Calvin and Marian Theology

[minkymurph]

Is it true that both Calvin and Luther taught that; Mary is properly called Mother of God, she was conceived immaculately, remained ever virgin and to interpret the scripture that refers to Jesus brothers and sisters being Mary’s children, is to interpret it incorrectly?

I would respectfully ask that answers are backed up by recognised academic sources (NOT wikipedia) and are not based on personal opinion.

 

[Tyuiop411]

Is it true that both Calvin and Luther taught that; Mary is properly called Mother of God, she was conceived immaculately, remained ever virgin and to interpret the scripture that refers to Jesus brothers and sisters being Mary’s children, is to interpret it incorrectly?

I would respectfully ask that answers are backed up by recognised academic sources (NOT wikipedia) and are not based on personal opinion.

**Martin Luther:
**
Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…"3

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

The source for this as well as the Notes are located here: mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

This is also discussed a little bit further in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=405459

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Is it true that both Calvin and Luther taught that; Mary is properly called Mother of God, she was conceived immaculately, remained ever virgin

Some notes (if you are interested)…

1. Protestants do not affirm that any one person is infallible/unaccountable and they must accept with docility whatever is opinioned. Lutherans regard Luther to be a mere mortal (and sinful at that) who is fully accountable for all he said and did. Luther is often regarded as a good theologian and a good scholar in biblical languages, but his views are just that - his views (just are mine and yours). We are apt to think some of those views good and wise, but we might think some of them bad and foolish. The ONLY thing he said about himself, the only claim he made regarding himself is that he was a poor, miserable sinner - without any merit or worthiness. And we tend to agree (of him and ourselves). The ONLY infallible Authority in Lutheranism is God, and by extension, His inscripturated words. Luther is not regarded by anyone as an infallible/unaccountable authority on anything for anything (although that never kept him - or most - from holding to positions, perhaps passionately).
2. It is true that Luther (and generally the Lutheran Church Fathers) had a very deep Marian spirituality and generally embraced the Marian views of their day. This was especially true early in Luther’s life. The view that Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord and that Mary is the Mother of God are doctrines in Lutheranism. But the only one of the Marian views generally associated with Catholicism that is so much as even mentioned in The Lutheran Confessions is the Ever-Virginity of Mary, but an examination of that reveals that it was never regarded as dogma (or even doctrine) but simply as “pious opinion.” One of the things that indicates that is that there were Lutheran pastors in Luther’s day that did NOT hold to this view - and they were not excommunicated or defrocked or even repudiated - simply disagreed with. It was a very common view - but never regarded as dogma to which all were/are bound. The other Marian dogmas are not even mentioned - in any sense or way. Today, you will find Lutherans that accept many of these views (my pastor is one, I think Jon here does, too). You will find some that don’t. And then you will find Lutherans like me that simply take no position on them - one way or the other.

I’m always curious when Catholics embrace Luther. We OFTEN hear that has Protestants, we logically MUST accept EVERYTHING The Catholic Church ever said or did as infallible/unaccountable if we accept the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or anything whatsoever The Catholic Church teaches, for - the point is stressed - if a teacher is right at one point, it MUST be correct at every point. But then the same people will quote Luther, say “Luther was right!” and then reject him as a demonic heretic. I always find that curious. IF one MUST be accepted at all points if at one point (one of the most fundamental Catholic apologetic points) - and vise versa, then the LAST thing ANY Catholic should do is say “Luther was right” even at one point.

.

 

[izoid]

Some notes
I’m always curious when Catholics embrace Luther. We OFTEN hear that has Protestants, we logically MUST accept EVERYTHING The Catholic Church ever said or did as infallible/unaccountable if we accept the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or anything whatsoever The Catholic Church teaches, for - the point is stressed - if a teacher is right at one point, it MUST be correct at every point. But then the same people will quote Luther, say “Luther was right!” and then reject him as a demonic heretic. I always find that curious. IF one MUST be accepted at all points if at one point (one of the most fundamental Catholic apologetic points) - and vise versa, then the LAST thing ANY Catholic should do is say “Luther was right” even at one point.

.

Why the small print?

