[Tj3]

A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation.

I believe that this is true of all Christians.

Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God.

If you limit God to Jesus alone, and if God began with the birth of Jesus, then you would be right.

But God is a trinity, father, Son and Holy Spirit. Further Jesus, as God, actually created Mary, so He pre-existed Her, is Her creator and her God. She cannot be the mother of God unless she pre-existed God Himself, making her a yet more powerful God.

Mary was the willing and submission vessel through whom God entered the world in the flesh. To claim that makes her "mother of God" is incorrect. When you start with an erroneous premise such as this, it is no surprised that you logically go one to an erroneous conclusion, which is...

Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child.

This erroneous conclusion is directly refuted in scripture where mary says that she was in need of a Saviour.

[JoeT777]

Just FYI:

From the Lutheran Church MS website:

Q. I've heard that Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, in her perpetual virginity and in praying to her. Is this how Lutherans still view Mary today?

A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.

In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this e-mail, which should be underscored as the final word on this issue.

Scott:

When considering Mary it is of paramount importance that we keep in mind Christ's words, Matt 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. By fulfilling the law Christ fulfills the Mosaic Covenant; without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible. In my opinion, this is one of the main failings of Lutherans

What do the words of Christ mean? He didn't come to destroy the Mosaic Law but to fulfill it. Christ wasn't just an ordinary Hebrew. He was both the High Priest and the sacrificial Lamb. He was both man and God. Christ's life was a living example of the Law.

Was not Christ's entire life an observance of the Jewish Feast days? Christ's crucifixion was in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins (which is what Yom Kippur means). When the Messiah's procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” was living the feast of Sukkot. Couldn't we even say that Christ's birth in late December founded in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to declare that, “The Father and I are one.” No doubt we can find a corollary for each High Holyday in the Jewish calendar matching up with the recorded events in Christ's life.

Would we then expect no less an adherence to the Jewish ecclesiastic covenant of Moses? Would not the temple, the residence of God receive ritual cleaning? Would that temple then be kept in the manner of Jewish Tradition, clean and holy? Then we must consider that Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mother of God, was kept in such a way.

Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN we must conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. How does one COMPASS Christ the man without COMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment God was infused, and conceived, Mary's Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies. This Tabernacle would have remained pure as did Mary in her of life celibacy.

Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin. To hold any other view would be to deny Christ the God.

JoeT

[ScottRC]

By fulfilling the law Christ fulfills the Mosaic Covenant; without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible.

How so? Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ)... so I can understand how it is "essential" to our faith that Mary was a virgin ante partum, but why if she was no longer a virgin AFTER the birth of Christ would He not be able to save us?

Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin. To hold any other view would be to deny Christ the God.

Critical importance?

New one to me... sorry, Mary's role is ancillary at best... I don't call into question God's plan of salvation for us, but that being said you can be sure that we would be saved by the Cross of Christ NO MATTER what Mary did or did not do. Jesus was God and was NEVER dependent upon a human being... again, Mary's role (wonderful as it was) was not salvific in the strict sense.

My two cents.:D

[JoeT777]

How so? Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ).... so I can understand how it is "essential" to our faith that Mary was a virgin ante partum, but why if she was no longer a virgin AFTER the birth of Christ would He not be able to save us?

Critical importance?

New one to me..... sorry, Mary's role is ancillary at best.... I don't call into question God's plan of salvation for us, but that being said you can be sure that we would be saved by the Cross of Christ NO MATTER what Mary did or did not do. Jesus was God and was NEVER dependent upon a human being .... again, Mary's role (wonderful as it was) was not salvific in the strict sense.

You're focusing on Mary herself (I think). But what I'm suggesting is that the focus is on what Christ does through Mary. His role is fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant; I'm arguing that everything must be viewed in relationship to Jewish Law and prophesies. God only reveals himself only from behind the veil of the Tabernacle in the old Covenant. Each element in the Tabernacle can be seen to have been portrayed at some point in Christ's life. As an example, we see his teaching on the “way of the truth” as being through a narrow gate, the light of Christ is symbolized by the menorah, I've mentioned once before in discussions about Matt 16 how the Apostles were unleavened and represented the Shewbread. Every element including the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies is somehow related to Christ's life. The scriptures seem to support Christ entered this world in a very mysterious way; God's way. Thus, Mary's womb must is that same container or Tabernacle as seen behind the Alter today. Would you suggest to me that whenever that Tabernacle becomes empty we can fill it with sin and not defile the Tabernacle? Thus, in my way of thinking, the Woman that bore Christ must be cleansed of original sin, and remain that way. I don't think this is so terribly original. I'll see if I can get some references. Just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting that Mary is in any form a deity, only special in the same way Moses would hold a Tabernacle special. Absent this spiritual protection Mary would no longer be Mother of God.

