Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

[TxGodfollower]

How about this Church council pronouncement: these are the books that belong in the New Testament and are theopneustos:

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/

I presume that you accept this, yes?

You presume incorrectly, I don’t accept either their NT or OT lists.

And where does it state that the 3 Persons are co-eternal and co-equal? Where does it say that there is one nature in God? That there are 3 persons in one God?

So are there two distinct persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine or one person with two natures? How do you know which one is the correct one based upon the scriptures that you quoted?

Does Christ have one or two wills? How did you determine that?

Is Mary the Mother of God or the mother of a human being conjoined to God?

If you don’t know the church pronouncements, how do you know when to celebrate Easter and Christmas? And why do you celebrate Easter/Christmas? Because the Church says so and not the Bible.

If you do not know Church Council pronouncements , where do you think your Nicene/Apostle Creed comes from? And the Bible too as the other poster have pointed out.

And why do you go to Church on Sunday and not on Saturday the Mosaic Sabbath day?

Christ spoke quiet extensively about it in Matthew. “I and my Father are one.” The two of them (Father and Son) obviously have similar natures. By the phrases Christ uses to describe the Spirit, plus the Great Commission and 1 John, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is on the same level.

Two natures: The verses I quoted were pretty clear, he is divine and human at the same time. Also 1 Timothy 3:16.

I am not sure I understand your question about one will vs two wills? Could you elaborate?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” God has no mother. Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Word so God could become man, but Mother of God I don’t believe to be an accurate phrase.

Christmas/Easter: You make the assumption that I celebrate Christmas and Easter. I view them as merely reminders and something to bring to mind points in Christ’s life.

I believe the creeds are good summaries of Christian doctrine, but I don’t hold them to be any more doctrinal than the works of C.S. Lewis.

Saturday vs Sunday: See Romans 14.

 

[PRmerger]

You presume incorrectly, I don’t accept either their NT or OT lists.

Really?

Let’s just talk NT.

Which of the 27 books of the NT don’t you believe to be theopneustos?

And are there some books which are excluded by the CC which you believe to be inspired?
Perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas?

 

[Good_Fella]

First: I’m not sure why you believe Eulogemene being used in Luke 1:42 is of such significance that one can infer so much of what Luke uniquely meant by it… but the verb it is derived from is used in several other verses. At least 36 other verses in the NT.

Εὐλογημένη (feminine) occurs only twice in Scripture, referring to Mary (Lk 1:42) and the Kingdom of Heaven (Mk.11:10). Εὐλογημένος (masculine) occurs seven times (including Lk 1:42) only with reference to Jesus as King and the Son of David. These derivatives of the verb εὐλογέω are not used anywhere else in Scripture. The verb takes different forms in thirty-six other instances with different meanings. Mary’s blessed state is exclusively paralleled with that of her Son and the Kingdom of Heaven. Elizabeth is pronouncing a consecratory blessing (a benediction) on both Jesus and Mary who are mutually set apart from all others in the kingdom of God to serve a divine purpose in association with each other. This consecration requires the impartation of a special holiness.

I’m not sure what you mean by her personal affinity with him…

Mary was chosen and set apart by God to exercise a co-redemptive role in association with Jesus. When God separated Israel from all the other nations to serve His purpose, He removed her from her lowly and profane origin and declared her sanctified. Both Jesus and Mary were singularly holy. Jesus was “full of grace” (πλήρης χάριτος) by his substantial grace of union with the Father (Jn 1:14). Mary was “full of grace” or “highly favoured with grace” (κεχαριτωμένη) by being “completely, perfectly, and enduringly” endowed with sanctifying grace (Lk. 1:28).

Is this something that no other human being can achieve? I thought this is the whole point of our having a personal savior.

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Ephesians 3, 21

Let’s not underestimate the power of God’s grace or question what He wills for anyone. Perhaps you find this hard to believe because you have been taught that no human being can ever be intrinsically righteous and made personally just by God through His sanctifying grace. We are not reckoned righteous and just by having Christ’s personal and alien righteousness imputed to us. Forensic justification is a false doctrine (a legal fiction) that originated with Luther and Calvin in the 16th century. You won’t find this teaching among the Patristic Fathers. Further, the Scriptures clearly refute it (cf. 1 Jn 1:7; 3:3, 7).

