I not only see that as uncomfortable (think your argument about sleeping in the barn you made in the liturgy thread a while back) but at some point I think actually becomes risky to faith. Read: all those folks who do not believe in the Baptism of infants.

Also, aside from the disputed line of the S.A.'s, is there any more substantial evidence in the BoC? I agree that the Table Talk quotes are not at par with some of Luther's other writings, but the original German would be interesting to look at.

Yes...I have seen many good arguments which can support this belief from the BoC beyond the one citation in the SA--but if a person isn't really open to the belief these arguments surely would not be seen as "substantial evidence". No more substantial than the arguments one can make for Infant Baptism from Scripture, anyway.

I will admit that the "We and the church catholic say..." is getting a little tiresome. Are any that disagree, considered outside of the communion of saints?


Sorry if you find the argument of "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" tiresome...that's become key for me. Either the reformers intended to return the faith to it's proper origins (in essence make the proper corrections) or they intended to create something new. I don't see how they were out to create something new, consequently, EABA (everwhere, always and by all) seems to me to capture their intent. Of course, so long as it isn't in conflict with Scripture.

For me...the bottom line comes down to this. I don't decide which things of the Church I will believe and which ones I won't. I'll take the good with the bad. I'll take the role of women, the role of the clergy, the sanctity of the communion rail as well as the perpetual virginity of Mary. What I won't take much more of is sharing the communion rail with folks who reject the Body and Blood of Christ, a church that picks and chooses which parts of the Confessions it wants to follow, a church that has put the "creative" in worship...well, you get the picture.