martin luther and mama mary

[Roman_Catholic_1]

1. Both the NT and the earliest works known as the Apostolic Fathers do not expressly grant her any significance apart from her role as virgin in our Lord’s birth (and perhaps that of a concerned mother in his lifetime)…I find this early “silence” extremely unlikely if we are to believe the claim that she is second only to Christ in importance wrt our salvation

What a small and insignificant role birthing God must have been… I often wonder why God even bothered

1. The passages of Scripture that do not expressly mention Mary, but which the Catholics point to as teaching/implying/otherwise supporting a more significant role for Mary are unconvincing (at best) and again, I find it extremely unlikely that the only biblical support for a more significant role for Mary must be derived from “reading between the lines”.

Do you affirm the Trinity? If so you have already accepted one belief that is not “expressively” mentioned in Scripture. Sure, it is there, but there is ‘reading between the lines’ that is required since the Scriptures don’t come out and announce the doctrine. Why hold Catholics to a standard that you yourself do not follow?

1. The silence and the need for “reading between the lines” described at (1) and (2) above are exactly what I would expect to see if the Marian doctrines are man-made innovations.
   Further, the gospels actually seem to downplay the significance of Mary on at least one, if not two, occasions.

Should the doctrine of the Trinity be rejected for the same reason?

1. Regarding the matters of perpetual virginty, sinlessness and role as mediatrix the scriptures most certainly do not expressly claim such and on balance call into question such claims.

See the doctrine of the Trinity.

1. Although Catholics insist that what their devotion does not amount to worship,** the level of devotion one can often observe is hard to distinguish from worship **and many people are fairly said to worship other “gods” where far less devotion is involved…As such, although not amounting to (a strong definition of) worship, the devotion we see given to Mary is excessive and (at best) a distraction from Christ.

The bold part is your problem not ours. If I see you praying with your Bible and believe that it appears that you are worshiping the Bible, is this my problem or yours?

God bless you

 

[Radical]

Can I ask you, who is this post directed to?

The opening poster…sorry, didn’t think to specify

 

[Radical]

What a small and insignificant role birthing God must have been… I often wonder why God even bothered

I think he bothered b/c he loved us…but you would be right to observe that giving birth is something that a billion other women have done…Being a virgin is nothing unique either. Conceiving whilst a virgin is very special (though now do-able with modern medicine) and giving birth to our Lord is absolutely unique. It is (IMHO) God’s contribution that made the whole thing worth bothering about.

Do you affirm the Trinity? If so you have already accepted one belief that is not “expressively” mentioned in Scripture.

Right, but it can be reached by applying logic to scripture (which is what I believe that the ECFs did) It is a pretty simple thing really; it goes like this:

a) Jesus is called God
b) the Father is called God
c) the Holy Spirit is said to be God; and
d) the same scriptures claim that there is only one God

My logic tells me that I can 1) believe that the scriptures contradict themselves, 2) believe that the meaning of “God” is different in (a) and in (b); 3) accept Modalism or 4) accept Trinitarianism. I believe that the last option is best.

Why hold Catholics to a standard that you yourself do not follow?

Okay, if it is the same standard in play wrt the Marian doctrines, show me the clear statements regarding Mary (as per (a) through (d) above) and then provide me with the logic that causes one to arrive at the Marian doctrine in question…if you can’t do so, then it ain’t the same standard.

Should the doctrine of the Trinity be rejected for the same reason?

The doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made innovation…it is the product of man’s philosophy and logic applied to divine revelation…it should be rejected if the logic or philosophy behind it is bad and should be accepted if both the logic and the philosophy behind it is good.

I had said:
*
5) Although Catholics insist that what their devotion does not amount to worship, **the level of devotion one can often observe is hard to distinguish from worship ** and many people are fairly said to worship other “gods” where far less devotion is involved…As such, although not amounting to (a strong definition of) worship, the devotion we see given to Mary is excessive and (at best) a distraction from Christ. *

and you replied:

The bold part is your problem not ours. If I see you praying with your Bible and believe that it appears that you are worshiping the Bible, is this my problem or yours?

well, if praying with the telephone book is a familiar method of worshipping a telephone book and if praying with a dictionary is a standard method of worshipping a dictionary and if praying with a novel is the usual method of worshipping that novel then I think a trend would be established to the point that it would be hard to distinguish my activity from the other acts of book worshipping.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

martin luther believed and even had a devotion the the blessed virgin… why do protestants refute to believe on the virgin mary ?

