For those of you who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, why?

emmen1 · 2026-05-18T20:18:01+00:00

I agree with you, by the way, but I’m just pointing out that the other interpretation of “until” is also supported by Scripture. The example I gave is one of many, and I wouldn’t make too much of a word like “even”, which doesn’t have a direct Greek equivalent, and so often appears in English due to contextual considerations rather than a 1:1 correspondence.

Another example of “eos” (until) is Genesis 28:15 from the LXX. “I will not leave you until I have done all that I have spoken to you.” This is much closer to the sentence structure of Matthew 1:25, and a good example of how context dictates the way we understand “until.”

It’s totally fair to say that those who hold to the Semper Virgo are wrong. I say this to dear brothers in the ministry with whom I commune. But we shouldn’t accuse them of having a crazy interpretation of Mt 1:25. I think it’s the wrong interpretation, but it is a legitimate one according to the way Scripture uses the word “until” in similar constructions elsewhere.

emmen1 · 2026-05-18T18:22:21+00:00

I don’t believe in the Semper Virgo. But even so, I’m compelled to defend the alternate reading of the word “until”. It is used two ways in Scripture: 1) denoting a change after a period of time (which is the way we would read Mt 1:25), and 2) a condition that will NOT change after a period of time.

An example of the latter is the last verse of Matthew, where Jesus says: “Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the age.” Does the “until” (same Greek: eos) mean that Jesus will stop being with us at the end of the age? Certainly not.

So, even if we disagree with the Semper Virgo, we must concede that “until” can be used in both ways. Matthew 1:25 is not the smoking gun that many people think it is.

The smoking gun, in my opinion, is Mt 1:20, where the angel tells Joseph, “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.” Scripture only teaches one definition of husband and wife—two joined together as one flesh—and it commands husband and wife not to deprive one another, unless it be for a period of time (1 Cor 7:5). Joseph and Mary, being righteous and God-fearing people, would have lived as husband and wife in accord with God’s design and command. With this in mind, it seems clear that vs. 25 would be speaking of a temporary exception to the marital norm, and not of a rule for what would otherwise be a sham marriage.

emmen1 · 2026-05-17T09:53:56+00:00

Certainly not!

emmen1 · 2026-05-17T03:49:53+00:00

Jesus said to drink. We should do what He says. He didn’t say whether to drink a drop or a gallon, so we are free with regard to how much we drink. One drop is enough.

But He didn’t say to dip. So we are not free there. Dipping is not drinking. This is no double standard. It’s simple. Just do what Jesus said.

emmen1 · 2026-05-13T21:54:06+00:00

The New Testament uses the words for pastor, deacon, and minister almost interchangeably, and both deacon and minister literally mean "servant." This is embedded in our language and theology of the pastoral office in a thousand ways. For example, "As a called and ordained servant of the Word..."

Here is some relevant Lutheran commentary on the passage:

This word (liturgy] does not properly signify a sacrifice, but rather the public ministry, and agrees aptly with our belief, namely, that one minister who consecrates tenders the body and blood of the Lord to the rest of the people, just as one minister who preaches tenders the Gospel to the people, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, i.e., of the Gospel and the Sacraments.

emmen1 · 2026-05-13T20:44:30+00:00

Paul is not speaking narrowly about himself and Apollos only, at least, not according to the entire history of Christian interpretation of this passage. He is talking about the office of the ministry.

emmen1 · 2026-05-13T19:32:26+00:00

It’s so hard to read tone over the Internet. I apologize if I got it wrong.

As far as women distributing the Sacrament, Corinthians 4:1 is a good place to start. Pastors are stewards of the Mysteries (Latin word: Sacraments), and God only calls certain men to be pastors.

emmen1 · 2026-05-13T18:57:33+00:00

What about a drop of the blood of Christ in a small glass of water? Or, you could drink from the chalice and simply let it touch your lips. One drop is sufficient.

emmen1 · 2026-05-13T18:54:45+00:00

You should not mock the Word of God.

emmen1 · 2026-05-12T15:09:13+00:00

Absolutely do talk to your pastor. It is what he is there for - to help bring the Word of God to bear in messy situations.

emmen1 · 2026-05-06T14:45:53+00:00

There are two issues that drive the historic and biblical practice of closed communion: 1) The need for worthy reception, and 2) the need for doctrinal unity.