I think the point that people are making is that the doctrines of Mary were not questioned by the reformers. These arguments against Marian dogma’s are fairly recent inventions. While Luther is certainly off base on some of his doctrine he was right about Mary in this regard.

To use a baseball analogy. Sometimes even the pitcher hits a home run.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Why the small print?

It’s off topic, I confess…

But how many times a day do we read the very, very common Catholic apologetic argument that if The Catholic Church is embraced as correct at ANY point - it MUST be accepted as infallible/unaccountable at EVERY point? I cannot possibly remember the number of times Catholics have said or posted to me that it is illogical, unreasonalble, and absurd to accept that The Catholic Church is right about the Trinity but wrong about Transubstantiation (for example). The apologetic is this: If a teacher is accepted as correct - then the teacher must be viewed as correct, we cannot “pick and choose” or view that the SAME teacher might be right on one point but not on another. Okay. I find that absurd, but I DO get the point. And it is one of the most common Catholic apologetical points. But, then be consistent. You should not turn around, quote Luther and say, “Luther was RIGHT about something!” Your own apologetic thus forces you to agree with Luther on ALL points (and not even Lutherans do that, lol). See, I don’t think this very common Catholic apologetic has anything to it AT ALL. I think you CAN say, “Luther is right on this, but wrong on that.” In the same way, I can say, “The Catholic Church is right on this, but wrong on that.” But then I reject the Catholic apologetic.

Back to the issue: YES, Luther personally held to most of the Marian views of his day. Some Lutherans still do. But they are not dogmas - and never were in Lutheranism (except if you consider the view of Mary as the Mother of God to be a dogma, we tend to see it more as a valid title).

.

 

[minkymurph]

Good responses everyone. What I am trying to establish here is truth about the teachings of reformers. In my recent study of the reformation, I get the strong impression that what is deemed Lutherism and Calvinsim today, is not what they actually taught and and what people have been told about the reformation and Calvin and Luther 's theology, is inaccurate. This is why I asked for recognised sources.

 

[minkymurph]

Some notes (if you are interested)…

1. Protestants do not affirm that any one person is infallible/unaccountable and they must accept with docility whatever is opinioned…

I know Protestants believe this. Infallibility is a different issue and I take your point that being Lutheran does not compel one to accept everything Luther said. I don’t know anyone who would call themselves a Lutheran. Any discussions I have had with Anglican’s have been civilized, respectful and intelligent. ‘Calvinist’s’ tend to be a bit more prickly and those I know who claim to be Calvinist emphatically deny he ever taught this and by and large, don’t like to talk about Luther as his theology was more mystical than Calvin’s. There is evidence to suggest that both Calvin and Luther rejected Mary’s intercession as the reformers did not like human intercession. However, apparently both stated that Christians are compelled to believe Mary was Mother of God. Calvin is repudiated to have stated that to deny this was to deny Christ himself.

I’m always curious when Catholics embrace Luther. We OFTEN hear that has Protestants, we logically MUST accept EVERYTHING The Catholic Church ever said or did as infallible/unaccountable if we accept the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or anything whatsoever The Catholic Church teaches, for - the point is stressed - if a teacher is right at one point, it MUST be correct at every point. But then the same people will quote Luther, say “Luther was right!” and then reject him as a demonic heretic. I always find that curious. IF one MUST be accepted at all points if at one point (one of the most fundamental Catholic apologetic points) - and vise versa, then the LAST thing ANY Catholic should do is say “Luther was right” even at one poin

If something is true then something is true irrespective of who says it. As Catholics, we believe it is true that Christ had two natures and we believe the teaching on the Trinity to be true; as do many Protestants. Therefore, to Catholics and many Protestants in this regard Luther spoke truth. Speaking divine truth goes beyond simply ‘being right’ or having theological 'i’s and ‘t’s’ crossed. Divine truth is the word of God. This is why we are compelled to believe it. There are other beliefs of Calvin and Luther that Catholic’s would deem heretical. The reason they state they are heretical is because they do not believe them to be true. However, believing something which is heretical, to me, does not make one a heretic. What makes one a heretic is teaching something you know to false and misleading others in full knowledge that what you are teaching is not true. If you genuinely believe something is true, you may be nothing more than misguided. We can all be misguided by good intentions so I wouldn’t condemn anyone for it.