Regeneration or sanctification is the essence of justification. Naturally, no human being can be as personally righteous as Jesus was because of his divine person and substantial grace of union with God. But God’s sanctifying grace does make us inherently holy in a way that parallels Christ’s holiness in his humanity. Because of the taint of original sin, however, we have our faults and do occasionally fall from grace. Some people live holier lives than others. It depends on how well we cooperate (“make ourselves pure”) with God’s efficacious grace. Mary, however, was set apart in the order of grace by virtue of her Divine Maternity and co-redemptive role as the new Eve in association with the new Adam. The female vocative in Luke 1:28 applies to no other person in the Scriptures besides her.

She was frightened(LK1:29,30) and she was incredulous(LK:1:34)

Mary was greatly perplexed when the angel first appeared to her, but that was because he had greeted and addressed her as “full of grace”. Thus the angel immediately told her not to fear, since she had been favoured by God. I believe the meaning of the angel’s words implicitly lies in 1 John 4:18: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.” In other words, Mary had no cause to fear the Divine justice, since God had endowed her with the fullness of His grace. Her perfect love for God and her humility placed her in God’s favour by the time the angel appeared which rendered her worthy to be the mother of the divine Messiah.

In Luke 1:34, Mary is not incredulous. She asks the question “How shall this be, seeing I know not man?” because she believes that she has been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. However, at this time, she understood, as all Jews did, that the Messiah would be of human paternal lineage. The truth is that Mary had no intention of having any children with her spouse Joseph. The couple had already agreed to having a chaste marriage. Mary made a vow of chastity to God while living and serving in the temple as a young girl. Joseph honoured her vow when they were first betrothed. Hence, Mary wondered how it was that she would conceive and bear Jesus in light of her being a sworn virgin. Obviously she was conversant with the facts of life.

Forgive me but you seem to be using too esoteric and vaguely definable phrases which border on the meaningless for my simple soul.

Scripture must often be read in a spiritual and anagogical sense. It is the simple soul that diligently seeks understanding. I hope you are at least willing to try to understand. May I suggest you do some research and explore the subject. God bless!

PAX
:heaven:

 

[TxGodfollower]

Really?

Let’s just talk NT.

Which of the 27 books of the NT don’t you believe to be theopneustos?

And are there some books which are excluded by the CC which you believe to be inspired?
Perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas?

No, I don’t believe the Shepherd of Hermas because it contradicts the standards in the rest of the NT, especially in the view of the church. The Epistle of Barnabas I don’t believe either, as its main source text has distinct signs of being edited throughout time.

No, the book that is missing is one referenced in the NT itself.

No, the book that is missing from the list you sited is referenced by Paul in Colossians 4.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t believe the Shepherd of Hermas because it contradicts the standards in the rest of the NT, especially in the view of the church.

But you are starting with the fact that you already have the NT, and then you can compare other texts to this NT to see if it “contradicts the standards”.

My question to you is: if you say you didn’t receive the 27 book canon of the NT from the Catholic Church, what are you using to determine what’s theopneustos?

That is, who gave you the list of books that belong in the NT?

No, the book that is missing from the list you sited is referenced by Paul in Colossians 4.

What book is that?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You presume incorrectly, I don’t accept either their NT or OT lists.

Christ spoke quiet extensively about it in Matthew. “I and my Father are one.” The two of them (Father and Son) obviously have similar natures. By the phrases Christ uses to describe the Spirit, plus the Great Commission and 1 John, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is on the same level.

Two natures: The verses I quoted were pretty clear, he is divine and human at the same time. Also 1 Timothy 3:16.

I am not sure I understand your question about one will vs two wills? Could you elaborate?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” God has no mother. Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Word so God could become man, but Mother of God I don’t believe to be an accurate phrase.

