Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary? (Tipping R.C. Straw men)

Beggars All ^ | September 30, 2010

[Gamecock]

Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary? According to Patrick Madrid and Taylor Marshall, he did. Madrid says this question will "likely raise a few eyebrows, pique a few sensitivities, and elicit a few comments around Christian blogdom, from both sides of the Tiber." It appears Madrid thinks Taylor Marshall posted some new controversial tidbit of historical research finally making its way to the Internet. Actually, Marshall's alleged information has been surfing around for over ten years, cut, pasted, and rehashed- taken from one specific Romanist layman with a blog.

Contrary to Marshall's blog entry, it is not a clear cut case as to what Luther's view was. Romanists typically ignore anything about Mary that doesn't support Romanist Mariology. The same goes for Luther's Mariology: when Romanists find a Luther tidbit about Mary that seems to support Mariolatry, they run with it, even if other evidence contradicts the evidence they're using. So, here's a closer look at Taylor Marshall's facts about Luther and the immaculate conception.


1.The eminent Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn

The first tidbit used by Marshall is that "The eminent Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) has also confirmed that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception even as a Protestant." No quote, research finding, or documentation from Piepkorn are presented by either Marshall or Madrid. That doesn't surprise me, because the only material from Piepkorn on this subject that I know of comes from The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, (New York: ALPB Books, 1993). This is typically the source Romanists use.

Piepkorn makes a comment in passing on page 275, leaving the discussion at Luther “seems” to have had a lifelong belief in the Immaculate Conception. He neither discusses the content of Luther’s opinion, nor does he offer any indication if the 1854 dogma is in question. Then on page 289 Piepkorn states:

Yet three years before his death [Luther] was still affirming in print the opinion that he had worked out in detail with considerable theological ingenuity twenty five years earlier [#12], namely that through the merits of her Son -to-be the Blessed Virgin was marvelously preserved from the taint of sin from the first moment of her existence as a human being [#13].

footnote #12. Sermon on the Gospel for the Feast of the Conception of the B.V.M. (1517), Weimar edition 17/2, 288.

footnote #13. Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlect Christi, 1543, Weimar edition, 53,640. compare for the year 1553, 37, 231, where he describes the B.V.M. as an sund (i.e. ohne Sünde, "without sin").

Footnote #12 is actually an error. The sermon Piepkorn's referenced was preached in 1527, and begins on page 280 in WA 17.2. This sermon will be discussed below in point #2, because later printed copies of the sermon (from Luther's lifetime) delete the sole passing comment to Mary's immaculate conception. The error makes Piepkorn's "twenty five year" comment inaccurate. That is, the sermon he based his comment on was actually preached ten years later.

Footnote #13 refers to one of Luther's later anti-Jewish writings, not a treatise on Mariology. Luther does not launch into any full discussion of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Luther does state, only in passing that it was necessary for Mary to be a young holy virgin freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost to be the mother of Jesus Christ. This statement comes after argumentation for Mary's perpetual virginity. What the statement from Luther doesn't say, one way or the other, is if Mary lived a completely sinless life. I've documented a number of times in which Luther says the cleansing of Mary by the Holy Spirit happened at the conception of Christ, not at Mary's conception.

Piepkorn presents no argumentation or analysis. Why would Piepkorn takes vague statements and put forth strong conclusions? I can only speculate, but Piepkorn had interest in ecumenical dialog with Rome. He was involved for multiple years with Lutheran-Catholic dialogue. Catholic scholar Raymond Brown praised Piepkorn and commented that it would be preposterous to doubt the validity of his priestly orders. Piepkorn's romance with Rome seems to have molded his interpretation of Luther's Mariology.


2. On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God, 1527


The next tidbit offered by Marshall is the following Luther quote:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

The sermon this quote was taken from is not included in the English edition of Luther’s Works, and to my knowledge, the complete sermon has not been translated into English. This quote made its way into a cyber space when a Romanist about 10 years ago began posting it after he took it from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther Vol. IV (St Louis: B. Herder, 1913). Grisar uses this quote, but what my Romanist friends typically leave out is his analysis:

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.