She’s not an object of belief. Aquinas devotes some space to explaining the difference between belief, belief in God, & belief on the authority of God or the Church. Beliefs about her, are a different matter; theologically-informed protestants have several of those.​

As for Luther, his practice in regard to her is not a rule of faith, & she was not as central to him as faith in Christ was. No argument against later or Protestants can be made out of his ideas about her; the usual passages quoted to show he had a devotion to her while a Protestant were in any case written quite early in his Protestant life; they are probably to be seen as the fag-end of his Catholic life. They are interesting as part of his biography & spiritual development, but it’s probably unwise to “make anything” of them beyond that; other things counted for far more in Luther’s life & theology.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think he bothered b/c he loved us…but you would be right to observe that giving birth is something that a billion other women have done…Being a virgin is nothing unique either. Conceiving whilst a virgin is very special (though now do-able with modern medicine) and giving birth to our Lord is absolutely unique. It is (IMHO) God’s contribution that made the whole thing worth bothering about.

Surely the basic ordinariness of the Incarnation is, theologically, one of the most important things about it ? God becomes a man, not by being the son of someone important (humanly speaking), but, by being the son of a woman of no importance whatever, of someone who was, of all things, an unmarried mother. Not only was she a non-entity - but if any of us had been around at the time and heard of her child, we’d probably have re-acted very unfavourably to her. ​

Now I suppose someone’s going to complain … if people think it is a horrible Protestant blasphemy to emphasise the ordinariness of the Incarnation & of most of Jesus’ Life, they should read Frank Duff’s essay on the subject.

Right, but it can be reached by applying logic to scripture (which is what I believe that the ECFs did) It is a pretty simple thing really; it goes like this:

a) Jesus is called God
b) the Father is called God
c) the Holy Spirit is said to be God; and
d) the same scriptures claim that there is only one God

My logic tells me that I can 1) believe that the scriptures contradict themselves, 2) believe that the meaning of “God” is different in (a) and in (b); 3) accept Modalism or 4) accept Trinitarianism. I believe that the last option is best.

Okay, if it is the same standard in play wrt the Marian doctrines, show me the clear statements regarding Mary (as per (a) through (d) above) and then provide me with the logic that causes one to arrive at the Marian doctrine in question…if you can’t do so, then it ain’t the same standard.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made innovation…it is the product of man’s philosophy and logic applied to divine revelation…it should be rejected if the logic or philosophy behind it is bad and should be accepted if both the logic and the philosophy behind it is good.

I had said:

*5) Although Catholics insist that what their devotion does not amount to worship, **the level of devotion one can often observe is hard to distinguish from worship ***and many people are fairly said to worship other “gods” where far less devotion is involved…As such, although not amounting to (a strong definition of) worship, the devotion we see given to Mary is excessive and (at best) a distraction from Christ.

and you replied:

well, if praying with the telephone book is a familiar method of worshipping a telephone book and if praying with a dictionary is a standard method of worshipping a dictionary and if praying with a novel is the usual method of worshipping that novel then I think a trend would be established to the point that it would be hard to distinguish my activity from the other acts of book worshipping.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think he bothered b/c he loved us…but you would be right to observe that giving birth is something that a billion other women have done…

I am sorry, but this makes it all the less miraculous how? Why don’t you go ask a woman who cannot have a child how insignificant the gift of a child would be. Better yet ask any woman about the gift of child birth. The fact that it has happened, and will continue to happen, is not the point. A women my very well give birth to a child, but she may just as easily not give birth at all. Lets not take for granted this gift. Lastly, of those “billions” of woman who have given birth, how many have given birth to God?..

Right, **but it can be reached by applying logic to scripture **(which is what I believe that the ECFs did) It is a pretty simple thing really; it goes like this:

Says you. I say that the Marian doctrines, “can be reached by applying logic to scripture.” but you call it “reading between the lines.” Funny how when you do it it is, “applying logic to scripture” but when Catholics do it it is “reading between the lines.”

a) Jesus is called God
b) the Father is called God
c) the Holy Spirit is said to be God; and
d) the same scriptures claim that there is only one God

You are reading between the lines of Scripture. How come the Scriptures don’t come out and tells us that God is Trinitarian? Isn’t this what you are requiring of Catholics in regards to Mary?

My logic tells me that I can 1) believe that the scriptures contradict themselves, 2) believe that the meaning of “God” is different in (a) and in (b); 3) accept Modalism or 4) accept Trinitarianism. I believe that the last option is best.

Your logic can tell you whatever it wants. My logic tells me a great deal of things, but what does it have to do with you? I am not looking for what your logic tells you, I am looking for where the Scriptures tell us that God is Trinitarian.

Okay, if it is the same standard in play wrt the Marian doctrines, show me the clear statements regarding Mary (as per (a) through (d) above) and then provide me with the logic that causes one to arrive at the Marian doctrine in question…if you can’t do so, then it ain’t the same standard.