Christmas/Easter: You make the assumption that I celebrate Christmas and Easter. I view them as merely reminders and something to bring to mind points in Christ’s life.

I believe the creeds are good summaries of Christian doctrine, but I don’t hold them to be any more doctrinal than the works of C.S. Lewis.

Saturday vs Sunday: See Romans 14.

My opinion is that you are reasoning a posteriori. IOW, your reasoning is based on experience, although you ascribe your reasoning to your own deductions based on Scripture. IOW, you are taking for granted the great arguments that settled these questions in the early Church (the Catholic Church) and because they have since been foundational truths to Christianity, you deny their origin, and convince yourself that it is YOURSELF that has easily seen these truths based on Scripture.

This method of reasoning is very comforting to Protestants, as it would be very UNCOMFORTABLE to recognize when and where these doctrines TRULY originated.

This is easily verified by history. But still, Protestants will waive it off, and say it was always obvious from Scripture.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I like to ask my Protestant friends:
Did you know that both Calvin and Luther had huge devotions and repect for Mary? Then, if you follow these men, why don’t you have the same?

Nine times out of ten they don’t even know that Calvin and Luther loved Mary.

1.So somehow disagreement means we don’t respect her ??

2.FYI Lutherans DO believe the perpetual virginity of Mary

3.We follow Christ

 

[ericc]

Christ spoke quiet extensively about it in Matthew. “I and my Father are one.” The two of them (Father and Son) obviously have similar natures. By the phrases Christ uses to describe the Spirit, plus the Great Commission and 1 John, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is on the same level.

There is nothing obvious about “I and my Father are one”. One in what? Is it one in mind, spirit, action, will, or any other attributes you can slot in there? And which phrases did Christ used to describe the Holy Spirit is on the same level with the Father or the Son? It would be helpful to quote chapter and verse. I can’t tell whether you are trying to gloss over it or substantiating your statements. There is nothing clear about the trinitarian equality/eternality in those verses you quote. The only thing clear is that there are 3 of them. The rest you have to assume or work backwards from Church pronouncements.

Two natures: The verses I quoted were pretty clear, he is divine and human at the same time. Also 1 Timothy 3:16.

See Mother of God below.

I am not sure I understand your question about one will vs two wills? Could you elaborate?

Does Christ have one will or two wills since he is one person with 2 natures?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” God has no mother. Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Word so God could become man, but Mother of God I don’t believe to be an accurate phrase.

Why is Mother of God not accurate? You agreed that Jesus is one person with 2 natures, divine and human. Mary is the mother of a person, a person with 2 natures. She is not the mother of a nature. So how could you say she is not the Mother of God since she is the mother of a person with divine nature?

Christmas/Easter: You make the assumption that I celebrate Christmas and Easter. I view them as merely reminders and something to bring to mind points in Christ’s life.

Yes, I made the assumption. So do you celebrate Easter and Christmas? If you do, which dates do you observe? And why those dates. If you don’t , ignore this question.

I believe the creeds are good summaries of Christian doctrine, but I don’t hold them to be any more doctrinal than the works of C.S. Lewis.

So do you accept the pronouncements of any of the Ecumenical Councils? Which ones if you do. And reasons if not.

Saturday vs Sunday: See Romans 14.

Which verse? I wouldn’t want to guess, in case I guess wrong.

 

[Good_Fella]

What is meant by “free woman of promise”? Where in the bible does it refer to Mary as the new eve and what does this indicate?

Genesis 3:15 is the first messianic prophecy in Scripture. The seed or offspring of the woman is Christ, whose mother is Mary. Jesus called his mother “Woman” in reference to Eve before she fell from grace. It wasn’t until the fall that Adam called his wife Eve, which means “mother of all the living”. Eve’s offspring is sinful humanity. Mary’s offspring is Jesus and all those who are born of him (regenerated) in the spirit (Rom. 8:29; Rev 12:17). What we mean by Mary being the “free” woman of the promised Messiah is that she is free from any subjection to sin (Lk. 1:28).“Whoever commits sin is a slave of sin” (Jn 8:34).