The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christocentric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar also recognizes the development in Luther's theology. In regards to the Luther quote in question, Grisar says (from a Roman Catholic perspective):

As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

The most one can conclude from this Luther quote is that Luther held to some form of Mary's sinlessness in 1527. According to Grisar, the comment was stricken from the sermon, and Luther abandoned his earlier view.

3. Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522

Marshall then uses another Luther quote to prove his case:

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. - Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522

"Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book" refers to the Personal Prayer Book of 1522. Here Luther does treat the subject of Mary. He states, "In the first place, she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil" (LW 43:39).

This quote indeed appears to treat Mary as entirely sinless. This statement was made in 1522. If Grisar is correct, Luther's later view does not reflect such sentiment. Even in this early Reformation writing, Luther began changing the emphasis on Mary, and de-emphasizing the importance of her attributes:

“Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat.”

“Therefore we should make the Hail Mary neither a prayer nor an invocation because it is improper to interpret the words beyond what they mean in themselves and beyond the meaning given them by the Holy Spirit.”

“…her giving birth is blessed in that it was spared the curse upon all children of Eve who are conceived in sin and born to deserve death and damnation. Only the fruit of her body is blessed, and through this birth we are all blessed.”

“…in the present no one speaks evil of this Mother and her Fruit as much as those who bless her with many rosaries and constantly mouth the Hail Mary. These, more than any others, speak evil against Christ’s word and faith in the worst way.

“Therefore, notice that this Mother and her Fruit are blessed in a twofold way—bodily and spiritually. Bodily with lips and the words of the Hail Mary; such persons blaspheme and speak evil of her most dangerously. And spiritually [one blesses her] in one’s heart by praise and benediction for her child, Christ—for all his words, deeds, and sufferings. And no one does this except he who has the true Christian faith because without such faith no heart is good but is by nature stuffed full of evil speech and blasphemy against God and all his saints.”

It makes a lot of sense that by 1530 or so, Luther's views on Mary would shift even more away from Romanism.


Luther's view?
Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. For an example of Luther's argumentation, see: Luther and the Immaculate Conception? The 1540 Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ.

There are many other statements about Mary from Luther Romanists ignore. Most of these are post-1527.

In this sermon Luther states, " although she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; yet he permitted her at times to err, even in the important matters of faith." He says also:

Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture.

See also selections from this blog entry, documenting the same position from Luther.

Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther's later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during conception. In 1532 he preached:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person [Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291].

In 1534 Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[Ibid., 294.]. As Jaroslov Pelikan has noted, Mary functioned in Luther’s theology as “the guarantee of the reality of the incarnation and of the human nature of Christ.” With the doctrine of the immaculate conception, one sees a clear change in Luther’s thought. The theologian, who had at one time praised both mother and child for their purity, now praised only the Son.

Conclusion
This is only a brief look at a subject I've spent considerable time on over the years. I would never be dogmatic (for lack of a better word), but I've never found any conclusive quotes from Luther (with a context!) after 1527 that reflect his earlier position.

There's one Romanist who thinks simply doing a scholarly head count (which scholars think Luther believed in the immaculate conception, and which do not) is the means of determining Luther's view. This isn't my way of determining truth. I like to look at quotes and look up contexts, especially on an issue that has some uncertainty about it. Simply consider the errors I located in Piepkorn's view detailed here, and also in this previous entry. Those who think simply counting heads determines truth are typically those who really don't care about the truth.

I'm sure Patrick Madrid could care less. I don't know anything about Taylor Marshall- perhaps he's a guy interested in history and truth and will revise his blog entry. Marshall concludes his article stating,

Far be it from me to approve of Luther. I only list these quotes to show how far Protestantism has come from it's quasi-Catholic origin. If only Lutherans would return to this single doctrine of their founder; how quickly our Lady would turn them into true Catholics! Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us!