Take this away and we have an ordinary man being born to an ordinary woman. So in that sense, it's critical that Mary be Ever Virgin.

Anyway that's my half-penny's worth.

With Great Respect

JoeT

[Tj3]

without an Ever Virgin Mary this is not possible.

Why? Where is this prophecied? And how would you explain away the fact that scripture records that she did not remain a virgin?

Then we must consider that Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mother of God, was kept in such a way.

Mary is not and cannot be mother of God. When did she give birth to the trinity? How did she pre-exist God?

Therefore, it becomes a matter of critical importance to the very existence to Christianity that Mary be immaculate and ever virgin.

Perhaps critical to your denominational beliefs, but not my faith.

[ScottRC]

The scriptures seem to support Christ entered this world in a very mysterious way; God’s way. Thus, Mary’s womb must is that same container or Tabernacle as seen behind the Alter today. Would you suggest to me that whenever that Tabernacle becomes empty we can fill it with sin and not defile the Tabernacle?

My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin... it's not possible... even if Mary was not a virgin... even if Mary was not immaculate... NOTHING would have changed.

Thus, in my way of thinking, the Woman that bore Christ must be cleansed of original sin, and remain that way.

I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.

Christ was born without sin by his own power (DIVINITY), not simply because Mary was without sin... the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

Thanks for the chat Joe... we might be talking past each other... I hope we can clarify things in the next few posts... I do appreciate the charitable tone --- it's a nice change around here!

Peace,
S

[Tj3]

My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin.... it's not possible.... even if Mary was not a virgin .... even if Mary was not immaculate.... NOTHING would have changed.

I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.

For once, I can agree with Scott.

But it is also important to note that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, and that this had absolutely nothing to do with keeping sin from Jesus, but rather it was a sign:

Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
NKJV

Once Jesus was born, the sign that this was the messiah has fulfilled it purpose. To claim that her virginity at Jesus birth had anything to do with causing sin to be imparted to Jesus is clearly contrary to what the Bible says. Further, the fact that Mary wdid not immaculate also, as Scott rightly says, affected Jesus' perfection. And once again, to claim that she was sinless is contrary to scripture.

[JoeT777]

My only point is that Jesus could not be "contaminated" by sin.... it's not possible.... even if Mary was not a virgin .... even if Mary was not immaculate.... NOTHING would have changed.

It’s beginning to become clear that the fault is mine. Somehow I’m not getting my point across. Try these two links, I won’t vouch for the website, but it looks more than safe.

The Assumption of the Mother of GOD
The Ark

I'm interested in hearing more... it is actually heresy to suggest that Christ could be born with sin.

Christ was born without sin by his own power (DIVINITY), not simply because Mary was without sin.... the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

Well, we may be talking past each other. If the websites don’t make it clearer, I’ll take another stab at it.

Thanks for the chat Joe... we might be talking past each other.... I hope we can clarify things in the next few posts.... I do appreciate the charitable tone --- it's a nice change around here!

Yeah! I’m still wondering why though?

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

keeping sin from Jesus

If Mary had to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus, then Mary's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary, and Mary's mother's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary's mother, and how far back do we have to go? Maybe Eve had begun a sinless line of women before The Fall?

[N0help4u]

If Mary had to be sinless in order to conceive Jesus, then Mary's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary, and Mary's mother's mother had to be sinless when she conceived Mary's mother, and how far back do we have to go? Maybe Eve had begun a sinless line of women before The Fall?

EXACTLY!!!

[JoeT777]

EXACTLY!!!

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace. There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent. In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.” Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

JoeT.

[Wondergirl]

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace. There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent. In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.” Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

JoeT.

But that's what Protestants say about Jesus, that he was "granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth." Why does the Catholic Church have to give Mary that same privilege? It was sufficient with Jesus. Mary doesn't need it. Otherwise, one is saying the Holy Spirit couldn't quite cut it with making Jesus sinless, so Mary (and all her female ancestors?) had to have that same privilege.

Actually, I could accept the female line of sinlessness much more easily than being asked to accept that only two people--Mary and Jesus--were sinless. Again, why Mary? It doesn't make sense. It isn't necessary.

The Holy Spirit's gift of purity was necessary for only one--Jesus.