We have prefigurements of Mary in the Hebrew matriarchs and heroines of the OT. In Genesis 11, there is Sarah, the free wife of Abraham and woman of promise (the mother of the promised son Isaac) opposed to the slave wife Hagar. Although she is barren and aged, she miraculously bears an only son who is to be called Isaac by God’s command. Isaac is destined to become the father of a great nation - Israel in the person of Jacob. Mary, on the other hand, is the free spouse of the Holy Spirit and the woman of promise who God foretold to the serpent would be at enmity with it and thus free from the slavery of sin. She is a virgin, but miraculously conceives an only son whom she is to call Jesus by God’s command. Jesus is to be the ruler of all nations with a rod of justice, the head of the mystical body which is the Church - the new Jerusalem come down from heaven - and “the firstborn of many brethren” (Rom.8:29).

Esther is captured and enslaved with her people by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), but because of her exceptional beauty, he chooses her from among all the Jewish maidens to be his wife and to reign with him as Queen of Persia (2:1-18). She, abhors the thought of being his wife, not only because he is an evil Gentile who has enslaved her own people, but also because she is a righteous woman who observes the Torah and is already married to Mordechai, according to the Talmud. But the king forces her to be his wife and to lay with him whenever he summons her. Meanwhile, all the Hebrew captives are condemned to death through the schemes of an enemy, the king’s highest official Haman, except Esther because of her relation to the king. Taking advantage of being the king’s wife and queen, apparently by divine providence, she manages to thwart the plot of her people’s enemy and saves them from certain death in collaboration with God.

Mary is a type of Esther. Alone of her race, she is not subjected to spiritual death because of original sin. By divine favour, Mary is granted a singular privilege which permits her to assist her Son in defeating our enemy Satan and delivering us from the condemnation of spiritual death. She is chosen because she is the fairest woman of her race (Lk 1:30)…

Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.
Song of Solomon 4, 9

The biblical theme of the free woman of promise who faithfully contributes to the salvation of God’s people in the face of death at the hands of their enemies runs current in the Old Testament with the exploits of the Jewish heroines, who include Judith and Jael. Both women strike victorious blows at the heads of the arch-enemies of the Israelites under God’s providential direction and guidance (Judith 13: 18-20; Judges 5:24-27). Mary victoriously crushes the head of the serpent in collaboration with God by bringing the Messiah into the world by her salutary act of faith.

*For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. *
1 Corinthians 11, 12

The idea of being born of a woman without the seed of man points towards mankind’s spiritual regeneration and reconciliation with God. Eve is the biological “mother of the living" in a fallen state. (Genesis 3:21); Mary, the new Eve, is the Mother of all redeemed humanity. Mary is the true spiritual “mother of the living”, of all who possess eternal life in Christ, her Son. Since Mary is the Mother of Jesus, we are his brothers and sisters. We do not physically descend from her as Jesus did in his humanity, but she gave to us her Son’s sacred body of which we have become members (Ephesians 5:29).

As members of Christ’s mystical body, the Church, we are all united to the fruit of Mary’s womb as brethren of the Lord. Mary is indeed the mother of the new order of creation. Not unlike Jesus, who is as Paul tells the Romans in his letter, “the firstborn of many brothers”, we are born without the seed of man by being “generated unto God” as members of Christ’s body. The Church was born at the precise moment the blood (justification) and water (regeneration) flowed from Jesus’ side as he hung dead on the cross where Mary knelt and prayed in sorrow on our behalf.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

As far as the devils offspring, Satan didnt bring sin into the world. Humans brought sin into the world through their transgression. Neither did Satan produce “offspring” like eve did. For eve is the Mother of ‘all’ the living.

The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life."
Genesis 3, 14

Sin has entered the world by one man’s sin, but that’s because of temptation which Satan uses to redirect our will away from conforming to the Divine will. Thus the apostles warn us: “Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaming lion seeking someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith” (1 Pet 5:8-9). “Do not leave room for the devil” (Eph. 4:27). God blamed the serpent for having instigated what had happened. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin by choosing to act on the serpent’s words which appealed to them in their inordinate self-love.