Even if Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, the Reformation does not suffer loss. Neither myself nor the Lutheran church considers Luther to be an infallible source of either interpretation or revelation. However, my Romanist friends need to do a little better at proving Luther believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.

[redleghunter]

Exactly, that is why God left us His precious word, to be Bereans and search the scripture daily.

And the Bereans were obeying a command of Jesus Christ by doing so.

Luke 24

25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Then here still in Luke 24:

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

Jesus DID put quite an emphasis on how to find Him in the scriptures the Jews had at the time. I tend to think Jesus put the "OT" canon to rest there. Not the quarrel over Apocrypha to this age, but Jesus clearly states above what is important to find HIM, the Messiah. He put emphasis on that. That tells me Jesus here is establishing what can be called a Jesus Christ or Yeshua HaMashiach Hermeneutic. That is how He wants us to study and learn the Scriptures...Focused on HIM, everything about HIM.

Mary? Let's please stop these thread where we drag her through the mud to prove a point. The Scriptures are clear she fulfilled a prophecy by being a virgin and giving birth to Messiah Jesus. In Luke chapter 1 we see an example, one of the greatest examples in the Bible of great faith. A young woman is encountered by God's herald Gabriel the angel. It took great faith for this young woman to believe the angel was delivering truth. She did not resist, she could see the words of the coming Messiah were true and she accepted her "Airborne mission" gladly. She faced adversity being pregnant and not married. She faced being dismissed by her betrothed-Joseph. It took another visitation to convince Joseph but Mary stood rock solid through it all. She bore the Truly God-Truly man Jesus Christ who would go on to carry a cross up a hill bearing all our sins. She is a good and faithful servant, and I am sure her reward is great in the Coming Kingdom. The Bible tells us she fully executed her "Airborne mission" and we are to look to her example of great faith and servant to God.

[metmom]

A young woman is encountered by God's herald Gabriel the angel. It took great faith for this young woman to believe the angel was delivering truth. She did not resist, she could see the words of the coming Messiah were true and she accepted her "Airborne mission" gladly. She faced adversity being pregnant and not married.

Her life was on the line. Adultery was not dealt with lightly under the Law.

All that said, she was still not sinless, nor did she need to be.

[redleghunter]

Tradition is not talking about the Jewish law.

I think the point is at the time of the First Advent, Jesus encountered man-made traditions which were choking out the actual Law He gave Moses on Sinai. To the point that the real meaning of the Law handed down by Him to Moses was lost in puritanical edicts, ceremony and word of mouth tradition.

I think that is the point. Do we as Roman Catholics, Protestants, Quakers, Messianic Christians, Evangelicals---Those who profess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, have man-made traditions that are "choking out" the pure Gospel Message of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ and immediately preached after Pentecost by His apostles?

We all do well to examine ourselves as Peter and Paul tell us:

2 Corinthians 13:5

English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

2 Peter 1:10-11

English Standard Version (ESV)

10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[daniel1212]

Who is the offspring who will crush Satan's Head? Christ. Who then is the woman, who's offspring is Christ? Mary. In Genesis God states that there will be enmity between Satan and Mary, and between Satan and Christ. Now that's support for Mary's sinlessness.

So, since we are not to engage in private interpretation, where is this taught officially? And what century did “she” in "she shall cursh thy head" find its way into that verse?

Let the Catholic Encyclopedia answer that,

The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

He gave Mary the title "Full of Grace". Chaire, Kecharitomene Full of Grace. No sin at all.

You are again mistaken. Mary is called "full of grace" by Catholics, yet the Scriptures do not say she was "full of grace," as "charitoo" in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6. .

Much more technical here:

Here’s the text IN GREEK:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. REPEATED: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek....

In contrast, the only one (though in some mss Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT.

However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

You may also argue that "Blessed art thou amongst women" supports the demigoddess stature of the Mary of Catholicism, due to her being most holy (rather than blessed due to whom she carried). But which logic also makes Jael an object of prayer to Heaven, as of her also is said, "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." (Judges 5:24)

RCs argue that a sinless vessel is needed to bring forth a a sinless vessel, but which logic would require the parents of Mary to be sinless, while if instead Mary was somehow prevented from being stained by sin, as RCs hold (not Orthodox who do not subscribe to RC theology on Original sin), then the same intervention must be allowed for who Mary birthed.

Moreover, it was not necessary for the inspired writers who brought forth God's perfect word in Scripture to be sinless, proving that a clean thing can come thru an unclean instrument, by God's special working.

In addition, no where does the Holy Spirit state Mary was sinless, and yet the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm among notable persons, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), and miracles when they are miracles.

Consistent with this, the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus is mentioned thrice. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm, then unless He does then the norm is to be assumed. However, nothing is said of Mary being sinless. Nor among other things attributed to the Mary of Catholicism above that which is written, (cf. 1:Cor. 4:6) is being perpetual virgin in a unique marriage (leave but no cleave).

In the light of this lack of actual support, RCs attempt to argue from silence, that since the Bible does not say Mary sinned then it supports that she was sinless. Yet it does not say Paul sinned after conversion, and following the Romish principle at work here, since Scripture does not say Mary lived to be 160 like Abraham, and parted the Red Sea, and Jordon, kept the sun from going down, and had 12 fingers on each hand, and could slay a thousand men with a jawbone of a donkey, and caused a 3.5 year drought, made iron to swim, and cleansed lepers, raised the dead, was supernaturally transported, etc., then Rome could decree these as infallible truths as well.

Much more refutation here on claims made for the Mary of Catholicism

[redleghunter]

“Hail, Full of Grace”. The words of the Archangel show that Mary was full of grace – that she was without sin.

I don't know if we can come away with the above and state certainly that Mary was conceived or born without sin. Is it possible her "vessel" was clean when "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"?

What is not revealed to us is how the "shall overshadow thee" entailed. Was it an Isaiah 6 moment?

Isaiah 6:

In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple. 2 Seraphs were standing above him. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And the one called to the other and said, “Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts! The whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 And the pivots of the thresholds shook from the sound of those who called, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said, “Woe to me! For I am destroyed! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I am living among a people of unclean lips, for my eyes have seen the king, Yahweh of hosts!” 6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, and in his hand was a hot coal he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7 And he touched my mouth, and he said, “Look! This has touched your lips and has removed your guilt, and your sin is annulled.”

Bottom line we don't know know for CERTAIN. We do know Jesus Christ, Son of God was born Holy. That fact is in Luke 1.

[redleghunter]

Scripture, please, to support the claim that being in grace equates to sinlessness.....

Your statement above gets to the heart of "Whose Righteousness or whose righteousness is The Father seeing?

Of course in Whom He is well pleased!

[Campion]

was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB

The Douay is just a slavish translation of the Vulgate. It was Jerome who rendered kecharitomene as "gratia plena".

[redleghunter]

It is alway important to put verse clippings in context. Romans 3 tell us all of mankind applies here:

21 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified about by the law and the prophets— 22 that is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God made publicly available as the mercy seat through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness, because of the passing over of previously committed sins, 26 in the forbearance of God, for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just and the one who justifies the person by faith in Jesus. 27 Therefore, where is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we consider a person to be justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles, 30 since God is one, who will justify those who are circumcised by faith and those who are uncircumcised through faith. 31 Therefore, do we nullify the law through faith? May it never be! But we uphold the law.

[redleghunter]

LOL...looking for it....LOL not there:)

[redleghunter]

God, the Father, did not choose the Bible to bring Jesus to us, He chose Mary.

Indeed Mary was "the vehicle" (I don't mean that with disrespect) to carry and bring the Word into this world. We must remember the following:

John 1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Let us not forget Mary was carrying her Creator Who was from the beginning. She was not from the beginning but He was.

[metmom]

Your statement above gets to the heart of "Whose Righteousness or whose righteousness is The Father seeing?

Well, it's certainly NOT mine.

[redgolum]

It wasn’t dogma then. Many good Catholics didn’t believe in it at the time.

Luther did have a much higher view of Mary than most modern Lutherans do.

[redleghunter]

Paul's words cannot be taken to mean that Mary had sinned, anymore than they can be taken to mean that Jesus had sinned.

Please note, I say this with kindness. You are making quite a bold statement on what is not CERTAIN. We are CERTAIN Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) was born without sin and never sinned. We know because it is clear in Scriptures. So please take out that "comparison" right now. Right there in Luke 1 we are told the Child is Holy.

We do not have evidence and therefore cannot come to a CERTAIN conclusion Mary was without sin. We DO have Scriptural evidence of sinful man gaining sinlessness in the presence of God and His Holiness:

Isaiah 6:

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

Did this happen with Mary? We don't know. We don't know what EXACTLY happened when "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

We don't know for SURE. There is not enough here in Luke 1 to form a theology of veneration, worship etc. That's all I am saying.

[redleghunter]

All mankind has sinned. I agree. My point was to give a Biblical reality of Mary and not one that adds to what is revealed.

It is truly a shame we Evangelicals get wonderful sermons on the faith of Abraham, David, Elijah, Elisha, the apostles as examples for us to look at. You rarely get such a sermon on Mary these days because that pastor may be called out for swimming across the river. That was my point. Not to worship or venerate Mary but show that because of these debates with Rome we leave her out when discussing the great believers of Jesus Christ.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“So is that piece of scripture telling us that Gabriel - the angel of the Annunciation - was a fallen angel?

After all the scripture says “all have sinned.” It doesn’t say “all but Gabriel have sinned”.”

---

This comment is quite revealing of Roman Catholic unfamiliarity with the scripture. Paul introduces that statement saying “Are we better than they? God forbid, for both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, as it is written...” And then he goes into statements that there are none who are righteous, etc. IOW, the topic is on mankind, not on God or the angels. Just as Christ says in another place, “There are none good, but one, that is, God.”

“Using the Bible in an arid and reductive manner quickly leads you into absurdities.”

---

Being ignorant of the scripture quickly leads into absurdities, as we see here.

[metmom]

I’ve heard good sermons on Mary. Usually around Christmas though.

[CynicalBear]

>>He wants us to study and learn the Scriptures...Focused on HIM, everything about HIM.<<

We also need to understand that the writings of Paul and the apostles was also considered scripture. Peter believed the writings of Paul to be scripture as he included them with scripture.

2 Peter 3:15b. As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, [16] as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. [17] You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.

As for Mary, I see no one “dragging her through the mud”. There is more disservice done to her name by placing her in a position that scripture does not support. The concept of a “queen of heaven” is of pagan origin and clearly God had denounced any inclusion of paganism in serving Him.

[daniel1212]

The Douay is just a slavish translation of the Vulgate. It was Jerome who rendered kecharitomene as "gratia plena".

Which is why the CE said it originated in the 4th c.

[daniel1212]

There is more disservice done to her name by placing her in a position that scripture does not support. The concept of a “queen of heaven” is of pagan origin and clearly God had denounced any inclusion of paganism in serving Him.

The unScriptural ascriptions to Mary and supererogation of adoration of her as almost part of the Godhead - indeed beyond God in the number of titles - is the issue.

And which applies whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority), and which uniqueness and exaltation parallels that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

• as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;

• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

More

[CynicalBear]

Jesus was the only one scripture says was without sin.

Acts 4:14 Jesus the Son of God, let us hold onto [our] confessing of [him]. 15 For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

On the other hand, Mary went through childbirth as any other mother does which is a consequence of sin. She also had to be cleansed after Jesus birth.

Leviticus 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.

Notice that one of the birds was for a sin offering.

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

There would have been no need for a sin offering if she had been sinless.