Your standard was that if it was not explicitly mentioned in Scripture it would cause you to believe it was a , “man-made innovation”. I am simply applying your standard to other doctrines.

well, if praying with the telephone book is a familiar method of worshipping a telephone book and if praying with a dictionary is a standard method of worshipping a dictionary and if praying with a novel is the usual method of worshipping that novel then I think a trend would be established to the point that it would be hard to distinguish my activity from the other acts of book worshipping.

The point was appearance. You believe that Catholics worship Mary, or it makes it hard to distinguish, based off of appearance:

the level of devotion one can often observe is hard to distinguish from worship

If it appears to me that you are worshiping a book and are not, that is my problem. If it appears to me that you are worshiping your wife and you are not it is my problem. If it appears to you that I am worshiping Mary and I am not, it is your problem.

God bless you

 

[Radical]

Surely the basic ordinariness of the Incarnation is, theologically, one of the most important things about it ?​

I don’t think of it that way. The ordinariness is a nice touch (divinely inspired, one could say), but Jesus could have formed himself out of Jerusalem’s dirt or he could have been the third child of a prostitute…had the incarnation occurred in a different way, Jesus’s divine qualities would not have been dimished in the least. The miracluous aspect of conception and the involvement of angels confirmed the special status of Jesus. Further, people can find spiritual lessons in the way the incarnation happened with Mary, and that is a good thing, but the important thing is that God’s Son came to earth b/c God loved us…everything else is insignificant by comparison. Our love for Jesus should not be related to his low social status…though it probably makes it easier for most people. At least that is the way that I see it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

“. . . 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.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

“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.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Cathloic Bridge

 

[Radical]

RC, It appears that you aren’t grasping my position…no doubt I haven’t explained myself very well

I am sorry, but this makes it all the less miraculous how?

It was a full miracle b/c the conception was achieved in a miraculous way and b/c the baby was God himself.

Why don’t you go ask a woman who cannot have a child how insignificant the gift of a child would be.

life is a gift, but not a miracle (if one views a miracle as something that surpasses the natural)

Lastly, of those “billions” of woman who have given birth, how many have given birth to God?..

Just one.

Says you. I say that the Marian doctrines, “can be reached by applying logic to scripture.” …

Great! please provide the express scriptural statements in point form and then show me your application of logic so as to arrive at the Marian doctrines. I did a very brief job of it wrt the “Trinity” and that sort of brief job is what you should be able to easily provide…that is, if your claim has any validity.

…but you call it “reading between the lines.” Funny how when you do it it is, “applying logic to scripture” but when Catholics do it it is “reading between the lines.”

again, please show me your application of logic and if it is valid, I will happily admit that I overstated my objection to the Marian doctrines.

You are reading between the lines of Scripture. How come the Scriptures don’t come out and tells us that God is Trinitarian? Isn’t this what you are requiring of Catholics in regards to Mary?

No, as I have (now) repeatedly said, give me the express scriptural statements regarding Mary (just as I gave you express scriptural statements concerning God…I’ll give you the citations if you want) and then show, with sound reasoning, how those express statements lead to the Marian doctrine in question.

Your logic can tell you whatever it wants. My logic tells me a great deal of things, but what does it have to do with you? I am not looking for what your logic tells you, I am looking for where the Scriptures tell us that God is Trinitarian…Your standard was that if it was not explicitly mentioned in Scripture it would cause you to believe it was a , “man-made innovation”. I am simply applying your standard to other doctrines.

and yes, I agree that the trinitarian doctrine is the product of man’s reasoning working off of express biblical statements and that I think the reasoning involved is sound and should be accepted. Again, show me the express biblical statements concerning Mary and provide me with your sound reasoning (working off of those express statements) that result in the Marian doctrines.

You believe that Catholics worship Mary, or it makes it hard to distinguish, based off of appearance:

well, not just appearance. The substance of the matter is also in play. It seems that the devotees of Mary have placed her in a class all by herself. She is viewed differently than all other humans and seen to possess a continuing and active role in man’s salvation that is not approached by any other human. Devotees use such words as “mediatrix” and “co-redemptrix”…and she is the subject of much praise, attention and devotion and to a level that exceeds the praise, attention and devotion that many reserve for God himself. If the matter can be examined objectively, then I would suggest that at some point on the continuum that is worship/devotion the act is more properly described as worship than veneration and that the act transforms the subject from mere human to “a god of sorts”…notwithstanding the devotee’s insistence that the act is one of veneration only and not worship.

God bless you.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

martin luther believed and even had a devotion the the blessed virgin… why do protestants refute to believe on the virgin mary ?

Because it would mean that Catholicism is alive and well. That’s why many of them do not believe Peter was ever in Rome, for to believe that he was would to believe in the Catholic church.