tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post4292596757617822266..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther: Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5821061440737228782014-09-28T08:18:49.239-04:002014-09-28T08:18:49.239-04:00I'm not sure which entry you're referring ...I'm not sure which entry you're referring to- but sometimes we forget that Luther wrote in a variety of contexts (polemical, exegetical, preaching, etc.), so depending on the intent, that colors the situation.<br /><br />For Luther, Mary was a hero of the faith who experienced the miracles of Jesus and played a special role in the Gospel. To that of course, even I agree. <br /><br />On the other hand, since Luther abandoned the intercession of the saints, his "mariology" is not that of the same flavor as those who belong to the Roman church. It might look and taste the same at times, but the main ingredients are different. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81126239104772336122014-09-26T08:40:45.411-04:002014-09-26T08:40:45.411-04:00That's correct, I'm not a Lutheran. I have...That's correct, I'm not a Lutheran. I have a great admiration for many of the Reformers, but this doesn't mean I agree with everything they said, held, and did (this includes Calvin and those in my tradition).<br /><br />I disagree with aspects of Luther's theology, but I always strive to do so respectfully, all year. I'm more concerned that people from history are treated accurately, in their context, in their historical setting, and fairly.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55514721086952198612014-09-24T19:36:00.128-04:002014-09-24T19:36:00.128-04:00As for Tim kauffman, he has written a book called ...<i>As for Tim kauffman, he has written a book called Graven Bread. He believes the Doctrine of Christ's Real Presence in Eucharist to be the mark of the beast</i><br /><br />As far as I can recall, I don't think I've ever argued against Rome with eschatology. I do recall though criticizing the Dave Hunt approach of "The Woman Rides The Beast."<br /><br />I'm very selective as to which blogs I read, and I'm even more selective as to which people I ally with in presenting arguments against Rome. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27205782700024294592014-09-23T16:18:56.786-04:002014-09-23T16:18:56.786-04:00OK, I put together some of the quotes from the Mar...OK, I put together some of the quotes from the Marburg Colloquy. The post is scheduled for 9/26. If after you read through the quotes, let me know if this is what you were remembering. If not, perhaps it was something else. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14102293188711562542014-09-23T15:22:19.378-04:002014-09-23T15:22:19.378-04:00The Marburg / Helvidius thing is interesting, perh...The Marburg / Helvidius thing is interesting, perhaps I'll put a small blog entry together. <br /><br />Sorry to say, I don't know who Tim Kauffman is.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69929657286248840282014-09-23T14:34:23.921-04:002014-09-23T14:34:23.921-04:00I am so glad you are debunking the idea that Luthe...<i>I am so glad you are debunking the idea that Luther shared my devotion to Mary.<br /><br />Whenever I hear a catholic say Luther was devoted to Our Lady, I jump in to tell them that he denigrated her to having no more part to play in our salvation than the dumb and mute wood of the cross. You are right to say he did not invoke her intercession. Why would he when we consider the bulk of his errors? Devotion to the Blessed Mother would have been out of sync with his overall theology. </i><br /><br />Glad you see the connection. Many Roman Catholics do not, particularly those with an ecumenical agenda.<br /><br />I've found Luther's Mariology used in a variety of ways by Roman Catholics. Sometimes it's put forth that Luther held to a very Roman Catholic theology of Mary, and so should modern Protestants. Or: Luther was sola scriptura and yet believed aspects of Roman Catholic Mariology. Therefore, Roman Catholic Mariology can be proved from Scripture. <br /><br />These two come to mind immediately, there are plenty of other reasons why Luther's Mariology is used by Roman Catholics. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22859854931353896572014-09-23T14:28:10.131-04:002014-09-23T14:28:10.131-04:00One can equivocate on just what Immaculate Concept...<i>One can equivocate on just what Immaculate Conception might mean due to the theory of delayed animation believed in Luther's time. As for Virginity, Mary either was or wasn't. Mother of God is also pretty black and white too.</i><br /><br />When one takes a close look at Luther's Mariology, it was radical for his time period. Even his exposition of the Magnificat which is supposed to be just like what a Roman Catholic would believe is a polemical writing, not a devotional writing. <br /><br />When Luther abandoned the intercession of the saints, his Mariology became something quite different than the regular devotion of Mary in the 16th Century.<br /><br />My point is that Luther's Mary is not Rome's Mary in many regards, so one must be careful with terms. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48791328937741828502014-09-23T14:20:53.088-04:002014-09-23T14:20:53.088-04:00My thought was that sin is passed down through the...<i>My thought was that sin is passed down through the males of the species. It is literally in our DNA. It becomes part and parcel of who we are as humans. In order for Christ to be born "sinless" he could not have a human father. Since Mary conceived via the Holy Spirit</i><br /><br />Luther's view is that at the conception of Christ, Mary was purified so as to not impart the sin nature. Keep in mind, Mary was conceived herself by two parents, and one of them was male, so she was infected with sin as well. <br /><br /> James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54599621797130038992014-09-23T14:16:31.798-04:002014-09-23T14:16:31.798-04:00Could you help me find a quote online that I am qu...<i>Could you help me find a quote online that I am quite sure I read in a book about 30 years ago?<br />At the Marburg Cooloquy where Luther and Zwingli argued about the Real Presence, before the fireworks began, both men had to prove they had an orthodox understanding of scripture by agreeing that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin despite the term "brother".<br />I may not have it 100% correct but I think I am close. I have googled for it but to no avail.</i><br /><br />You appear to be referencing LW 38 (The Marburg Colloquy). Zwingli brings up Helvidius (p. 20). Luther responds on page 21. I don't see anything in this text about a beforehand agreement that <i>"both men had to prove they had an orthodox understanding of scripture by agreeing that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin despite the term "brother".</i><br /><br />Probably if you review LW 38, it will refresh your memory as to what you heard 30 years ago. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69277502519977584562014-09-23T10:50:47.978-04:002014-09-23T10:50:47.978-04:00James, No offense to Guy Fawkes, but I was really ...James, No offense to Guy Fawkes, but I was really wanting my question answered by you or any reader of the Reformed persuasion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00729029248815671902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23856376197540952632014-09-22T09:34:33.567-04:002014-09-22T09:34:33.567-04:00Thank you for a revealing piece on Mary. Or rather...Thank you for a revealing piece on Mary. Or rather Luther's views on Mary. A thought has occurred to me. Since Adam is referred to as the Federal head of humanity;i.e.<br />"the first adam" and Christ "The second adam. The first adam as head of the human family bears responsibility for original sin being passed down through the generations, although Eve sinned first and then Adam who was with her also partook. My thought was that sin is passed down through the males of the species. It is literally in our DNA. It becomes part and parcel of who we are as humans. In order for Christ to be born "sinless" he could not have a human father. Since Mary conceived via the Holy Spirit, Christ had no human father. So would it be consistent to say that mothers do not have in an of themselves the ability to pass on original sin. Since they can only become pregnant through the agency of a man, there is only one way for original sin to come to fruition in successive generations. Because Mary did not have the ability to transmit sin to her children (indeed no woman would, under this paradigm)Jesus became the spotless lamb of God, because the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with seed untouched by The Fall. Am I being clear? And do you know if this does harm to the scripture? Have theologians already considered and rejected this idea?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00729029248815671902noreply@blogger.com