Eve gave birth to her firstborn son Cain, didn’t she? Her firstborn was a type of anti-Christ. She and her seed were not at enmity with Satan. Both had fallen from God’s grace. If God had put Eve (the biological mother of all the living) at enmity with the Devil along with her offspring, how could she possibly have given birth to a murderer? The truth is that the Devil’s offspring are all those who commit grave (mortal) sins against God.

So who are the offspring of the serpent besides Cain in particular? We find the answer summed up in the First Letter of John: ‘By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous’ (3:10-12). The offspring of the serpent are people who possess the spirit and disposition of the devil. And not unlike their symbolic parent, they hate God and all his righteous children to the extent of persecuting and putting them to death. It wasn’t the devil that Jesus and the prophets before him were at enmity with, or his disciples and martyrs who would follow him, but rather his offspring who served as his advocates, having succumbed to pride and fallen pray to Satan’s lies contesting the divine truth (cf. Jn 9:35-41).

'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
Matthew 23, 29-36

Marys enmity between herself and Satan must surely be total and complete opposition to and hatred of all Satan is and does as you indicated. Yet Christ came not in the same likeness as this to sinful humanity. Christ came to SAVE sinful humanity. Remember all have sinned?

Romans 3:23 ‘for all (pantes) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ ] has become quite the cliché for Protestants who object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. We also read that “death has spread to all (pantes) men,” in Romans 5:12. Yet Enoch and Elijah were spared physical death. We also read that “all (pantes) Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26).But we know from the Book of Revelation 7 that only a remnant of Israel shall be saved. The Greek word *pantes *is to be taken in a collective rather than a distributive sense. There can be exceptions to the rule. All does not mean each single person in the group. Thus if Enoch and Elijah had been exempted from experiencing death while under subjection to this universal law, then the same can be said for Mary who was preserved free from the stain of original sin; though she was subject to inheriting this stain as a natural descendant of fallen Adam. Mary’s soul was sanctified at the first instant of her conception by the foreseen merits of Christ, and she received plenitudes of grace which helped her to remain personally spotless and without blemish so as to be a most worthy mother of our Lord. Mary was redeemed in the most perfect way, by way of prevention.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

1.So somehow disagreement means we don’t respect her ??

2.**FYI Lutherans DO believe the perpetual virginity of Mary **

3.We follow Christ

Not all Lutherans. I’ve had discussions with a few evangelical ones who don’t. In the Lutheran confession the PVM isn’t a dogma that all the faithful must believe without question, but simply a matter of pious belief for those who freely choose to accept it. Those who don’t believe in it aren’t regarded as impious, since this doctrine isn’t dogma. The reason why the PVM isn’t a dogma is because Lutherans consider it merely as a matter of theological opinion (theologumen), there being insufficient Scriptural support either way, according to their view. Since Scripture takes precedence over tradition, what the early Church Fathers believed and asserted means little. They, too, including Luther, were entitled to their theological opinions.

May the force be with you! :knight1:

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Not all Lutherans. I’ve had discussions with a few evangelical ones who don’t. In the Lutheran confession the PVM isn’t a dogma that all the faithful must believe without question, but simply a matter of pious belief for those who freely choose to accept it. Those who don’t believe in it aren’t regarded as impious, since this doctrine isn’t dogma. The reason why the PVM isn’t a dogma is because Lutherans consider it merely as a matter of theological opinion (theologumen), there being insufficient Scriptural support either way, according to their view. Since Scripture takes precedence over tradition, what the early Church Fathers believed and asserted means little. They, too, including Luther, were entitled to their theological opinions.

May the force be with you! :knight1:

PAX
:heaven:

What the church fathers taught is Very important to us .

 

[Good_Fella]

What the church fathers taught is Very important to us .

What the Church Fathers taught is important to Lutherans insofar there is sufficient Scriptural support. What they unanimously taught about the PVM in accord with sacred Tradition is practically of little importance when it comes to declaring a *de fide *doctrine. Catholics have always regarded Tradition as an infallible medium of divine revelation on equal footing with sacred Scripture, and that Scripture is infallible because Tradition is infallible. We regard the unanimous and consistent teachings of the Church Fathers as infallible, since they are monuments of Tradition. Sacred Tradition (by this we don’t mean ecclesial traditions) is the unwritten word of God, declared to the Church by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:12-13).

The Latin text of the Smalcald Articles declare:

“That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.”

The Solid Declaration, Article VIII declares:

“Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.”

In conclusion, the position under the Lutheran Confessions is:

1.It is clearly believed, taught and confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church that Mary is the Mother of God. Denial of this scriptural doctrine is especially serious because it imperils the even greater doctrine which the doctrine of the Theotokos guards, namely the Incarnation of Christ, and particularly the personal union of His divine and human natures.

2.It is certainly legitimate, at the very least, for us to believe that Christ was born miraculously, and that Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ. The argument is not as to whether Christians may believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin; the only question is whether they must do so, as binding Christian doctrine rather than merely pious opinion.

Belief in the PVM (including the virginity of Mary during the birth of Jesus) is regarded by Lutherans as legitimate in light of the historical teachings of the Church since the 2nd century. But the doctrine isn’t binding, since it isn’t accepted as an essential article of faith - a *de fide *doctrine. The Lutheran Confessors stipulated that only the articles which are clearly revealed in Scripture (i.e., the virginal conception of Jesus) should be binding. And they felt that the Scriptures were silent about the PVM. We Catholics feel that there is sufficient implicit Scriptural support which confirms what we have always traditionally believed, even before the NT was written and compiled (Lk. 1:1-4). For us the teachings of the Church Fathers are testimonials to what the nascent Church believed and began to understand about the significance of Mary in the economy of salvation.

Lutherans confess that Mary is the Mother of God. If I understand correctly, belief in the Divine Maternity is binding on all Lutherans. It seems the Confessions are absolutely clear on this article of faith:

We believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
(Epitome, VIII.12)

Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies … Therefore she is truly the mother of God …
(Solid Declaration, Article VIII)

Ironically, Catholics see this divine truth, which is clearly revealed in Scripture (Lk 1:43), as implicit Scriptural support for the dogma of the PVM. Incidentally, we consider Luke 1:34 to be clear Scriptural support for our de fide belief. Hopefully, as you continue to glean the Scriptures, the PVM will become an essential article of faith that is binding on all Lutherans as it is without question and controversy on all Catholics.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

What the Church Fathers taught is important to Lutherans insofar there is sufficient Scriptural support. What they unanimously taught about the PVM in accord with sacred Tradition is practically of little importance when it comes to declaring a *de fide *doctrine. Catholics have always regarded Tradition as an infallible medium of divine revelation on equal footing with sacred Scripture, and that Scripture is infallible because Tradition is infallible. We regard the unanimous and consistent teachings of the Church Fathers as infallible, since they are monuments of Tradition. Sacred Tradition (by this we don’t mean ecclesial traditions) is the unwritten word of God, declared to the Church by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:12-13).

The Latin text of the Smalcald Articles declare:

“That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.”

The Solid Declaration, Article VIII declares:

“Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.”

In conclusion, the position under the Lutheran Confessions is:

1.It is clearly believed, taught and confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church that Mary is the Mother of God. Denial of this scriptural doctrine is especially serious because it imperils the even greater doctrine which the doctrine of the Theotokos guards, namely the Incarnation of Christ, and particularly the personal union of His divine and human natures.

2.It is certainly legitimate, at the very least, for us to believe that Christ was born miraculously, and that Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ. The argument is not as to whether Christians may believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin; the only question is whether they must do so, as binding Christian doctrine rather than merely pious opinion.

Belief in the PVM (including the virginity of Mary during the birth of Jesus) is regarded by Lutherans as legitimate in light of the historical teachings of the Church since the 2nd century. But the doctrine isn’t binding, since it isn’t accepted as an essential article of faith - a *de fide *doctrine. The Lutheran Confessors stipulated that only the articles which are clearly revealed in Scripture (i.e., the virginal conception of Jesus) should be binding. And they felt that the Scriptures were silent about the PVM. We Catholics feel that there is sufficient implicit Scriptural support which confirms what we have always traditionally believed, even before the NT was written and compiled (Lk. 1:1-4). For us the teachings of the Church Fathers are testimonials to what the nascent Church believed and began to understand about the significance of Mary in the economy of salvation.

Lutherans confess that Mary is the Mother of God. If I understand correctly, belief in the Divine Maternity is binding on all Lutherans. It seems the Confessions are absolutely clear on this article of faith:

We believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
(Epitome, VIII.12)

Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies … Therefore she is truly the mother of God …
(Solid Declaration, Article VIII)

Ironically, Catholics see this divine truth, which is clearly revealed in Scripture (Lk 1:43), as implicit Scriptural support for the dogma of the PVM. Incidentally, we consider Luke 1:34 to be clear Scriptural support for our de fide belief. Hopefully, as you continue to glean the Scriptures, the PVM will become an essential article of faith that is binding on all Lutherans as it is without question and controversy on all Catholics.

PAX
:heaven:

I agree with you that the Holy Scriptures do teach Mary’s perpetual virginity , however i have to disagree on making it an article of faith , it would be like trying to make old earth creationism an article of faith , although I wish all Lutherans held to PVM .

Second most Lutherans only consider the following as creeds / confessions ( quia subscription) :
Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed
Chalcedonian Creed
Augsburg Confession of 1530

Third , I wouldn’t say the church fathers are of little importance , not only do we use their writings , but as far as their teachings are consistent with scripture they are authoritative and binding , secondary to Scripture , but binding .

Keep the faith Good Fella , Starwars

 

[ericc]

I agree with you that the Holy Scriptures do teach Mary’s perpetual virginity , however i have to disagree on making it an article of faith , it would be like trying to make old earth creationism an article of faith , although I wish all Lutherans held to PVM .

Second most Lutherans only consider the following as creeds / confessions ( quia subscription) :
Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed
Chalcedonian Creed
Augsburg Confession of 1530

Third , I wouldn’t say the church fathers are of little importance , not only do we use their writings , but as far as their teachings are consistent with scripture they are authoritative and binding , secondary to Scripture , but binding .

Keep the faith Good Fella , Starwars

Don’t Lutherans accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils as authoritative and binding?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Don’t Lutherans accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils as authoritative and binding?

Only the first four

 

[ericc]

Only the first four

Then I must have misunderstood or misread the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1993 | 7th Plenary in Sandbjerg, Denmark, The Ecumenical Councils. From the website:

lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/1993-Lutheran_Orthodox_Dialogue-EN.pdf

It listed the 7 Ecumenical Councils and cited

1. The seven ecumenical councils of the early Church were assemblies of the bishops of the Church from all parts of the Roman Empire to clarify and express the apostolic faith. These councils are Nicaea (325 A.D.), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680/81), and Nicaea II (787).
2. As Lutherans and Orthodox we affirm that the teachings of the ecumenical councils are authoritative for our churches. The ecumenical councils maintain the integrity of the teaching of the undivided Church concerning the saving, illuminating/justifying and glorifying acts of God and reject heresies which subvert the saving work of God in Christ.

I guess your church wasn’t part of that group. It is confusing at times identifying which church belonging to which organization. But why would your church not follow that list? Is there any particular reason?

 

[adrift]

Has anyone else noticed that this thread is from 2007?

 

[ericc]

Has anyone else noticed that this thread is from 2007?

Gosh I didn’t realise! I just thought it was a new thread on a perpetual popular topic.

 

[Good_Fella]

Has anyone else noticed that this thread is from 2007?

I only noticed that it’s still open.

PAX
:heaven: