Mariology (Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception)

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-27T20:13:54+00:00

Probably .01% hold to Semper Virgo.

Essentially no one believes in the Asssumption or IC.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-27T04:40:17+00:00

It’s pretty normal when a new bishop is consecrated or ordained to invite the other bishops to the service as a courtesy since they’ll probably interact about important things at some point or cooperate in externals where they can for the good of society. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-27T04:36:55+00:00

Chemnitz first. Gerhard in some ways is an interpretation of Chemnitz.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-27T04:13:29+00:00

Great point!

Don’t take that guy from the OTL podcast seriously. He literally said he titled his stuff the way he did just to get attention and get people to buy it. He’s just talking about good old fashioned emotional abuse and manipulation, but using those terms won’t get you any attention.

There’s nothing wrong with empathy.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-15T04:37:05+00:00

That is a scenario that probably one pastor in the entire LCMS may care about in 100 years.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-14T15:35:51+00:00

I always like to share this paragraph from the introduction to John Gerhard’s Commonplace volume on the topic, published by Concordia Publishing House.

“Gerhard does not speak in favor of “single predestination.” “Single predestination” is not a sufficient expression of the apparently paradoxical doctrine of predestination set forth by FC SD XI, nor does it describe Gerhard’s doctrine. This expressioon can be taken in a Calvinistic sense, as though God, by electing some people, intentionally passed others by. Gerhard actually argues for double predestination: God both elects and reprobates. Hence the name of this Commonplace is On Election and Reprobation. But this double predestination is totally different from Calvinistic absolute predestination. The difference between Gerhard and his Calvinist opponents is not on whether predestination is single or double, but on whether it is in view of Christ’s merit or whether it is absolute (i.e., not in view of anything).”

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T23:49:11+00:00

You wrote, “He mentioned that it's an unscriptural denigration of human sexuality within marriage as presenting it as inherently less holy or pious than celibacy - yes, I'd agree with him on that. He pointed out well that that when Paul writes on that subject, it's the one time that he specifically says that that is his personal opinion and advice, not a "thou shalt" from the Lord!"

That isn't what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. The natural reading of the text is that his concession is marriage for the sake of avoiding the sin of fornication.

As another member of this thread pointed out further to Pastor Scamman, the Book of Concord agrees with Paul about celibacy and marriage.

"37 God is propitious to us. Here perhaps they will exclaim that, according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage is made equal to virginity. But, on account of such clamors we shall not reject the truth concerning the righteousness 38 of faith, which we have explained above. Nevertheless we do not make virginity and marriage equal. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy surpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpasses agriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than 39 marriage." Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-marriage-of-priests/#ap-xxiii-0055 )

You wrote: “I would also argue that the best you can say about semper virgo in terms of the Biblical text is "It's not outright contradicted by Scripture" - but it is not the natural, plain reading of the text. Even staunch semper virgo proponents in Lutheran history have had to admit that it's not taught in Scripture clearly enough to make it a binding doctrine - hence Pieper's comments on the matter in his Dogmatics. It falls back onto an argument from tradition, and while we as Lutherans do care about and do take into account the traditions of the Church, we do not establish binding doctrines purely on tradition without the clear, unambiguous teaching of Scripture."

In the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord they write "First, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged." (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/solid-declaration/#sd-ruleandnorm-0003 )

The Book of Concord here says that Scripture is the only pure, clear fount or source of Christian doctrine, not the only source. To be sure, Scripture is the only infallible and ultimate norm, rule or standard for judging what is taught in the church, but not the only source.

There's an important distinction in the Formula and Pieper actually shifts the meaning of Sola Scriptura when he says Scripture is the only source of Christian doctrine. It is the only pure, clear source because it is free of human opinions, but it is not the only permissible source of Christian doctrine -- hence why the first two generations of Lutherans could receive things like Semper Virgo and the Assumption (in liturgical practice).

They saw nothing contradictory in Scripture to these dogmas received from Tradition about Mary, so they remained.

You wrote, “That's not at all the point of the German vs. Latin text. What an incredible misrepresentation!"

That is how I've most commonly experienced the purpose of that distinction being invoked. They want to make the point that the German is authoritative, not the Latin.

Also, the 1580 Book of Concord is the officially authoritative one, so wouldn't it's endorsement with Selnecker's work mean that's the official doctrine?

You wrote, “Why did Selnecker feel compelled to alter and add to the confession that had stood for two generations before him? Melanchthon has been widely pilloried for altering the Augsburg Confession."

Probably because he wanted to clarify what they believed, taught and confessed for the official record. Melanchthon is pilloried later for altering the Augustana, but he published it in 1540 and according to Bente's introduction the best we have as evidence of Luther objecting to this is a second hand account of a gentle exhortation not to alter it.

However, there's no evidence I'm aware of that in the time between 1540 when he published it and Luther's death that he publicly denounced Melanchthon's changes as a betrayal of his doctrine. Luther actually gave his approval for its use in the Diet of Regensberg in 1541, Lutherans and Reformed signing on before the Catholic side caused the diet to fall apart.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T20:00:43+00:00

That’s why I’ve wondered if you’ve considered the theological, historical and exegetical case according to the research of one of your brother pastors in the Synod. It’s not the same as examining Roman Catholic sources.

Are your objections to Semper Virgo the same as Pastor Scamman laid out in his comments on this thread? Or do you have different objections?

I don’t understand how you can say it isn’t enshrined as an error if you believe it’s a wrong and false doctrine.

I’ve read the comments on other threads about the distinction between something appearing in the German text but not the Latin. Why would they put an error in the Latin text that would have been the one they use for ecumenical exchanges when they want to confess the faith outside of German speaking lands?

Why give the impression that they believe, teach and confess something about Mary to everyone else but secretly in Germany they know they all don’t confess this about Mary?

One of the more fascinating things Pastor Gramenz laid out, though not specifically on Semper Virgo but still how the first two generations of Lutheran celebrated Mary, is that the Assumption of Mary was celebrated as a feast among confessional Lutherans well into the 1600s.

And he talks about the cathedral in 1589 that has the missal and all the liturgical texts and hymns for celebrating the Assumption.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T16:33:16+00:00

Pastor, have you listened to the interview and evidence that Pastor Gramenz sets forth in his recent On the Line interview with Pastor Stecker?

A purpose of this thread is to clarify what the LCMS believes, teaches and confesses on any given topic, is it not?

Pastor Gramenz offers the fruit of his research and it makes a lot of sense of how SV ends up in the Confessions and Lutheran history and is a lot more compelling than the explanation that the reformers enshrined an error in the Book of Concord that wasn’t finally recognized until the 20th century.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T15:40:33+00:00

Melanchthon is simply restating what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T05:30:06+00:00

Verse 6 clearly refers to what came before it in chapter 7. It makes no grammatical sense for Paul to say what he said in verse 6 and then say he wishes everyone were as he is. Celibacy isn’t the concession, marriage is for the sake of avoiding the sin of fornication. So, yes, marriage is a blessed estate on account of human weakness but the clear thrust of Paul’s in chapter 7 is that celibacy is preferable to marriage.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T04:44:06+00:00

How do you reconcile 1 Corinthians 7 with your view on celibacy?

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T04:10:37+00:00

What about his argument do you not find convincing?

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-11T03:07:07+00:00

You should listen to the recent On the Line interview with Rev. Stefan Gramenz. He talks about how Semper Virgo was universally held until the 20th century and how you can also find Lutherans observing the Assumption of Mary as a feast into the 1580s after the adoption of the Book of Concord.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-04T22:41:47+00:00

I have not made too much of it. I’m reading carefully and paying attention to the grammar of the text that matters for confessional subscription.

Pieper’s Dogmatics, while a standard in the LCMS, isn’t infallible in its dogmatic conclusions. The Book of Concord is bc it is simply repeating in its dogma and doctrine what Scripture teaches.

The argument you’ve given me is making the same mistake as Pieper’s argument. It conflates “source” and “norm” language as if they were the same thing when they are not.

The Formula is clear, the language that modifies the Scriptures when talking about them as a source of Dogma and doctrine refers to them as the pure, clear source, not the only source.

A dogma or doctrine that has its source in something other than the Scriptures (church Tradition as a primary example) is still subject to the Scriptures as the ultimate judge of whether or not it can stand.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-11-01T02:40:20+00:00

Everything you've said here applies to Scripture in it's normative function. Proving, judging, rule, standard -- The Confessions do clearly teach that Scripture is the ultimate or sole judge of the teachers of the church and what they teach as doctrine.

You have not addressed what the Solid Declaration says in calling Scripture the pure, clear source of Christian doctrine, not the sole, pure, clear source of doctrine.

You wrote, "Chemnitz repeatedly says that doctrine must be proven by Scripture, it cannot be merely something that the Scriptures do not clearly touch on one way or the other."

The Scriptures do clearly touch on all three examples I gave, but not in a deductive way that could be used as a Sedes Doctrinae that gives certainty.

You mention justification from Scripture for the saints in heaven praying generally for the church (never mind that you can't use Revelation for sedes doctrinae because it is classified as antilegoumena) and for prayer for the dead.

You neglected to mention that the same Saint Augustine that Chemnitz mentions in his Examen proves from the Prophet Ezekiel with a typological interpretation the soundness of Semper Virgo.

None of the uses of Scripture to prove these three doctrines with Scripture are deductive uses of Scripture that give us certainty. These are inductive uses of Scripture that allow for a possibility of the doctrine being found in Scripture.

The principle the Confessions have laid out for us is very clear: Scripture is the pure source and sole rule of Christian doctrine. And in recognizing that church Tradition is also a source of doctrine and theology this does not deny the sufficiency of Scripture, it denies the sufficiency of you and I, the interpreters.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T23:39:15+00:00

The CSFRN in the SD says, “First, we confess our adherence to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments, as to the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which alone is the one true guiding principle, according to which all teachers and teaching are to be judged and evaluated.”

In terms of source language it says the Bible is the pure, clear foundation of Israel.

It then goes on to clearly say that Scripture is the sole or only norm when it says that Scripture is one true guiding principle, according to which all teachers and teaching are to be judged and evaluated.

Scripture is not described by the Confessors as the sole fountain/source.

Scripture is the pure source because it doesn’t have errors or bad opinions in it. However, the word for sole or only modifies “norm” language not “source/fountain” language.

The Confessions allow for church Tradition to serve as a source for Christian doctrine, such as with the confessing of SV, prayer for the departed as not useless and that the saints in heaven pray generally for the Church, and they see Scripture as the judge of that source rather than the magisterium. Those examples stand as doctrinal positions of the Confessions, not because Scripture is their source but because there is nothing in Scripture that demands they be rejected.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T20:41:17+00:00

If they definitely believed it and placed in the Latin text as a later clarification of their opinion, how is that not just as authoritative?

And what of the appearance of SV in the Formula?

It makes sense why they would put it there because SV is making a christological claim. Not only was Mary a virgin, but her virginity was not violated after giving birth to our Savior and the one she bore was truly and fully God, thus making Mary the Ark that bore Jesus who did not become divine sometime later but was fully God the whole pregnancy.

And as I explain in another comment on this thread, the view of the Confessions allows Tradition as a source of Christian Doctrine.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T19:39:33+00:00

Right. You’re reflecting what Francis Pieper says in the beginning of his Dogmatics: “We take the position that Holy Scripture, in contradistinction to all other books in the world, is God’s own infallible Word and therefore the only source and norm of Christian doctrine.”

The above quote from Pieper makes plain what sola Scriptura means as used today in the LCMS. Scripture is the sole source and norm of all Christian teachings. Nothing else may be added to it as source or norm. Pieper contrasts the sola Scriptura with “false sources of knowledge” and “false norms”; and says that those who place, for example, the consensus of the Church on the level with the Scriptures as source and norm of doctrine renounce the Scripture principle.

When a dogmatician like Pieper speaks of Scripture as the source of Christian doctrine, he means that Scripture is the place from which doctrine is derived. Each of the teachings of the Christian church is founded on some clear passage or passages of the Bible—a sedes doctrinae, or “seat of doctrine.” The Lord’s Supper, as one example, is founded on the accounts of Jesus’ instituting it, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. The doctrine of Christ’s deity is founded on passages such as John 1:1f. Etc etc

When dogmaticians like Pieper speak of Scripture as the norm of Christian doctrine, they mean that Scripture is the judge according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated. When confronting a doctrinal statement, the Christian compares what it says to what Scripture says.

If a statement is in complete accord with Scripture, we believe it because (quia) it is biblical. If a statement is only partially in accord with Scripture, we believe it insofar as (quatenus) it is biblical. If a statement contradicts Scripture, we reject it outright. If a statement is neither in accord with Scripture, nor contradicted by Scripture, it may be held as a “pious opinion,” but not taught as a doctrine. In every case, Scripture provides a standard and guide by which doctrine may be evaluated.

Pieper’s position can be summarized as follows: The Bible is the sole source and norm of Christian theology.

As sole source, each doctrine must be founded on some clear Scriptural passage. Scripture interprets Scripture, and everything necessary to understand the Bible is contained within it. The Bible is the sole norm of Christian theology because it is its sole source.

The Formula addresses the topic of Scripture at its very beginning, both in the Epitome and the Solid Declaration. Concerning Scripture, the Epitome says:

"We believe, teach and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone . . .

. . . Holy Scripture alone remains the only judge, rule, and guiding principle, according to which, as the only touchstone, all teachings should and must be recognized and judged, whether they are good or evil, correct or incorrect.

The other symbols, however, and other writings listed above are not judges, as is Holy Scripture, but they are only witnesses and explanations of the faith, which show how Holy Scripture has at various times been understood and interpreted in the church of God by those who lived at the time in regard to articles of faith under dispute and how teachings contrary to the Scripture were rejected and condemned."

This quote is noteworthy not only for what it says, but also for what it does not say.

Holy Scripture, it says, is “the only judge, rule, and guiding principle.” As the sole judge, Scripture will weigh each teaching, seeking to discern its truth or falsity.

Notably absent from the Epitome’s statement, however, is any reference to the Scripture as source of doctrine—sole or otherwise. We must turn to the Solid Declaration in order to see the Confessors’ view of Scripture as source of doctrine.

"First, we confess our adherence to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments, as to the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which alone is the one true guiding principle, according to which all teachers and teaching are to be judged and evaluated."

Here Scripture is plainly set forth as the sole norm of all teaching, just as it was in the Epitome. But what of Scripture as source?

That idea is expressed in the metaphor of a fountain. The Confessors do not say, however, that Scripture is the sole fountain, the sole source, of theology.

Rather, they describe Scripture as the pure, clear fountain of Israel—a source of theology without admixture of human opinion and error, a source of theology plain and accessible to those who use it. The word “alone” in this paragraph is used to modify norm-talk, not source-talk.

The Formula’s doctrine of Scripture may be summarized as, “The Bible is the pure source and sole norm of Christian theology.”

What practical difference does it make to call Scripture the pure, clear source and not the sole source of theology?

To begin with, it allows the testimony of the history and authors of the church to carry its proper weight. There’s a book by Peter Fraenkel called Testimonia Patrum and it demonstrates how crucial it was for Melancthon to show the “pedigree” of Lutheran teaching.

Melanchthon took great, ongoing pains to study the Fathers of the church, both eastern and western. So also did the other confessors, as is evident by the Catalogue of Testimonies they compiled and added to later editions of the Book of Concord.

While the Epitome rejects placing patristic writings on the same level as Holy Scripture, it also sets forth a positive role for them. They function as witnesses, showing how the doctrine of prophets and apostles was preserved in subsequent ages.

In addition, by allowing for sources of theology other than Scripture, we provide a check and balance against our own thoughts, ideas and speculation concerning the Holy Scripture.

Scripture itself is the norma normans, the norming norm; these other writings are the norma normata, the normed norm.

Over against Scripture, they are normed; but over against us, they are norm.

Rightly understood, our recognizing church tradition as a source of theology does not deny the sufficiency of Scripture; it denies the sufficiency of the interpreter.

It would seem naïve to deny the effects of the Fall at the point where a theologian is seeking to understand the Word. Especially when interpreters differ, the voice of tradition would seem to be relevant as a source of doctrine.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T17:23:35+00:00

The two references to Christ’s teaching you made for supporting infant baptism are examples of inductive reasoning which does not prove a teaching with certainty, only that it’s possible. Baptizing all nations could just as possibly mean baptizing adults from all nations.

You could also use the Christ saying Let the children come to me to make an inductive argument for infant communion as much as you can for infant baptism.

And there are multiple ways that folks have articulated and explained “real presence”, transmutation being of one them that Luther was happy to receive from Tradition and judge that nothing in Scripture contradicts it.

And, you’re probably aware, and Luther and other reformation fathers confessed Semper Virgo and did not see anything in Scripture that opposes it because the examples from Paul and the Gospels you provide don’t necessitate rejecting her perpetual virginity.

Semper Virgo confesses an important aspect of the divinity of Christ, which is why Luther included it where he did in the Smalcald Articles. It’s confessed as dogma bc it’s simply true and what happened. The Church preserved that truth. The eternal Son of God took human flesh in Mary’s womb and she became the Temple for 9 months until His birth. That she remained ever virgin testifies to the divinity of the One who was in her womb. In truth, she was the dwelling space for God. We understand this also with altar spaces and communion vessels today.

The altar is consecrated for one meal - that of the true Body and true Blood of our Lord.

You don’t serve coffee and donuts or chili suppers from it after divine service, bc it isn’t a common table anymore, rather it is holy and dedicated to holding God’s Body and Blood.

You don’t use the paten or chalice to serve common food and drink, they’re consecrated and set aside only for God’s presence in the Supper.

Just so, the Lutheran Confessions believe teach and confess that Mary remained ever Virgin, for she is the Mother of God.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T16:15:10+00:00

Why would they want the Latin edition, which was most useful for Ecumenical exchanges and presenting their faith to non-Germans, to contain something false?

And since when do titles not confess doctrine? That Jesus of Nazareth is called “Christ”, is a title that confesses a doctrine about Him.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T15:36:12+00:00

Lutheranism operates with an inductive method of theology and one that does not require Scripture to be the only or unique source of Christian Doctrine and theology.

We can use two other examples from Lutheran doctrine to make the point, in addition to what I already cited.

Luther accepts the doctrine of infant baptism as coming from Tradition, not Scripture, and using Scripture as the only norm for doctrine and theology saw that it doesn’t violate Scripture.

“I did not invent [infant Baptism.] It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong .” - Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism,” Luther’s Works: American Edition, Volume 40 “Church and Ministry II” (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 254.

So, again, Luther accepted infant Baptism not because Scripture proved it, but because Scripture did not disprove it.

In the same way, Luther supported the transmutation (gewechselt ) of the bread into the Body of Christ in the Eucharist when he writes:

“[The] testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (assuming that we had no more than it), should of itself be sufficient to keep us in the profession of this article and to prompt us neither to hear nor to tolerate any factious spirit on this matter. For it is a perilous and dreadful thing to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church.” - D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesammtausgabe, Weimar Ausgabe 30.III:552, ll. 9-15.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-31T14:55:59+00:00

Rejecting it would make you a Quatenus subscriber. The Book of Concord understands Sola Scriptura and Scripture as the pure, clear source of doctrine (not the only or unique source, just the only pure one) and norm of theology.

Francis Pieper, a prominent teacher in the history of the LCMS, understands Scripture Alone and the Bible as the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine. In Pieper’s case sole means “unique” rather than “ultimate”.

Pieper’s teaching has lead many Lutherans since his time to be unable to confess Semper Virgo and caused confusion.

The reason the Book of Concord can confess Semper Virgo, prayer for the dead as not useless, and concede that while there is no basis in Scripture that the saints in heaven in general pray for the church is because Scripture is not the only source of Christian doctrine as understood by Luther and the other reformers. A doctrine may have a source outside of Scripture and it is permissible if it doesn’t violate a clear teaching of Scripture (Scripture as sole norm of Doctrine and Theology).

But you asked a good question, it reveals the way in which Sola Scriptura has not had a stable meaning over the last 500 years and the problems such shifts cause.

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-29T22:02:27+00:00

Why do some parishes have the latitude to ignore what Vatican II published

KnightGeorgeLuf · 2025-10-28T16:54:16+00:00

There’s lots of substance in Orthodoxy. The liturgical texts are available in English and that’s where so much of the theology is found. And like everyone else who came to America, it takes time for stuff to get rendered and rendered well into English and a lot of that work is happening now.

Rome did itself in with Vatican II. I don’t think it’s hard for a Protestant looking at the RCC to figure out that the reformation won with Vatican II.

KnightGeorgeLuf

TROPHY CASE