[N0help4u]

Then WHY could not have Jesus just been born according to the way you claim Mary was born if it was all that simple?

AND NO it was not Mary that was professized (sp?) to curse Satan's head. That was the first prophecy of Jesus.
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/gn03-15.html

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring/[seed] and her offspring/[seed]; [he] will strike your head, and you will strike their/heel.
enmity between seeds = Jesus as the seed and is saying THE SEED will strike satans heel
Mary can not be her own seed.
strike his heel is speaking of Jesus death and therefore can not mean Mary.

[JoeT777]

Otherwise, one is saying the Holy Spirit couldn't quite cut it with making Jesus sinless,

So it was the Holy Spirit that made Christ sinless?

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

So it was the Holy Spirit that made Christ sinless?

JoeT

Um, yeah. Now you're catching on. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

[JoeT777]

Then WHY could not have Jesus just been born according to the way you claim Mary was born if it was all that simple?

AND NO it was not Mary that was prophesied to curse Satan's head. That was the first prophecy of Jesus.

Mary’s role is different. She had no power outside of that of being the Mother of God. Christ on the other hand was fulfilling prophesies of the Old Covenant. The temple which held him for 9 months was and remained a Tabernacle. Until Christ, God remained behind a veil. Behind that veil was the Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God. In Mary’s womb, God remained behind a veil which was too, the dwelling place of God.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Um, yeah. Now you're catching on. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Yeah, but it doesn't say that the Holy Spirit made Christ sinless. That's my point.

JoeT

[N0help4u]

Yeah but that doesn't make Mary equal with God but rather a servant to be an example to us that we should be servants too.

[Tj3]

No, not quite. We call Mary's protection from original sin the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary is granted a singular privilege or grace being preserved from all stain of original sin at birth. The Church holds that at the moment her soul was infused into her body she was granted this Grace.

The church does not and never did hold to that. We see a rebuttal of that in scripture. Perhaps your denomination holds to that, but don't try to say that the whole church ever held to that unBiblical doctrine. Your denomination may be "a church", but it is not "The Church".

Mary herself denied it, and indicated that she had sin and required a Saviour:

Luke 1:46-48
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
NKJV

If she had no sin, she would not have required a Saviour. She also referred to her "lowly" state, not her sinless or glorified state.

There is no “scriptural proof” However, Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary will will “crush” the head of the serpent.

Only in poorer translations. In reality it says that He (Jesus) is the one to defeat Satan.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

In Luke 1:28 we hear that Mary is “full of grace.”

"Grace" is undeserved merit. It is what we receive when we are saved. By definition, this argues against you because if she was sinless, she would have merited salvation and would have required no grace.

Eph 2:7-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

We who are saved all receive a fullness of grace. Indeed in Greek, the same term is used here referring to all who are saved:

Eph 1:4-6
He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV

Therefore, the term which does not say "full of grace" but rather more rightly translated "highly favoured" refers to all who are saved. Mary is and was not sinless - she was saved through the grace of Jesus who she refers to as her Saviour. The word in Greek is "charitoo", which is defined as "to grace, i.e. indue with special honor"

Tradition holds that Origen believed that Mary had a special advantage in grace. St. Chrysostom.

Origen was declared a heretic.

"Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity. These teachings, and some of his followers' more extreme views, were declared anathema by a local council in Constantinople 545, and then an ecumenical council (Fifth Ecumenical Council) pronounced "15 anathemas"[18] against Origen in 553."
(Source: Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I'll stand with God's word over your denominational tradition any day.

[ScottRC]

It’s beginning to become clear that the fault is mine. Somehow I’m not getting my point across. Try these two links, I won’t vouch for the website, but it looks more than safe.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for on those sites... they don't declare that Mary MUST have been anything or else Christ could not save us... or anything even close from what I skimmed over.

The doctrines and teachings about Mary DO NOT improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but are meant to help us live more fully by it.

Again, the fifth ecumenical council makes it quite clear that the proper subject of Jesus Christ... even in the womb... is his DIVINE PERSON. So, contrary to what some may believe, he was ALWAYS without sin (the Holy Spirit did not "make" Him so) and never could have been contaminated by sin.

In other words, if Jesus did not preserve Mary in the womb of her mother and protect her in life from personal sin, at the very moment the incarnate Word entered her body she would be instantly healed and made pure... but EVEN if she was NOT made sinless at that instant, it would change NOTHING... remember: DIVINE PERSON ---> can not inherit sin.

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

Be well.
S