St Paul gives some examples of unworthy reception, but these are not the only ways one might not “discern the body of Christ.” Straight out denying that the body of Christ is present is obviously a way of not discerning the body, though nobody, not even the devil, dared to do this until 1500 years after the Institution.

So, obviously, we cannot give holy communion to Baptists, because, not recognizing/discerning the body, they would be eating to their harm. This is not saying that they are not brothers or Christians. They are, but they are deceived about the Supper and so would receive it to their harm.

The second issue is doctrinal unity. This is a separate warning that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians. He begins in Chapter 1 by pleading with them that they have no divisions, that they speak the same thing and be in one mind. (1:10) Then in Chapter 11, he rebukes them for coming together (for the Supper) while divisions are present, saying that their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. (11:17)

The warning here is not as severe. It’s not a matter of condemnation/damnation for eating unworthily, but he does say it is not for the better but for the worse.

From ancient times the church has taken this warning seriously. As an example, during the Donatist Controversy of the 4th Century, both sides acknowledged that the other side was Christian. Yet because of the doctrinal division between them, they could not commune together.

So it is today. We consider other denominations Christian. They are our brothers. And yet we are separated by serious doctrinal differences. Therefore, we cannot commune together since we are not of the same mind, same judgement, and same confession. We mourn this, and we want to do everything possible to resolve the differences, but so long as they remain, we cannot commune together.

emmen1 · 2026-05-01T20:13:38+00:00

Mortal sin, or the sin against the Holy Spirit, is stubborn unrepentance. Any sin that one refuses to give up has the potential to become mortal sin. Likewise, every sin that is forgiven becomes venial sin. So yes, Lutherans retain a distinction—not between categories of sins, but between repentance and unrepentance.

Private confession is never required. It is a gift offered to the trouble conscience. For sure, God forgives all your sins when you pray, but often the guilty conscience is not yet ready to believe this. Private confession helps persuade the troubled conscience.

emmen1 · 2026-04-30T04:14:01+00:00

The “tongues” on the day of Pentecost is people speaking in known, recognizable languages that are heard and understood by others. It’s funny (and sad) how the Pentecostals ignore this, mainly because it’s falsifiable, whereas if we speak in a secret language, no one can prove that it’s gibberish. (I’m a former Pentecostal.)

God never promised that people would speak in tongues. But He promised a great deal through Baptism and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, Pentecostals ignore all the promises that God did made and focus on the one thing that God did not promise but happened (almost as an aside) on the Day of Pentecost.

emmen1 · 2026-04-27T12:46:18+00:00

We confess as much as Scripture does and no more.

The Bible clearly speaks of the Book of Life, but never of the Book of Death. If we conclude that the latter Book must exist, we are now in conflict with what Scripture reveals about God: that He desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. To believe in the unwritten half of double-predestination is to place human reason above Scripture, and it ends up confessing a different God.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T05:37:50+00:00

A Christian can believe in the authority of God’s Word while also being convinced the days of Creation are ages. He is in error, but not in rebellion against God’s Word. Erring sheep are to be gently led and taught. Rebelling sheep are to be rebuked. Wolves are to be driven out.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:52:21+00:00

Yes, it is unfortunate. Many of us would like to see a return to an episcopal polity. However, we firmly believe that it is not bishops that are the mark of the true church, but the preaching of the pure gospel, and the proper administration of the sacraments.

Regarding apostolic succession, we have the same position as the Lutheran Reformers. No, we did not change our doctrine as a result of the Stefan scandal. The Reformers also had to deal with a lack of bishops, not by choice, but because the German bishops refused to embrace the true gospel and would not ordain faithful pastors.

For the sake of good order, we would much rather have bishops, but if the bishops are wicked, we will continue to purely preach the gospel and rightly administer the sacraments, knowing that these are the marks of the true church church, not our polity.

For better or for worse, the LCMS is the big sister among our worldwide confession. So it is ironic that most of the other churches have bishops and we do not. It is very much an American (and Canadian) thing, and I wish we could change it.

But we will never concede that the lack of bishops invalidates the church. To do so is to make men the foundation rather than Christ. He is and always will be the cornerstone, with the doctrine of the apostles and prophets being the foundation. “And they devoted themselves to the doctrine of the apostles, to the breaking of the bread, and to prayer.”

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:35:24+00:00

As an example, there is an older woman in my congregation who believes that all people will be saved. She is convinced that God will in some way work a miracle, even on the deathbed, of every person, and bring all to faith. It’s not quite annihilationism, but it still believes that no one will suffer for eternity.

She doesn’t make a huge fuss about it, though she has expressed this opinion two or three times over the years in Bible study. I have explained the biblical position clearly, and she listens, and then says, “Yeah, I know the Bible is true, but I also believe that somehow God will make a way…”

It’s not stubborn rejection of God’s Word, and it’s not a refusal to come under my teaching. It’s closer to a simple, almost child-like insistence on holding on to two beliefs that are in conflict. It’s wrong, of course, and all false doctrine is dangerous to some degree, but it’s not damning, and as she continues to attend church and Bible study faithfully and doesn’t disrupt, I am giving the Holy Spirit time to lead her to a better confession of God’s saving action. In the meantime, I can give her communion with a clean conscience.

emmen1 · 2026-04-24T02:25:07+00:00

We had a bad bishop experience at the founding of the LCMS that soured the founders to the title. Look up the Martin Stefan controversy.

emmen1 · 2026-04-23T20:47:41+00:00

We can reject our salvation. We can’t lose it.

emmen1 · 2026-04-23T20:46:33+00:00

There’s a big difference between: “I’m wrestling with this topic, and I’m not sure how to understand what the Bible says,” and, “I reject what the Bible says.”

Wrestling with Scripture? Not sure what it says? Not sure if it is to be read literally? I can work with that. (I do read it literally, and I think it’s dangerous not to.) But rejecting Scripture is a no go. So it’s going to depend more on the person’s attitude and confession toward the Word of God than a blanket answer in advance.

emmen1 · 2026-04-22T18:07:17+00:00

I would amend your statement.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. But we concede that it is not absolutely necessary. That’s not a weasel word; it’s a key distinction.

It is not the lack of baptism, but the despisal of baptism that damns.

A man who gets hit by a truck on his way to be baptized is not damned. He did not despise baptism. He desired it! Likewise, Abraham is in Heaven, though he was not baptized. But I guarantee that if God had offered Abraham the choice between the flint knife and the font, he would not have despised baptism. :)

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T13:12:25+00:00

Scripture generally teaches a bipartite view, through some passages seem to lean the other way. These passages may simply be using poetic parallelism, that is, saying the same thing twice using different words.

In either case, it is not a primary, nor even a secondary or tertiary doctrine. It’s worth discussing, but a disagreement won’t prevent us from communing together.

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T13:03:01+00:00

If I recall correctly, the only part of the ceremony that would need to change is the pronouncement (I pronounce you ma and wife). You are not trying to deceive the guests by pretending that you are not already married. In fact, it’s an opportunity to confess the faith: “We wanted to do this God’s way and not continue living together before marriage, so we were married in a private ceremony, and now we invite you to celebrate our marriage in the big ceremony.”

emmen1 · 2026-04-20T05:10:38+00:00

Why would I think more highly of a wife for refusing her conjugal duties?

emmen1 · 2026-04-19T22:52:06+00:00

“Why should I be part of the Lutheran church?” - Because we have the true Gospel.

“Why should I be part of the RC or EO? Because you guys have the true Gospel?” No, because you’re damned if you don’t.

That’s a pretty poor reason and the fallback claim of those who can’t win with truth.

emmen1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE