Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor (Part Four)

I. IntroductionThis will be the fourth installment of my discussion with Scott Windsor on Luther and the immaculate conception. I've moved into taking a closer look at some of the Luther statements Scott has been utilizing and interpreting. Previously I looked at Scott's use of a Luther quote from 1527. I noted the 1527 quote serves as a linchpin for Windsor's view. The quote was a from a section of a sermon Luther deleted. Luther is alleged to have stated of Mary's conception, "Mary was, according to the first conception, without grace, yet, according to the second conception, she was full of grace." Windsor uses this paradigm to interpret Luther's later statements. Any statements from Luther that don't fit, Windsor simply sets aside as Luther contradicting himself.

II. Luther's 1538 SermonThe next quote of contention Scott uses is the following (bolding by Scott):

In (a) 1538 sermon, Luther explains: “In our Christian Creed we confess that Christ was conceived and became man or was incarnate (if I may so speak), that He became a real human being by assuming a body. We confess that He assumed genuine flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary that He did not pass through her as the sun shines through a glass but brought her virgin flesh and blood with Him. If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure. But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God. This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost." Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.”[Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 45:51 quoted in Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. I, 152.]

Mr. Windsor mined this quote from one of my web pages. Commenting on this quote, Windsor states:

This view, "But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them" can be compared to Luther's belief, documented previously, in the two conceptions of Mary - one physical and one spiritual. Luther believed the physical conception still inherited original sin, but upon Mary's second conception, wherein the soul is conceived and life is given, that at the moment of spiritual conception Mary was cleansed from all stain of original sin. Bearing that in mind, Luther here has not denied his earlier teaching on the two conceptions - nor does this reference explicitly state when Mary was purified. It can still be maintained that he has not denied the Immaculate Conception. Being that this is a bit vague in this sermon as to exactly when Mary was purified - we can see how those who deny the IC impute their interpretation into this citation, and if this citation alone was all we had, they may have a point, but let us continue. Likewise, it can still be maintained that he did not abandon the "two conceptions" concept he taught earlier.

III. Documentation of the 1538 SermonThe first thing I'd like to point out is my citation is in error. True, the quote is in What Luther Says Vol. 1, p. 152, and it is a 1538 sermon. But the reference to WA 45:51 is in error. It appears I accidentally re-copied the reference from the previous footnote. The actual reference is to WA 46:136. Of course, Scott didn't check my work by consulting either WA 45 or What Luther Says Volume 1. This quote is from an 1538 Epiphany sermon on Matthew 2:1-12, and as far as I know, not available in English.

Now, had Scott looked up page 152 in What Luther Says Volume 1, he would have found a number of quotes (beginning on page 151) documenting Luther's belief in Christ's immaculate conception, not Mary's. Opposing Windsor, The scholar who put this volume together outlines the very view I've been arguing. At the end of this post as an addendum, I'll include what Ewald Plass presented in What Luther Says Vol. 1, pp. 151-152.

IV. Interaction With Windsor on the 1538 Sermon
Today I spent some time working through this sermon. There is nothing from Luther about the "two conceptions" of Mary at all in this sermon. Also one has to remember this basic fact: this is a sermon, presented to people. One thing about Luther's sermons, they were presented clearly. Luther made his sermons simple. They're typically easy reading. It is a bit of stretch to assume Luther's listeners would've thought, "Oh, Luther means the 'two conception' theory of Mary here." The context from the 1538 quote is about the conception of Christ, in fact each line of what Windsor cited is about the conception of Christ:

1. “In our Christian Creed we confess that Christ was conceived and became man or was incarnate (if I may so speak), that He became a real human being by assuming a body"- about the conception of Christ
2. "We confess that He assumed genuine flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary that He did not pass through her as the sun shines through a glass but brought her virgin flesh and blood with Him."- about the conception of Christ
3. "If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure."- about the conception of Christ

4. But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God.- about the conception of Christ
5. This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost."- about the conception of Christ6. Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.”- about the conception of Christ
To this, Mr. Windsor responds:

I will not deny that there are references to Jesus’ conception - that is wholly irrelevant to the FACT that “But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them;” is about MARY, not Jesus! Why the smokescreen approach? I have never denied that I am seeing the Immaculate Conception in places where one could possibly come up with a contrary opinion and as I stated above and Swan quotes, and even in this response from Swan, he’s responding to me saying “I said in one of my initial responses to you that though I could see how those who reject the IC could impute their belief into Luther’s ‘thence’.” I have been quite up-front about my “glasses” - whereas Mr. Swan appears to think he’s not wearing anti-IC glasses and that his responses are wholly without bias.

Now, note #3 above: "If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure." So, if Mary was sinless from her birth... why wouldn't the Babe be pure only with Mary's cooperation? Then note #5: "This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost." If #4 refers to Mary's conception, why does #5 say it refers to Christ's?

The really interesting comment though is what Luther goes on to say on the same page:

If God would reprobate us because we are conceived and born in sins, how does he receive the saints? For all the saints were so conceived and born—the Prophets, John the Baptist, Mary [WA 46:136].

Some Roman Catholic scholars still hold out that Luther's may not be denying the immaculate conception here because of a tradition that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were purified from sin before birth (see Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, p. 139-140) . However, Luther states, "the Prophets", not simply Jeremiah.

V. Conclusion
Scott at least admits he sees how someone could conclude Luther isn't talking about Mary's immaculate conception here. On the other hand, he needs to explain why Luther went on to say "all the saints were so conceived and born—the Prophets, John the Baptist, Mary" Note: were born in sin. Luther isn't talking about simply being conceived in sin in a first conception, but born in sins. If Scott is true to his interpretive paradigm, he might simply say Luther is simply contradicting himself here.

Addendum
Here is What Luther Says Vol. 1, pp. 151-152. The book is an anthology of Luther quotes put together by Ewald Plass. Scott needs to consider this information carefully. As to the sources these quotes are from, I can track them down. I'm hopeful though Scott will see the needs to check cited sources. He might find some interesting facts.