I have never read anywhere in the Catholic Catechism that if a teacher is right on one point then he or she must be right about everything. The Catholic Church does not teach that all theological opinions, even those of the Pope, are divinely inspired. There are theological opinions that are believed to be true but unless a teaching is declared infallible, the Church teaches that Catholics may choose to believe them or choose not to. What the Catholic Church teaches is that Catholic’s are compelled to believe all that has been declared infallible truth as infallible truth’s are divinely inspired and neither the Pope or Catholic theologians claim everything they say is an inallible truth. That is what I have been taught as a Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

. There is evidence to suggest that both Calvin and Luther rejected Mary’s intercession as the reformers did not like human intercession.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this. Referring only to Luther (I’ll let Calvinists speak for Calvin), I’m sure he would disagree with your statement here, as human intercessory prayer supported in the Lutheran Confessions. It is invocation of the saints that is questioned, the difference being those who live on earth and those who have transferred to the Church Triumphant.
It seems the one of the biggest complaints of the Lutheran reformers was not the practice itself necessarily, but the requirement of the Church to believe in Mary’s ability to her our requests for intercession, when scripture does not require that belief. There were other issues connected to this, of course, that the reformers saw as abuses.

However, apparently both stated that Christians are compelled to believe Mary was Mother of God.

Lutherans certainly believe that she was the Theotokos.

Jon

 

[minkymurph]

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this. Referring only to Luther (I’ll let Calvinists speak for Calvin), I’m sure he would disagree with your statement here, as human intercessory prayer supported in the Lutheran Confessions. It is invocation of the saints that is questioned, the difference being those who live on earth and those who have transferred to the Church Triumphant.

That’s an interesting point. However, when I said reformers didn’t like human intercession I used the term ‘human intercession’ in the context of the Saints in heaven and not those who live on earth .

Lutherans certainly believe that she was the Theotokos
Jon

That’s how I would understand it which is why I find it confusing when people I know who are Anglican and who claim to be Calvinists vehemently object to the term ‘Mother of God.’ However, I know not all Anglicans have a problem with the title. I know you said the Calvinists can speak for themselves but I have friends who would claim to be Calvinists and they are pretty insistent she was not Mother of God, she was the mother of Jesus. To me, to deny Mary was Mother of God is to deny the Incarnation. I can understand why my Calvinist friends object to other Catholic beliefs and think we should not pray to Mary, but I don’t understand why they would say she is not Mother of God if they believe, as they profess, Jesus was God. When I asked my friends they said Mary should not be called Mother of God because God cannot be fully communicated to humans and this is what Calvin taught. It would appear this wasn’t quite what he said. This is why I asked the question about Calvin and Luther.

 

[JonNC]

=minkymurph;6146833]That’s an interesting point. However, when I said reformers didn’t like human intercession I used the term ‘human intercession’ in the context of the Saints in heaven and not those who live on earth .

That’s fine. I hadn’t heard invocation of saints termed that way, and just wanted to clarify.

That’s how I would understand it which is why I find it confusing when people I know who are Anglican and who claim to be Calvinists vehemently object to the term ‘Mother of God.’ However, I know not all Anglicans have a problem with the title. I know you said the Calvinists can speak for themselves but I have friends who would claim to be Calvinists and they are pretty insistent she was not Mother of God, she was the mother of Jesus. To me, to deny Mary was Mother of God is to deny the Incarnation. I can understand why my Calvinist friends object to other Catholic beliefs and think we should not pray to Mary, but I don’t understand why they would say she is not Mother of God if they believe, as they profess, Jesus was God. When I asked my friends they said Mary should not be called Mother of God because God cannot be fully communicated to humans and this is what Calvin taught. It would appear this wasn’t quite what he said. This is why I asked the question about Calvin and Luther.

I didn’t that (any) Anglicans denied the Theotokos. I’ll be interested to hear if any Anglicans who are here reply to this.

Jon